Lords Sitting of 20 March 1969

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

ANGUILLA: PERSONAL STATEMENT BY LORD CHALFONT
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a brief personal statement. I notice from the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday's proceedings in this House that I said that copies of the Anguilla (Temporary Provision) Order 1969 would be laid before the House. I am afraid that this is technically inaccurate. This is not an Order in Council which is required to be laid before Parliament. What I should have said was that copies of the Order would be generally available to-day; and in fact the printed Paper Office now has 75 copies of the Order available for your Lordships' House.

POST-CARDS AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I beg leave 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, seeing that a 4 oz. package containing as many as 45 picture postcards can be sent by first-class mail for 5d., they will henceforth provide first-class service for single post-cards each hearing a 4d. stamp.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, no. There is little difference between the average costs of handling a card and a letter in an envelope. The 4d. and 5d. rates are based on average costs.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am obliged for that reply. But did not the post-card get rather a raw deal last September when the rate was put up from 3d. to 4d. and cards were at the same
1016
time downgraded from first to second class mail?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, with the greatest possible respect to the charming and noble Lord, I find that he cannot possibly seem to understand what is going on in the Post Office at the moment—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I took great pains to explain matters to the House in a long debate for which very few noble Lords cared to turn up. I do not know how many read the debate. I say that the only distinction now is between first-class mail, which is 5d., and second-class mail, which is 4d. In that sense the post-card no longer exists.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's reluctance to give first-class service for the post-card with a 4d. stamp on it, can be say when the Government intend to ensure that letters with 5d. stamps get first-class service?

DUTIES OF THE CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY
3.8 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, under what duty, if any, the Custodian of Enemy Property is, or was, in relation to the 1939–1945 war, to hold property under his control, or vested in him as trustee or agent for the original owner or his successor in title; and, if there is or was such a duty, under what Statute or Statutory Instrument it arose.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, the Custodian of Enemy Property came into possession of enemy property as a result of Vesting and other Orders made under Section 7 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939. These Orders were made by the Board of Trade with a view to preventing the payment of moneys to enemies and of preserving enemy property in contemplation of arrangements to be made at the conclusion of peace. In a case decided in 1920 it was decided that the beneficial ownership of property then

1017
in the possession of the Custodian under the 1914–18 Trading with the Enemy legislation was in suspense while the legal ownership was in the Custodian. The Custodians are not the trustees or agents of the original owners of property in their possession and no court of law has ever so held. In 1954 the House of Lords decided that the Custodians were Crown Servants whose duties involved the holding of property and the receipt of income until further instructions were given to them.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that extremely elaborate reply which I shall study between now and the Third Reading of the Foreign Compensation Bill. I am grateful to him.

GIBRALTAR: COMMISSION OF INQUIRY REPORT
3.9 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they intend to make public the report of the Commissioners of Inquiry which was set up by General Lathbury to investigate the events which occurred on April 6, 1968, in Gibraltar, and the action taken in respect thereof and to make recommendations.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I understand that the Report has been received by the Governor and its recommendations are at present being considered in Gibraltar. No decision about publication has yet been taken.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask the following supplementary questions? Do the Government believe in the principle of adequate compensation for innocent victims? Is it true that one of the recommendations contained in the Report is that the innocent victims of these riots be compensated in full and immediately? If so, what is the Government's interpretation of the word "immediately" in that context, since it is now nearly a year ago since the riots occurred?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as the Report has only recently been received by the Governor, and as he is still considering the matter, I think it would be premature for me to confirm anything tint the noble Lord suggests appears in the Report, or to comment on it. I think the first part of his supplementary question goes outside the realms of his original Question and I cannot comment oil this until the Report is available.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, may I ask two supplementary questions? First, how recently has the Report been received by Her Majesty's Government? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that the principal victims of the riots involved, having been publicly accused of treachery, sedition and illegality, themselves insisted on this inquiry being made? Is it not unfair to the victims to keep the results quiet for as long as this, in view of their wish to have the whole affair cleared up?
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Hear, hear!
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I have said that the document was recently received by the Governor. I do not have the exact date, but I can let the noble Lord know that. Although much of the evidence was given in public, the recommendations of this Report are still confidential and will remain so until considered by the Governor, who of course appointed the two Commissioners and set up the Commission of Inquiry. I think it would be improper for me to comment on the recommendations until the Report is published.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the attitude of the members of the Gibraltar Coalition, which seems quite reasonable, is that they will not vote any compensation to the victims until such time as they have seen the Report? Is it impossible for the noble Lord to give any indication of when the members of the Gibraltar Coalition themselves will be able to see the Report?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, they will see it when it is published.

CORN EXCHANGE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.14 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, in moving the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who has kindly indicated his agreement to the proposal that we should take the Motion on the subject of a Return of Attendances before the noble Lord's own Motion on the Second Report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting the Proceedings of the House. I hope that the Motion I am intending to take will be disposed of fairly quickly. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with this day for the purpose of allowing the Motion on Lords' Attendances to be taken first.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I raise one question on this Motion? Before the Order Paper contained this very important Motion which the Leader of the House is going shortly to move—and I am sure it is one which your Lordships will agree must be taken as first business—the Order Paper had Lord Ferrier's Motion as the second item, by Resolution passed by the House a few days ago. In front of it is now the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill. To that Bill there are approximately five pages of Amendments. There may be some Divisions, and my appeal to the Leader of the House is to consider whether that Bill could not be postponed to some later date. It has a much narrower interest in your Lordships' House than has Lord Ferrier's Motion, which has a wide interest affecting all your Lordships.
I am informed by the usual channels on our side of the House that the Committee stage for the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill may take one and three-quarter hours, which means that the de-
1020
bate on Lord Ferrier's Motion would start at an inordinately late hour for a subject which is of such wide interest. Would not the Government consider postponing the Committee stage of this Bill until some later date? It is not for me to say when it could be done; that it is for the two Front Benches to combine to do. Let me only repeat that I always find things difficult when the two Front Benches agree.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord knows the difficulties. When any item of business goes on the Order Paper we never know how long it is going to take. I gather that his remarks are directed to the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill rather than to my Motion, which I hope will be pretty brief.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Certainly.
LORD SHACKLETON: I put my Motion on deliberately to-day because, although it is a small matter, Thursday, apart from being the first convenient date, is a day when a large number of noble Lords are present, and it seemed appropriate. I hope that my Motion will not take very much time. Of course, if we found that there was a lengthy debate on it we should have to think about the question. But I am in some difficulty over the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill. It has been on the Order Paper for quite a long while. We chose this day, and indeed we advanced Lord Ferrier's Motion before some other business. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, knows that we tried hard to suit him and to get his Motion on early, and we picked a Government day for it, which I think is appropriate.
From the Government's point of view, we should be perfectly willing to consider postponing the Committee stage of the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill, but the only day that would be convenient would be Monday. We have given some indication through the usual channels that there is always the possibility of sitting on a Monday, because we are getting up early for the Easter Recess. On the other hand, I am not sure whether it would now be convenient for the House if we were to postpone the Bill from to-day. My own view (this is in no way a reflection on the importance of Lord Ferrier's Motion) is that we ought to see

1021
what progress we can make on the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill. On the whole, the House has had a rather more respectable earlier part of the year than we had last year, though it is true that we sat until half-past twelve on Tuesday night. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will just take it that we have heard what he has said, and that my noble friend Lord Beswick will consult through the usual channels if we find ourselves getting seriously delayed.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I make a suggestion to the noble Lord the Leader of the House? He said that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, had been very accommodating about his Motion to-day. Would it not be possible, even at this stage, to arrange that Lord Ferrier's Motion should come before the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill to-day, and then see how we get on? That is an alternative to postponing the Committee stage of the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill. I should have thought there was a strong case for giving my noble friend's Motion priority, as he has been so accommodating, and then we could see how things go. So far as sitting on Monday is concerned, I think it would be very inconvenient for a great many of your Lordships to have to attend at such very short notice.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for what he has said and for the facilities he has given for my Motion to be put down at all. So far as the business this afternoon is concerned, I regard the matter of your Lordships' attendances as of greater importance and urgency to your Lordships than my Motion. But when I agreed to that, I had not realised that some of those who had put their names down to speak for me, and who are interested in the Bill, were not so happy that it might come on very late in the Sitting to-day.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble and learned Viscount's proposal is not really practicable. We cannot change the order of business without a Motion on the Order Paper. Flexible as the procedure of this House is, there are limits to flexibility, and the vehicle drivers and motor users would be rather disturbed by an altera-
1022
tion in business as it affects them. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier has acknowledged that the Government have been accommodating. I am sure my noble friend will consider the suggestion that we should adjourn the Vehicle and Driving Licences Bill, but my view is that we ought to see how we can get on, and I hope that we shall make rapid progress with it. It is not unreasonable that we should stay as late as necessary to do justice to the important Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. Perhaps I may point out that when we came to wind up the debate on Tuesday evening, although it was midnight fifty noble Lords were present, which shows what can be done when there is interest.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS' ATTENDANCES
3.22 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON rose to move, That the Clerk of the Parliaments do prepare and lay before the House a Return of the Number of Days on which each Lord was recorded as being present in the House during Sessions 1963–64, 1964–65, 1965–66, 1966–67 and 1967–68. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to give a short explanation of the background and my reasons for tabling it. In particular, I should indicate why this seemed to us, after consultation through the usual channels, to be an appropriate action. I ought also to say that I regret having to take up the time of the House on what is essentially a small matter, but we are in some difficulty, despite the flexibility of the procedure of your Lordships' House. When I was asked privately to make this information available, I pointed out that I had no more authority than any other noble Lord in this matter. May I say that, although this Motion concerns the Clerk of the Parliaments, your Lordships will have seen that he is not in his seat to-day. That is because of a sad bereavement he has suffered, and I am sure that the whole House would wish to express our sympathy to him.
Obviously the Motion bears on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, and it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that

1023
there is some discussion going on in another place, perhaps not always on the Bill but on matters that occasionally may be related to it—but I think it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the proceedings there. I have been asked by another place, informally, that this information should be made available. After careful thought, I believe that to be a reasonable request. Your Lordships will have noticed that the Motion instructs the Clerk of the Parliaments to prepare and lay before the House details of attendances over a number of Sessions. Nobody has asked me for anything quite so long and detailed as this, but I think that if anybody wants figures he may as well be given the lot. If there are conclusions to be drawn, obviously it is useful to show the figures over a longer period, which, if it does nothing else, shows the increasing assiduity of your Lordships in attending this House; and the figures for one Session are certainly not statistically significant.
Perhaps I should explain that the information which this Motion seeks to provide is in effect already available. It is contained in the Lords' Journals which, as soon as they are published, reveal the attendance on every sitting day. Your Lordships' House, as some of your Lordships, though not all, know, is a Court of Record and, as such, the Journals of out proceedings are open to public inspection. But the way in which the daily attendance is set out in the Journals is based on ancient custom, and the order in which the names of individual Peers are placed is arranged according to the provisions of the Act for the Placing of the Lords, Chapter 10.31, Henry VIII; and the degrees and styles of individual Peers are set out in Latin—but Latin which most of us would be able to translate.
Your Lordships will appreciate that while this information is available to the public, it is not in a convenient form and does not lend itself to easy digestion. For a number of years the Clerk of the Parliaments has caused the Clerk of the Journals to prepare each Session an Alphabetical List of those Peers who attend our debates during that Session, showing the number of times that each attends the House. This is prepared for reasons of convenience connected with Leave of Absence and other matters.
I think it is right to say how often statistics of this sort are open to misinterpretation. Let me emphasise that I would not guarantee, and I am sure that the Clerks would not guarantee, that in every respect these lists are correct. There may be as much as a 1 or 2 per cent. statistical error. Furthermore, a noble Lord might be assiduous in his attendance on some occasions and then, for reasons of public duty or of ill-health, or indeed because it is the custom of the House, might not wish to attend except occasionally. Therefore, it is necessary to indicate that, whereas one has a high regard for those faithful Members of the House who do attend regularly, one should not attribute infidelity to those who do not attend regularly. This is part of the freedom and the value of your Lordships' House, and I think we can say with some certainty that we have no skeletons to conceal in our 19th century Gothic cupboards.
I would suggest to your Lordships that, since this list is already available, we should instruct the Clerk of Parliaments to lay before the House the information which he has hitherto had compiled and properly used for such purposes. Once the House has received this information, we would then, in accordance with our normal custom, automatically make a printing order and the figures would thus be available to your Lordships and to another place. In due course, we should consider in the Offices Committee whether this information should be made available regularly, but for the moment this seems to me a reasonable thing to do. I think that this House should agree that these figures should be made available. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Clerk of the Parliaments do prepare and lay before this House a Return of the Number of Days on which each Lord was recorded as being present in the House during Sessions 1963–64, 1964–65, 1965–66, 1966–67 and 1967–68.—(Lord Shackleton.)
3.28 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is right. As I understand it, the information is available and all we are doing now is to give another place the advantages of the additions and multiplications done by the Clerk of the Journals. I do not think it would be

1025
reasonable for us to expect Members of another place to undertake a lot of mathematical labour which has already been done. Nor do I think that this House, reformed or unreformed, has any need to preserve its dignity by standing on its exact rights. One of the more agreeable features of this House is that we look upon our privilege in a thoroughly tolerant and sensible way. May I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether comparable statistics of the attendance of Members in another place are available? I am sure that no Member of another place would have anything to fear by their publication, and I have no doubt that all of us, in and out of Parliament, would be very interested if the figures were published.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, I should like fully to support this proposal, not only because this information is already available but because I think we ought to do this. There is no need for secrecy between the two Houses of Parliament, and there is definitely no need, in my view, for antagonism between the two Houses. I hope it will be conveyed to another place that we are more than willing to co-operate with them on any reasonable request that is made. I should only like to venture the comment that it is a pity this request was not made earlier, so that we could have saved valuable Parliamentary time in another place. I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said (I had already made a note of this point): that the day may come when we may want the statistics of another place, and we should be grateful if we could have them fairly quickly.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I too, should like to support this Motion. But while supporting what my noble leader has said with regard to it, I wish to refer to one or two other matters related thereto. It is no secret to this House that this Motion really comes about because of a document which, somehow or other reached the Library of another place—and I am not concerned as to how it got there, or indeed as to what has happened to it. I do not know what that document contained; I have never seen it. It may
1026
be that it contained nothing more than the information in relation to the five Sessions which will be provided in consequence of this Motion being carried. In that connection, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, whether he can say when that information is likely to be printed and made available, because if it is information of any value there is a certain degree of urgency about it.
But, as I understand it, the real reason for this information being of value is that it was thought, rightly or wrongly, to be the basis for the calculation that in a reformed House a membership of about 230 voting Peers would suffice. Many of us feel some doubt whether that is a correct estimate: it may be too large, or it may be too small. But if I am right in thinking that the figures of attendance have any relevance to what is the size of a working reformed House of voting Peers, and that the Government made calculations based upon those figures of attendance, could not thy: Government go a little further than merely provide, by moving this Motion, that records of this House, in a summarised form, should be available to another place, and disclose now (I think they will have to disclose it at some time) the calculations and the reasoning which has led them to the conclusion that 230 voting Peers is the right number for this House?
I do not want to develop the matter at great length to-day, because I have put down an Unstarred Question to raise it, as I think it is a matter of great importance. But it will avoid my having to do so if the noble Lord, here and now, bearing in mind the object for which this return is required, could say that the Government will make available the calculations on which they base their conclusion that 230 voting Peers is the right number for a reformed House.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I should just like to say that I hope it will not be carried to the extent of inquiring into the attendances in another place. After all, these attendances are not available. Here a record is kept, but there is certainly no record kept in the other place; and to suggest that a record ought to be compiled in order to meet the wishes of this House would, I think, be going a little too far.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and for the characteristic reaction of your Lordships' House. I absolutely echo what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that we do not stand unnecessarily either on our privileges or on points of order. We try to get on with the business. Let me first deal with the point made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I have listened to what he said. I know that he has a Question down for next Thursday, and obviously the Government will reply to that. Before then, I will give consideration to what he has said, but I am sure he does not expect me to say anything further on this point now.
I should emphasise that this list to which I have referred consists purely and simply of names and the number of attendances. There is no further information. I believe there may be some figures which might usefully be given about the average attendances in your Lordships' House, which I think is running at somewhere between 200 and 250 per day.
On the interesting and, if I may say so, original suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we should ask the other place to supply comparable figures, I rather suspect that those figures are not available—and I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, had to say. We keep our figures rather meticulously, bound as we are by custom and the Act of Parliament. There is the further point that it is the reform of your Lordships' House which is under discussion, and not the reform of another place, although people may occasionally get ideas on that subject, too.
As I have said, I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have received this Motion. The advantage, if we pass it to-day, is that I hope the details will be available by about the middle of next week, or by Thursday of next week. They will take some time to prepare and to print, but they should be available long before the other place or this House comes to resume discussion on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. In passing the Motion, if I can be of any assistance to the noble and learned Viscount. Lord Dilhorne, by perhaps making an advance copy of the details
1028
available, I imagine that your Lordships would not regard this as too serious a breach of confidence. Perhaps I should mention that this document had been lent to another place in order to enable statistical work to be done. We note now that there will be nothing confidential in the House of Commons Library, but that is a matter for another place.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I am not quite clear from what he says whether he accepts the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Carrington that the other place should produce similar figures. As a former Member of the other place, I should like to register my view in contradiction of what the noble Lord opposite said, and to say that I can see no reason why similar information should not be given by another place: indeed, it would be of great interest to many people in the constituencies.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may, with the leave of the House, speak again, I would say that I shall be happy to convey this suggestion (it is, of course, on the Record) to the Leader of another place, who will certainly discuss this matter in a most friendly and courteous fashion. But it is my understanding—though I speak subject to correction—that they do not keep such a record.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Why not?
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may say so, that is not the matter we are discussing now. I do not wish to be drawn on this, but there are, of course, Division records open for the public to inspect, and no doubt there are assiduous people who compile records from them. But I am told that there is no daily attendance record. I am, as I say, grateful to your Lordships, and I hope that this Motion will be passed without further ado.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, without wishing to delay the House, perhaps I might ask the noble Lord to keep one matter in mind—it may be that it is already being attended to. It is possible that in this list some noble Lords who are named have during the period which the return covers had Leave of Absence.

1029
It seems to me that it might be convenient if the return made that clear in respect of any noble Lord who during that period did have Leave of Absence.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not want to add to the figures. Let us get out these figures first. I think I made clear that noble Lords may be absent for all sorts of good reasons. Many have Leave of Absence. This is a different type of set of figures. I will discuss with the Clerks whether figures are available on Leave of Absence, but we are not asked for these, and I think we might confine it now to the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

VEHICLE AND DRIVING LICENCES BILL
3.40 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Winterbottoin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Provisions supplementary to s. l.]:
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("() No order made under this section shall operate so as to enable the transfer to the Minister for more than five years from the transfer date of any premises held by the authority for the performance of any relevant functions which form part of premises held for the performance of any other of their functions.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 which stands in my name on the Order Paper. This Amendment arises out of the anxiety which is felt by some local authorities in connection with this Part of the Bill. The pur-
1030
pose of the Amendment is to limit the period for which the Minister of Transport can take over local authority premises for the purposes of vehicle licensing functions. The Bill provides a transition period of five years during which the Minister will be establishing and equipping the new national headquarter office and computer at Swansea. At the end of the transition period all licences will be issued from Swansea, based on the computer operation. Local authorities have agreed to make available their existing vehicle licensing buildings and staffs to act as agencies for the Minister during the transition period. They recognise that the use of their premises during the transition is of course essential to the Minister.
This Amendment seeks only to ensure that at the end of the transition period the Minister will then release these premises so that local authorities may recover their use for general administrative purposes. In many cases the buildings concerned are adjacent to, or even part of, the main administrative building of the county authorities or county borough authorities, and they are therefore of some importance to the local authorities concerned. I feel sure that it will be the general intention of the Minister to do just this, but my Amendment is put down in the ho3e that the Government will accept it so that it will be in the Bill and the Minister therefore will give up these premises at the end of the transition period. I beg to move.
LORD ILFORD: I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accepting this Amendment or something very like it. This is a matter, as my noble friend said, upon which the local authorities feel a certain sense of uncertainty. Local authorities have devoted a good deal of space in their premises in all parts of the country to this work of licensing which calls for a good deal of accommodation, and accommodation in a central and public place. It is quite common for a local authority to devote part of the town hall to the work of licensing. Here, in London, the Greater London Council have devoted, I think, the whole or greater part of the basement and semi-basement at County Hall to the work of licensing. They are quite ready to do this so long as the accommodation is required, and provided that at

1031
some reasonable time they can be sure of getting the accommodation back again.
As my noble friend has said, the Bill will enable the local authorities to continue to occupy the premises now being used for licensing for a period, and after that there is power for the Minister to continue the occupation. So far as the continued occupation is concerned, the local authorities are apprehensive. They would be seriously handicapped if important accommodation and central buildings were taken from them for an indefinite period; and I hone that the Minister will give some assurance that the Amendment, or something like the Amendment, will be included in the Bill.
I believe that the Minister has been willing to give an assurance about this matter, but really this is a case where something ought to go in the Bill and we ought not to rest solely upon an assurance. Of course the Minister will carry out his assurance if somebody remembers at the appropriate time that an assurance was given. But Acts of Parliament are being hung round with assurances given by Ministers to avoid putting an Amendment into a Bill when an Amendment really ought to be put in the Bill. I would submit very strongly that this is a case where an Amendment ought to go into the Bill. There ought to be no uncertainty about it. It ought to be quite clear that at the end of the period of five years the local authority should have their accommodation back.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I foresaw when this Amendment was put down that in fact it had been prompted both by the G.L.C. and by local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, with his experience of local authority needs and wishes has expressed their disquiet I think very clearly and cogently. But this problem has already been faced by the Government. I want to stress—and it has been stressed to both the G.L.C. and the local authorities who have approached the Minister—that Clause 2(1) is a reserve power for use in the last resort to cater for the remote possibility of the Minister's being unable, at the last minute, to obtain accommodation to exercise his functions. In the public interest he will have no option, if the licensing service is to be maintained, but to take over the local authority
1032
premises for these purposes. But, of course, he would do this for only so long as it took the Ministry to get its own accommodation, if that were the wish of the local authority concerned. For instance, a local authority might not wish, for some reason, to enter into agreement with the Minister to act fully as his agent. It is hoped, nevertheless, that the local authority would agree to make their premises available. But if they refused to do so an order would, if necessary, have to be made under Clause 2(1) transferring the premises to the Minister.
I think your Lordships will agree that in a tremendously complex operation such as this is the obstructionism of one or two local authorities should hardly be permitted to wreck the scheme. I can only repeat to your Lordship, an assurance given by my right honourable friend in another place, that the Ministry will always endeavour to obtain its own accommodation, and that if it should, unexpectedly, be necessary to use local authority premises the duration will be kept to a minimum if that is the wish of the local authority concerned. That is a firm undertaking given by my right honourable friend. But if this assurance were to be expressed in legal terms—this is the important point which I should like to put to your Lordships—the five-year period from the transfer date proposed in the Amendment would not be long enough to cater for all the possibilities.
As already described, one of the remote circumstances in which the Clause 2(1) powers might be needed could be shortly before the stage at which the agency agreements with local authorities are planned to be terminated. The date of termination is expected to be at the beginning of 1975 so, to be on the safe side, the period would have to be at least seven years, and probably 10. The time mentioned in the Amendment is insufficient. But including in the Bill a specific period during which the powers of Clause 2(1) may be used could give a misleading impression that it is expected that the powers will be used, when in fact it is most unlikely that they will be. However, the interest in this matter expressed in another place and in your Lordships' House will, I am certain, ensure that the Minister of Transport of the day will not abuse the powers given to him under this particular clause.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for his reply, but I have to confess to being not entirely satisfied with it. The first answer that he gave us—the first ground for refusing this Amendment—was the ground given in the other place. It seems to me that the right point was not being taken, because the local authorities are agreeable to the five-year transition period—or a period of six years, if the noble Lord likes—but what they want is to make sure that at the end of the transition period the premises go back to the local authorities. I should have thought that this is a very reasonable request, and indeed the noble Lord concedes that this is the Minister's intention. All we are asking for is certainty. If five years is too short a period, I am quite happy to settle for seven. But the local authorities do want certainty here. I should have thought that the noble Lord and his right honourable friend had an obligation, with the local authorities playing such a very important part in this connection, to give them the certainty that they are asking for.
I do not think that this is something that I should press to a Division to-day. I feel that this is something we should have further talk about, perhaps before the Report stage, because I hope that the noble Lord might be willing to meet us in finding a formula on this point. Certainly we must ensure that the Minister has full powers in the transition period—of course he must have these premises where he can cover his needs during the transition period—and I hope that in 100 per cent. of cases local authorities will act as his agents; but at the end of the period I think it is equally reasonable to expect that the Minister will let the local authorities have their premises back again; and five years may be too short a time. We can make it seven years, but may I ask the noble Lord if he will be willing to have conversations with us in the interval between now and the next stage of the Bill to see whether we can devise a formula which will relieve the reasonable anxieties of local authorities and still preserve the position which the Minister wishes to keep?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Since noble Lords opposite have felt it neces-
1034
sary for me to repeat the assurances given by my right honourable friend in another place this is obviously a matter of concern. I have noted what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said about being unwilling to press his Amendment to-day but reserving his rights for Report stage. I believe I can say that if the term of seven years would satisfy the noble Lord, this is a proposal that might receive sympathetic consideration. So perhaps I may convey his views to my right honourable friend to see whether we can produce something which will satisfy both sides.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for being so accommodating. I have not put this to the local authority organisations—the C.C.A. and the A.M.C.—but I would certainly advise them to accept it. The practical necessities of the position are well understood, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 32, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. I raised this point on Second Reading and I have put down this Amendment, first, because the subject has not been properly discussed in either place during the passage of this Bill; and, secondly and more importantly, because in some cases the residents of the Isles of Scilly have never paid any road fund licence. Some of the growers in a very small way of business and who own a van would be put to great hardship and disadvantage by having to pay the sum of £25 when they are working on an extremely small margin. A couple of bad flower seasons might mean that a man would have to give up his livelihood, and I feel that this position should receive more sympathetic consideration than it has done so far. In another place this subsection was not in the existing Bill. It was "popped in" at the Committee stage, and the honourable Member who represents these Islands had no chance to plead their cause.
I raised this matter on Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and I am sorry to say that the Minister in charge of the Bill treated it in a most cavalier

1035
and almost rude way. In his speech he at first ignored the point that I had raised—although in fact very few points were raised in the debate—and when I pressed him for an answer at the end of his speech he brushed it off by saying, "We cannot make exceptions for a group of islands". That is nonsense, because from the Isle of Wight and the Channel Islands in the South, up to the Shetlands and the Orkneys, and including places like Lundy Island, special arrangements are always made to suit their special conditions. Indeed, on a larger scale this applies to the United Kingdom as a whole, because Scotland, Wales and Ireland have special arrangements made for them. So in fact it is rather stupid and unfair to treat the Islanders in this way. They are intelligent, hard-working and a gallant people. Their record in life saving cannot be beaten by any other place. In fairness to these Islanders I ask the Government to look at this again in order to see whether something can be done for them.
I understand that a vehicle is not liable for a licence fee if it runs for less than six miles on a public road. In fact it is questionable how many of these roads are public, but that being so the figure of £4,000 that the Treasury will receive will be reduced, and indeed reduced still further by the expenses of collecting the road fund licence. I ask the Minister to look at this again in all fairness to these hardworking Islanders. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I should like to have the pleasure of supporting the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in his moving plea. I, too, have been a guest of these most delectable Islands and I know that they are in an altogether exceptional position. I believe they have only nine miles of roads in total, and therefore the Islanders are paying a high rate for a comparatively small place. I feel that this is a case where something should be done to help these Islanders who are handicapped in so many ways, and not least by the continual difficulty they experience in times of storm.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: In the first place I wish to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, if he felt that I did not treat the point he made in the Second Reading debate with the thoroughness that he felt it deserved. I regret to say that it slipped my mind completely. Un-
1036
fortunately, my mistake does not cause the Government to change their minds on the subject. We must realise that for the first time we are proposing a new national system to deal with vehicle licensing, and because of the peculiar historical accident that until now has freed the Scilly Islands from vehicle excise duty, there is no reason why this should be allowed to perpetuate itself. It is true that we can argue, as the noble Earl has done, that costs are higher in these off-shore Islands, and that they have the high cost of reaching the metropolitan market. But although one has great sympathy with the wishes of the Islanders, I am afraid it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to meet them.
The argument put forward by the noble Earl about the status of public roads in the Islands is an interesting one. As he pointed out, vehicle excise duty is chargeable only if vehicles are kept or used on public roads. I think he will not dispute the fact that there are some public roads in the islands, in Hugh Town. The status of the roads owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, which forms a large proportion of the island roads, is at present under discussion.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, that is the point I was making. A vast number of these vehicles that will be liable for licence will not come into Hugh Town. In Hugh Town there are a few odd cars belonging to shopkeepers and other people. Two or three people will be subject to licence and the vast majority of the islanders will get away with it. It seems that we are getting into one muddle after another over this very knotty problem.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: We are trying to create a national system, and if we make one exemption there is no doubt that other people will come along and ask for exemption on exactly the same grounds—the Outer Hebrides and so on. So we believe, as my right honourable friend said in another place, that we have to have a national central licensing organisation, and if this Amendment (or a similar one) were accepted we would have to say that there is something so unique about the Isles of Scilly that they and they alone would have to be excluded. I see no way of doing

1037
this unless we begin to consider the other off-shore islands and not only being able to exclude them but being forced to choose between them. It is for this reason that we are unwilling to give the Isles of Scilly special exemption in this Bill.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask the noble Lord about the other islands round our shores, the really small ones, Sark, Benbecula, Lundy, Coll, and so on. They presumably do have a mile or so of road. Is the vehicle licence levied in all these islands?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I should imagine if that mile of road is a public road they would be levied for licence. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord and confirm that.
LORD HAWKE: I think we ought to have the answer before we consider this Amendment. I have no doubt that the noble Lord could get the answer in a minute or two. It is a matter of some importance. If there are other islands which do not pay this tax, I have no doubt that we shall be quite justified in voting for the noble Earl's Amendment. On the other hand, if the Scilly Isles are completely unique, I must say I would find it difficult to support him, much as I sympathise with the unfortunate islanders who seem liable to be mulcted in excess of anything that has ever been levied before. They have one or two other misfortunes which come upon them each year, and I would not wish to add this one.
LORD FERRIER: May I ask for further information arising out of what the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh said? I take it that there are nine miles of metal road in the Islands—there is more than one island. Is there any one island on which there are vehicles on which there is no metal road; and if there are any motor vehicles on that island would they have to pay this tax?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: As the noble Lord suggested, advice is not far away, but I cannot see that it produces clarity. It is rather like the theory of relativity because the element of time is introduced into the equation. The position is that farmers using public roads to get from one part of a farm to another
1038
are exempt if they do not travel more than six miles a week on public roads. So if they went up and down one mile of road six times in a week they would be liable to tax. Otherwise everyone must pay duty however small a length of public road he uses. I do not know whether that helps noble Lords, but that is the situation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Issue etc. of temporary licences by motor dealers.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for the answer he has sent to me in reply to a point raised during Second Reading? However, additionally, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom is in a position to answer a further point in connection with Clause 6(3)(c)(ii), which deals with the regulations that may be made to ensure that certain requirements as to test certificates and insurance are complied with by the motor dealer before he issues a temporary licence.
It occurs to me that the temporary licence is issued purely as a temporary measure, pending satisfaction of the licensing authority as to the correctness of the application. As the subsection is written, it would appear that the motor dealer will have this responsibility placed upon him. Therefore, I should like to know, first, whether the motor dealer will be required to accept this responsibility, and, secondly, whether, in the event of his failing to discharge the responsibility correctly, he will have caused an offence. Further, the facility is being provided for what one might call cut-of-hours business; that is to say, that where a motor vehicle, new or used, is sold late in the evening or on Saturday or on Sunday, where that is permissible, the motor car can immediately he upon the road with a road fund licence. In many instances the motor dealer's principals—for example, the secretary of the company or a director, or an authorised signatory—may not be upon the premises at the time of sale so that this kind of responsibility may devolve upon somebody in a rather junior capacity. I think perhaps it may

1039
be helpful to know exactly how this subsection will be interpreted.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The situation under subsection (3)(c)(ii) is that the dealer will be required to check, if the vehicle is subject to the testing regulations, the current test certificate which is required to support a licence application. He will also be required to check that the licence applicant has the necessary minimum third-party liability insurance. The test certificate, where appropriate, and the insurance certificate will have to be forwarded to the local office with the other documents; that is to say, the dealer forwards the documentation to the local office to confirm and finalise the licence for the vehicle he has sold. I understand that we shall require the dealer to send the certificate to the central office for checking before the full licence is issued. If the dealer does not check properly he will be committing an offence. I presume that this applies also to his agent. If the proprietor is absent and a junior member of his staff is on duty, I presume that the owner is responsible in law for his agent's actions. But since this is a matter of law, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would permit me to write to him to give a precise definition in this matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Surrender of licences]:
4.10 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 9, line 7, leave out ("of duty") and insert ("by reference to which duty was").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. Before I launch away to inform your Lordships about it and other Amendments standing in my name, I wish to assure the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible. My Amendments are not of the same weight and substance as those of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent; they are mainly Amendments to drafting. So, if the Committee will for-
1040
give me, and if those who record our discussions will also forgive me, I shall go swiftly through them, dwelling only on those which have some matter in them.
LORD FERRIER: I thank the noble Lord. My great anxiety is that I have booked a sleeper at 10.50 to-night from Euston.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The purpose of this Amendment is to put beyond doubt the intention that rebates of duty paid on surrendered vehicle licences should be calculated on the basis of the annual rate of duty appropriate to the vehicle at the time the licence was taken out, and not, in the case of four-monthly licences, the four-monthly rate. This is the current practice under Section 9(2)(b) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962. I hope your Lordships will agree to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I raise a small point on subsection (3) which appears at page 9, line 16? In connection with the value of the surrender of licences fractions of a penny are to be disregarded. It is a small point, but which way is the fraction to be disregarded? And are we talking about the current penny or the new penny? Obviously, this can make a considerable amount of difference to a used-car dealer with a high turnover in motor vehicles, where the practice is to surrender the licence pending reconditioning, and so on, of a motor vehicle. The amount of money in such terms is not large, but in aggregate it could be quite considerable.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Again, this is a complex legal point. I should imagine that the word "penny" means the value of a penny at the time when the sale takes place. But, again, I will write to the noble Lord and give him the true meaning of the interpretation, whether "penny" means a current penny or a new penny later. I find I am correct; it is in the terms of current pennies. Fractions are ignored and are rounded down.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 8 insert the following new clause:
Duty on vehicles placed on roads
".For the purposes of sections 4 and 7 of the Act of 1962 and of any other provision of that Act and any subsequent enactment relating to the keeping of mechanically propelled vehicles on public roads (including such an enactment contained in this Act and in particular section 10(3) of this Act), a person keeps such a vehicle on a public road if he causes it to be on such a road for any period, however short, when it is not in use there."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to define the phrase "keeping a vehicle on a public road" in the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 and subsequent enactments with the result that duty is chargeable on a vehicle when it is kept on a public road for any period, however short. Under Section 1 of the 1962 Act, duty is chargeable on a mechanically propelled vehicle used on a public road, and under Section 4 it is also chargeable on a vehicle kept on a public road. Section 7 makes either unlicensed use or unlicensed keeping of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road an offence.
The difficulty with the word "keeping" is that it implies keeping for an unspecified period of lime, and this was made explicit by a ruling in the course of a Divisional Court hearing in 1962 of an appeal against conviction for the unlicensed keeping of a vehicle. It is becoming difficult to bring prosecutions and will increasingly become so if the Amendment is not agreed to. Since the Divisional Court hearing it will become necessary for an enforcement officer to keep a parked vehicle under surveillance for a continuous period, of unspecified length, in order to establish the duration element implied in unlicensed "keeping". The Amendment, by operating on the word "keeping", makes it clear that the mere presence of an unlicensed vehicle on a public road is sufficient to enable an offence of "unlicensed keeping" to be pursued. That is to say, the mere presence of an unlicensed vehicle on any road is "keeping". This situation has arisen entirely because of the interpretation of "keeping" in this context. The use of "keeping" in this Bill to denote overall responsibility for the vehicle (for example, continuous liability bites on the
1042
person who "keeps" the vehicle—Clause 10(1) to which we shall come later) is a further complication. Although the interpretation of "keeping" in the duration context has been amended, the interpretation in the "responsibility" sense of course remains unchanged. I hope I have made this clear. The Amendment has been requested by the Greater London Council and by local authorities.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Provisions supplementary to Section 10]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7:
Page 12, line 34, leave out ("earlier") and insert ("first-mentioned")
Page 12, line 39, leave out ("earlier") and insert ("first-mentioned")
Page 12, line 41, leave out ("earlier") and insert ("first-mentioned")
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7, together. These are all drafting Amendments to subsection (2) of Clause 11, which all achieve the same end. They ensure that the intended reference to the subsection is to a notice of non-mechanical propulsion, and net to a subsequent revocation of that notice. Clause 1112) requires a notice to be given revoking a notification of non-mechanical propulsion when a vehicle becomes mechanically propelled, and both notices of non-mechanical propulsion and notices revoking these notifications are mentioned there. Three references are made in the subsection to "the earlier notice", meaning the original notification of non-mechanical propulsion. But such a phrase is not appropriate if a later revocation has not been given, as there cannot then be an "earlier" one. The phrasing is therefore altered by the Amendments so that the "first-mentioned notice" correctly and unambiguously refers to the original notice of non-mechanical propulsion.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 13, line 16, after ("period") insert ("or at any time")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment rectifies a minor omission. Under Clause 11(3) the Minister may make regulations including provision, under paragraph (e), for a "deeming" notice to have been given under the provisions of Clause 11(2)(b) revoking a notice of "non-mechanical propulsion". Paragraph (e) of Clause 11(3) provides that such a notice is deemed to have been given "in respect of any period". But this is inappropriate as such a notice can only have effect at a point in time. The Amendment accordingly provides that notice is to be deemed to have been given "at any time". I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.20 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 13, line 28, at end insert—
("()A person who is aggrieved by any decision of the Minister that he is liable by virtue of subsection (1) of this section to pay duty under the Act of 1962 in respect of a vehicle may, after giving to the Minister notice of his intention to do so, appeal to a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area in which he resides or, if he resides in Scotland, to the sheriff within whose jurisdiction he resides; and on any such appeal the court or sheriff may make such order as it or he thinks fit and the order shall be binding on the Minister.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9 in my name on the Order Paper. This is an Amendment of some importance which, for technical reasons, was not moved in another place. The background to it is that these two clauses, Nos. 10 and 11, as the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, knows, are the two most important clauses in the Bill, in that they introduce the new principle of continuous liability for the licensing of vehicles. This means that in future the owner of a vehicle will be continuously responsible for payment of the excise duty on the vehicle, unless he has notified the Minister that the vehicle has been laid up. This is a big change from the present position, where a vehicle owner now becomes liable to pay excise duty on the vehicle only when he puts the vehicle on a public road. There is no obligation to inform the licensing authority if he intends to lay it up. I do not myself join in the opposition to this change, and I accept it in the interests of checking the present widespread evasion.
My Amendment is designed only to provide what I think is a reasonable safeguard for over 10 million vehicle owners who will have to adjust themselves to this very big change. The obvious points of difficulty with this new arrangement will be, first of all, the non-receipt by the vehicle owner of the notice of renewal from the Ministry of Transport when he is due to renew his licence, and, secondly, the non-receipt by the Ministry of Transport of notice of intention to lay up the vehicle from the vehicle owner when the vehicle owner has in fact sent a notice and it has not been received.
It is only necessary to consider for one moment the infinite variety of circumstances in which 10 million vehicle owners may behave to recognise that inevitably there will be a number of cases of dispute. For example, when the notice from the Ministry arrives advising that payment is due, the vehicle owner may be away on holiday; he may be abroad on business for several weeks; he may have changed his address and not told anybody. Alternatively, a vehicle owner may have sent back a notice of intention to lay up the vehicle, and it may have been lost in the post, as occasionally they are, or mislaid on arrival—strange mistakes do happen in Government Departments. I had an instance of one the other day. A collector of taxes wrote to my old friend Sir Ernest Gowers, and the letter arrived six months after he had died in August, 1967. The letter was addressed to Sir Ernest Gowers, G.C.B., G.B.E., deceased, and reads as follows:
"There appears to have been no response to the previous demand for payment. You are now requested to make immediate payment of any sum which is due."
And so the letter ran on. I am sure my old friend Sir Ernest Gowers would not have complained about the words "not been paid", but he might have said they were on the wrong target.
The fact is that mistakes will be made with this enormous volume of requests. One has to think not only of the annual renewal of licences but the immense number of licences which are taken out just for the summer period, for one quarter, and the cars are then laid up for the winter. So one can see that there will inevitably be a number of cases of dispute. The Bill has tried to meet this situation. In Clause 11(3)(e), it has given

1045
the Minister some powers of discretion to deal with hard cases, and I do not doubt that the regulations which the Minister will make under that clause will set out the circumstances in which he will use his discretion. So far so good, but inevitably there will be cases where there is a conflict of evidence between the vehicle owner on the one hand, who maintains that he has sent a notice in, or that he has some special circumstances, and the Minister on the other, who maintains that he has not. My Amendment will provide that there will be an appeal to the magistrates' court so that there is an independent tribunal which will judge the merits of the case, as magistrates' courts continually do where there is a conflict of evidence.
I would only add that if the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, says that he fears there might be such a large number of appeals that it would swamp the courts, I do not think so myself. I think there would not be very many appeals; in most cases the Minister, with his discretion, would be able to sort it out; and I am certain that where his discretion has not satisfied the vehicle owner in a case of dispute it undoubtedly will be referred to the local Member of Parliament. It will then presumably find its way to the Ombudsman, who will be asked to make an administrative inquiry to try to sort it out. But I should think that the magistrates' court would be the better solution. If it is decided there it will be done in the open. Justice will not only be clone, but will be seen to be done. I believe this Amendment would be an improvement to the Bill, and I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: The case for continuous liability, to which my noble friend Lord Nugent has given, I think qualified acceptance as a principle, is strengthened, we all know, by the rising volume of convictions for evasion of duty. When a continuous liability begins, the computer is presumably going automatically to inform the police. Whether they will be able to cope with it is another matter which doubtless the Government and the police have fully discussed. The point of this Amendment is that genuine grounds for appeal to a magistrates' court may arise from time to time. My noble friend Lord Nugent referred earlier on in
1046
his remarks to cases where things may go wrong in the post, either in the post from the applicant to the computer or perhaps more particularly the other way round. I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, may point out that so far as applicants' receiving reminders is concerned, there will be, I think, about five different reminders which will come along to somebody who ought to have a licence.
But suppose, for instance, a man has already departed abroad on business for two months before any of those five communications arrive. A fortnight after he goes his vehicle licence expires and then the reminders come. On return, that man will certainly be liable; but if he can prove, without question, that during his absence the car was not on a public road, here is surely a clear example where mitigating circumstances might well alleviate the matter for him the magistrates' court. I should like to make a very brief reference to a matter to which my noble friend Lord Nugent did not directly refer; that is, to cases involving vehicles not mechanically propelled. In the event of a car crash, with the driver killed, who is liable under the Bill for the continuous liability? Are the executors? How can they inform the computer that the car is no longer mechanically propelled under Clause 10, subsection (2)(c), when all the documents are destroyed?
To take the point one step further, suppose that there is in a farm barn a rusty old car which has properly been notified to the computer as being no longer mechanically propelled. If the owner dies, or the farm is sold, the executors or the new farm owner will, under the Bill, Clause 11(2)(b), immediately become liable for duty for what will now become a once more mechanically propelled vehicle. One can imagine many cases, for instance, when an extremely large farm is bought and when, quite unwittingly, the new purchaser may be running himself in for continuous liability without having any idea what he is doing. Those who, through ignorance or carelessness, fail to deal with a tax assessement can, I think, appeal to the General Commissioners. This Bill, under Clause 14, will give right of appeal to a magistrates' court against refusal or

1047
revocation of a driving licence. It would not, I think, undermine the principle of continuous liability if similar appeals were to be allowed for road fund licensing by accepting this Amendment.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Her Majesty's Government are as well aware of human foibles as are Her Majesty's Opposition. We are all human beings, and we in the Government know that from time to time we leave undone things that we ought to have done. Awareness of the increased demands of the new system will grow as people get used to it. I give your Lordships an assurance that the Minister's powers under Clause 11(3)(e) will be liberally used, in particular during the transition period, to let people off where there is a special and genuine reason for not being able to give a notification of non-use. He will be particularly liberal in the early days after the introduction of continuous liability. His powers to deem that the correct procedure had been followed will be used in cases of forgetfulness, and will also, I am sure, be used in cases of executors, new owners of farm property, and people who unwittingly find themselves in the possession of an immobilised motor car on their property, or a vehicle which has come into their responsibility as a result of an accident. Therefore, I feel that the examples which were given by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would be completely covered by the powers of the Minister to "deem", and thus free the individual from liability.
May I comment upon the bid by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for a right of appeal to the magistrates' court? We believe that the noble Lord's Amendment is unnecessary, since the right of appeal which it would provide is already, in effect, in the Bill. If a person, in the Minister's opinion, owes duty and has not used or kept an unlicensed vehicle on the public road, the Minister may seek to recover the duty owned in one of two ways. First, the Minister will be able to sue for the recovery of duty as a civil debt, and the person concerned will have an opportunity in those civil proceedings to argue before the county court registrar (or, in Scotland, the sheriff) that all or some of the duty claimed is not owed. Secondly, the Minister may deduct duty owing from the sum submitted
1048
with a subsequent application for a vehicle licence and direct that a licence be issued of a shorter duration than that applied for, though for not less than 30 days. In these circumstances, Clause 23 of the Bill already provides a right of appeal to a county court or, in Scotland, the sheriff for any person who considers that he has been wrongfully issued with a licence of shortened duration on the grounds that the Minister was not authorised to give a direction to issue that licence. The Bill envisages that a county court (or, in Scotland, the sheriff) will determine whether a duty is owed. This is a preferable tribunal to a magistrates' court because we believe that the issue is a civil one and not a criminal matter. For this reason we hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will accept that, both during the period of transition, when we are rather confused by the new provisions, and in the long term, there are in the Bill as it stands sufficient safeguards of the individual's rights. I hope that he will agree to withdraw Amendment No. 9.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, for his reply. I am not altogether happy that the right of appeal in Clause 23 meets my point. I am concerned with whether the vehicle owner has a reasonable case in regard to failure to renew his licence. He may contend that he sent in a notice to the Minister and that for some reason it did not arrive. It appears to me that Clause 23 gives a right of appeal only where the vehicle owner wishes to appeal against the Minister's decision to assess the vehicle owner for a certain period of licence. However, since this is a new point to my noble friends and myself, and since we feel that we ought to try to improve the Bill, we shall look at the matter again before Report stage and see whether the Minister's suggestion holds water. If we are not satisfied, we shall be able to come back to this matter at the next stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.36 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 13, line 28, at end insert—
("() The period in respect of which the keeper of a vehicle may be held liable to

1049
pay duty following the end of a period in respect of which duty has been paid shall not exceed 4 months.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 10. This is a simple point. The effect of the Amendment would be to limit the total amount which the Minister of Transport can claim where the vehicle owner has defaulted in that he has failed to give proper notice of non-use, so that the vehicle owner will be protected against possible administrative delays in the Ministry of Transport before action is taken against the defaulter. There might be a delay of some months during which time liability would build up, at the end of which the vehicle owner would face a considerable bill. The Amendment would have the effect of limiting the period to four months, which would seem to be sufficient time in which the Ministry to act and would be a sufficient penalty for the vehicle owner to have to meet. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I see the noble Lord's point, and there is no doubt that the risk exists. We have seen in the Press reports of gas accounts presented by computer running over a period of twelve months and causing severe hardship to the individual who has to meet an unexpectedly high bill. Such a situation could arise. The individual has the responsibility of informing the central office of any change of address, and he commits an offence if he does not do so. A situation could arise where an individual goes away with his motor car and does not inform the central office of his change of address or change of intention. Although the noble Lord's proposals are good in intention, we believe that they would curtail the intended effect of continuous liability. We lay great weight on this principle.
After the expiry of the four months' period, as proposed in the Amendment, the Minister would have no means of knowing whether or not the vehicle was in use on the roads if a notice of non-use non-mechanical propulsion had not been given. It is important for the keeper of the vehicle to have an incentive to regularise the position of his vehicle at all times—and not just within the first four months after the expiry of the last licence. It is a form of discipline—it may be tedious,
1050
but that is its intention. I repeat the assurance that I gave earlier. In order to go as far as possible to meet cases of genuine hardship, the Minister will use his powers in Clause 11(3)(e) to deem that the individual has not committed an offence, but has suffered one of the hazards of life and has thus omitted to give proper notice.
The powers which this Bill gives to the Minister will not be stupidly or rigorously used, but we believe that the system which we are introducing will be efficient. Provided that the individual lets the central office know of any change of address, he will get many more warnings than at present. He will be told that his vehicle licence is becoming due, that it is now due for payment, and that it is overdue. So the chance of his overlooking this involuntarily is rather remote. The principle of continuous liability is so important for the efficient running of the scheme, that we should be very loth to permit a loophole such as the noble Lord has suggested.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord and I recognise the force of his argument, but there is no doubt that there will be hard cases under this system. I accept that this system will give no less than five separate warnings and that it is very well conceived, but if the owner of a vehicle has changed his address and has forgotten to let anybody know he will not receive any of those warnings So his liability to pay tax when eventually the situation catches up with him may be very big indeed, although the vehicle may have been laid up all the time.
The last thing I wish to do is to weaken the value of the Bill to cope with the evasion which is now so serious But I urge upon the noble Lord that the Minister's discretion is going to be very heavily stretched to meet all the hard cases that will arise, and I should have thought that some limitation might have been put in here without tying the Minister's hands too much. I do not want to press this point, neither do I want to weaken the general principle, but with all the vagaries of human nature there will be many hard cases and I hoped there might be a little more flexibility. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Alteration of provisions as to physical fitness of drivers]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: With the agreement of the Committee, may I move Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, together. Amendment No. 11 is a clarifying Amendment. The importance of a "relevant test" is that if a person who has a disability has passed a relevant test the licensing authority is not entitled to refuse the grant of a driving licence on the grounds of his disability, unless the disability has got worse or the disability was not declared at the time of the test. The purpose of the change is to bring out more clearly that a "relevant test" in relation to the application for a driving licence may be a current prescribed driving test or a "sufficient" test as defined in Section 99(5) of the Road Traffic Act. The actual test of competence which the applicant for the driving licence took may not be the correct prescribed test by reason of subsequent changes in the regulations, but if it was the current prescribed test at the time it was taken this will make it a "sufficient" test. Amendment No. 12 is a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to make clear that the test referred to may be a test of competence or a sufficient test. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 30, leave out from ("means") to second ("of") in line 31 and insert ("any such test of competence as is mentioned in section 99(1)(a)")
Page 15,line 34, after ("test") insert ("authorising the grant of a licence").—(Lord W interbottom.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Alteration of provisions as to grant and duration etc. of licences]:
4.45 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: With the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which are drafting Amendments, together. For the sake of consistency the references should be to the "authority" rather than to the "Minister". Before the transfer date "the
1052
authority" will refer to local authorities who exercise driving licence functions on behalf of the Minister. After that date the expression will refer to the Minister. This becomes clear from Schedule 1, paragraph 1. In fact, however, the power envisaged by the new Section 101(1)(b) will not be used until after the transfer date. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 10, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("authority")
Page 16, line 12, leave out ("Minister") insert and ("authority").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 16, line 14, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted").
The noble Lord said: With this Amendment I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24. These are simply drafting Amendments to secure uniformity in the use of the word "granted", which is the expression used in Part II of the Road Traffic Act 1960. I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 43.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: With the permission of the Committee I should like to move Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 20 together. All are drafting Amendments, but the key Amendment is No. 20. The words it is proposed to delete from the new Section 102(4) by the last of these three Amendments, No. 20, deal with three points in connection with exchange licences: the surrender of an existing licence, payment of the prescribed fee and the duration of the licence. The first two points are already covered in the new Section 101(1) and it is logical that the provision relating to duration should be grouped with the other provisions about periods for which licences shall be granted, which appear in the new Section 102(1) (Clause 13). Amendment No. 18 accordingly makes such provision. The first Amendment, No. 17, paves the way for this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 46, leave out ("the case of a provisional licence") and insert ("a case falling within paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection,")
Page 18, line 6, leave out (" and ") and insert—
("(b) in the case of a licence granted in exchange for a subsisting licence and in pursuance of an application requesting a licence for the period authorised by this paragraph, for a period equal to the remainder of that for which tote subsisting licence was granted;")
Page 18, line 44, leave out from ("granted") to end of line 4 on page 19.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Loan WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 19.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 33, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted")—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Other amendments of enactments relating to drivers etc.]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 21 to 24, inclusive.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 9, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted")
Page 20, line 17, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted")
Page 20, line 22, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted")
Page 20, line 23, leave out ("issued") and insert ("granted").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 20, line 45, at end insert—
("(4) In section 7(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1962 (which provides for the issue of driving licences free from endorsements) for the words from 'either' 'to time' there shall be substituted the words 'on applying for the grant of a licence in pursuance of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 101 of the principal Act and satisfying the other requirements of that subsection '")
The noble Lord said: With the permission of your Lordships' Committee,
1054
I should like in moving this Amendment to speak also to Nos. 29 and 30, in Clause 22. The Amendment to Clause 15—that is, No. 25—is a drafting Amendment. It eliminates the references to the surrender and fee payable for the grant of a licence from Section 7(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1962, and relates that subsection to the new Section 101(1), included in Clause 13, which already provides for these matters. It does not disturb the right, included in Section 7(7) of the Road Traffic Act 1962, of a driver to be issued with a licence free of time-expired endorsements. Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are consequential. The words to be omitted are redundant if your Lordships accept Amendment No. 25. The fee for the grant of a licence free of time-expired endorsements will be that prescribed under Section 101(1) for a full period licence or for an exchange licence, whichever is applied for. I beg to move No. 25.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 21, line 7, at end insert—
("(5) In section 85(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (under which the owner of a vehicle may be required to identity the driver of it who is alleged to have committed an offence to which that section applies) for the words owner of ' there shall be substituted the words person keeping '")
The noble Lord said: With the permission of your Lordships, I should like in moving this Amendment to speak to Amendment No. 37 as well. These Amendments make two minor improvements in wording. They have the effect of altering references to the "owner" of a vehicle, in Section 85(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 and Section 232(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1960, to the "person keeping" a vehicle. Section 85(2)(a) of the 1967 Act provides that where a driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of certain offences under the Act, the "owner" of the vehicle shall give, when required to do so by the police, information about the identity of the driver of the vehicle. Section 232(2)(a) of the 1960 Act makes a similar provision for certain other offences. The present wording is intended to mean, and is interpreted in practice as meaning, the

1055
registered "keeper", and the Amendments provide accordingly. Clause 27(4)(b) already provides for such an amendment to Section 18 of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962, and paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the Bill provides for two similar amendments to Section 241 of the 1960 Act.
The present register of vehicles in practice identifies the "keepers" of the vehicle rather than the "owners", although the two terms often identify the same person. If the police wish to trace the driver of a vehicle whom they have not been able to apprehend, the only course open to them, generally speaking, is to identify the registered keeper of the vehicle from the vehicle registers and require him to state who was driving the vehicle when the offence occurred. I hope that I have made clear the intentions of these Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 26.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I make just one brief comment? I should have thought that, for the sake of the layman—one does not consider him very much in drafting a Bill—it might have been better to say, "owner or keeper". At least the word "owner" has a specific meaning to the general public, but to speak of the "keeper" of a vehicle would, I should have thought, have very little meaning.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: I was going to ask whether "keeping" in this clause is at all inconsistent with "keeping" in Clause 8, which distinguishes "keeper" from the person responsible for the vehicle when it is moving: the keeper of a vehicle is the keeper only when the vehicle is stationary.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: These are nice points. We have in fact found many shortcomings in the Bill as drafted in its transfer from one place to another. I will consult with my right honourable friend the Minister to see whether your Lordships' suggestions are of substance. After all, we are amending so many minor points of drafting to-day that I do not see why we should not have one or two more at Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Regulations with respect to the transfer and identification of vehicles]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 22, line 15, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("determined by or under the regulations")
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is to enable the Minister to "determine" the persons to whom he may provide information from the vehicle records "by or under" regulations. Where persons are to be "prescribed" in regulations, as the Bill now provides, the normal implication is that the persons will be precisely described in the regulations. Since the Minister's intention is to describe in the regulations only some categories of recipient precisely (for example, the police) and to leave other categories less precise (for example, people who have "reasonable cause" for inquiring), it would be better to use the words "determined by or under" the regulations, since these are the words normally used in Statutes to provide for this kind of wording.
Regulations of this flexible kind will allow the Minister to make information available to people who have reasonable cause to require it, whilst leaving him discretion to decide who these are in particular cases. This is in fact the form of the regulation governing the release of information by local authorities under the present system. No complaints have been received that it is working badly, so it seems right to continue it and to reword the regulation-making power accordingly. That is the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Information as to date of birth and sex]:
4.59 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 26, line 29, at end insert—
("() No information provided to any court or to any constable as to the date of birth or sex of an accused person shall be published unless there are special circumstances to justify doing so.")
The noble Lord said: We have been told that under this Bill all applicants for licences will be required to give particulars of their date of birth and sex, and that this must be given as the first information required for the working of the central computer. It may be in the memory of the Committee that during the Second Reading debate we had some discussion about this point, and, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, showed himself admirably sympathetic to the apprehensions of many people about giving such personal information. Here I would interpose that we in public life, who are accustomed to such personal information (and, indeed, a great deal more) being generally known, may easily underestimate the fears of private persons. They are real. Most people are very apprehensive about giving any personal information. I recognise that this basic information must be given in order to make the system work. My Amendment is simply concerned to prevent its being disclosed publicly in court unless it is essential to do so. I beg to move.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I must support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and ask the Minister to give this Amendment sympathetic consideration. The provisions of this Bill appear to be geared to mechanisation and computers. There has been little in it that dealt with human beings: forms, applications, notices and so on nowadays feed and give succour to machines which spew out the relevant information, regardless of the flesh, blood and bones of the people. By this Amendment some limitation can be imposed. It is right that people should feel that something about them is sacred to themselves. If this information is to be stored in some awful piece of machinery, I feel that it should be given out only for the most important reasons.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: This was an interesting passage in our Second Reading debate. Her Majesty's Government are sensible of the concern people feel about the publication in the local Press of details of this kind. It may seem peculiar that we should mention sex. I should like to put that on one side for a moment. The date of birth of the individual is important because it is an integral part of his reference number in the computer. One has to have it in order
1058
to trace him in the machine. That is one of the facts of computer life. One would think that the matter of sex is self-evident; but I found when I was taking advice on this clause that, in fact, it is not, and that within the experience of the person advising me there is at least one case within the Civil Service of a change of sex brought about by an operation. This is something that an individual might well wish to be kept to himself. So we are in agreement that these are factors which must not be bandied about unless absolutely necessary.
It is the Government's intention that information should be used only for the intentions of the Bill and for no other purpose. It was to prevent publication of the date of birth by others, for instance, by the Press, that the Minister agreed to an Opposition request during the Committee stage in another place to provide that the date of birth given to the courts should be made in writing. The Minister is therefore very much alive to the need for the protection of the individual's privacy in these eases. But we are not empowered to lay down the actions of the courts in this matter. The courts may have to know and to record the individual's age before deciding what type of sentence they should give. But, by and large, it is the intention that the information required for the purposes of this Bill should be placed before the court in writing that is not exposed in public, and that it should be made public only if the courts believe it to be necessary. That is the reason why we are resisting this actual Amendment, although we are in sympathy wish its intention.
LORD AIREDALE: I do not understand this. It seemed to me as though the Minister's argument was leading to the conclusion that he was going to accept this Amendment, because, although it does not seem absolutely perfect in drafting, it provides at least in principle exactly what I thought the Minister had said to be desirable. So I do not understand why the Amendment is not acceptable.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for his answer? I wonder whether I may pursue the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. The Minister has agreed with us in principle

1059
and has told us that his right honourable friend in another place has asked that the date of birth given in evidence should be given in writing. I accept that my Amendment is not perfectly drafted and that it may not fit appropriately; but I wonder whether the noble Lord at the Report stage of the Bill would accept an Amendment in terms which require that evidence of this kind should be given in writing. That, I think, would be an adequate safeguard. In special circumstances the courts may find it necessary to refer to it orally, but if the Bill were to provide that it be given in writing, that would give the confidence that is really necessary in this matter. Would the noble Lord consider that?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am informed that Clause 21(1) of the Bill already provides the words "in writing". The last part of that subsection says:
"If … the court orders his driving licence to be endorsed or orders him to be temporarily disqualified and does not know his date of birth, the court shall order him to state that date in writing."
Then in the following subsection it says:
"… if on convicting the accused it orders his driving licence to be endorsed … and does not know his date of birth … order him to furnish that information in writing to the court."
The "in writing" element is included in Clause 21 (1) and (2).
LORD AIREDALE: I think the Committee are anxious to secure words in the Bill to the effect that this information in writing shall not be disclosed publicly in court. I picked up these words, "prevent its being disclosed publicly in court" from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, when he moved his Amendment. Those words seem better than the word "published" which is used in the Amendment. To me it seems rather pointless to go to the length of saying that information is to be given to the court in writing and not going on to say that the information is not to be disclosed publicly in court, if that is the whole point of having the information in writing.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I have grasped the noble Lord's point; but I should like to take up the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, to see whether the intentions of his Amendment,
1060
as expressed by him, are covered by Clause 21(1) and (2). I would remind the Committee of the point that I made in my original reply. We cannot lay down to the courts how they shall use this information. They may find it necessary to make public in court the age of the individual accused. But I will take advice on this point. If the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, are not covered by these subsections we can see about it at Report stage.
LORD HAWKE: I am sorry, but I missed the first moments of the discussion on this Amendment because it came on earlier than I had expected. I am not quite clear why the date of birth comes into the matter at all. A constable is to be authorised to ask somebody for his or her date of birth. Exactly why? Is it because, as the noble Lord said, that in order to get something out of a machine the authorities must know the date of birth of the person? Suppose someone has given a date of birth which is not correct. Many ladies give dates of birth which are not correct. Will the machine be any "forrader" in that event? Presumably, on being cross-examined by a constable—a formidable person—a lady will state her correct age; but if that correct age happens to be different from what is in the machine, how will the information get any further?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I imagine that if one says one is 29 when one is 39, that incorrect age continues for as long as one is alive—that is the age you have given the computer and the computer never forgets. This is a hypothetical point, but I will write to the noble Lord and let him know what the official answer is to this hypothetical situation.
LORD HAWKE: I do not want an answer to my hypothetical point. What I really want an answer to is, why must they know the person's age anyway?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Because, with the millions of people with whom we are dealing we have somehow to find an identity number which is peculiar to each one of us. That is our birthday and certain elements of our Christian names and surnames. Just being "John Smith" is not enough. There are very

1061
many John Smiths. We want to know the date on which a particular John Smith was born and possibly his second name. So the identification code number of a person is his birthday and a number of elements of his first forename and surname. I am sorry if this sounds a little technical, but that is why we have to have his birth date.
LORD HAWKE: Having got all this information, what is the purpose of gathering it? The gentleman is in court, you have his bodily presence there. You cannot get anything more out of the machine. What is the purpose in eliciting the further information? That is what I want to know. The fellow is before you in the dock, so why do you want information out of the machine as well?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The point is that the computer understands computer language and the magistrates do not. Therefore we have to translate "computerese" into English in order to help the magistrates who are trying the case.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: If you have two John Smiths both born on the same date, how does the computer differentiate between them?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I presume that that is a problem for the programmers. But it will not be a question of two people; I should think that there might be thirty or forty people born on any one day. Let us hope that they are not all just "John Smith": but that there will be "John A. Smith", "John B. Smith", "John D. Smith" and so on. According to the birth dates and other information we shall be able to distinguish one person from another.
LORD GOODMAN: If the Minister's explanation for the need for this information is that it is to enable the authorities to have an adequate filing system, there does not seem the slightest reason for this information to be divulged to anyone. It has nothing whatever to do with an offence, or the whole of the case. It is to enable a system of records to be made for the future. On that ground, surely, there is not the slightest objection to it being maintained as totally confidential in all circumstances.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is an eminent lawyer and he knows more about proceedings in courts than I do. But I am advised that information about a person's age may be required by a court before they decide the type of sentence which would be suitable, and that the court will ask for the information in appropriate cases. They may not publish it but they will ask for it and be given it in writing. They may then subsequently comment upon it. As I understand the position, normally this information will be in writing and will not be published for the Press and for the public to note. Nevertheless we cannot rule that a court shall not mention it if they see fit.
LORD GOODMAN: I hesitate to prolong this debate, but it would be extraordinary if, in a Bill relating to motoring offences, requirements were found in respect of sentencing which are not found in any Bill relating to other offences. It seems to me a very odd place indeed in which to find such special requirements.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am not an eminent lawyer like the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I am merely the chairman of a bench of magistrates, and I find that in many motoring cases it is necessary for us to know the ages, because some of the people concerned may qualify to be tried in a juvenile court. Age is, therefore, an essential factor in the situation. My noble friend Lord Winterbottom seems to have dealt with the question of age pretty thoroughly, but he said that he was sweeping sex aside for the moment. Now, my Lords, sex is something that you cannot sweep aside. I should like to hear what he intends to do about this provision which requires the sex of a person to be identified publicly to the court. I feel that it is eminently desirable that the sex should be stated, because many of the young fellows who come before me have long hair down to their shoulders and as they stand in the dock it is absolutely impossible to tell which sex they are. And it is hardly in keeping with the dignity of the chairman of the bench to pursue his own investigations into the matter.
LORD HAWKE: I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland,

1063
have, as usual, put their fingers on a perfectly valid point, and I heartily agree with them. Before you sentence a person for some motoring offence it is obviously necessary to know that person's sex and age. But I cannot see where the computer comes in. Why is it necessary to have this information in order to get some other information out of some computer? What is the other information going to be?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am sorry that my powers of exposition are so poor. The sort of information you would get out of the computer would be the chassis and engine numbers of the vehicle in question; its registration number and a whole series of other relevant pieces of information which are required by a court when considering a motoring offence. I am advised that there is an important element where the date of birth has to be known and must be known. The court may want to endorse a driver's licence, and to make sure that they endorse the licence of the right "John Smith" they must in fact get his birth date, so that the right John Smith gets his licence endorsed by the computer. They do not have to publish the date of his birth; it will be given to the court in writing. Nevertheless, they will have to know it. That is why the knowledge of the birth date is required for this special system.
LORD HAWKE: There must be different licences involved. There is the vehicle licence and the driving licence. Presumably, this will be filed under driving licence—"John James Smith, born on"—such and such a date. How are you going to distinguish and make certain that there is no other John Smith born on that particular date?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Having once entered the computer we shall go through our lives as, for example, "John G. Smith, born April 1, 1940". As we go through life, we shall change motor cars, renew our licences and so on. We remain constant; the trappings of licences and registration books will change. Therefore, the computer has one constant starting point which is the individual when he once gets recorded by the computer. The writers of computer language have deemed it desirable that one of the best ways to record the existence
1064
of an individual, so far as the computer is concerned, is to record his birthday and certain elements of his Christian and surnames. That is why it is so. I should shudder to compete in argument with the designers of computer language. I can only try to expound the reasons to the noble Lord as well as I can.
LORD FERRIER: Of all noble Lords in this Chamber, I am, I imagine, the most loath to have this debate extended. But I have discussed this matter of age and dates with certain people and it is possible that I might be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, by saying that the day may come when driving licences will not be granted to people over a certain age. The date of birth must be known now so that in the years to come it will be possible for the computer to tick off the people who are over 75, or whatever the age is.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for struggling so ably to answer the many points which have been raised. It is some relief to know that it will be only the date of birth and the sex of the person which is recorded, and that the chassis and engine numbers will refer to the vehicles and not to us. These words may not be the correct ones but there is a general sense that we should have some words of this kind in the Bill, that the courts should be as discreet as possible about the purpose of it. It is true that the Bill says "in writing", but I think that we would still like the court to have an indication that it is the will of Parliament that they should be discreet about this. Perhaps we could look at this point between now and Report stage to see whether we can find words which would suit the noble Lord and this purpose. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Powers to prescribe fees]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 29:
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 2.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 30:
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 24, leave out from ("Treasury") to end of line 29.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Institution and conduct of proceedings in England and Wales]:
5.22 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 28, line 1, after second ("or") insert ("section 11(2) of this Act or").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 31 to 34 together. These are all drafting Amendments. Quite simply, the references to Section 11(2) in Clauses 24(2) and 25(4) have been included, I regret to say, in the wrong place in each subsection. Clauses 24(2) and 25(4), as drafted, refer to summary proceedings for an offence being instituted under regulations made in pursuance of Clause 11(2) of the Bill. But there are no regulation-making powers in Clause 11(2), and the intention is, and always has been, that the proceedings may be instituted within the time limit stipulated by the clauses for an offence under Clause 11(2) itself. Accordingly, Amendments Nos. 31 and 33 provide that summary proceedings may be instituted within the relevant time limit for an offence under Clause 11(2) in England and Wales (that is in Clause 24) and Scotland (Clause 25). Amendments Nos. 32 and 34 delete the references to summary proceedings in England and Wales (Clause 24) and Scotland (Clause 25) for an offence in regulations made under Clause 11(2).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 2, leave out ("11(2)").—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Institution and conduct of proceedings in Scotland]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 11, at end insert ("or section 11(2) of this Act")—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 34.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 13, leave out ("11(2)")—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of provisions of Act of 1960 relating to drivers etc.]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 40, line 24, at end insert—
("2. For subsection (5) of section 99 (which provides that certain tests of competence are sufficient to authorise the granting of a driving licence) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
(5) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section a test of competence shall be sufficient for the panting of a licence authorising the driving of—

(a) vehicles of any class or description, if at the time the test was passed (whether before or after the passing of this Act) it authorised the granting of a licence to drive vehicles of that class or description;

(b) vehicles of any classes or descriptions which are designated by regulations as a group for the purposes of the said paragraph (a), if at the said time tile test authorised the granting of a licence to drive vehicles of any class or description included in the group;

and if vehicles of any classes or descriptions are designated by regulations as a group for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section, a licence authorising the driving of vehicles of a class or description included in the group shall be deemed for the purposes of the said paragraph (b) to authorise the driving of vehicles of all classes or descriptions included in the group.
The last foregoing reference to a licence and the first reference to a licence in tae said paragraph (b) do not include a licence which has been revoked in pursuance of section 102(2) of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose, strange as it may seem, of this long Amendment is to simplify and clarify the provisions of Section 99(5) of the 1960 Act. The existing provisions are extremely complex and difficult to operate, although we believe that their aims were not different from those of the simpler provisions now proposed. We have discarded paragraph (a) of the existing Section 99(5), which concerns only tests taken before March 1, 1957, which is now time-expired, because under the 10-year rule in Section 99(1) (a) such tests no longer qualify persons for licences if they have not held licences in the meanwhile.
The proposed new Section 99(5)(a) provides that for purposes of Section 99(1)(a) (which provides for driving licences to be granted to a person who has passed a test of competence or a "sufficient test" within the last ten years), a "sufficient" test is a test which was the prescribed test for a class or description of vehicles at the time it was taken. This means that if the requirements of the test are changed, the person who passed a test when the new requirement did not apply does not forfeit his entitlement. We think it right that in such circumstances a person should keep the entitlement he has earned. The proposed new Section 99(5)(b) provides that regulations may be made designating a group of vehicles, for which a licence may be granted to a person who has passed a test for a class or description of vehicles included in that group. This power will be used when a group is enlarged, if it is thought right that a driver should not be required to take a further test before being allowed the additional entitlement.
The proposed new Section 99(5) further provides that if regulations are made designating a group of vehicles for the purposes of Section 99(1)(b), a licence may be granted to a person who holds or has held a driving licence for a class or description of vehicles included in that group. Thus entitlement to a driving licence for an enlarged group may rest on a test of competence for a group of vehicles comprised in the group or the holding of a licence for such a group of vehicles where appropriate regulations are made. Such an entitlement cannot, however, rely on the holding of a driving licence which has been revoked under
1068
Section 102(2). Under this provision a driving licence may be revoked where it has been issued in error or contains an error in the particulars. It is also provided that the entitlement under section 99(1)(b) cannot be based on a licence revoked under Section 102(2). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 37.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 14, at end insert—
("7. In section 232(2) (a) (under which the owner of a vehicle may be required to identify the driver of it who is alleged to have committed an offence to which that section applies) for the words 'owner of' there shall be substituted the words 'person keeping'.")—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 41. line 46, at end insert—
("11. At the end of paragraph 1 of Schedule 15 (which contains transitional provisions for the grant of drivers' licences for heavy goods vehicles to persons in the habit of driving such vehicles) there shall be inserted the following:
The reference in the foregoing provisions of this paragraph to the driving of a heavy goods vehicle does not include a reference to the driving of such a vehicle of a prescribed class or of such a vehicle while it is being used in prescribed circumstances.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to modify the transitional provisions for the introduction of the scheme for licensing and testing drivers of heavy goods vehicles. The scheme for licensing and testing drivers of heavy goods vehicles will be introduced compulsorily on February 2, 1970 (after a six months' period of voluntary operation). Paragraph 1 of the Fifteenth Schedule to the Road Traffic Act 1960 protects the position of existing drivers. It provides that a driver who is able to satisfy the heavy goods vehicle drivers' licensing authority that he has the relevant experience of driving heavy goods vehicles shall not be required to pass the special heavy goods vehicle driving test laid down in Section 19(2) of the Road Safety Act 1967.
But under Section 20(6) of the Road Safety Act 1967 the Minister of Transport may by regulation exempt drivers of certain classes of heavy goods vehicle from the requirement to hold the special

1069
licence. He intends to use this power to exempt certain vehicles which, although they strictly fall within the definition of "heavy goods vehicle" contained in Section 199 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, are either vehicles of a specialist nature—for example, engineering plant—or which are used to a minimum extent on public roads—for example, dump trucks.
It would not be in the interests of road safety for a driver of a heavy goods vehicle for which a heavy goods vehicle drivers' licence will not be required, to be able to obtain, by virtue of his experience of driving such a vehicle, a licence to drive on the public roads other classes of heavy goods vehicle, without passing a test. We do not want a dump truck driver to go out and drive a semi-articulated lorry on the main roads without passing a test. The Amendment accordingly enables the Minister of Transport to provide by regulation that the entitlement under the transitional provisions to a heavy goods vehicle licence does not apply to exempted vehicles. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

IMMIGRATION APPEALS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
GENOCIDE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

BROADCASTING OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE
5.33 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER rose to draw attention to the Second Report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting the Proceedings of the House, ordered to be printed on June 27, 1968; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Motion refers to the Second Report
1070
of the Select Committee on Televising Proceedings, but in fact it was the fourth Report on the subject which has been submitted to your Lordships. The reason for this is that there were two Select Committees, as I shall explain in my speech, and each submitted two Reports.
The first Select Committee lapsed, of course, at the end of the 1966–67 Session, and the second Select Committee, which was roughly of the same composition, has lapsed now, but it served through the Session which contained the experiment to which we are now addressing ourselves. So it comes that I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. And I would add that my object in doing so is not so much to discuss the narrow issue of last year's experiment—its success or otherwise; its impact upon the House or upon us as individuals—but rather the wider aspect of its bearing upon the place which television occupies in the process of Parliamentary democracy in the world in which we live, or indeed the place that it may occupy in the future.
The problem may well be: where does our Parliament stand in this respect; and what are the developments that last year's experiment portends? As the intention of my speech is only to initiate the debate, it may be as well if I begin by sketching in the background of the. Report which is the basis of my Motion. The House of Commons had a short taste of television and film lighting when Black Rod summoned the Members to the State Opening of Parliament in April, 1966, on which occasion, your Lordships will remember, the whole of the Opening ceremony was recorded and filmed. Some Members of the other place protested at the time, but nevertheless the Commons, in May of that year, set up a Select Committee to go into the question of a possible experiment.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, who was at the time Leader of your Lordships' House, made a passing reference to the subject of televising proceedings of this House, as distinct from the State Opening ceremony, in his speech on the first day of the debate on the humble Address on April 21, 1966. Whether this inspired the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, or not, I do not know, but on June 15 of that year he proposed his carefully worded Motion to the effect

1071
that the House "welcomed" an experiment. This Motion was carried by 56 votes to 31, and in the course of his penetrating but, perforce, brief speech the noble Lord said:
"… we ought to do more ourselves … to communicate more directly with all the people of this country whom we seek, in our deliberations here, to serve."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15/6/66; col. 66.]
As a result of this decision, the House appointed a Select Committee, after some dispute about its composition, to consider how an experiment could best be carried into effect. Much of the Committee's earlier work was necessarily done on the assumption that a closed-circuit experiment would be run jointly with the House of Commons. But in November, 1966, the other place, debating the recommendations of their Select Committee to this end, negatived the proposals of that Select Committee by one vote (131 to 130) and most of your Lordships will recall this narrow margin, in a small House, because of the surprise that it created.
So the Select Committee of this House proceeded on the basis of a closed-circuit experiment for the House of Lords only, a course which was made possible by the sanction by the Government of the necessary portion of the expenditure, amounting to £18,000. In 1967, the following year, this Committee recommended that the experiment should take place in early 1968, and sought your Lordships' approval to the inclusion in their terms of reference (and this is important) of sound broadcasting, which they, the Committee, had found to be almost inextricably interwoven with the television problems. The Committee's recommendations were approved.
The Select Committee lapsed with the end of the Session, and another of roughly the same composition, as I have said, was appointed. The actual experiment took place on February 6, 7 and 8 of last year. The playback extracts and various edited specimen broadcasts, both in sound and vision, were at the disposal of your Lordships, the Members of the House of Commons and the Press the following week. The Committee, of which I have been a member throughout, then prepared the Report which is the subject of my Motion. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the Lord Chairman
1072
of Committees, is to speak later, I need not refer to its recommendations in detail, because doubtless he will do so.
This Report was in the Printed Paper Office on July 5 last, and the only further step that I need mention to bring the record up-to-date is the appointment in November of a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. This arises from recommendation No. 6 of the Report, which stems from paragraphs 25 and 26. The members of this Joint Select Committee are, with the noble Lord, Lord Pearce, in the chair, the Earl of Selkirk and Lord Stow Hill, and from the other place, Mr. Charles Pannell, Sir Peter Rawlinson and Mr. S. C. Silk in. They are now engaged upon the task of considering—and I quote:
"whether any, and if so what, changes in the law of defamation and of Parliamentary Privilege are desirable in relation to the publication of the proceedings in Parliament".
I myself am not clear whether the matter of copyright is covered by this remit, and perhaps the answer to this will emerge in the course of the debate. But all the evidence to the Select Committee goes to show that, as things are, the broadcasting media probably dare not undertake the public dissemination of the proceedings of either House, whether in sound or in vision, without protection similar to that which the Press possess. Australia, for instance, found it necessary to legislate in this matter before they broadcast live in Canberra. Lord Pearce's Committee may well find that their task is no easy one.
This, my Lords, brings the record up-to-date, though it may be mentioned in passing that the House of Commons had a four-week experiment in closed circuit, sound only, live, and recordings, over four weeks in April and May last year. This then is the position to-day. The Joint Select Committee of Lord Pearce have entered upon their task. The recommendations and the report of the experiment lie upon the Table and time has begun to mellow the memory of the experiment or maybe it is the other way about. However, before I sit down I should perhaps set out briefly some impressions of the work of the Committee and the efficacy of the experiment as they occur to me. In doing so, your Lordships will rightly expect me to give expression to the debt

1073
the House owes to the members of the staff and the technicians of your Lordships' House at all levels who planned, prepared and carried out the onerous and intricate operations connected therewith. There was no technical hitch. The inconvenience to the House was kept to a minimum, and the dignity of the Chamber and of the proceedings was well maintained. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is not here. As he moved an Instruction, which in fact was debated but not carried, on this subject of the dignity of the House, I hope he was satisfied with that. And all this, my Lords, within the budget.
But in considering the matter of cost, and not only that, it must also be remembered that, as can be seen from the printed minutes of evidence set out in all four Reports, the experts of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. contributed very largely in outlay of both time and trouble and of treasure to the whole undertaking; and indeed their skills and experience were freely at your Committee's disposal. I think the noble Earl will say this in his speech, but I should like to say from the Floor that this was deeply appreciated.
My impressions are, first of all, that the lights and the heat were intolerable. But it is perfectly clear that the technical developments, particularly the plumbicon camera or tube, will mean that any future televising will not require special lighting. My second impression was that playing to the camera did not in fact occur, even with bulky cameras and with their crews prominent in the Chamber. Remote control and plumbicon cameras unobtrusively mounted, probably suspended under the Galleries, would render it absolutely impossible to play to the camera, if anybody felt so disposed. In any case, I feel (this is a personal view) that sincerity in a speaker is one of the qualities which in a curious way comes across crystal clear on television; and that penetrating and delicate beam is for me, at any rate, interrupted abruptly as soon as there is a glance at the camera—and speakers should know it.
My third impression is this. I have become more than ever convinced of the failure of the Press—and this comes out throughout the evidence and the whole series of our Committee meetings
1074
—over recent years in their reporting of the proceedings of your Lordships' House. They have failed the House of Lords; they have failed Parliament, and they have failed the people. I admit that this is not the fault of the staffs in our Gallery; one has only to see the streams of faithful reports that continually go to the Associated Press to be satisfied of that. But I take the view that even the leading newspapers fail more often than not to give adequate space to reporting your Lordships' House. This morning was an example. The Press which calls itself the popular Press seldom, if ever, records that either House has even been sitting, unless there is something which it deems sensational or salacious. If it were not for the broadcasting media, the people as a whole would hardly know that the Upper Chamber did any work at all. Is this perhaps one reason why the televising of proceedings may eventually become inevitable? The Press have failed to take proper account of the more serious mood of the people which seems to be developing, and it would appear from recent reports that they are paying the penalty.
I would mention in passing that the Scottish and Provincial papers are in a difficulty because of the hour at which they go to press, but I feel that even they could do better. On the whole, the welcome to the experiment from the Press was not altogether ungenerous, although some of their people cannot help being rather "sniffy", despite the surprise to them that Members of your Lordships House turned out to be human after all.
As for the broadcasting media, the public and Parliament and perhaps democracy itself owe them a debt of gratitude. With its inevitable imperfections Today in Parliament, and perhaps Yesterday in Parliament even more importantly, have a widening circle of listeners. This is very important to people distant from London, and of course the Yesterday in Parliament programme, I believe, is widely listened to on car radios by people driving to work. They give ample coverage, I think, and a well-balanced share to Parliamentary business in their news broadcasts. The programme The Week in Westminster on the B.B.C. is not so good, perhaps because its title belies its content. For instance, in the last three consecutive programmes of The Week in

1075
Westminster there has been no mention of the proceedings of your Lordships' House, although there was some note of the proceedings in another place in respect of the House of Lords. Parliament may well decide one day that the people are entitled to see and to judge for themselves. Is Alistair Cooke perhaps right when he says that television is the new conscience of the civilised world?—I think I have his words right; I heard them ten days ago. Perhaps the latest factor in political consciousness is the public's increased awareness of what is going on. Many people now want to know not only the reasons for policies but they may wish—and indeed expect—to be kept informed. But the fourth and overriding impression in my mind is that surely there can be no question of the House of Lords "going it alone". If the House of Commons does not "dig it" then we do not. That is the way I look at it, and it is perhaps fortuitous that we had to "go it alone" with the experiment. In my view that was a pity, though it could not be avoided.
So interested am I in this subject that I could go on and on, but I have no intention of doing so. For instance, there is the problem of the archives and the records. Are programmes to be live or recorded and edited? That brings one to the whole question of editing. And what about the cost? It is clear that the willingness or ability of the broadcasting media to bear a share of the cost is distinctly limited, and that I can well understand in the present circumstances.
So I conclude with an expression of my belief that as time goes on and the future unfolds, the new shape of democracy may well require that the deliberations of legislatures should be televised. However, before that stage is even considered in your Lordships' House the problem of Parliamentary privilege must be resolved, the House of Commons must change its mind, and technical advances must be such that the physical conditions are acceptable. Also proper procedures for dissemination to the public would have to be determined, while the dignity of the House is maintained.
The noble Earl who was then the Leader of the House referred to this in April, 1966, on the occasion to which I have already referred. He said:
1076
"I am convinced that we in the House of Lords in modern conditions shall not make an impact on the nation appropriate to our talents until this House is well and truly televised …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21/4/66. col. 37.]
"Well and truly" I believe were—and still are—the operative words. But on that same day the Speaker in the House of Commons, when challenged by honourable Members who wanted to know why the instruments of torture happened to be in their Chamber, in the course of his remarks on the subject of televising Parliamentary proceedings, described this as being,
"what I believe to be an historic question which the House will have to decide both for the merit of it and, as the right honourable gentleman pointed out, the procedural aspect of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 21/4/66. col. 44.]
I assure your Lordships that I take up your time with a sense of deep respect and regard for this House and utter confidence in its place in the Parliament of the United Kingdom—confidence tinged with regret and indignation at the ignorance of the mass of the people as to what we do and how we function—a situation which television might relieve. Confidence, my Lords, nevertheless. I beg to move for Papers.
5.54 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I rise at this moment only to intervene extremely briefly. I hope I shall have an opportunity to say something at the end, but I wish now just to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. It is entirely due to his initiative that this subject did not just slip away, and I am glad we managed to co-operate in arranging a debate before we had all forgotten what it was like to sit under the cameras. Secondly, I am sure your Lordships would wish me to express your gratitude not only to the two Committees but also to the Lord Chairman of Committees, who will shortly be speaking, and to those who have helped and advised the Committees. We should also express our thanks to the representatives of the B.B.C. and the I.T.V., who gave a great deal of time, I believe, to assisting the Committees in their deliberations and in mounting the experiment in closed circuit television in your Lordships' House in February of last year. We may have comments to make with regard to the sufferings some people had under the lights, while others

1077
may not have been bothered by them; but as to the correctness and devotion of those who were carrying out the experiment there is no doubt at all.
This is a subject in regard to which I think the saying "festina lente" applies. On the other hand we do not want that to be an excuse for not keeping the whole proposition alive and under active consideration, and proceeding deliberately towards the formation of ideas on the whole question of broadcasting. I should make it clear to your Lordships that when I speak later I shall not be putting the Government view. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and I agreed—and again I am grateful to him for this—that this is an occasion when the House of Lords itself says what it thinks. Although I shall express some views, they will be my own personal views, in the same way as there will be views by any other Member of the House of Lords, and not just the views of the Government. I promise that the closest attention will be paid to the opinions expressed in to-day's debate.
5.57 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to say a few words at this stage of the debate about the Report of the Select Committee that we are discussing this afternoon, thanks entirely to the timely initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, whose speech, if I may say so, gave your Lordships a picture of the whole problem of Parliamentary broadcasting. I should like to say, first of all, how grateful I am to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the kind words he has said about us and our work. I think the members of this Committee realised from the start, when they undertook this inquiry into public broadcasting, that the House had entrusted them with an important and worthwhile task, and they hoped they might render some small service to Parliament by exploring a little further the possibility of projecting its image by means of the modern techniques of sound and television broadcasting. Perhaps I may say about one member of the Committee, the Baroness Asquith of Yarnbury, as she is no longer with us, how much we benefited from her eloquent wisdom, and how thankful we are that she was spared to work
1078
with us until the end of our inquiry. It is a matter of deep regret to all my colleagues that she cannot be with us this afternoon.
I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments while I deal with the contents of this Report. The first paragraph in the Report to which I would draw your Lordships' attention is paragraph 5, dealing with the interpretation placed by the Committee on the terms of reference which they received from the House. As this is a question which may give rise to a great deal of misunderstanding, I think I should quote the chief sentences in this paragraph:
"The Committee were appointed to consider the manner in which the proceedings of the House could best be publicly broadcast for an experimental period … While the Committee are conscious that some members of the House, and indeed some members of the Committee, remain unconvinced of the desirability of broadcasting its proceedings, they have not thought it to be their duty to set out the arguments for and against such broadcasting but have taken as their point of departure the decision in principle in favour of a n experimental period of public broadcasting that resulted from the debate on Lord Egremont's motion. The Committee have regarded it as their function to investigate the manner in which that decision could best be put into effect. It will be for the House to decide whether to endorse or rescind it in the light of the Committee's findings."
In other words this Report is simply a matter of machinery. It is concerned with seeking out an effective means of public broadcasting and is not concerned with the much more important question of the desirability of broadcasting the proceedings of Parliament. I would therefore suggest that it would be perfectly open to any Member of the House present this afternoon, whatever his views may be about the principle of Parliamentary broadcasting, as it was to those members of our Committee who disapproved of Parliamentary broadcasting, to accept the recommendations about machinery contained in this Report.
The next paragraph to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention is paragraph 6, which deals with the closed circuit experiment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, referred in some detail, I was glad to observe, in the course of his speech. The House will recall that we realised that it would be useful to all concerned, to the House

1079
and to the broadcasters if the broadcasting organisations were allowed to carry out a closed circuit experiment, a private experiment here, before any decisions were made on the form which experimental public broadcasting should take. Accordingly, the experiment in television and sound was arranged and took place in February of last year. I am sure the whole House would wish to join with me, and indeed with the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, in paying a belated tribute to the skill and tact shown by the broadcasters in organising that unique event. However painful it may have been to some noble Lords, I am sure they would all agree that it was at any rate unique. We state in our Report that the experiment itself, and the memorandum about it submitted subsequently by the broadcasters, were of the utmost value to the Committee in helping them to arrive at their conclusions.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Report deal with the questions of selection and editorial control of broadcast material. I think this is extremely important. The House will remember that by referring to the televising of some of the House's proceedings, the terms of Lord Egremont's Motion, which gave us our terms of reference, precluded the consideration by the Committee of any proposals for continuous broadcasting, such as exists in Australia. However, anything less than continuous broadcasting raises the problem of selection and editorial control. There are two possible alternative courses which were considered separately by the Committee. One of these is the proposal to create for this purpose, for the purpose of editing and selection, a broadcasting unit employed by the House. The other is the proposal to leave the responsibility for selection and editing to the broadcasters themselves, subject, of course, to the ultimate control of the House.
The creation of a broadcasting unit to deal with the first of these alternatives would involve the direct employment by the House of a staff which would have to look after the broadcasting equipment, prepare material for the broadcasting of our proceedings and make it available to the broadcasters. The Committee thought that the recruitment and employment of
1080
the necessary personnel would involve considerable expense, especially as they would have to be paid all the year round although of course they would only work while the House was in Session. Furthermore, if the material derived from our proceedings was to have any news value it would have to be available quickly for immediate use. I think it is pretty obvious that if the House were to intervene in this process, in this editing process, it would have the effect of much reducing the news value of the material for those preparing daily programmes of current news about Parliament.
The Committee recommended, therefore, that the broadcasting organisations should be treated in exactly the same way as the Press. If public broadcasting were to be authorised, the whole process of selection and editing of the material should be left to the broadcasters. The Committee were conscious that some might say that this solution was over-permissive. We took into account, in making this recommendation, that the Press had in fact operated for many years under a comparable freedom, and that, unlike the Press, both the broadcasting organisations, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., are under specific legal obligations to ensure that what they report is both accurate and free from political partiality. The House would, of course, retain ultimate control over the broadcasting of its proceedings, and its privileges would extend to broadcasting as they do to the reporting of its proceedings in the Press.
I think the most important paragraphs in the Report—and these also, I was glad to note, were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier—are the paragraphs which deal with the recommendations in regard to the practical arrangements for an experiment in public broadcasting. I would emphasise that the Committee were acutely and continuously conscious of the need to keep to the minimum inevitable interference caused by the broadcasting equipment with the normal functioning of the House. In earlier Reports we stated our view that the most satisfactory solution from this point of view, in order not to interfere with the normal course of proceedings in the House, would be to install permanent equipment in the Chamber and to use miniaturised plumbicon cameras, which is a technical expression we became

1081
familiar with, thanks to its introduction by the broadcasters, for televising the proceedings of the House. These small cameras would have been fitted into the panelling on each side of the Chamber; they would have been flush with the panelling, and therefore unobstrusive, and would have made no difference to the conduct of our proceedings and no visible difference to the impression that we have of the Chamber. They would, therefore, have been ideal. They would also have been remotely controlled and in consequence we should have no cameramen on the floor of the Chamber.
But here comes the difficulty. The broadcasting authorities informed the Committee that the capital cost of installations of this type would be about £360,000, and this, of course, was at the time the estimate was made. The running costs would, of course, vary with the amount of use of the cameras, but would also be very substantial. While the Committee recognised, and I am sure your Lordships would agree, that in the long term permanent installations of this kind would be the best means of televising our proceedings, the Committee were unable to recommend them for an experimental period on the obvious grounds of cost. The broadcasting organisations have said that they would not be prepared to contribute to the cost, at least not so long as televising the House of Lords alone was envisaged. In view of this, the only possible course would have been to make the whole charge of £360,000 a charge on public funds, and the Committee naturally did not make this proposal.
There were two other considerations which influenced the Committee against the use of this equipment, besides the consideration of cost. The first is that the Committee were required by their terms of reference to make recommendations only for an experimental period of public broadcasting. The success of the experiment would obviously depend on the degree of public interest in televised debates, and this could not be assessed until the public had had a chance of seeing some actual programmes. If, therefore, the experiment had proved a failure the whole of this money would have been wasted.
The second factor that influenced the Committee was the future of colour television. We were informed that colour
1082
television, both from the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., would be, within two years' time, by 1971, the greater part of their televised programmes. As the ownership of colour sets becomes more general, it is inevitable that monochrome programmes will decline in popularity. While there is no colour camera at present available which would be suitable for use in this Chamber, the possibility of such a camera being invented certainly cannot be ignored. The Committee were also informed that there would be little chance of adapting the monochrome camera equipment for the requirements of colour.
For these reasons, the cost, the experimental nature of the public televised proceedings, and the future of colour television, we were unable to recommend that permanent equipment should be installed in the Chamber. We found that the only alternative course was to adopt the solution put forward by the broadcasting organisations. This is dealt with in paragraphs 16 to 23 of the Report. This proposal was that the experimental period should last for one year during which the broadcasters would be invited to come to the House on occasions which they would choose, on what is described as a "drive-in" basis. That is to say, they would bring the necessary equipment into the Chamber for a particular debate, a debate they thought would be of public interest, and remove it as soon as possible afterwards. This equipment would be similar to that used during the closed-circuit experiment last year. It might be possible to reduce the number of cameras in the Chamber from five to four, and to make a certain degree of improvement in the lighting; but I should be misleading the House—and that is the last thing I should ever wish to do—if I gave the impression that the conditions would be significantly different from those that we have already experienced in the closed-circuit experiment. But there was this mitigating circumstance: the broadcasters did riot expect to avail themselves of the opportunity to televise our proceedings for the experimental period of one year on more than two or three occasions.
In those circumstances, the Committee took the view that the discomfort, which we have all experienced, might be acceptable to the House as the inevitable price

1083
of a public experiment in broadcasting. If the "drive-in" method were adopted by the House, the cost would be limited to an initial capital expenditure of £2,000, and all the remaining costs, the capital costs and the running costs, would be borne by the broadcasters.
The Committee also considered the possibility of a public experiment in sound alone, without television. Their opinion was that such an experiment should be conducted on precisely the same lines as a television experiment. The cost to the House would be limited to an initial capital expenditure of £1,000, all other costs, including the whole of the running costs, being borne by the B.B.C. An experiment in sound alone would, of course, have the immense advantage that it would involve no perceptible change in conditions in the Chamber and, therefore, no inconvenience at all to Members.
Paragraph 24 of the Report proposes that the House should appoint a Broadcasting Committee for the duration of the experiment in public broadcasting. This Committee would act as a link between the House and the broadcasters. For example, it could indicate to the broadcasters debates likely to be of outstanding public interest, and transmit complaints or criticisms from Members of this House. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Report recommend the setting up of a Joint Committee to investigate the reporting of Parliamentary proceedings and, in particular, to deal with problems that may face the broadcasting organisations from actions for defamation. I am glad to say that this recommendation has already been carried out, and that the Joint Committee have begun their work under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, went into a great deal of detail, I thought entirely justified, about the composition and the terms of reference of this Committee. I should like to say only this about it: that in my view the solution of the problem of the law of defamation in relation to the broadcasting of Parliamentary proceedings is an essential prerequisite for any long-term system of Parliamentary broadcasting. Therefore I believe that this Joint Committee of the
1084
two Houses has an immensely important task to carry out.
Paragraphs 27 to 29 of the Report deal with the request by the Newspaper Conference for opportunities for still photography in the Chamber if our proceedings are to be televised. That seemed to be a logical and reasonable request on the face of it. The House accepted the Committee's earlier recommendation that still photographs should be taken during the closed-circuit experiment. The House will recall that some of the photographs taken on that occasion were shown in the Library Corridor, where I think many noble Lords had a chance of seeing them. The Committee gave careful consideration to the request of the newspapers for this facility. They did not take the view that it should be granted, for the simple reason that they could see no way of controlling the use, and therefore of preventing the misuse, of photographs which would be available to the whole of the Press. We were not unduly worried about the British Press; but of course there might be an element in the foreign Press here which could take advantage of this facility to give an inaccurate and misleading impression of how we conduct our business. My Lords, I hope that this short summary and explanation of what I think are the salient points in this Report may be of some assistance to your Lordships in forming an opinion about it.
6.15 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I was a member of the Select Committee whose Report we are considering, and I should like to say at once that I fully support all its recommendations. I do not think I need detain your Lordships long, because the Chairman of our Committee has put the case for the recommendations so clearly and succinctly. May I say, in passing, what an excellent Chairman he was, and pay tribute to him for the Reports which have emanated from the Committee.
Already, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has said, more than a year has passed since we held the closed-circuit television experiment, and I should like to say, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House did, how much in debt we are to Lord Ferrier for giving us this opportunity to discuss it before our memories grow dim. My own personal

1085
opinion was that from a production point of view the experiment was an outstanding success. Technically, both the sound and the picture were excellent; and in my opinion the editing of the various programmes which we subsequently saw was not only skilful, as one would expect, but also well balanced; and I should like to associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to the B.B.C. and to I.T.A. on that account, and also to the staff of the House and the Ministry who made such admirable arrangements.
I think, also, that a tribute is due to your Lordships who had to suffer the unpleasantly bright lights and the obtrusive cameras: the work of the House continued without undue embarrassment, and nobody could be said to have played to the cameras. But good as the production was, I do not think any of your Lordships would be prepared to tolerate on a continuing basis, with the level of the lighting that we had to suffer on the experiment; and I would make it clear, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has done, that the Select Committee themselves never expected that you would have to do so. It was clearly understood all along that this was only for the experiment, and that in the event that public broadcasting of parliamentary affairs became a reality quite different equipment would be needed and would be installed.
The noble Earl has referred your Lordships to the miniaturised Plumbicon cameras, slung beneath the Galleries and remotely controlled, with a lighting level of some 20 foot candles, that would be used. As I understand it, we had to put up with a level of 30 foot candles for the Image Orthicon cameras used for the experiment. The lighting at present enjoys 12 foot candles, and for these new and modern cameras we should require a level of about 20 foot candles, which would be slightly between the two. Such a level, I hope, would not cause anything like the discomfort arising from the 30 foot candles level used on the experiment.
The noble Earl has mentioned the complicating factor of colour television. Will a black-and-white programme be acceptable when public broadcasting really happens? Speaking again in terms of
1086
lighting, the camera that operates for colour television requires a light level of 150 foot candles, which sounds as if it would fry us all. On the other hand, although, as the noble Earl himself said, colour production is making rapid strides, the sales of colour television receivers are not moving ahead quite so quickly. It will be a considerable number or years before even a significant proportion of viewers have colour sets; and even then, those who do will be quite used to seeing black-and-white inserts in colour programmes. I personally hope that broadcasting of television programmes from Parliament would not be delayed simply because we had to wait until there was a colour camera which was sufficiently unobtrusive and would operate with a tolerable level of light. I should hope that, if it were possible to go ahead, we should go ahead with broadcasts in black and white.
I would strongly endorse one other point made by my noble friend Lord Ferrier; and I hope that your Lordships will agree. I believe that it will be quite impossible to go ahead with broadcasting on a full-scale basis without both Houses of Parliament agreeing on it, and without the programmes covering the proceedings of both Houses. But in the meantime the Select Committee propose a continuation of the experiment bi this House on a "Drive-in" basis. As the noble Earl has explained concisely, this would give the broadcasters the opportunity to come to the House on two or three ocassions a year and early out the same sort of experiment as they did with the closed circuit, except that the result would be publicly broadcast. The broadcasting authorities are themselves sufficiently keen on the idea to put up £14,000 out of the £16,000 required to finance it.
It may be that some of your Lordships will not be prepared to put up with further inconvenience on even the few occasions that such further experiments would cover; and of course they are likely to be occasions of considerable public interest. I imagine that your decision will depend on your views as to the ultimate desirability of televising Parliament at all. My own view is that this is a desirable end, and for that reason I support these proposals. Television to-day

1087
is a major means of communication and wields a greater influence than all the newspapers put together. It seems to me inevitable that the proceedings of Parliament should be open to television, just as they are to the Press and the public. In fact, as I see it, such a development is the only real way to bring back a healthy general interest in the work of Parliament. I have no doubt whatever that both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. would use their powers with great responsibility. They certainly showed it in the experiment. The B.B.C. certainly shows it in its radio programmes relating to the work of Parliament, and both organisations have statutory obligations.
The noble Earl and my noble friend Lord Ferrier referred to the legal position of the broadcasting organisations, and to the setting up of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that this would not delay any proposal for an experiment too long, because if it is delayed we may never get any progress at all. I hope that it will be possible to find some way in which the broadcasting organisations are able to risk their neck just for this one year—and, after all, it seems to me that their position is not very different from that of the Press today.
My Lords, I should like to comment on two other points before I finish. One concerns sound broadcasting; and on this I would say that all I have said about television I apply equally to sound broadcasting. I would certainly support any further experiments in this field, and with sound broadcasting, of course, no question arises of any physical inconvenience. I believe that recorded extracts from Parliament would enliven the present excellent programmes broadcast by the B.B.C. But here again any final decision would have to be dependent on the agreement of both Houses. In the meantime, I hope that, even if we cannot continue with the television experiment, we may be able to continue with the sound experiment.
On the question of Press photography, I support the view of the Committee that it should not be allowed. It seems to me that the object behind allowing broadcasting is to enable the public to have a better view of the proceedings of Parliament. Radio and television are
1088
channels of communication, just as the Press is, and in my view should be given similar access; but still photography is not a channel of communication and, by its nature, its exposure is so short that it can never give a balanced picture. Press standards so often depend on news-worthiness, and still photography could easily give a completely distorted picture of Parliament at work—and certainly the flash of bulbs and the click of shutters would be highly intrusive. We are not asked this afternoon to approve the Committee's Report—I am not really sure why. I thought we might have gone a stage further if we had been asked to approve it. But certainly I hope that the sense of this debate will be to approve of the Select Committee's suggestion that we should go ahead with further experiments.
6.26 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Byers, who sat on this Committee, would have spoken to you to-night but he did not think he could be here. Your Lordships have heard already from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that the late Lady Asquith of Yarnbury was a member of this Committee, and I, too, wish to say how sorry I am that she cannot speak in this debate. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, told me that it was because of her death that he realised that this Report had not been debated, and that if something were not done about it all the rest of the members of the Committee might well be dead before it was discussed.
I wonder why it is nearly a year since this Report was received and we have not considered it. I wonder if I do not detect a certain reluctance on the part of the noble Lord, the Leader of the House—and indeed of other noble Lords—to discuss it, and I wonder why this reluctance should be there at all. The Report prefaces its recommendations with these words:
"If the House wishes to authorise an experimental period …".
et cetera. "If the House wishes"—I have a strong suspicion from what I have heard various people say, not in the debate to-night, that there is no very great wish to do this; that there is a reluctance to come to a decision; that there is a reluctance to debate this matter and that this is why it has been forgotten.

1089
I should like to touch upon some of those reluctances and to see whether they measure up to anything very much. The first reluctance that I see is a reluctance of Members of your Lordships' House to face the sort of change that would come about if we had cameras. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said he had not noticed any playing to the camera. Well, I am certain there was not any playing to the camera; but if you once have cameras you will have, not necessarily playing to the camera, but a different style of person; you will have a different style of speech. I do not know whether any of your Lordships saw a very interesting article by Profesor John Searle, who is Professor of Philosophy at Berkeley University, California, in the Spectator last week, in which he was examining the emergence of leaders under television. He described how Daniel Cohn Bendit, who two years ago emerged under television as the leader of the French radical students, had not in fact been the leader before. There had been other leaders before, but this changed when television came on the scene because they were not the sort of people who are favoured by television. This raises interesting implications for the noble Lord, the Leader of the House: what kind of change might he see, or what kind of change might the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition see, in this sort of circumstance? Will they be able to stand up to it? I think this is something we have to face: that we shall have a change; we shall have different kinds of people emerging. This is where I detect reluctance.
The second reluctance arises because although the Committee were not considering the desirability of television, and in fact excluded it from their terms of reference, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, it is the ultimate desirability of whether or not we do this which will make us make up our minds. I thought we had in principle agreed, when we debated Lord Egremont's Motion, that it was ultimately desirable to do this, or at any rate that it was desirable to the extent of trying an experiment. I do not think it matters whether or not your Lordships are agreed that it is ultimately desirable. What is desirable is that we should have a go at trying it out.
1090
Another matter of reluctance is that many of your Lordships have an inferiority complex and are afraid that you might be a bore. Well, had we not better let the editors try it out before we funk it? Yet another ground for reluctance is that of "going it alone". Two noble Lords have already said that they think that it would be impossible to "go it alone" without the Commons coming in. I wonder. It might be an error of taste if we were to go into it without their agreement, but there is sometimes something to be said for committing errors in taste. I believe that we can hold our heads high in relation to the Commons. We have shown a much more liberal approach to many things recently—from hanging to abortion, from homosexuals to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. If we can show this kind of liberal approach to moral issues, can we not also be allowed to lead the way in this matter?
The Commons need feel no jealousy in the matter. Surely their attitude should be: "This is a difficult experiment. Let their Lordships make fools of themselves first." I am not sure that that is in fact their fear; I think that they are jeaous of us in different ways. I do not know if your Lordships knew of the famous remark by Walt Whitman, the American poet, about the "never-ending audacity of elected persons". I do not know whether the Commons want to be obstructive over this. But supposing they wanted to be obstructive—a good many of them wanted this innovation, but it was turned down, possibly by accident, late at night and by one vote—nevertheless they did in fact turn down the suggestion, and those who were defeated might feel that they would like to prevent us from doing it first. On the matter of money, are we to be hamstrung by the fact that money for this has to be voted by the Commons? Supposing there were a noble Lord who said, "Hang the Commons! I will put the money up myself", what then? It might be felt by a good many of your Lordships to be an unsuitable thing to do, but we might give it a second thought, just in case it is not as unsuitable as we think.
I should like to say a few words on the mechanics of the matter: first, the

1091
question of selection and editorial control. I have no fears on this account; it need not be one of the grounds for reluctance that bother your Lordships. The kind of professional expertise which we have learned to regard as always coming from the B.B.C.—or nearly always coming from them—in their programmes on Parliament is something we can look forward to with regard to editing and selection of television in this House. I know that it is a difficult matter; there may be "teething" troubles and it may be much more difficult than is the case with sound broadcasting, but it does not seem to me to be beyond the powers of the kind of people who do this work very well. Next, I do not think that the experiment need have any particular implications for the Press. Television has always had implications for the Press, and if this has implications—so what? As for the point about experience of televising in other Parliaments, I feel that their experiments are not really relevant to us in this country, since very often their form of Parliament is different from ours. Other noble Lords may have seen television at work in foreign Parliaments and I should be interested to hear their comments, but I suspect that it does not have much bearing on what we are discussing to-day.
Then one comes to the drive-in system and the discomfort that this would entail. It has been pointed out that if we have permanent installations there would be no discomfort because everything would be unobtrusive and hidden away and involve little extra lighting, but that if we have the drive-in system your Lordships would find it intolerable. I agree that it would be tiresome. Occasionally there would be bright lights and a certain amount of disturbance, with people buzzing about on cameras, and there would be a good deal of heat. But we put up with this sort of thing on occasions like the opening of Parliament, and it would not be asking very much of your Lordships to put up with a certain amount of discomfort half-a-dozen times a year when the broadcasting companies feel that they would like to televise something which is interesting enough for them to want to do so. It would be intolerable if it were to go on all the time but if it were to be on a drive-in basis at only fairly remote
1092
intervals of time, I do not think it would matter.
As to the matter of the timing of the Pearce Committee, I understand that that Committee is not likely to be able to produce for some time an answer on matter of privilege, copyright and all the highly technical problems which I do not understand. It might take them one-and-a-half to two years to evolve the right answers. We must be reasonably careful over these matters, but I should imagine that some kind of guarantee could be given in matters of privilege, and so on, to prevent accidents to the people who were broadcasting.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I warmly welcome the Report. It is an experiment which we ought to decide to take. It is not all that expensive or uncomfortable or obtrusive, and I feel that matters of privilege and considerations about editing and control can all be overcome. We ought to try it. The one thing that stands in our way is that we might be afraid to implement the proposal before the Commons agree, but I hope that we shall go ahead regardless.
6.46 p.m.
LORD EGREMONT: My Lords, I hang my head in shame as being the person who is at the bottom of all this. I greatly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who talked about reluctance. There can be reluctance on one side, but there is a question of wooing on the other. Slowly, slowly does it. Let us not be in any great hurry over this problem. I welcomed the speech which was made by my noble friend, Lord Ferrier. He asked who was at the bottom of the bright idea to televise your Lordships' House. It all came about as a result of a debate which I initiated in June, 1966. The matter is made plain in the various Blue Papers and Reports—and very good Reports they are. Tribute is due to the Select Committee not only for the able and sensible way in which they have done their job, but also for the able, terse, plain and yet fully explanatory way in which they have reported to us. Our congratulations must go to them.
A few words about my part in the matter. You start a thing going, as I started this one, thinking that it is a bright idea. Then it goes on, and on, and on. I almost feel like a poor man's

1093
Wilkes. Your Lordships may remember from the history books that at the time when everybody else was still rushing about shouting, "Wilkes for liberty", John Wilkes himself was quietly running around saying to everybody, "Drop it. Leave it alone. I left that thing a long time ago." I was never a "Wilkes-ite". I was thinking this evening of saying that I was never a "Televisionite", but, having heard what has already been said here to-day, I have changed my mind. And for why? The reason is that I think television is bound to come, and, when it comes, speeches in this House might be more brief. So I think we should go on preparing for it in the very sensible and sensitive and civilised and imaginative and forward-looking and lively way in which we have been preparing for it hitherto. That is the way we should go on doing it. But let us not be in any great hurry.
6.42 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, it is through the kindness and courtesy of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, that I can intervene for a few minutes. In the 1966 debate I regretted the proposal for the televising of your Lordships' House. Subsequently, I was a member of the first Select Committee under the able chairmanship of the Chairman of Committees, and I signed the Report for the experiment. The experiment has taken place, and my misgivings have not been placated but rather intensified as a result. Having had one experiment, it is now proposed that there should be another experiment for a further year. My main objection remains as it was at the time of the original debate, and perhaps I am the first Member of your Lordships' House to have taken some objection to the proposals in the Second Report.
Parliament, to me, is essentially a debating assembly where, in an atmosphere of intimacy, views are advanced, exchanged and argued. I do not believe that that atmosphere can be conveyed over the television system to the television screen, and its introduction may well spoil and constrict debate. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that television is a new form of communication and is therefore inevitable. With respect, I think that is a non sequitur. Of course you can have new forms of
1094
communication, but they are not necessarily applicable or suitable to a debating assembly.
My second objection is that there is no obvious public demand for this, and I reject the contention that in the interests of the education of a democracy we have a duty to show ourselves at work. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, criticised severely the amount of Press reporting of the proceedings in your Lordships' House. Like all other Members of this House, I too regret that the daily Press does not find more room for reporting our proceedings. But the duty of the Press is to report news. It has no duty to report earnest, valuable, well-thought out debate on matters which are not perhaps of immediate news value; debates which are of immense value to our system of Government, but which have no particular appeal to the daily Press. Hansard is available for those who wish to take full advantage of the opportunities of learning what is argued in your Lordships' House.
"Today in Parliament" on the radio gives a summary sometimes mentioning, sometimes not mentioning, your Lordships' House. On balance, I think it is very fair. But I do not think it is right for us to try to impose ourselves on a not too interested viewing public, because the likely result will be a loud noise of clicking as people turn off their sets or turn to another channel. Trying to stuff the eyes and ears of the public with unwanted pictures and sound does no service to the authority or dignity of Parliament; and the listening figure; certainly do not show any great upsurge when "Today in Parliament" comes on. Indeed, one of the broadcasting authorities recently said, "If only we could get rid of the political broadcasts."
My third objection is that public finance, sums great or small, should no longer be voted for television presentation. We have had some public funds; I believe that we should have no more. I claim that the closed circuit experiment has broadly justified my objections. As one Press man said in his evidence to the second Select Committee, "The last experiment was a dreary affair." I agree. The pictures were not inspiring. They were interesting to us, because we knew our colleagues and it is always interesting to see how your fellow Members look

1095
on the television screen, some of them in action and some of them at times in a somewhat somnolent condition. The dignity of Parliament to outside viewers will not be enhanced by what we saw on the B.B.C. and I.T.V. closed circuit experiment.
There is an objection, which I support fully, against the taking of "stills". They would be unfair, and they might portray moments in Parliament which would give a thoroughly misleading impression to those who saw those photographs. It would be very unfair for "stills" to be taken in another place, and it would be equally unfair to television. I can imagine a Member in another place, who is sitting for a borderline, marginal constituency, appearing inadvertently on television, perhaps tired after an all-night sitting, and sleeping. His constituents would be appalled and it might just tip the balance and lose him his seat. Therefore, both "stills" and a general picture of the House may well be unfair.
The Second Report of the Select Committee is what I call a "turn-down" for regular television, but it proposes for one year a "drive-in" set up, which means television at the television editor's selection; and it is envisaged that this should take place on a few occasions a year. The occasion for those will therefore be chosen editorially by editors, not having regard to the seriousness of the debate or the greatness of the issue, but to the likely audience appeal of that particular occasion in your Lordships' House. That occasion might well be one which we think is not the right one but what they think is right having regard to their TAM ratings.
For these few occasions television cameras, equipment and staff are to arrive. There will be hours of preparation; there will be hours of recording under the lamps for just a few moments final transmission. There will be hours of dismantling; and, as we know from the last experiment, there will be staff to be catered for, to be looked after. I would not call it so much "drive-in" television as "drive in and bread and butter" television, because we shall have them with us a very long time if we carry out this experiment. Furthermore, on such occasions I do not believe that the House would be natural and unaffected.
1096
As to finance, it is recommended that £2,000 of the £16,000 should come from public funds; but if we are to go forward with this second experiment your Lordships must have in mind the possibility (or you would not support it) of permanent television. Therefore, the £2,000 is but the beginning of the expenditure of a much larger sum of public money; and I personally would object to the expenditure of £2,000 now just as I would object to greater sums in the future. If we are worth anything to television authorities educationally, let them pay for the experiment entirely out of their educational votes. If we are worth anything in general interest or entertainment, again let them pay for it entirely out of their general funds. Otherwise, I think we should leave it alone.
My Lords, I have one more point, if I may make it. Going through Parliament now is the Parliament Bill, proposing the reform of your Lordships' House. A new House is envisaged in the future. Surely we should let the new House decide whether they want a further experiment and further money to be spent. Let the present House thank the Select Committee upon its Second Report but take no action upon its recommendations, and let this House remain a Chamber for debate and discussion within itself.
My final words are these. If we start on this "drive-in" television for one year, we start on a slippery slope; and, once started, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, in the long run the horror of colour becomes inevitable. I do not think we look so "hot" in monochrome. In colour, most of us look deplorable—and I for one will fully admit my contribution to that end. I therefore hope that the House will avoid such dangers in the future by not proceeding with the proposals of the Committee contained in their Second Report.
6.54 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for introducing this Motion, and particularly for his broad approach to the subject, which I fully share. I must begin by declaring an interest. I am on the Board of the Yorkshire Television Authority. Although I am not a round-the-clock television viewer, I am a television enthusiast, a fan, with a taste ranging from Sir Kenneth Clark to Ken

1097
Dodd. Somewhere along the line between education and low-brow entertainment, surely, a niche can be found for the House of Lords. I do not even take the view, expressed by the Yorkshire Post after the experiment in this House, that continuous televising of this House would be embarrassing or would reduce Parliament to a laughing stock. Perhaps it would be a good thing for the general public to have a proper idea of just how boring, as well as how interesting, Parliament can be. People must learn not to be put off by the tediums of the Parliamentary democratic process. Dictatorships always look more efficient, and this makes them all the more dangerous.
My Lords, I was very glad to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I was particularly glad to hear what he had to say; and, with the greatest respect to him, I must say that I disagreed with practically every point he made. I could not have disagreed with him more. So I was particularly glad that he spoke before I did. Personally, I agree with what I think the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, said in the Select Committee: that if we televised the proceedings of Parliament it might create more interest on both sides, in Parliament and out; and it would certainly help to animate those who took part.
Personally, I am all for keeping up the pressure for communication in the country and in the world, and to-day, television has the greatest part to play in this. Television is the miracle, long-distance educator of to-day. I hope that technological advance will make its reception possible in all the more remote and developing countries of the world. I think, really, that it should be installed automatically, as with plumbing. I hope that it will not be many years before, in these developing countries, there will be television built into the houses as freely as people in affluent countries enjoy it, so that the people can see the scientific wonders of this age even more when they do not know how they are brought about. The more instant and far-reaching the communication, the better chance we have to arrive at some kind of truth as to what goes on in the world.
In general, my Lords, the camera is to be trusted, even though occasionally it can distort a picture. More important
1098
the sound-track cannot lie. Whatever impression you make, you have only yourself to blame. In this, television has a distinct advantage over the Press, where a slant can always be introduced. I suppose that in the process of editing a particular television programme a slant can also make it less objective. Although, in general, I dislike any kind of censorship, I am a little bothered by the Select Committee's agreement that the House should hand over all editing rights to the television teams. I know that this is a very difficult problem, but I do not think it has as yet been solved by the B.B.C. or I.T.V.; and we have still some way to go to get fairer news presentation in the media of the Press and television.
To me, my Lords, this looks over-permissive, and I cannot square it with the sentence in paragraph 9 on page v of the Committee's Report, where it says:
"Nevertheless it is clearly necessary that the House should retain ultimate control ever the broadcasting of its proceedings".
Where do the powers of the Broadcasting Committee, which the Select Committee recommend should be set up, come in? I have not got this at all clearly. Nor can I see why the House should make any contribution to the cost of the installation of equipment. The witnesses called from the television companies gave very unconvincing answers to Lord Byers, who raised this matter in the Select Committee, when he queried the justification for this part cost. During a broadcasting session of the House the whole performance is there for them to relay. I know that there is still the arduous task of editing, but at least the news has not to be dug out; not have special envoys or actors to be paid.
In spite of my strong belief in the ultimate benefits of more and better television, after reading the Report of the Select Committee I would give television, at this time, a low priority. I am not clear whether there has been any firm suggestion for the time to be allocated to television or for the frequency of such broadcast sessions; the television companies appear to be very lukewarm. The primary object of broadcasting. Parliamentary proceedings should be educational, to strengthen democracy. If the programme is too short, it is inadequate and may be misleading. Adequate time and coverage is absolutely essential for

1099
an objective account of what goes on in Parliament. I think that it is too expensive to embark on this scheme at the present time, and therefore I would say that it is too soon to do it.
When it comes to sound broadcasting, however, that is another matter. I think that much could be achieved by recording debates in both Houses of Parliament. This is not nearly so costly, and there is everything to be said for going ahead with it. The television experiment in this Report was very worth while and will stand us in good stead in some years to come when we can afford to televise the proceedings of Parliament on a really proper basis.
7.2 p.m.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, I rise to intervene briefly in this debate as a member of the Select Committee. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has drawn attention to this Report which until this afternoon seemed to have fallen like the proverbial lead balloon. This question of televising the proceedings of the House seems to be rather an emotive one giving rise to strong feelings both for and against. I hope I am not betraying a confidence if I say that the Committee, which was appointed to consider only method, was frequently on the edge of debating merit even though the House had approved a policy in its vote on July 15, 1966. No doubt the House can reverse itself after the experiment and after studying the Committee Report. My purpose is to express the hope that it will not do so but will accept the very limited proposals of the Committee which were unanimously agreed and put them into practice without much further delay.
To take sound broadcasting first, the recommendation of the Committee in favour of an experimental period of public broadcasting is probably less controversial, as indeed emerged from the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, than the proposal for television. But there is an objection which has been raised, and which was raised again this afternoon, to proceeding with either proposal at the present time. It is that the House of Lords should not act without the Commons. I should certainly agree with this view if it were suggested that the arangements for broadcasting should be on a permanent basis; but this is not the
1100
proposal. All that the Committee recommended was that there should be an experimental period in which the proceedings should be televised on infrequent occasions.
The situation might be different if there was a feeling among the broacasting authorities themselves that the experiment limited to the House of Lords would be unacceptable or without interest. But on the contrary they welcomed the prospect. Indeed the first Report of the Services Committee of another place on broadcasting its proceedings states categorically that the desirability of broadcasting the proceedings of this House is strongly urged by the B.B.C. Moreover, the broadcasting authorities were prepared to back their judgment with cash by paying seven-eighths of the cost in the case of television and three-quarters in the case of sound broadcasting, leaving only a small amount to be found by Parliament. There has been objection this evening to any payment on the part of Parliament. But this proposal relates to payment for the permanent installation; that is to say, the infrastructure, which would be a permanent part of the equipment in this House. It seems to me to be a quite reasonable proposal that Parliament should be asked to pay for that. The total cost, £3,000, is not a large sum even in these cost-sensitive days.
Apart from the broadcasting authorities, four leading journalists were consulted by the Committee, and though they were not fully agreed they were generally in favour on a variety of grounds of broadcasting. Indeed, the public reaction about the experiment in this House was generally, and perhaps unexpectedly, favourable. This is shown by the tenor of the Press comment which, although there were obviously dissenting opinions here and there, was on the whole very favourable. The situation might again be different if some forward moves were imminent in another place, but so far as I know the situation there is frozen probably for the rest of this Parliament.
Then there is the question of the convenience of this House. It is certainly a disappointment that the small cameras which can be operated by remote control and which require a level of light one-third lower than the existing cameras are not yet fully developed; and they would in any case be extremely expensive to install. The experiment would

1101
therefore have to continue with the physical presence of operators and cameras in the Chamber. Although the broadcasting authorities were able to hold out the prospect of some amelioration of the lighting, they admitted that this would be relatively slight. It did not seem to me, during the experiment, that the physical presence of cameras and operators affected the delivery or the quality of the speeches, but the light was certainly more trying. However, on the infrequent basis on which the experiment would proceed it seems to me that the inconvenience is tolerable and the disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages of further experiment.
Then there is the question of privilege. A great deal has been made of the risk of being penalised for breach of privilege if an experiment were to be made without express protection. I think there has been no difficulty about the current forms of reporting proceedings of the House. While there are special features in respect of television, it appears that the risk that the authorities are likely to run is a very small one, as indeed emerged from the memorandum on the subject submitted to the Select Committee on Broadcasting in another place. It seems to me that the broadcasting authorities, if given the opportunity, could quite safely "have a go" before the Joint Committee on Privilege has reported and action is taken on the Report. which appears to be a rather lengthy perspective.
My Lords, I do not know where the further initiative lies in this matter. My conclusion is that if you are against the idea of televising the proceedings of the House it is easy enough to find practical objections against doing anything. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, produced a whole bagful of them. But if you are in favour, or even if you are neutral, those objections appear to me to be of a kind which could easily be overcome. Television may or may not be a dangerous thing, but it has come to stay and in my personal opinion the sooner this House begins to come to terms with it, the better.
7.10 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, so many points have already been made—and I do not believe in repetition—that I propose to stick to just
1102
three or four in support of the view that I had when we had our vote and I voted against television. I sat on the two Select Committees, and I have not yet been persuaded by what we heard then, interesting as it was, that this is the moment to televise the proceedings of the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, very kindly quoted from the Report. I cannot think where she found the quotation: I think that it must have been taken out of context.
But, looking at the matter first from the permanent point of view, the whole of the estimates in the Reports about costs are based really on fiction. They are based on the possibility of having Plumbicon television apparatus which at the moment is non-existent and is still being developed. Whatever the costs were eighteen months ago, they are bound to be at least three times as much now. Therefore all the costs shown in this Report are now totally unreal from the point of view of a permanent setting.
Secondly, there is the advent of colour television. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that that would be a disadvantage here. I think that the beauty of this Chamber, and the Throne, with the Lord Chancellor sitting on the Woolsack, could counterbalance many of the defects of the Members elsewhere—
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Not the Chamber, my Lords; it will be the people in it.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I am all for colour television if we are to have our proceedings televised at all; and it seems to me that it would be ridiculous to put in a very expensive black-and-white picture installation if it would have to be changed before very long to a colour one. I think that to spend a great deal of money on exhibiting ourselves would not at present be very welcome to the public at large. I do not think this is really the moment to go a "splash" in this way—though if the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, sands good, and he wishes to pay for the whole thing, one may reconsider the position.
The question of time was another point brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. How much time should we

1103
be allotted if we had a permanent arrangement? The time given would be ten minutes—two minutes of explanation and eight minutes of television, out of a quarter of an hour, of which the balance would go to another place. To spend on eight minutes of television the amount of money that we should have to spend seems to me to be at the moment quite out of proportion. Also, I feel that it would be invidious for us to go ahead with a permanent installation if the other place is not willing to come in with us. Having been there myself, I do not feel that television is suitable for the other place: indeed, it would be far less suitable for them than it would be even for us. I do not see any prospect of this going ahead, and I am very doubtful whether we should go forward alone.
My Lords, the great advantage of having a permanent installation is that people forget that it is there. When they do not realise that it is present, television does not change their manner of speaking or their approach to a subject. Any of us who have been delegates to the United Nations, where there is permanent television, will know how quickly people forget its presence. So there is that advantage about a permanent installation as against a "Drive-in" system. I do not like the idea of a "Drive-in". I think it would be extremely inconvenient for Members of your Lordships' House, and it would be extraordinarily difficult to choose the subject to be televised. If the broadcasting authorities are going to go for the three subjects mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henley—hanging, homosexuality and abortion—we shall get a very curious reputation in the world at large; and I am afraid that it is exactly that sort of subject that would be chosen.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness to ask her one question? I am very interested in what she was saying about the the United Nations. She said that there is continuous television. Are selections made, or is it a continuous transmission?
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, selections are made, but television is there all the time, and unless you watch for the red light you are not conscious whether it is on or off.
1104
As I was saying, a "Drive-in" basis would be highly uncomfortable; the lighting and the heating in this Chamber would be very oppressive. And I think the choice of subject would be extremely difficult to make. We all know that sometimes we anticipate that a debate will be extraordinarily interesting. Such a debate might be chosen for televising, but might fall completely flat; whereas on another day, when the debate had not been chosen, there might be a most marvellous debate which would have made an excellent subject for broadcasting.
I should also feel very sorry for the usual channels, who would have to choose both the Members who were going to speak and the order in which they would speak. That would, I think, be an arduous responsibility and a difficult job.
I feel, therefore, that this is not the moment to go forward. We need to get the question of privilege worked out, and we have to wait to sec how technical developments come along, both in Plumbicon and in coloured television. And from the point of view of the general public, I do not think that spending a very large sum of money at the present moment would be popular.
7.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to join most of your Lordships in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for raising this subject, which I think certainly should have been raised, and for doing it with such immense clarity and liberality; and for his almost opening remarks that he felt that those who took part in the debate were entitled to speak on the general issue of the desirability of the thing rather than on the mechanics of it. The only things that I shall have to say, and I shall try to keep them short, are of a very general nature and deal with the whole question—which I think is going to be an increasingly important and interesting one—of what one could call "government by image." This House still being a part of the Parliamentary system may, I think, be included in "government". On the question of image, two views have been put tonight. They are age-old ones. One can be summed up in the words from the Book of Proverbs:
"Where there is no vision, the people perish."

1105
I suppose, therefore, a democratic Government might go out. The other, earlier one is not as many people think:
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image",
but, if you make it, you must not bow down to it or worship it. I think there is a real danger of worshipping images, whether television images or any image in the Press nowadays.
I do not believe that at the moment, whatever there may be at some future date, there is any great danger of the image of this House being worshipped in a way that a Divinity or even a "pop" star might be. In fact, many of your Lordships may think that the position is the reverse. It seems to me, however, that two questions are concerned here. The first is, how televising may affect the image which the public—not those who come to this House who have a different one, but those who stay away—would have of our proceedings here. And the second, and, to my mind the more important one, is how far the knowledge that one is speaking not only to your Lordships (who are unbelievably sympathetic, even to Back Bench Liberal Peers, if they do not speak too long) but to the general public would affect and alter the character of debates. I should like to say a few things about each of those.
I come to the first question, what effect I believe it would have on our image. The first point is, will television distort to any extent what goes on in this House? My Lords, of course it will, and any form of reporting does. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, made one remark in the Select Committee which I must say shocked me. It was a true remark, I am ready to believe. She said that she has almost never been reported in the newspapers; and that in itself, seems to be a distortion of our debates. I think that anybody who has made a speech and found that a sentence has been selected by the papers to represent that speech cannot help but feel that distortion does happen. I have been reported twice. On one of those occasions I ventured to differ from the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein. He said that the object of this House was to fight the Devil and all his works. I said that while that might be the object of individual Members, if the House as a whole followed his advice,
1106
followed him into the Lobby and hit the Devil for six, six would not be enough, because there are Seven Deadly Sins, only one of which is covered, and I should be too busy. I was reported next day as saying that I entirely agreed that the object of this House was to fight the Devil and all his works. That seems to me to be an example of how, by selecting one sentence, quite a trivial one in this case, anything can be distorted.
On the question of how the image of your Lordships' House as it exists in the public mind at the moment might be distorted for the worse, I can only personally answer, like one of Mr. Wodehouse's characters who, when shown a picture of himself as a baby and asked if he was really as ugly as he looked, said with all honesty, "I don't see how I could have been." I say this, after visiting a play now current in the theatre where your Lordships' House is represented to the public in a way which one would not expect. One might say that any theatrical representation in which anyone can make a speech, has to wear a coronet and robes and speak from the middle of the House, would not be taken very seriously as a fair satire on your Lordships' House. It is taken seriously by critics and by the Sunday Times. I would recommend noble Lords to see the things they have said. It is taken as a devastating criticism of your Lordships' House. I feel that the most distorted television version of a real debate would strikingly correct that opinion.
More important is the question of how far noble Lords would alter the forms of their speeches if they knew that the debates were being televised. I was going to draw your Lordships' attention to the interesting argument in the Spectator, which my noble friend Lord Henley mentioned. It made clear that in events like student risings the people who come to the fore are not those selected by the students but people like Mr. Cohn-Bendit, who might have been chosen by the students but who at a certain stage are found to have television personalities. And there is a danger that Peers might be inclined to adapt their speeches to accord with that idea. How far that will apply to any House in future I do not know; but I do not think that your Lordships' House as at present constituted would be seriously worried by that. I believe that

1107
most noble Lords would make the same kind of speech as they made before, if they were unconscious, or were not made conscious the whole time, that they were being televised.
It is here that I should have a great many more doubts as to the wisdom of this experiment. If we are to be submitted only on select occasions, on special gala days, to television cameras which it is almost impossible to forget, then it will not be a fair representation of your Lordships' ordinary debates. In spite of that, I still believe it might be worth having an experiment to see what happens. After a limited period we should be in a better position to make up our minds, but, on the whole, I am rather lukewarmly in favour of the general recommendations which the Committee have put so admirably.
7.27 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, my only excuse for intervening for a few moments in this interesting debate is that I have had a certain amount of personal experience of this particular medium. In fact, I venture to say that probably I have had a greater experience of it than any other Member of your Lordships' House. I should like to begin by saying how much I agree with what the noble Lord. Lord Ferrier, said about the reporting in the Press of debates both in your Lordships' House and in another place.
On more than one occasion I regret that I have had to draw your Lordships' attention to the price of gold which, whatever views anybody may hold, is an important subject. All the speeches that I have made on this subject and all the questions that I have asked have been virtually ignored by the popular Press, and indeed by every part of the Press; but when I put down a Question about whether the gum on 5d. stamps was sticky enough it was headline news in every newspaper in the country. So far as the Press is concerned, gum beats gold—and I think that is all wrong. I think that we have cause for complaint about the reporting of important debates in both Houses of Parliament.
The enormous difficulty of this question of televising the proceedings of the House can be summed up in one sentence: Who is to choose who is to be
1108
televised, and why? I refer particularly to the character of debates in both Houses. Churchill once said to me, "First-class debate is animated argument." I think that he was quite right. And that is very difficult to reproduce on television. We do not know when the animated argument is going to arise. Often, there are set speeches, more frequent in this House than in another place, following one another, in which nobody attempts to answer anybody else. We cannot be sure when the animated argument will arise, and that would be the public interest in our proceedings.
There was an attempt made at animated argument on television, first on the B.B.C., and secondly on I.T.V. I was a participant, with Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. A.J.P. Taylor and the late Mr. W.J. Brown, in both these experiments. The first was called "In the News" and the second, "Free Speech". I know from the rating figures that both programmes were extremely popular. But they were smashed relentlessly and ruthlessly by the machine politicians of the day. The members of both the Party machines went first to the B.B.C., and then to the and said: "These chaps express only their own views. We are not getting a proper chance. They argue with each other, but express their own views, and we are not getting a chance to express the official Party point of view." The B.B.C. went so far as to say: "You can put two of your recalcitrants or"—if I may use the expression—"bloody-minded members on the team, but you must have an orthodox member of the Labour Party and an orthodox member of the Conservative Party expressing the orthodox Party view ". Within a month the programme was dead.
I would just say this. Animated disdiscussion has now dropped out from broadcasting to such an extent that it has been, for all practical purposes, replaced by "pop" singers and by most irritating interviews. I make an exception here. I am not referring to the interviews given by our present Ambassador in Washington, under the title of "Face to Face", which I think was probably the best programme ever produced on any television in the world: it was absolutely first-class. But these hurried interviews given by harried politicians who have just landed from heaven knows where in an aeroplane, and are

1109
only concerned to say nothing that can go wrong, are an irritant and so far as I can see do no good to anybody.
So far as the Prime Minister is concerned, I think he would be well advised to adopt the example of General de Gaulle; to appear alone on television not more than two or three times a year and tell us what he is trying to do, and how he proposes to do it. And I think the leaders of the Opposition should appear at least once a year for the same purpose, and with the same objective. In my view, these ridiculous Party broadcasts, which bore everybody to tears and are absolutely useless from a vote-catching point of view, should be abolished altogether.
Animated discussion, to which I have referred, occurs sporadically. You cannot foresee it; it is unexpected. The cameras cannot be prepared to catch it when it takes place unless they are there all the time. In the end, boredom prevails, as it must do if we are to do our duty in Parliament. On October 30 of this year I shall have sat in Parliament continuously for 45 years, and I can hardly describe the eons of boredom that I have had to sit through in both Houses. Yet, at the same time, I would not say that they were all unnecessary. I think they are necessary to conduct the public business of the country. But the television viewing audience should not have this inflicted on them. At least, the Members of another place are paid a substantial salary for doing it, and we are paid a pittance—and we should not be here if we were not content with that. But why the public should have these eons of boredom inflicted upon them is beyond me.
My Lords, I detect in your Lordships' House quite a number of gentlemen who resemble Soames Forsyte, but I venture to suggest that none of you could put over on the screen Soames Forsyte as well as Mr. Eric Porter, and I think you had better leave it to him to do so. The so-called interviews at Heathrow or elsewhere are absolutely useless from a public point of view. They would be far better put out officially by the Government Department concerned.
This television business is a technique which is unique, and it can only be acquired, as in every other game, by prac-
1110
tice and experience. You cannot learn a game overnight. It has nothing to do with speaking in Parliament or speaking on a platform. It is an art (if you like to call it that) by itself. When the lights go on, as under the proposal of tie noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, they will—even if they are subdued red lights—let me assure your Lordships that you will not be wholly unaware of the unseen eyes and the subconscious effect of then. You cannot be. You will stand up, suddenly you will see a red light in the corner, and you will make a quite different speech. A noble Lord spoke just now of the effect of sincerity. You can be sincere if you know that you are being televised and are talking straight into the camera. But when you are speaking in a Chamber like this, and you suddenly see a red light go on, believe me, my Lords, you change: you will not make the same kind of speech, and you will not make the sort of speech that is required in Parliament.
I should certainly have the opening of Parliament televised, especially now that colour is coming in. It is pure pageant, which the British people love and at which they excel. Otherwise, the only advantage that I can see in televising the proceedings of either House is a tremendous diminution in the sale of barbiturate sleeping tablets. If a guarantee could be obtained from the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. that the proceedings of Parliament would never be recorded until 11 p.m., it would at least leave Parliament unscathed, and at best put many people to sleep long before they would otherwise go to sleep without artificial aid.
7.43 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I must apologise profusely for not being present for the opening speeches, and particularly must I apologise to my noble friend Lord Ferrier who kindly gave me a précis of the points that he had made. I hope that I shall not repeat things that have been said, other than when I do so deliberately. For instance, I find myself wholly in accord with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has somewhat stolen try thunder in the main point that he made.
My working day consists, and must consist, largely of evaluating what is interesting, memorable or entertaining to the general public. I would not say that

1111
nine-tenths of the proceedings in this illustrious Chamber are not entertaining, but that 99 per cent. of events here are stupefyingly boring in those terms. This is not a criticism, but an objective viewpoint, because it is a fundamental part of this House that because it is willing to undertake the detailed legislation of the day-to-day running of the nation it should be by definition non-entertainment. The time proposed, 11 o'clock at night, with which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, ended his speech, will, I suppose, ensure that only the most dedicated educationalists will watch such a programme, in the hope of finding something to tell the class next day. I cannot think of any other reason to listen to this programme on the radio or watch it on television, even on a "Drive-in" basis.
There is that very relevant quotation in the Report itself with which your Lordships will be familiar:
"It will not in the nature of the case be possible to make any accurate assessment of the extent of public demand until the public have actually had an opportunity of seeing them."
I want to lead from that into what I feel is the danger of starting an experiment that is an experiment and not the result of a decision made. I wonder what effect it will have on the morale of everybody here if it can be shown conclusively that the public appreciation of what we have to say is negligible—because, honestly, it is. I repeat, this is not criticism. The things that are said continually in this House are measured opinions of extremely wise men; but they are not interesting.
Another point that has been raised, I know, is that it is not a corollary of a debate's being newsworthy that it is important. This point is certainly covered in the Report. So, even on a "Drive-in" basis, the public get a (shall I say?) slanted view of the House proceedings. Say even three times a year (the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has certainly covered this point) it would be far more glamorous than it is in fact, when this House's strength is its application to detail. Finally, I should like to raise a speculative point—and I think that here I am on dangerous ground. I refer to the dilemma that the editor of such a programme would have when confronted with the speech of a non-voting Peer, if
1112
that should occur. For should such a Peer give a fluent, attractive and newsworthy speech, would the public be given due warning that the speaker had no realistic, meaningful function?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Why should he think that a non-voting Peer should have no useful function?
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I said "meaningful"; I do not think I used the word "useful".
I woud conclude by making a plea that all these dilemmas could be resolved if a really good documentary were made of the whole proceedings of Parliament. I am not sure whether this has ever been done. I mean a detailed, long affair, for showing both on television and in cinemas, and intelligently and creatively made. A documentary would have all the flavour of Parliament, the occasional drama, and all the cool logic to which this House can rise. It could be demonstrated. People would appreciate it, and I hope that by such a documentary the standing of this House, and of Parliament as a whole, would be raised.
7.43 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I had not intended to speak at this hour and I shall speak for only a few moments. I have been rather provoked to do so by the last two speeches—the last two very effective speeches, if I may say so: because I have a notion that some people may be attracted by them and that the matter may be determined by a criterion which, to my mind, is not the appropriate one. I think there is a very simple criterion in this matter; and that is whether or not our decision will advance the cause of Parliamentary democracy. That seems to me the only question that has to be answered. I do not believe the answer to that question is furnished in the least by deciding whether or not we shall provide a useful entertainment to the public. I am prepared to concede, since I sincerely believe it, that we shall provide very little in the way of competition for the scintillating performances of my noble friend Lord Boothby. I think that if there were two channels and he were alone on one of them and the whole of this House were

1113
on the other, the TAM rating of this House could not compete with his. I do not think that that is the criterion.
LORD BOOTHBY: Thank you very much.
LORD GOODMAN: I make that remark with absolute sincerity. I think the criterion at this moment is that, although Parliamentary democracy in this country is not in any way in danger, it is under challenge, and it will certainly not be advanced by a failure to disclose its true nature to the community at large. No good will come of not televising it. People will certainly not think the more of us for not knowing about us. We must accept the risk and grasp the nettle of making known to the community at large exactly what we are like. We must let them know whether we are dull or brilliant, scintillating or long-winded. We must take the risk of showing them Parliament at work. It may in the end be a dangerous risk to take. I think it is a very difficult problem, but, on margin, for that reason and that reason alone, I should be in favour of adopting this Report.
7.45 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we have just had some of Lord Boothby's animated argument, but one of the points that has impressed me to a large extent about this debate is really the comparative lack of interest that the House of Lords collectively is showing in this subject. The answer of course has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. We are not purely concerned with whether the House of Lords likes the idea of public broadcasting or is itself interested in it, but basically with whether it is for the good of Parliamentary democracy—not, of course, that in this matter the House of Lords' opinion is not going to be decisive. It is on that basic point that we have to come to a view. As I said at the beginning of this debate, if any member of the Government can have a moment when he is not speaking on behalf of the Government, this is it. Indeed, my interest originally probably is rather similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in that we were once both B.B.C. producers, and we start from that point of view—admittedly, in my case, in the days of "steam radio".
1114
A decision was taken by the House on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Egremont. I am sorry to see that he is not here, since he started all this. I really think he ought to be here to follow it through. I did not hear him say that he was not going to be. However, a decision was taken in fairly general terms that the House
"would welcome the televising of some of its proceedings for an experimental period as additional means of demonstrating its usefulness in giving a lead to public opinion".
One could carry out a little examination of that particular sentence, but none the less we have before us a decision of the House. When the Select Committee came to consider the matter they proposed that there should be a closed circuit experiment. We are basically considering that experiment to-day. We are not compelled to take a decision one way or the other as to whether we wish to have a further experiment as at this moment. We are really saving what we think of the experiment we have had, and on the whole we are getting the feel of the House with regard to the next step.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that he must have a rather suspicious mind. Nobody has stopped this question from coming up. I admit that I forgot all about it after about the autumn, but very properly the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has reminded us of it.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I was only suggesting that it was a kind of Freudian forgetfulness.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I always find the expression "Freudian" a useful diversion from any serious argument on the subject. Why did not the noble Lord, Lord Henley, bring A up himself? There was not a word from anyone. The House of Lords is not just run by the Government. Let me stress this. This question is for individual Members of the House of Lords, and we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for having raised it.
I must admit that I am still rather in the state of mind of, I think, the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington. I should like to be convinced that broadcasting, and television in particular, is likely to play an important part so far as both the House of Lords and the House of Commons are concerned. And it is of course,

1115
difficult to form an opinion simply on the basis of the one experiment that we have had. I think it may be difficult to form a definite opinion even if we have a live public experiment, because that experiment will of course have a certain news value in itself: it would be the first time Parliament had been broadcast, and it is not until Parliamentary broadcasting and/or television gets on to a permanent basis that it will be possible to assess its contribution, either to the presentation of this House and the improvement of its reputation, or indeed its contribution to Parliamentary democracy. In considering this I feel that we cannot, as the noble Lord. Lord Sherfield, suggested in a powerful speech, throw away some of the objections which have been made.
There are some real objections, and I should like to state some of the anxieties that I have. In stating these, however, I am not necessarily saying that we should not go on with this experiment. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, drew attention to something which does not come out quite as explicitly in the Report as I should like; namely, the very limited amount of television or, for that matter, sound broadcasting that there would be. This raises really severe problems. We have had arguments as to whether we should leave it to the broadcasting authorities or whether we should ourselves seek to control the programmes. My personal view is that I am with the Committee in believing that one would have to leave it to the broadcasting authorities. But I am not sure that when the time came we would in fact be content to leave it to the broadcasting authorities; I believe that there would be a great deal of anxiety and in the end we would have the sort of experience to which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, referred. There is a real dilemma here, and I see no solution to the problem of achieving a balance between the wishes of the House and of the broadcasting authorities.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend for a moment, I would simply say that it would not only be anxiety: it would be absolute fury and intense jealousy that would be aroused on all sides of the House.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, there may be some in this House who are without jealousy, but none the less the House might feel, and not only in personal terms, that injustices were done. Indeed, I felt this on occasion when I listened to or watched some of the programmes in the experiment. How is one to achieve a balance in relation to a particular debate? There was a debate during the experiment in which my noble friend Lady Phillips was speaking for the Government and a number of noble Lords criticised the Government's policy in regard to sport. I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, took part in that debate. On the whole, most of the speeches were critical.
Does one achieve a balance by giving equal presentation to the Government point of view and then to the rest? Or if one gives a true reflection of the nature of the debate is that in fact achieving a balance of argument? This is a really serious dilemma; this is the problem that confronts the editors of the programme "To-day in Parliament" when they are not quoting the actual words of the speaker or reproducing it, and the voice of the reporter is to that extent less forceful when selecting and summarising an actual passage, and it can even be misleading. Frankly, I do not see any obvious solution to this problem, but this is not to say that we may not have to live with it.
If I may make one other comment on my own observations of the experiment, I will then say what I think the answer in the long run will have to be. The other impression I got from the experiment was how extraordinarily slow the proceedings were in your Lordships' House. Everyone seemed to rise in a tired way—well, perhaps not everyone—and somebody asked a question and a Minister thought for a moment and then replied. It would not have seemed slow in the House but there was not the impression that all speakers had a great deal of vitality. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, probably speaks at 220 words a minute, and certainly I should think the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, speaks at 250 words a minute. I suspect that I speak at only about 130 words a minute. I am advised that the average speed of a professional B.B.C. commentator—someone who is giving a report—is probably

1117
around 180 words a minute, and if we speak rather more slowly then rather less content will be broadcast. So in fact it is arguable that certainly on sound radio we might get less material put across.
We are then confronted with the question of what sort of programme on television might be broadcast. I think the general opinion has been that the longer experimental programmes that the B.B.C. and I.T.V. put out at the end of the day were really too long and were not very interesting; and I rather gather that the broadcasting authorities themselves prefer the shorter programmes, and would even like excerpts. The part that was interesting to me—and this is a personal opinion—was the actual continuous live reproduction. It was much more interesting to me to be able to go in and see somebody actually talking in this House, and I suspect—and this may be a heretical view and people may say that it would be a terrible thing—that ideally if wavelengths were available and cash was no object one ought to have continuous sound and television broadcasts going on for both Houses of Parliament. It would have been interesting if the public could have seen some of the recent proceedings (I will not say in which House) and the sort of progress that was being made.
As I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, and others would agree, once television is going along as a regular thing people are likely to become accustomed to it and they will not then pay much attention to the cameras. So my long-term view is that we shall never get it quite satisfactory until such time as somebody has invented cheaper forms of communication, perhaps based on developments of lasers, and so on, by the means of which we can have extra wavelengths.
We are considering to-night a particular set of proposals and certain action has already been taken by the Committee. In fact, we have set up a Joint Select Committee to deal with questions of privilege and defamation. That Committee is now at work and I do not think that one can just brush it aside. In my view, that work must be completed. But the part of the proposals which have been put forward by the Committee with which I am really in disagreement is that it shall be open to the broadcasting authorities to come into your Lordships' House at
1118
their own choice on a "drive-in" basis. The particular occasions when they carried out their experiment were on days when the House was engaged in not particularly vital activity. It was rather a sporting week, I remember. We had a debate on sport; then I dealt with a Question on skiing in the Cairngorms, and then we dealt with street offences, which is good characteristic stuff for your Lordships' House. But what in fact would the broadcasting authorities choose? One day when they would have chosen to come in would quite certainly have been the debate in your Lordships' House on Rhodesia, and it would have been quite intolerable at a moment of most critical importance, when the actual vote was also of very great importance, if, in an overcrowded House, we had had these cameras and these tremendous lights. My own view is that it would not be possible to accept that the broadcasting authorities should have the right to choose when they would come into your Lordships' House.
I am expressing a personal opinion on this subject, as are others of your Lordships, all, I hope, contributing to one another's knowledge. It is a great pity that we cannot have, except at quite an excessive cost, these new. remotely-controlled plumbicon cameras, but I fully accept that that is "not on". My own feeling is that just because there are difficulties and arguments against, arguments that I find rather powerful, we ought not necessarily to abandon the idea of going on with either sound broadcasting or television. But my personal preference at this stage would be to carry out some live experiments in sound before we went on to television.
There has been some discussion as to whether we ought to keep in line with the House of Commons in this matter. I do not think this is a subject of desperate importance. The House of Commons provided us with the money for our previous experiment. But I think it could be rather embarrassing if either House were to be televised or broadcast without the other. Therefore my feeling is that, on balance, we should keen in line with the House of Commons.
There is one other point where I disagree with the Committee. Although I again see the arguments, which are rather similar, I am not sure whether

1119
it is practical to ban still photography if you are going to allow continuous photography in television I think we have to be extremely careful, if we agree to go into this. We have to accept a lot of consequences, and it seems to me that if we have people taking moving pictures in or reproducing them from the House, it would become too ridiculously illiberal to say that you cannot put a still photograph in a newspaper, however undesirable noble Lords may think that is. This may, of course, be an argument against television. But I do not think it would be possible to prevent still photography unless we introduced some new and elaborate form of House of Lords privilege to do so.
I said at the beginning that I was speaking personally, and all I have done is to give my personal impressions related to the experiment. I think we shall now have to consider where we proceed on this matter. My personal view is that we ought to press on, certainly with sound broadcasting. In my opinion, before we went into a live television broadcast it would be necessary to test the opinion of your Lordships' House properly, by means of a vote. The House is somewhat divided on it at the moment; it has not had an opportunity to express a further view since noble Lords had the opportunity to see the previous closed circuit experiment. But I do think that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, can feel that his debate has served the purpose he wanted. It has put the matter back in front of us. I think it behoves the House, not just the Government, to see that it does not get overlooked. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that there was no Freudian or other reason why it did not come up earlier. Noble Lords are sometimes busy and sometimes have other interests. It will be necessary for noble Lords, if they want to see this experiment going on, to stimulate the interest of other noble Lords. The House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, as it is to the Committee; and with that rather ambiguous and indecisive view I will close.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord does close, I hope he will forgive me for intervening, and I beg his pardon. He has not answered one absolutely crucial question. He said that
1120
the debate on Rhodesia, which was crucial in this House, should not have been televised, and I am in complete agreement with him. But who is to decide that question of what debates should or should not be televised?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that is one of the fundamental dilemmas. The reason why I said it should not be televised was because of the nature of the obstruction and interference of the cameras and lights. Quite honestly, I do not know the answer. It would probably have to be managed in the way in which we manage everything in this uniquely anarchic society of ours—through the usual channels, the feeling of the House, the selection of suitable days and all that, to be considered perhaps by a Committee presided over by the Lord Chairman of Committees. I am sure we should not allow it out of our hands.
8.7 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I have the fullest sympathy for noble Lords who are waiting for the next business, and I will be as brief as I can. But they will forgive me, I trust, if I pick up a few threads, particularly after hearing the interesting speech from the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I regret that we started this debate so late—perhaps if we had not done so there would have been a fuller attendance, and there would have been a greater appearance of interest. As it was, a number of noble Lords came to me before we began and said "I am very sorry; but I must go". I think the attendance in the House at this hour is not fully indicative of the interest that has been taken in this matter.
The question of brevity may have rendered me ungracious in not referring to the facilities which the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and the usual channels, placed at my disposal for this debate—and, indeed, to the encouragement that I received from them. And, not least, the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in our debate, is greatly valued. Also, I failed in my speech to express thanks, on behalf of the Committee, to the noble Earl the Lord Chairman, who presided over our deliberations for so long and with such patience. I would also thank all the speakers who have taken part in this debate. I am sorry

1121
that I had to miss the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, and the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, but I heard all the rest; and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that I think we have had an animated discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, said that the newsworthiness and importance of a debate were not necessarily the same thing. This is one of the points that I wished to make in my speech. This is one of the troubles about the Press as a medium for conveying to the people the problems which are so important to our democracy. It is a pity. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the real solution is that there should be continuous broadcasts from both Houses. One noble Lord, who regretted that he could not be present to-day, but who is very knowledgeable in this matter, asked me the other day whether I realised that it is within the bounds of possibility, in terms of experience today, that there will be so many channels available, that every station in the British Isles may be capable of receiving a continuous broadcast live from the Commons and the Lords, at discretion, without interfering with other programmes. And that may be the answer—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Of course there is a new horror if there is a continuous broadcasting. People have been concerned about inconvenience, but if there were continuous broadcasting noble Lords would then, if they were so minded, seek to speak at peak viewing times. This might be an advantage in regard lo ensuring a better attendance in the House later in the evening.
LORD FERRIER: Yes: if we confuse, which I have always tried not to do, the difference between the entertainment and the educational value, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, made such a strong point. I am glad to draw attention to that, because one of the factors which arise from this Report is that the shorter the edited edition the higher percentage there is of compère. In a 5-minute edition there are four minutes of compère; in a 30-minute edition there are something like 5 to 10 minutes of compère. This is a most inter-
1122
esting problem in regard to the dissemination of proceedings.
As for the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, to the red light, of course, he is interested in the subject and knows more about this business than I do. But I think I am right in saying that in this Chamber the instruments did not have the "glow-worm", and one could not tell which camera was operating at any given moment.
A NOBLE LORD: That is so.
LORD FERRIER: I can speak from experience of another assembly at which I have spoken before the television cameras. Perhaps it is because I am not so practised as the noble Lord, but I am far more interested in addressing the audience in front of me than to worry about a red light going on in a camera, which I believe is the case in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, surely that would make it much worse, because everybody might then think that the lights were on all the time; so nobody would speak naturally.
LORD FERRIER: But that was the case in the experiment here: there were no lights and, for all we knew, all the cameras were on all the time. I do not believe that the point in regard to knowledge that the cameras are on is altogether valid. Of course, the televising of the Opening of Parliament ceremony is a quite different matter.
There is only one other point that I have it in mind to make. I agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye that in "Yesterday in Parliament" the B.B.C. do a good job; and the programme is balanced as between the two Houses in a reasonable way. One of the complaints that I have made in the past, though it has now largely been met, is that when Parliament sits and if there is nothing interesting to go into "Today in Parliament" they say "The House of Lords also sat", and that is all that people want to know. The question of Party political broadcasts is quite a different matter, and I agree with other speakers that they might be abandoned.
My Lords, it only remains for me again to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, to agree with the

1123
noble Lord the Leader of the House that this debate has been worth while, to apologise to those who are waiting for the next business for having taken so long, and to request of your Lordships that my Motion may be withdrawn.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HORSERACE BETTING LEVY BILL
8.14 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Determination of annual scheme for bookmakers' levy]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("by the 1st November preceding") and insert ("six months before")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and with this Amendment I should like to discuss No. 3. These two Amendments, which go together, have two effects. The effect of the first Amendment is to require that if agreement cannot be reached about a scheme for a levy period a report of the circumstances must be made to the Home Secretary by the 1st October preceding the beginning of the period in question—not the 1st November, as at present provided in the Bill. The second Amendment gives the Home Secretary power to vary the date by statutory instrument.
The levy payable for a levy period depends on betting transactions in the previous financial year. Whatever method is adopted for calculating a levy, it will be useful for bookmakers—indeed, useful for everybody—to be able to estimate well in advance what their future levy commitments will be, so that if they wish the bookmakers can regulate their business accordingly. It follows from
1124
this that it is in the bookmakers' interests that a disputed scheme should be reported to the Home Secretary as early in the year preceding the levy period as possible, so that he can determine the scheme soon enough to give the bookmakers adequate notice of the amount of the levy. Ideally, a full year's notice ought to be given. Clearly, that is not going to be possible, either for the current year or for the ninth levy period, beginning on April 1, 1970. It has, however, been represented to the Government (and we accept this) that November 1, which is provided for by the Bill is later than necessary even in relation to the ninth levy scheme.
In these circumstances, the first Amendment, in effect, substitutes October 1 for November 1. That is the best we can do at the moment, although it is not much. The second Amendment gives the Secretary of State power to amend that date by statutory instrument. The proviso contained in the second Amendment ensures that the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board have as a minimum at least three months' notice of any change so as to give time for their consultations. The date cannot be amended so as to make it arrive before the 1st January in the calendar year preceding the commencement of a levy period, since practical convenience can hardly require the Secretary of State to commence his task earlier than that. I hope your Lordships will agree that these Amendments are sensible and in the interests of all concerned. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State when in accordance with this section he is determining a new scheme or directing that the current scheme shall continue shall consider—

(a) the extent of the need for the time being for contributions for such purposes as are specified in section 24, subsection (1), of the Act of 1963;

(b) the capacity for the time being of bookmakers to make contributions for such purposes; and

(c) the capacity for the time being of the Totalisator Board to make such contributions.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, standing in my name

1125
and that of my noble friend Lord Derwent. We feel that this Amendment gives effect to what the Government of the day in 1961 had in their original Act in relation to the bookmakers. I am not going into this Amendment in great detail, because it has been debated heavily in another place, and we have gone over the points on our Second Reading. Basically, it puts back into this Bill what was contained in Part I of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, in Clause 27(5)(a), (b) and (c)—and paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are exactly what I have put down in this Amendment. So when in another place the Minister concerned informed my right honourable friend Sir David Renton that he considered the drafting was bad, my right honourable friend, to my mind fairly truthfully, said that he thought this was something of a slur on the Parliamentary draftsman, not to mention the two Houses of Parliament of that time. So what is before your Lordships here is nothing new; it is something which was in the earlier Act.
The point has been argued that this reference to "capacity to pay," which is really the crux of the matter, is unnecessary. The Home Secretary has taken on himself in this Bill various extra tasks in place of what have been loosely called the "Three Wise Men". We do not understand why he should not be able to have these three paragraphs in as a guideline. As I see it, it does not hurt him, it does not hinder him, it does not obstruct him in any way to have them in. If I thought they did anything to hinder him, I would be the first to agree that they were perhaps unnecessary. But they do not do anything; they will merely give comfort to the bookmakers that the Home Secretary will have to consider these things.
You will notice that we have omitted from the wording of the 1963 Act the two words which also prefaced paragraphs (a) to (c): "and compare". We felt that a duty to compare would lead to certain anomalies which were possibly not easily understood; because what was he to compare with what? He was not told that. So far as contributions are concerned—referred to in paragraph (a)—the Secretary of State, advised by his advisers, will easily be able to find plenty
1126
of fruitful suggestions as to where the money should be spent. But I do not think it is unreasonable for us to ask that when considering how the money shall be spent—and heaven knows! there are always so many things where money can be spent wisely in this matter of encouraging the horseracing industry—he should be required to consider the capacity of the people who will pay.
These smaller bookmakers are unhappy about these words being taken out. They have been in the Act, and have never caused any trouble. I know we are told that this is not necessarily a matter of payment out of profits; that it is the intention of the Government and the Levy Board that this should be a levy which will be passed on to the—I hesitate to use the word—consumer, to the punter. In fact, it will be an extra levy of 10s. in every £100. I do not think that whether it is taken out of profits or turnover really matters: the Home Secretary is still able to consider the bookmakers capacity to pay.
I am a very ignorant person in these fine matters of keeping books; I have never been able to beat the bookmakers in my life, and I do not suppose I ever shall. But I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is extremely expert in these matters. He is frequently quoted in another place as being expert in these matters—though I believe that he himself pointed out that a £100 bet is probably immediately laid off to the extent of £80, so that £100 turnover is promptly a £180 turnover, and so it goes on. I can see the permutations to which this can lead. If this were all, I cannot see that the Secretary of State is being asked to do too much in having to consider the bookmakers' capacity to pay. These words have been in before; they have been debated before; the Bookmakers' Association want them. I do not understand why they cannot be in now, because if they were in at least it does not bind the Secretary of State: they merely ask him to consider. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to accept these very simple suggestions. I beg to move.
8.25 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: I want to intervene for a very brief moment to say that, despite the immensely persuasive way in

1127
which this Amendment has been presented, I hope for a number of reasons that the Government will not accede to it. First, it is by no means the case that this Amendment has caused no trouble. Anyone acquainted with recent events is well aware that it has caused an enormous amount of trouble. Secondly, the fact that similar words have been in the previous Act, and that it may be wounding to Parliamentary draftsmen and to both Houses of Parliament to suggest that they ought not to have been there, does not in my view alter the completely incontrovertible fact that the words are open to endless difficulties of interpretation. One has only to look at them:
"… the capacity for the time being of bookmakers to make contributions for such purposes".
Which bookmakers? Rich bookmakers or poor bookmakers? Efficient bookmakers or inefficient bookmakers? Provident bookmakers or improvident bookmakers? Bookmakers who gamble themselves or bookmakers who eschew gambling? The words are totally incapable of being construed.
Anyone who addressed his mind to what capacity of what bookmaker he had to take into account in relation to these words would be totally defeated and would retire to a desert island. I think the words are incapable of meaning. There are obviously attractions about the idea of introducing into any fiscal Statute or provision a consideration of whether a man is capable of paving the tax. Unfortunately, however attractive the idea may be, it seems to me an impossibility to introduce such a consideration, for it would mean that all taxing legislation would come to a rapid end. For these reasons, it would be quite impossible and completely useless to introduce these considerations. I say that without any at all to the bookmakers, a most worthy section of the community but certainly not deserving of the very special consideration that would be introduced by preserving these words.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, for moving this Amendment, for three reasons. The first is that it enabled him to describe me as an expert in beating the bookmakers. I do not
1128
know why I have earned that title. I can only think it is because I never try to beat them; I do not bet. That is the only way I know of beating the bookmakers. The second reason is that it brought forth from him a marvellous phrase, the phrase being "what has been loosely called 'the Three Wise Men'". I have been conjuring my imagination to understand how you can call three wise men "loose". The third reason was that it has brought forth a two minute tour-de-force from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which has left me with virtually nothing to say. Such being the way of Ministers, that will not stop me from speaking for seven or eight minutes, although I know my noble friend, Lord Bowles, feels unhappy about it. I am thinking, however, about the bookmakers, and I consider they are entitled to an account of the Government's views on this particular subject. As the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said, what is before us is not new; it has been before us before—indeed, I could add "several times", because a similar Amendment was before the Committee in another place, was inserted into the Bill and was taken out again by the Government at the Report stage.
Clause 1 of the Bill transfers the responsibility for determining the scheme to have effect for raising the levy, when there is a dispute between the bookmakers and the Levy Board, from the independent members of the Board to the Home Secretary. Under the Act, when the independent members of the Board make this determination they are required to "consider and compare" all three of the factors set out in the Amendment, namely, the needs of racing, the capacity of bookmakers to pay and the capacity of the tote to pay, and I quote, "in the light of that consideration and comparison", to make their determination. Under the present Bill no similar obligation is imposed on the Secretary of State to consider these factors. The effect of the Amendment would be to impose such an obligation on him. It is not appropriate to retain this requirement in transferring the responsibility for determination to the Secretary of State. As guidance to persons exercising an independent function who were not answerable to Parliament or to any Minister, the requirement has a certain utility; in particular it served in existing legislation

1129
to draw attention to the need to compare the resources of the bookmakers on the one hand with those of the Totalisator on the other—one is only about 5 per cent. of the other. But this guidance is unnecessary when the function is transferred to a Minister, particularly since the very nature of the determination requires him to take account of these considerations. I emphasise this point to the noble Lord.
The fact that the guidance was unnecessary would not of itself make it essential to oppose this Amendment, although it is always a good principle to avoid burdening the Statute Book with unnecessary verbiage. But the objections to this Amendment are stronger than that. The Bookmakers' Committee have made great play of the "capacity to pay" provision in their dispute with the Levy Board, claiming—although they have not put their claim to the test in the courts—that a levy based on turnover rather than profit cannot take account of "capacity to pay" and is, therefore, illegal. Of the two possible bases of calculation profits allow considerable latitude of interpretation whereas turnover allows none.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, stated almost every variation except one. He did not mention the crooked bookmaker and the straight bookmaker, but, apart from that, he demonstrated how utterly impossible it is to follow "capacity to pay" as an objective guide to the amount that the bookmakers should pay, whereas turnover is an objective guide. Although it is possible that laying off, and that kind of thing, may operate, with the original £1 stake circulating, the vast total turnover which we are considering, something of the order of £800 million a year, gives room for that kind of circulation. There is no evidence that the calculation of the levy by reference to turnover has failed to take account of capacity to pay. But during the past year the bookmakers have relied heavily on this argument, and large numbers of bookmakers—I think stupidly—have withheld their declarations so that contributions are seriously in arrears. In practice, therefore, what is claimed to be a safeguard has been used as an obstructive device.
The one way that the noble Lord can help to destroy—I am sure that this is
1130
not his hope—what we in this house all have at heart to assist the sport of racing is to support the bookmakers in this particular matter. There is no need for me to pursue it. We have been entirely fair in this matter, and if there should be a dispute the Home Secretary will take an objective view. He will take into consideration all the factors which ought properly to be considered. We ought not to encumber him with the kind of fetters which this Amendment would impose.
I should like to leave this last thought with the premier Baron of all England. It is that over the years the Tote have contributed rather more than 30 per cent. of the levy, although their share of the betting turnover is less than 5 per cent. We are not asking bookmakers now, nor are we likely to ask them in the future, to make a contribution which they cannot afford, but we are asking for a contribution which they can afford to pay for the benefit of racing as a whole, from which they, more than anyone, most certainly must benefit. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his lucid explanation as to why he feels unable to accept the Amendment. Before withdrawing the Amendment, I would draw attention to one or two points. The first is to assure the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that I are well aware of the trouble which this Amendment has caused. If I have not been aware before of the strength of the Jockey Club lobby, I am now well aware of it. The whole point of my Amendment has been answered in basic terms by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in a reasonable and satisfactory fashion. I still feel it to be upsetting that neither House of Parliament has been able to think of some way of satisfying the Association of Bookmakers. I accept that the present Secretary of State, and Ministers such as the noble Lord, have every intention of being fair, and there is no conceivable Secretary of State in the offing on either side who would not be fair. Nevertheless, the Bookmakers' Association and book-makers in general are far-sighted people, and they know that although this generation of politicians is reasonable and decent, they do not necessarily know what

1131
will be the position in 25 years' time when their sons may be running their bookmaking businesses. We wanted to put in these words in order to give some guidance to a future Home Secretary who might not be as well-disposed as is the present Secretary of State.
I accept that there have been occasions when the words "capacity to pay" have been used for disruptive actions. I also accept that one or two of the bookmakers who have not paid are using the phrase "capacity to pay" as a delaying tactic for not paying. But it is a pity that we have not been able to think of something to cover this matter. I end by adopting what was said by my honourable and learned friend, Sir David Renton, in another place, that the powers to raise levy should be described in such a way that justice not only is done, but is seen to be done by those who pay. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
("(7) The period of months specified in subsection (2) of this section may be varied by order of the Secretary of State substituting, in relation to any levy period beginning after the date on which the order comes into force, a different period, whether longer or shorter, but not longer than fifteen months:
Provided that where the effect of an order is to increase the said period of months, the order shall not be made so as to come into force later than three months before the beginning of the increased period.
(8) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under subsection (7) of this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and include power to vary or revoke the order by a subsequent order.")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 2 insert the following new clause:
Levy Board's costs on appeal by bookmaker against assessment to levy
".—(1) The following subsection shall have effect where, under section 28 of the Act of 1963 (assessment of individual bookmakers to
1132
levy), a bookmaker appeals in respect of an assessment notice issued by the Levy Board in his case, and the appeal, having been referred to a tribunal established under section 29 of that Act, is either dismissed by the tribunal or abandoned by the bookmaker.
(2) If the tribunal thinks it just that the bookmaker should make a payment towards expenses appearing to it to have been reasonably incurred by the Levy Board in connection with the appeal, the tribunal may certify accordingly and the Board shall he entitled to recover from the bookmaker as a debt due to them the amount specified in the certificate."
The noble Lord said: Subsection (6) of Section 29 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 enables the appeal tribunal to award a bookmaker his costs against the Levy Board where his appeal against his assessment is successful. The section includes no comparable provision enabling the Levy Board to receive their costs from the bookmaker when he abandons or loses his appeal. I am sure that that omission must be offensive to the sense of justice of all Members of the Committee, and the purpose of this Amendment is to put the Levy Board on the same footing as the appellant. It provides that where a bookmaker appeals to the tribunal and then either abandons or loses his appeal, the tribunal may fix a figure representing the reasonable costs of the Levy Board incurred in connection with the appeal, so as to enable the Board to recover that sum from the unsuccessful appellant. I am quite sure that this is a necessary Amendment which accords with our sense of justice. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
LORD GOODMAN LORD GOODMAN moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 4 insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Section 24 of Act of 1963 as to appointment of members of Levy Board
".—(1) In consequence of the amalgamation of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, section 24 of the Act of 1963 (constitution and membership of Levy Board) shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In section 24(2), for paragraphs (b) and (c) (which provide for two members of the Board to be appointed by the Jockey Club and one by the National Hunt Committee) there shall be substituted the following:—
'(b) three members shall be appointed by the Jockey Club (incorporating the National Hunt Committee)'.
(3) In section 24(3) (duration and terms of membership and removal of members) for the words 'subsection (2)(b) or (c)' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (2)(b)'.
(4) In section 24(4) (temporary substitute members)—

(a) for the words 'the National Hunt Committee' there shall be substituted the words'(incorporating the National Hunt Committee)'; and

(b) for the words 'subsection (2)(b), (c), (d) or (e)' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (2)(b), (d) or (e)'.

(5) Any person who at the passing of this Act is, or acts as, a member of the Levy Board by virtue of appointment under section 24(2) or (4) of the Act of 1963 by the Jockey Club or the National Hunt Committee shall be deemed to have been appointed by the Jockey Club (incorporating the National Hunt Committee).".
LORD STONHAM: Will the noble Lord consider discussing Amendment No. 6 together with Amendment No. 5?
LORD GOODMAN: Yes, I think that will be convenient, as Amendment No. 6 is entirely consequential on No. 5. Amendment No. 5 is, I imagine, one of the least controversial Amendments ever to be introduced into either House of Parliament. It is entirely clear from the text what it is designed to do. Very briefly, before the amalgamation of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, the Jockey Club had two members on the Levy Board and the National Hunt Committee had one. As they have now amalgamated it is desired that the amalgamated body should have three members. That seems to me incontrovertible in logic and in arithmetic, and I commend the Amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
LORD KILMANY: I rise only for a moment to support the Amendment. Perhaps I should declare an interest, though not a financial one, because I am one of the members of the Levy Board. I was
1134
appointed as a representative of the National Hunt Committee and I am really speaking against my own interest in supporting the Amendment, because as things stand I believe I could continue indefinitely as the member of the Levy Board appointed by the National Hunt Committee, because there is no National Hunt Committee to appoint anybody else to take my place. That would obviously be unsound, so I cordially support the Amendment which leaves the position exactly as it was in the original Act. For all material purposes, there will be three representatives of the racing authority and in practice two of the three will concentrate principally on Jockey Club affairs, while the other one of the three will concentrate on National Hunt affairs.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
The Title:
LORD GOODMAN LORD GOODMAN: I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Line 5, at end insert ("and to amend section 24 of the said Act of 1963 with respect to the appointment and removal of members of the last mentioned Board.").—(Lord Goodman.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before nine o'clock.