HC Deb 23 February 1938 vol 332 cc392-423

(1) With a view to the better organisation and development of the film industry in the United Kingdom, there shall be constituted a Commission to be called the "Films Commission," hereinafter referred to as "the Commission."

(2) The Commission shall consist of a chairman and not less than two or more than four other members who shall be appointed by the Board of Trade. All the members shall be entirely independent of any professional or pecuniary interest in any branch of the cinematograph film industry and shall devote their whole time to their duties as such members.

(3) The functions of the Commission shall be—

  1. (a) to carry into effect and administer the provisions of this Act subject to the overriding authority of the Board of Trade;
  2. (b) to make representations to the Board of Trade and to draft regulations for submission to the Board of Trade in respect of all matters affecting the film industry.

(4) The powers of the Commission shall be—

  1. (a) to make regulations for governing its own proceedings and for delegating so far as may be necessary its functions to certain of its individual members or to its officers;
    2. 393
  2. (b) to prescribe such fees as are laid down in the Second Schedule to this Act;
  3. (c) to hold such enquiries as it considers necessary or desirable for the discharge of any of its functions;
  4. (d) to recommend to the Minister the initiation of proceedings in respect of infringements of the provisions of this Act;
  5. (e) to set up a viewing panel for the purposes of Section twenty-six of this Act and for examination of films in respect of all applications for registration for renters' quotas;
  6. (f) to recommend to the Board of Trade such alterations of quotas as are provided for under Section fifteen of this Act;
  7. (g) to consult whenever necessary with the advisory committee referred to in Section thirty-nine of this Act;
  8. (h) to do all such matters and things as are necessary for the exercise of the functions of the committee.

(5) The period of office of members shall be three years subject to re-appointment.

(6) The Commission shall make to the Board of Trade, as soon as may be after the end of the year beginning at the commencement of of this Act and each subsequent year, a report of the proceedings of the Commission during the year, and a review of the progress of the cinematograph films industry in Great Britain, with particular reference to that branch of the said industry which is engaged in the making of films.

(7) The Board of Trade shall, upon receiving any draft regulations submitted under Subsection (4) of this Section, forthwith cause the same to be published in the Gazette and in such other manner best adapted to inform the persons affected, a notice of their intention to consider the making of the said regulations. The said notice shall contain—

  1. (a) information of the place where the draft regulations may be inspected and copies thereof obtained;
  2. (b) a statement that the Board are prepared to receive and consider any objection to the proposed regulations which may be made in writing within the period of one month from the publication of such notice.

(8) Within the period of two months from the publication of such notice the Board shall after consultation with the Commission consider any such objections so made and shall make such regulations as they may think proper. All regulations so made shall be laid before Parliament so soon as may be after they are made.

If either House of Parliament within the next thirty days on which that House has sat after there is laid before it any regulation under this Section resolves that the regulation be annulled the regulation shall thereupon tease to have effect, without prejudice, however, to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new regulation.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams

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

The question of a small independent commission was debated fairly fully on the Second Reading of the Bill. In Committee we had a prolonged Debate on the wisdom or unwisdom of a small independent commission or a much larger council consisting of 11 independent members and 10 members representing various sections of the trade. Although we discussed the two things jointly, the new Clause on the Order Paper was not discussed at any length. We do not desire to prolong the Debate upon this important, and, as I regard it, vital question, but there are justifiable reasons why we should return to the subject. I am not yet convinced that a council of 21 persons will be the best kind of body to follow the surreptitious movements in this highly complex industry. We maintained in Committee that the Moyne Committee were right when they recommended a small independent commission which should constantly keep under review the various movements of this industry. Hon. Members know by now that we have British producers and foreign importers, renters and exhibitors, and very often we find the producer is a renter and also an exhibitor, that the importer is a British producer and a renter, and all kinds of combinations of interests.

Unless the industry be kept under review by a body permanently engaged to do that particular job, we may not get the best industry we are entitled to expect, and the Board of Trade may not be able to get as rapidly as they ought to be able, information about the quick moves and quick changes that take place in this industry. We have on our side the Moyne Committee, who heard evidence from all sections of the industry and from those in any way familiar with the subject, and they recommended that a commission be established. The newspapers, which are regarded as authoritative with regard to questions of national importance, are almost without exception in favour of a small commission as compared with the larger council. In anything we may say concerning a small commission we always have it in our minds that an advisory committee of the interests should be available for consultation with the commission. We notice that the "Times," the "Sunday Observer," the "Liverpool Post," the "Daily Telegraph," the "Scotsman," the "Financial News," the "Manchester Guardian," the "Daily Sketch," and the "Daily Herald" have come down heavily on the side of the small commission. It may be that newspapers are rarely right, but surely they are not all wrong in this vital particular.

I regret the absence of the President of the Board of Trade, and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, who is in charge of the Bill, that there is still time for his right hon. Friend to reconsider this question. If powers such as are embodied in this new Clause, with extensions if need be, were given to this small commission, the commission would be able to administer the Act on behalf of the Board of Trade, keep constantly in touch with any sudden movements that may be made and generally to do the kind of work for which commissions have been set up for livestock, sugar, and various other purposes within recent months. It may be argued that the larger the body administering the Act the better for the administration, but that surely does not always follow. I should have thought that three or five persons permanently employed and paid reasonably large salaries, men of high character entirely disinterested in the industry, would be able not only to guide the President of the Board of Trade, but, to a large extent, guide the industry itself, and finally restore to the industry that lost confidence, which means money and stability, and more British pictures, and, perhaps, better pictures than we have been having.

I will not spend time in comparing the powers embodied in the new Clause with the powers granted to the cinematograph Films Council under Clause 39. It is a mere detail for the purposes of this discussion what the two sets of powers are. Obviously, however, whether it is a council or a commission, it rests with the Board of Trade to see that it has such powers as will enable it fully to administer the Act in the best interests of the producing side of the industry, and in the direction of giving effect to the desire expressed by the President on Second Reading. I do not not want to go through the various functions laid down. My argument is based exclusively on the wisdom or otherwise of appointing a small commission to be permanently engaged watching every move, advising the Board of Trade, drafting regulations and orders where they are necessary, and generally keeping in far closer touch with the industry than has been the case during the past 10 years.

We argued this at length in Committee and we have reargued it in our own minds since the Committee stage. We are still satisfied that three or five men will be better than 21. Twenty-one looks too much like a general meeting. I hope that the President has given the Parliamentary Secretary power, if the House deems it wise, to change the council into a small commission and to allow it to be decided without applying a rigorous whip. We noted in Committee upstairs that Members of the Government who spoke in favour of a commission voted against it in the Division. The Government Whip had been brought to bear and it was a very effective whip. If the House feels that the Committee made a mistake, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will allow the House to repair it and establish a commission and provide an advisory body, so that the Board of Trade will at all times have the advice and guidance of those connected with the producing, renting and exhibiting side. The smaller body will be able to do that job very effectively.

Mr. Morgan

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether paragraph (b) of Subsection (3) of the new Clause would cover the regulations of hours of employés in cinemas? One of the worst features of the cinema world to-day is the long and strangling hours which cinema employés have to work, and it is high time that there was some regulation.

Mr. Williams

If the hon. Gentleman has followed the discussions in Committee, he will have found that there was a new Clause dealing with labour conditions, wages and that kind of thing which, unfortunately, could not be moved. We were assured, however, that those matters would be dealt with later. They are not necessarily affected by this new Clause. The question we are debating is simply whether we shall have a small independent commission of not less than three or more than five to administer the Act and to be the eyes and ears of the Board of Trade, in place of a film council of 21. I hope that the Government will favour the commission and dispense with Clause 39 and the council of 21.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Mander

This new Clause is put down as the result of the discussion which took place in Committee and it puts the views of those who, I think, if a free vote had been taken, would have been a majority of the Committee. We have to make a choice between two different kinds of bodies. We ought to be guided as in all these matters by the report of the Moyne Committee, which at great length went into the whole of this tangled problem and made definite recommendations as to what they thought was the most effective way of dealing with the question. On page 35 of their report they recommended that a new body, which might be called the Films Commission, should be set up and made responsible for the administration of the Act. They went on to recommend that the commission should consist of a chairman and not less than two or more than four other members who need not necessarily be on a whole-time basis. We feel that it will be a difficult job to watch the operations of this Measure and to see that it is not evaded. That can be effectively done only by people who are concentrating the whole of their attention upon it and becoming experts. Under the council there would be 11 independent members who, to some extent, would be concentrating their minds upon it, but they are large in number and, if it is to be a part-time job, most of them can become only partial experts. They will have associated with them a large body of ten trade representatives who will know all about it.

It seems to us far better to follow the technique which is usual in these days, and which the Government have adopted in a number of Acts, and are adopting in the Sea Fish Bill which is now before the House. In that Bill there is a small commission exactly similar in its functions and ideas to the proposal now put forward. I should like to know what other Act there is in which there is a mixed commission of 21 persons. I understand the idea is that it will really be the independent members, and possibly only a number of them, who will be paid much attention to by the Board of Trade. They will be regarded as the people who really matter and not the trade representatives. If that is so, let us have a limited number of them who are far more likely to take their duties seriously, who will be much more accessible, rather than a large number of part-time people. I feel sure that sooner or later we shall get to that stage when we must have this small commission. It will be subject to Parliament, advisory, not able to operate on its own motion except through the Board of Trade, and will give the expert guidance and advice required in the complicated problems of the industry. I think it is highly probable that the Films Council itself will in due course make a recommendation, and that at a subsequent stage legislation op these lines will be brought forward. It is difficult enough to see how this Bill is to be of great assistance to the industry even as it is. I can find very few people in the trade who think it will do any good at all, but it is far more likely to succeed if we set up this highly businesslike body, which will be able to get the maximum of good out of this legislation.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Denville

I should like to ask the hon. Member what is really meant by the statement to make representations to the Board of Trade and to draft regulations for submission to the Board of Trade in respect of all matters affecting the film industry. Does he mean the entire film industry—

Mr. Mander

Certainly.

Mr. Denville

—from the production right down to the pay box? The two things are altogether different.

Mr. T. Williams

Surely the hon. Member must know that you cannot wholly divorce the production from the exhibition.

Mr. Denville

Are you going to put the actor and the stage manager in the same category, to put under the same rules and regulations the man touring the country and the permanent man? If so, the whole thing will be chaotic. The only difference in the film industry is that here the actors go round in tin cans.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith

When the suggestion of a Film Commission was discussed on Second Reading there were Members on this side of the House who uttered a word of warning against it being a Commission similar to the Unemployment Assistance Board, but on this side of the House we were unanimous that this Clause ought to be carried. In Committee an Amendment was introduced which set up a Films Council of 21 persons, 11 of whom are to have no interest of a pecuniary kind in the industry and 10 of whom are to represent the various interests. I think the future will show that with a Council of that size and with such conflicting interests it will not be possible for the film industry to make the progress it would make under an independent body. There is scarcely an industry in which there is more conflict of interests than in the film industry. There are producers, renters, exhibitors—

Mr. Day

And financiers.

Mr. Smith

—and financiers, who are mixed up in one or all of the three divisions. Therefore, I think the case for a Film Commission as suggested in this Clause is almost unanswerable. This House has some responsibility towards the film industry. There is nothing today which does more, perhaps, to mould public opinion than the cinema, and Parliament ought to have some little say about the industry. I do not mind saying as a cinema-goer that I have heard some politicians speaking from the screen who provided neither good entertainment nor anything else; but that is by the way. Let us examine one or two of the objections to this Films Council. The present Act—not this Bill—has been in operation for 10 years. A committee presided over by Lord Moyne made very definite statements as to what ought to be done in the future. Paragraph 100 of their report states: We recommend that the Commission should consist of a chairman and not less than two, or more than four, other members who need not all necessarily be on a whole-time basis. They would be appointed by the Government for specified periods and would be represented in the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown or in some other appropriate way. We contemplate that the members of the Commission should be adequately-paid persons whose suitability for their task is unimpeachable. The Bill is based largely on the report of this Committee, but in this matter the Government have entirely ignored it. One argument put forward in Committee was that they could not get agreement in this complicated industry for a small independent commission. Can any hon. Member tell me whenever vested interests in any industry have welcomed interference or supervision from outside? In spite of that the House has on many occasions appointed commissions to deal with industries, even when the owners opposed that course. Another argument was that there was agreement among the various interests for the Films Council as laid down in Clause 39 of the Bill. Those who represent the workers in the industry, though they agreed to the council, were in favour of an independent commission, and only agreed to the provisions of Clause 39 when they were assured that there was no chance of the Government setting up an independent commission. I think I can say with truth that those who represent the workers would favour now a small independent commission.

Mr. Morgan

The Mover of the Clause distinctly said that his proposal did not touch the workers or the hours of employment.

Major Procter

What is meant by "independent"? Is it suggested that there should be no trade union representatives?

Mr. T. Smith

I hesitate to answer the hon. Member, because I know that he knows better. He has such an interest in the cinematograph industry that I know that he has read the report of the Moyne Committee, and he will know that the committee stated definitely what they wanted done. The hon. Member can find an answer to his question in the Moyne Committee's Report.

Major Procter

I am as much interested in the workers as the hon. Member himself, and the point I want to bring out is this: If there is an independent committee how will you get trade union representation in the industry.

Mr. T. Smith

The position is that we are dealing here with a comparatively new industry which has proved to be entirely unsatisfactory from the point of view of British production, and if we are going to appoint a commission of independent men, say two, or not more than five, it is not a question of representation of interests. This is a question of men of experience and suitability being appointed to concentrate upon what is best for the cinematograph industry and to carry out the duties laid down in this new Clause. The point I was making was that we had been told that we were asking for a commission even though the workers' representatives were prepared to accept the Films Council, and I wanted to make it clear that they would have preferred, to put it no higher, an independent body. If there were an independent body there could be an advisory committee advising the Board of Trade on certain matters. This is, as it were, a supervising committee, a committee not in the hands of financiers or concerned with renters, but working simply for what is best for the cinematograph industry. I hope the House will declare in no uncertain manner that a commission should be established.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

I should have been inclined to give some measure of support to the Clause if the Mover had explained what it was all about. In the discussion upstairs some of us pointed out that, after all, this new Clause does not mean anything very definite. There is no magic about the word "commission." We might as well call this the Films Council and the other one the commission. No one has the faintest idea how the Clause would work, and I do not believe in calling into being anything which cannot be operated. What is meant by paragraph (a)? To carry into effect and administer the provisions of this Act subject to the overriding authority of the Board of Trade. They meet and come to certain conclusions, and then have to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether they accord with his overriding authority. They are to be independent persons. If that is all that is wanted we need not create such a body at all. The Board of Trade employ a number of very competent civil servants. The President has overriding authority over them and they have no interests in the industry. They could make all the regulations necessary with much greater capacity than inexperienced gentlemen on such a commission. We should have there the whole machinery without appointing a commission at all. We are merely proposing to set up five new civil servants. That is all.

Mr. T. Williams

Will the hon. Member say why he supported the establishment of a Sugar Commission of some 12 persons, none of them civil servants, when there are so many competent civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture, and why he supported the establishment of the Livestock Commission, consisting of approximately a dozen members, when there are so many competent civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. H. G. Williams

First of all, I did not support the Sugar Commission. I thought it was deplorable by Act of Parliament to create such a monopoly. I gave no support to that Bill at any time. So that point does not arise. The Livestock Commission have very clear-cut and defined powers. They have not the power to administer the whole of an Act of Parliament. The powers which are given to them are clearly defined in the Act. On the other hand the proposed Films Commission is to have the function of carrying into effect and administering the provisions of this Measure, subject to the over-riding authority of the Board of Trade. That is something which cannot be carried into effect at all except on the assumption that these persons bear the same relationship to the President of the Board of Trade as five civil servants would bear. If we examine paragraph (b) we find that everything in it is already covered by Clause 39 (2, a). The whole of the paragraphs (a) to (h), so far as they mean anything, are already covered by Clause 39 (2), except—

Mr. Mander

Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the proposed new Clause is in substitution of Clause 39?

Mr. Williams

Oh no, it is not. If the hon. Gentleman will read what he is supporting, and particularly paragraph (g), he will see that the proposed commission would have to consult, whenever necessary, with the advisory committee referred to in Section thirty-nine of this Act. There is no advisory committee under Clause 39.

Mr. Mander

It is quite true that the wording might not be perfect, but the proposed new Clause is quite clearly in substitution of Clause 39.

Mr. Williams

I am assuming that the authors of the Clause are proposing a serious Amendment of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member will listen to me and read this proposal, because he supports it. He says that Clause 39 is to go, but paragraph (g) says that the films commission will have to consult the advisory committee mentioned in Clause 39. If he looks at the Order Paper, the hon. Member will find that, while there are Amendments to Clause 39, none of them proposes to leave out the Clause. He is therefore supporting the proposed new Clause under a misapprehension. Not only that, but this body is referred to as the Cinematograph Films Council—

Mr. Mander

Will he take it from me that those who are responsible for the Clause have the deliberate intention that this should take the place of Clause 39, although there may be imperfections in the drafting of the proposed new Clause, owing to changes subsequently made in the Bill. It is therefore really a waste of time to argue about it.

Mr. Williams

Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that after we have had lengthy Debates in Committee those who are in charge of the proposed new Clause have not put down the consequential Amendments upon the Order Paper? It is treating the House of Commons with disrespect to say that there is a whole lot of things they have not thought of.

Mr. T. Williams

The hon. Member is also treating the House of Commons with disrespect. The original new Clause was put upon the Order Paper when Clause 39 contained what was purely an advisory committee of interested persons. Amendments were made in Committee which turned the advisory committee into a Cinematograph Films Council, and made an addition to it of 11 so-called independent members. The hon. Member knows all about that. It is because of the generosity of Mr. Speaker in calling this Clause that we are debating it. Some of us never expected that it would be called. The hon. Member is wasting time in what he knows to be pure burlesque.

Mr. H. G. Williams

I now understand the position of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). He knew that this new Clause had not the slightest chance and he never thought that Mr. Speaker would select it, so he did not think it worth while to tidy up the wording so that it would read intelligibly. Yet he seriously asked the House to debate a new Clause to which he attaches such trifling importance that he does not even draft it properly or put down consequential Amendments to another Clause; and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) is so little interested in it that he did not read it before he made his speech. In the circumstances I do not think there is anything for me either to burlesque or to waste the time of myself or of anybody else in the House upon.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger

Although the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) has just made play with one of the Sub-sections of the proposed new Clause, and not without reason, I must say, he has not dealt with the principle of it. Surely it is not above the wit of this House a little later on in the Debate to devise a means whereby we could put the new Clause into trim, if the House passes it. I want to deal with the principle, because that is what hon. Members must apply their minds to in this discussion. The right hon. and gallant Member who, I take it, will reply, should give us very sound and solid reasons why it is, when a committee or a commission of investigation is set up, the Government Department responsible, when introducing its subsequent Bill, entirely neglects to take the advice of that body, which has thoroughly investigated the matter and has had before it all the expert witnesses.

I thought that the President of the Board of Trade did not give us those sound reasons in Committee why we should accept a Films Council which would entirely cut across the recommendations made by the Moyne Committee, who suggested a films commission. On this side of the House we have paid attention to the recommendations of that committee, which were based upon expert evidence, and for that reason we ask the House this afternoon to reverse the decision that was made in Committee. May I call the attention of hon. Members to what happened in Committee when we discussed the question. First of all the President of the Board of Trade told us the reasons why he wanted us to adopt the proposal of a films council. I should like to read his words, which were: There will be differences between the various sections, and the report will not be unanimous. But I do not believe that is a very great disadvantage. Obviously the important thing from the point of view of the person who has to consider whether or not he is going to take the advice of this Committee will be the view which the independent members have taken of the subject discussed before them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 23rd November, 1937; col. 74.] So there we have it. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that when he is asked to take action on some recommendation of this Films Council under Clause 39, he will pay particular attention, the most important attention, not to the 10 representatives appointed by the various sections of the industry but to the 11 independent members. Surely it should be obvious that if he is to be guided in his decisions in administering this Measure during the next 10 years by the views of the 11 independent members of the Films Council, it would be far better that we cut out the trade members and got down to an independent commission such as my hon. Friend is advocating this afternoon.

There is another reason. When the right hon. Gentleman came to the Committee he always seemed to have a worried look on his face. We never knew from Committee to Committee whether he would throw over his previous arguments and suggest something new. Why was that? He told us that from 12 o'clock one day until 11 o'clock next morning he did not know whether the trade would come to him with an entirely fresh set of suggestions. That should indicate to the House that the proposed Council will be confronted with a similar set of circumstances. If the President of the Board of Trade is to have a worried look all through the Committee stage of the Bill what is to happen to the Films Council during the 10 years it will be administering this Measure and advising the President of the Board of Trade? Under another portion of the Bill the President of the Board of Trade is making provision for a quality test of certain films in certain conditions. I suggest that the Films Council will not be the appropriate body to give a quality test to films. If we are to have that, and apparently we are, because the right hon. Gentleman introduced that feature in Committee, another argument for the proposed new Clause surely is that we should have an independent commission composed of a very few people, who are entirely unconnected with the industry but are nevertheless able to ask for the advice of all interested persons and of all those who claim to have knowledge of the industry.

In the absence of any solid reason to the contrary from the Minister, the strongest argument that we could put forward this afternoon is that under other Acts of Parliament, like the Livestock Industry Act and the Beet Sugar Industry Act, the Government have set up independent bodies to control the industries and to advise the Minister. That is the most satisfactory argument that could be adduced this afternoon, unless the Minister can come to that Box and give us good solid reasons why these specific recommendations of the Moyne Report are being ignored.

5.11 p.m.

Captain Wallace

I do not propose to take the same line as has been taken by some of my hon. Friends and, despite any errors or omissions there may be in the actual presentation of the proposed new Clause, I shall try to deal with it reasonably briefly upon its merits. My right hon. Friend realises that a very large portion of our time has been expended upon the major question of whether there should be on the one hand a small independent body of experts with very wide powers practically running the industry, or, on the other hand, an advisory committee on which the industry would be represented, advising the President of the Board of Trade. It is only due to hon. Members who may not have given a very great deal of thought to this matter that I should rehearse some of the arguments which induced the President of the Board of Trade to oppose the present proposal.

The Committee presided over by Lord Moyne, to whom once again I should like to pay tribute, did, it is true, recommend in November, 1936, that there should be what they called a films commission, with a chairman, plus two to four other persons, all independent of the industry. That commission was to have, in the words of the Moyne Report, powers of initiative and control. I must admit that those powers appeared to the Board of Trade to be somewhat nebulous; nevertheless, the Board of Trade submitted the whole of the report to the film industry in December, 1936, and invited the views of the industry upon it. At that time, all sections of the industry disliked this particular recommendation. In fact, it is not too much to say that when the industry first saw the Moyne Report, each section of the industry said it would prefer to have trade representation upon this body, whatever it was. The Board of Trade, I think in the person of the present Minister of Transport, made an appeal last March to all sections of the film industry to try to agree upon a policy. No one doubts for a moment that if it had been possible for the industry to agree upon a policy and had it been able to produce more or less its own Bill, our labours would have been considerably curtailed, and the chances are that we should have an even better Bill than this Bill will be.

The fact remains that the sections of the industry could not come to an agreement. Representatives of the sections did get as far as a sort of draft agreement, but when the draft agreement was taken to the main body, it broke down, because they would not sanction it. They were, however, all agreed that they were against a films commission with powers of initiative and control, and I think the House will appreciate that it is not a very practical proposition to give the initiative and control in the running of an extremely complicated entertainment industry into the hands of a small independent body for whose conduct a Minister of the Crown would be responsible in the House.

My right hon. Friend held a joint meeting with all sections of the industry last June, and he indicated that in his view it would be better that the Board of Trade should continue to be the controlling authority, assisted by an advisory committee. At that time, whatever may have subsequently happened, no section of the industry raised any objection; in fact, I do not think it is too much to say that everybody was quite satisfied that the civil servants at the Board of Trade would probably be the best and most impartial administrators of the Act.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the White Paper on the Government's proposals, Command No. 5529, published just before the House rose for the summer holidays in order, if possible, to let the industry and the rest of the country, as well as hon. Members, know what our plans were, and to try, if possible, to meet objections in advance. In that Paper these phrases occur: It has, however, become clear during the discussions which followed the Committee's report that no branch of the industry is prepared to accept a Commission on the lines recommended by the Committee"— that is to say, the Moyne Committee. His Majesty's Government feel that the basis of the Committee was that such a Commission would be acceptable to the industry. I take the view that, if the Moyne Committee had not thought that such a Commission would be acceptable to the industry, they would have said so, and I doubt whether they would have recommended it.

Mr. Mander

Has the Parliamentary Secretary any evidence to show that that was the view of the Moyne Committee?

Captain Wallace

I think it is obvious. The Government's policy embodied two main changes from the scheme envisaged by the Moyne Committee. It had been decided for a number of sound reasons, which were explained in Committee, and will, of course be explained again here, that it would be advisable not to have a viewing test as the sole criterion of quality for registration, but to combine a cost test and a viewing test. That, in the view of my right hon. Friend, made a radical change in the situation, and it no longer seemed necessary to have an independent body since the viewing of films was one of the particular functions which the Moyne Committee suggested the Commission should carry out. The substitution of a fixed schedule of quotas in place of the annual assessment suggested by the Moyne Committee was another reason for the change. I admit that we have gone back in some way towards that annual reassessment, but, at the same time, we thought that the situation had radically changed.

I need not go into all the deputations that we received, or elaborate on the theme touched upon by the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, but one of the greatest difficulties which the Government have had in presenting this Bill to Parliament has been the divergent outlook in the industry, and, even more, the lack of consistency in policy even within sections of the industry themselves. I must, however, point out that, on 3rd November, 1937, very shortly before the Bill came before the House for Second Reading, my right hon. Friend received a joint deputation of producers, exhibitors and representatives of labour interests, and they all agreed in asking for the establishment of an advisory body, with trade representation, able to consider the whole industry. I do not for a moment wish to traverse what was said by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). He made that point in Committee, and it is perfectly true; but the fact remains that, so far as we knew, it was quite impossible to get agreement upon anything except an advisory body able to consider the whole position of the industry. That is what is in the Bill.

I think I ought to add that there has perhaps been in this Debate a certain amount, not exactly of misunderstanding, but of slurring over of certain sharp edges that must be clearly defined if we are to make sense of the Bill. A number of hon. Members have rather deluded themselves that it is possible to set up an independent council which is really going to have wide powers—the sort of thing proposed in this Clause—and which will really be able to control the industry. I do not think, and I know that my right hon. Friend does not think, that that would be of any use. The film industry, as I have said, is not in our view susceptible to that form of control. One of the strongest arguments for the Government's proposal for associating the trade itself with the Advisory Committee is that it is absolutely essential to get them round a table together to discuss their differences, and to associate the various sections, in so far as they can be associated, with any recommendations that may be made.

Reference has been made to the situation of the independent members, but I think that perhaps a little too much emphasis was laid upon some words which fell from my right hon. Friend in a rather narrower context. I do not think for a moment that the President intends to be guided entirely by the independent members of the Advisory Committee. It is perfectly plain, as a matter of common sense, that, if a majority report and a minority report were received, the side upon which the independent members were ranged would necessarily carry a certain amount of additional weight.

Mr. Bellenger

Not merely a certain amount of additional weight, but, in the President's own words, would be the determining factor as to whether he takes their advice or not.

Captain Wallace

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman ought to carry that too far. Obviously, the President must determine whether he takes their advice on the whole merits of the report, and I am certain that no one would expect him to be bound down. In fact, no one but he will know what goes on in his own head in making his determination. It was brought out clearly in Committee that we do not think there is any disadvantage in not getting a unanimous report. That, if I am not mistaken, is one of the arguments against the larger committee, but it is quite possible, when you get any recommendation from this body, to see where everybody is lined up and where their differences and troubles lie. Probably there would be nothing but the seeds of more trouble and discontent, with, it might be, a really disastrous effect on the film industry, if it were to be administered by a small autocratic body which could make a unanimous report to the President that something ought to be done, leaving the President perhaps in blissful but unfortunate ignorance of some of the disadvantages which had to be overcome. Finally, the proposals seems to command but a limited amount of support in the industry, and, therefore, quite apart from the disadvantages of accepting this particular Clause as drafted, I feel that the Government would be absolutely bound to resist it on merits.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Lawson

The only comfort that the Parliamentary Secretary has brought to us is that the film industry did agree upon something, and the discovery that that was the case must have been rather startling to the Board of Trade. There are many reasons why it is difficult for the industry to agree. The Parliamentary Secretary knows very well that the industry did not bother about the films commission which was recommended by the Moyne Committee, because the Board of Trade made it definitely known, shortly after the report was issued, that they were not going to accept a commission. I submit that that was the real reason why the film industry did not agree to ask for a commission, and, indeed, representatives of the industry said so. In some parts of the industry there was a tendency to look favourably upon the idea of a commission when we moved a Clause in that regard. When, however, the Bill was before the House, the whole industry was in favour of the Moyne Committee's proposal. My hon. Friend has read out a long list of representative newspapers that were firmly convinced that the only way to make the will of Parliament effective and improve the film industry was by some kind of permanent commission.

The President of the Board of Trade did not agree that it was necessary to have any supplementary body. During the earlier stages of the Bill, his idea was that the Board of Trade should simply administer the Bill with a small committee, as they had done in previous years. He was, however, impressed by public opinion to the extent that in Committee he accepted the Clause establishing a films council. What is the reason for establishing a films council? When the House of Commons originally gave the industry the protection of the quota, it was for the purpose of enabling a film industry to be established in this country.

The film industry itself was actually damaged as a result of the operation of the last Act. The quota was used to such an extent that the reputation of the industry become a matter of scorn. The only contribution they made was to give the country what is known as the "Quickies." Who will say that, if you do not have representatives of the Government, in the form of a permanent films commission, making themselves acquainted with all the ways of this industry in all its diverse activities, we shall not have a repetition in some other form of what has happened in the past? There is great need, in the best interests of this industry, for Parliament to set up some body that will help to save the industry from itself, as well as carrying out the will of Parliament. Here is a memorandum which has been sent to most hon. Members on behalf of the British Council of Film Directors: Astonishment has been commonly expressed at the fact that the Trade itself cannot reach agreement on some scheme to solve its own problems. It must, however, be remembered that 'the Trade' covers the many necessarily clashing interests of consumer, distributor and home manufacturer and that there are sub-divisions of interest in each one of these branches of the trade. They give reasons why there is very strong conflict among these interests. They also say that, by virtue of the quota, the Minister is going to establish an American monopoly in film production and distribution in this country. I remember that in Committee we were told by a legal representative on the Government side that they could not get past this Bill, at any rate; that the Bill was watertight. But here a representative of the industry says that, in his opinion, a Bill which is designed to establish a British industry and give it protection, is actually going to establish an American monopoly in film production and distribution in the British market.

Mr. Bracken

Does he give you the arguments to prove that?

Mr. Lawson

Yes. But I mention that only as the opinion of one who is in a position to know. The opinion is widespread in many sections of the industry that in fact the foreign producers will get past this Bill, and that the only result will be that protection will be given to people whom Parliament never intended to protect. The Government say that they will establish a films council to deal with this business. I wonder how often that council will meet. I think the last body met about five times a year; in fact, the whole administration of the Act fell upon the shoulders of about one civil servant, representing the Board of Trade. The Government is now adding one man, a permanent, paid chairman. The ramifications of this industry are so great that it really is necessary to have a body of men set apart to follow up this thing, and to make representations when they think that the people who are to be protected are being overridden, and, when they think that the Act is not being carried out as it should be, to examine the trouble closely. There is an Advisory Committee with certain functions. This Act, to which Parliament has given so much time, with the object of establishing an important industry, with very great influence upon the minds of people, should enable close inquiry to be made, if necessary, as to why the effect of the Act is not being felt, and why certain provisions are being sidetracked. Many Members of this House will agree that preparations are already being made to get past the Act.

We take this opportunity of warning the House that, in spite of all the time that has been given to it—and the Minister and the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) have given a great deal of time —unless there is somebody to keep a very firm grip on this matter, in the long run the object for which this Bill is being passed will be set at naught, and all our work will be wasted. I would plead for this Amendment to be carried in the interests of the industry itself. It is admitted that there is conflict of opinion within the industry about it, but if Parliament thinks that the industry is sufficiently influential, and of sufficient value, to make it worth while spending time on it and giving it protection, it is surely Parliament's duty, irrespective of what the industry itself thinks, to carry either this Clause or something like it, so that the Department shall appoint their representative to get a grip on the industry and report to the Department, if anything is going wrong, what is going wrong and what should be done about it. Although we are probably going to be beaten in the Lobbies, we think that it will be seen later on that such a body should be set up for the good of not only the industry, but the country itself.

5.41 p.m.

Sir William Wayland

I hope the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) will withdraw the Clause. I cannot conceive that you can prevent overlapping and obtain efficiency with two bodies such as he advocates. Surely it would be better that the Advisory Council should be strengthened. There are a certain number of independent members on that Council. If we can separate them from the interests, why should we not give them the extra power which you want to get into the commission under this Amendment? It would be extremely difficult to define the duties of these two bodies. It would mean overlapping and inefficiency, and in the end you would have to get rid of one. Let us concentrate upon increasing the strength and powers of the Advisory Council, and I think we shall then be marching in the right direction.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Day

The truest words that I have heard from the Government Benches were those spoken by the right hon. and gallant Member on the Front Bench, when he said that it was impossible to obtain any agreement between any of the sections of this industry. When this Bill was being discussed in Committee, just after a lengthy Debate I was leaving the Committee room when two very interested and very large members of the trade asked we what had happened. I said that the Government had passed their Motion that there should be a Films Council. I said, "That is the larger body." One of them said, "That is no good; we want the smaller one." The other said, "No, we want what the Government want." So they really did not know what they did want. Coming to the question of what is beneficial to the trade, I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade, when he appointed the commission, had more or less made up his mind to adopt, as far as possible, the recommendations of the report. One of the principal recommendations of that report was that there should be a films commission in preference to a Films Council.

Surely the Government will recognise that a large body of 21 would never be able to get any finality or any decision of real benefit to the trade itself. The Government admit that all the interests of the trade cannot come to any decision as to what they want. One hon. Gentleman pointed out what were the interests to be represented. He mentioned the producers, the renters, the exhibitors, the technicians and various others; but he forgot altogether the financiers, who really are considered the angels. They find the money and very seldom see any of it back. As for getting interest on their money, that is hopeless. They seldom see their capital back. They are certain also to have some representation, and I do not see how it can be expected that, in a large body of this kind, there could be any agreement upon what is for the benefit of the trade. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the new Clause.

5.46 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor

I support the setting up of a commission because I consider that in this industry, which is very diversified, with many sections of different interests, it is essential that we should have a small body of men sitting continuously and that, after going thoroughly into the industry and having heard all the evidence they require, they should make such recommendations as are necessary. You cannot do this with a body of 21 members. The speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend this afternoon was one of the strongest arguments that could be made for the setting up of this small commission. He told us time after time that the people in the trade could not agree to this, that or the other thing, and they never can agree about anything. These are not the people who are likely to agree upon measures for this industry. He said that they were agreed that they should have an advisory council and not a commission, but I think that, if he asked the trade now, he would find that that is not so and that they would welcome a commission instead of a large advisory council. An advisory council sit only a few times; they do not give their whole time to this matter. The result of the 1927 Act, beneficial as it has been undoubtedly in many ways, has shown serious defects and abuses in practice.

If there had been a commission sitting for the last ten years trying to get hold of the essentials of the film industry in this country in order that it might be made a successful and a good industry, the defects of the industry would not be what they are to-day. We must have a commission, and make it a full-time job. It is a most important industry, not merely from the point of view of making money, but from a national propaganda, cultural and educational point of view. The trade is rather at sixes and sevens. It cannot make up its mind on the important matter of what is best to do for the industry, and I do not think that we shall ever arrive at conclusions in this matter unless we have a small commission as is suggested in this new Clause.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Bracken

I hope that the Government will not accept the suggestion which has been made by my hon. and gallant colleague the Member for South Padding-Ion (Vice-Admiral Taylor), because the hon. Member who spoke from the Labour benches seemed to put extraordinary faith in a commission of three or five paid bureaucrats. I understand that the Socialist party always like the idea of seeing industry run by three or five paid bureaucrats, but I was very surprised to hear that the representative of the great Liberal party also wishes to have the industry run and controlled by bureaucrats. [Interruption.] I refer to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). Where are you going to find these five men? As far as I can understand the idea behind the framers of this proposal, four out of the five must have had no previous experience of the industry and must leam all about the cinema industry at the expense of the public. I heard it suggested that they should be paid high salaries. I do not think the cinema business will flourish because you have four bureaucrats, with a professional chairman, to run it.

I was amazed at one of the arguments of the Socialist party. It was suggested that a council of 21 would be so unwieldy that they could not possibly administer the industry. One of the most important businesses of the country, the Co-operative Wholesale Society, I believe, has 21 or 22 directors. Is it suggested that these directors really are incapable of running the business? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who is such an effective and valiant champion of hon. Gentlemen who sit here, once said that the best committee in the world was a committee of two from which one stayed away. It is far better to follow the suggestion of the Government to have a full-time chairman and let him consult from time to time with the independent and professionally engaged gentlemen in this industry. It is pathetic to observe the trust put by various Members in the idea that a commission of five could really revive the cinema industry and that we should have much better pictures with five bureaucrats sitting on top of the industry. The House would be very well advised to follow the suggestion of the Government and not set up a commission of three or five. The industry itself does not want a commission and it is rather undemocratic for the House of Commons to try and shove it down the industry's throat.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Leonard

I want to deal with one or two points on this matter, and to suggest that perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) should revise his opinion with regard to the capacity of people in various walks of life. He made certain remarks with regard to the Co-operative Wholesale Society and those who preside over its destiny. There is a tremendous difference between those individuals and the proposed council. Each one believes in co-operating with the others, and that is why they are successful. We have had no evidence that any of the sections that will be on this council will be imbued with the idea of co-operating with each other at all. It is simply because in the past they have shown such tangible evidence of their inability, if not their lack of desire, to co-operate, that we fear that the council will not produce the advantages which the Government at the present time apparently think they will be able to do. The point I expressed in Committee, but which did not find favour, was not so much connected with the members of the council or the question of independence, but rather with the fact that you will have a council which will report to the Board of Trade, and fears as to whether that report will really be beneficial seem to be more general than one might expext.

The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) stated, I think truly, that we had working for us public officials who were eminently suited to make decisions in matters of this description. I am perhaps speaking without the knowledge that he lias, but I have yet to believe that any competent civil servant would ever bring all the conflicting interests together on any matter at one time. They would call them in separately and receive their varying points of view. Therefore, in supporting the commission we are adopting an attitude which should keep separate the conflicting points of view in the industry. They would have to put their points of view to an independent body and allow that body to give a report after having had any conflicting evidence which may be in the industry presented to them separately.

There is another point which I endeavoured to stress upstairs. Two if not three of the sections of the industry are very large organisations, and within each section it is possible that there may be conflicts of opinion. It is quite possible that the representation of the larger section in the council might not contain a true representation of the opinion of that section of the industry and might not be able to place before the independent members of the council the point of view of the minority of the section they represent. If the independent members were open to receive all representations, it would be possible to place before them majority and minority opinions within each of the sections in the industry. That is the overriding reason which I impressed upon the Government for considering the appointment of a commission as apart from the Council.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot

I do not propose to discuss the general principle of setting up a commission to control the film industry but only to draw attention to one point. Whatever may be thought of the purpose of this Clause, I personally take some objection to the form in which it is drafted, particularly to certain words which occur in Sub-section (8), which lays it down that: Within the period of two months from the publication of such notice the Board shall after consultation with the commission consider any such objections so made and shall make such regulations as they may think proper. That is giving to this commission an unlimited rule-making power. The Board of Trade is to be made the sole judge of what regulations are and are not proper. It would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, under this form of words to challenge the validity of any regulation that might be made in pursuance of this Clause. I have on many occasions objected to legislation of this kind, even when brought forward from the Government Benches, and I object equally when it comes from this side of the House.

Mr. Bellenger

It says that the regulations shall be laid before the House.

Mr. Foot

I thought that some hon. Member would say that. Of course, regulations have to be laid before the House, but when regulations are laid before the House they are very rarely considered. Although the machinery for the laying of regulations is included in a vast number of Statutes, it is only on very rare occasions that it is possible to get an effective Debate. When we consider regulations, we do not set ourselves up as a judicial body to consider their validity. We do not decide here whether the regulations ars really necessary or whether they are within the powers that Parliament intended to confer upon the Minister. That is, and must be, a judicial question which must be decided, and can only be properly decided, by a judicial tribunal which hears the evidence and weighs the arguments. That is something which this House never does. This House votes upon the general principles of the regulations and hon. Members vote according to whether they want the Government to be defeated or not. If it were suggested that such regulations should be made by the Board of Trade, with this machinery of inquiry, in order to carry out the purposes which are set out in the Clause, and which it is intended that the commission should fulfil I think that this particular objection would be removed. I am not expressing a view upon the general principle of having a commission. I want to make that clear. I am not differing from my hon. Friend beside me on that point, but, from whatever quarter it comes, I feel the strongest objection to legislation in this form.

6.0 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood)

I am very much interested in this discussion, because I have had two experiences of the value of the work of advisory committees. Both the examples which I would quote are in some respects relevant to the arguments that have been used in favour of the proposed new Clause. When I was at the Post Office I had a strong advisory committee, consisting of many and varied interests, who gave varying views of the proposals brought forward from time to time in connection witth the Post Office. I have a similar body at the Ministry of Health in relation to housing work. In both these cases the bodies are composed of the same number suggested in the Bill. At the Post Office a good many interests had to be considered in order that I might get a representative body to advise me.

Mr. Bellenger

They were Britishers.

Sir K. Wood

In the result I can testify that in both the cases of which I have had experience there has not been the difficulties which hon. Members opposite anticipate. The question is whether it is better in connection with the films industry to carry the industry with you in this matter. There is a good deal in the idea of getting people who are associated with the industry round a table together. You are more likely to get better results in that way than if you follow the course suggested by hon. Members opposite of having an administrative body of four or five individuals, who may be regarded as judges or correctors. Hon. Members suggest that certain people will endeavour to get over the provisions of the Act. That depends on how the Bill has been dealt with in committee. If the Act is not satisfactory and is not watertight, then Parliament will have to put the matter right in the future.

The point we have to decide is whether it is better to have a films commission of independent people or an advisory council. I hope hon. Members opposite will realise that there is merit in the course adopted by the Government. If I were in the position of the President of the Board of Trade I should have regard not only to the advice that was being tendered to me, but the source from which the advice came. The advisory council set up in the Bill is probably an improvement upon a good many advisory committees. The President of the Board of Trade will be able to receive two forms of advice, one from the industry itself, and one from independent people, who will be able to give him perhaps a different point of view. For these reasons, and hon. Members opposite having expressed their views, I hope they will see their way to withdraw the Clause.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 201.

Division No. 107.] AYES. [6.6 p.m.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Banfield, J. W. Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Adams, D. (Consett) Barnes, A. J. Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Batey, J. Buchanan, G.
Adamson, W. M. Bellenger, F. J. Burke, W. A.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Cape, T.
Ammon, C. G Benson, G. Charleton, H. C.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Bevan, A. Chater, D.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Bromfield, W. Cluse, W. S.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Riley, B.
Cocks, F. S. Janes, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Ritson, J.
Cove, W. G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Kelly, W. T. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Daggar, G. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Kirkwood, D. Sexton. T. M.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Silverman, S. S.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lathan, G. Simpson, F. B.
Day, H. Lawson, J. J. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Dobbie, W. Leach, W. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Lee, F. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Ede, J. C. Leonard, W. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Leslie, J. R. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Frankel, D. Logan, D. G. Sorensen, R. W.
Gallacher, W. Lunn, W. Stephen, C.
Gardner, B. W. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) McEntee, V. La T. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) McGhee, H. G. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) MacLaran, A. Thorne, W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Maclean, N. Thurtle, E.
Grenfell, D. R. MacMillan, M. (Western Isles) Tinker, J. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Mainwaring, W. H. Tomlinson, G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Mander, G. le M. Viant, S. P.
Griffiths, J. (Llanslly) Marshall, F. Walkden, A. G.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor) Mathers, G. Walker, J.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Maxton, J. Watkins, F. C.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Milner, Major J. Watson, W. McL.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) White, H. Graham
Hardie, Agnes Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wilkinson, Ellen
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Muff, G. Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Hayday, A. Noel-Baker, P. J. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Oliver, G. H. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Owen, Major G. Wilson, C. H. (Attereliffe)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Parker, J. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Hills, A. (Pontefract) Parkinson, J. A. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Hollins, A. Pearson, A. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Hopkin, D. Pethick-Lawrance, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Pritt, D. N. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Richards, R. (Wrexham) Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Ridley, G.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Crossley, A. C. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Crowder, J. F. E. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Albary, Sir Irving Culverwell, C. T. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. De la Bère, R. Higgs, W. F.
Aske, Sir R. W. Denville, Alfred Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Davor) Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Dugdala, Captain T. L. Holdsworth, H.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Duggan, H. J. Holmes, J. S.
Balniel, Lord Dunglass, Lord Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Beechman, N. A. Edmondson, Major Sir J. Mopkinson, A.
Bernays, R. H. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Horsbrugh, Florence
Birchall, Sir J. D. Ellis, Sir G. Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Boothby, R. J. G. Emery, J. F. Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Boulton, W. W. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Hutchinson, G. C.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Entwistle, Sir C. F. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Bracken, B. Erskine-Hill, A. G. James, Wing-commander A. W. H.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Findlay, Sir E. Keeling, E. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Fleming, E. L. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Bull, B. B. Foot, D. M. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Caine, G. R. Hall- Fox, Sir G. W. G. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Campbell, Sir E. T. Fremantle, Sir F. E. Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Cartland, J. R. H. Furness, S. N. Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Carver, Major W. H. Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsay and Otlay) Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Cary, R. A. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Leech, Sir J. W.
Castlereagh, Viscount Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. Laighton, Major B. E. P.
Channon, H. Granville, E. L. Levy, T.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Liddall, W. S.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Gratton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. Loftus, P. C.
Clarry, Sir Reginald Gridlay, Sir A. B. Lyons, A. M.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Grigg, Sir E. W. M. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Colfox, Major W. P. Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Guinness, T. L. E. B. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Conant, Captain R. J. E. Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Hambro, A. V. McKie, J. H.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Hannah, I. C. Macquisten, F. A.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Harbord, A. Maitland, A.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Cox, H. B. Trevor Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Cookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Markham, S. F. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Thomas, J. P. L.
Marsden, Commander A. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Ropner, Colonel L. Titchfield, Marquess of
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Touche, G. C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Rowlands, G. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Russell, Sir Alexander Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Morgan, R. H. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) Turton, R. H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Wakefield, W. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Salmon, Sir I. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Munro, P. Seely, Sir H. M. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Selley, H. R. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) Waterhouse, Captain C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Peake, O. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) Wayland, Sir W. A
Plugge, Capt. L. F. Smith, L. W. (Hallam) Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Porritt, R. W. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton Somerset, T. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Procter, Major H. A. Spears, Brigadier-General E. L. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Radford, E. A. Spens, W. P. Withers, Sir J. J.
Ramsbotham, H. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) Womersley, Sir W. J.
Ramsden, Sir E. Storey, S. Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Rayner, Major R. H. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Sutcliffe, H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Tate, Mavis C. Mr. Cross and Mr. Grimston.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.