§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERI beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 1 to 6, inclusive.
This is a Proviso which we think is quite unnecessary. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that the words of the Proviso actually restrict the registration of films. Films can be dealt with and exhibited without being registered, but we submit that they would only be wanted on the register for quota purposes. The people who own these British films will want them to go on the register and we shall probably, as a result, see the kind of film which is being circulated at the present time as British films. It is a pity that so much of the production of British films which goes on should only be in the direction of war films. One is asked, "Have you been to see the battle of Coronel film"? and so forth. I have not been to see the Coronel film, but I am told that it is a very remarkable film and of very good photography. I dare say that may be so, and that the same may be said of other war films which are being produced by British producers. The great majority of British films which 742 have been successful have been war films. It seems to me that it is quite likely that we shall go on permitting the production of British films only of a military character, and it will be possible to put these back on to the register again and again as old films. It would be much better to prohibit registration altogether than to leave in the hands of the Board of Trade the power of giving a value to selected films by permitting registration for quota purpose. This is a substantial Amendment, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept it.
§ Colonel DAYI beg to second the Amendment.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) that in late months the majority of films that one has been asked to see on "spec" have been films of the character described by the hon. Member. The proviso which we move to delete would defeat one of the objects of the Bill.
§ Sir B. CHADWICKThere will be many films, old films, which will have a certain exhibition value, and no doubt many of the renters of these films will wish to register them to enable them to 743 count for quota purposes; but it would never do to give that facility to the renter merely because he happened to possess an old film and that he should be able to register it, unless the Board of Trade beforehand have some kind of supervision over the film and know that it has an exhibition value and that it should be counted for quota purposes. Otherwise, you would have renters unloading on to the quota all kinds of dud films which really would not achieve the object of the Bill, namely, the stimulation of the production of British films. With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough in regard to war films, of course, we have war films and it is an absorbing subject on which to produce a film, but that will gradually wear away. I should be very sorry to see war films continue in the future. No doubt there will be many other films, some of which we know today, which will have an exhibition value and which could reasonably be counted for quota, although they are old films. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. KELLYI think the arguments used by the Parliamentary Secretary are all in favour of accepting the Amendment. He mentioned that a renter might have some old films and that he would proceed to register them. If they are British films and they are registered to count for the quota, it would be to his advantage, but if they are foreign films then it will not be to his advantage to have them registered. I am surprised that the Government have not seen that the Amendment is much more in favour of their idea than anything he has put into the Measure. I hope that even against the opposition of the Government we shall go into the Division Lobby in order to show them that if they cannot make their Bill into the thing which they desire it should be, it can be made so by the Opposition.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI rather sympathise with the Parliamentary Secretary. I have often made out a good case for a different Amendment and an uncommonly good case against the Amendment that has been moved. The Parliamentary Secretary's arguments are in favour of this Amendment. The arguments may have been against some other Amend- 744 ment, but they were certainly in favour of this Amendment, and I think they were very conclusive. Just consider, all old films can be bought and sold and shown without Government interference. This proviso says that they shall not be registered. I say "hear hear" to that. Why should they be? There is no need to register. All that this proviso says is that these films shall not be registered. Do we want this proviso 1 It reads:
Provided that a film which has been exhibited …. before the commencement of this Act shall not be registered—and then come the fatal words—unless the Board of Trade …. determine that the registration of the film shall be allowed.The only films which will want to be registered are British films. There is no need to register foreign films whatever. British films, if they can get on the register, can count on the quota. Every old British film will want to get on the register, every single old film that has ever been produced, because if they are on the register then renters will spot them and exhibitors will buy them and they will have an enormous market open. They will be the cheapest stuff and fill the quota. Therefore they will want to get a place on the register in order to find a purchaser. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade says, "Yes, but the Board of Trade will stop them." They are not going to be put on the register unless the Board of Trade agrees. Is it fair to put the Board of Trade in the position of making or destroying the value of film property? If they can get on the register it is worth £50 or £70 to a film; if they do not they are not worth a half-penny. You leave that to the Board of Trade. I do not think you should. The Board of Trade is to decide whether an old film is adequately patriotic. We have heard a good deal about war films, with a hero and heroine running down the trenches. The number of heroines who seem to live in trenches is beyond computation. All these come before the Board of Trade, and the hon. Member now in charge of the Bill has to decide whether she shall be perpetuated or not. The answer is in the negative. I do not think it is fair to the hon. Member himself. He is not a capable judge of a French heroine or a British heroine. I do not think any Member of this House should be placed in 745 such an invidious position. I do not like the proviso at all, and what I like least about it is the idea that the Board of Trade should have powers which have such a very big financial effect upon the people who come before them. In nine cases out of ten a petition to be put on the register will be turned down and the people who are turned down will inevitably think that the man who gets through with his film has done so by favouritism, if not something worse. The worst form of vices will come in under this proviso, which is a proviso that nobody wants.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESWhile I am generally in favour of this Bill I find myself a little alarmed by the defence of the Parliamentary Secretary on this Amendment. He stated that the Board of Trade has to decide whether certain films have an exhibition value or not. Under what part of the Bill will that power be exercised 1 Is it to be the Advisory Committee or will there be some special body set up to see these films and decide whether they have an exhibition value or not?
§ Mr. SOMERVILLEThe right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has made out an elaborate case for the Amendment, but he left out some things. He left out the words:
after consultation with the Advisory Committee hereinafter mentioned.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERThat is a subsequent Amendment.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe Amendment is to leave out the whole proviso.
§ Mr. SOMERVILLEYes, and that leaves out the words I have quoted, and I am going to give the reason why they should not be left out. The advisory committee will consist of people who are qualified to judge, representatives of the renters, exhibitors and general public, and when that advisory committee is of opinion that the film is not of the requisite standard it seems to me a good reason why that film should not be registered.
§ Mr. STEPHENI want to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that as there is no vital principle involved in this Amendment he should leave it to a free vote of the House. The progress the Government are making with this 746 Measure to-day should encourage them to accept this suggestion. It has been made perfectly plain that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is not at all' convinced by his own arguments, and no one who has been listening to the discussion on this Amendment has been convinced by the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary. Those who have been privileged to hear the points put from this side and the counterpoints from the other side must be agreed that the balance of argument, if there is any argument on the other side, is in favour of the Amendment. The suggestion has been made by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) that there is a tremendous amount of authority in the fact that there will be consultation with the advisory committee. This advisory committee is going to be a very important body indeed. They are going to have a great deal of work to do in connection with this Measure. I suggest that this is a needless burden to impose on this Committee. These old films, if they are left out of account altogether, can be bought and sold and exhibited, and if you allow them to be registered, if they get the approval of the Government, what advantage is there in the registration of these old films? I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give us a single instance where any advantage has been gained by the registration of these old films.
The whole purport of this Measure is to increase the production of British films, to make British films a serious contribution to film production. If you are to allow old films to be registered, you will take away the incentive to the trade to produce new films. You will give a premium to the most stagnant minds in the trade. They will depend on the old stock, and they will try to get it registered. Suppose that nine-tenths of these old British films are refused registration. The Board of Trade is going to be up to date; the advisory committee is going to deal smartly with the industry, it is going to put pep and push into this business and get production going. Suppose we say that 90 per cent. of the applications for registration are refused. The result will be that much ill-feeling will be aroused against the 10 per cent. that succeed. The 90 per cent., when they cannot get satisfaction from the Board of Trade, will come before Members of 747 Parliament, and each Member will have his work immensely increased. It will be like a new Department on pensions, or Ministry of Labour unemployment benefit cases. We shall be asked, "Why did not this fine old British film, 'Peter the Painter,' get registered by the Board of Trade?" There is really nothing in favour of this part of the Bill. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should leave the matter to the independent vote of Members of the House, in which case I am confident that there will be no Division, because no one will want to retain this Clause in the Bill.
Captain ARTHUR EVANSIf the House is to gather anything from the criticisms of hon. Gentlemen opposite it is that, even before the constitution of the Advisory Committee is announced, hon. Members have no faith in that Committee at all. It seems rather curious that hon. Gentlemen should attempt to criticise a Committee of this importance even before the members of it are announced in the House. The last speaker referred to old films. If He visits the cinema very often, as I have no doubt he does in Glasgow, he will appreciate the revival of films in the same way that he appreciates the revival of certain very entertaining plays. The general public has often a great interest in the revival of a film which has a historic or romantic interest. I suggest that this Advisory Committee would act in the same way as the present Board of Control, which is presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). All Members of the House would have more faith in an impartial Advisory Committee than in a Committee which is established purely by trade interests. All the arguments which we hear from hon. Members opposite are against trade interests or trade committees. This Advisory Committee will be absolutely impartial. Trade interests will be represented certainly, but at the same time the general public will be represented, and those gentlemen who represent the public, I feel sure, will not be apt to allow a film to be registered if they do not think it is of sufficient interest to the public at large. We have no ground to assume that the Advisory Committee will allow films of second-rate 748 quality to be registered, if they feel that the films are being registered only for the sake of fulfilling the quota.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESI asked a question and the Minister—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)The hon. and gallant Member has already spoken.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESOn a point of Order. I did not make any speech; I merely asked a question. If you rule that my previous essay was a speech, may I now ask a question? I asked the Parliamentary Secretary who was to be the actual official. Is the whole Advisory Committee to attend, to see whether these films have an exhibition value or not? If so, it appears to me that they will have nothing else to do.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Member is now leaving the interrogative.
§ Mr. WALLHEADA question has been asked in a very conciliatory manner, and in most eloquent terms by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), as to whether this matter will be left to a free Vote of the House The right hon. and gallant Member for Newastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) was equally convincing in his speech. The arguments are overwhelming against the proposal of the Bill. If the Advisory Committee is to spend its time chasing the various heroines who run up and down the trenches, particularly in the first months of its initiation in its new job, the Committee will have no time to attend to the new films that ought to be crowding in. We do not know who the members of the; Committee will be. It may be that they will meet with as much faith as the Broadcasting Corporation Committee when it was set up. There is no guarantee that the Committee will secure any more confidence than other Committees set up on other occasions. It should be the object of the Government not to allow wretched old films to come on to the list, but to get them out of the way, and to fill up with films better produced. An hon. and gallant Member opposite mentioned historic films. I went to see one. It was said to be first class fare. I saw its revival. I discovered that the "stone" pillars that fell down in 749 frightful collapse floated about in the water into which they fell. I do not know if it was a British film. At any rate, it was not up-to-date, and we ought to keep out films of that sort. The idea of school children witnessing films depicting scenes which are in defiance of all natural laws, and against all that they are taught in school, is altogether wrongs We ought to keep out such pictures in order to make way for new and better pictures, and I hope the Minister will respond to the request that there should be a free Vote of the House on this subject.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI speak as one who is neutral on this Bill, and who almost voted with the Government on the last occasion. I have no strong opinions on the Bill, and I believe I might be convinced of the Government's case, but the Government's own representatives have not given me a chance. I listened to the hon. Member for East Cardiff, who put his case in a straightforward and eloquent fashion, but I cannot say that he convinced me. He complained that old films might not be shown under this proposal, but there is nothing to prevent them being shown. All we are asking is that they should not count for quota purposes. If they have historic or romantic interest, nobody suggests that they should not be shown. But the Advisory Committee and the industry ought to concentrate on new ideas and new methods. That is the issue.
Captain A. EVANSI am sure if the hon. Member for East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) were in the House, he might be very much annoyed at the hon. Member's remarks.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI am sorry if I have mistaken the hon. and gallant Member's constituency. I should have said South Cardiff. I ought to have known that the East is generally very wise in its choice of representatives. The President of the Board of Trade is now present, and he can take upon himself a responsibility which possibly his less distinguished colleague could not take—and I say so without any intention of slighting in any way the Parliamentary Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, tried to conduct these proceedings in a spirit of fair play, and in continuance of that 750 spirit I ask him to allow us a free vote on this important question. I think all the arguments have been in our favour, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot allow a free vote on the question, I hope he will state the reasons for the Government's insistence on defeating this Amendment.
§ Mr. MAXTONI thought that either the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary would have responded to the exceptionally courteous approach which has been made to them across the Floor of the House on this matter. I had not the inestimable advantage of sitting on the Committee which dealt with this Bill upstairs, and I came to the discussion here with a fresh mind. In the early stage of this discussion I frankly confess I did not grasp the point at issue. I was to some extent misled by what, I presume, were technical or trade terms used by the defenders of the Bill—terms such as "dud" films. I presume that is a highly technical description of some particular grade or class of film, but the word is new to me. I have listened carefully to all that has been said, and I am amazed that the Government should resist the appeal we are making to them. If I appreciate the position, this Bill was introduced by the Government on the plea or the pretext that if the British film industry could be protected against certain forms of competition that industry would boom and millions of people who cannot now find employment in the mines and the textile industry would then be employed in producing films.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI presume the hon. Member is coming to the point as to whether there should be any restriction on registration or not.
§ Mr. MAXTONI have never been away from that point. My hon. Friends here are appealing to the Minister on the ground that if old films are to be included they certainly will not stimulate the production of new films. They are asking the Minister to have the courage of his convictions. The right hon. Gentleman is regarded in this House as the man who will push the principle of Protection to its limit. He is no milk-and-water Protectionist; he is a whole-hogger and only he has regard to 751 the feelings of his colleagues in the Cabinet; he would push his principle to its extreme limit. Here, on this Measure of which he is in charge, he is afraid to accede to a request of the Opposition that he should push his own principle to the extreme. If I am right in my understanding of the position of the Minister with reference to this Amendment, I cannot say that I think a great deal of his courage or of his alleged devotion to the principle that British industry should be encouraged first. He admits that the British film industry in the past was not on a level with foreign competition—that was the excuse for producing the Bill—but he is prepared to allow all the wreckage of the past—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI must remind the hon. Member that the question is whether there should be any restriction on registration or not.
§ Mr. MAXTONI was saying on the question of registration that the Minister is prepared to allow all this material of the past, all this bad material—what his associate termed "dud" material—to be registered and to have an equal standing in the film market with the newly produced films.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThat is what we do not propose.
§ Mr. MAXTONIf that is the position, I shall be very glad to give way to the right hon. Gentleman while he explains to us exactly what his Clause means.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI will. I shall no doubt find myself in agreement with the conclusions if not with the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, because, as he said, it would be outrageous to let an old film be registered if it was worn out. I quite agree, and that is what the proviso says. It says that no old, obsolete, worn-out film is to be registered, but the only exception that has to be made in a film at present in existence is if it has a current commercial value, so we are quite at one.
§ Mr. MAXTONNo, we are not quite at one at all. When I was referring to old and obsolete films, I was referring to all the films that would have been produced in Britain before the date of the operation of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman is surely going to agree that 752 there is going to be no stimulation of the British film industry over the films that were produced in the past. They are there; and if the British film industry is going to be stimulated by this Bill, it is only with reference to the films that are going to be produced in the future. But the right hon. Gentleman refuses to say, with my hon. Friends here, that the films of the past are finished.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI think the hon. Member does not appreciate that if this proviso were omitted there would be no tax on the registration.
§ Mr. MAXTONI admitted quite frankly when I got up that I had listened to the Debate with a perfectly open mind and with an anxiety to learn. I maintained that attitude right throughout the whole discussion, and sat through the whole discussion. I have listened to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister, and I have listened to you, Sir, and I become more befogged. I am claiming, as a Member of the House, that if I am wandering, it is the duty of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary to make it plain. The Clause as I read it says:
Provided that a film which has been exhibited to exhibitors or to the public before the commencement of this Act shall not be registered unless the Board of Trade, after consultation with the advisory committee hereinafter mentioned, determine that the registration of the film shall be allowed.It can be shown, and it can be registered, and all that my friends are pressing for is that under no circumstances shall these pre-existing films be registered.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat is exactly what the carrying of this Amendment will not do; quite the contrary. I must ask the hon. Member to show the same zeal for relevancy as he has for learning.
§ Mr. MAXTONIf I am being irrelevant, I must naturally get to my seat immediately, because I have no desire to be irrelevant, and I am not attempting to be irrelevant. I have listened to the Debate, as I have said, I am anxious to have a clear understanding of the position, and I say again that, although I bring to the consideration of the matter the average intelligence of a Member of this House who has not sat on the 753 Committee, neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary has made plain to me, and neither of them has shown the faintest desire to make plain, any argument for not accepting the position put forward in our Amendment. If that be the position of the average back bencher, I suggest that it is their bounden duty to accede to the request
§ of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and leave the matter to a free vote of the House.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the second word 'the' in line 2, stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 125.
755| Division No. 329.] | AYES | [9.11 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Gates, Percy | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Albery, Irving James | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Morden, Col. W. Grant |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Murchison, Sir Kenneth |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Goff, Sir Park | Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Grace, John | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Apsley, Lord | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Oakley, T. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Parry | Grotrian, H. Brent | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Bethel, A. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Philipson, Mabel |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Pilcher, G. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Raine, Sir Walter |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Ramsden, E. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve | Hartington, Marquess of | Reid, D. D. (County Down) |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Hawke, John Anthony | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Brown-Lindsay, Major H. | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Ropner, Major L. |
| Buchan, John | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Hills, Major John Waller | Rye, F. G. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hilton, Cecil | Salmon, Major I |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Cassels, J. D. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Sandon, Lord |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Savery, S. S. |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Huntingfield, Lord | Skelton, A. N. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hurd, Percy A. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hurst, Gerald B. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Couper, J. B. | llliffe, Sir Edward M. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Knox, Sir Alfred | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Lamb, J. Q. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Loder, J. de V. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Long, Major Eric | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Drewe, C. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Edmondson, Major A, J. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) | MacIntyre, Ian | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | McLean, Major A. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Macmillan, Captain H. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Macquisten, F. A. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Fermoy, Lord | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Wells, S. R. |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | Margesson, Captain D. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Merriman, F. B. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Withers, John James | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Womersley, W. J. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. | Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr. Penny. |
| Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. | |
| Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hardle, George D. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Baker, Walter | Hayday, Arthur | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Snell, Harry |
| Barnes, A. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, G. H. | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Broad, F. A. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Strauss, E. A. |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sullivan, J. |
| Bromley, J. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Kelly, W. T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Kennedy, T. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.) |
| Buchanan, G. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Kirkwood, D. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cape, Thomas | Lawrence, Susan | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lawson, John James | Varley, Frank B. |
| Clynes, Right Hon. John R. | Lowth, T. | Vlant, S. P. |
| Connolly, M. | Lunn, William | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Cove, W. G. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Dalton, Hugh | MacLaren, Andrew | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Day, Colonel Harry | March, S. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Dennison, R. | Maxton, James | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Duncan, C. | Montague, Frederick | Welsh, J. C. |
| Dunnico, H. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Westwood, J. |
| Forrest, W. | Murnin, H. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Naylor, T. E. | Whiteley, W. |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Oliver, George Harold | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Owen, Major G. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Gillett, George M. | Paling, W. | Williams. David (Swansea, E.) |
| Gosling, Harry | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Potts, John S. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Greenall, T. | Riley, Ben | Wright, W. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins) | Ritson, J. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) | |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Groves, T. | Scrymgeour, E. | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Scurr, John |
§ Colonel APPLINI beg to move in page 4, line 2, to leave out the words " the commencement of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words " the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven."
It will be observed that it was intended that the commencement of the Act should be the commencement of the date from which these films should rank. The Act has been postponed, and a large number of films have been produced since the date on which the Act was expected to pass the House. They will not count for the quota unless this Amendment be made; and we should debar a number of legitimate films that were produced for the purpose of the Act. If this Amendment be accepted by the House, it means that these films, which were made between the introduction of the Act and the date on which the Act was expected to pass, will be able to rank for the quota. I need not 756 point out to the House that it would be very hard lines on those people who have come forward and produced British films if they were not allowed to rank. For these reasons, I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment, for I am sure all parts of the House will desire that these films should rank.
Captain A. EVANSI beg to second the Amendment.
I would like to remind the House that it has been the practice in the trade to release certain films for the London area only, and at a later period, sometimes 12 months or two years, for the Provinces, and if the Clause remains as it is at present many of these films which have been greatly appreciated by the public and exhibited in London will not be allowed to be shown in the Provinces, not only to the severe disappointment of the public but to the severe financial loss of the British companies.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI think, on the whole, this is a reasonable Amendment. As I understand it, a number of British films have, under the stimulus of this Bill, been produced and are in process of production at the present time. The makers of these films want to get renters to take them and exhibitors to book them for exhibition, but naturally both the renter and the exhibitor wish to be sure that the film which they take is going to count as part of the British quota. Provided that assurance is forthcoming, and provided the film is, to use a trade-term, a good box office proposition, then the renter and the exhibitor will be prepared to take it. On the other hand, if they are uncertain as to whether a film produced in the past three months of this year will be allowed to count in next year's quota, the exhibitor may say that he is not going to fill his quota with these films. It is in the interest of the British producers that there should be an opportunity for these films to be counted if they are good sound films. It is in the interest of the exhibitor and the renter— both, I think—that they should have as large a number of British films available as possible from which to satisfy both the renters' and the exhibitors' quota in the coming year. If these films are clearly allowed to count and are known to be allowed to count for quota purposes, it will enlarge the number of films available both to the renters and exhibitors. Therefore, for all these reasons, I think that it is a sound and a fair Amendment, and I am prepared to accept it. If it be challenged I propose to vote for it.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI think the President of the Board of Trade is making a mistake, because this is going to have a bad effect. If I read the Amendment aright, it will qualify for registration, not only the films made now, but all the former films and all the "old junk" that has been put on show.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs the President of the Board of Trade certain that the Amendment will not have this effect?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI am quite clear about that. It is after the 1st October, 1927. Therefore, the only films which are covered by this Amendment are not what the hon. and gallant 758 Gentleman terms "old junk," but are films which are actually produced in the last three months of this year. That is-all it refers to.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYThough an hon. Member beside me thinks the meaning is still a little doubtful, I will take the President's version. Perhaps he is right, but it seems a little vague. Now we come to the next point. Apparently it is intended to give a stimulus to films which the hon. Member says have been produced at the back end of this year. Renters and exhibitors will take them in order to satisfy the quota, and that will not encourage the further production of British films during the next 10 or 12 years, though that is what we are aiming to do. To the extent that this provision acts as a stimulus to the films fathered by the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) it will be less of a stimulus to the production of other British films.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERMay I correct the hon. and gallant Member? If he will read the Bill he will see that this provision can apply only to the first year of the quota, and that in subsequent years the renter has got to satisfy his quota from films which are registered in that actual year.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYWell, take it over the next 12 months. The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman really does not alter my argument. If we pass this Amendment there will be still more films which will have the cachet of being able to fill the quota in the next 12 months. The President of the Board of Trade is really killing his own child; at any rate, he is hampering its growth for the next 12 months. This infanticide fills me with horror. The films referred to in this Amendment have been produced or are being now produced. Obviously, they need no stimulus. Let them take their chance in the open market. Do not let us enlarge the film quota for the next 12 months. Rather let us put the obligation on these producing companies of which we heard, with all their capital and all their rosy prospects; let them exert themselves to produce sufficient for the quota in the next 12 months without these films produced in the latter months of this year. The hon. and gallant Member who 759 moved the Amendment wants to encourage the production of British films, and his Amendment will discourage the production of films in the coming year to the extent of the number produced in the current three months.
§ Mr. KELLYAfter the vote on the last Amendment I am rather surprised that the President of the Board of Trade should accept this Amendment. I am afraid the word he used a moment ago cannot be found either in the Bill or in the Amendment. The Amendment now moved means:
Provided that a film which has been exhibited to exhibitors or to the public before the 1st of October, 1927, shall not be registered.What about the films that are shown to the public after the 1st October, 1927, and during this month of November? What is going to happen to them 1 I think the President of the Board of Trade spoke as though the word " after " had been in this Amendment, whereas it is the word "before," and the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) seemed to be concerned only with certain films which he had in his mind, and which I suppose he had seen at some of our cinemas', which were produced before the 1st October. He has left out of account all the films which are being shown at this time and were shown after the 1st October. I think everything tends to show that a mistake was made by the Government in not accepting the proposal we put forward on the last Amendment.
§ Mr. E. BROWNI am rather surprised that the President of the Board of Trade supports this Amendment for the inclusion of the precise date1 which he refused in an Amendment moved on Clause 4. When the same date was suggested when we were arguing about sanctity of contracts he took precisely the opposite line to that which he takes now, and the House is entitled to a little more information as to why he takes one attitude on Clause 4 and another on Clause 6.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERI think I ought to say, for the benefit of some of my hon. Friends, that there is very little in this Amendment one way or the other. Those who support it may think it will materially strengthen the position of the 760 British producer, but, for the life of me, I cannot see that it is going to have any substantial effect. The Board of Trade is given discretionary powers by the proviso which the House just now refused to delete, and therefore it is inconceivable that the kind of film referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin), which has been recently produced but which may not have been shown at the exact date, could be refused registration by the Board of Trade. I can well understand the people responsible for drafting the proviso having in their mind that the powers of the Board of Trade in this matter were for the specific purpose of covering border-line cases of this kind in respect of films which have a commercial value. Therefore I do not think there need be any serious concern about this arrangement either one way or the other. So far as I am concerned, if the hon. and gallant Member really does think the inclusion of this date is an improvement from the point of view of the producer, I have no objection, but I think the producer would not be in any way damnified were the original wording of the proviso retained. I would like to support what was said by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. J£. Brown) about the curious change in the attitude of the Government with regard to a retrospective date in this connection and in connection with Clause 4, although perhaps there is no very strong connection between the objects of the two Clauses.
§ Colonel DAYWe on this side have been told from the beginning that there would be no difficulty about a sufficient number of films being produced to meet the needs of the quota, and that there would be, if anything, more films than necessary. Therefore, I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the President should at this stage accept an Amendment of this kind, because it is practically admitting the contention we have made right from the start that there were not sufficient films to justify the quota Clause. I just wish to add that protest, although I do not intend to oppose this Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERI beg to move, in page 4, line 4, to leave out the words "after consultation with the advisory committee hereinafter mentioned."
761 It is not desired to have a long Debate on this Amendment, but we do regard it as of considerable importance. We ask the House to leave out this proviso altogether. Seeing that the Government have decided to include powers for the Board of Trade in the Bill it is a very serious thing to lay it down in the Statute that the decision of the Board of Trade as a statutory body can only be taken after consultation with an advisory committee. In any action that is taken in administering this Statute, the President of the Board of Trade will always be able to ride off on the recommendation of the advisory committee, whereas he himself ought to take full executive responsibility. Moreover, in regard to application- for registration of the type of films to which I referred earlier in the evening, namely, war films, if we have not many years hence a Labour majority and a Labour Minister, the Labour Government will be unable to refuse to count for quota the war type of films, unless they have fulfilled the Statute and consulted the advisory committee. I strongly object to that. I myself should not like to make the decision as to whether an old film of the war type should count for quota. If, however, the general policy of the Government of the day was against general propaganda by war films, I should want that Government to have the right to refuse to register old films of that type without previous consultation with the advisory committee.
The other point I wish to make is that, where the Board of Trade are compelled, by putting it in the Act in this way, to consult the Advisory Committee, there must always be. a feeling in the minds of those who are the owners of the different types of films that are submitted for registration that they may not always get a fair deal. I believe that people would trust the unfettered decision of the Board of Trade. Where, however, it is a question of settling the commercial value of the old film and then of that commercial value having to be referred to an Advisory Committee, a majority of whom may be drawn from their competitors in the industry, then, I am afraid, there may be a considerable lack of confidence among those submitting films for decision. Personally, while I have no objection at all to the principle of Advisory Committees, whom the President of the Board of Trade for the time being is free to 762 consult, if he so desires, while he still takes the responsibility for his act, I do object to making these important statutory decisions impossible unless by the Act he has consulted an advisory committee, a majority of whose members are representative of the trade.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI do not intend to repeat the excellent arguments of my colleague, but I want to put a legal question to the Solicitor-General. I should have thought it would have been far better from the administrative point of view that all reference to consultation with the Advisory Committee should be left out of the Bill, because I think it is implicit throughout that in any case of difficulty or of doubt the Board of Trade will have the option of consulting the Advisory Committee. But if, as in this case, you definitely state in the Bill that there must be in every case consultation with the Advisory Committee, it seems to me that it does two things. In the first place, it hampers enormously the effective action of the Board of Trade itself. In the second place, it seems to give an opportunity for litigation which otherwise would not arise. The House will observe that there is an appeal from this decision about registration to the High Court and that appeal would surely be complicated if the appellants' could bring in the Advisory Committee as part of their case and plead the non-consultation or improper action of the Committee. It would avoid a great deal of unnecessary litigation and make the whole position clearer if the Committee was not mentioned, while it would make no difference in actual fact. The President of the Board of Trade would be able to consult the Advisory Committee whenever he chose. He would not be bound to do so, and therefore non-consultation or inadequate action by the Committee could not be made a ground for appeal to the High Court. It is undesirable to put into an Act unnecessary words like this which give rise to litigation.
There is one other thing. Compulsory consultation with the advisory committee is desirable in many cases in this Bill, but I should have thought that this was the last place where it was required. There may be a terrific amount of work thrust on the committee. It is no use going to the committee and saying, "Do you think ' Roses of Picardy' ought to be 763 produced?" Having seen it, I should say, "Not on your life ! " There might be a long series of names of films put forward to the committee, 90 per cent. of which they would never have seen. Is it really suggested that the advisory committee, who are unpaid, must go and see these films, all this old junk, before they satisfy the law? I should have said that really this was certainly a place where these words should come out, and, further, that they should come out throughout the Bill and that it should be left to the Board of Trade in every case to decide.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI have some little difficulty in understanding why the question propounded by the right hon. Gentleman is a legal one, but as he has done me the honour of addressing it to me, I rise to answer it. His question, as I understood it, was a double one. First, he asked whether the reference to the advisory committee would not delay matters and make things more complicated. That question answers itself. The more machinery the more elaborate the process. That is not necessarily a legal question. The next question is whether it would not increase litigation. If the Board of Trade gives some decision without consulting the advisory committee, no doubt there would be a ground for someone to go to the Courts, either at the suit of the Attorney-General or by some other method, in order to compel the Board of Trade to consult the committee. I am afraid that is inherent in every proposal to require that Government Departments shall go through a regular procedure in order to arrive at the best possible decision. The grounds upon which these words were inserted in the Bill was to ensure that the President of the Board of Trade should obtain the best possible and the most skilled assistance in deciding these practical questions which are entrusted to him. I hope that I have answered the question of the right hon. Gentleman. On the merits of the proposal, I think that everything that can be said is contained in what I have already suggested, namely, that the object is to give the President of the Board of Trade the assistance he will desire in deciding practical questions.
§ Colonel DAYI have listened with interest to the somewhat evasive answer 764 which has been given by the Solicitor-General. We have had the same answer given before in the Committee stage, and we have never received a reply on this point which the ordinary layman could understand. The exhibitors and the renters desire to see the Advisory Committee struck out, and they would rather place themselves in the hands of the Board of Trade, because they would prefer to accept his decision or the decision of the permanent officials of his Department. Under this proposal the renters would have matters which concern their business decided by their competitors. The members of the Advisory Committee in this case would be the competitors of those who have to lay their complaints before the committee. I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can see his way to accept this Amendment, which is of vital importance to the exhibitors, many of whom have mentioned to me the question of the admission of the Advisory Committee in regard to these matters. By accepting this Amendment, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would give great satisfaction all through the trade.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI think the statement which the hon. Member has made about the exhibitors and renters preferring the President of the Board of Trade instead of the Advisory Committee is very complimentary.
§ Colonel DAYI referred to some of the largest of them.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe Advisory Committee was inserted in order that I might be able to have some assistance upon what must be very technical and commercial questions. I should have thought that upon what ought to be purely a technical and a commercial matter a committee representing the whole of the trade concerned would be more likely to form a better judgment than the President of the Board of Trade or his officials. However, I am perfectly willing to leave this matter to the free vote of the Whole House.
Captain A. EVANSI do not know why we are asked to deprive the President of the Board of Trade of the very valuable advice of this committee.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODWe have not made that proposal. The right hon. Gentleman can still have the advice of the committee.
Captain EVANSWe have been told that the Bill makes it compulsory for the President of the Board of Trade to consult the Advisory Committee. Of course, it is compulsory as the Bill stands, but it is not compulsory for the President of the Board of Trade to accept the decision of the Committee or any advice it may tender to him. If on any occasion the right hon. Gentleman is placed in the position of not being able to accept the decision of the Advisory Committee he can come down to this House and defend his action, and he is quite at liberty to do that. It has been stated that it is quite impossible for the representatives on the Advisory Committee to see all the films. It is also quite impossible for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor) to see all the films to which he places his signature. After all, it is an understood thing in Government Departments that the Minister responsible must rely upon the advice of his technical advisers. There is no doubt that the Advisory Committee would be guided in their decisions by people who are sufficiently skilled and experienced to advise them whether a film is a good one or a bad one. I submit that the inclusion of this Amendment has not been justified.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIn regard to the function of the Advisory Committee the President of the Board of Trade said that the Committee would not in any way consider the moral side of the question, and that they would only consider the commercial and technical side. I would like to know if the Advisory Committee intend to exercise any supervision over the registration of films. One reason I am surprised at the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is that one of the non-official members of the Advisory Committee must be a woman. I do not know why that proposal was put into the Bill. I take it that it was because a woman's advice is desirable as to whether a film is fit for children to see. Personally, I think a much tighter hand should be kept on some of the films which many people consider are objectionable and improper.
I know my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) thinks that the people should be allowed to judge 766 these matters for themselves, but you cannot use that argument in regard to young children, and for that reason I would like some assurance on this point. Is there going to be no consideration as to the decency or good taste of the film, and are we only to consider the box office value? We must remember that these British films will be sent abroad, and therefore we should be very careful in regard to their character. I think the hon. Member for South Cardiff (.Captain A. Evans) has raised a very important point, and on this question I would like to have some further explanation.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThere is no Clause in this Bill which seeks to set up a censorship. If it should be desired at any time by the House of Commons to establish a new form of censorship for films, in addition to the censorship which exists under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor)—
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYThat is voluntary.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTEREverything is submitted to him——
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERPerhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to continue. If the House of Commons at any future date should desire to establish a censorship in addition to the censorship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, which may be voluntary, or may be partly voluntary and partly not voluntary, and also in addition to the right of the local authority—who exercise their powers under the Cinematograph Act wherever they elect to do so, and who would, I think, greatly resent the intervention of another censorship—that is a wholly separate matter, which the House must consider at the time. Certainly, it is no part of this Bill to establish such a censorship, and it would be particularly futile, if I may say so, to confine the censorship to a very limited number of films only.
§ Mr. E. BROWNThe Solicitor-General, in the last sentence of his speech just now, said it was desirable that the President of the Board of Trade should have the best, assistance possible. Surely, the Bill with this provision in it does not give the necessary freedom of choice. As I understand it, this Advisory Committee is to be set up, and persons are to sit on it for periods not exceeding three years. There are to be eight representatives of the interests—two of the film makers, two of the renters, and four of the exhibitors—and five persons who have no pecuniary interest, of whom, one must be a woman, and one the chairman. This greatly narrows the field of advice. The House will agree that the President of the Board of Trade may desire to go to other people outside the Advisory Committee for advice, and it would be
§ very awkward if, having a statutory body of this kind to give him advice, he desired other advice and went against the advice of the Advisory Committee. It is surely better that the President of the Board of Trade, in the working of his own Act, should be unfettered in his choice of advice. Moreover, the fact that eight of the 13 members of the Committee will be interested in the trade is another very powerful argument in favour of adopting this Amendment, and leaving the President free to take advice wherever he chooses.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 129.
769| Division No. 330.] | AYES. | [10.0 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. |
| Albery, Irving James | Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Hills, Major John Waller |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hilton, Cecil |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone) |
| Apsley, Lord | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover) | Dawson, Sir Philip | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Drewe, C. | Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Eden, Captain Anthony | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Bethel, A. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Huntingfield, Lord |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Everard, W. Lindsay | Hurst, Gerald B. |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Illffe, Sir Edward M. |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Fermoy, Lord | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Ford, Sir P. J. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Kindersley, Major Guy M. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | King, Commodore Henry Douglas |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R | Fraser, Captain Ian | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Brown-Lindsay, Major H. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Knox, Sir Alfred |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Lamb, J. Q. |
| Buchan, John | Ganzonl, Sir John | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Gates, Percy | Little, Dr. E. Graham |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Loder, J. de V |
| Caine, Gordon Hall | Goff, Sir Park | Long, Major Eric |
| Campbell, E. T. | Gower, Sir Robert | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Cassels, J. D. | Grace, John | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | MacIntyre, I. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Grotrian, H. Brent | McLean, Major A. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hammersley, S. S. | Mac Robert, Alexander M. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hartington, Marquess of | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hawke, John Anthony | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. |
| Cope, Major William | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Meller, R. J. |
| Couper, J. B. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Merriman, F. B. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Milne. J. S. Wardlaw- |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Salmon, Major I. | Tinne, J. A. |
| Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Sandeman, N. Stewart | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Morden, Colonel Walter Grant | Sanderson, Sir Frank | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Moreing, Captain A. H. | Sandon, Lord | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Murchison, Sir Kenneth | Savery, S. S. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Nelson, Sir Frank | Shepperson, E. W. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Oakley, T. | Skelton, A. N. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | Wells, S. R. |
| Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Penny, Frederick George | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Smithers, Waldron | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Somervilie, A. A. (Windsor) | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Philipson, Mabel | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Pilcher, G. | Sprot, Sir Alexander | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Price, Major C. W. M. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. | Withers, John James |
| Raine, Sir Walter | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Ramsden, E. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Womersley, W. J. |
| Rawson, Sir Cooper | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge — Hyde) |
| Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Ropner, Major L. | Sugden, Sir Wilfred | |
| Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | Capt. Arthur Evans and Mr. Herbert |
| Rye, F. G. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- | Williams. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Scurr, John |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hardie, George D. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Baker, Walter | Hayday, Arthur | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hayes, John Henry | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Barnes, A. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Batey, Joseph | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Snell, Harry |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Hirst, G. H. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Broad. F. A. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Bromfield, William | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Bromley, J. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Strauss, E. A. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Kelly, W. T. | Sullivan. J |
| Buchanan, G. | Kennedy, T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cape, Thomas | Kirkwood, T. | Thomson Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lansbury, George | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lawrence, Susan | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lawson, John James | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Connolly, M. | Lowth, T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Cove, W. G. | Lunn, William | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Dalton, Hugh | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Varley, Frank B. |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | MacLaren, Andrew | Viant, S. P. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Dennison, R. | March, S. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Duncan, C. | Maxton, James | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Dunnico, H. | Montague, Frederick | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellfy) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Forrest, W. | Murnin, H. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Gardner, J. P. | Naylor, T. E. | Westwood, J. |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Oliver, George Harold | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Owen, Major G. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gillett, George M. | Paling, W. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Gosling, Harry | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Potts, John S. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Greenall, T. | Riley, Ben | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Ritson, J. | Wright, W. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) | |
| Groves, T. | Rose, Frank H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Grundy, T. W. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr Whiteley. |
§ Mr. KELLYI beg to move, in page 4, line 12, after the word "fee," to insert the words "not exceeding one pound." 770 In this Amendment we are asking that the Board of Trade, instead of leaving the amount charged for registration in 771 the vague way that it is in the Bill at present, should put in such, a figure that those applying for registration will have some idea of the amount they will have to pay. I ask that the charge shall not exceed £l.
§ Colonel DAYI beg to second the Amendment.
I understand that this is the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman said he would accept.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe hon. Member is quite right. I gave an undertaking that I would put in an appropriate Amendment to stereotype the budget which I unfolded in Committee. It would not be convenient to take an Amendment at this stage. The Convenient course is to deal with all the fees in a single Clause. I propose to take an Amendment which will come in Clause 28, line 29, after the word "date," to insert the words
The fees payable on application for registration and or licences shall not exceed those specified in the second Schedule of the Act.Then I should insert a Schedule setting out the fees as follows:Application for registration of film, one guinea. Application for renters licence, five guineas. Application for exhibitors licence, one guinea for each theatre.If this Amendment be withdrawn, all the fees can be covered at the appropriate time.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken that course, but I would ask him to do another thing. In the case of serial films a separate guinea licence has to be taken out for each part. They sometimes run to about a dozen parts. I am told these films are so cheap that they do not bear the six or twelve guinea fee. I want to know whether in drawing up this table of fees the right hon. Gentleman can see that serials are put in at a reasonable price. It is possible to argue that the fee should vary with the length or the cost of the film or something of that sort, but we are not doing that. The right hon. Gentleman is taking a dead rate fee. Would it not be possible in doing that to 772 treat serial films, which are exceptionally cheap, on a scale which would allow of their being commercially profitable?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe fee is not 16 guineas. It is a guinea per film. The only five guinea fee is for the renters' licence. A serial film is an ordinary film which happens to form one of a series. It would probably be readily booked and would be a pretty valuable film if it had one of the great stars in it and it would pay a registration fee of a guinea a time.
§ Colonel DAYIs it the intention to charge one guinea for the whole serial, or one guinea for each instalment? Each instalment will not be more than one of these long films specified.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTEROf course it will not, but each instalment is a separate film and has to be separately registered, and while one film of 1,500 or 2,000 feet is not as long as a film of 8,000 feet, yet anyone of the series is as long as an ordinary short film.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made:
§ In page 4, line 24, leave out the words "fourteen days" and insert instead thereof the words " six weeks."— [Colonel Day.]
§ Mr. SOMERVILLEI beg to move, in page 4, line 37, at the end, to insert the words
(6) In the event of the trade show of any film being regarded by the advisory committee as not being of a standard of competitive quality it shall be competent for them to submit within fourteen days of the presentation of such a film to the exhibitors a report to the Board of Trade to that effect, and if, in the opinion of the Board or some authority deputed by them, it is expedient to withhold registration of such a film for quota purposes the committee may direct the accredited authority accordingly.The first Sub-section gives to the licensing Committee the duty of passing judgment upon the old films, and the Amendment asks that the same duty shall be allotted to the Advisory Committee in the case of new films. When we come to Clause 26, we find very great difficulty In defining what is a British company and what is a British film. The Advisory Committee were eminently qualified to prevent bogus films from being used to fill the quota. I think it may be said 773 that only a few films are in question, but, if the Amendment be accepted, it will not be necessary for the Advisory Committee to be present at each trade show and it will be able to call upon any exhibitor to meet the Advisory Committee, who can then pronounce judgment.
§ Viscount SANDONI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI trust my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment, for it is one that I cannot possibly accept. Whatever may be his idea as to the limited scope of what he has in mind, there is no doubt as to the enormous work which he is putting upon the Advisory Committee, for his Amendment proposes that every single film, British or foreign, which comes to a trade show, that is 800 or 900 films in the course of a year, shall be seen by the Advisory Committee or possibly by the President of the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade would not have very much time left for other work. [An HON. MEMBER: "Time for leisure!"] I think I might get stale. If we had to do it, what are we to decide? We are to decide whether the film comes up to the standard of competitive quality. I am very keen, as my hon. Friend is, to see the best films shown, whether they are British or whether they are foreign, but I am sure of this, that if there are two sets of people who can decide upon the competitive quality of the film, the one is, the man who rents it in order to exhibit it, and the other, the public who go and see it. I am quite sure that no Committee, however erudite, however moral, however representative, could fulfil that task.
§ Colonel DAYThis is one of the few occasions on which I find myself in absolute agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. We spent many days on the Bill upstairs, and we found ourselves with differing opinions on many occasions. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman who proposed this censorship could not have given it very serious thought; otherwise, he would not have put the Amendment down. I hope we shall not, at this time 774 of night, be forced to divide against him.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI always admire the courage of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville) and the Noble Lord the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) for the way in which they bring this subject forward. It is evidently very near to their hearts. They had it in Committee and got two votes, and we are having it now.
§ Viscount SANDONThe right hon. and gallant Member is wrong. What we had in Committee and on which we secured two votes was something quite different. It was brought on in an earlier part of the Bill on the censorship issue. The reason only two votes were given was that we asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, which was refused, and the Opposition, not ourselves, were the two supporting it.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Windsor have the morals of this country at heart, and I think it is right that we should recognise it. The rest of the House have little interest in these matters. The two hon. Members consistently uphold, at all hazards, this question and bring it forward, and I admire them for it and their consistency. The best censor of films is the public which goes to see them, You cannot possibly trust even the most perfect human being to know what should or should not be shown. We have not yet got a censorship of books or pictures but the public, somehow, by dint of good taste, or reference in some cases to the Law Courts, do manage to keep these things clean and decent. The best way in which we can get decent films is to let the public have the choice, and we may rest assured that in the long run they will establish a standard that will be a credit to the country.
§ Mr. SOMERVILLEIn view of the opinion expressed by the President of the Board of Trade and the unanimity of feeling expressed on this matter, I feel that it will be useless to press the Amendment. I can quite understand the glee of hon. Members opposite with regard to any emasculation of the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.