§ Mr. SPEAKERWith regard to the Amendment first on the Order Paper—to leave out Clause 1—I have suggested that it might be more convenient for the House to have a Motion to leave out Part I, as that is what hon. Members desire to discuss. I am informed that that is agreeable to Members of the Opposition.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out Part I of the Bill.
I do not know, Sir, whether you have received a manuscript Amendment, which I put in to that effect. It seems to me that we can get the discussion perhaps better on Part I than on Clause 1. The Bill is divided into four Parts. The first Part, according to the Title, restricts "blind booking and advance booking of films," but, like a great deal in this Bill, this Title is wholly inadequate and by no means covers the results of Part I. Part I, as hon. Members will see in due course, not merely restricts blind booking, but prohibits it. It prohibits also what is known in the trade as block booking, and the restriction of advance booking is one which has only to be described in detail to the House in order to show an utterly futile interference with the ordinary transaction of business. These restrictions, it should be understood by the House, do not affect the whole of the cinematograph trade. There are three parties to this trade, leaving out the public—and I can assure hon. Members that the public have been left out of all consideration. There are three vested interests concerned. There are the producers, there are the exhibitors, and, in between, there is a nebulous body of wholesale dealers called renters, middlemen. This Part I, which pretends to restrict blind booking and advance booking, does nothing whatever to interfere with any business arrangements made between producers and renters, between 662 the producers and the middlemen; they can carry on in future as in the past. All that this Part I pretends to do is to interfere with the relations between the renter, the wholesale dealer, and the retailer, the exhibitor.
It has been complained—and, of course, it is a very good subject for discussion at a street corner—that we ought, in the interests of society, to prevent the retailer buying large blocks at once, that he ought, in the interests of society, to buy each film separately; and we are told also that he ought in every case to see what he is going to buy before he buys it, in his own interests, mark you. No doubt we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, when he comes to reply, how popular this idea is with the people whose enterprise we are seeking to restrict. He gets all his views from the trade association, which by no means represents the trade in this case.
I want the House to realise, in the first place, that these attempts by a Government Department to interfere in normal business transactions are quite wrong. There never has been, in this country at any rate, any previous attempt to say that an ordinary business transaction between two consenting parties shall not only be illegal in the sense of a contract not being able to be pleaded in a court of law, but shall involve both the parties taking part in it to a sentence of imprisonment. It is being made a crime by this Bill to do something that every other trade in this country has always done and that this trade has always done. We have got to look at this provision very carefully, apart altogether from whether there is or is not a public demand for this prohibition. You are saying to an ordinary tradesman, "You must not buy until you have seen the goods,"; you are saying to him in addition, " You cannot buy more than six months in advance of the time that you want to sell the goods; that is to say, you must not book more than six months ahead. You must not stock more than six months ahead. Otherwise, you go to prison." I should say it needed very strong argument indeed before you could persuade even a Tory House of Commons to accept such penalties and such restrictions upon the normal conduct of business. We saw during the War a certain amount of interference with business. It was necessary 663 in many cases, but generally we found that the interference asked by this House met its object.
My principal argument against Part I of this Bill, against these attempted interferences in business, is that they must necessarily fail in their object. We have already seen during the process of the Committee on this Bill two ways in which these restrictions can always be got round. I want the House to understand the two methods that are being adopted, because they illustrate admirably how easy it is to get through an Act of Parliament when both parties to a bargain want to get through it; and it also illustrates the ultimate results of any such action. The first method that has been proposed for getting round this prohibition is as follows: Under the Bill, it is illegal for a wholesaler to sell to the retailer before the film has been exhibited and registered. So what is proposed? The exhibitors, in order to get round this prohibition, in order to get their films booked up, and in order to get first cut at the things they want to show, say that in each locality they will form a co-operative body which will call itself, for instance, the Manchester Cooperative Renters or the Oldham Cooperative Renters. There will be five or six exhibitors in each of these groups; they will form themselves into a co-operative renting body. As a renting body, they can buy what they like from the producers, whether British or foreign, but, being not merely a renting body, but also exhibitors, they can then distribute these films to the individual members who compose that body. So, no crime being committed, they will be able to get what they want. I always believe in developing the co-operative movement in every way possible, and so does the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander). We like the co-operative movement, and we have no objection to the development of that form of co-operative renting.
The other method of getting round this Bill is far more serious, and is one which, I think, every Member should understand. While the Bill was going through Committee, there was floated on the Stock Exchange a company with a capital of £2,500,000—a renting and producing company, British of course; that is to 664 say, British in name, and American in nature. What did they do 1 They were not merely a company for producing and renting British films, but also a company for acquiring British cinemas, and they have already acquired 50 large cinemas in this country. If the same firm be a renter and an exhibitor, then the Government cannot possibly by any Act of Parliament prohibit them passing on the films they get as renters to anyone of their particular theatres. It is no longer a bargain between two parties, but merely an internal concern of the company. Since the Bill has been going through that is not the only company that has been formed. Everywhere you 'have renters now purchasing cinemas in exactly the same way as, owing to the licensing legislation of the '90's, the brewers of this country bought up licensed houses. They are acquiring a lot, and we are deliberately fostering the formation of trusts in the cinema industry —vertical trusts, which will control, not merely the producing and renting, but the exhibiting side of the business also. The natural result is that the whole industry suffers, and in the long run the public will suffer through having the industry formed into a trust. The prime object of the formation of the trust is to get round the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. Members will see, therefore, the difficulty of the task that has been set the right hon. Gentleman in carrying out the proposed legislation to prevent block booking and advance booking of films and in carrying out his intention of interfering with all the details of this industry.
4.0 p.m.
But, the difficulties being there, I want the House to look for a moment at how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to meet them. If you want to stop any retail trade buying wholesale or want to stop any retail trade buying anything they have not seen—if you want, for instance, to stop a publisher buying a novel before he has actually seen the proofs, or if you want to stop a person buying a building before he has seen the plan—you can stop them in two ways. You can either make it a crime to sign any agreement between two parties—for instance, I signed an agreement the other day with a publisher; you can make that a crime and send anybody signing such an agreement to prison—or you can deal with him in another way. You can say 665 that any agreement come to by parties in these circumstances shall be null and of no avail at law. That is to say, that people coming to these agreements do so at their own risk and cannot got to law on the agreement. That is the way I should have wanted to deal with this problem. You could have said to every retailer, to every exhibitor, " If you come to an agreement contrary to the law with a renter I shall not punish you, I shall not interfere in your dealings, I shall not want to register your films, I shall not want to interfere at every turn in your business; but I warn you that if you go to Court on this agreement you will not be able to prove your case." That is the way the right hon. Gentleman could naturally have tackled this problem. It would have been sufficient, but he did not. He did not for a very good reason—not because he did not know it was the best way of doing it, but because the vested interests went for him and said, "No, this will not do, you must make it a crime to do this, or people will still go on doing it even though they cannot sue at law in connection with these agreements."
The right hon. Gentleman has been misled throughout by the cinematograph exhibitors. He has trusted not to his own intelligence, not to what he believes to be the interest of the public, but has trusted far too much to the vested interests who have had dealings with him. The real position is that the right hon. Gentleman has been threatening this trade with legislation like this for a long time. His threats have been taken much too seriously by the interests concerned. They have conceived that he could do as he liked with them, and therefore the executive administrations of some of these trade associations have consented to legislation. Having committed themselves to legislation, they have put themselves in opposition to the constituent members of their trade, and have, ever since, been trying to justify their action, and are advocating this Bill which is opposed by the various individual members of the organisations. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he commits the country permanently to this perfectly futile measure for stopping blind booking, block booking and all the rest of it, to try once more, even at this late hour, to find out 666 whether they would not like to drop these provisions, which, since we have got the quota in the Bill, are utterly valueless so far as the production of British films is concerned and can only be a nuisance to everybody engaged in the industry.
Can our reasonable objections to Part I be met? This is what I am proposing to the right hon. Gentleman. First of all I ask that he should drop all these provisions. He would still have his quota. The British industry in the film business would be in exactly the same position if he dropped it. Only his face would suffer. If he cannot drop Part I now, could he do one or two other things in connection with it 1 Could he possibly change the methods? Could he make it not a penal offence to sign an agreement, but rely upon the simpler and more normal method of saying such an agreement shall not be enforceable at law 1 I am afraid his silence indicates that he cannot meet us on that point. I hope he will meet the point by a way which will do a further benefit to British trade by exempting British-produced films from the interference and nuisance of Part I of the Bill. Knowing the standard of British films, as hon. Members do, could we not say that exhibitors shall be allowed to book them in advance 1 Should we not be justified in giving British-produced films that advantage over all this foreign stuff and allow them to be booked in advance, to be booked in block and to be booked by small cinema houses without waiting six months after registration? It would give the production of British films in this country an enormous fillip if they, at least, could escape from these absurd restrictions; and I may add that if they should escape I hope the time would come when others would escape also.
The next suggestion I have to make— I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept this, but I think he might if it were pressed—is that Clause 2, dealing with advance booking, should come out. I hope to deal further with that when Clause 2 is reached. That would remove this impertinent interference with ordinary business of which Clause 2 is the worst example. To say to a man, "You may see what you want to buy, but you may not buy it for six months, you must wait and wait till I give you permission to 667 buy," appears to me to be the most gratuitous impertinence even in this Bill. It would meet the Opposition to a certain extent if the Government would drop the provisions relating to advance booking. Clause 3, which we shall debate later, is a perfect gem of a Clause. It is the first time we have put into an Act of Parliament a Clause saying that all contracts made before the passing of the Bill, whichever party to the contract they shall benefit, shall be wiped out and shall no longer have effect. That is a very good precedent. Once Clause 4 is in, the new Labour Government of the future will be able to act stringently. It will be a valuable precedent. Still, I do not like even a Labour Government setting precedents, which would enable people to scrap definite, legal, binding arrangements which have been come to between two parties. I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot meet us on this point.
Finally, there is this: The House will realise that in going through Committee we did get something. The Committee made the Bill worse in many respects, but at any rate they said that this impertinent quota system should continue only for 12 years, and that then people should be able to buy what they like. Could not we say that this interference should also come to an end at the same time; that Part I should have a time limit in the same way as Parts II, III and IV of the Bill. I would like to cut out the whole of Part I and to leave perfectly legal that which is perfectly legal in every other trade and profession in this country; but if that cannot be done let us at any rate water down the draconic severity of these restrictions, so that we may be able to say that at least on the Report Stage common sense prevailed.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)If I may say so, I think the course proposed of taking a general Debate on Part I is a very convenient and businesslike course, but I think the House must have been a little surprised at the Motion tabled by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). If hon. Members will cast their minds back to what took place on the Second Read- 668 ing of this Bill, they will remember a Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and moved by him, in these terms:
This House, whilst welcoming proposals to restrict blind booking of cinematograph films, thus providing a fair field for British producers, cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which compels British traders to supply goods irrespective of their comparative merits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1927; col. 2050, Vol. 203.]I shall deal with the second part of that resolution when we come to the later parts of the Bill; but the Leader of the Opposition, in summing up his case, said:My conclusion is, that the exhibitor should be freed from oppressive contracts and should be freed from booking long ahead against his own will films he has never seen and about which he knows nothing."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1927; col. 2057, Vol. 203.]That was the considered view of the Labour party.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODDoes the right hon. Gentleman say this was our considered view? Is he not aware that neither our party nor his party, nor even his own Department, understood the details of the Bill?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERNo, Sir; I really would not join with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in so traducing the intelligence, the ability and the industry of his leader. I am quite sure that when the Leader of the Opposition presents a considered Motion to the House, whether it foe right or wrong, it is at least founded upon a careful consideration and a careful study of all the facts and is his considered view. I cannot say what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman understood, but I am quite sure that I myself and the Leader of the Opposition understood quite well what were the terms of the Bill.
Indeed, a demand for it had come from other Members of the party. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), before, I think, he transferred his allegiance, expressed from the other benches views in favour of legislation in these terms. Week after week he pressed me, at Question Time on Tuesdays, to say when I was going to introduce legislation in order to stop blind booking and block booking, and I think he was quite right 669 so to press me. He asked me at Question Time whether I did not realise that there was a keen demand in the trade. I said to him that before a proposal was put before the House I thought it desirable that the Imperial Conference should have an opportunity of considering it, and, after the Imperial Conference, I was glad to be able to come to the House reinforced, not only by his view, but by the view of the Dominion Governments, in the opinion that legislation of this kind was desirable. The hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day) has also been an eloquent contributor to our Debates on this subject. He also pressed me in those early days. He was quite well aware of the position, even before the Bill was introduced. As far back as December, 1925, he asked the President of the Board of Trade:
If he is aware of the dissatisfaction being expressed amongst British film manufacturers in regard to the importation of cheap American films; and whether he will consider putting an end to the advanced booking of blocks of cheap American films?" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1925; col. 1217, Vol. 189.]I said that the proposal of the hon. member was under consideration. It is idle, therefore, to say that either the Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition generally did not fully understand the subject referred to in the Motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. And not only did the Opposition support it. This is not a proposal on the part of the Board of Trade to force something upon an unwilling industry. This proposal to restrict blind booking and block booking was made by the trade itself, not at the invitation of the Board of Trade, and was the considered judgment of the trade before ever the Board of Trade moved at all.Part I was framed in response to the request of both the exhibitors and producers that the Government should frame legislation to assist them in this respect. They not only took a plebiscite on the matter in which 1,704 voted for the abolition of blind booking and block booking, .as against 198, but they actually framed a Bill, and there can be no doubt as to what was in their minds. Anyone who has been acquainted with this industry knows that the argument drawn from other trades of buying an ordinary commodity forward has no application at all. 670 In other cases people are buying an article which is the same every time, or they are buying something of which they are willing buyers, and are fairly sure of what is going to be delivered to them. If people are not sure about it, the hon. and gallant Member, who has great claim to business experience, will agree that they take very good care to buy goods by sample, with a condition in the contract that the bulk when delivered shall come up to sample. In this industry alone the buyers, the exhibitors, have been forced to take quantities of films which they have never seen, which have not even been produced, and to take them to the exclusion of other films. They are not willing parties. They do not know what they are buying. I have seen contracts in which as many as 64 films have had to be taken by exhibiting houses in order to get one or two special films. It is against this that the trade itself, not only the producers but the exhibitors, have most vehemently protested.
That Part of the Bill we are now asked to withdraw is the one Part of the Bill upon which there is complete unanimity, the one part which was generally accepted in principle in this House. As time has gone on public opinion not only here but elsewhere has reinforced the wisdom of this. Even in the United States of America there has recently been a movement on foot, and an appeal made to the Federal Trade Commission to interfere with block booking and blind booking in the United States itself, and I understand the Commission has made preliminary inquiry and ordered a general inquiry with a view, possibly, to making an order. For all these reasons—reasons which were debated on the Second Reading of this Bill—I hope the House will retain this Part of the Bill.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made one or two suggestions of detail. The first was that this part of the Bill should be made temporary, but I have made a very great concession in making the quota provision of the Bill temporary. I thought that was the second point which the Leader of the Opposition made in his speech on the Second Reading. He said he wanted to be quite fair. He disagreed with the system, but if the system of quota was to be adopted, it ought to be a temporary quota. I must say I thought there was considerable reason in that when it was 671 discussed in Committee, and in Committee we amended the Bill by making the quota provision of a temporary character and reducing the total maximum of the quota. But this provision stands on a different footing. If blind booking or block booking is a bad thing in itself, we ought to legislate permanently against it, and not make it dependent on the quota, which is an entirely different proposition.
Then the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said I ought not to make the making of a contract invalid. In Committee the Solicitor-General promised to look into one point in that, and I agree that the Clause does need Amendment in one respect, so as to make it plain that a contract made outside the jurisdiction is invalid. As regards the argument which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman used about the possibility of getting round the Act, if people want to get round it, I do think the general disposition in this country when an Act of Parliament is passed is to keep it, and not break it. But the whole of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument in that direction surely shows that the penalty Clause is a necessary Clause, and that you cannot, if this thing is to be made illegal, leave it simply to the invalidation of a contract, but you must make it a prohibited act.
While it is plainly necessary to maintain Part I, may I take this opportunity of making certain other suggestions, some of which touch Part I, some of which touch other points in the Bill? One of the broad issues between us was the time limit. Upon that we have already made a variation in the Bill. The quota is only to last 12 years, and it is cut down to a maximum of 20 per cent. There was another point to which great importance was attached in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman, and that was a fear which, as far as I am concerned, is unfounded, lest the cost of administration should be piled up, and a hope that the administration would be kept as simple as possible, because if you keep costs down administration must be simple. In Committee I gave a forecast of what the general expenditure would be. It was a modest amount, but I am quite prepared, later on in the Bill, to insert a provision to insure that not only I but my successors are kept within those modest limits, and I should be prepared to put a pro 672 vision in that fees be charged in accordance with the scale I indicated to the Committee, which, I think, will go a very long way to dispel any anxiety which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends have on that score. I have already, on Clause 3, put down on the Order Paper an Amendment, which he asked to have considered when the Bill was in Committee, dealing with contracts made outside the jurisdiction. I am also quite willing, if it be desired, to leave to a free vote of the House the question of whether a pre-release should be confined to the Administrative County of London. On that matter we had a good deal of discussion, and some Scottish Members expressed anxiety. It is a matter about .which there may be feeling one way or another. It is a very practical point, and I am perfectly prepared to have a discussion on it, and that it should be left to a free vote. With regard to the period in Clause 2, the desire of the exhibitors is that the period should be as short as possible, but there is an Amendment on the Order Paper to extend the intermediate period to two years.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIt is not good enough.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI should have thought that in practical life to get a reasonable compromise was better than getting nothing.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThat is not a reasonable one.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERAt any rate, it seems to me not unreasonable to extend the intermediate period to two years, and I shall be prepared to accept it. There is another Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, or one of his friends, dealing with the penalty Clause, and reducing the amount of penalty from £100. I have gone through the Bill carefully, and I think it would be more consistent with Clause 23 and other provisions of the Bill if the maximum penalty were reduced to £50, and I should be quite prepared to accept that. [An HON. MEMBER: "£20."] If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends are reasonable about other things, they will find me reasonable in the matter of the penalty. There is already an Amendment, I see, in the name of the hon. Member for Central Southwark, in page 3, line 13, 673 for the postponement till April, which I shall certainly be prepared to accept. I think also he wants six weeks after the provisional notice, in page 4, line 24. I believe that Amendment is reasonable. There was another point which travels outside the immediate scope of Part I, but about which I think it is not unreasonable to give some explanation. There was a good deal of discussion in Committee as to what was a reasonable amount of variation to allow in the length of a film. I think the hon. Gentleman said you must not take a film and alter it entirely; otherwise you are dealing with a different article from that on the register. It was suggested that 5 per cent, was too small a margin of variation to allow, and I see there is an Amendment to increase the margin to 10 per cent. I think 10 per cent, is reasonable, and I shall certainly be prepared to accept an Amendment increasing the 5 per cent, allowance to 10 per cent.
What I have said shows that we have already gone a good long way to meet criticisms which have been directed to the details of the Bill. I am only too anxious to have a discussion of a businesslike character upon all the important points of the Bill, and I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that I did not show myself to be unreasonable in Committee. I was prepared either to agree to proposals or to justify my objection to them. But on the main question, that the whole of Part I should be deleted from the Bill, I must ask the House to reject that proposal.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERThose who spent many weary weeks upstairs in Committee will welcome the rather changed attitude which the President of the Board of Trade has now indicated to the objections we have to make. He said that he thought he was not unreasonable in Committee, but I think hon. Members will agree that the amount of concessions granted us was very small indeed. Apparently, however, the right hon. Gentleman thinks he will have much more difficulty in getting his Bill through here unless he is a little more reasonable, and I must say I welcome the way in which he has replied this afternoon. But I am frankly disappointed that we have not got a more generous concession upon the main principle to leave out the first Part of the Bill altogether. It is per- 674 fectly true the Leader of the Opposition made a speech from which the President of the Board of Trade has quoted, and if we were dealing in this Bill with the general principle to be applied to all classes of trade in the country where, practices of this kind went on, then every hon. Member on this side would be supporting this class of legislation in Part I of the Bill. But Part I does nothing of the kind. It simply gives a certain amount of protection to one class of trade, which may possibly suffer from restraint of trade.
The right hon. Gentleman said, in reply to my right hon. and gallant Friend, that it was ridiculous to class a trade like the film industry with other industries, and that usually people who bought forward in other trades really knew exactly what they were going to buy, and did in fact buy on sample. That is quite untrue, and there is no one connected with the supply of the ordinary wants of the people who does not know that is untrue. What I am amazed at is the President making himself repsonsible for a Bill with a Part of this kind in it, when he has refused me, personally, again and again, to bring in a general Bill to deal with the restriction of trade operated by trusts and associations, although we have given him chapter and verse. In reply to what the President of the Board of Trade has said on this point, I would like to mention that I was a witness before the Royal Commission on Food Prices and questions were put to me in regard to tea. It was shown during that inquiry that the real trouble of Mincing Lane was not that certain people were buying large quantities of tea, but that a number of firms who joined together were buying tea overseas for as much as one, two, and even four seasons ahead. Those people did not know what kind of samples they were going to get and they had no knowledge of that kind.
The same argument applies in the case of books. It would apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for India when they are going to launch upon the world some new book for which they are responsible. What possible difference is there in principle between buying blindly ahead what the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for India may want to publish 1 I think the answer which the 675 right hon. Gentleman gave to the speech of the Mover of this Amendment was particularly weak. It has been said that the President has tried to meet our points, but he has not met us with regard to the restriction of time upon blind bookings. Even if we have conceded to us the point that the period of the quota should be confined to 12 years, what we are certain of is that the departmental expenses will go on just the same.
I am not at all clear how you are going to keep down the expenses of the new Department. If you are going to trace crime, you will require an effective machine at the Board of Trade for which you must be prepared to pay the price. If, on the other hand, the President does not propose to have effective machinery, it will not be possible to work effectively this part of the Bill. We have been told that the people in this country usually obey Acts of Parliament when they are passed, and more particularly people in business. I do not think that is true. Let me give a particular case. If hon. Members would examine the files of the Law Courts relating to prosecutions under the Companies Acts, they would see whether people do really obey the law. Why did the President of the Board of Trade find it necessary to introduce a wide amending Bill to the Companies Acts 1 It was because he found, after passing a series of Acts dealing with companies, that there still remained many evasions that he had to keep on screwing up the Regulations. I think that is an answer to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I am glad we are going to be met in regard to the question of pre-release. We have had very strong representations made to us on this question from various parts of the country, and we shall accept what has been proposed in this respect with a certain amount of gratitude, although we might have saved the President much time and labour if he had been prepared to give this concession to us some months ago.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI said that I would leave that question to a free vote of the House.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERThen I am mistaken, and really the right hon. Gentleman has not committed himself on this point, I am glad to have the minor 676 concession that the question will be left to a free vote of the House. If the President of the Board of Trade is not prepared to withdraw this part of the Bill, he must not expect us to refrain from criticising in more detail than would otherwise have been necessary some of the other parts of the Bill. We must take the Bill as a whole. At the same time, I welcome the indication which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman of a more reasonable spirit than that which was shown in Committee. Probably our attitude towards the later stages of this Bill will be largely governed by the sweet reasonableness of the spirit displayed by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI am rather pleased with the attitude taken up by the President of the Board of Trade in the first few minutes of the consideration of the Report stage of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seems inclined to meet us in one or two small particulars, and that is very hopeful. We hope to induce him to give us some further concessions later on. I will not go over the ground which has been covered by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) or the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) in reference to what the President said about the Leader of the Opposition and myself. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Leader of the Opposition had thrown a cloak of respectability over that portion of the Bill dealing with blind and block booking
The President also accused me of having in the past asked for legislation on these two aspects of the cinematograph business. It is perfectly true that in the past I, as well as the Leader of the Opposition, fathered this proposal to deal with blind booking, hut at that time it was entirely dependent upon the quota. If you are going to deal simply with the question of blind booking, there is a great deal to be said for it, but since this question has been reduced to an Act of Parliament, the objections are very great indeed. If you are going to deal with blind and block booking, there is a good deal that can be said in favour of the proposal. What I object to, and what the Leader of the Opposition has raised an ojection to, is the way in which 677 it is being dealt with in connection with other parts of the Bill, particularly in connection with the quota If you are going to enforce a certain percentage of British films, you must leave them free to deal with the rest of their business. It is too much to enforce the agreed quota, and also restrict ordinary trade practices in regard to booking forward and so-called blind booking.
The President of the Board of Trade has dealt rather widely with this matter. I admit having approached him previously on the question of the production of British films, and I still think it very important that we should export British films to be shown in other parts of the Empire. I have not a word to withdraw on that point. I think the Bill as a whole is very doubtful in regard to the effect it will have in that direction. I am not sure that this Bill will secure the exhibition of a six-reel film produced by British capital in any of our Dominions. I am not sure that this Measure will accomplish anything in that direction, and that is the only real test. It is not so much what is shown in this country that matters, but what is shown abroad. I do want to see good and excellent British films shown abroad, especially in the Dominions, and in fact all over the world, for publicity reasons, and even for the reason put forward by the Federation of British Industries, although I do not always approve of their methods. I do not think we are going the right way about this question, and my view is that this Bill as a whole is going to put a premium on inefficiency.
The proposals in regard to this Bill were entirely different when they were put forward in writing and published. What I suggested in the first place was that trade facilities credits should be granted, and that cheap credits should be provided in order to assist this industry. What I pointed out in my speeches was that we had a tremendous lot of leeway to make up. The film industry has been largely developed by only three countries. In the early days, America had a great advantage in the shape of a good climate for production, and unlimited capital, and, above all, they had a number of business men who were prepared to give financial support to their schemes. Owing to the War, Germany had to produce her own films, and the German film industry has been 678 in a very flourishing condition for some time. The third country which has been successful in regard to film production is Russia, where the Government have been able to restrict all enterprise except that of the Russian Government companies.
I wish to know whether we are going to catch up the immense loss of the last few years? Are we going to force our way into the overseas market in regard to British films if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament? When that test is applied to this Bill I think it fails. I object to interfering in this way with a very important industry which is at the present moment flourishing in this country. It is unfair to interfere in the way which is now proposed with that large body of business men who now form our amusement caterers.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have allowed a rather wide range in this discussion, but it was not intended to> cover the whole question of the quota. I think the question of blind booking can be treated separately from the quota.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg pardon, but I was rather tempted to stray from the Amendment. With regard to blind booking, the President of the Board of Trade has said that the film industry differs in this matter from every other industry. I venture to say that there are some very similar industries in which blind booking is the present rule. The painting of portraits has been referred to. May I ask if the President of the Board of Trade has had his portrait painted for the benefit of posterity, and did he pay anything, or agree to pay anything, until he had seen it and approved of it?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERNo, Sir. As I pointed out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in those cases there is a willing buyer, but here the unfortunate buyer is having the thing thrust upon him.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI am told that that is exactly what is not happening, but that these exhibitors ask to book the productions of a certain company on its past performances, featuring, as it is called, certain film actors on their past performances; and I am also told that it would be very difficult to carry on the business without that. I will 679 take another case. Has the President of the Board of Trade yet given to the world a book—say a work on philosophy? I understand he has not. Very well; I will tell him that I have an advantage over him there, and I find that, in the business of writing books, not only is the book commissioned in advance, if you are supposed to be capable of writing a suitable book, but you are actually offered hard cash on the signing of the contract; and, so far from the book having been seen before that is done, it is done before one line of it is put on paper. That very commonly happens.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick)May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman? I should be glad to buy a book in such circumstances if I knew that it was to be written by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I would not buy a book under a contract which involved taking books from other members of the Labour party.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYExactly; that drives in my point. What happens is this. Suppose that the hon. Gentleman occupies a cinematograph theatre, and that I, a renter, go to him and say, "I have a very successful Cabinet film picturing the President of the Board of Trade"—I am not quite certain if that is right, but, anyhow, the Home Secretary; or suppose I say, " You know that film in which Valentino takes part which we are producing next year " —Valentino is dead, but the film might be one that was made in the past and had not been released; or suppose I say, " We are producing some films within the next two years in which Mr. Chaplin or Mr. Fairbanks will be featured; will you, knowing the performances of Mr. Chaplin and Mr. Fairbanks on the screen, take these films when they are produced?" The hon. Gentleman, who knows that his patrons like Mr. Fairbanks or Mr. Chaplin, will say, "Yes, of course I will." It is the same as when, knowing what I can write, he says, as he has just said, he would take a book written by me. But if I go to him with films showing absolutely unknown artists of whom nobody has ever heard, he will not take them. That is exactly what has happened in the film industry, or so I am informed. 680 Blind booking is only conducted by firms who produce good films and have a good reputation, or, in the case of films that feature, as it is called, well-known actors and actresses, and I do not think the case is any different from that of the novel or of journalism or anything else. I have written thousands and thousands of words for newspapers on matters of public interest which the newspapers have agreed to publish—and I should have been very annoyed if they had not published them—without knowing one word of what I was going to write beyond a very broad outline of the subject. That is a case of blind booking. Indeed, newspapers could not be produced otherwise, except merely with their news; they could not have articles on matters of general interest unless they did that. No newspaper, magazine or periodical in the country could do that unless blind booking was possible. They have to go to certain people who can write on certain subjects, and say, "We want an article or contribution on such-and-such a subject; will you write it for us?" That is the only way in which they can do it, and that is blind booking; it is very similar to what happens in the case of films.
I confess that at first sight it seems possible to make out a strong case for restrictions on blind booking, but, on a full examination of the matter, and knowing the opposition from very important bodies of exhibitors, who have a very great deal of capital invested in picture theatres up and down the country, and who know their own business best— in view of that opposition, combined with the quota, I consider that this part of the Bill goes much too far. May I say that the fact that I have crossed the Gangway has made no difference to my views on the matter at all? The person who has changed my views is the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, with his ridiculous quota system. Whenever I have advocated certain measures, which I do not want to touch upon here, for helping British films, I have always recommended the avoidance of two things—the restriction due to a quota, and a tariff. Neither will do any good, and when, on the top of that, it is proposed to restrict the ordinary trade practices of the industry, I say that all that is being done 681 is to threaten with grave injury a perfectly worthy body of men who know their own business, who have immense interests at stake and immense capital invested. That is not fair at all, and I think, therefore, that we are perfectly justified in voting against this portion of the Bill.
§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSI am a little amazed by the speech we have just heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). What does it amount to 1 It amounts to saying, "Leave everything alone." The Bill was brought in because of the existence of circumstances of an evil nature. If the hon. and gallant Member does not like the provisions of the Bill, if he does not like the abolition of blind booking and block booking and the scheme of the quota, which I regard as essential, if he believes that the abolition of blind and block booking will not produce the necessary results, why does he not put in front of us something constructive?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIt would not be in order for me to put forward my proposal now, but I said I wanted cheap credit given to the producing companies. That was my constructive suggestion, and it will have to be done if anything is to be accomplished.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSAgain I am amazed, because there seems to be no difficulty in getting cheap credit. The cheapest credit that any firm can get is in the form of subscriptions to ordinary shares, on which there is no obligation to pay any dividend unless a profit is made. That is the cheapest form of credit I have ever heard of. The other day I noticed in the papers that a film company was being floated, called, I think, Whitehall Films, and I was told that the issue was oversubscribed 11 times in about five minutes.
§ Colonel DAYOn the strength of this Bill.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSOn the strength of this Bill. Therefore, as a result of the introduction of this Bill, we have the cheapest possible form of credit, namely, a willing subscription to ordinary shares without any Government guarantee behind it at all. [Interruption.] There is no promise of any kind that is of financial value behind a prospectus; there is 682 merely an expectation, which is based upon the faith that people may have in the directors and in the scheme they outline. I do not think the hon. and gallant Member's analogy of the newspapers is a very impressive one. He tells us that newspaper proprietors are prepared blindly to trust him to write, and they will publish what he writes. I am not going to criticise what the hon. and gallant Member writes; I have always read it with interest; but presumably what he says is true of the distinguished people who write every Sunday in the papers that we all of us read in our spare moments. I have always wondered why there was so much more undiluted rubbish published on a Sunday than on any other day of the week; I understand it is due to the fact that this blind booking system exists in regard to newspapers. Personally, I wish it applied to what I write, but they always want to see what I write, and then they reject most of it.
In all seriousness, we have, or have had, our theatres blocked with American films, and there has been no chance for the British producer. In some way or other we have to make it possible for British films to get into British theatres, and we can only do that if we relieve the situation which has existed in the past, and prevent it from occurring in the future—the situation which the American monopolists have forced upon us. They have been in the position of being able to supply super-films, the outstanding feature films which the- theatres want, and, before they will let people have those, they insist on their taking blindly a great deal of other stuff which may or may not be rubbish. The public suffer as much as anyone else, because the standard of display in the theatres is far lower than it need be as the result of this iniquitous system which the Bill is designed to stop. I was surprised to hear what was said by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), to the effect that he wanted blind booking to be permissible in the case of British films. We have seen the evil of the American monopoly, and I am just as anxious that we shall not build up in this country a British monopoly. Therefore, I want the restrictions which would apply to American films to apply equally to British films. I have read in the 683 papers of the evils from which they suffer in America, and the President of the Board of Trade drew attention this afternoon to the way in which the American public are complaining about the same thing of which we are complaining, owing to the film monopoly which this Bill is designed to break; and I am perfectly satisfied that, until the way has been cleared by doing away with blind and block booking, there is no hope- Already we see, as the result of the promise of this Bill, an amazing revival in the production of British films, and it would be a shame now if, after so much progress has been made, we were to abandon Part I of the Bill.
§ Mr. KELLYOne would imagine, after hearing the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams), that the proposed registration and restrictions in regard to block booking and blind booking were going to save the public from seeing those pictures which the hon. Member deplores; but there is nothing in this Bill that is going to enforce the making of better pictures than are made at this moment. There is nothing that will enable the President of the Board of Trade or his Department to refuse to register any film which the proprietor or producer names to them at any time, provided he pays the registration fee. I think that all this talk about blind booking, of which we heard so much during the Committee stage, is beside the question. The people who complained that they were compelled to take certain American pictures which they disliked were not placing some of those on the screen; if they did, the public would not suffer long, because they would absent themselves from the cinema theatres where such pictures were displayed. Like others on these benches, I must express my thankfulness for the reasonable spirit shown by the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon. I think that anyone looking at the proceedings during the Committee stage of this Bill, and realising the number of times that the right hon. Gentleman moved the Closure, would see the unreasonableness that operated during the Committee stage. The suggestions, however, now made to us by the right hon. Gentleman, that he is prepared to accept certain modifications in this Measure, do not 684 make it any the more acceptable. It is. still the same Bill, which compels registration, which prevents people from engaging in the business that they have been conducting for some time, and prevents them from arranging to purchase a film which they thoroughly understand although it has not been placed upon the screen.
5.0 p.m.
I submit that it is possible for people to buy a film, to arrange for the production and exhibition of a film, before ever the film has been produced. The Parliamentary Secretary in his own business would demand to see the plans of a ship he was going to buy, and the exhibitor arranges with the producer the plans for the pictures that he is prepared to buy. But this Bill says you must not enter into any bargain, you must not, even though you have a good idea as to what will suit the public, go forward with it, but you must only engage a picture when it has been shown at some trade show. That is such a restriction upon industry that I am amazed at the Government coming forward with it. I am pleased that the President of the Board of Trade has realised that London is not the centre of the universe, and is not even the centre of this country. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member suggested a. place which might more fittingly than London be described as the centre of the universe. I refrain from mentioning it.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI must not be taken as accepting that reflection upon Yorkshire.
§ Mr. KELLYIt is the other rose the hon. Member is referring to, the county of the red rose and not the white rose. I hope we shall delete the restriction that London is the only place where a trade show may take place, and that every exhibitor from North, South, East or West must come to London to attend it before he can enter into a business bargain to show the film in his own theatre. I also express some pleasure that this crime of purchasing pictures is now having some effect upon the Board of Trade, and it is good to find that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to halve the penalty from £100 to £50. But why have any penalty at all? If a proprietor or his representative purchases a film not in the way the right hon. Gentleman feels it ought to be done, they can be hauled 685 before the Courts and fined up to the amount of £50, the new amount the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I hope that penalty can be deleted. With regard to existing agreements, surely the right hon. Gentleman realises what he is doing by Clause 4. To say that existing agreements entered into in good faith, agreements which are not a crime against this country, agreements which enable pictures to be shown, can be wiped out immediately this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament is something that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman's followers have not appreciated. If it is good for a Conservative Government to wipe out agreements which are legally and morally good, that will be remembered when we are dealing with other sides of the life of the country. I hope the House will vote against Part I and get rid of something that is to the disadvantage of the cinema industry.
§ Colonel DAYI have listened with very great interest to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) giving us an explanation how English capital could be found so easily for the production of British films. Last week I received a letter from one of the most prominent men in the cinema industry, a man who had more to do with its establishment on a sound basis in this country than anyone else. It is dated 24th October, 1927:
I am sending you the enclosed letter with prospectus which I have received from…… on behalf of……Films, Limited, from which you will see how the Government's quota scheme is being employed to raise capital. This I consider a desecration of all business morality. Needless to say, I have declined the chairmanship offered me.That was a very well-known firm of accountants who have floated lately a company for £200,000 and asked this gentleman to accept the chairmanship, or deputy-chairmanship. The prospectus, which I have read1 very carefully, is extremely interesting, as all they have to offer the public is the hope that, through the Government's quota scheme, the production of British films will mean very large dividends for the subscribers. That, I am afraid, has been the general outline of the way money has been asked for from the public for the production of British films lately. There is no guarantee to the investing public in any 686 way that the films will be of any merit or will have any drawing power or that the poor investor will ever see any of his money back. There was a case, a few years ago, of a company with a capital of £500,000 formed for the production of British films which went into liquidation, although it had at its head some very eminent and experienced members of the profession who have been connected with the House. I am rather surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's remark that the overwhelming majority of the trade are in favour of the Bill. I have here a copy of the referendum that was sent them by the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association of Great Britain and Ireland. It reads:The following resolution was passed by a majority of 22 votes to 10 at the last meeting of the general council.Resolved: That the report of the joint trade committee on British films be accepted by the general council.It was further resolved that special meetings of the branches be called to consider the scheme, after which a referendum might have to be taken. You are therefore called upon to register your decision by placing a cross in one of the columns of the voting paper. No qualifications are admissible. If any are made the vote will be void for uncertainty. This paper will not be valid unless received on or before the first post on 30th November, 1925."
The voting was 679 against the committee's proposition and 609 in favour. That is the last referendum that was taken.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI was talking about something quite different— blind booking. Those are the figures I quoted. The hon. Member is quoting something quite different.
§ Colonel DAYThe Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association have definitely informed Members of the House that there is no definition of block booking. I will give the House the definition presently. I am only now giving the figures of that portion of the trade that voted on the General Council's resolution, and that portion does not in any way cover the trade. The trade consists of at least 4,000 exhibitors. If we take that referendum as a census of opinion in the trade we should reject the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had had these figures before he introduced it, I think it would never have been introduced. The Cinematograph Exhibitors' Associa- 687 tion of Great Britain and Ireland is the association which has not only tried to inform Members of the House how the trade should be run, but, I believe, has been in very close touch with the right hon. Gentleman and his officials. I think they are more or less the inspirers of many of the Clauses of the Bill. They have issued what they call the meaning of trade terms. It says:
Block booking has never been defined. It has had different meanings in the trade at different times. Advance hooking and block booking are now synonymous terms.There the association is trying to confuse the minds of Members by telling them that advance booking, which is blind booking, and block booking are the same. I contend that they are totally different. Blind booking means booking a film in advance which one has not seen and block booking is the booking of a block of films whether they have been produced or not.In many ways in Committee the right lion. Gentleman met us very fairly, but on other occasions, rather than have any opposition put up from our benches, the Closure was moved ruthlessly, and there are many points in the Bill that we did not have an opportunity of debating. [Interruption.] I thank the right hon. Gentleman who has just made that remark, which I happened to overhear and which I will not repeat, because I really do not wish to give him any credit for discourtesy. I am sure that is the last thing he would desire and I do not think he actually meant it.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI only said that I prefer the right to make a calculation as to how many hours the hon. Member spoke.
§ Colonel DAYThat might be a very interesting calculation, and might give much satisfaction to many Members on this side. I would ask the House to consider that the restriction on blind booking and advance booking of films is one which should never have been introduced into this Bill. Blind booking or advance booking, not only of films, but in regard to all matters connected with the entertainment industry, has been the backbone of the industry. One must realise that you must make advance arrangements for the purpose of carrying on such an 688 intricate business as the cinema, especially where there is so much competition in the different towns. I think it is quite generally known that in one very important town there are seven houses which run super plays or pictures. If you are going to impose this restriction you are going to make it almost impossible for some of those houses to carry on. Advance booking or blind booking, as far as my short experience of the entertainment industry goes, has been the mainstay of the business. Although I was very delighted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was agreeable to modify the penalties which are set out in Clause 3, personally, I think those penalties should not be there at all. We all know that if a licensee, an exhibitor who holds a licence, happens to be fined for using an unregistered film, the next time he comes before the licensing authority for the renewal of his licence it is almost certain that the licensing authority will not renew the licence. That would really amount to a further penalty upon the cinema exhibitor.
These instances have been gone into very carefully in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman knows them perfectly well, as they have been pointed out on so many occasions. We, on this side cannot see what benefits the registration Clause and the Clause which compels all people to register films can be to the trade. The only benefit it can be to anybody is to the Board of Trade, who will exact certain fees. Will those fees be sufficient to pay for the enormous staff that will be necessary to carry on that Department? Registration, of course, will mean a certain additional staff, and probably a greatly increased staff as time goes on. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question that I placed upon the Order Paper some considerable time ago, but that question referred particularly to cheap American films. It did not refer to the super films, or the big super films that we have at the present time from America. All who are connected with the exhibiting side of the cinema industry are well aware that if it were not for the super films that this country has had lately from America and from other parts of the world it would be impossible to carry on their business. When any British film has been produced that has any merit or drawing power the 689 exhibitors in this country have only been too glad immediately to book the film without any statutory obligation compelling them to do so. I "do not think there is any more loyal body of citizens than the exhibitors. They have loyally shown and have done so ever since 1914 every film of a patriotic nature. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some very bad ones, too!"] Some very bad ones, I agree. But what they do not want, is to be compelled to show films which are of no use. Unfortunately, if this Clause is passed, there will be a time when the exhibitors will have to show the very films that they have been fighting against for years.
I am glad to see that the President of the Board of Trade has decided to leave that portion of Sub-section 2 which refers to the trade shows in the county of London to a free vote of the House. I cannot conceive how such a Sub-section can have been put into the Bill. It is an insult to such districts as Manchester, Liverpool, Cardiff and Glasgow. It is an insult to districts which are really one of the mainstays of the- cinema industry as far as the exhibiting side goes. With regard to the trade show of those films, I am not aware whether the right hon. Gentleman has had his attention drawn to that case which governed trade shows for some time, Ellis versus the Northern Metropolitan Theatre, where pictures could only be trade-shown during the licensed hours of cinemas. That is a position which, in some cases, might be very difficult. As the right hon. Gentleman so kindly said that he would leave the question to a free vote of the House, may we go a little further and ask him to suggest to the representatives of the Government that they should use a little bit of influence, or explain thoroughly to the Members what they are voting upon when they come into the House. Because the mere fact of knowing that the Government are in one Lobby will be a sufficient inducement, although it is a free vote of the House, to those Members who have not heard the Debate, and have not heard the President's very generous remarks, to follow into the opposite Lobby to that which the Opposition are in. Perhaps, as the right hon. Gentleman has been so generous we may be able to persuade either him or his Under-Secretary to come into our Lobby and support us. Blind booking has been 690 one of the means by which the producers of films in this country have been able to finance the production of their films.
I suggest to the House that the restriction of advance booking and the insistence upon this registration Clause will hinder a trade, where, in the past, the producer has been able to arrange certain finance in respect of advance booking. You will be hampering the producer to such an extent that he will not be able to produce the same quantity of films that he has been able to produce in the past. We all know that some films cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. We heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Beading that a company has just been floated, I think he said, for £200,000. How ludicrous a sum that is when you are talking of producing super-films. We know of many super-films having been produced and shown in London during the past year, and that one of these films had cost half-a-million. I suggest that if the President of the Board of Trade could look back to last February and have his time over again, he would think twice before bringing in such a Bill as this.
There are many evils in connection with this Bill, and one of them is the evil of the bogus cinema schools. I have just mislaid the notification. [Interruption]. I intend to let you know the evils of the Bill. That is what we are on. this side of the House for. We are here for the purpose of letting the country know exactly what are the evils of the Bill that is being forced on the trade and on the public. I have here a notification which I will probably produce later when I have had a chance of going through my papers. It is a notification sent out by the Advertisers' Association warning people and warning newspapers of the prevalence of bogus cinema schools, promoters of which, since the introduction of this Bill, have tried by falsely worded advertisements to hold out great prospects to members of the public to become cinema stars and earn large salaries. I see the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall Caine) smiles, but it is a fact. It is within the recollection of the House that I have put down several questions to the Home Secretary on this great evil which has been in existence for the last few months.
691 This Bill, as it is at present framed, and Clause 1 in particular, ie destroying one of the assets, if I may say so, that the producers 'have had in the security of firm contracts which they have been able to make in advance with substantial firms, and by which they have been able to finance the big super films that they may have had in mind. If the object which the President of the Board of Trade has in view is to limit British productions, this Bill excellently serves the purpose. All that this Bill does is to encourage the inefficient producer. We are making it easier for him and making it more difficult, by the restriction of blind bookings, not only for the competent producer, but for the company which in the past have been able to produce satisfactory and excellent films, with the possibility of financing them through being able to secure advances on their future contracts. In addition, this Bill will seriously jeopardise freedom in negotiation as regards contracts. Legislative control of that principle is bad. We on this side of the House are particularly opposed to any form of restrictive proposals which will restrict freedom of contract.
There can be no doubt that the only people in the trade who want this Bill and who are the driving force in connection with it are the producing group of the F.B.I. They have been" the people in the fore all the way through. When there has been any announcement to be made in the Press of a modification of the quota, etc., they have been the first people to rush into print with it. As the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well, when an alteration was made in certain Clauses of this Bill, although we were sitting in Committee at the time, the first intimation that we had in that Committee of that alteration was by reading in the " Times " a letter from representatives of the F.B.I, saying what the modifications were going to be.
§ Mr. THURTLEWhat does the hon. Member mean by the F.B.I.?
§ Colonel DAYThe Federation of British Industries. Even before the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of telling the Committee that he had agreed to certain modifications, or that he was going to agree to those modi- 692 fications, the first intimation we had of them, although we had been sitting for many days in Committee, was a letter in the newspaper from one of the representatives of the F.B.I., stating what the modifications were to be. Considering the enormous injustice that Part I of the Bill will create not only to the renters and the exhibitors, but also to the public, in restricting output, we on this side shall offer every objection that is possible to the Bill.
§ Mr. THURTLEI would not have intervened had I not heard the extraordinary defence of blind booking by the President of the Board of Trade. I could hardly believe that he was serious in offering that defence to the House, because he likened the creation of cinema films to ordinary articles of commerce. He said that if there was blind booking prevailing in other branches of industry it was possible to get samples and to find out what the articles were going to be. In effect, he compared a film to a pound of sugar or a pound of tea, a Ford car or a sausage or some stereotyped article of commerce.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI am afraid that I must have been unintelligible to the hon. Member. My argument was exactly the opposite.
§ Mr. THURTLEI understood from the right hon. Gentleman that his point was that we were trying to put forward analogies of other industries and that he said that in those cases it was possible always to find out by means of samples what kind of article would be delivered. The film industry must be looked upon as a creative industry; an industry in which the creative artist is at work, and you cannot judge it by ordinary standards. I would like to give an illustration or two. Take the case of an author. When an author goes to a publisher and says that he is prepared to write a book on such and such a subject, you cannot tie him down as to the exact way in which he is going to carry out his work. Suppose, for illustration, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) were to go to a publisher and offer to write a book on money as it affects party politics. I am sure the publisher would make a blind booking of that without insisting upon the details of the particular book. He 693 would make a booking with the prospective author without seeing a sample of the work, and would undertake to purchase it. If we were to pursue that line of argument we might have other amusing illustrations. There might be the possibility of some enterprising cinematograph producer deciding to produce a film on the work of the present Tory Government. I could imagine that that might be a very interesting subject, not only for its works of commission but its works of omission. If the cinematograph firm were to offer the exhibitors a film on such a subject, without even giving much in the way of detail, I should think the exhibitors would be quite ready to enter into contracts to buy that particular film.
I press the point that if a highly reputable cinematograph producing firm has in its mind a conception of a film only vaguely, without the details filled in, if it has a reputation for high class work, if it has at its command creative artists who are going to build up the film and people who are accustomed to writing scenarios—although I have not a very high opinion of their literary standard in most cases—and if they can show that they are capable of producing a work of such a character, it is perfectly legitimate for them to be able to book that film in advance and to go to the exhibitors any say: "This is what we propose to do. We cannot guarantee exactly what our artists will make of the job. We cannot fill in all the details, but this, broadly, is our proposal. That is what we hope to make of the film." With a proposition like that, I submit that the exhibitors ought to be able to book such a film in advance. It is an intolerable interference with the ordinary rights of commerce and industry that that kind of thing should be prevented. This Government has made many blunders in connection with commerce and the agricultural industry and it seems to me to be about the last straw that it should come along now and with a proposal of this kind reduce the creative artist in the film industry to the level of the sausage manufacturer.
Mr. BECKETTI want to ask hon. Members opposite if they have really considered before they decide to pass this Bill into law exactly to what level they are reducing the status of the House of Commons. If anyone reads carefully the 694 Clauses of the Bill which are now being discussed it is absolutely impossible, however impartial one keeps one's mind, not to feel the suspicion that there is an extraordinarily big financial flavour to-the whole of this transaction, when one finds the President of the Board of Trade,, amidst the breathless watching of his influential supporters, succeeding in steering this Bill by the skin of his teeth through Standing Committee, when we find all the gentlemen who write in the more reputable organs of the Press advising us how to invest our capital and when we find in every paper carrying any financial status all sorts of big puffs, speculations and advertisements as to what is going to be done once the President of the Board of Trade has done his job and this Bill, which interferes with public amusements, has been foisted upon the people of this country.
One big advertisement appeared the other day, in which it was obvious that the promoters had spent a very large amount of money, of a new company to be floated known as the Whitehall Films Company. Amongst the names advertised were prominent Conservative supporters and even the names of certain Members-of Parliament. That is the second great film company which has been advertised in the Press since this Bill was introduced in respect of which we have seen puffs, stating that Members of this House were vitally interested in the welfare of the company. It seems to me a most extraordinary thing that this House should pass a Bill interfering with legitimate business in a way which has never been done before and bringing in all kinds of restrictions in connection with a particularly useful class of tradesman who-not only caters for public amusement but also provides very handsome revenue towards the profligate expenditure of the present Government. Here we have a trade serving a useful purpose catering well for the public, paying large sums into the public exchequer, being chosen out of the trades of the country for a most drastic infringement of that right of free play and competitive enterprise about which hon. Members opposite bore whatever audiences they can find in the country, and no sooner do we see the Government saying to this trade "You are not to run your business your own way," than we find Members of Parliament heavily interested in new companies 695 advertised in the Press which are going to benefit as a result of a most improper interference with perfectly legitimate business.
There has been a tremendous attempt, although some newspapers supporting the party opposite have fairly exposed it in the country, to prejudice the public mind against blind booking. When the organs in the Press which support the party opposite so faithfully suddenly raise their hands in horror and say of blind booking in the cinema industry, "Here is an evil that we will kill; here is a terrible thing existing that we will stop," we on this side, from bitter experience, have learned to know where the dividends are coming from which suddenly inspire them to arouse prejudice in order to kill that so-called evil. If the Government want to do something for British trade and for the cinema industry, if they want to restrict evils, they could attack other evils than that of blind or advance booking, but in attacking those evils the Whitehall Company and its Conservative directors and supporters might not make a profit out of killing those evils. Therefore, we are in the habit, whenever we see hon. Members opposite raising their hands in horror and declaring their intentions to abolish it, of looking to see where their dividends are coming from next year. There is no doubt whatever that after you have imposed these restrictions upon a growing and useful trade, useful to the public .and to the Exchequer, you are going to get nothing out of it so far as British films and British trade are concerned. All you are going to do is to further enrich a few British trusts and a few British speculators. I know I should be out of order in dealing with anything but Part I of this Bill at the moment, but if the Bill is taken as a whole the arguments I am putting forward hold good for the rest of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle) has dealt with the absurdity of the attack upon blind bookings. It is such a ridiculous case that the House cannot be reminded too often of the flimsy pretext upon which hon. Members opposite are proposing in the Lobby to support the interest of these new speculators in the film industry of this country. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us, of he can, 696 of any trade in this country in which the Government deliberately steps in and says, as a Parliament and a Government, that it is against the law to buy goods in advance whether they desire to or not. When serving on the Committee upstairs I made it my business to interview a considerable number of cinematograph exhibitors, and I did not find one who upheld the view that under the present system he had been obliged to give his public inadequate entertainments because he had to book whatever was given him. In the case of great artists, leading music hall artists, for instance, they are booked up for years to come. Sir Harry Lauder may be booked 10 years ahead. The people do not know what he is going to sing. He may be unlucky and not able to give as good songs as usual. He may have to give second-rate songs, but Parliament does not say to the managers of the Victoria Palace, or to any of the caterers of music hall entertainments, "Oh, but Sir Harry Lauder may rob you in 10 years' time by singing a bad song, therefore we will pass an Act of Parliament forbidding you to book him." Why does not Parliament interfere in a case like that. Everybody knows that Parliament is not concerned, and no Federation of British Industries is concerned as to whether Sir Harry Lauder, who gets a contract, sings a good song or a bad song.
Take the case of the iron and steel industries, or the coal industry; they have to buy goods which they think they will need a year ahead, and Parliament does not object. There is no large industry in this country which could be carried on without a considerable amount of forward buying and booking, and the only safeguard they have that the goods will be up to specification is the safeguard of their own shrewdness when buying and their knowledge of the products of the people with whom they do business. It is a most extraordinary thing to say that in this one industry, in this new speculative business, financed by prominent Conservatives, must the purchasers be prevented from buying in advance, must be prevented from entering into agreements in advance, in case they have no money left in order to buy the goods which the new companies of hon. Members opposite are going to produce in the near future. The whole 697 position is a definite disgrace to the House of Commons. Then I come to Clause 3 in Part I, which, in my opinion, adds malice to the suspicion with which we regard this part of the Bill. Not only are people forbidden to buy goods whether they desire to or not, or enter into agreements whether they desire to or not, but in addition these agreements are to he unenforceable in law. Then, so anxious are we to look after the Whitehall Film Company and its friends, we say that if anyone does spend money in advance they must spend it with us, or if not we will put them to severe legal expenses and fine them £100. That is bad in itself, but it is much worse than that. Any hon. Member on the Committee upstairs, except the hon. Member for Southwark Central (Colonel Day), when he spoke on any Amendment was told that he knew nothing about the industry and had no interest in the industry, and to the hon. Member for Southwark they said "You should not speak about it because you are in the industry." Every hon. Member opposite, in Committee, was careful to tell us that he was personally interested in the matter. I should have thought it was perfectly proper to speak if you had no interest in the matter and rather improper to speak in favour of this Bill if you had any interest in the industry.
There is a more serious danger still than that. Hon. Members opposite who have no personal interest of any kind whatever in this Bill say that they are not supporting the Measure because they want to make a little speculative profit, but because they want to do something valid and legitimate to assist the British film industry which has been under such a dark cloud during the past few years. I put it to these hon. Members, who have no interest at all in this Bill, that they cannot stimulate the British film industry by putting too much on the shoulders of a young and growing industry at once. If you are going to stop advance bookings and blind bookings, and penalise people, if you are going to make agreements not enforceable in law, the result is that British exhibitors will not be able to get their supply of first-class foreign films which they are allowed under the Bill. America is not dependent on British exhibitors for the profits she is making at the moment. England gets the films 698 after they have paid for themselves several times over in America. Every year the super-film from America, which is the film we want, has a wider market to which to appeal, and if you are going: to put on all kinds of absurd restrictions they will take their super-films to another market, where they can make decent terms and where their agreements are not liable to the most grandmotherly kind of State interference. You are going to make it much more difficult for people here to obtain the best films, and the result will be that you will sicken the British public with deplorably padded programmes of hysterical, badly-produced and hastily rushed through British films.
I have another quarrel with this Bill. It is always the same when the Government starts protecting one section of the people in the interests of that section. Although you are giving the British producers a clear run you are doing nothing to protect the British exhibitor against exorbitant rents and bad films. I have been to a large number of cinema performances and have seen many films from many different countries, and, apart from the absolutely low class American pictures, which no respectable picture house is exhibiting now, the most deplorable films I have seen for tawdry tale and bad photography are the British films, which are rushed through in a hurry in order to meet an artificially created market. It does not take long to explain why. If the British film industry is to make good and cut out the American propaganda, if it is to make good British propaganda, such as good Conservatives want, you will have to bring up your industry slowly; not give them the inducement of producing dud films but make them fight on their merits with other countries in order to produce the kind of film that will succeed. I do not share in the exuberance of the two minutes of 11th November Imperialism of some people, but the one thing that infuriates me is to see shown all over the world films boosting one particular nation and very often showing our own nation in a worse light than I think it should be shown. You are not going to cure that by this Bill; you are going to make it worse. You are going to give this new speculative British company an absolutely safe and certain market where it can take its goods at any price, however bad they are.
699 Hon. Members opposite, who know so much about the virtues of private enterprise, much more than I have ever been able to discover, always tell us that the one thing which make private enterprise efficient is the fact that it has to compete in an open market. I do not think it is .a very strong argument, but they cannot use it again if they vote for this Bill. In this Bill they have said, " It may be true, as we have said on every platform, that competition is the saving grace of private enterprise, but as we are concerned with a speculative rush into the British film industry we do not want to expose it to competition, we want to make it as difficult as possible for even the most legitimate competition, because when we get no competition we shall produce cheap junk stuff. We can have cheap artists, cheap camera men, and cheap producers, and we can rush things through without adequate rehearsal."
6.0 p.m.
Everyone knows that for every 500 feet of film that are shot it is not at all unusual for 300 or 400 feet to be cut away before the film is shown to the public. That is the great difference between a really good film giving a decent story with decent artists, and a bad film. In the good film the producer has had the money and the time to get his story together carefully, to shoot it in all kinds of differing circumstances, and to piece it together, cutting out what is bad, and to re-act what is not good enough, and so with an adequate expenditure on photography and time and on shooting the film, he succeeds in presenting to the public not a bad film, not the thousands and thousands of feet of film that have been shot, but what he considers to be the quintescence, the best part of those thousands of feet. I suggest that if you are going to restrict blind booking and advance booking, you are not only going to cut foreign pictures out of the quota,
§ but you will make it impossible for us to get the best kind of foreign pictures anyway. It means that you are creating a larger artificial market for an industry which its most optimistic friends will not declare to be thoroughly on its feet yet.
§ I agree whole-heartedly with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who say how important it is that the British film industry should be put on its feet, but the passing of these Clauses is not the way to put it on its feet. You are creating a large market for which the industry is not ready. There are to be no restrictions, no censorship, no directions to the exhibitor. You will not assist the British industry to get on its feet and to produce pictures that will be a credit and good propaganda abroad for the British nation, but you will provide a market where British producers can sell any junk they like at any price they care to charge. The exhibitors will have to buy whatever they are given. You are creating "a tender plant," a protected industry. Look at the names on the prospectuses of the new British companies. I see the names of several prominent Conservative Members of this House. Apart from those, it is like reading a list of members of the Moscow Soviet. These people are not the people who, when they can sell bad stuff dearly, will produce and sell good stuff cheaply. If you do not produce good pictures cheaply, you will not capture the world market, and you will not have good British films to send abroad to bring trade to this country or credit and understanding of the British people. Those objects will never be attained by the fostering of speculative companies.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word ' agreement ' in page 1, line 10, stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 105.
703| Division No. 324.] | AYES. | [6.6 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Briggs, J. Harold |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Bennett, A. J. | Briscoe, Richard George |
| Albery, Irving James | Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Brocklebank, C. E. R. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Berry, Sir George | Broun-Lindsay, Major H. |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool.W. Derby) | Bethel, A. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Betterton, Henry B. | Buchan, John |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W | Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Sklpton) | Buckingham, Sir H. |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Blades, Sir George Rowland | Bullock, Captain M. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Boothby, R. J. G. | Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Butt. Sir Alfred |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward |
| Caine, Gordon Hall | Hartington, Marquess of | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Ramsden, E. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Headlam, Lleut.-Colonel C. M. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Cayzer, MaJ. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.) | Henderson, Lt.-Coi. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hilton, Cecil | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Rye, F. G. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Sandon, Lord |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Huntingfield, Lord | Savery, S. S. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hurd, Percy A. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Cope, Major William | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne,C.) |
| Couper, J. B. | James, Lleut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston). | Smithers, Waldron |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Klndersley, Major Guy M. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Galnsbro) | Knox, Sir Alfred | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Lamb, J. Q. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Lane Fox, Col Rt. Hon. George R. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Davies, MaJ. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovll) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Loder, J. de V | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Long, Major Eric | Styles, Captain H. Walter |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Drewe, C. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Lynn, Sir R. J. | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | MacAndrew Major Charles Glen | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | MacIntyre, Ian | Tinne, J. A. |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | McLean, Major A. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Macmillan, Captain H. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Wells, S. R. |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | Meller, R. J. | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple- |
| Ganzonl, Sir John | Merriman, F. B. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- | Williams, Herbert G. (Rending) |
| Gates, Percy | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Goff, Sir Park | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Morden, Colonel Walter Grant | Withers, John James |
| Grace, John | Moreing Captain A. H. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Grant, Sir J. A. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Oakley, T. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Grotrian, H. Brent. | Penny, Frederick George | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich) |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Pilcher, G. | |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Pilditch, Sir Philip | TELLERS FOR THE AYES — |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Power, Sir John Cecil | Major Sir George Hennessy and Capt. Margesson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Charleton, H. C. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Cluse, W. S. | Groves, T. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Cove, W. G. | Grundy, T. W. |
| Baker, Walter | Day, Colonel Harry | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Dennison, R. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) |
| Barnes, A. | Duncan, C. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) |
| Batey, Joseph | Dunnico, H. | Hardle, George D. |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Forrest, W. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon, Vernon |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Gardner, J. P. | Hayday. Arthur |
| Broad, F. A. | Gibbins, Joseph | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) |
| Bromfield, William | Gillett, George M. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) |
| Bromley, J. | Greenall, T. | Hirst, G. H. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
| Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Potts, John S. | Townend, A. E. |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Riley, Ben | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland) | Viant, S. P. |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Rose, Frank H. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Kelly, W. T. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)- |
| Kennedy, T. | Scrymgeour, E. | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah |
| Kirkwood, D. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Lansbury, George | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Westwood, J. |
| Lawrence, Susan | Slesser, Sir Henry H. | Whiteley, w. |
| Lawson, John James | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Livingstone, A. M. | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Lowth, T. | Snell, Harry | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Lunn, William | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| MacNeill-Weir, L. | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Maxton, James | Stamford, T. W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Montague, Frederick | Stephen, Campbell | Wright, W. |
| Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Sutton, J. E. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Naylor, T. E. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) | |
| Oliver, George Harold | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Owen, Major G. | Thurtle, Ernest | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes. |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Tinker, John Joseph |