NEW CLAUSE. —(Provisions as to Cinematograph Fund.)

HC Deb 29 July 1932 vol 267 cc1822-69

(1) There shall be established under the direction and control of the Privy Council a fund, to be called the "Cinematograph Fund," and all sums paid to an authority in accordance with conditions imposed by them under the last foregoing Section for the purpose of being transmitted to that fund shall be so transmitted at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State and laid before Parliament.

(2) The moneys from time to time standing to the credit of the Cinematograph Fund shall be applied in such manner as may be directed by the Privy Council for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction.

(3) The accounts of the Cinematograph Fund shall be audited annually by an auditor appointed by the Privy Council, and his report thereon shall be laid before Parliament.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Stanley)

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Perhaps I had better remind the House of the history of this Clause. When the Bill was considered by the House on Second Reading one of the hon. Members for the Scottish Universities made some reference to the advisability of improving the standard of films in this country by some type of film institute, or public body of that kind. Several subsequent speakers referred with approval to that suggestion, and in the concluding speech of the Debate I pointed out that that seemed a suitable topic for discussion by the Standing Committee to which the Bill was committed. When the Standing Committee considered the Bill an Amendment purporting to carry out that principle was put down in the name of an hon. Member for one of the divisions of Hull, but that Amendment was drafted in such a form that, quite apart from any discussion of the principle involved, its form rendered it unacceptable to the Government and the Committee. It provided, for instance, that the whole of these moneys when collected should be given to a film institute, which at that time was not in existence. No provision was made for modification of the proportion which was to be paid, or for cessation of payments if the institute should be wound up or if its work proved to be a failure. In these circumstances and in view of the practical effects of the Clause, it was clearly impossible that the Committee could come to any decision on the underlying principle.

I think hon. Members in all parts of the House, whatever view they may take on the Amendment, will agree that it is a matter of considerable importance. It raises a question of new and it may be far-reaching principle, and it is one that my right hon. Friend thought that not only the Committee but this House ought to be able to discuss on its merits alone without being hampered in any way by any defects of drafting and machinery. Therefore, he gave a promise to the Committee that if the suggested Amendment were withdrawn he would submit to the House on Report a Clause designed to carry out the principle, with machinery adequate for the task, and in a form which would allow the House of Commons to come to a plain decision as to whether, as a matter of principle, it was a good thing to do or not.

Before I explain to the House the actual machinery which it is proposed to set up, I had better add a few more preliminary words. It is true that this idea, although it is very germane to the matters discussed in the Bill, is not essential to its operation. It would make no difference to the main object which the Government have in view in regard to the opening of Sunday cinemas whether or not this Clause was included. It is for that reason that I am authorised to say that the Clause will be left to the free decision of the House and that the Government Whips will not be put on either for or against it. I am not a great supporter of free votes, but I think this is one of the occasions where they can be justified. In normal cases when Amendments are put before the House, probably quite correctly, hon. Members are loth to grant the Minister in charge any superiority of wisdom, but they are usually prepared to assume that he has superior sources of information, and they therefore accept from the Government an indication of the way that they are expected to vote. But here we have a matter in which the Government have no advantage either in wisdom or in information. This is admittedly an experiment and each hon. Member is as capable as another of making up his mind on the facts as we know them, whether he thinks this is an experiment that should or should not be undertaken.

The machinery which this Clause and the consequential Amendments to Clause 1 will set up, is simple. A fund called the Cinematograph Fund is to be founded and placed under the control of the Privy Council. The Privy Council is selected because that body already deals with such subjects as medical and scientific research, and a fund of this kind is of an analogous character. The fund is made in this manner. The Home Secretary will prescribe a certain percentage of the amounts which the various local authorities decide have to be given by the cinemas to charity. That prescribed proportion of those amounts will instead of being paid, as the other 95 per cent., or whatever it may be, by the cinema proprietors to the charity, will be paid by them to the authority, who will forward it to the fund. I want to make it quite clear that the 5 per cent. which is referred to whenever this idea is discussed is a maximum and not a minimum.

All that it means is that the Secretary of State cannot prescribe a bigger percentage. Within these limits he can prescribe any percentage he desires, or none at all.

There is this safeguard in this proposal which was not in the original suggestion, that if at any time the House, before whom the orders will have to be placed, decides that the experiment has failed, that there is no body doing work of sufficient value to entitle them to receive these sums, then simply by the Secretary of State no longer prescribing a percentage the income of the fund ceases and the experiment is brought to an end. The details which the Secretary of State may prescribe will have to be laid before Parliament and, of course, on the Home Secretary's Vote it will be possible for Parliament to discuss them. The money paid into the fund is paid out under the supervision of the Privy Council for the purposes stated in the Clause. Hon. Members will agree that the machinery is simple, and I need hardly add, in view of the fact that there is no Financial Resolution, that it will cost the Government nothing. Whatever expenses there are will be borne by the fund. The House, therefore, will be able to come to a decision on the question of principle involved and the value of this experiment without regard to any more detail. That completes my task as far as the Government are concerned. The matter will be left to the Vote of the House, and although the hon. Member attaches great importance to this Clause even if it is defeated it will not in any way affect the main purpose for which the Bill was introduced.

I feel that the House will allow me to say what are my personal views on this matter without in any way committing the Government. I feel that the chance which is now offered to the House for beginning a work of this kind is one which will certainly not recur for many years, and it is, therefore, a matter which ought to be more carefully considered than the hasty way in which the idea has been received in some quarters. Although its advantages may be somewhat vague, no one can deny there may be a great deal of good in it and, therefore, before, the House dismisses the proposal they should give it their most earnest consideration. It is a balance between known disadvantages, and advantages which are to some extent speculative. The disadvantage, of course, is that the money up to 5 per cent. has to be paid by someone, it has to come out of somebody's pocket, and there seems to be a certain difference of opinion between the opponents of the Clause as to whose pockets it will come from; some say it will come out of the pockets of the cinema proprietors, and others that it will come out of the pockets of the hospitals. I saw a letter in the "Times" to-day from the General Secretary of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association, a most eloquent letter, displaying the most proper feelings for the effect which this might have on hospitals. In a concluding paragraph of great intensity, he says: To put 5 per cent. Income Tax on the moneys which the hospitals receive from this trade in order to create an unnecessary body will be one of the meanest and most pettifogging actions that have ever emerged from the House of Commons. That is a most unselfish statement, and I confess that I should attach greater importance to it had I not heard only yesterday that, taking advantage of what they believe to be a flaw in the present temporary Act, the cinema proprietors of London have decided to reduce their contribution to charities by 25 per cent. That can be remedied, of course, when the Bill becomes law. But leaving aside that kind of humbug, which does not seem to me to help their cause in any way, let us take the matter on a frank basis. Cinematograph proprietors have a perfect right to complain if 5 per cent. of their profits are taken for an object which they think is valueless, on which the money is going to be wasted, and, if they put it in that way instead of their anxiety for the hospitals, they would present a case which they are entitled to present, and which would (have to be met. I do not think it is any good supporters of this Clause arguing the fact that this percentage is to come not from the cinema proprietors but from the charitable objects. In terms which are becoming all too familiar in international conferences, local authorities will fix their contributions according to the capacity to pay, not the capacity to receive. They will fix them knowing what they think the cinemas can afford, not what the local hospitals would like to get; and they will not alter the amount because 5 per cent. or 1 per cent. is going not to their local hospital but to some outside body.

Those who support the Clause have the conviction that this money will be at the expense of charitable objects. Here again, grave as is that objection, we must also avoid any appearance of hypocrisy. Over 200 Members of Parliament voted against the Second Reading of the previous Bill, which would have had the effect of depriving hospitals, not of 5 per cent. of this revenue, but of the whole of it, and I have constantly been urged by those who oppose the Bill not to listen to the charitable argument, because it has nothing to do with the matter. Putting everything else aside, it comes to this: Is the money raised in this way to be spent to the value of the nation? If it is given to hospitals we know that it is going to be well spent. If it is to go to this fund, then we have to make up our minds whether we think it is going to be well spent or not. If we think that this small sum is going to achieve even partially some of the objects which some people believe may result from the formation of a film institute, then apart from any other consideration, we should agree that it is well worth spending the money on that experiment.

4.0 p.m.

During the course of this Bill I have had to deal time and again with the question of censorship. I have been told that the main objection of the opponents to the opening of cinemas on Sundays is the type of film shown. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) is one of the really honest opponents of the Measure, who bases his objection on that ground. I have always held the view that censorship is not a way by which you can improve the standard of anything, by which you can eliminate abuses, prevent obscenities, things that grossly offend public taste. No negative restriction is ever going to improve the standard of taste. If this idea works at all, you have at least an attempt to deal with a matter, with which we all want to deal, by a positive and not a negative approach. I see that this Clause is talked of as if the idea of the film institute was purely educational, to try to make everybody go to goody-goody films. If anyone takes the trouble to read the report of the committee who suggested the institute, it will be seen that their idea is quite different. It is one which, I think, commends itself to everybody, that whatever the cinema is going to give, if it is merely pictorial representation, if it is educational or tragedy, comedy, or romantic drama, at least let it be the best of its type. I, thank Heaven, have one of the lowest brows in this House. If I go to a cinema, taking a short, and by the Whips unsuspected, respite from my Parliamentary duties, it is not to go to a scientific film; it is to go to a good knock-down comedy.

Mr. GROVES

You can stop here for that.

Mr. STANLEY

We had better wait until the hon. Member's turn comes on. The trouble is that the ordinary cinema proprietor has fixed as the standard of taste throughout the whole world what is, I believe, technically known as a "hick" from a Middle Western American town. I happen to believe that the standard of taste in this country really is considerably higher, and that the ordinary—not the West End, but the East End—audience in London appreciates things for which, perhaps, the ordinary hick does not very much care. The question is whether the formation of an institute of this kind can do something to enable the public to get the films which, I believe, they are quite ready to see. At the present moment the supply which is given to them is based on what was believed to be the public taste several years ago. I believe that the public taste has progressed since then, and that it would, in fact, support films of quite a different character. How can this institute secure it?

There are, no doubt, a number of producers who are perfectly ready to give to the public that kind of film if they are quite certain that there is a market available for them, and at the present moment, in the ordinary commercial cinema, they are not. It seems to me that the growth of public taste, the growth, therefore, of a sure demand for good films, and therefore the growth of the production of good films, depends largely on the extent of the Film Society ideal, the knowledge that all over the country there are a number of people banded together, regular film goers, who are prepared to pay to go and see a better type of film. Even if a failure in the big commercial theatres, it still has an assured value in these centres which are growing up. It seems to me that one of the chief roles of the institute would be to act as a link between this demand springing up, between the different organisations throughout the country and the producers who, otherwise, would have no possible means of communication with them, and these people could go to the producers and say, "If you can produce a film of such and such a type, we can guarantee you an audience which will appreciate it, and the financial return will be sufficient to safeguard you from loss." The development of those two ideas is a subject more for those who will speak later in favour of the Clause and who have closer and more intimate knowledge of it than I have. I throw this out as a broad outline of the main duty which, I think, devolves upon an institute in the future—a duty which, I think, must become of the greatest importance, and may lead to a real improvement in the standard of the film.

In conclusion, I would ask hon. Members to remember that if they reject this Clause there is no opportunity of doing anything again; the idea, good as it may be, is definitely put aside. If it is accepted, and we subsequently find that we are wrong, that these film institutes have no value, that money spent on them is money wasted, the remedy is perfectly simple: you can, at any moment, stop the supply of money to this fund, dry up the fund, and the whole experiment comes to an end. Hon. Members are given the choice of testing the thing in practice before deciding whether it is good or bad, or of dismissing hurriedly, once for all, in the course of a few hours' Debate, an idea long developed in other countries—in Germany, for instance, where, we must admit, the standard of film production is considerably higher—without giving any real chance of deciding whether it is right or wrong by seeing it work.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

The hon. Member and myself in Committee upstairs had many combats on this Measure. It is not my intention, however, to engage in battle with him this afternoon on this Clause, but I think that I am entitled to ask him a few questions as to the intentions of the Clause. The hon. Gentleman has given us to understand this afternoon that reports of everything which this new body will do will be laid before Parliament. Before I put the first ques- tion to him may I say that we have passed other Measures in this House from time to time and have been promised that reports and statements of accounts shall be laid before Parliament. We have later, however, found to our dismay, that although the reports and accounts may be put before Parliament and published in Blue Books, we are never entitled to discuss their contents. I, therefore, want to have an answer to the fundamental question: Will the operations of this body and its accounts be subject to debate in the House of Commons when they are issued? It is not sufficient for my purpose, with our experience of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Betting Control Board, to say that these reports and accounts Shall be laid before Parliament. I want to know definitely, shall we be entitled to discuss the work of this new body?

It is true that the Committee upstairs had this subject before them, and we discussed it in a general way. I am very pleased, indeed, that the hon. Gentleman and his Department have placed the ideas we then discussed upstairs in a concrete form in this Clause. I have this one complaint against the hon. Gentleman. He has accepted this very important proposal from his own side, but he has never accepted any suggestion however valuable that I have ever made to him on this Bill. I did, however, induce the Home Secretary in Committee to accept one or two suggestions I made, and I have no complaints to make on that score. I must, as did the hon. Gentleman in part of his speech, make it clear that I am speaking on my own responsibility this afternoon. I am not speaking for my party, but I am hoping to attract the most intelligent Members of my party to agree to everything I have to say. The hon. Gentleman makes it clear in the proposed new Clause that a new body is being set up, and the other question I want to put is this. He spoke of a film institute, and all Members of the House of Commons have received that very valuable report of the film institute. I want to ask whether the money collected under the Clause is all to be paid over to the film institute, or whether part of it is to be paid to the film institute and some of it to any other body? I cannot very well conceive that one body alone in this country is going to attain the particular object which the hon. Gentleman has in view. Somebody has put in my hand a very glowing account of a proposal that is to be subject, I think, to the recognition of the cinema trade itself. I have here a document with a picture of an enormous institute to be established somewhere in London. It is called the Peoples' Cinema University. If this cinema university is established, is part of this money going to that university as well as to the Film Institute?

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT

Who is the principal of the university?

Mr. DAVIES

I am coming to that. What I want to know is whether this financial proposal which is now brought forward is intended solely for the film institute? I am not, so far as I can see now, opposed to this Clause, but I would like to get some answers to the questions I have put and to one or two more before deciding how to vote. The hon. Gentleman will see the inequality of this proposal. It is a tax on Sunday takings only, and not on the takings on any other day. It is, in fact, a tax on the takings on Sundays in London and just a very few other places in the country. That is to say, the vast majority of the people in this country will contribute nothing at all to this tax, and I think that is a serious inequality.

Mr. STANLEY

Is the hon. Gentleman going to vote against the charitable contribution on the same grounds?

Mr. DAVIES

The hon. Gentleman must not at this stage ask me a question of that kind. I hope that he will allow me to pursue my argument, because with the little legal mind I possess I must use it to the best advantage. The point I wish to put is this: Is it not right to say that this is a tax upon the cinema industry in London and a few seaside places in England and one or two, I think, in Wales?

Mr. MACPHERSON

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that these are given special privileges, and why should they not have to pay?

Mr. DAVIES

I do not want to pursue that point either just now.

The next question I want to put is this: Who is going to appoint the new body? Will the Home Office or the Privy Council appoint? I remember the Betting Control Board. Five Government Departments appointed representatives to that Board. Then there were the appointments to the British Broadcasting Corporation. The new body which is to be set up under this Clause is very much akin to the British Broadcasting Corporation. It will probably not have the same amount of revenue, but it seems to me that the object of the Government is very much the same. There is a tendency to set up these bodies, to transfer the power of Parliament to outside authorities, to let them do just what they like, to let them issue reports, and then when Parliament wants to know why the body does this or that we are told that we cannot raise the subject at all on any Vote in this House. That is a point that must be watched.

I have not decided against this proposal. I shall be astonished if any Members of the House, whether opposed to this Bill or for it, are not anxious that the tone of the films shown in this country should be improved. If any suggestion of mine is of any use at all I should be delighted to see a great change in some of the films produced recently, a change in favour of depicting working-class life instead of always depicting the superficial life of the luxurious rich. Films like "Hindle Wakes" depict working-class life and are better pictures than those which show the silly things that the rich people of this country do on occasions.

The Under-Secretary has not told us anything as to the amount that is likely to be received from this tax. It has been suggested that it may amount to £8,000 or £10,000 per annum. Are we not right in believing that if a local authority is to say that 5 per cent. of the profits that are determined upon must go to this institutional work, that it rather suggests that the cinema proprietors will not want to open on Sunday at all? They may object to this tax altogether, and that consequently what we may do by passing this Clause is to achieve the very object that I have had in view all the time, and that is to close the lot on Sundays. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to enlighten us on that issue. The object of this new Clause is really a good one, and apart from the details I have suggested, and my many questions, I am inclined to do anything I can to raise the standard, quality and tone of films in this country.

Mr. BUCHAN

I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) in any speculations about the details of permanent organisation. I do not think the time is yet ripe to be dogmatic about them. But I would like to join my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in asking the House to sanction an experiment which may do a great deal of good, which can do very little harm, and which is very safe because if unsuccessful it can so easily be brought to an end. I feel that this whole discussion is rather prejudiced by the use of a most unfortunate word, the word "cultural." I am not quite sure what it means, but I know what it suggests to myself and no doubt to many other hon. Members. It suggests priggishness and intellectual snobbery. It suggests the efforts of the highbrow—another horrible word—to impose his exotic tastes on the ordinary man. In plays and books it suggests the kind of production which is either too dull or too indecent for the average citizen. Unfortunately the report of the committee on which this proposal is based was compelled to use that word for lack of a better one, but what that report proposed and what this new Clause tries to give effect to has nothing on earth to do with the highbrow.

The proposal is simply for the creation of some kind of central machinery to assist in the development of British films, to form a kind of staff college for the study of technique, a clearing house for knowledge of ideas, and to help to exploit the very great assets for film production which we believe Britain and the British Empire possess. Surely there can be nothing faddist or pedantic about that proposal. Most great industrial organisations have attached to them some kind of staff college or intelligence department, whose business it is to study new processes and to explore new markets. It is quite true that those are private organisations, privately arranged, and the reason why for the film trade a slightly different and more public type of organisation is proposed is that the film already enters into so many departments of public life and has so great a propaganda and educative influence that no Government can afford to neglect it.

Earl WINTERTON

May I interrupt merely to get some information? A large number of us who are in general support of this Bill have very grave doubts about this proposal. My hon. Friend used the expression "We." Is he referring to those who reported from this Committee, or has he in mind some body already in existence? It is very important that we should know. He said that it was only an experiment. Who is responsible?

Mr. BUCHAN

I had no business to use the word "we," except in the editorial sense. I simply mean those who, like myself, are interested in this proposal. I think I can understand most of the objections raised to the Bill. I can understand, indeed I can very largely sympathise with, those who object to the whole principle behind the Bill. I can appreciate, but I do not agree with, the arguments of those who want to see the same privilege given to the theatre. I can understand, though I do not agree with, those who would have no levy on the Sunday profits of cinemas. But assuming that the points I mentioned are settled and become law, and that decision upon them is final and irrevocable, what possible objection can there be: to the proposal of this new Clause?

I have done my best to inform myself about possible objections from a reading of the Official Report of the proceedings of the Standing Committee, and from a study of the Press. So far as I can gather the general idea seems to be that this proposal is unjust to someone. To whom? To the theatres? It may be an injustice to theatres to exclude them from Sunday performances, but this does not touch theatrical funds. Unjust to the cinema? As I understand it, this Measure is an attempt to regularise a condition of things which has grown up over a number of years, and to make that legal which without it is illegal. This practice of making a levy on the proceeds of Sunday cinemas for charitable purposes has gone on for a number of years. Surely if you regularise and legalise one part of the status quo you are entitled to regularise another part? Besides, the cinemas are being given preferential treatment compared with other forms of entertainment, and it seems only fair that they should pay something for that privilege. But, in any case, how can it be unfair to exact a small proportion of the profits which already have gone from them, which have already been earmarked for public purposes, and to exact that levy for the purpose of fostering their own interests?

We are told—I have read it in the Press —that the cinema trade does not want this proposal, that it is altogether opposed to it. I should be very doubtful about that. I can understand one branch of the trade, the exhibitors, being very little interested in it. After all it does not concern them, or it concerns them only indirectly. The exhibitor may use a British or French or Russian or German film. All that interests him is that it shall fill his house. But the British film producer is surely in a very different case. It is vital to him that he should be assisted to produce films of a quality which will enable him to capture a large share both of the British market and of foreign markets, and to raise the standard of home production to that high level which I believe it is perfectly possible for him to attain. I feel that those in the cinema trade who attempt to throw cold water upon this particular proposition have a lack of confidence in their own profession; they under-estimate the immense importance of what they are doing, and are blind to the triumphs which may await the British film industry if behind it there is organised the intelligence of the country.

Finally, we are told that the proposal is unjust to the hospitals. The proportion of the proceeds of the Sunday cinemas does not now go wholly to the hospitals. It is shared partly among other public services. I am familiar with a successful nursery school, in a very poor part of London, which is very largely financed by its share of these proceeds. The hospitals are a great charity and a great public service, but is it unfair to the hospitals, seeing that they already share these proceeds with other public services, to ask them to share with still mother public service which to my mind is not less important than the others— the attempt to raise the level of something which has become a vital part of our daily life?

4.30 p.m.

That, to my mind, is the final argument in favour of this new Clause. The in- terests of the cinema trade, the theatres and the hospitals, are all secondary interests. The major interest is the interest of the British public. In recent years we have seen two novelties which have become an integral part of our daily life—wireless and the films. The first is controlled by a semi-public body, the British Broadcasting Corporation, over which as a last resort Parliament has a certain control and guidance. The second has no such guiding hand, and yet the second is not less important. To my mind, the film is by far the greatest educative power in the country to-day. It is the most powerful engine for propaganda, it is a marvellous platform for the dissemination of ideas, good or bad, it has an incalculable effect upon the growth of taste and the training of every class and of every age. Surely, if we have so powerful an engine, it is our duty to try to bring to bear upon it, in its development, the best knowledge and intelligence of our people.

All that is proposed, as was said so lucidly by my hon. and gallant Friend, is a central machinery whose purpose shall be to bring knowledge and intelligence into the development of the film industry and to watch over its larger interests. All that this new Clause proposes is to find the initial financial backing for such machinery. Clearly at present it is impossible to go into details about that machinery. Its exact nature has still to be determined, and in such determination the Government and this House will, of course, have a voice. That, very roughly, is the case for embarking upon this proposal. I would ask, in conclusion—

Earl W1NTERTON

May I ask another question? Do I understand that it is proposed that the constitution of this body should be laid before the House?

Mr. BUCHAN

I understand so. As far as I know, nothing has been settled except the principle of central machinery to be created with the help of this fund. I would make one final appeal to the House to consider this point. What is the alternative if you allow things to go on as they are going on to-day? There will very soon be a cry for a drastic censorship of the films. I can see it growing. I am perfectly certain that that demand will grow so that no Government will be able to refuse it. Like my hon. and gallant Friend, I am no believer in censorships. They are feeble and foolish things at the best, and, remember, if you have any kind of censorship, you will be really at the mercy of the cultural faddist. Surely the wise course is now, while there is still time, to take steps to make any kind of censorship unnecessary by helping the production, within Britain and the Empire, of films of the highest quality in every type and in every class, and by educating the public taste to appreciate and demand them.

Mr. LOGAN

I did not intend to speak on this Clause, but after the few remarks of the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) I have my doubts as regards its character. I am at a loss to understand its nebulous character and the inferences that one may draw from the remarks of the preceding speaker on the question of censorship. There is nothing in the Clause in regard to censorship, and I am most anxious to know, from a business point of view, if the industry on its own is not able to understand what it really needs and not able to cater for the class of people that require to see the films. If research work is required, one would naturally expect that a well organised body should be able to do all the research work that is essential and to carry on its own business, knowing that the public will certainly not go to see films for which they have no liking and that if they are not up to date in perfection they will lose their business.

After listening to the rather ambiguous remarks of the two preceding speakers, one can only infer that this is something that is about to come into operation where somebody with a cultural mind sees an opportunity, without paying anything, of being able to get either from the film producers or from the hospitals money which can be used for experimental purposes. There is no responsibility on this cultural body. What it is, the Lord alone knows. I imagine that a legitimate trade like this will certainly resent busybodies who, from the educational standpoint, want to come along to deal with what is recognised to-day as a legitimate industry. I do not know any walk of life in which busybodies would have the right to come along, from the cultural point of view, and say, "We wish to set up a supervision or a censorship to introduce to the British public our particular view with regard to films" without any financial responsibility.

This particular body want special privileges. They want the power to take money from someone, and they are not prepared to back their views by financial obligations of their own, but they come along and tell us, according to these rather nebulous proposals, that a wonderful day is coming to England. What body is this? It is not stated in the Clause, but there is a lot in the Clause that we want to know something more about. I am as anxious as anyone for a proper supervision of films, for a nice amusement where I can get proper entertainment for my children, where they will be able to see clean films, but another department should look after that particular business. It is rather a strange policy to give preferential treatment to certain people to set up, in a legitimate business, something which is absolutely foreign to it and which has no right to be introduced as an eleventh hour consideration.

Every Amendment, from the religious point of view, from the point of view of work, from the point of view of everything attached to legitimate cinemas, was amply dealt with, but this proposition was brought along in a very easy-going fashion. It was produced as an afterthought and brought in as though it was something beautiful to illustrate the wonderful power of the cinema in regard to culture. If it means supervision of the film, if it means censorship, why is it not honestly stated? We were told that the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) used the word "we" in an editorial sense, but the word "we" was used in the first place as though some people had sat down to consider what they thought ought to be introduced into the Bill. I am fully convinced that this legitimate trade wants no interference, and if there be those of an educational turn of mind who think the legitimate film is not giving what they require, those educationists ought to be able to back up their opinions and find that research department that is so necessary for cultural opportunities.

I believe that the English mind demands clean and healthy films. I believe that Press censorship and business men will see to it that in the course of time this trade will be bound to provide healthy films, but in the name of common sense can any British House of Commons say that a legitimate industry in which much money has been invested cannot look after itself? I have nothing in cinemas, but I want to know in clearer terms what particular body it is which makes this demand and what power it will have over this legitimate trade, I believe the Lord President of the Council will be the head over this particular privy purse, and that it will be handed out to everyone, not one, but two, three, or four, who may be able to do great research work, but there is nothing in the Clause as to the question of how the money will be spent being brought before this House. They will have special privileges, just as the British Broadcasting Corporation have, and while you must make grants, you are to have no power to consider how the money is to be spent. I do not believe that this House should be asked to pass this Clause, whether for cultural reasons or otherwise. We ought to have something more than the editorial "we" before this proposition is accepted.

Sir GERVAIS RENTOUL

I wish to express my strong support of this Clause. I could not help wondering, while listening to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan), whether he had yet found time to read the very admirable report to which reference has already been made, which was compiled by a large number of people of authority and influence, who arrived at a unanimous conclusion. I regard the inclusion in the Bill of such a Clause as this as calculated to convert what is necessarily a somewhat makeshift piece of legislation, introduced to deal with an anomalous situation which has arisen over a course of years, into a definite and constructive Measure that may have a far-reaching importance on the life of this country. I fully agree with the Under-Secretary of State that if the present opportunity of doing something is lost, it may not recur for a great many years, and it would be altogether deplorable if we did not seize this opportunity, and attempt in some way to control the great national and international force which the cinema has become and direct it into channels which may be definitely useful to the nation and the Empire. Mere censorship is certainly not sufficient. All that any censor can do is to lay down a number of more or less hard-and-fast rules and declare that if these are infringed a licence will not be granted. Censorship in its nature is purely restrictive, but this is a definitely constructive proposal. It is an attempt to educate and improve public taste with regard to the class of films shown.

Everyone must realise that public taste in this respect is deplorably low—very largely, I believe, because it is not afforded much opportunity to be otherwise. I think the almost unexpected success attained by certain films of a higher intellectual value than the average shows that there is a public able to appreciate better-class work if it is given to them. Even the Under-Secretary confesses that at present his taste in cinema entertainment is somewhat low and that he prefers knockabout comics. I would not despair that, with time, even the taste of the Under-Secretary might be raised to some extent. The fact remains that we are to-day almost alone among the nations of the world in having made no effort of this kind and in having no authoritative body that can undertake research work in connection with the cinema—because, in spite of the enormous progress made during the past few years, it is still true to say that the cinema is very largely in its infancy. We have no authoritative body which can provide a clearing house for information affecting the production of films and film work generally in this and other countries, and constitute a connecting link between the public and the trade.

With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, it is not merely the views and interests of the trade that we have to consider in this matter. There are also the views and the interests of the public. The hon. Member suggested—I do not know whether it is a fact or not—that there was no evidence that the trade wanted this proposal, and he appeared to consider that a conclusive argument against the proposal. I do not regard it as such in any way.

Mr. LOGAN

What I did say was that it was the legitimate business of someone else to deal with the question of censorship and with the purity or otherwise of these films and not this body.

Sir G. RENTOUL

As I understand it, this body would have nothing whatever to do with censorship. This proposal has no relevancy to the question of censorship. This would be a purely constructive body which would assist, not merely in the ways I have mentioned, but also in the production of films of a more intellectual kind, and help to improve the general technical efficiency of the industry. Surely it is 'an argument which ought to carry some weight that most other countries have found it necessary to set up an authority of this kind and that such bodies have been working in other countries with very valuable results. It must be admitted that the general level of film production in those countries is considerably higher than it is in this country at the present time. I believe there is evidence that the institution of such a body would be welcomed by the public and I believe it would also be welcomed by that section of the industry directly concerned with the production of films.

I think hon. Members must be a little impressed by the almost universal chorus of approval given to this proposal by the Press of the country following on the publication of the most interesting and valuable report, already mentioned. This Bill provides an opportunity for taking a much-needed step in the right direction. Obviously, anything in the nature of a grant from State funds would be impossible at the present time, but the suggestion now made is that of a small levy —and it is only a very small amount—on these Sunday profits, which would provide the fund necessary if this great and, as I believe, far-reaching experiment is to be tried. The argument has boon put forward, and no doubt will be emphasised later, that this Clause is tantamount to robbing the hospitals. I confess that, to me, that argument has a very curious sound. The hospitals have no vested interest in the profits of the cinemas. They have, as I see it, no justification for expecting such contributions as a matter of right. In point of fact the hospitals will still get very valuable assistance even if this small deduction is made for a purpose of immense public importance— nearly as great importance from many points of view as the work of the hospitals themselves. It is left to the local authorities to fix the percentage and to arrange the matter on an equitable basis. The Under-Secretary rightly pointed out, and I think the fact ought to be emphasised, that if the opponents of the Bill had their way it would not be a case of depriving the hospitals of a small percentage but a case of the hospitals not receiving anything from this source.

I wonder how many hon. Members have found time to read through the report which has, I understand, been supplied to all Members and have done so with unbiased minds. It appears to present an unanswerable case in support of the Clause. Various alternatives are put forward in that report as to the kind of authority or body that should be set up. That matter will have to be considered and discussed further. As I have said, I regard the Clause as one of the most important features of the Bill and I much regret that the Government have decided to leave it to a free Vote of the House. The Under-Secretary disclaimed any superior wisdom but said that in most instances the Government possessed superior information and that that was their justification for putting on Whips. I believe that this is a case in which the Government do possess information superior to that possessed by most Members of the House. I think the proposal raises a vital question of principle on which the Government ought to have made up their minds and put on the Whips, one way or the other. The Government ought not to shirk responsibility for dealing with a question of this kind, but, in spite of that decision, which I regret, I hope and believe that the majority of hon. Members when they think over this matter will appreciate its far-reaching importance and I hope sincerely that the Clause will be carried by a substantial majority.

Captain LODER

I rise principally to challenge one or two remarks which fell from the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan). He seemed to suggest that this proposal was simply an effort on the part of several busybodies to interfere with the legitimate activities of the film industry. I do not think that he has any justification for making such a remark. This is not a proposal to confer special privileges on any particular body. It is only a proposal to set up certain machinery which the Government can use, if they see a fitting opportunity of doing so. It is quite obvious that no body or institution of any kind would be likely to receive any percentage of these moneys which it is proposed should be paid into the fund unless that body was so constituted and run, as to be approved of by all those interested in film production. I think that is a sufficient guarantee that such an institution would only receive these moneys if it was in a position to do really good work.

The House before it adds this Clause to the Bill should have clearly before it the arguments both as to the necessity for some kind of separate organisation to deal with the film industry in this respect, and also the particular way in which it is proposed to finance that organisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) has put forward some closely-reasoned arguments as to why there should be an institution of this kind but one point which seems to have escaped previous speakers in this Debate is the fact that there is a very big demand for such an organisation. That demand is reflected in the report to which my ton. Friend has referred. Some time ago there was a conference at which a number of very important bodies were represented, including such bodies as the Royal Society, the British Association and many teaching and educational bodies, in addition to certain trade organisations. It was decided that an inquiry was necessary into the future of the films and the result of that inquiry is this report. I do not think that this House ought to reject the results of those labours without very careful consideration. As my hon. Friend has said anybody who reads that report must find it exceedingly difficult not to come to the conclusion, that some kind of central institution to look after the future of the film industry is necessary.

5.0 p.m.

As to the way in which it is proposed to finance such a body, of course there are two alternatives. You can either have a body financed out of Government funds or one financed out of private funds. I do not think that anybody at the present time would be in favour of public money being paid out for such a purpose as this. On the other hand, not only are there difficulties in the raising of private funds for such a purpose at the present time, but there is also the objection that any body which was entirely supported by private funds would be in danger of getting into the hands of particular interests. For that reason it would seem that the particular method proposed in the Clause of financing such an institution, has special advantages. I hope that the House will consider this proposal very seriously. The House appreciates the manner in which the Under-Secretary put forward this proposal, and we should all recognise that behind his studied moderation there was the feeling that the proposal was a good one. We have the additional assurance that, as this Clause was drafted by the Home Office, it is also a workable proposition.

Captain CROOKSHANK

I have listened to every word in the Debate, and I have not heard the word "Sunday" mentioned, and nothing has been said that links up this proposal with the Bill for the Sunday opening of cinemas. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary took objection to my thinking that the Government attached some importance to this new Clause. He said that that was not quite the right way of putting it, but I see the Home Secretary's name attached to it and I cannot conceive anything that he fathers not being of extreme importance, There was nothing in the Under-Secretary's speech which was by any stretch of the imagination an argument for this, proposed Clause being put into the Bill. It may be very desirable that there should be such a fund, and it may be desirable that films should be censored. Lots of things are desirable, but this Bill deals with the opening of cinemas under certain conditions on Sundays. If it is such a great thing to be able to contribute to this great object of purifying the film life of the country, why should not the cinema goers on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday be given the inestimable privilege of paying a small contribution towards it?

Apart from that, this new Clause is completely nebulous. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) admitted it. He said that the nature of the new machinery was still to be determined. The hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) said that various alternatives are under consideration. But what the House is considering is a Bill which, before a month's time, has to become an Act of Parliament or there will be chaos with regard to the whole of the Sunday question. Therefore, it is not really good enough on the Report stage to come and say that certain things may happen and that the scheme may be controlled by Parliament or it may not. The money which this institute will have under its control, however, is to be raised by local authorities for a national purpose. I put it to the House that that is, as far as I know, a considerable innovation on the usual practice. It is unusual, to put it mildly, to give local authorities the power to levy taxation for a specific national purpose. It is generally held that the House of Commons is the only body that can raise taxation and that they do it on national grounds. Here, however, it rests entirely with local authority A or local authority B to decide whether or not it wants to make a contribution from people who go to the cinemas in their particular areas towards this apparently most desirable purpose. I cannot find it in my mind to agree that that is the way to legislate.

I am reminded that a considerable number of years ago, at the time of the South Sea Bubble, one of the many projects which raised a large sum of money was entitled "A project of great utility to the nation to be hereafter divulged." That project raised an enormous sum of money and the promoters bolted. This scheme is very much of that sort—a trust in the good faith of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities who is entirely responsible for this proposal. It is apparently, on his good faith that the House is to give the Privy Council this great, power. The Under-Secretary rather thought it humbug on the part of the cinema proprietors to object to this new Clause—

Mr. STANLEY

I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will represent me correctly. I said that it was legitimate for them to object to the proposed Clause on the ground that it cut into their province, but that it was humbug to object to it on the ground that it took money away from hospitals when they proposed to reduce their own contributions by 25 per cent.

Captain CROOKSHANK

That is quite right, but I had not finished my sentence. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, and if I did so I apologise to him. As a matter of fact, I should say that they were right in that belief, because a lot of this money may very well go back to them. It is left to the Privy Council to apply the money in such a manner as they may direct for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph. One can conceive them going to the extent of subsidising certain films, and they might pay certain firms money in order to show certain films which they thought would be entertainment and instruction. It is therefore possible that money may come back into the industry as a result of the proceedings of the Privy Council, whereas it is also quite true that money must be diverted from the hospitals if the new Clause is passed.

I ask again, what this has to do with the Sunday opening of cinemas? If it is such a good idea, let us have a separate Measure and deal with it on its merits; let us say that all cinemas shall contribute at all times, and let us say that there shall be a grant from the State, if you like. Incidentally, the State does do something in the cinematograph world. It has a cinema officer under the Empire Marketing Board whose job is to direct the production of Empire films. There is, therefore, a nucleus already in existence possibly unbeknown to many Members of the House. If it is a good thing, let us do it, but why should we ask the people who choose to go to cinemas on Sundays to contribute to this fund? Is it because they are doing something on Sundays? Is it a sort of little extra tax on them for doing something which some people think they ought not to do? Is it to be a principle that everything that is done on Sundays is to make a little contribution from its profits for some other better purpose? Are our restaurants which open on Sunday to raise a little sum out of their customers for the improvement of British cooking? Are the newspapers which we read on Sunday to have to pay a little extra tax so that they can be encouraged to entertain and instruct us? Is it really to be supposed that that is the way to tackle this sort of problem? Perhaps the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities might like a little royalty on his books to go to some institute of a nebulous character for the Production of better and more entertaining books.

This scheme is so absolutely divorced from the subject which we are supposed to be discussing that I can hardly find sufficient words to express my annoyance that our time should be taken up with it. The question of the Sunday opening of cinemas is of great importance, because we know that legislation has to be passed very soon or there will be chaos, but, as the Under-Secretary said, it does not matter to the Bill whether the Clause is passed or not. I hope that the House will not be rushed into adopting an entirely new system of allowing the local authorities to raise money in an entirely novel way for an entirely unknown purpose. There is no explanation in the Clause as to how the fund is to be administered and controlled by this House. Do not let us be rushed into passing a new Clause which has nothing to do with the main purpose of the Bill.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY

I rise to support this proposal and to try and explain something about its genesis. I have great sympathy with those who have opposed the proposal on the ground that it is nebulous, that no one knows what this institute is to be, the relation it will have to the Government, and so on. I have sympathy also with the criticisms that have been made, and if I came entirely new to the proposal, I think that I should adopt the same attitude myself.

What is the history of the proposal? Some time ago a number of people who were interested in the extension of the use of films in this country for school and educational purposes, for instance, started the idea of a film institute which would act, as the Under-Secretary has described, as a kind of central research institute for the improvement and promotion of films. The natural thing for such a body to do would be to get into touch with the film industry and get the industry to support such a central body and to contribute towards it. They did make some efforts to get into touch with the industry. They have had behind them and supporting them many gentlemen who have an interest in the industry. If hon. Members will consult the report, they will see that they had on the committee representatives of the film section of the Federation of British Industries. It is quite true that they have not succeeded in getting the film industry as a whole, or any considerable section of it, to identify themselves with the proposal for a central film institute. That is perhaps not very much to be wondered at. Other industries which have wished to promote arrangements for central research have been obliged to ask Parliament to legislate for a levy on the industry, and the cinema industry is certainly less organised and has less unity than either the rubber industry or the cotton industry.

I admit, and it is fair to say, that the gentlemen connected with this enterprise have not succeeded up to now in getting the film industry as a whole to take up their proposals. They have, on the other hand, proved by their work that they are not outside busybodies trying to establish a censorship, but that they are seriously anxious to promote something that will be of benefit to the film industry and the public. The gentlemen interested in this proposal have for years past been trying to get the support and recognition of the Government, either in an official or unofficial way.

Mr. KNIGHT

Other groups have had the same purpose for years. This report is the end of the story.

Lord E. PERCY

I do not quite understand the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Report is no doubt the culmination of a long movement, but in the course of that movement there have been many approaches to Government departments, but the difficulty has been that the Government departments concerned were unable to provide the financial support which was necessary. It is not any good for the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) to say that the educationists concerned—whoever they may be—should provide their own money. After all, we cannot stipulate that no one shall take an interest in the development of the film industry in England unless he is a rich man and prepared to put up money. Frankly, when the Sunday Entertainments Bill came up last year these gentlemen saw an opportunity of getting finance without coming to the Government. They thought they had at least as much right to some of the finance as the hospitals. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) asks why we are discussing this subject on a Bill dealing with Sunday entertainments,, seeing that it has no particular relation to the subject. The reply is that we have identified this proposal to license Sunday cinemas with the placing of a tax upon the cinemas concerned to the extent of claiming the whole of their profits for charity.

We have introduced in connection with, and solely in connection with, Sunday a proposal to tax cinemas, and it seems to be perfectly logical to say, "If you are going to tax cinemas, let us devote a part of that tax to something which will directly benefit both the cinemas themselves and the cinema goers." That, at any rate, is more logical than this proposal to give it all to the hospitals. That, then, is the genesis of the proposal. It is perfectly obvious that gentlemen, however distinguished and however interested, however much they may have proved the value of their work, cannot come to this House and say, "We are the great panjandrums of the film industry, and we want to arrogate to ourselves a subsidy out of the takings of cinemas on Sundays." On the other hand,, how are the Government to say to these people, "We do not know whether the House of Commons will agree to give you any support or finance at all, we do not know whether we can give you any sort of official recognition, but, for the purpose of coming to the House of Commons with this proposal, we must dictate to you what is to be the film institute of the future"? That would be equally unreasonable.

Therefore, although the Government have brought forward this proposal in a nebulous form I do not quite see how they could have done anything else. A certain amount of bitterness and ridicule has been engendered by this Debate. Of course, it is quite easy to pull any such proposal to pieces; it is easy to find debating arguments like those put forward by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division; but I am only anxious lest the House of Commons should show itself not only unsympathetic, but definitely hostile to a movement which has in it the germs of something extremely useful and valuable. The House is entitled to say, "This is too nebulous for us," or, "I am from Missouri and seeing is believing," as the expression goes, and it is a convenient occasion, of course, for having a hit at the Government for always being too nebulous.

While it is easy to act in that way, I hope the House of Commons will not do anything this afternoon to destroy something which, however nebulous it may be, is at least sufficiently advanced, developed and crystallised to show that it has within it the possibilities of an extremely useful movement, and that all that is required is just that amount of Government sanction and recognition which will crystallise it into a form which will be approved by this House and public opinion in general. I am sorry I missed the first few sentences of the speech of the Under-Secretary, but I hope that, if he has not already done so, he will be prepared to give an undertaking that this fund shall not be formed, still less that any money shall be paid out of it, until the House of Commons is fully informed of the definitive constitution of the body to which the money is to be paid. If that is done I suggest to the House that they should look away from the perfectly valid debating arguments brought against the proposal, and should do what this House has so often done, the practical but slightly illogical thing in a sphere of operations where practical and constructive action is necessary.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I rise to oppose this Clause. I listened particularly to the hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) to see what case he could make out for it, and I have every sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) in his objections to the Clause. This is a Bill dealing with Sunday entertainments, including debates, and although the establishment of a film fund for the development of the industry and to ensure that British films are given their proper place may be quite a good thing, I cannot see what connection it has with a Sunday Entertainments Bill. On many occasions we have discussed the development of an industry. When the Labour Government held office in 1924 we discussed, at the instigation of a private Member, whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing for the rubber and the cotton industries to set aside sums of money for the development of their industries. That was a proposal that one could well understand. Let it be noted that under those proposals all inside the industry had to make a contribution based on their ability to pay, bearing some relation to their profits.

What is the proposal here? A cinema has to make a contribution not according to what it may earn or may not earn, but according to what the attendance may be on a particular day of the week. A cinema may have excellent attendances on six nights of the week and may choose not to open on Sunday, in which case it will make no contribution towards the development of British films. It is only laid under contribution if it indulges in this fearful vice of Sunday opening. I am surprised at the attitude of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). He says, in effect, "Yes, Sunday opening is a shocking thing, but We will take money from this shocking thing in order to educate the British public." In the case of the totalisator what was it that made many of our Labour people quite honestly and sincerely oppose it? It was not that it was a bad thing, but many of them thought that as it was money that was wrongfully raised it was indefensible to use any of it. As I have pointed out, a cinema which makes excellent profits on six days in the week and does not open on Sunday will pay no contribution, but another cinema which does badly on the six days and opens on the Sunday and does well on that day because the others are then closed, will have to make this contribution. There is no sense of fairness or logic in that.

I would not have spoken to-day if it had not been for, I will not say the cheek of the hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities, but his courage in putting forward this proposal. The English cinemas are to make a contribution towards Empire development and culture, but the Scottish cinemas are to pay nothing, because this Bill does not apply to Scotland. Why should we ask the English people alone to make a contribution to the development of an industry which, if it is to be developed, ought to be developed in Scotland as well as in England? Further, may I ask the House to consider the question of Parliamentary control? I could understand arguments for a film censorship, but where has this Clause anything to do with film censorship? Can anyone show me any word in this Clause bearing on that point?

Mr. BUCHAN

I particularly explained that I regarded this as a proposal which might prevent a film censorship.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Let us see who the body are who are to undertake this work. I could understand it if we were setting up a body of people who understood film work to provide for the future development of the film industry—people who knew something of the industry, who knew something about the common people, and, who could combine the various interests; but what earthly relationship has the Privy Council to such a body? Members of the Privy Council are not appointed because they know anything about cinemas. They may have been appointed because they were good statesmen—though in many cases they are there because they were bad ones—they may have been appointed because they were fine ex-Ministers, or because they possessed various other qualities, but not because they had anything to do with cinemas. We say that you should have planned out the industry with the fund that the cinema people are using to develop the film industry in order to see that it was properly run. I would have examined the proposal in order to see that the committee appointed understood the interests of the common people. There is nothing like that. I am sorry to raise this somewhat technical objection, but there is no place where this Clause is to be inserted in the Bill. It talks about the "foregoing section," but I do not know where it comes in. It has no definite purpose. The whole thing was drafted in a fashion creditable to none of its supporters. The Bill was carried by a small majority in the House, but every concession has been given to those who opposed the Bill, and one would almost think they were the majority. This concession also pleases certain elements that were opposed to the Bill. [Interruption.] Yes.

Mr. STANLEY

In no way has there been a concession.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I will leave that. Let me take the other point. Here is a Bill that has no relationship to Parliamentary control. I suggest that the Conservative party should take notice, and see that there is some sort of Parliamentary control. I do not mind when Governments are pressed by terrible economic problems and they depart from Parliamentary control, as we know they sometimes do because of the terrible forces working behind them, but when it comes to Bills like these I ask Conservative Members to pause and think where we are going. What Parliamentary control is left? It is quite true that the Secretary of State has certain powers to issue regulations, but there is no power, so far as I can see under these regulations providing that before they can operate they must lie on the Table of the House and receive sanction. I have looked over this Clause, and it may well be that this country may set up a censorship. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities talked about the cinemas getting preference, but that is only partly true. The cinemas are getting preference as the result of this Bill, but they do not get preference over other kinds of Sunday sports. Sunday dog racing and Sunday football are quite legal when people are prepared to take part in them. Baseball is legal. The cinema, in relation to the vast majority of sports, has no preferential treatment at all.

Whatever good there may be in this proposal as a means of education, I think the method of tackling it is entirely wrong. It is taking powers outside Parliament, and is setting up a body which is unfitted, which has no qualifications to do the work. If the cinema trade is t6 undertake research work and development, it ought to be levied on the theatres that do not open on Sunday as well as upon those that do open on Sunday. That obligation ought to be levied in the North of Ireland and in Scotland alike, and should not be based on attendance on one day per week.

Hon. Gentlemen say that this proposal will lake money from the hospitals. I would vote for the Bill for the opening of cinemas on Sunday whether it provided for a contribution to the hospitals or not. I believe that the poor people should have the right to attend Sunday cinemas. I cannot see why we should place a levy on Sunday cinemas any more than upon hon. Members who play golf. We might put a levy on them for the improvement of British golf and to bring it up to the American standard. That might be all right. I would vote for anything that takes people out of the slums and away from shocking conditions, even for two hours a week, to see another kind of life, even if there were no contributions to the hospitals. We have to decide to-day whether or not there is to be reduction in the amount of the contribution to the hospitals, and my choices unhesitatingly in times like these would be to give the maximum sum to the hospitals.

The people who have to pay for the development are not the cinema industry and the cinema attenders, but the hospitals of the country. The Scottish cinemas and those in the North of Ireland pay nothing, nor do those that do not open upon a Sunday. There is only one section that pays and that is the hospitals. The Government have decided that the hospitals shall receive a contribution, and the choice before us is whether the hospitals shall receive less in order to foster and develop this proposal. There are many ways to tackle the matter, and the proper way is to have a levy according to the capacity of the industry to pay. Let us have that levy and see that the board which is set up understands the work. Do not relegate this question to the Privy Council who have never gone into this matter and who were not brought into being to do this work. To take money from the hospitals for this purpose is committing a gross abuse of Parliamentary control.

Mr. LAW

It is evident from the course of the Debate that there are in the minds of hon. Members two main objections to the proposal that has been made by the Under-Secretary. On the one hand, there are those who say that the establishment of a board would be (harmful, that its maintenance would be a burden upon the film industry, and that in its function it would be inexpert and interfering, and merely futile. On the other hand, there are those who may favour the principle of the new Clause, but who are adverse to it being put into affect in this particular way, because they do not want the hospitals to be deprived of the revenue of which they are so badly in need. But the hospitals, however much we are determined to help, have not a vested interest in Sunday cinemas. The purpose of the Bill is not to help the hospitals—that purpose was only incidental—but to regularise an irregular situation and to meet what the House considers to be a legitimate public demand. If the House thought that Sunday cinemas were not wanted it would not be willing to legalise them in order to benefit the hospitals. In the same way if the House considers that this proposal is valuable in itself, and that it may have some effect in improving the standard of the films, and improving the immense influence of the cinema on the minds of the people, it ought not to refrain from supporting it for fear of taking away a very small proportion of what is, after all, in the nature of a windfall for the hospitals. If the House decides that the Measure is of value, that ought to be the main consideration which should sway us in our votes.

The other objection seems to me to be more formidable. If hon. Members believe that this proposal is likely to become a burden upon the industry, as many of them seem to fear, they ought to reject it. I believe that the objection of hon. Members on this point are based upon a misconception. There is one point I want to bring before the House. The film industry is not so much opposed to this proposal as some of us would have supposed from reading sections of the Press. If I may do so with all humility, I would suggest that it is possible to take these newspapers a little too seriously. I worked for some time on a newspaper, and I know very well that if it is the policy of a newspaper to take a certain line it is perfectly easy to find someone somewhere who will support that newspaper on that account. It is easy to pay too much attention to the various interviews in the Press purporting to come from the cinema industry.

The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) told the House that the members of the film industry who were represented on the Commission made a recommendation that a fund should be established, and I would like to call the attention of the House to one further consideration which has not yet been brought forward this afternoon. There is a trade paper in the cinema industry, "The Daily Film Renter," and it has a very considerable circulation. On the morning on which the report of this Commission appeared it came out with a leading article which recommended the adoption of the report in terms which were almost enthusiastic. I should like to read a few lines from that article: The idea of a film institute, crystallised by the report of the Commission on Educational and Cultural Films, has much to re- commend it. There is a great deal of work which can be done by a semi-official body such as this. The influencing of the film industry by the direct intervention of the Government would be resented, and would in any case be open to grave abuse. This work can be done much better by a National Film Institute with official recognition, but without final authority. That is the opinion of an influential journal in the trade. It is true that it is not the unanimous opinion of the trade, but it is an opinion which carries some weight, and therefore it encourages us to assume that the proposal is not anathema to the whole film industry. If we consider the possibilities of the Home Secretary's proposal, I think it would be definitely to the benefit of the film industry if it succeeded in raising the taste of the public and extended its interest to the enormous number of people who to-day look down on the cinema and do not go to it. As a result, it would develop an entirely new market for cinemas, which obviously would be to the benefit of the industry. If this institute were able to stimulate the demand for educational films, it would obviously create a great demand in the industry, not only for films, but for projecting apparatus and all the equipment of cinematography.

In this connection, I would like to mention to the House the experience of one other country where a film institute was set up. In 1920, the French Government set up a similar sort of body, with the rather formidable title of Musée Pedagogique. This body was set up in order to try to encourage schools in the use of films in their ordinary curriculum, and one of the things that it did was to start a film library for the purpose of lending films at reasonable rates to any schools that wanted them. In the first year of its operation, 1920, this film institute library rented out 54 films. That was not very much for a start, but next year the number went up to 3,000, and in 1929, the last year for which I have the figures, the number of films rented out by the institute to schools was 44,000. That is an immense development, and the whole of the French film industry benefited very much from this development in the sphere of educational films.

I should like to say one word on the general principle of the Clause which we are discussing. The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank)—I am sorry not to see him in his place at the moment—asked what was the need for an institute of this kind for films, seeing that we have not one for cooking, books, and various other forms of gastronomic or intellectual activity. The answer is that in most other fields of artistic endeavour there is some form of central body to which people can go for advice and assistance when they need it, but in the cinema world there is no such body in existence to-day. Another argument that I would use is that no other form of art exerts such a powerful influence for good or for evil as does cinematography. It exerts a tremendous influence upon the character of the people, and, if we reject this proposal today, I think we shall be taking upon ourselves a terrific responsibility, for we shall just be saying that we will make no effort to regulate a form of art which, perhaps more than any other, perhaps more than anything else in the life of the people of this country, will affect their characters and minds, and probably, ultimately, their whole future. For these reasons I support most heartily the proposal which has been put forward by the Undersecretary to-day.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman)

The hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the attractive review that he has made of the general principles of this Clause. It has already been made plain that the Government are taking up a neutral attitude on the matter, and my only purpose in rising is, not to attempt any survey of the discussion which has taken place, but to attempt to clear away in a few sentences one or two misapprehensions which seem to have arisen in the course of the Debate. Several hon. Members have expressed anxiety as to the nature of the body proposed to be set up under this Clause, and as to the complete absence of any Parliamentary control, I can assure the House that the answer in respect of both these apprehensions is that they are entirely unfounded. In the first place, no body is proposed to be set up under this Clause; and, secondly, there will be ample opportunity for Parliamentary control.

As regards the first point, the Clause merely embodies a decision to set up a fund. That fund is to be under the administration of the Privy Council. It will be for the Privy Council, subject to the review of Parliament, to say to whom, through whom, and in what particular way that fund shall be applied. If there is some body in existence which commends itself to the Privy Council in regard to the application of the whole or part of the fund, well and good, but no body is being set up under this Clause. So far as Parliamentary control is concerned, hon. Members will notice that in the Clause there is a reference to regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. I understand that the position will be that, so far as those regulations are concerned, any discussion about them could take place on the Home Office Vote, while be far as the administration of the fund, and even of the accounts, is concerned, discussion could take place on the Privy Council Vote. The analogy of the cases instanced by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), of the Betting Control Board and the British Broadcasting Corporation, is inexact, and for this reason, that those bodies, each of which administers a particular object— the totalisator on the one hand, and broadcasting on the other—are not themselves responsible to Parliament nor is there any Minister who actually answers for their administration. In the present case, the Privy Council is responsible for the fund, and, therefore, would be answerable to Parliament.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

Suppose the Privy Council decided to give £5,000 of this money to the film institute, shall we be entitled in this House to criticise the manner in which the £5,000 is spent by the recipients, and not merely to criticise the gift of the £5,000 as such?

Earl WINTERTON

May I also ask my hon. and learned Friend a question? He rose rather unexpectedly, and I have a number of questions that I want to ask him, but I would like to ask him this question now. Could he not, in supplement of what was said by the hon. Gentleman opposite, tell us whether the actual administration of this institute will be under the review of this House? In other words, shall we be able to discuss it, or will it be in the same position as the British Broadcasting Corporation, which, as is notorious, we cannot discuss?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I am very much obliged to the Noble Lord and to the hon. Member for Westhoughton.

That was the very point that I was trying to explain to the House. As I understand it, there is no doubt that the House will be able to discuss the administration, because, as I have already said, we are not proposing to set up any body which will have delegated functions, and whose activities, therefore, cannot be discussed in Parliament, as in the case of the British Broadcasting Corporation. On the contrary, what we are doing is establishing a fund which will be under the administration of the Privy Council, with no delegation to any other extra-Parliamentary body. Of course, no one can give an undertaking as to what would be the Ruling of the occupant of the Chair on any given occasion,, but, subject to that, I think it must be perfectly plain to us that the whole administration of this fund and any regulations made in connection with it will be open to review by the House of Commons.

Earl WINTERTON

I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend has made the position very clear, and I have some further questions to ask which I hope may be answered by some other Member of the Government. I am speaking only for myself, but I believe I am right in saying that the greater number of those, in whichever quarter of the House they sit, who supported the Government in Committee on this Bill, are opposed to this proposal. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I am interested to hear those assenting cheers. I think it will be in order to mention the circumstances in which this Clause was brought forward in Committee. An Amendment was moved, and, greatly to the surprise of many of us, the Home Secretary, no doubt with a desire to be pleasant to everyone, announced that the Government were going to accept the principle of the Clause. I want to make it plain to my hon. Friend the Undersecretary that I am not in any way blaming him; he was committed by the somewhat gratuitous offer or promise of his official chief; and I would like to thank the Government, on behalf of the supporters of the Bill, for their action in leaving this matter to an open vote. I hope that those who support the Bill will not support this Amendment.

We have had some very interesting speeches, notably one from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law); and I think it would not be out of place to mention, if I may be allowed to do so as an old Member of the House, that I noticed that my hon. Friend, like a very distinguished person of his name in this House, possesses the ability to deliver a considerable speech without the use of a single note. My hon. Friend's speech was an admirable one, if I may be allowed to say so, on the theory of a film institute, but it really had not much to do with this particular Amendment, because what we are concerned with is not the theory of a film institute. It may be right or wrong in theory. I can imagine people who think like my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy)—I am not speaking satirically or sarcastically—and others, who in theory would be in favour of a film institute, but that is not quite the point that arises here. The point is whether this proposal is a good one constitutionally. I think it is a very dangerous proposal, and I am very doubtful about it from a constitutional point of view.

What is it that the Clause asks the House to do? It asks the House to insert in an Act of Parliament a provision which will impose an irregular, but nevertheless binding, taxation upon a certain industry. I use these terms deliberately, because it is a form of taxation, and it is a binding form of taxation, but it is a very novel form of taxation. What other industry has ever been asked to submit to a tax which is not going to be given to the local authority or to the State, but which is to be applied to a certain purpose which has not yet been defined or discussed? My hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) used the word "we," which no doubt would give the impression that this scheme had been cut and dried and was prepared, but, when I challenged him, my hon. Friend said that he was only using the word "we" in an editorial sense. I do not know what he meant; as far as I know he is not an editor; but it appears that the scheme has not been prepared; it appears that there is no scheme for us to discuss at all; and yet we are asked in this Clause to impose on a particular industry a tax for the purpose of applying money to a scheme which is not yet even in existence. I think that that is a very dangerous thing. I would ask the House to note the actual words of the Clause. I submit that seldom have more nebulous words been brought before this House at any stage of any Bill. There shall be established under the direction and control of the Privy Council a fund, to be called the 'Cinematograph Fund,' and all sums paid to an authority in accordance with conditions imposed by them under the last foregoing Section for the purpose of being transmitted to that fund shall be so transmitted"— I ask the House to note these words— at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State and laid before Parliament. We have been asked to pass a good many curious provisions in recent years, but I have never before heard a Tory Minister bring forward a proposal to supply money for the purpose of being transmitted to a fund, to be so transmitted at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by a Secretary of State and laid before Parliament, 6.0 p.m.

If that is not a leap in the dark, I do not know the meaning of the words.

I should like to ask the Government a few questions about the conditions, so far as there are any, that they propose to lay down. I understand, from what my hon. and learned Friend has just said, that the constitution of this new body, when it is set up, will be discussed by Parliament. [Interruption.] If my hon. and learned Friend is not prepared to correct what I say, I do not wish to press him, although it only needs a simple answer, "Yes" or "No." If the constitution of this new body and its administration are going to be discussed by the House, it will be a body controlled by the House. Is it the desire of the Government that there should be set up an institute to control the film industry? I rather gathered from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities that that was the intention of those who are behind the scheme. He said that, just as the British Broadcasting Corporation control broadcasting, he would like to see the screen controlled. Is my hon. and learned Friend prepared to take the matter a step further? I understand that I was not wholly accurate in my assumption that the constitution and the administration of the fund would be able to be discussed in the House. I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend some more questions. It will be no use his taking the high and mighty attitude that some who are in favour of the idea have taken that all these matters are to be discussed in the future.

The Government are making themselves partly responsible for this. We want to know what they have in. their minds. Is this institute to have compulsory powers? Is it going to say to the film renter, "You shall show only this film," or "You shall not show that film," or is it going to have advisory powers? Is it going to produce films itself, or is it going to subsidise films which have already been produced? What is the form of control that is to be adopted? Is it not extraordinary that, on the day on which we are discussing a Bill concerned with the Sunday opening of cinemas, a very important proposal in theory, though nebulous when it comes to be explained, should be brought forward?

I should like to say a word about the body itself. As far as I understand what is at the back of the mind of those who are in favour of it, I think the idea is rather grandmotherly and rather bureaucratic. I am not much impressed as to what happens in France. The French have a, different attitude from ours.

Mr. LAW

They make much better films.

Earl WINTERTON

They may make better films for the British public, but it is questionable whether they make better films for the French public. I have seen French films for which the hon. Lady sitting below my hon. Friend would not care much, though they are very suitable for France. Are the promoters of this idea right in thinking it necessary or desirable to have this sort of instructing or controlling authority? After all, it is true of the film industry as of everything else that is provided for the public at large, that the public is given what the publics wants. Those who have spoken in support of the idea seem to ignore the fact that there have been dozens of educational and so-called cultural films produced, and, from the box office point of view, they have been a dead failure. How does my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings propose to get over that difficulty?

Lord E. PERCY

My Noble Friend might have heard my speech before answering it. Nothing he is saying has any relation to what I said.

Earl WINTERTON

My submission is that there have been provided films of a very different character from the ordinary everyday gangster film and, unfortunately, there is a limited public for them, and they are not a box office success. We have an honest, shrewd, tolerant, good-humoured, unintellectual, inartistic, urbanised democracy. I will give an example to prove the truth of what I say. If there was this intense desire for culture and education, people would buy the "Times," the "Morning Post" and the "Daily Telegraph" in the same numbers that they buy the more popular papers. The reason they do not is that they do not want culture or education. They want to read the news as they get it in the popular papers, and, for the same reason, they want to see the popular films that they see on the screen. If there was this public to be afforded culture and education through the medium of entertainment, opera would be a success, and there would be no demand for jazz, but everyone knows that the contrary is the case.

We are confronted with the proposal to educate the public. The method of educating the public should not be by means of this Bill, because you are mixing up two entirely different things. This is not a Bill for the purpose of educating the public, but for giving limited facilities for cinemas to be opened on Sundays, and it has been understood that, when those facilities were granted, such of the money as was set aside, apart from what the proprietors of the cinemas are entitled to put into their pockets, would be given to the hospitals. Speaking as the chairman of a hospital, although we have never suggested that the cinemas should be opened merely to benefit the hospitals, because that is not our business, we have said that, if money is going to be set aside, it should be given to the hospitals and not to other bodies.

Finally, it is most dangerous that money should be given through the agency of the Government, because it will be in effect Government money. It is taken in the form of a tax from the cinema industry, paid into the fund, to be doled out by the Privy Council. It is most dangerous to give money for the purpose of subsidising anything unless you are quite clear what you are going to subsidise. I should like to give an example. I can well imagine that this new film institute might say it would be an excellent thing to exhibit a film of the work of the League of Nations; in fact, I believe it has been done on a small scale. They produce such a film. It is shown. One could make it very interesting. We could have the speeches of all the Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries, past and present, at all the conferences that have been held since 1918, and lastly, in the educational part, you could have the exact results of those conferences. You could have the Commission arriving at Manchuria, and, for lighter relief, you could have the famous game of golf between M. Briand and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the famous incident when Lord Curzon was so unlucky as to lose his trousers at Lausanne.

If you produced a film of that kind, serious, except in its light parts, what would happen? I am judging from what has happened in the case of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Inevitably, and quite rightly, the Navy League would come forward and ask for permission to have a picture produced showing the work of the Navy League and the work of the Navy, not answering the League of Nations film but showing the other side of the picture. The answer would be, "We cannot do that. We are taking Government money. This is a political matter. The League of Nations is in an entirely different category. You are asking us to use public money for a political purpose." Bodies of this kind, partly subsidised by public money, are a thing which should not be lightly encouraged by the House until we have all the facts and know all the circumstances. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give us far more definite information than any of the back bench supporters of the proposal have given, but I hope, whatever information he gives, the House will be careful before passing even the principle of this Clause, because, to my mind, it is not an integral part of the Bill which we have been discussing. It is not a necessary concomitant to Sunday opening, and it would have a prejudicial effect on insti- tutions which many of us have very much at heart—the hospitals of the country.

Mrs. TATE

I rise to oppose the Clause, but not altogether on the same grounds as the Noble Lord. Some of us have a very intense interest in the class of films that are shown, and I think we should deplore it if, by going into the Lobby to vote against the Clause, we were considered as not having that interest and desire for a better type of film being shown to the public. But, if the cinema is such an important educational element as it unquestionably is, and if it is imperative that something should be done to improve the type of films that are shown—I believe there is a very urgent need for that—surely you cannot say you are justified in taking the money for the improvement of the films simply from charitable institutions, which is what the Clause in effect does. The Under-Secretary himself has said it will not be the cinemas that will pay. It will be the hospitals and the charitable institutions. Also this fund will be, in effect, nothing more or less than a subsidy. I think we ought to ask ourselves what it will be a subsidy for. I think there is a very real danger of it being nothing more or less than a subsidy for dull films which no one really wants to see.

I do not agree with one or two hon. Members who have said that there is no demand for better films in this country. I do not think that a film need necessarily be a cultural film in order to be a good film. I have seen many films which are known as "Mickey Mouse" films which have a tremendous and a very wholesome interest, not only for children but for older people, but I have never yet heard a "Mickey Mouse" film described as being a cultural film. The Under-Secretary has said that he has a low-brow taste in films, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) has said that he hopes to improve the taste of the Under-Secretary, but I do not think that the House is justified in giving a subsidy to improve the taste of those people who enjoy good films which cannot at the same time be called cultural films. That a subject as serious as the improvement of the films of this country should be dealt with simply by robbing the charities which benefit from Sunday opening, or should have any connection whatever with Sunday opening, would, I think, be a. very deplorable and an entirely unjustified experiment for this House to sanction.

Mr. J. JONES

I happen to represent a constituency where the issue as to the kind of films to be shown either on Sunday or any other day has never been raised. We have always allowed, as far as we have had an opportunity as a licensing authority, the cinemas to open on Sunday evening. We cannot understand why those who play golf, or tennis, or go boating on Sunday should object to the ordinary working men having an opportunity of enjoying themselves in a reasonable way on the same day. I oppose the Clause, not because I object to the control of the industry, but because I object to the piecemeal methods of the Clause. If it is necessary to levy a special tax for the purpose of improving a particular industry, you cannot stop there. The provision ought not to be tacked on to a Bill dealing with a special industry, but should be laid down as a general principle to be applied to all industries.

The cinema industry is comparatively new. I can remember the time when the only picture palace in my division was a little corner shop. We had to pay 2d. to enter, and there was very little room to sit down when we got inside. Still, we saw the pictures as well as the small space would allow. Now we have great picture palaces all round the neighbourhood, and we are able to see some of the best pictures, in spite of what was said by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I was sorry to find him quarrelling with his Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). It reminded me of the proverb that when noble lords fall out honest men come by their own. As far as we are concerned, we have improved the pictures. The pictures of 20 years ago used to entertain the people of my division, but those pictures would not be looked at to-day by the same people. They want better pictures. They have been educated by experience. What was good enough for our grandfathers is not good enough for us. We ought to have a little more trust; in the common people. Trust in the common people is gradually being brought about by educational methods, not only inside the cinema, but outside. When a lad of 16 years of age I had not the same facilities as my boys now enjoy. My enjoyment was of a different kind from theirs. They have developed more than I developed, and can do things I could never do. Some of the things which they do I shall never be able to do—I hope not, anyhow.

I ask hon. Members, if they are desirous of dealing with an issue of this character, to do so in a straightforward manner. Bring it forward as a definite act on its own. If you are going to improve the cinema by this kind of arrangement, there are many other industries which require improvement even more than the cinema. All our main industries might be improved by this levy principle. If the Government would separate the Bill from this particular part of it, they would get almost a unanimous vote from the Members of the House. Are we really going to improve the cinemas by this method? On one side of London they will not have cinemas on Sunday, and on the other side they will. The cinemas which open will have to pay a special tax, and the cinemas which do not open will not pay the tax at all. Is that a fair system of levy? Is it a system of taxation which anyone can defend? Public houses are open on Sunday. Some people do not like the idea. Why not make a fellow who uses the public house on Sunday pay an extra tax? If you have a levy, it should be on the principle that, whether you use a commodity on Sunday or not, it should be applied all round the map, and not laid down as a special principle confined to a particular industry. I represent a constituency where the people have very little opportunity for leisure. I do not want to talk continuously of my constituency, but I have been sent here to represent that constituency, and I would point out that the people who go to the cinema on Sunday evening do so religiously. It is a religion with them. They go every Sunday for an hour or so, and they enjoy the pictures. The pictures are as good as those which my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham saw in France. We have not the same cosmopolitan fancy,

Division No. 261.]	AYES.	[6.27 p.m.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.	Bennett, Capt, Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Bernays, Robert
Atholl, Duchess of	Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Attlee, Clement Richard	Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Blaker, Sir Reginald

and we do not always go to see gaudy pictures.

Earl WINTERTON

It is so rarely that we are both on the same side, that I hope the hon. Member will not attack me. I am in full agreement, I can assure him, with everything he has said.

Mr. JONES

I apologise to the Noble Lord if I have in any way misrepresented him, because he referred to the people whom I represent as not being up to the standard of those he represents. He said that the common democracy of this country did not quite understand the higher cultural things like grand opera; they do not understand the higher things and the great achievements which he and his class appreciate.

Earl WINTERTON

I applied it to every class in this country. I did not suggest for a moment that the wage earners are less artistic than a particular class; I meant the people of the whole country.

Mr. JONES

I understood the Noble Lord to say that the urbanised democracy was not up to the same standard as the rural democracy which he represents. As far as I am concerned, the urbanised democracy is up to as high a political standard as the rural democracy which he represents in Parliament. I have been among the democracy in Horsham, and the only difference in the democracy there is that they drink it out of pint pots, whereas in my constituency we have only half-pint glasses, and have to pay plenty for it too. But I am not blaming the Noble Lord for that. The democracy of Canning Town and Silvertown is at least up to the level of the Noble Lord's constituents. However, we are both on the same ground on this occasion, and therefore it is not worth while arguing with the Noble Lord. The Clause should be kept out of the Bill. We have no right to put it in, as it opens up an issue which cannot be fought out on this Bill without causing general opposition.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 168.

Blindell, James	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	Nunn, William
Boulton, W. W.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Hepworth, Joseph	Palmer, Francis Noel
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Holdsworth, Herbert	Patrick, Colin M.
Buchan, John	Hornby, Frank	Peake, Captain Osbert
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Horobin, Ian M.	Pearson, William G.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Horsbrugh, Florence	Peat, Charles U.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Howard, Tom Forrest	Percy, Lord Eustace
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Petherick, M.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)	Pybus, Percy John
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Chalmers, John Rutherford	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.(Birm., W)	Janner, Barnett	Ramsden, E.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Jenkins, Sir William	Rea, Walter Russell
Chotzner, Alfred James	Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Christie, James Archibald	John, William	Robinson, John Roland
Clayton, Dr. George C.	Johnstons, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Boss Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Colfox, Major William Philip	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Colville, John	Kimball, Lawrence	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.	Kirkpatrick, William M.	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Cove, William G.	Knight, Holford	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Craven-Ellis, William	Law, Sir Alfred	Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Leckle, J. A.	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Crossley, A. C.	Leech, Dr. J, W.	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Lewis, Oswald	Somervell, Donald Bradley
Curry, A. C.	Liddall, Walter S.	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)	Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Llewellin, Major John J.	Stanley, Hon. O. P. G. (Westmorland)
Davison, Sir William Henry	Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)	Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Stones, James
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Strauss, Edward A.
Dickie, John P.	Lunn, William	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Duggan, Hubert John	Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Edge, Sir William	McCorquodale, M. S.	Sutcliffe, Harold
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Tinker, John Joseph
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	McKie, John Hamilton	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	McLean, Major Alan	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Macmillan, Maurice Harold	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman	Magnay, Thomas	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Gledhill, Gilbert	Margosson, Capt. Henry David R.	Wells, Sydney Richard
Glossop, C. W. H.	Martin, Thomas B.	Weymouth, Viscount
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	White, Henry Graham
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W).	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Grundy, Thomas W.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Withers, Sir John James
Guy, I. C. Morrison	Milner, Major James	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Hales, Harold K.	Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Moreing, Adrian C.	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'V'oaks)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)	Morgan, Robert H.	Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Harbord, Arthur	Morrison, William Shepherd	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Harris, Sir Percy	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Sir Gervais Rentoul and Mr. Law.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Drewe, Cedric
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Carver, Major William H.	Duckworth, George A. V.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Albery, Irving James	Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Edwards, Charles
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)	Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Aske, Sir Robert William	Clarry, Reginald George	Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Everard, W. Lindsay
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.	Colman, N. C. D.	Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Cook, Thomas A.	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Batey, Joseph	Cooke, Douglas	Fox, Sir Gifford
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Cooper, A. Duff	Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Beit, Sir Alfred L.	Cowan, D. M.	Ganzoni, Sir John
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Crooke, J. Smedley	George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Bracken, Brendan	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Culverwell, Cyril Tom	Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Broadbent, Colonel John	Daggar, George	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Davies, Maj. Geo. F, (Somerset, Yeovil)	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)	Dawson, Sir Philip	Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter	Denville, Alfred	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Donner, P. W,	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Campbell, Rear-Admi. G. (Burnley)	Doran, Edward	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Grimston, R. V.	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)	Salman, Major Isidore
Gritten, W. G. Howard	Maxton, James	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Groves, Thomas E.	Millar, Sir James Duncan	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chisw'k)	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Scone, Lord
Hanley, Dennis A.	Mitcheson, G. G.	Selley, Harry R.
Hartington, Marquess of	Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Hartland, George A.	Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)	Slater, John
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	Muirhead, Major A. J.	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Harvey, Major S. E (Devon, Totnes)	Munro, Patrick	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Headlam, Lieut. Col. Cuthbert M.	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Newton, Sir Douglas George C.	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Hicks, Ernest George	Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Hirst, George Henry	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Summersby, Charles H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Ormiston, Thomas	Tate, Mavis Constance
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Parkinson, John Allen	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Penny, Sir George	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Jones, Sir G.W.H.(Stoke New'oton)	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Ker, J. Campbell	Price, Gabriel	Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
Knox, Sir Alfred	Procter, Major Henry Adam	Wayland, Sir William A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul	Ramsbotham, Herwald	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Lees-Jones, John	Ratcliffe, Arthur	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Levy, Thomas	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Logan, David Gilbert	Reid, William Allan (Derby)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Remer, John R.	Wise, Alfred R.
McEntee, Valentine L.	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.	Womersley, Walter Jamas
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)	Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	Ross, Ronald D.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Rothschild, James A. de	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Marsden, Commander Arthur	Runge, Norah Cecil	Mr. Michael Beaumont and Mr. Buchanan.

Clause added to the Bill.