Commons Sitting of 4 February 1948

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SUPREME COURT: PRIZE, ETC., DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, 1946–7
Account ordered,
"of the Receipts and Payments of the Accounting Officer of the Vote for the Supreme Court on behalf of the Admiralty Division in Prize for the period from 3rd September, 1939, to 3rst March, 1947, with a Copy of a Letter from the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  HONG KONG (NEW AIRPORT)
  Mr. William Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the provision of a new airport for Hong Kong; and how it will be financed.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): This matter is under active consideration, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
  Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is taking quite a long while, and that it is getting a rather urgent matter in regard to the development of the air services in the Far East?
  Mr. Creech Jones: Already considerable progress has been made, and I hope very shortly that a statement will be made.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is exactly the same answer as he gave nearly six months ago to the same Question?
  Mr. W. J. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he contemplates that we shall pass in this matter from active consideration to passive action?

  GIBRALTAR EVACUEES, UNITED KINGDOM
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Gibraltarians, promised alternative accommodation in London, are still in Northern Ireland; whether any further consideration has been given to the need of renovating and repairing the London premises secured for Gibraltarians; and to what other use that building has been put.
  Mr. Creech Jones: One thousand, three hundred and forty Gibraltar evacuees were in Northern Ireland on 6th December. Of this number 542 have travelled to London, and the majority have been accommodated at the Fulham Road Institution, which is being used exclusively for that purpose. The repairs and adaptations necessary for temporary occupation are being considered. Approximately 750 evacuees remain in Northern Ireland. It is anticipated that this number will be reduced to 500 by further repatriations within the next few weeks.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is the Secretary of State aware that those left in Northern Ireland are bitterly disappointed at not being able to come to London, as in fact, they were led to believe that they would be accommodated in London long before the present time? Can he also say why the renovation and repair of these premises had not been put in hand earlier?
  Mr. Creech Jones: As to the latter part of the supplementary question, it is a matter for the Ministry of Works and steps have now been taken which could not have been taken sooner. That is a matter for the consideration of the London County Council.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: What progress is being made in the construction of houses at Gibraltar for these people?
  Mr. Creech Jones: The housing scheme has unfortunately been delayed, but in regard to materials, that is now a matter of priority and steps are accordingly being taken.

  AFRICAN COLONIES

    Communal Electorates, Kenya
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has given to protests against the establishment of separate communal electorates in Kenya.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The matter is still under discussion by the Governor with representatives of the communities concerned, and I regret that I am unable to make a statement at the present time.

    Land Banks and Building Societies
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have now been taken to set up land banks and building societies for the benefit of Europeans and non-Europeans in the various African Colonies.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Some months ago I called the attention of all Colonial Governors to the importance of providing adequate machinery for the grant of agricultural credit. With the hon. Member's permission I will have printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the present position in the African Colonies.
    Following is the statement:
    In Kenya a general Land and Agricultural Bank was established in 1931. Tanganyika has recently passed legislation to set up a similar Bank. The Government of Uganda are considering doing so, but in Zanzibar and Nyasaland it is not considered that the demand exists as yet.
    In West Africa there are no Land Banks or Building Societies in Nigeria, the Gold Coast and Gambia.
    I have made inquiry from the Governors as to the present position in Northern Rhodesia and Sierra Leone and will communicate with the hon. Member when replies have been received.

    Kenya Legislative Council (Changes)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what changes are being made in the composition of the Kenya Legislative Council; and when it is intended to introduce election for the African members.
    Mr. Creech Jones: With the creation of the East African Central Assembly, it will no longer be necessary for four official members of the Kenya Legislature to sit in the Kenya Council. At the same time, the official Arab member will give way to a nominated unofficial Arab member and the number of African representatives will be increased from two to four. The Council will then be composed of 15 official and 22 unofficial members, made up of 11 elected Europeans, five elected Indians, two nominated Arabs and four nominated Africans. As an interim measure, the African members are to be selected by the Governor from a panel of names submitted by the African local government bodies, but I hope that in the reasonably near future it may be possible to establish a system of actual election by those bodies.

    African Labour, Kenya (Report)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a report has yet been received from the Commission of Inquiry into causes of low output of African labour in Kenya; whether this report is to be published; and what action has been taken.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The investigation was not a formal Commission of Inquiry, but a piece of research carried out by a team of research workers, mostly from this country. Its object was to study the factors affecting the efficiency of African labour, such as nutrition, housing and social environment, and to ascertain what incentives were likely to appeal to such labour and encourage an increased output of work. The investigation was confined to the employees of the Kenya-Uganda railways stationed in Nairobi. A report is now in draft. I am taking up the question of its publication with the Railway Authorities.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when discussing this issue of the productivity of the African labourer he should also look into the efficiency of the management of African labour, because some of the lack of productivity is due to inefficiency of management?
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that the low output of the African labourer is due to the lack of incentives, mainly in goods in the shops, and food?

    Cocoa Trees, West Africa (Disease)
    Mr. John Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to recruit staff to deal with prevalent disease among cocoa trees in West Africa.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Of the 24 Cocoa Survey Officers required by the Gold Coast Government for the campaign to eradicate disease among cocoa trees, 20 have already been recruited of whom all but two have sailed. Offers of appointment have been sent to a further three candidates and the remaining vacancy is in process of being filled. Any additional staff required will be obtained.
    Mr. Scollan: Would the Minister take steps to try to send out the B.M.A.?
    Mr. T. Reid: Will there be any compulsory powers to induce people to cut out dead and diseased cocoa trees?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The treatment of the disease is another matter. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question I will answer it.
    Mr. Bossom: Could the Minister say how long it is since he was first asked to send out these people, and how many have arrived? He said just now that a small number had arrived. How long ago were they invited?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I cannot give the date of invitation, but practically all the officers have now been selected and many of them are there. Others are on the way.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Livestock (Humane Slaughter)
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what colonies are domestic animals which are killed for food, killed by modern humane methods.
    Mr. Creech Jones: In all important urban areas in the Colonies there are abattoirs where domestic animals are slaughtered under supervision and by humane methods, but it is as yet impossible to secure the adoption of these methods throughout the widely scattered rural areas.
    Mr. Reid: Would my right hon. Friend bring the matter to the attention of the
    1782
    Colonies concerned in the hope that some progressive legislatures will abolish this unnecessary cruelty to animals caused by cutting their throats?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's view, and we have circularised all the Colonies on this matter.

    University Courses, United Kingdom (Scholarships)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why so few scholarships for university courses and other training in this country are available in West Africa compared with the West Indies.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Many of the Colonial scholarship holders received scholarships under a special scheme for Colonials who did war service in the United Kingdom. The number of West Indians who served in the United Kingdom greatly exceeds the number of West Africans who did so. Thus, out of 532 West Indian scholars at present in the United Kingdom and Eire, 313 received their awards under this special scheme, whereas out of 335 West African scholars only 20 did so.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the Secretary of State see that a parity is reached between these two Colonies? Why should the West Indies be penalised because there were more in the Forces from West Africa than from the West Indies?
    Mr. Creech Jones: This was a special scheme and it related to members from the respective territories who were in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister try to get parity now that this business is settled?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is another question.
    Dr. Segal: Would the Secretary of State seek to draw a distinction between scholarships for academic and research studies and purely professional scholarships, and seek especially to increase the number of post-graduate scholarships?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Different types of scholarships are available. Some are granted by the local Colonial Government and others are available under the Colonial Development and Welfare Grants. We

    1783
    have post-graduate as well as pre-graduate people in this country now doing their course of study.

    Colonial Mining Policy
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has, so far, been taken by Colonial Governments to implement the Memorandum on Colonial Mining Policy of 1946.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Memorandum on Colonial Mining Policy was intended to give guidance to Colonial Governments on general principles. It has been before Governments when considering new leases for the working of minerals.
    Mr. Skinnard: Has any practical effect been given to it by those Governments who considered it?
    Mr. Creech Jones: There have been quite a number of practical results in Nigeria, and also with regard to development of a geological survey which is being run by the Colonial Office itself.

    Colonial Service (Organisation)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has so far been taken to implement the policy laid down in Colonial Paper No. 197, Organisation of the Colonial Service.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Command Paper 7167, "Colonial Empire (1939–1947)," contains, in paragraphs 96 to 102, a review of progress in this field up to the middle of 1947, and I shall, of course, include an account of any further significant developments in my Annual Review of the Colonial Empire, which will be presented to Parliament next summer. In the meantime, since Colonial No. 197 covers such a very wide field, perhaps my hon. Friend will let me know if he desires further information on any particular aspects of the policy described in that Paper.

    Officials (Land Acquisition)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what regulations govern the acquisition of land by Governors and officials of his Department in the Colonies in which they serve.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind officers in the service of the Colonial Governments. I would refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on 13th November, 1947. The matter is governed in general by Colonial regulations and in particular by the general orders of the Colonial territory concerned.
    Mr. Rankin: May I ask my right hon. Friend if there is anything in these regulations which prevents the Governor of any Colony from acquiring land?
    Mr. Creech Jones: There are some regulations which permit the Governor or any other official to secure land but it has to be done by permission and by the Governor in Council.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that that is creating a great deal of dissatisfaction for the reason that the Governor by virtue of his position is supposed to be impartial, and if he intends to settle when he retires then he loses his position of impartiality as between the settler and the native?
    Mr. Creech Jones: As far as I know there has been no abuse of the regulations. I will look into the matter again.

    American Films (Cost)
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements have been made in each of the principal British Colonies to deal with the problems of the dollar cost of American cinematograph films consequent upon the dollar crisis.
    Mr. Creech Jones: This matter is still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement about it.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when this consideration is likely to spring into activity?
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that the fewer American films imported into the British Colonies the better it will be for the spiritual, mental and moral welfare of the natives?

  NORTHERN RHODESIA (POST OFFICE ENTRANCES)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will request the Government of Northern Rhodesia to take immediate steps to abolish the present system of separate entrances for Africans and Europeans in post offices in that territory.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I understand that 32 out of the 51 existing post offices in Northern Rhodesia provide a common entrance for Europeans and Africans, and that the local Government intend to make the same arrangements at all new post offices. In regard to the 19 post offices without common entrance, I am taking the matter up with the local Government.

  MALAYA

    Volunteer and Defence Services
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the decision of the Malayan Governments to revoke civil liability for volunteer and defence services and the general dissatisfaction aroused over the substitute of insurance grants, he will make a statement indicating on what precise basis these grants are being paid; and whether a scale will be promulgated in order to clarify the position.
    Mr. Creech Jones: When payment of civil liability awards was discontinued in 1942, dependants of members of the Malayan Volunteers and Local Defence Corps were granted, in lieu, family allowances at the rates applicable to members of the Regular Forces. The grants to which the hon. Member refers are made additionally and not in substitution for family allowances. They follow the lines of the war service grants made to members of the Regular Forces in respect of arrears of insurance premiums. I see no need for a special promulgation of the scales of those grants.
    Mr. Dc la Bère: In view of the great importance of this matter I shall exercise a self-denying ordinance and not ask my usual supplementary question, but will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to see me afterwards on this matter?
    Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Is it not a fact that there is quite an astonishing degree
    1786
    of unanimity between these different communities and that a great debt of gratitude is owing to Mr. Malcolm MacDonald for his work during his Governor-Generalship?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I would like to pay tribute to the Governor-General and to all those who have assisted in making this settlement possible.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that on 29th July last year he specifically held out hopes that we should have a Malayan Debate about this and other important matters, and, therefore, will he take steps to implement that undertaking?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am not sure that the undertaking was so specific as the hon. Member declares, but in any case it is a matter for consultation with the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Fletcher: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said:
    "I hope that after the Recess it may be possible … for an opportunity to be found for the Committee or the House to make observations on these arrangements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1947; Vol. 441. c.269.]
    Will the right hon. Gentleman please take the necessary steps to implement that?

    Constitution
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what change there has been in the arrangement by which the new Malayan Constitution will come into force on 1st February; and, in view of the many criticisms of the Constitution expressed by all sections of the Malayan community, whether he will allow time for further discussion before bringing it into force, or at any rate ensure that there is opportunity for an early revision of the Constitution if this is found desirable in the light of experience.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Federation of Malaya came into existence on 1st February, and there has been no change in that arrangement. The Federal Constitution is the outcome of prolonged and comprehensive local consultations, and I am satisfied that further delay in bringing it into force would merely have prolonged controversy and impeded stable Government. The Constitution contains

    1787
    within itself machinery for change and development as and when this is found desirable in the light of local experience.

    Economic Survey
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will set up a committee to produce an Economic Survey for Malaya in order that an approach may be made to complete the reorganisation of Malaya's economy to free it from its dangerous dependence on export crops.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Much attention is being given by the local Government to the broadening of the economy of the Federation of Malaya. At present, the main effort is being devoted to the urgent problem of increasing rice production. I am satisfied that the question is being tackled with energy and foresight, and I am not sure that my hon. Friend's proposal will give more practical results but I am calling for the High Commissioner's views on the matter.
    Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Geneva discussions seemed to indicate that the Malayan economy is completely subservient to world trade rivalry at the present moment, and that it is essential that this House should have a full opportunity of debating the Malayan economy in relation to the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Malaya does make an enormous contribution to the world economy, of course. In regard to a Debate, that is a matter to be discussed through the usual channels.

    Untapped Rubber Areas
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if in view of the possible opening up of untapped rubber areas in the Far East it is possible to arrange preliminary discussions with Far Eastern rubber interests to develop resources on an agreed and fair basis.
    Mr. Creech Jones: There is a considerable amount of replanting and new planting of rubber in the British territories in the Far East, both by plantation companies and by innumerable individual smallholders. It would not, in my opinion, be advantageous, or indeed even practicable, to accept any obligations which
    1788
    might have the result of limiting or controlling these activities. The Colonial Development Corporation will be able, of course, to consider proposals of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the complete dissatisfaction in Malaya with the results of the eight-day rubber study group in Paris and that weighty opinion in Malaya agrees that its findings were a farce. Secondly, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he is prepared to encourage the establishment of plant for the production of rubber goods inside Malaya to meet the situation at the present moment?
    Mr. Creech Jones: My hon. Friend's second question is quite different from the one on the Order Paper, and I should require notice of it.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is much more important to devote attention to using the rubber produced from existing areas to earn dollars for this country instead of dollars for other countries through the black market which is going on with the help of a great many other countries?

  CYPRUS

    Public Works (Cost)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the cost of public works carried out in Cyprus since 1st January, 1947, falls on United Kingdom funds.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The cost of public works carried out by the Cyprus Government since 1st January, 1947, which fell on United Kingdom funds was approximately £64,000. The whole of the amount is in respect of grants under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. This figure does not, of course, take account of any public works expenditure in Cyprus by the Armed Forces, with which I am not concerned.

    Jewish Refugge Camps (Cost)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the total cost of operating the Jewish refugee camps in Cyprus; and on which country the expenditure falls
    Mr. Creech Jones: The latest available figure for the cost of the Cyprus Camps is £2½ million, for the period up to the end of November, 1947. The cost is met by the Government of Palestine.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Cyprus the general view is that the Palestine Government have not yet declared that they will foot the bill, and will he give an assurance that the British taxpayer will not have to pay if there is any difficulty?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have already declared in this House that this cost must fall on the Palestine Government.
    Mr. Janner: Will not the right hon. Gentleman allow these poor people in Cyprus to go to Palestine, and then there would be no cost on anybody other than the Jewish community?
    Major Legge-Bourke: Have any steps been taken with the United Nations with a view to closing down these camps when we evacuate Palestine?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Discussions are going on now with the United Nations Commission.
    Major Tufton Beamish: May I ask the Minister whether any of the cost of administering these camps has fallen on the Arab community of Palestine, as that would be rather illogical?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The cost is being defrayed by the Palestine Government. The money is raised by taxation, and there would be Arab taxpayers as well as Jewish.

    Radio Aids, Nicosia Airport
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if lie is aware of the necessity for increasing the radio aids at Nicosia Airport; and what steps is he taking to meet this need.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. I am in consultation with the Governor of Cyprus about the future provision of radio aids at Nicosia Airport, and expect shortly to receive his proposals on the subject.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Colonial Secretary do everything he can to hasten these facilities, as the radio beacon used at Nicosia at the moment has a range of only 60 miles, which is not enough?
    Mr. Creech Jones: It is the responsibility of the Cyprus Government. We are doing what we can to expedite it.

    Cost of Living
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the rapidly increasing cost of living in Cyprus; and what his plans are for dealing with this problem.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The cost of living is high in Cyprus, as elsewhere, particularly in the Middle East region, but the Governor informs me that it has not recently been rapidly increasing. The Government of Cyprus has the problem under constant review and employs methods of subsidy and price control in dealing with it. In May, 1947, the Governor appointed a Committee to investigate the cost of living, and its report is now being considered.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the great increase in numbers in the Jewish refugee camps is increasing the cost of living, particularly in regard to vegetables and meat, and will he bear that in mind in considering future arrangements?
    Mr. Creech Jones: All these factors have been considered by the Committee constituted on this problem.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the Colonial Secretary say why he suggests that Cyprus is in the Middle East?
    Mr. Gallacher: Does the Colonial Secretary include in his plans for Cyprus a democratic constitution similar to that of Malta?

    Constitutional Proposals
    Mr. Haydn Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is in a position to announce the Government's Constitutional proposals for Cyprus; and
    (2) whether the people of Cyprus are to have a voice in framing the new Constitution for the island; or if His Majesty's Government will insist upon the acceptance in full of its own proposals.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am not yet ready to announce the Constitutional proposals of His Majesty's Government. As I indicated in reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 28th January, these proposals will

    1791
    in due course be placed before the Consultative Assembly in Cyprus, and it is, of course, the intention that the Consultative Assembly should discuss the proposals and have a full opportunity of putting forward their views. In advance of announcement of the proposals and their discussion in Cyprus it would be undesirable for me to speculate on what the final outcome may be
    Mr. Davies: Would my right hon. Friend say when he believes that he will be in a position to send this proposal, in view of the fact that the question of the Constitution has been dragging on for years without any satisfactory solution, and bearing in mind that it would be a help if he could give some indication?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I could not give any date, but the matter is receiving very active attention.
    Mr. Edward Evans: Has my right hon. Friend been able to consult with representative bodies in Cyprus?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Governor has been in touch with all representative organisations in the creation of the Consultative Assembly. The matter of the Constitution has already been discussed by that Assembly.
    Mr. T. Reid: Have the Greek Government made any representations on this subject?
    Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir.

  PALESTINE

    Armed Arabs (Entry)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken by Palestine authorities against the armed Arabs who have entered Palestine from Transjordan.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The party of armed Arabs to which my hon. Friend refers dispersed on its arrival in Palestine before action could be taken by the security authorities. The route by which they are reported to have entered the country has now been closed.
    Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are spending some £2 million a year in equipping Forces in
    1792
    Transjordan at present, and that many more than the one party of armed men have come into Palestine; that this is a complete transgression against the United Nations Charter; and will something effective be done to stop these people from coming into Palestine?
    Mr. Creech Jones: It will be appreciated that the security Forces in Palestine have a frightfully difficult job, and it is exceedingly difficult to maintain a watch over the complete frontiers.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Has the Colonial Secretary any information as to whether these armed bands coming in from Transjordan are Regulars or guerrilla forces?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have no exact information, but one gathers they are of the guerrilla kind.
    Mr. Austin: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied in fact that the arms in question are not those supplied to neighbouring States under treaty obligations? If that is so and these arms are being misused in this way, will he see that there is no further evasion?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That is quite a different issue.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that on 28th January Arab forces captured 500 cases of Scotch whisky in a train hold-up, that the whisky was subsequently sold in the village of Khan Younis at 2s. a bottle? Is the Minister also aware that last year Scottish Christians exported 12,000 gallons of whisky to Palestine, and would not the security Forces have a much easier task if these exports were stopped until hostilities are over?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seems to be giving a lot of information, not asking a question.
    Mr. Janner: Reverting to the original question, will my right hon. Friend see to it that no further moneys or arms are sent to Transjordan or any other country to equip forces to come in and attack British Forces and Jews in Palestine?
    Mr. Eden: Could we have an answer on that point, because we would like to know whether our Treaty obligations stand? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make it plain that our Treaty obligations will be carried out.
    Mr. Creech Jones: That question has already been answered in the House. Our Treaty obligations do stand.

    Palestine Police Personne (Future Employment)
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will ensure that any vacancies which the Colonial Office or the Crown Agents are in a position to offer to officers and men of the Palestine Police Force will be offered to the Force as such and not to individuals, in order that officers and men who are retained in Palestine to the end of the Mandate are not placed at a disadvantage in comparison with officers and men on leave in the United Kingdom pending retirement.
    Mr. Creech Jones: In filling vacancies in Colonial police forces full consideration is being given to members of the Palestine Police Force but it is necessary to select for particular vacancies those best qualified to fill them. I am however in full sympathy with the idea underlying the question. The High Commissioner is normally asked to recommend candidates from the Force as a whole, and vacancies would wherever possible be held open for selected men who cannot be released from Palestine immediately.
    Mr. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend undertake not to fill vacancies in London without first consulting the Palestine Government?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I think that course is now being followed.
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Palestine Police Force includes officers and men with high linguistic and administrative qualifications; and whether he will take steps to see that recruitment into the Foreign Service and to the Home Office and other Government Departments is open to the Force as well as recruitment into the Police Forces at home and in the Colonies.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. As regards the second part of the Question, I am in consultation with the appropriate Departments in regard to the possibility of absorbing any suitably qualified candidates in the manner suggested.
    Mr. Thomas: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are also
    1794
    many men in the Palestine Police Force with technical qualifications.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir.

    Illegal Immigrants (Ships)
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many ships are known to have attempted to land illegal immigrants in Palestine since V.E. Day; how many have been intercepted; in how many cases legal proceedings have been instituted against the owners, masters or any members of the crews of ships carrying illegal immigrants to Palestine, and with what results.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Fifty-seven ships are known to have tried to land illegal immigrants in Palestine since V.E. Day. Of these 40 were intercepted. Only four small ships have escaped interception since June, 1946. The High Commissioner is being asked for the information requested in the second part of the question and I will comunicate with the hon. and gallant Member on receipt of his report.
    Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware that the weakness of Government policy in this connection has given encouragement to Jewish illegal immigration, and that at this moment preparations for illegal immigration are going forward on a larger scale than ever before; further, is he aware that if these preparations are successfully carried out they must have very grave repercussions indeed in the Arab world?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I do not accept the imputation in the first part of the supplementary question. The Government are fully alive to the whole of this problem and have consistently taken the most active steps to prevent illegal immigration.
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: Can the Minister say how many of these ships have been confiscated.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have promised to obtain that information and I will send it to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister circulate the Report of the United Nations Organisation in respect of this question of immigration, and also will he say when a port will be opened for immigrants in accordance with the request of the United Nations?
    Mr. Pickthorn: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether we are to gather from his last supplementary answer and from his original answer that it did not occur to the Colonial Office to want the information requested in the last part of this Question until the Question was put down? Is that the conclusion that we are to reach?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I thought that my information was incomplete, but I understand that between November, 1945, and November, 1947, one ship has been sold and 11 others have been forfeited at the instance of the District Court in Haifa.

  BRITISH HONDURAS (EX-SERVICE MEN)
  Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what scheme is in operation for the resettlement of ex-Service men in British Honduras; what are the numbers that have received vocational training; and what is the nature of this training.
  Mr. Creech Jones: As the reply is of some length, and contains figures, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Cooper: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that in the town of Belize alone, it is reported that over 700 ex-Service men who are not in any rehabilitation scheme and devoid of vocational training are walking the streets, and could he take urgent steps to remedy this sorry state of affairs?
  Mr. Creech Jones: The Governor is fully alive to the importance of the resettlement and training of these men. We are about to receive a report on the whole of this problem.
  Following is the reply:
  The following measures have been adopted to provide for the resettlement of ex-Service men in British Honduras:

  (a) plans for their absorption in agricultural development are now being worked out in consultation with representatives of the local ex-Service men's League, Forestry Unit and Trade Unions;

  (b) it is proposed to include any suitable ex-Service men in the plans for
  1796
  and settlement on a communal basis for which funds are now being sought under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act; and

  (c) they are given preference for any Government employment that may be available.

  There are no facilities for vocational training in British Honduras. Twelve British Honduranian ex-Service men have been accepted for vocational training in the United Kingdom as follows: Radio mechanics, 5; Commercial courses, 3; Police Training, a; Agriculture, 1; Plumbing, 1. Of these seven have completed their training, four are still in training, and one has yet to be placed.

  MAURITIUS

    Adulterated Milk
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that adulterated milk is still being sold in Mauritius, and that milk given to patients in the civil hospital is overdiluted condensed milk; what steps are being taken by the Government of Mauritius to end this adulteration; and whether he will consider prohibiting the manufacture of cream, butter and cheese while there is a shortage of milk.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have received a report from the Governor of Mauritius. As it is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Skinnard: Would the Colonial Secretary consider helping out the Government of Mauritius by lending a chemist to replace the Government chemist now on leave, since the general control has broken down because of his absence?
    Mr. Creech Jones: This matter is receiving close attention. There has been difficulty in securing technical assistants, but the Government are fully alive to its importance.
    Following is the reply:
    It is true that adulterated milk is still being sold in Mauritius. The principal cause of adulteration is inadequate supply and the Mauritius Government, in order to remedy this, has been endeavouring to secure the services of an Animal Husbandry Officer with a view to improving
    the stock of much cows. In the meantime such control as can be exercised by sampling milk and prosecuting offenders is being carried out.
    As regards hospitals, condensed milk issued to patients is normally diluted in correct proportion, but for some months past owing to impossibility of obtaining sufficient imports of condensed milk and to transport difficulties it has been necessary to increase the dilution in all hospitals. Apart from hospitals the sale of condensed milk has had to be restricted to certain aged persons and infants under one year of age on medical certificate only. A consignment of condensed milk is expected shortly which will ease the position. Supplies of this commodity for 1948 are expected to be 230 tons as compared with 86 tons in 1946.
    In view of the short supply in the Colony of fats and edible oils, it is not considered expedient to prohibit the manufacture of cream, butter and cheese at present.

    Empire Parliamentary Delegation (Visit)
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether facilities can be arranged for some members of the forthcoming Empire Parliamentary Association delegation to East Africa to visit the island of Mauritius.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have no doubt that the Governor and people of Mauritius would welcome a visit from the delegation. I understand, however, that owing to the time factor the Empire Parliamentary Association would find it difficult to accept an invitation on this occasion.
    Dr. Segal: Will the Minister bear in mind that Mauritius is only one day's flight from Dar es Salaam, and could not this densely populated island, with its numerous urgent problems and its growing sense of isolation, lay a particular claim upon the interests of any Empire Parliamentary delegation going to that area?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Of course, that is not a matter for me but one for the Empire Parliamentary Association.
    Mr. Drayson: Does not the Minister agree that if hon. Members of this House wish to go to Mauritius they can do so perfectly well at their own expense?

    Rice Consumption
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the average annual rice consumption in Mauritius in the ten-year period prior to 1939; what annual amounts have been made available since 1944; and what is to be the allocation for 1948.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The average annual rice consumption in Mauritius in the ten-year period prior to 1939 was 55,892 tons. In 1945, 4,998 tons were made available to Mauritius; in 1946, 18,895 tons; and in 1947, 20,094 tons. The allocation made by the International Emergency Food Committee for the first half of 1948 is 12,000 tons; no allocation has yet been made for the second half-year.

  WESTERN EUROPEAN COLONIAL POWERS (CO-OPERATION)
  Squadron-Leader Kinghornasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what the present prospects are for a United States of Africa;
  (2) if he will indicate what steps have already been taken for collaboration in colonial matters between the nations of the proposed Western European Union.
  Mr. Creech Jones: In the past few years arrangements have been worked out for close co-operation in technical matters of common concern, not only with the other Western European Colonial Powers, but also with other countries with neighbouring responsibilities. In the Caribbean area this is secured by the Caribbean Commission. The South Pacific Commission, which should shortly be finally established, will provide similar machinery for the South Pacific region. For Africa we have, over the past two years, built up a system of close co-operation on technical matters with the interested peoples who include the French, Belgians and Portuguese. A programme of technical conferences was drawn up last spring, which will last until 1950. Several such conferences have already been held, either in Africa or in the metropolitan countries. No proposal for a United States of Africa has been advanced, nor do I detect any wish for such an arrangement among the inhabitants of Africa.
  Dr. Segal: Would the right hon. Gentleman rate as any brighter the prospects for a United States of Europe?

  SEYCHELLES (TAXPAYERS' AND LANDOWNERS' ASSOCIATION)
  Mr. Baldwinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why, having regard to the obligations imposed upon a Governor by Colonial Regulations, the Governor of the Seychelles declined to forward a telegram addressed to the Secretary of State by the Seychelles Taxpayers' and Landowners' Association on 1st October; and why no notification was made to the Association that it had not been despatched until 10 days had elapsed.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I have received a report from the Governor on this matter, from which it is clear that at no time did he ignore his obligation under the Colonial Regulations, which is, to forward the communication, accompanied by his report, with all reasonable despatch. Normally representations are made to the Governor in the first instance before a communication is addressed to the Secretary of State. In the present case no such representations had been made, and the Governor, no doubt, desired an opportunity to consider the points raised before transmitting the telegram, with his report. to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that this body of people wanted to get their message to their representatives in London quickly, and that as a result of the way in which the matter was handled the message did not arrive in time? Does he not think that this is in keeping with the rather arbitrary method which is being adopted in the Seychelles at present?
  Mr. Creech Jones: This was a question of Income Tax payments on which there have been considerable arrears. The effort of the Governor was to get some of these arrears brought in. I can see nothing that the Governor did which is Irregular.

  WEST INDIES (CONFERENCE)
  Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can make a
  1800
  statement regarding the closer association of the Caribbean Colonies since such was proposed at the Montego Bay Conference.
  Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a report on the conference on the closer association of the British West Indian Colonies, held at Montego Bay, Jamaica, in September, 1947, is to be published.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am presenting a report in a Command Paper which is now available in the Vote Office. The resolutions of the Conference are now being considered by the Legislatures.

  MEMORIAL SCROLL (DUPLICATES)
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the memorial scroll granted to the next-of-kin of a member of the forces killed in the World War of 1939–45 is issued to the widow of the deceased, if there is a widow; that, in such circumstances, the parents have no claim; that this has given rise to some disappointment; and whether he will reconsider the matter.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have recently had the problem examined and approval has now been given to a recommendation for the issue of a duplicate Scroll in such circumstances to parents who notify the Ministry of Pensions of their desire to receive this.
  Mr. Lipson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the action which he has taken is very much appreciated?

  ARMED FORCES

    Conference, Washington
    Mr. Platt-Millsasked the Minister of Defence (1) what was the nature of the conference held in Washington on Monday, 12th January, 1948, and attended by the United States Secretary of Defence, the Canadian Minister of National Defence, the Chiefs of Staff of the United States armed forces, and British Service representatives;
    (2) who were the Service representatives who attended the conference held in Washington on Monday, 12th January, 1948, at which there were also present the United States Secretary of

    1801
    Defence, the Canadian Minister of National Defence, and the Chiefs of Staff of the United States armed forces.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): No such conference was attended by United Kingdom Service representatives.

    British Troops, Palestine
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Defence what will be the cost to the British taxpayer of retaining our troops in Palestine from 1st January until 1st August.
    Mr. Alexander: The total cost of maintaining the Forces likely to be serving in Palestine during the period is estimated at about £12 million. It would be very difficult to assess what proportion of this expenditure is attributable to the continued retention of the Forces in that country.
    Sir T. Moore: Could the Minister say what return or compensation we get for this heavy expenditure, and why we should keep the troops there at all?
    Mr. Alexander: We are carrying out our responsibilities under the Mandate.
    Major Beamishasked the Minister of Defence whether any final decision has yet been taken as to the date on which the United Kingdom will cease to be responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Palestine; and whether he is now in a position to make a fuller statement regarding the plans for the withdrawal of British Forces, stores and equipment from Palestine.
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Minister of Defence is he aware of the anxiety felt by the wives, parents and relatives of our troops serving in Palestine, in view of the murderous warfare now developing and can he say how long before our troops will be withdrawn from that area.
    Mr. Alexander: As has already been announced, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to terminate their Mandate in Palestine, and with it their civil administration of that country, on 15th May next, and to complete the evacuation of their Forces from Palestine by 1st August next. The progress of the withdrawal of British Forces, stores and equipment from Palestine is proceeding according to these plans, and is making
    1802
    good progress. The Government deplore the outbreaks of violence occurring in Palestine, with the casualties they entail, both to the civil population and to personnel of the British Forces and civil administration. During the Debate on 12th December, 1947, it was stated that His Majesty's Government would keep in mind the possibility of withdrawing at earlier dates than those stated above. The matter has accordingly been kept under review, and has recently been reexamined. But, having regard to all the factors, and to all that has to he done, and to the very great care with which the original plan was worked out, His Majesty's Government must adhere to the dates originally announced, i.e., 15th May for the termination of the Mandate, and 1st August for the completion of the evacuation of British Forces.
    Major Beamish: In view of the tact that a very considerable number of British personnel and large quantities of stores must remain in Palestine between May and August, will the Minister say whether he is satisfied that the machinery provided by the United Nations for the maintenance of law and order in Palestine, and for the administration of Palestine, will be adequate, and will not result in the needless loss of British lives and great cost to the British taxpayers?
    Mr. Alexander: I cannot reveal the details of our plan of evacuation and the covering of that portion of the stores which we cannot evacuate before 15th May. Therefore, I cannot answer the question.
    Major Beamish: Is the Minister satisfied that the machinery to be provided by the United Nations will be adequate for the maintenance of law and order and the administration of Palestine?
    Mr. Alexander: With regard to that question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the statements made on several occasions at the United Nations Organisation by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies and other representatives.
    Major Beamish: But they do not answer my question.
    Mr. Janner: Does my right hon. Friend really think that the United Nations can make preparations in the space of two weeks to put the new States in this country in a position to preserve that order,

    1803
    and will he see to it that the other Ministers concerned in the matter with him realise the absurdity of that suggestion?
    Mr. Alexander: That is a question which should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I can only add that the United Nations Organisation were given very ample warning.

    Discharge by Purchase
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Defence if any decision has yet been reached regarding the re-introduction of the system of discharge by purchase from the Services.
    Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir. The re-introduction of the system of discharge by purchase has been agreed in principle. Detailed arrangements are being worked out, and a further announcement will be made in due course. I should however, make it clear that the Service Departments will retain a discretion, as before the war, to refuse an application by any individual whose discharge would be against the interests of his Service, and that the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force may find it necessary to exercise this discretion extensively.
    Mr. Digby: Can the Minister give an assurance that due weight will be paid to compassionate reasons in the widest sense, and, with regard to the rates of purchase, can he also given an assurance that they will not be much higher than they were before the war?
    Mr. Alexander: I could not prejudge what the position will be in regard to the last part of the supplementary question. After all, we have to tax the taxpayers very much higher for the cost of the maintenance and training of the troops. With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, we are continuously exercising great sympathy in compassionate cases, and a good number have been able to get out in that way already. We shall not lose sight of that.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: In view of the fact that this has been under constant discussion for the last two years, can my right hon. Friend say how soon an announcement will be made, and will he, in considering the details, bear in mind the considerable number of people who joined the
    1804
    Forces at a very early age and are now anxious to take advantage of this scheme?
    Mr. Alexander: We will get the decision expedited as much as possible, but there are a great many details to go into.
    Mr. Medland: Will my right hon. Friend say whether previous applications which have been received within the last three months will be considered, or whether the applicants must now make another application?
    Mr. Alexander: I should think that, in such a case, it would be advisable for the men to repeat their applications.
    Mr. Harrison: Would the Minister say what is the particular merit of purchase of discharge, as distinct from compassionate release from the Services?
    Mr. Alexander: In some cases, a man wishes to come out for purely trade reasons and other reasons of that kind, and, even in compassionate cases, there are mixed reasons which are partly compassionate and partly gain.
    Mr. Scollan: May I take it from the Minister's reply that we have now descended to the level of conscription for the poor and purchase of freedom by the rich?
    Mr. Alexander: No, Sir. I must point out that this relates to the Regular Forces, and that it does not depart in any way from the general principles which we have always observed in regard to compulsory national service.
    Mr. Eden: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in order to disabuse some people's minds, as soon as a figure is fixed, he will inform the House what that figure is?
    Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend say whether, where discharge by purchase is allowed, it would have any effect on any gratuity or bounty accruing to the individual?
    Mr. Alexander: I would like to look at that in detail. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put a Question down?

    Non-Military Stores, Palestine (Disposal)
    Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Minister of Defence if the Auster aeroplanes

    1805
    sold in Palestine by His Majesty's Government are capable of military use; and if he will give a definite assurance that no arms, munition or material that can be used for warlike purposes will be sold by His Majesty's Government to either disputant in that area.
    Mr. Alexander: The Auster aircraft recently sold to the Aviron Palestine Aviation Company were not only demilitarised before disposal, but were all in an unserviceable condition. Their sale by open tender was consequently not inconsistent with the policy of denying warlike material to both Arabs and Jews in Palestine. Since, however, it is possible to adapt civil aircraft for military use, steps have now been taken to ensure that no British planes will pass into Arab or Jewish hands in Palestine so long as there is danger of civil war in that country.
    Disposal is at present proceeding of large quantities of surplus military supplies in Palestine which are of a non-warlike nature and which have a civilian use; it is not proposed to discontinue the sales of these stores. Every possible precaution is being taken to ensure that surplus warlike material does not pass into the hands of Jews or Arabs in that country.
    There is at present an embargo on the entry into Palestine, both by sea and over the land frontiers, of all warlike material. The Government of Palestine will enforce this embargo to the best of their ability until the Mandate comes to an end on 15th May.
    It is also the policy of His Majesty's Government to refuse permission for the export of military material from Great Britain to any part of the Middle East, except under existing contracts which have been undertaken as a result of our Treaty obligations to certain Arab Governments. His Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that the material supplied by them under such contracts will be used in Palestine.
    Mr. Keeling: Could the Minister say whether, when these 21 aircraft were sold to the Jewish Agency, any undertaking was given that they would not be repaired and put into use?
    Mr. Alexander: I am not aware that, in a sale of non-military and unserviceable aircraft by open tender, any such undertaking could be asked for.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: What price did we get for these demilitarised aircraft?
    Mr. Alexander: That question should be addressed to the Minister of Supply.
    Mr. Niall Macpherson: Would the Minister say whether he himself, the Governor, and the Commander-in-Chief were aware of this transaction when it took place, and whether they approved?
    Mr. Alexander: This transaction took place in the ordinary way of the disposal of non-military stores under an arrangement by which the Ministry of Supply Organisation deals with goods that are surplus.
    Mr. George Porter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that arms and ammunition are being transferred to Arabs who are actively participating in hostilities in the Palestine area?
    Mr. Alexander: I have no such information.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is there no co-ordination between the Ministry of Supply and the Governor?
    Mr. Alexander: I should think there is a very great deal of co-ordination, and I think the supplementary answer which I have given covers that point.
    Mr. Osborne: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether there was only one tender, or were there others?
    Mr. Alexander: Obviously, detailed Questions of that kind should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, who is responsible for the sales organisation.
    Sir William Darling: What financial credit did the Minister get for his Department from the Ministry of Supply over this transaction?
    Mr. Alexander: I do not think that question arises, because it is known to the House that the proceeds of sales of stores declared surplus by the Service Departments go into the general Exchequer account.

    Ration Scales
    Dr. Segalasked the Minister of Defence whether the recently announced basic home ration scales for the Services will be supplemented in respect of any

    1807
    particular categories of personnel engaged in specially strenuous duties.
    Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir. A supplementary ration which adds over 400 calories a day to the basic home ration scale will continue to be issued to personnel of the Forces at home who are engaged on specially strenuous duties. Examples in the Army and R.A.F. are recruits undergoing primary training, troops under training at battle schools, physical training schools, physical development centres, O.C.T.U's., boys' technical schools and all personnel actively engaged in flying duties. In the Navy, this supplementary ration is allowed to new entries. It may also be specially issued to personnel engaged in manœuvres or other forms of hard training, or on heavy works services.
    Dr. Segal: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his endeavour to ease the sense of unfairness created by his former statement, may I ask if he could inform the House whether these changes will now involve indenting for rations on the basis of special trades, instead of on the basis of units as a whole, whether this will not give rise to considerable administrative difficulty, and whether his present statement may not cause some invidious distinction between the different amounts of rations?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Member is making a speech or asking a question.
    Mr. Alexander: I do not think any difficulty will arise in that way, because it will be done on exactly the same basis as before, when we were giving these additions or preferences.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaiteasked the Minister of Defence what changes in the pay of H.M. Forces will be made to compensate for the reduction in rations.
    Mr. Alexander: None, Sir. The small net reduction of certain items of the home ration scale will be made good by additional bread and unrationed foods; the calorific value of the ration will remain about the same. A small increase in the cash messing allowance has, however, been granted to help the Services to maintain a balanced diet on the new scales.
    Mr. Norman Bower: Will the Minister further consider increasing the cash allowance in the case of the Army because the amount of food which can be bought for 4d. a day is negligible?
    Mr. Alexander: As we have already announced, we have increased it by 1½d. a day and, with this extra balancing I have mentioned, I think they will be quite comfortable.
    Mr. Marlowe: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when he announced this reduction, and was criticised for it, he prayed in aid the fact that the Forces obtained supplementary rations from the canteens? How can they get those supplementary rations without proper allowances?
    Mr. Alexander: The extent to which they require extra rations from the canteens depends on what arrangements we made, and have since made, to see that they get adequate food.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Meat
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Food whether in view of the fact that meat rationing ceases in Belgium on 1st February he will try to import meat from Belgium.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): Belgium would not be a very likely source for our meat supplies.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that the Belgian people are better off than we are because they are less controlled?

    Social Functions (Meals)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Food whether his inquiries as to the observance of the conditions of a licence granted to the Bow and Bromley Labour Party for a dinner at Poplar Town Hall on 8th January, 1948, have been completed; and whether he is now in a position to state whether this dinner was properly authorised and conducted.
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman seems to be encountering in ascertaining the facts of this matter, will he make inquiries from his right hon. Friend

    1809
    the Minister of Works who, according to the photograph, was present at the dinner, and would no doubt be willing to assist?
    Mr. Keeling: Have not the last few months shown that this order limiting the number of diners is unfair, unworkable, and quite useless, and is it not time that it was cancelled?
    Mr. Chetwynd: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, under the beneficent rule of the Labour Government, old age pensioners are looking much younger these days?
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Can the Minister tell us whether his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works was present in his capacity as a child, or as an old age pensioner?

    Extra Cheese Ration
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the unsatisfactory operation of the extra cheese ration scheme for building workers in the Newbury district and elsewhere in rural areas; and if he will revise the qualifications to include workers who are regularly employed for one month beyond two-mile radius of a town.
    Mr. Strachey: I regret that I cannot further modify the qualifying conditions in the way suggested. We stretched the scheme a good deal when we included rural builders.
    Mr. Hurd: In view of the inequalities in operation, will the Minister look at this problem, and not necessarily be bound by the recommendation of the T.U.C. Advisory Committee?
    Mr. Strachey: I have taken a great personal interest in this matter.

    Milk Distribution, Rural Areas
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Food if he has considered the special difficulties of milk retailers serving rural areas who now find it impossible to maintain a full delivery service on the distributive margin allowed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Strachey: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall) on 26th January.
    Mr. Hurd: Has the Minister agreed to receive a deputation from the producers and retailers in the area?
    Mr. Strachey: I do not know whether we have been invited to do so, but I shall be quite willing to do so.

    Allocations, Newport
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the shortage of many unrationed foods in Newport, owing to the fact that on the prewar basis Newport was a depressed area and that there has since been a substantial increase in population; that increased prosperity throughout Monmouthshire has resulted in an increasing drain on supplies in Newport as the market town for the county; and whether he will make increased allocations available.
    Mr. Strachey: Newport's allocations of oils and fats, sugar, and meat for manufacturing purposes were increased by 17 per cent. in 1947 as a result of the reassessment of datum allocations in depressed areas, in order to meet the point made by my hon. Friend.

    Poultry Industry, Eire (Development Scheme)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Food what financial commitments His Majesty's Government have entered into with Eire for developing the poultry industry there and providing technical advice.
    Mr. Strachey: His Majesty's Government have entered into a commitment to pay a sum, estimated at £1,350,000, over a period of three years beginning on 1st February, 1948, provided a similar sum is spent by the Eire Government on a poultry development scheme. No commitments have been entered into for providing technical advice.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister give an undertaking that this scheme does not mean that any preference is being given to the Eire farmer, either in the matter of feeding-stuffs or guaranteed prices, over the producer in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, certainly.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Would it not have been far better to have spent some of this money in Lancashire, which is one of the greatest poultry breeding areas in this country?
    Mr. Strachey: The development of poultry breeding in the United Kingdom is dependent on the amount of feeding-stuffs we can purchase, and this is entirely supplementary to that.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Is it proposed that the new Food Corporation should be involved in this, or is it on the Food Ministry's own Vote?
    Mr. Strachey: The Corporation is not involved.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the Minister aware that poultry keepers regard the announcement of this scheme as giving the Irish producers a substantial subsidy as against Scottish producers; and, further, if that is not the case, will he please make a fuller statement, so that we can understand what the amount is?
    Mr. Strachey: That is certainly not the case. The price to the Eire producer remains appreciably below that to the United Kingdom producer, and we think it of great importance to develop this additional supply of eggs for the United Kingdom.

  GERMAN-SOVIET RELATIONS, 1939–41 (PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS)
  Mr. Churchill(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—(i) whether his attention has been called to the publication by the United States Department of State of documents upon Nazi-Soviet Relations, 1939–1941, and whether he will arrange that copies of this book shall be available in sufficient numbers in the Library of the House; and (ii) whether he has any intention of making a similar separate British publication as authorised by the Agreement of the British and United States Governments in June, 1946, and subsequently concurred in by the French Government.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The answer to the first part of the right hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, His Majesty's Government have the matter of a similar separate British publication under consideration.
  Mr. Churchill: May we take it that the consideration will reach a conclusion within a period sufficiently short to enable
  1812
  us to form an instructed judgment of the many important issues involved?
  Mr. Bevin: If I make it too short the House may not be able to form an instructed judgment.
  Mr. Churchill: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that, owing to the very small quantity of newsprint which it is possible to allow at the present time, no full accounts of these important documents are given to the British public. Will he also bear in mind that Members of Parliament, without distinction of party, have great responsibility in giving their votes and expressing their opinion on all matters connected with foreign affairs, and there are many matters of high importance in this American publication—and I doubt not in the corresponding British publication—which are essential to a correct judgment being formed upon these matters?
  Mr. Bevin: I quite agree that all these questions of prewar and war history have to be handled very carefully. I cannot agree to be rushed, because of its publication in another country, into taking out of its context one particular thing without careful study of the rest; and, therefore, when I got the right hon. Gentleman's Private Notice Question, I decided to look into the whole problem very carefully.
  Mr. Churchill: Perhaps if I asked the right hon. Gentleman another question in the course of the next few weeks he would be able to give me a more definite answer?
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Churchill: Facts are the foundation of our judgment. The House has great responsibility and ought to have the essential facts. There is no reason why America should have a mass of essential material which is denied to the British House of Commons.
  Mr. Bevin: We were dealing with the whole question of the history of the war in conjunction with the Americans and this has been published separately in America—
  Mr. Churchill: By agreement.
  Mr. Bevin: —by agreement, but I am not yet convinced that it was the wisest way of dealing with this problem. After all, a lot of events went on at this

  1813
  period—[An HON. MEMBER: Jiggerypokery."] I am not suggesting jiggerypokery as the hon. Member infers.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Bevin: What I am suggesting is that I cannot afford to take this step impetuously and without careful consideration because somebody else has taken it, having regard to my responsibility for trying to make peace. That is why I proposed to consider it with very great care and I will do it as quickly as I can.
  Mr. Churchill: Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not have his attention drawn to this matter first of all when the United States made this publication? He and his Department must have studied and considered the question for a long time previously. It should not be left to the Leader of the Opposition to raise such an issue in the House of Commons. There is no reason why the initiative in giving the full and necessary information should not have come from the Foreign Secretary himself.
  Mr. Bevin: In approaching this problem I understood this matter was going to be dealt with in relation to the other Allies as a comprehensive historical statement, and I had no idea it was going to be published out of its context. Therefore, because somebody else publishes something out of its context I am not too sure it is wise for me automatically to follow in that course without looking at the matter very carefully. After all, whatever happened in 1939 and 1941, I have got to study what is likely to happen in 1948.
  Mr. Harold Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on these benches are delighted that we had such a splendid reply from the Foreign Secretary and that we are glad he is not going to publish historical documents of a one-sided nature at this juncture? May I ask him, therefore, if he is publishing any documents, whether he will publish all secret documents?
  Mr. Bevin: When praise comes to the Foreign Secretary from both sides of the House it is a most dangerous thing. I cannot add anything further to what I have already said.
  Mr. Cecil Poole: Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that the prime overriding consideration at the present time
  1814
  is the preservation of the peace of the world, and will he, in considering the publication of this or any other document, give full weight to the contribution which it will make to such preservation?
  Mr. Churchill: May I add to that, with which I entirely agree, "subject of course to the interest of truth and the House of Commons being properly equipped to discharge its duties"?
  Mr. Pickthorn: Will the Foreign Secretell us whether there is any limit to the number of dollars which may be spent in importing from the United States the documents as published there?
  Mr. Bevin: I think the only answer which can be given to that would be by a Cambridge professor.
  Mr. Churchill rose—
  Mr. Bevin: I have finished.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I did call one more supplementary question.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Minister also consider publishing the relevant documents from the Swedish White Book which I have been pressing upon him—documents relative to the proposed attack by our Allied Forces on Russia in 1940?
  Mr. Bevin: I really cannot add any more. I have hundreds of documents to go through and read, but I cannot say at the moment which documents. I am considering it.
  Mr. Churchill: Presumably the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it is very difficult to get this American publication. Only a few copies have been available over here and newspapers have no space to print it. Many things relevant to our debates are contained therein.

  SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)
  Mr. Churchill(by Private Notice) asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that, following on his statement of 4th December, Questions from Members relating to the various industries that have been nationalised during the present Parliament are not accepted at the Table, and whether, as this situation affects the rights of Parliament in respect

  1815
  of large spheres of public business of widespread concern to the nation, he will allow an early opportunity for a full discussion of the far reaching issues involved.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): In my statement of 4th December, I was explaining the circumstances in which Ministers would give information in reply to Questions about the conduct of socialised industries. I should never presume to try to influence Mr. Speaker or the Table in their acceptance of Questions, though I might, perhaps, add that I have always understood a Parliamentary Question was only accepted if the Minister concerned had some responsibility in respect of the matters which were the subject of the inquiry. If it is desired to have a Debate on this subject, the necessary arrangements can no doubt be made, through the usual channels, for a Supply day to be set aside for the purpose.
  Hon. Members: Why a Supply day?
  Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman will, I trust, agree with me in the general principle, that Members should have the freest possible right to put Questions on the Paper without prejudice to the undoubted right of Ministers to refuse to answer them if they consider the public interest is involved and if they are supported by the general feeling of the House? That is the only principle that I am wishing to assert. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at the present time, whole blocks of very important topics, in which enormous numbers of people are interested and concerned, are ruled out because it is thought that Ministers do not wish to have those Questions answered, and because it is alleged that Ministers have no particular power over the nationalised industries in question, whereas, in the case of a good many of the industries that have been nationalised, specific powers have been retained by the Government both in regard to the securing of information from the industries and in regard to control over them? Will he bear this in mind, that there is no question at all of denying the ultimate right of a Minister to refuse to answer Questions provided he can carry with him the support of the House of Commons, but that there is grave objection to whole
  1816
  classes of Questions being excluded even from being placed upon the Order Paper as a result of some Ministerial utterance? On the question of the Debate upon this subject, we gladly receive the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that conversations may take place with a view to fixing a date; but I must submit to him that this matter is not a party matter, that the Questions come from all parts of the House, that it concerns the Procedure of the House of Commons, and that, therefore, we consider most strongly that it rests with the Leader of the House to offer reasonable opportunity for this discussion in the Government's time.
  Mr. Nally: On a point of Order. I wonder if I may seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a particular point that arises from what the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has said? As I understand it, there is no dispute at all that a Minister is entitled to refuse, for reasons that seem to him good and sufficient, to answer a Question. The point at issue, if I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, is whether or not the Table has a right to refuse a Question or a series of Questions. Is it proper that a Question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about what is assumed to be, or is said to be, a mistake on the part of the Table? Is it correct that the question should be raised in that way?
  Mr. Speaker: I can explain to the hon. Member exactly what happens. It may help to clear up the situation. I am responsible, first of all, for seeing that the Question is in Order. A Question is not in Order if it does not involve Ministerial responsibility. That is the first proposition. Very well: a Question comes to the Table; the Table thinks that it does not involve Ministerial responsibility; then, possibly, the matter is put to me—but more usually, I think, I am by-passed to save trouble. Anyhow, it does sometimes happen that a Question comes to me, and I have to give a Ruling. The Question, we will say, is about the transport industry or another of the nationalised industries. It comes to me, and the question I have to answer is, whether this is a matter of internal administration within the industry, or whether there is Ministerial responsibility. I am not prepared to answer questions about railways, about civil aviation, about telegraphs,

  1817
  about everything else that is nationalised. The only thing I can do is to go to the Minister, or telephone him, and ask him what his opinion is, and whether this is a matter for which he has responsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is the only possible course. Can I know all about these industries, and say whether every Question about them is in Order or not—that it is a matter affecting a Minister's responsibility or not? I am bound by the Rules of the House to see that only Questions that are in Order are put down on the Order Paper. Therefore, if a Minister says that it is not his responsibility, then the Table does not allow the Question. I hope that makes the situation plain.
  Mr. Churchill: With very great respect, I am a little taken aback by the extent of the Ruling which you have given on this matter, Mr. Speaker. For a great many years, Sir, I submit to you, there has grown up the custom that the Table—and we have the greatest respect for the manner in which the Clerks at the Table discharge their duties—have only refused, say, questions of a particular class affecting individuals, and reflecting sometimes upon them. This has grown up by custom of the House. But now, suddenly, a vast mass of topics—whole series of topics on vitally important business affecting millions of people—has come under this bar.
  Are we to understand that the Minister of a Department concerned will be the final judge of whether a Member is to put a Question on the Order Paper, irrespective of the Minister's right to say he does not wish to answer the Question? Is he to be the final judge even of whether a Member is to be allowed to put a Question on the Paper—if a Minister says it is one he does not want to be asked? May I respectfully submit to you, Sir, that this is no new issue? In the case of the British Broadcasting Corporation in the war the Minister of Information frequently refused—and very properly refused—to answer Questions. But that did not prevent—unless there was war danger—Questions from being asked. May I also submit to you, Sir, that the mere placing on the Paper of a Question is a certain discharge by a Member of his duties to his constituents, and is also a certain ventilation of a topic, and, therefore, that there is a great difference between the right to ask Questions and the obligation
  1818
  of a Minister to give a precise answer? I would most respectfully submit to you these matters, on which, I hope, your statement may be somewhat amplified.
  Mr. Speaker: I had hoped that I had made what is the present situation quite plain. As I understand we are to have a Debate on the matter I thought it might help the House to make that explanation. We must, however, remember that this only follows the precedent set in the war, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, in the case of the British Broadcasting Corporation, when the Table refused Question after Question which Members put down on the administration of the Corporation.
  Mr. Morrison: Perhaps I might refer to the original supplementary question put by the right hon. Gentleman. I wish to say that the Government do not presume to make any decision as to which Questions Mr. Speaker or the Table will accept. It would be quite improper on our part so to do. However, the Table and Mr. Speaker are sometimes in difficulties on a point of fact to know whether a Minister can or cannot take action. That is the only point upon which the Government might come in. That really is the point in dispute—as to whether there is Ministerial responsibility or not.
  I am bound to say, I am a little surprised at the right hon. Gentleman taking this line, because in the war the Minister of Information was absolutely responsible for everything the British Broadcasting Corporation did—everything—and, as hon. Members may remember, the then Minister of Information, now the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), used to stand at this Box and flatly refuse to answer Question after Question—[HON. MEMBERS: "They were on the Paper?"] Yes, they were on the Paper; and to my amazement he got away with it. At the moment, the right hon. Gentleman is advancing, and his cheerful followers are blandly accepting, the argument that any hon. Member who wishes to put any Question has a right to have it on the Order Paper. I have been a Private Member of this House before, and I have had no end of struggles with the Table as to what they will accept and what they will not and I am afraid it will go on.
  Mr. Churchill: Why does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that in the war the

  1819
  Minister of Information "got away with it "—to use his own colloquial expression?
  Mr. Morrison: said I was surprised.
  Mr. Churchill: Was that not because he was supported by the majority of the House of Commons? Is that not the right foundation on which Ministers can rely for the endorsement of their discretionary powers as to whether or not they should answer a Question? If Parliament, by a majority, supports them, and if it is the general feeling, no one wishes to run counter to the wishes, decisions and feelings—[Interruption.] Just listen. No one wishes to run counter to the wishes, decisions and the majority of the House in these matters. But with regard to putting a Question on the Paper, surely the presumption should be that any Question may be put on the Paper unless barred by those long customs of good taste and non-assailment of individuals, which have been accepted by the House for generations. The presumption is that anybody may put a Question on the Paper. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that we are not objecting at all to the power of the Government, supported by the House of Commons, to refuse to answer Questions? What we are criticising is the institution of an arbitrary and mechanical bar to the placing of those Questions on the Paper.
  Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman amazes me. He really does. The right hon. Gentleman has been in this House for about 40 years—longer than I have—
  Mr. Churchill: Oh, yes.
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, much longer—and I cannot understand why he does not know that there is a whole series of rules and practices which govern the admissibility of Parliamentary Questions. One of the first things I was told on entering the House was that there were 17 rules or practices governing the acceptance or non-acceptance of Parliamentary Questions. If anybody asks me now what the 17 rules are, I cannot tell them; but they are there. As to how the Minister of Information got away with it in the war, I would not like to say. It would not improve the situation at all.
  Mr. Driberg: Further to the point of Order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally), and taken further by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I submit to
  1820
  you, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that it was quite clear from some of the answers given by the Minister of Transport on Monday of this week that the Minister always, naturally, retains the right to make representations to the board or commission of a nationalised industry, even on matters for which he is not directly responsible. Therefore, would you, Mr. Speaker, be good enough to indicate to the House, for our assistance, how we are to distinguish between Questions which fall within the direct responsibility of the Minister and Questions which do not, but on which he can retain the right to make representations?
  Mr. Speaker: As we are to debate the matter, that is eminently a question which could be elucidated during the Debate.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: May I put to you, Sir, with respect, one point arising out of your recent statement. The Leader of the House said that whe you consulted a Minister you were ascertaining facts. I am sure that that is the understanding of the Minister, and that that was your understanding when you asked the question, as you say, by telephone. May I put it to you, that it is very often a question of law, and depends on the statute applicable to the particular industry? With respect, I would suggest that, while the House fully understands that you would need to consult somebody before giving an answer, if it is a question of law it would be more appropriate that you should consult your legal adviser rather than the Minister.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member will not imagine that I make these inquiries personally in every case. I have all the officers of the Table, and I also have a legal adviser. One must assume that all those channels are used when inquiries are made as to whether a Question is one of fact, of law, or what.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Could the Leader of the House give us the assurance that neither he nor his colleagues will make use of the precedent of wartime security—which is a necessary reason for refusing to answer—for ordinary routine peacetime questions.
  Mr. Morrison: If a definite issue of security arose we should have to consider it. In the war there was a very wide sphere. The answer is: Certainly not; no, Sir, not at all.

PERSONAL INCOMES, COSTS AND PRICES
The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on personal incomes, costs and prices. I am sorry it is a rather long statement.
The nation's economic welfare depends largely upon our ability to make and sell the exports necessary to buy the imports we need to feed our people and keep our industry going. Our costs of production are of vital importance and they depend to a considerable extent on the amount which industry has to pay in profits, salaries and wages. These in turn in the form of individual incomes affect the total volume of money available in relation to the quantity of goods.
As regards costs of production, it was pointed out in the "Statement on the Economic Considerations affecting relations between Employers and Workers" (Cmd. 7018) issued in January, 1947, with the endorsement of the National Joint Advisory Council, that
"if costs of production and in consequence prices rise in relation to world prices, it may make it impossible for us to pay our way in the world and buy all the imports we need."
We shall all suffer as a result and it is therefore the duty of everyone to play his or her part in averting the danger.
The Government have taken many steps already to prevent the development of a dangerous inflationary situation. High direct taxation on personal incomes and on distributed profits has curtailed the amount of profits available for spending and has thus helped to check the danger of inflation from personal incomes derived from investments, rents and profits. The same restraining influence has been applied to lower earned incomes by the introduction of P.A.Y.E. tax and by the increase of indirect taxation. This influence has to some extent been countered by the continuance of Exchequer subsidies for certain commodities, notably the principal foodstuffs, though it must be noted that the subsidies have helped to keep down the cost of living and so the demand for increased wages. But if personal incomes are allowed to rise continuously none of these measures against inflation can be effective.
The danger of inflation is ever present and will be accentuated by the drive to
1822
achieve a balance of payments, which will reduce the total volume of goods available on the home market. Moreover, experience has shown that, when it comes to a race between rising prices and personal incomes, prices will always win in the long run, so that conditions become progressively worse for the holders of all personal incomes but particularly for wage earners.
It is essential, therefore, that there should be no further general increase in the level of personal incomes without at least a corresponding increase in the volume of production. Unless we are prepared to check any such tendency we shall find ourselves unable to fulfil our export task owing to the rise in costs, which will also be reflected in rising prices on the home market.
The last hundred years have seen the growth of certain traditional or customary relationships between personal incomes—including wages and salaries—in different occupations. These have no necessary relevance to modern conditions. The relation which different personal incomes bear to one another must no longer be determined by this historical development of the past, but by the urgent needs of the present. In the changed world of today and with our present economic difficulties these old relationships of income must, where necessary, be adapted to conform to the national interest. Relative income levels must be such as to encourage the movement of labour to those industries where it is most needed, and should not, as in some cases they still do, tempt it in a contrary direction.
The Government accordingly feel bound to set out the following general considerations as a guide to all those whose deliberations and actions contribute to the settlement of the amount of personal incomes, from whatever source.
It is not desirable for the Government to interfere directly with the income of individuals otherwise than by taxation. To go further would mean that the Government would be forced itself to assess and regulate all personal incomes according to some scale which would have to be determined. This would be an incursion by the Government into what has hitherto been regarded as a field of free contract between individuals and organisations.

1823
In the view of the Government it is essential that there should be the strictest adherence to the terms of collective agreements. One of the main advantages of a system of collective bargaining is that it tends to ensure that wage and salary movements take place in an orderly manner and with due regard to the general as distinct from the individual interest. Departure from the agreed conditions by individual employers, whether public authorities or private concerns, will inevitably constitute a grave danger to the stability of the system of collective bargaining, and may well lead to competitive bargaining, and this to general but unjustifiable increases in wages and salaries and to serious inflation. The value of the system of collective bargaining and the justification for its maintenance at the present time rest upon the assumption that the terms of collective agreements will be observed loyally by all employers and workers, and the Government cannot stress too highly the importance which they attach to this principle.
In present conditions, and until more goods and services are available for the home market, there is no justification for any general increase of individual money incomes. Such an increase will merely raise costs of production, without making more goods available, and so can only have an inflationary effect. Unless accompanied by a substantial increase in production, it would drive up prices and charges, adversely affect pensioners, children and other recipients of social services benefits, increase the money cost of our exports and so reduce their saleability, and by black market pressure make it almost impossible to operate the controls necessary in view of the continuing scarcity of supplies and man-power.
It does not follow that it would be right to stabilise all incomes as they stand today. There may well be cases in which increases in wages or salaries would be justified from a national point of view, for example where it is essential in the national interest to man up a particular undermanned industry and it is clear that only an increase in wages will attract the necessary labour. It does, however, follow that each claim for an increase in wages or salaries must
1824
be considered on its national merits and not on the basis of maintaining a former relativity between different occupations and industries.
It will be observed from these principles that there is no justification at the present time for any rise in incomes from profits, rent, or other like sources and that rises in wages or salaries should only be asked for and agreed upon in the exceptional cases mentioned above. On the other hand, if at some future time there should be a marked rise in the cost of living the level of those personal incomes which as a result became inadequate would need reconsideration.
In order to avoid the undesirable necessity for any interference with the existing methods of free negotiation and contract the Government must press upon all those engaged in negotiations or decisions which might result in an increase in wages or other personal incomes to keep these principles firmly before them, and not to depart from them. The Government will themselves observe these principles in any negotiations in which they are directly concerned.
In these circumstances the Government have decided and wish it to be clearly understood that, if, notwithstanding these considerations, remuneration is increased in any class of employment, whether an private industry or under a public authority, there can be no presumption, whatever may have been the practice in the past, that the resulting costs will be taken into account in settling controlled prices, charges or margins or other financial matters requiring Government action. Each case will have to be considered on its merits in relation to the principles enunciated above.
To sum up, if general increases in profits, salaries or wages take place without more goods being made available, no one can obtain any real benefit except the black market operator; the rest of the community has to endure the dislocation and hardship which inevitably accompanies inflation. The alternatives now before us are therefore either a general agreement by the people to act together upon sound and public spirited lines or a serious and prolonged set-back in our economic reconstruction accompanied by a persistent low standard of living.
Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman's statement has covered a very wide field. May I ask if the statement implies any new departure in Government policy? In other words, is any action contemplated in relation to the statement, or is it just a formal restatement of previous Ministerial announcements?
The Prime Minister: There is a very clear indication in the penultimate paragraph in regard to the question of increases being put on wages, salaries and costs. The Government are not prepared to say that they are all going to be met straightaway from Government sources. There has been a certain incentive in these matters, because people have not cared, thinking that the cost was going to be passed straight on.
Mr. O'Brien: In view of the vital importance and the serious implications of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, will he inform the House whether he has had any joint consultations with the T.U.C. and the employers' associations on this matter?
The Prime Minister: There have been consultations in regard to wages, profits and the rest with both sides of the industry. Of course, the actual document which I have been reading to the House has naturally come first to the House of Commons.
Mr. Molson: In view of the statement that the Prime Minister has made today, can he elaborate the answer which he gave to me on 23rd January, when I asked what machinery there was for consultation between different Departments, order that one Minister might not approve an increase—as for example the Postmaster-General approving an increase of pay in the case of his Department, without the Chancellor of the Exchequer knowing what was happening? Is there any machinery by which the policy of the Government is to be made effective throughout the Departments?
The Prime Minister: A matter of that kind is always discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with other Ministers. These matters are not dealt with individually by Ministers, but they come before committees of the Government, and then, if necessary, before the Cabinet.
Mr. Gallacher: Is the Prime Minister aware that in most of the industries, particularly in the heavy industries, the workers, as a result of the many appeals that have been made, are putting all their energies into production, while they see profits soaring? Are they now to be told that they cannot get any betterment of their position unless they make still more profits?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir, that is quite contrary to what I have just said.
Mr. Turton: Are these principles to be applied in the case of the February schedule of agricultural prices, and if so, will the right hon. Gentleman consider amending the Agriculture Act recently passed?
The Prime Minister: That does not arise out of this statement.
Mr. Harry Wallace: Will the pronouncement the right hon. Gentleman has made be discussed with representatives of the T.U.C. and the Employers Federation?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We are having continual discussions with both the T.U.C. and the representatives of the employers, both on the Joint Committee and separately. We naturally wish these talks to continue, and are always ready to discuss any matters with them.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: In view of the importance the Government and the Prime Minister attach to the new sanction contained in the penultimate paragraph, is the House to be given an opportunity, after reflection, to discuss this important statement?
Mr. H. Morrison: We shall be prepared to consider that. It will not be long before there must be a Debate on the general economic situation and on the Budget in the ordinary way. It is for consideration whether this matter should be discussed in the light of the general discussion then, or whether we should make some special arrangements for a Debate. I should be quite happy for this to be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. S. O. Davies: In view of the fact that employers generally will welcome the statement of the Prime Minister regarding the pegging down of wages, cannot the

1827
right hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit as to what policy the Government propose to adopt to peg down profits?
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member will read the statement he will see that I have dealt with that matter. This is not a one-sided paper. It deals with profits, rents, wages, and all the rest of it.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: Can the Prime Minister say what positive action will result from this statement?
The Prime Minister: I cannot repeat what I have already said.
Mr. Cobb: Will the Prime Minister agree that in order to make this important statement effective, it is necessary to get it discussed in the workshops of the country? In order to do this we want an extension of the works councils. Does he think that industry and the trade unions know how to set up these councils, and does not further advice need to be given to industry on this matter? Would not the most effective way of doing this be to strengthen the regional organisations?
The Prime Minister: The principal object of making this statement is that it should be discussed in the workshops and everywhere else, in order that people may get a full grip of the situation. The specific point raised by the hon. Member hardly arises out of this statement.
Sir Arthur Salter: Will the right hon. Gentleman take adequate steps to see that the wages of the nationalised industries do not get out of balance with the wages in other industries, in view of the fact that there is no comparable sanction?
The Prime Minister: That is a matter for discussion between the trade unions and those responsible for the nationalised industries. It is a matter for collective bargaining, and we have laid down the general principles to be adopted.
Mr. Norman Bower: Can the Prime Minister say whether this statement means that the Government will now try to work out in conjunction with the trade unions a scientific, differential wages policy as a means of attracting labour into the most essential and undermanned industries?
The Prime Minister: We are trying to work out a general policy with regard to this matter. I do not know whether there
1828
is an exact scientific method of dealing with it.
Mr. Piratin: Is the Prime Minister aware that the demand for increased wages arises from the increased cost of living, and, as each week the prices of food and other commodities are increased by different Ministers, what guarantee can he give to the House that this will now cease, if he wants wage increases to stop?
The Prime Minister: These matters react on each other.
Mr. Speaker: Am I right in thinking that this statement is being issued as a White Paper?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Would it not save a lot of questions if we waited until the White Paper was issued?
Mr. Chetwynd: If there is no satisfactory response to my right hon. Friend's appeal either to keep wages stable or to lower prices and profits, will he consider taking very drastic action as soon as that situation arises?
The Prime Minister: That is a hypothetical question.
Mr. David Eccles: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we shall not get voluntary co-operation for this scheme unless it is dramatised to the people? The real point is that the people do not understand how precarious is the balance of payments. Will the Prime Minister take some steps to bring home to everybody the dependence of this country upon the Marshall Plan, and will he make a real effort to show people how bad is our overseas situation?
The Prime Minister: I should have thought that that had been put across, and I find that most people are beginning to understand it. We must certainly not let up in our efforts to make every person understand the situation.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Does that mean that we are now around recovery corner?
Mr. Harold Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that both sides of the House appreciate the excellent patriotism of the trade union movement in Britain in this aftermath of the war in staying its hand in demands for higher wages, and will he

1829
consider following up the suggestion of dramatising this and making use of the B.B.C. to explain the real position of a wages policy in relation to profits and prices? Will he also assure the undermanned and underpaid industries that their position will be adequately considered by the Government and by the industries concerned?
The Prime Minister: We are, of course, very appreciative of the line taken by the responsible trade unions in this matter. As to the second point, we intend to do our best to get this across to the people in every possible way, including the use of the B.B.C. On the third point, we are very conscious of the importance of the undermanned industries.
Mr. Drayson: The Prime Minister said that wage earnings would be particularly hit by the increase in prices and by inflation, but mill he bear in mind that the old age pensioners and others with small fixed incomes will suffer the most?
The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait until he has read the White Paper. There is a certain balance in it, and he will find all those points are covered.
Mr. Osborne: In view of the great urgency of this statement and the need to get the real co-operation of the T.U.C. to make it work, has the right hon. Gentleman any hope that they will respond to the appeals made today, seeing that for three months they have been discussing the problem and have come to no decision?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be trying to be helpful.

BILL PRESENTED
  SUPERANNUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  "to amend the law relating to pensions and other similar payments to be made to and in respect of persons who have been in certain employment, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid" presented by Mr. Glenvil Hall; supported by Mr. Ede, Mr. Woodburn, Mr. Bevan, Mr. Tomlinson and Mr. Isaacs, to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILAMS BILL
  Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 3rd February.]
  [Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair]

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILAMS BILL

    CLAUSE 8.—(Composition of Cinemato graph Films Council.)
    4.20 p.m.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, at the end, to add:
    "(c) there shall be a Committee of the Council, to be called the Cinematograph Films Advisory Committee (Scotland), to which all matters affecting films to be shown in Scotland shall stand referred. It shall consist of five independent members to be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, four members representing makers of British films and four members representing exhibitors of British films."
    The Deputy-Chairman: I would call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to a statement which the Minister made last night, and in which he said that he was going to reconsider the Clause, and, probably, introduce a composite Amendment on the Report stage. In those circumstances, I suggest that there is not much use in debating the Amendments which are on the Order Paper in relation to this Clause or even discussing the

    1831
    Clause as a whole, because we do not know what the Clause will be on the Report stage.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In that case I will not attempt to press the Amendment.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not want to rule the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment out of Order by not selecting it. I only made a suggestion. If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to speak to the Amendment he had better do so now.
    Mr. Willis: There are several Amendments on the Order Paper pertaining to this particular matter. Will the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) be the only one called?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I have called on the hon. and gallant Member for Perth to move his Amendment. The other Amendments can be discussed with it. There have been no other Amendments selected because they were covered by the Minister's statement last night.
    Mr. Willis: There are other Amendments relating to Scotland. I should like your guidance to know whether they are to be called.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The answer is "No." They will not be called. They can be discussed on this Amendment.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The object of the Amendment is to ensure that there shall be a body to consider the interests, tastes and wishes of Scotland in relation to the film industry of that country. With all the seriousness at my command, I tell the Committee that Scottish opinion and the Scottish film industry are deeply disturbed about this matter, and although, naturally, the community is more important than the industry, in this case both are at one. In view of our experience, I am convinced that unless we have an independent body of men and women fully qualified, not only in regard to the film industry but in regard to culture, taste and education from the Scottish point of view, we shall never get a satisfactory solution of the film problem.
    I feel so sincerely about this matter that I say the Bill cannot work at all in Scot-
    1832
    land unless we have a body of this kind, whatever it is called, properly to represent the tastes, wishes and interests of Scotland. I need not remind the Committee how we have suffered from what are called Scots films. I warn hon. Members that there is another terrible one, called "The Swordsman," coming from Hollywood, and dealing with the Highlands of Scotland. It will put into the shade anything that has gone before. The hero is called Larry. I understand that hitherto he has taken no part in Scottish life and affairs in the film industry and has been concerned more with thuggery and the wild West, which happy things he is now going to bring into the peaceful atmosphere of Scotland. That is indicative of the dangers that exist unless films are properly examined before they are put out to the public. I do not want to use the word "censored" because that is a horrible word.
    Oversight by an English committee or council is not satisfactory. I say that in no disparaging way. That committee should not be the arbiter of what Scotland shall or shall not take. Unless we have an independent body, such as I am proposing, to decide what is to be the quota for Scotland, and of what it shall consist, it will be an English body which will decide what the Scottish film industry has to take. The appeal will be only to that English committee. It is not a sufficient answer to say that there may be a good Scotsman on the committee who will see that everything is all right. The weight of opinion would be English, according to the English outlook and English taste, high and excellent as those are. They might not be, and they frequently are not, suitable to Scottish taste. It would be unjust that a film man in Scotland should have to take the risk of being run in, as we might call it, before the President of the Board of Trade by the English Council, who have decided what he should and should not take, simply because he could not sell his quota to the people of Scotland. There is a great chance of serious injustice to the Scottish film industry in this part of the Bill. It is very important that that should be avoided and that Scottish taste, opinions and culture should be properly safeguarded by a separate body of the kind I have described.
    Earl Winterton: I feel hesitant about supporting the Amendment

    1833
    and I think there are other hon. Members who will agree with me in my hesitation. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) has put very admirably the Scottish patriotic point of view, but the difficulties in the way of adopting his proposal are enormous. I did not have an opportunity of seeing the Amendment before, owing to my slackness this morning. I would like to give my views upon it, as they occur to me now.
    The first point is that films are not produced to appeal to particular audiences in a particular part of the country, small or big. They are produced to appeal to a large audience. A film might be produced here which is suitable for Scotland but not suitable elsewhere, and vice versa. The second point is that if a committee is to be set up for Scotland, it is only fair that there should be similar committees for Wales and Northern Ireland. As one who is proud to have the blood of Northern Ireland bubbling in his veins, I say that Northern Ireland has as much claim to be consulted, if her people do not like the English taste, as have the people of Scotland. I should have thought that English taste through the ages had been fairly good.
    Furthermore, would my hon. and gallant Friend apply his rather peculiar argument in other directions? Is Scotland to have performances only of plays or films produced in Scotland, which the somewhat anomalous body which he proposes has said are suitable for Scotland? I admit that pictures are produced in studios showing everybody in Scotland wearing a kilt, whereas everybody knows that the kilt only appeals nowadays to a few extreme patriots, and to the type of Scotsmen whom I might call the Mac-Smiths who desire to be more Scottish than the Scots. I have no doubt that they would be regarded in some parts of the world as representative of Scotland.
    In a more serious vein, I appeal to the Committee to remember that it is very important that British films should have a universal appeal. There would be no objection to some form of advisory committee. I gathered from the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend—I was somewhat concerned at some portions of it—that he thought the proposed committee should have a power of censorship. I may be quite wrong.
    4.30 p.m.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I said that censorship was not a good thing, but that there should be some supervision as to what was being produced.
    Earl Winterton: That is a rather more involved way of saying that the Council should decide what films should be shown, which in another way is censorship. I do not think it is desirable that in a matter of this kind this nascent industry, which is making great efforts towards ensuring a universal appeal, should be called upon to adopt this slightly parochial position. The Government cannot possibly agree to this Amendment, unless they set up a similar council for Wales and Northern Ireland. I suggest, however, that they should give an assurance that Scottish interests will be represented on the Films Council.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would ask my noble Friend whether I come under the heading of a patriot or a "MacSmith," because I wear a kilt? Is not my noble Friend aware that Scottish representation on advisory councils has had singularly little result in the past, and that we see no reason why there should be a greater result in this case?
    Earl Winterton: I would not like to answer the personal point which my hon. and gallant Friend has put to me, except to say that I am sure he is a patriot, and that I was not referring to him when I talked of "MacSmiths." I, too, have Scottish blood in my veins. As to my hon. and gallant Friend's second point, I happen to be sympathetic to the views he holds, in common with other Members representing Scottish constituencies, about a greater amount of devolution to Scotland. That, however, is a bigger question which I cannot discuss now, as I am sure, Sir Robert, that you would Rule me out of Order.
    Mr. McAllister: I could not agree more with the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) when he expressed his admiration for the enormous developments and improvements in British films during the last decade. What the British film industry has accomplished during that period is little short of a miracle of organising and productive genius. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) that there have been,

    1835
    and may still be, some very deplorable Scottish films—and I make no reference at all to one which I had some part in producing—but I think he will agree that this growing British industry has produced some excellent Scottish films. I am thinking of "The Silver Darlings," and "I Know Where I'm Going." They show that even the British film industry, which is much too centralised in the South of England, can, nevertheless, on occasions, do justice to Scotland's story and scenery.
    The noble Lord rather missed the point, however, if he will forgive me for putting it that way, because this is not a question of Scottish patriotism or Scottish national feeling that we are being ousted by England in any way. I ask the noble Lord to think of the position of the small independent exhibitior in one of the wards of a large city like Glasgow. The managing director owns only one cinema; he is hemmed around not solely with great circuits, but all circuits, big and little, and he has to find his quota of British films under this Bill. If he fails, he has to go before the Cinematograph Films Council and offer such explanation as he can. The Council, if they find that he has been wanting in judgment, may inflict upon him very heavy penalties. It would be beyond a United Kingdom Council to consider that case properly on its merits.
    Earl Winterton: Surely, we should deal with the question by getting an assurance from the Government that there will be adequate representation of Scottish interests on the Films Council.
    Mr. McAllister: I will come to that in a moment. Whether or not Members representing Northern Ireland or Wales have taken sufficient interest in the Bill to put down Amendments, or whether they think that the right course for Northern Ireland and Wales is now being adopted in the Bill, should not deter Scottish Members from doing what they think is right in the interests of Scotland. We must reiterate, until at last even the House of Commons begins to believe it thoroughly, that Scotland is a nation, not a parish, not a region, not a section of Great Britain. It is a nation, with national rights and national traditions. When I rose last night, on a modest point of Order, to elicit some information from the Minister as to what
    1836
    he might do about Scotland, I received no reply—which not infrequently happens when a Member raises a question about Scotland. There were, in many quarters of the Committee, slightly derisive titters and laughter at a Scottish Member of Parliament having the temerity to raise a Scottish question on the Floor of the Committee. We do not want to be put into that position, because most of us are not ultra-nationalist in that way. All we want to ensure is that Scotland's case is considered on its merits.
    I should be happy if the Minister would accept the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, that there should be adequate representation of Scottish exhibitors' interests on the Cinematograph Films Council. That would go a long way to meet all the difficulties I have in mind, but at the same time I should not like the Minister to dismiss without thought, the idea that there might be some kind of entertainment organisation for Scotland, as well as additional representation. The need to increase the exhibitors' representation on the Council has been acknowledged, and part of that increase ought to be Scottish representation. The Minister should not dismiss lightly the idea that there is a case, and that there should be some kind of Scottish body acting under its own authority.
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: I listened with great attention to what my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said a few minutes ago, but I was not entirely convinced. I feel that there is a case for a separate committee or council to look after Scotland. This is a matter which has caused a good deal of concern among exhibitors in Scotland, and on which hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies have received a number of communications. The exhibitors feel, and, I think, with good reason, that a United Kingdom Films Council will inevitably be composed of a majority of people living south of the Border, who cannot, in the nature of things, be fully conversant with Scottish tastes and opinion. As I do not go to the cinema a great deal, I cannot speak from much personal experience; but I am advised that relatively few British films enjoy a good run in Scotland. The reason advanced is that, however good they may be—and some are excellent—they have an English

    1837
    background, accent, and acting which does not appeal to a large section of the Scottish people. It may be our fault, but, nevertheless, that is the fact.
    Mr. Reeves: I presume that the Scots prefer an American background.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: No, a Scottish background. I feel it would be helpful to the President of the Board of Trade and to the film industry if they had a body which spoke authoritatively for Scottish opinion in this matter. There should not be any objection to this course, because it has been customary when dealing with legislation of different kinds to provide separate boards or councils for Scotland, for example, the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and numerous advisory committees. There is, therefore, no departure from precedent in having a Cinematograph Films Council for Scotland, and as was signified last night, since it is the intention of the President of the Board of Trade to look at this whole Clause again with regard to representation, I hope he will take this matter of a Scottish Council into close consideration, and will decide that it is desirable to have a separate council or committee for Scotland.
    Mr. Willis: I rise to support the proposal that there should be a separate Films Council for Scotland because throughout the Second Reading Debate and also throughout the Committee stage, the necessity for this has repeatedly been shown. As has been said already by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruthergl n (Mr. McAllister) and others, there is the point of view of exhibitors. The small independent exhibitor, in any case, fears his position under this Bill, because of the fact that the Bill dispenses with the renters' quota. In the case of Scotland, he fears it even more, because the Films Council, which will advise as to the fixing of the quota and will also advise as to whether there are good reasons why an exhibitor cannot meet his quota will in the main be an English Board.
    During the Second Reading Debate on the Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said he would be pleased to consider the appointment of a Scottish representative on that Council.
    1838
    One representative out of a membership of 19 is quite inadequate, and is really an insult to Scotland. We want a council of our own. The fears of the exhibitors are intensified by virtue of the fact that, as an hon. Member said yesterday in the Debate, as a result of this Bill the Films Council will be given teeth. That being so, an even greater necessity for more adequate safeguards for the Scottish exhibitors arises.
    There is a second reason, which was raised during the Second Reading Debate by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), and that is the question whether all British films are necessarily suitable for Scottish audiences. We cannot see that position being safeguarded except by the setting up of a Scottish Films Council. There is a third aspect of this question—that we shall be able we hope in the course of time to build up our own film industry. I notice that in the Schedule dealing with the functions of the Films Council—if I might refer to those functions because they are relevant to what I am saying—the first is
    "to keep under review the progress of the cinematograph film industry in Great Britain, with particular reference to the development of that branch of the said industry which is engaged in the making of films, and to report thereon to the Board of Trade at such times as the Council thinks fit."
    One cannot expect to get much consideration for Scotland in this respect from a British Films Council on which there will be one Scottish representative out of a membership of 19. Therefore, from that point of view we need a Scottish Films Council.
    4.45 p.m.
    During the Debate on the Second Reading the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said this—and I think it is rather significant:
    "The matter of Scottish taste may be left to the film producers who will no doubt have an eye on the Scottish market, though what its value is compared with the English market I do not know."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 334.]
    It is quite obvious that the film producer who is producing films will have his eye mainly on the 40 million people of England and not on the 3 or 4 million people in Scotland. Scotland has no more desire to be Anglicised than it has to be Americanised. For those reasons I would plead with my right hon. Friend the President

    1839
    of the Board of Trade seriously to consider the proposal to set up a Scottish Films Council. So far as I have been able to find out there has been no argument against this proposal. In other aspects of our economic and social life we have separate committees for Scotland because of what are admitted to be different conditions, a different culture, a different outlook and, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said yesterday, a different sense of humour. Because of that I trust that when my right hon. Friend is considering this matter he will find it possible to set up a separate council for Scotland.
    Lord John Hope: It is easy to overdo this business of patriotism which I always try to avoid. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) missed the point in this case, when he ascribed all this to Scottish nationalist feeling which, in fact, is simply nonsense. This Amendment is based on the fears of the past. Those whose livelihood depends on the showing of films in Scotland know—it is not a question of opinion but one of fact—that certain British films are flops in Scotland. They may be successful in England and other parts of the world, but they are not in Scotland. Scotland has a culture of its own. Again that is a fact and not a question of opinion.
    I cannot see how anyone can argue that any other committee or council other than a Scottish one is fit to decide what films out of those available at any time should be shown by Scottish exhibitors to earn their livelihood and also to Scottish people to enjoy themselves. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham said that British films were intended to have a universal appeal. Of course, they are so intended, but it does not work out that way. If a British film has not a universal appeal it would be very much better in the interests of the public if that fact were accepted by the Government—
    Earl Winterton: The noble Lord is not quite correct, and I am sure he would not want to do me an injustice. It is a fact that British films have made a greater overall appeal in foreign countries than they have ever made before and that is what I meant when I referred to a universal appeal. That does not mean that they should not appeal to the people
    1840
    of Scotland any more than they appeal to people in other parts of the world.
    Lord John Hope: I follow the noble Lord, and I am obliged to him, but I still think it is not fair, and it will not get one anywhere to assume that this universal appeal of British films will necessarily include Scotland. It would be perfectly easy to satisfy the Scots by the inclusion in the Bill of this Amendment. Finally, as far as Wales and Northern Ireland are concerned they have not asked—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Northern Ireland does not come into the Bill, and Wales is not covered by the Amendment.
    Lord John Hope: I am obliged to you, Sir Robert. They did arise in the speech of the noble Lord, but I was only about to say that as they are irrelevant, let them remain so.
    Mr. Reeves: I feel that our Scottish friends will not get the recognition through this Amendment which they expect. First, they are suggesting that there shall be established what might be called a sub-committee of the Films Council on which they will have exclusive representation. This Committee will presumably have to report to the major body, which is itself an advisory committee to the Board of Trade. Let us analyse what they wish the Committee to do. The Amendment says that it is
    "—to be called the Cinematograph Films Advisory Committee (Scotland), to which all matters affecting films to be shown in Scotland shall stand referred."
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why not?
    Mr. Reeves: All matters affecting films in Britain are not referred to the major body. That is not its job. We are not establishing a great censorship, but a Council which is to advise the Government how best we can guarantee that British films which we believe are worthy of a showing on our screens have opportunities of getting there.
    It seems to me that our Scottish friends have misunderstood entirely the functions of the Films Council. It is not intended to do a task of that kind. If this were to be a precedent, then I should be very much against it so far as its application to England was concerned. We have quite sufficient censorship now, without adding

    1841
    to it. If every film that is to be shown in Scotland is to be referred to a special Scottish film committee that committee will have its time occupied from morning to night every day of the year. It will have a very onerous task. Then, having seen all the films, how are they to prevent them from being shown in the cinemas of Scotland? They will have no power to do it. They will be able to make recommendations to the Films Council, but the Films Council itself cannot make proposals to the Board of Trade that certain films shall not be shown in England, let alone in Scotland.
    Mr. Willis: Is not the point that so far as the independent exhibitor and the Scottish Films Council are concerned, the committee would decide whether a particular film should be included for quota purposes. It is not a question of censorship at all.
    Mr. Reeves: I think some hon. Members have misunderstood the purpose of this Amendment. The Council does not analyse the nature of a film and whether the dialogue in the film is suitable for Scottish and other audiences or not. Certain conditions are prescribed which enable the film to qualify as quota, and these apply to films whether they are made in England, Scotland or Ireland. I am sure that if the Amendment were accepted it would be entirely unworkable.
    Mr. McKie: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) who has taken exception to this Amendment has given rather a caricature, perhaps unintentionally, of our attitude as Scottish Memlast thing I would wish to do would be to turn this innocent Debate into anything like a Debate on Scottish nationalism in general. As my noble Friend the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) said, that would be quite out of Order at this stage. In the 17 years in which I have had the honour of being a Member of this House I have seen similar Amendments put down to many other Bills of major importance in order that Scottish interests should be more adequately safeguarded than would seem to be the case when the Bills came before the House. Never once, in my experience, were we successful in having any of those proposals incorporated in any Bills. That is why am not hopeful that the Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position to grant our modest request this afternoon.
    1842
    I do stress—and here I am perhaps in slight disagreement with my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies—that there are difficulties in the way, as my noble Friend the right hon. Member for Horsham has pointed out. I join with him in hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary will pay due heed to what has been said, and will do all in his power, as he has been pressed to do, to see that as full attention as possible is paid to the kind of films which are desirable from the point of view of their exhibition in Scotland. I did not know, until I heard my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) that so many films had been shown with considerable success and a large public following south of the Border, which had not met with the same reception, or had not been patronised by the same large audiences when they were shown north of the Tweed. I did not know that and I am sorry to hear it, and it is an additional reason why the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is not disposed to accept this Amendment in toto, should pay due respect to what my noble Friend has urged.
    After my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh had made that observation I asked him if he could tell me of any particular films which had not met with approval n Scotland, judged by the audiences they have had. He assured me that "Henry V" was one. I am a lover of Shakespeare, and I had no idea there were so Many of my fellow countrymen and women who did not enjoy to the full the works of that eminent dramatist, even when they were shown on the films. But there it is; there are these difficulties. You, Sir Robert, as a Scotsman, will be the first to appreciate what we feel about this matter.
    Although I have partly supported what my noble Friend has said, I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary could see his way to incorporate the Amendment in the Bill. There are, however, reasons in the way which I fully appreciate. I hope he will pay due heed to the points which have been made, and appreciate the fact that many audiences in Scotland do not always appreciate films which are shown successfully in London and South Britain, and that he will do his best to do something in the future to see that these audiences are catered for in a better way than they have been catered for in the past.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): When we are discussing these technical matters I always feel that the Minister is in a somewhat unfortunate position because he may be discussing them within the hearing of people who have a much greater knowledge of the subject than he has. This afternoon I am in a doubly unfortunate position. I am a Sassenach, confronting Scottish Members who are anxious to do right by Scotland, with the additional factor that we have a Scottish Member in the Chair. However, in view of your well known impartiality, Sir Robert, I am sure that I have nothing to fear there. I had hoped these Amendments would not have been pressed, in view of my right hon. Friend's statement last night of his readiness to consider this matter very carefully and to put down on the Report stage a considered Amendment dealing with the matters raised last night and these matters which have been raised this afternoon.
    5.0 p.m.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It was stated that the matters discussed last night would be considered, but Scotland was not specifically mentioned.
    Mr. Belcher: I will deal with that point as we go along. When I am able to reassure the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the other Scottish representatives who have spoken, it may be that they will reconsider the question of pressing this Amendment. With regard to the suggestion that the British films are no less foreign than the films of other countries to the people of Scotland, the information at our disposal suggests that that is not the case. The time occupied on Scottish screens by British films varies very minutely from the time occupied on English screens by British films. It may be said that that is because there is no alternative, but nothing has been said which will make it possible for Scottish exhibition time to be taken up by Scottish films. Recently there was an attempt to set up a film production unit in Scotland, and it will be within the knowledge of hon. Members that it had a rather unfortunate ending.
    I agree that there is something to be said for the Scottish exhibitor in regard to the question of the quota defaulter, particularly the type of Scottish film
    1844
    exhibitor referred to by one hon. Member. Such an exhibitor may be in a very strong competitive situation. He may be an independent producer, surrounded by large circuits. It may be felt by Scottish people to be unfair to a Scottish exhibitor if he has to make his explanation to a British Film Council which is exclusively English, or dominated by an English element. It is not true, as was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison), that the exhibitor can have penalties imposed on him by the Films Council.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: No.
    Mr. Belcher: I am glad to find that he did not mean that because he said in his speech "subject to penalties by the Films Council"—
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I did not mention the word "penalties" at all.
    Mr. Belcher: I am afraid I have the wrong Member. I am now informed it was the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis). The Films Council cannot impose any penalties upon the quota defaulter. The Council can hear his case and make recommendations to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade itself cannot impose any penalties. The exhibitor must be proceeded against in the court and, in the case of a Scottish exhibitor, the case must be heard in a Scottish court. I feel sure that will be regarded as a certain safeguard by the representatives of Scottish constituencies.
    I agree with the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that the implied suggestion that the purpose of the Scottish Council should be to have some sort of supervision over the type of films to be shown in Scottish cinemas, is an extremely dangerous one. I would never assent for one moment to a Government sponsored body concerning itself in the picking and choosing of films, or books, or any other expression of opinion or culture. I think that is extremely dangerous, and I am glad that some hon. Members who have spoken dissociated themselves from that point of view.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Who does the supervising now?
    Mr. Belcher: My right hon. Friend said last night that he would consider the

    1845
    whole Clause, and would put down a composite Amendment. I should like to go further, and say that we will consider especially the position of Scotland in relation to the Films Council. I shall indicate to the Committee some of the things which might be reconsidered. The Committee should understand that I am not now proposing that these things should be done. I am merely suggesting the kind of things which might be considered as a subject of a composite Amendment. For example, we might put in the Bill that one of the exhibitors' representatives must be a Scottish representative. It would not be the case, as has been suggested, that Scotland will get one representative out of 19 on the Council. It would certainly be one representative as against 19 in toto, but actually it would he one exhibitor representative out of five exhibitor representatives. There are representatives of producers on the Council, and there is no producer in Scotland. Therefore, if there is one Scottish exhibitor represented Scotland is getting representation of one in five. The Board of Trade might undertake, also, that one of the seven independent members must be a Scottish representative.
    We might go further in these considerations. One of the most important duties of the Films Council is that of reviEwing quota defaults. It may be considered worth while, from the Scottish point of view, to ask the new Films Council to arrange that any Scottish default should be reviewed by a sub-committee of the Council before the full Council reviewed it, and reported to the Board of Trade. The composition of this committee could include the Scottish exhibitor, and provision could be made for the addition of another Scottish exhibitor by giving the Council general power to co-opt additional members to serve on any Council committee. I do not think that the full Council ought to be deprived of its final jurisdiction. I do not suggest that the sub-committee should report direct to the Board of Trade. I think its report should go to the parent body.
    That is the kind of thing which may be considered to be the subject of a composite Amendment. I assure hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies, that both the President of the Board of Trade and I are anxious to do all we can to enable Scottish people to express themselves, and to enjoy to the utmost extent
    1846
    that type of cultural entertainment—if I may use that term—which they really want. I recognise, of course, that there is a difference in taste. There is bound to be a difference of taste between members of different nations, and I quite understand the desire of the Scottish people to have that amount of say in their own affairs, and that they should have the opportunity of enjoying the things to which they respond, as nationals of Scotland. Having given that assurance, I hope that hon. Members will not press this Amendment because, I think that, in doing so, they would make it rather more than less difficult for us to come to some accommodation on the specific subject of the Bill.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: In view of the rather general line the Parliamentary Secretary has taken I hope, Sir Robert, you will allow me to go beyond the rigid terms of the Amendment. I think that would be following the lines adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary. When moving this Amendment my hon. and gallant Friend referred chiefly to the actual control, or "vetting," of the type of film that was shown. That touches only one side of the matter. As the Parliamentary Secretary has rightly said, an exhibitor may find himself in an impossible position if he has to show something which is unpalatable. We are concerned—and I speak as a full-blooded Scot—with the question of the representation of the form of life of the Scottish people. One reason why certain English films are unpalatable in Scotland is because, in them, Scotsmen are represented as living in a way completely impossible for any good Scot. That is the sort of thing we wish to stop.
    Earl Winterton: I should have thought that that occasionally applied to the English way of life, as represented in Hollywood films.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I agree with the noble Lord, and I hope that what I am going to say will help to solve that unpleasant position. I am glad that his Northern Irish blood boiled in his veins when I referred to it—
    Earl Winterton: It was my English blood that boiled.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: This question of misrepresentation of the way in which people

    1847
    in Scotland live today is resented most deeply. That does not apply only to the showing of English films in Scotland. It applies in a more serious degree to the way that Scottish life is misrepresented overseas. It appears that the Amendment does not go far enough.
    The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss the control of films overseas. Hon Members must keep to the Amendment.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I thought in view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said that we might have been allowed to mention the right type of film representing Scottish life. If you would prefer me to defer the argument to the Motion, "That the Clause sand part of the Bill"—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not wish to be too strict on this particular Amendment. In view of the Minister's undertaking, I do not think that there will be need for discussion when we come to the question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." But if the hon. Member is asking to control films shown abroad, that is another question and not in order.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will keep my remarks strictly within the rules in this matter. May it not be possible to give power, such as is suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, to some officially recognised body which could apply its stamp of approval to any film representing Scottish life, so that it could be stated that that film had been passed by a Scottish council? It may or may not be the same body as that suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend—
    Mr. Belcher: Does the hon. Member think that it would be possible to find some body, some committee or some council, who could fix a stamp of approval on films depicting Scottish life which would meet with the general assent of the people of Scotland? We might find all sorts of schisms.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: We might find all sorts of divisions, but in Scotland we are an extraordinarily commonsense type of people. For a long time there has been growing, hour by hour, day by day, an urge for better Scottish representation in all Parliamentary procedure. Scotland is unanimous on that issue. Surely, therefore, one can find some sort of representative body of four, five or six people who could agree whether or not a film repre-
    1848
    sented life in Scotland today. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give some sort of undertaking that something of this nature will be considered when the whole of the Clause is being reconsidered by the President? A great deal of damage has already been done to Scotland. It is all very well to say that a great deal of tartan has been sold in the States, but does the tartan that has been sold mean anything? My hon. and gallant Friend talked about tartan that has been sold to be made up into skirts. But let us attach some name to that tartan. Let it be sold by all means, but let the people who buy it take an interest in the tartan and what it means in Scotland. Let us get the thing across. Do not let us see a film of some Highland clan clad in entirely the wrong clothes, in the wrong way, and doing the wrong things. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give some undertaking that his right hon. Friend will consider a body such as I have suggested?
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. O'Brien: I want to avoid the misunderstanding under which the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) seemed to labour. There are two points which I wish to make. It would he a mistake to think that Scottish cinema exhibitors as such, or as represented on the Films Council, have not an opportunity of expressing their Scottish point of view. There are between 350 and 400 cinemas in Scotland, and the exhibitors are all members of a national organisation—the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association of Great Britain. That association is responsible for maintaining its representatives on the Films Council. If there are not a sufficient number of nominees representing Scotland, or if the nominees proposed happen not to be Scotsmen, it is proper and sound that the Scottish exhibitors should make their presence felt within their own organisation. They should ensure that their divisional interests, whether economic, social or national, are adequately and sufficiently reflected in their own organisation. If they do not, there will be complications. There is no direct reference in the Amendment to the representation on this Council of workers in the entertainment industry in Scotland. If there are to be representatives of the employers in Scotland, we shall require representation for the workers in the same way.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I do not think that we ought to set too much store upon the actual figures mentioned in the Amendment. There are three things. There is the Council which would be in the same proportion as the one proposed for Great Britain and would include workers' representatives. Then there is the Committee of the Council which is the next best thing we can hope for; and finally there are the two or three extra members suggested by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). There is certainly no question of leaving out workers' representatives.
    Mr. O'Brien: Thank you. There are adequate channels through which the Scottish exhibitors can work in order to put the point of view expressed by many hon. Members. However, there are practical difficulties in this matter. I am a lover of Scotland and the Scottish people. No one would be more pleased than I, if we could have the correct type of film depicting Scottish life in its fullness, its gracefulness and its ancient traditions. We shall "come a cropper," to use a colloquialism, if we think that this Bill will encourage Scottish film production as such in the way which some hon. Members want. There is nothing to prevent Scottish industrialists or financiers, even in these days of austerity, from reflecting in their more practical ways the views that have been expressed in this Debate. Why has not any Scottish financier or industrialist hacked the production of Scottish pictures? Why have they not got together the best script writers, advisers on Scottish history, art directors and so on, to prepare a film which will meet the severest criticism of the people of Scotland? I do not know of one such case. On the contrary, the one picture which I am told will meet with 100 per cent. satisfaction—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to keep within the terms of the Amendment. We are discussing the composition of the Council which is to be set up.
    Mr. O'Brien: Reference was made to a picture about Scotland which came from the United States and about which a great deal of objection was expressed by Scottish people. I intended to refer to a picture not from the United States but from Shepperton. It is not made by a Scot but by a very distinguished naturalized
    1850
    Britisher, Sir Alexander Korda, who is sending to Scotland "Bonnie Prince Charlie" in which our late lamented friend Will Fyffe took part—
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: As Bonnie Prince Charlie?
    Mr. O'Brien: I am glad that one hon. Member sees the point.
    I should be glad if the point I have tried to make is noted by Scottish financiers and industrialists. They could do a great deal for Scotland by educating the English in Scottish history. I hope that all hon. Members appreciate the practical difficulties and that they will not assume that by the establishment of a Scottish sub-committee of the Films Council, or the formation of a separate Scottish Council, they will cause the making of better Scottish films.
    Mr. Charles Williams: I have read the Amendment with considerable care and I have listened to almost every word of this discussion. I ask the hon. Member for West Nottingham (M. O'Brien) to excuse me if I do not follow him in his argument. I come back to what was said by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I do not think that he was quite fair. Perhaps he did not mean to be unfair, but I do not think that he fully appreciated the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) who spoke so excellently on this Amendment. The noble Lord admitted that his blood was boiling. He admitted that he had Northern Irish and Scotti h blood in him; but he did not say which part was boiling. He took the view that the intention behind this Amendment was to have some form of censorship. I do not think that censorship, or even selection, will result from this Amendment. It says:
    "there shall be a Committee of the Council … to which all matters affecting films to be shown in Scotland shall stand referred."
    That may be a purely Scottish term, but as I understand it, it does not say what will happen to Scottish matters when they have been referred to the committee. Probably the committee would be able to give advice, but there is nothing to say that they have any executive power. The idea that there should be a representative collection of Scots to put the Scottish

    1851
    point of view is simple and sound. That seems to be the idea. There seems to be no suggestion of censorship or selection. I understand that it would be a purely advisory body. In the same way, we might have an advisory committee to represent any other section of the community.
    We have heard a great deal about Scotland in the last hour. I am not sure whether what is wanted is not an advisory committee to put fully the position of England. It appears to me that England may not come off very well in this matter. Apparently, under paragraph (a) there are to be five individuals, under paragraph (b), there are to be four, and then under the proposed paragraph (c), the Scottish one, there are to be 14. If all the representatives were sitting together, it would mean that the English would be hopelessly swamped by the Scots. I rather suspect that that is the real intention. I have a very strong suspicion that the Scots would like to get an overwhelming majority; but that will not happen, because I do not think that the Amendment will be passed.
    It is absolutely essential if we are to build up a prosperous film industry in this country that there should be a wide representation of interests in order to depict the real life of the people whether Scottish, Welsh or English.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: The real life.
    Mr. Williams: The real life of the people so that it can be understood. For that reason, I think that this discussion has been singularly appropriate. I do not know what will be the ultimate fate of this Amendment. I realise that we are in a rather difficult position because apparently this Clause—according to the ruling from the Chair—is to be replaced by a new Clause which the Minister promised us last night. He said that he would consider the whole question of representation and put in a new Clause on Report stage. Various points of view have been expressed. Many hon. Members have expressed the Scottish point of view. I have my own West Country opinions which I advanced yesterday. Apparently, this is the only time at which we can put forward our views on this matter. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to this matter. It would
    1852
    have been possible, for instance, to put in an Irish Amendment—
    5.30 p.m.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Last night the Minister stated that all such points raised in the Debate would be taken into consideration.
    Mr. Williams: Thank you very much, Sir Robert, but I understand that there was a promise to look at the matter in a composite manner. We have now had a Debate which has emphasised very strongly the Scottish point of view, and I hope that, since the Scottish point of view has had, as it deserves, a very good run and has been put very fully—and I do not think there has been any real argument against it—the same fullness and fairness should be extended to other people who may have a case for consideration.
    Mr. Gallacher: This matter is much more important than the Parliamentary Secretary and many other hon. Members who have spoken seem to imagine. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was a small production unit in Scotland, and he added, "We know what had happened to it." The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) also asked why some Scottish financier did not come forward. That was the trouble; they could not get finance. Well, why does not some Scottish financier come forward? Because they have their eyes on London and there is no indication anywhere of a Scottish film industry. Arthur J. did not put his money into a non-existent industry. There was an industry built up at the centre, and it went through certain stages of corruption and graft and was almost destroyed. Then Mr. Rank came in to rebuild it. There has never been any encouragement of any kind given to the development of this business in Scotland. The Films Council would not give us film production in Scotland, but it would be the beginning of the recognition of the fact that Scotland has a definite contribution to make to this industry, and if it did not bring in Scottish financiers, it might possibly bring in the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has the power to direct finance.
    This is very important, because when the Parliamentary Secretary says that they had a film production unit in Scot-

    1853
    land and then asks what has happened to it, he might also say that we had a motor car industry there, and ask what has happened to that. We had an aeroplane factory in Scotland, and what has happened to it? Now that we are discussing a Films Bill, surely this Committee will give it such a constitution that a Films Council will be able to spread the idea abroad that Scotland can make a great contribution to the development of this industry. I would say this—and I commend it to the attention of Mr. Rank—that if a film is understood and appreciated in Scotland, it will be understood and appreciated in every English-speaking country in the world. If a film is not understood and appreciated in Scotland, it will not be appreciated and understood in any English-speaking country in the world, including England.
    Mr. O'Brien: It is not an English-speaking country.
    Mr. Gallacher: Well, parts of it are. This is a fact, and it can be tested by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who said they had to consider the overall world value of the film. Let us take the film "I Know Where I'm Going."
    Mr. O'Brien: Do you?
    Mr. Gallacher: It is not a great film, but it was produced in such a way that it would make an appeal to Scotland, and it has made an appeal to every country in the world. Take one of our foremost productions, from the point of view of scenic effects, technical perfection and an admirable cast—"Henry V." It made no appeal in Scotland, in general, although in some parts it got through, and the same thing applies in England and America. Yet it was one of the greatest films produced in this country. So I say to the Minister and to the film industry that it is of the very greatest importance that Scotland should be brought into this film business and into the whole field of the film industry in a big way.
    Mention has been made of the opportunities that there are in Scotland. Consider its traditions. There are no traditions anywhere like the Scottish traditions, from the film production point of view, though I do not know what they are going to do with Bonnie Prince Charlie. They certainly will not tell the truth about
    1854
    him or his forbears; they will avoid that. In Scotland, there is a tremendous tradition. Look at the great area of the Clyde and what could be done with it. There is nowhere where we can get such fine traditions, and such grand humour. I was asked last night by one of the Press men what I meant when I said that in Scotland we could not appreciate some of the English humour, and I said that Scotland likes humour that is humorous, clean, healthy and charming. Take the case of a Scotsman who is known the world over—
    The Deputy-Chairman: There is no question at all of humour in this Amendment.
    Mr. Gallacher: It is absolutely necessary that Scotland, because of its traditions, its culture and humour, should have this concession. Take Sir Harry Lauder, a genius from the point of view of humour and of the most charming type, and drawn from the people.
    Lord John Hope: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the ideal medium is somewhere between West Fife and Will Fyffe?
    Mr. Gallacher: I am quite prepared to take part in assisting anybody who is prepared to set up a unit in West Fife, because in West Fife they can also get—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment, on which we have already spent nearly an hour and a half.
    Mr. Gallacher: An hon. Member on this side—he was a Sassenach, but I do not remember his constituency—said that the Amendment provided that all matters should be referred to a Scottish Films Council, but he suggested that that meant the Council would deal with matters which it would be impossible for it to handle. When we talk about all matters being referred to a Films Council, it is all matters dealt with in this Bill, and not matters outside the Bill. One of the matters dealt with in this Bill is that a Films Council shall interest itself in film production. We want a Scottish Films Council and, if we get it, I hope it will take into account the splendid traditions of West Fife as well as those of the Clyde, and that they will concern themselves with opportunities for developing the film industry. I want to

    1855
    impress upon the Minister the necessity of doing something like this at the present time. With a Films Council having only two representatives from Scotland, Sir Alexander King and Willie Quinn, there is very little that we can do, because, as the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) knows, when Sir Alexander King speaks, the other members, badly educated, gaze at one another in amazement—they do not know what he is saying.
    Mr. O'Brien: He probably does not bring his interpreter with him.
    Mr. Gallacher: The fact remains that these two representatives from Scotland can play very little part in the Films Council, because the business is in the hands of people who represent big film interests down here in London. I appeal to the Minister to recognise that Scotland, with its fine traditions and fine culture, can make an extraordinarily big contribution to the development of the film industry, which is what this Bill is intended for; and so I ask him to give us a Films Council for Scotland, which will be the beginning of the attraction of all kinds of support for the development of this industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Neil Maclean: As I understand this discussion, there is a request made to this Committee for the appointment of a committee of the Cinematograph Films Advisory Council to deal with all matters affecting Scotland. The first Amendment deals with the constitution, and the other two add particular items to the proposition set out in the first. I suggest to the Minister that with the representation which at present exists upon the Films Council, Scotland does not get, and cannot get, its proper representation from the point of view of the films that ought to be shown in Scotland. There are certain things that happened in Scotland of which the Minister ought to be aware.
    We have the big circuits, with headquarters in London, owning cinemas in Scotland, and consequently what is done in England, as in Wales, is done in their cinemas in Scotland. We have also to bear in mind that there is a very large number of small independent exhibitors, not merely in Scotland, but also in England and Wales, but they are not attended to in the manner in which the large
    1856
    circuits are being attended to, through this advice of the Films Council. Only the other week, I was shown by the manager of an independent cinema in a working-class area in Glasgow, how this question of British films works out. This cinema runs a double programme, with one feature film for the first three days of the week and another for the rest of the week. On the Monday night the drawings were up to the average, but on the second and third nights they fell by 50 per cent., and the reason was given to me by the manager, who said that he had had to show a British picture in order to make up his quota. If that is going to happen to a number of small independent exhibitors up and down the country—I am not actually referring to Scotland at the moment—then it is no wonder that there is some antagonism to the exhibition of quota pictures. The remaining three nights in the week were up to the average standard, because a good picture—not a quota picture—had been shown on those nights
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Belcher: I hope my hon. Friend is not suggesting that at the present time British quota pictures are, of necessity, bad pictures, because that is far from being the truth. The whole object of the Bill is to improve still further the position of British quota pictures, and, incidentally, it is designed to assist precisely those people about whom my hon. Friend is talking—the small independent exhibitors. In fact, it places a greater obligation on the large circuits than on the small independent exhibitors.
    Mr. Maclean: It is all very well speaking in that manner in this Committee; it is quite a different matter going into a cinema and being shown figures by the manager. The same thing prevails in many other cinemas.
    Mr. Belcher Mr. Belcher indicated dissent
    Mr. Maclean: It is no use the Minister shaking his head. A lot of people shake their heads when they see some of the British films exhibited to make up the quota. It is surely necessary that some of the independent exhibitors should be represented on the Films Council in order to see that, when a quota is established, the films come up to a certain standard. I am not objecting to the quota, and neither did the manager of this cinema. He only insisted on having films shown

    1857
    in his cinema which would attract the Scottish people; he objected to films being forced on him. That is the point one has to bear in mind, and it is there, I contend, that the Films Council has failed. Consequently, I hope that when the Minister is considering this matter he will also consider Scotland's interest in films and its desire to have good films. If he does so, he will bring on to the Films Council some at least of the representation suggested in the three Amendments we are now discussing.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to stress, as has been done in all parts of the Committee, the importance of Scotland having adequate representation on the Films Council. I propose to speak from the educational point of view, because, in the Amendment, it will be seen that it is specifically stated that certain powers should be given to the Secretary of State for Scotland—who, I am glad to say, has just arrived—to appoint five members representing Scottish culture and Scottish education. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to nominate five members to this Council who would perform a very useful function in improving the cinema industry in Scotland.
    A good deal of interest has been displayed by Scottish Members in this Amendment. One of the reasons is that the people in Scotland go to the cinema a good deal because they get shelter there. Housing conditions in Scotland are very bad, and people in the mining villages and towns go to the cinema simply because many of them have no opportunity of going anywhere else. It is either the pub or the cinema. I would prefer to see them going to the cinema than to the pub, and I would like to see this habit, which has been acquired in this way, being made use of for educational purposes.
    I represent a constituency which has suffered a good deal from the film industry. My immortal constituent, Robert Burns, has been portrayed in a film which was produced by an hon. Member of this House, who is present at the moment. There is a danger from Scottish amateur producers in the film industry. I believe, for example, that if this film about Robert Burns had been submitted for advice to a council composed of Scots who really understood Burns, it would have been
    1858
    a better poduction. But we are tired of too much Burns on the films in Scotland, and I want to make an appeal for educational films.
    Mr. McAllister: I should not have thought it was quite proper for an hon. Member to raise in this Committee the question of a film with which I was associated, but of which I was certainly not the producer, without giving me some notice that he intended to do so. May I say for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, who, I know, tries hard, although he was not born in Scotland, to represent his immortal constituent, that the film was submitted to the President of the Burns Federation, and to a very distinguished former President, who was also at one time a Member of this House, Mr. John S. Clark, than whom there is no greater authority on Burns, and the script and outline of the production met with their entire approval.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sorry if I have done the hon. Gentleman an injustice. All I will say is that if there had been a Gallup poll of Scottish Members in this House, I think they would have endorsed my opinion.
    To return to the Films Council, I think it will encourage the showing of educational films in Scottish cinemas. I saw another film produced by Scotsmen after the one about Burns, to which I have just referred, which was in marked contrast to it. It was a film produced under the auspices of Sir John Boyd-Orr. He appeared in that film, which was called "The World is Rich." I believe that if this Council were set up, we should get more educational films of this nature. It would mean that we should get films showing the real life of Scotland, and not the superficial romanticism which so often passes in its place.
    The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) complained that the world was not being shown on the films the real life of Scotland. I should like the Films Council to go into the mining villages, and to portray the life of a mining community—to go into the rotten old mining streets where 12 and 13 people are living in one room. If they did that, it would so educate hon. Members opposite that they would be prepared to cross over to this side.
    Colonel Gomme Duncan: Does the hon. Member really believe that hon. Members on this side have not been into these places?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: There were no visible signs of that in the legislation they produced. If I were put on to the Films Council, I could make certain suggestions which would result in a very realistic film of life in Scotland, which would act, in an educational way, in getting the social conditions altered and ameliorated. If we could get this Films Council going, it would be able to produce films which could be shown abroad, and would result in the improvement in the economic situation of this country. I believe it would help the President of the Board of Trade—who I see is now present—in his export drive. I believe that we are all—Welsh, English and Scottish Members—united, irrespective of class, party, or creed, in urging upon the Government to modify this Bill accordingly.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Interpretation, citation, commencement and extent.)
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move, in page 7, line 1, to leave out from the first "period," to the end of line 4, and to insert:
    "has the meaning assigned to it by Section one of this Act,"
    This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 1, page 1, line 20, which the Committee accepted yesterday.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 7, line 13, leave out "make contracts with renters for," and insert "control or direct."
    In line 14, after "thereat," insert:
    "(whether by making contracts with renters or otherwise)."—[Mr. Harold Wilson.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: There was an Amendment to this Clause standing in
    1860
    my name and the names of some of my hon. and right hon. Friends—in page 7, line 24, after "to," insert "Scotland or"—which was put down as being dependent on what the Minister was going to say on earlier Amendments which we had on the Order Paper. In view of that, I wish to make it clear that we were not proposing to break up the United Kingdom in the Amendment put down, and that, in view of the assurances given, we should, in any case, had it been called, have asked leave to withdraw it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Employment of child actors.)
    The following Section shall be inserted after Section thirty-four of the principal Act:
    "34A. Notwithstanding the provisions of any enactment relating to the employment of children, the Secretary of State may grant permission to makers of films, for the employment of infant or child actors in the making of any film, and, in granting such permission, may prescribe such regulations as he may deem necessary for safeguarding the health and well-being of any infant or child so employed."—[Mr. Dumpleton.]
    Mr. Dumpleton: I beg to move, "That the Clause be now read a Second time."
    Part V of the Act of 1938 deals with the conditions of workers in the making of films. I seek to have this Clause added for reasons which I will try to explain very briefly. In yesterday's discussion on this Bill, a great deal was said about the need for improving, strengthening and encouraging facilities for producers of specialised films. I have put down this new Clause in the interest of a very special kind of specialised film—the making of films particularly suitable for showing to children and child audiences.
    6.0 p.m.
    About 12 months ago, I ventured to raise a discussion on the Adjournment about children's cinema clubs. We had a very interesting Debate, and a great deal of interest has been shown in the country in the experiment of running children's cinema clubs. There is a great deal of criticism of these clubs with which I do not agree. I believe they are potentially very valuable. But those who are interested in them, and particularly those

    1861
    who are organising and sponsoring them, are constantly faced with the difficulty that there is a great lack of suitable films for showing to child audiences. That fact is acknowledged, and efforts are being made to produce films suitable for that purpose. One of the great difficulties which arise for those who are seeking to make suitable films for children, is that it is almost impossible, under the present law, to employ children as child actors in the making of films in this country. Some of the more suitable and successful recent children's films that we have had have been made abroad for that reason. The film "Bush Christmas" was made in Australia and another was made in Canada. I think it is agreed on all sides of the Committee that these films have a very potent influence upon children; there are about half a million children attending these cinema clubs regularly every Saturday morning.
    It is of the utmost importance to produce suitable films having the highest possible entertainment value for exhibition to these children, and if successful films are to be made for the entertainment of children, it is important that children, with whom the child audiences can identify themselves, should be the central characters of the story. It is essential that the films should be such that the children can comprehend what is taking place and, instead of just passively receiving what is presented before them, can actively participate in what is being done to them on the screen. Therefore, it is important that children's films should be available in which children themselves are taking part.
    As has been stated on several occasions in our Debates, this is a Bill to encourage the production of British films, and I submit that it is important that these films which are to be shown to children should present the British way of life. If we present family life, with children taking their place, it should be the British family way of life which is set before them. We should not necessarily be forced to have foreign films setting before our children a foreign way of life. Of course, I do not mean that films made in the Dominions, which do employ children, are necessarily bad, but I think
    1862
    it is better that we should be able in our films to show the English—and I might add in self-defence—the Scottish and Welsh way of life to the children. British films that are made may go overseas and, again, they ought to be such as show something of British family life.
    No one on this side of the Committee wants to go back on existing legislation and to make it easier to remove the control upon the employment of children, or to make easier their commercial exploitation. There is the Children and Young. Persons Act, 1933, and the Education Act, 1944—
    The Chairman: It is clear from what the hon. Member has said that this new Clause is outside the scope of the Bill. I have referred to Part IV of the original Act, where there is no reference to the employment of child actors, and I am afraid I must, therefore, rule that the hon. Member is out of Order, and pass to the next Business.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: Further to that point of Order, Major Milner, may I submit, in regard to your Ruling, that this proposed new Clause is not in Order, that we have under consideration questions relating to the production of cinematograph films? One of the material matters in connection with the production of cinematograph films is whether there should be any change in the present law, which imposes very considerable restriction on the occasional employment of children in making cinematograph films. May I suggest that if it is desired, in the interests of the cinematograph industry, to make an amendment with regard to the present state of the law with reference to employing children from time to time in the production of British films, that comes within the scope of a Bill which is designed to lay down conditions.
    The Chairman: As I have said, I have referred to the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, and there is no mention there of the employment of child actors or similar matters. There are conditions about wages and so on, but in my view the hon. Member's new Clause would be a subject for some other Bill on the employment of young persons, or something of that sort, and cannot be said to be within the scope of this Bill.
    Mr. Dumpleton: I am grateful for your guidance, Major Milner, but may I point out that Part IV of the Act of 1938, to which you have referred, is headed:
    "Provisions as to persons employed by makers of Cinematograph Films"?
    I did think that under that heading I could raise this question of the employment of children in making films.
    The Chairman: It says:
    "Wages and conditions of employment of persons employed by makers of cinematograph films,"
    but in no way deals with the classes of persons to be employed.
    Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. I would point out that the words are "otherwise to amend." With the greatest respect and some diffidence, because it may look like a reflection on the Chair, if your Ruling, Major Milner, holds good, it would have held good with regard to many Amendments we have discussed, because a number of Amendments have not been concerned with matters dealt with in the original Bill. I draw this to your attention because it is an important point of procedure; is it the rule of the Chair that a new Clause which has the effect of amending the original Act, is not to constitute an Amendment unless there is reference to it in the original Act?
    The Chairman: Any Amendment must be within the scope of the Bill, and I am afraid I must rule that, in my view, the hon. Member's new Clause is not within the scope of this Bill.
    Earl Winterton: May I call attention to the words:
    "Make further provision for securing the exhibition of a certain proportion of British cinematograph films."
    I think the whole of the hon. Member's argument was based on the need for this new Clause because it was necessary in order to make provision to secure
    "the exhibition of a certain proportion of British cinematograph films."
    I submit that anything which has reference to that must be within the scope of the Bill. The new Clause is directly aimed at that purpose; otherwise it would be meaningless. It is in order to enable films to be made—the words are:
    "The Secretary of State may grant permission to makers of films …"
    Mr. E. Fletcher: May I ask your guidance, Major Milner, on this aspect of the matter, for the benefit of the Committee? This proposed new Clause has been on the Order Paper for a considerable time and the hon. Member has made a substantial and very eloquent speech in support of it. I understood you to say that, having heard the speech, you do not think the new Clause is in order. I submit that the question whether or not the new Clause is in Order is a matter which cannot be affected by the arguments put forward.
    The Chairman: The point is that it is within the power of the Chair to call upon any hon. Member to explain the provisions in his new Clause and thereupon to form a judgment upon it. I took the precaution of interviEwing the hon. Member and suggesting my doubts to him, and after hearing him, these doubts have crystallised my belief that the new Clause is out of Order.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of principal act and repeals.)
    Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 8, line 18, to leave out "exhibitors' licensing year," and to insert "quota period."
    This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment in page 1, line 20, accepted by the Committee yesterday.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 8, line 33, leave out "to (3)," and insert "and (2)."
    In line 34, leave out "wherever," and insert "in both places where."
    In page 9, line r, after "(3)," insert:
    "for the words this part of this Act in the first place where those words occur, there shall be substituted the words 'the Cinematograph Film Act, 1948.'"
    In line 22, at end, insert:
    "for the words 'as soon as practicable, record in a book to be kept by him for the purpose' there shall be substituted the words 'to keep records of.'"
    In line 28, leave out "and."
    In line 35, at end, insert:
    "and for the words the said book' there shall be substituted the words 'those records.'"
    In line 50, at end, insert:
    "In Subsection (4) for the words from 'who is required' to 'so entitled,' there shall be substituted the words 'fails to comply with any of the requirements of this Section.'"
    In page 10, line 2, leave out from "omitted," to "any," in line 5, and insert:
    "for the words 'to fulfil any relevant quota conditions,' there shall be substituted the words 'to comply with any of the requirements of Section one of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, or with.'"

    'Section thirty-four

    In subsection (1), after the word "making." there shall be inserted the words "renting or exhibiting"; for the words "that business," there shall be substituted the words "the making, renting or exhibition of any films at any place where that business is carried on"; and after the word "employer," there shall be inserted the words "or any organisation representative of persons carrying on the business of making, renting or exhibiting films, as the ease may be."

    In subsection (3), for the words "later date," there shall be substituted the words "other date, not being earlier than the date on which the dispute to which the award relates first arose:"

    This Amendment requires some explanation. The purpose of the first part of it is to bring the renting and exhibiting, in addition to the making, of films into the scope of Section 34 of the principal Act. The second part of the Amendment deals with the Fair Wages Resolution which was passed by this House on 14th October, 1946, and which requires the contractor to comply with the general conditions of the Resolution in respect of all persons employed by him in the way of the execution of the contract in every factory, workshop or place used by him in the execution of the contract. The Act of 1938 requires such compliance only in respect of such
    "persons employed by him in connection with that business."
    The purpose of the Amendment is to bring the Section into line with more recent requirements of the House of Commons. The third part of the Amendment is required for another reason. Employers in the film industry are now largely organised, and this part of the Amendment provides for agreement not only between employers and workers' organisations, but also between employers' organisations and workers' organisations. The fourth part is simply for the purpose of bringing the former legislation into line with more recent legislation.
    Mr. Benn Levy: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the
    1866
    In line 7, leave out "the Cinematograph Films Act, 1947," and insert "that Act."
    In line 14, after "1947," insert:
    "for the words 'relevant quota conditions' there shall be substituted the words 'requirement of Section one of that Act,' for the words 'those conditions' there shall be substituted the words 'that requirement.'"—[Mr. H. Wilson.]
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 11, line 52, at the end, to insert:
    proposed Amendment, in line 9, at the end, to insert:
    "In Subsection (2), for the words 'have regard to,' there shall be substituted the words 'award terms not less favourable than these contained in.'"
    The general purpose of my Amendment is very similar to that of the Minister's Amendment.
    Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. We are not now precluded from speaking on the Minister's Amendment, are we? I wanted to speak on that Amendment.
    The Chairman: No, certainly not.
    Earl Winterton: I rose to catch your eye on the Minister's Amendment, Major Milner. Are you suggesting that we can discuss the Amendment and the Amendment to the Amendment at the same time?
    The Chairman: If that course meets the convenience of the Committee.
    Mr. Levy: The purpose of my Amendment to the proposed Amendment is also to bring the Section into harmony with the Fair Wages Resolution. At present the phrase in the Subsection of the Section is:
    "shall have regard to any determination that may be brought to its notice."
    In a recent arbitration case the arbitrator appointed by the Minister of Labour

    1867
    ruled—I think quite rightly—that this phrase means exactly what it says, namely, that regard to this determination shall be had, and no more: in other words, that there is no obligation upon the arbitrator to see that the decisions taken in joint industrial councils or conciliation boards or other similar bodies are, in fact, furthered. I suggest that if this phrase "shall have regard to" is amended in the sense I propose the ambiguity will be removed.
    Earl Winterton: It is entirely for the Chair to settle these things, and these are rather complicated matters, but I must claim my right to speak on the original Amendment. I want only an assurance from the Minister, which I am sure he will be ready to give, that this matter has been very carefully discussed with both sides of the industry.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I should be very glad to give the noble Lord the assurance. The facts are as he suggests. As to the Amendment to my proposed Amendment, what my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) is proposing is an Amendment to Section 34 (2) of the 1938 Act. It is that particular Subsection which, through a like Amendment on the Order Paper, I propose later to ask the Committee totally to repeal. Of course, if we were to secure that repeal, then my hon. Friend's Amendment to this Amendment would not be necessary or applicable. If the later Amendment is accepted, this Subsection will no longer be necessary because we feel—I do, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour whom I have consulted about this agrees—that paragraph r (a and b) of the Fair Wages Resolution of 14th October, 1946, provides such guidance as might be required by any industrial court in settling disputes referred to it under the Act. I may say that the repeal which we are proposing in the later Amendment has been asked for by the Association of Ciné Technicians, who are affected by the case my hon. Friend has in mind; and they are completely in agreement that this is the best way of dealing with this matter—that is, by the later Amendment we have on the Order Paper. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment to my proposed Amendment. If that does not satisfy him, I should be ready to deploy
    1868
    arguments against his own arguments, but I hope that he will consider our later Amendment adequate.
    Mr. Levy: This does raise rather a problem, because we do not quite know whether the Subsection is to be repealed or not. There may be a substantial difference about that. There are certain misgivings—I have certain misgivings, too—about the wholesale repeal. I should like my misgivings to be allayed before I personally assent to the repeal. I wonder if I could get from my right hon. Friend a kind of conditional undertaking, that in the event of the repeal he anticipates not being made, he will be prepared to accept my Amendment?
    Mr. Wilson: I had not envisaged that possibility, I must say, and it is rather difficult to know what our line would be in those circumstances; but certainly, if the Committee do not agree to the total repeal—and I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a debatable matter, on which hon. Members may have very different views—then I should certainly be prepared to take my hon. Friend's Amendment into consideration, to decide whether we should put down a Government Amendment at the Report stage in either the words of his own Amendment or in some other words. That would be the only way of dealing with it.
    Mr. Levy: I should be satisfied with that course, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Schedule.
    Further Amendments made: In page 12, line 7, at end, insert:
    "and the words 'by the Board of Education shall be omitted."
    In line 11 leave out "and."—[Mr. H. Wilson.]
    Mr. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 12, line 14, at the end, to insert:
    "and after the words 'specified in the order' there shall be inserted the words 'and any such order may specify different sums in relation to long films and short films respectively."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to empower the Board of Trade to prescribe

    1869
    different cost test figures for long and for short films respectively by making an order for that purpose under Section 36 (1) of the Act of 1938, if and when experience shows that course to be advisable. I referred to this Amendment yesterday, and it was upon my giving the assurance that I would move this Amendment that my hon. Friends were satisfied to withdraw an Amendment of theirs yesterday.
    Earl Winterton: I understand that this Amendment also has been discussed with those who represent the trade?
    Mr. H. Wilson: Yes.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 12, line 17, leave out "exhibitors' licensing year," and insert "quota period."
    In page 13, line 22, leave out from "1947," to end of line 31.
    In line 35, leave out "Section ten of."—[Mr. H. Wilson.]
    Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 14, line 23, after "twenty-six," to insert "Subsection (2) of Section thirty-four."
    This is the Amendment to which reference was made in the Debate we have just had on an Amendment to an Amendment of mine. Section 34 (2) of the principal Act is now no longer necessary as it is considered that paragraph 1 (a and b) of the Fair Wages Resolution of 14th October, 1946, provides such guidance as an industrial court might require in settling disputes referred to it under the Act. As I said earlier, the Association of Ciné Technicians have asked for this repeal.
    Mr. O'Brien: My right hon. Friend has astounded me by mentioning that one of the trade unions in the industry has actually suggested the deletion of this Subsection. Thereupon, he has, evidently, acted upon the suggestion of the ciné technicians. I do not think the Minister deliberately intended to catch us on the wrong foot, but he has certainly caught two or three of us in the Committee on the wrong foot, because we did not know, until he mentioned it, the particular reason why he wishes to repeal this Subsection. Many of the sections of organised labour do not share his view, nor the view of my right hon. Friend the Minister of
    1870
    Labour, that the Fair Wages Resolution thoroughly stitches up what is proposed by the repeal of this Subsection. I should have imagined—I mean this in a friendly way—that before my right hon. Friend took cognisance of the desires of one trade union in the industry which trade union happens to be one of the smallest, he would have taken into consultation the two or three larger unions more involved in this matter than the organisation to which he has referred. I do not know what we can do about it now. If the repeal is agreed to, we may find five-sixths of the organised workers in the industry as a whole being put into a prejudiced position. However, if he is satisfied—and I am prepared to take his assurance—that this is necessary and practicable I should feel more reassured, and the people I am indirectly representing, so far as this matter is concerned, will also feel more reassured.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Levy: I have been reading the relevant paragraphs of the Fair Wages Resolution referred to by my right hon. Friend. I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) will agree that they cover completely the matters in respect of which he and I have been anxious; in other words, they have precisely the same effect as my previous Amendment.
    Earl Winterton: Let me, in a sentence—I hope without offence and without appearing patronising—pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) and those he represents. It is very desirable that he and his friends should be satisfied in this matter, and I am sure the Minister will endeavour to meet them.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The noble Lord is quite right in that. I am extremely sorry if there has been some slip up in the consultations with the trade unions concerned in this matter. I should make it clear at once to my hon. Friend that our reason for acting in this manner was not because one of the unions asked us so to do, but because of the advice of the Minister of Labour, who has been considering this matter in relation to a number of industries since the acceptance of the Fair Wages Resolution of October, 1946. One of the unions concerned—and I realise it is only one—asked for this repeal. However, I would not wish to have represented

    1871
    to the Committee that this was an agreed measure had I known that by, perhaps, some unfortunate accident, due to the fact that two Ministries were concerned, my hon. Friend and his colleagues had not been consulted. I am quite sure that when he has looked at it he will be satisfied. At least, I hope he will be. I certainly give him the assurance that, if the Committee now accept this I will enter into discussions with my hon. Friend and his association, and if he is not then satisfied we shall be prepared to bring it back on Report stage. I should not like the Committee to agree to the Amendment unless quite satisfied that everybody concerned had had a chance of a hearing.
    Mr. O'Brien: I have just read the Fair Wages Resolution, which has been brought to me from the Vote Office, and I think it expresses what my right hon. Friend has assured the Committee it would express.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill."
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Would I here be in Order, Major Milner, in referring to an Amendment standing in my name, but which was not selected—in page 9, to leave out lines 46 to 50?
    The Chairman: As that Amendment has not been made and is not in the Schedule it cannot be discussed.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I wondered if it would now be in Order to indicate why I submitted that those words should be left out. I put down the Amendment because I was under the impression that there had been some discussions with the Board of Trade about it. I was hopeful that if the Amendment had been selected the Minister might have been sympathetic. I can put the point quite shortly, and I hope the Minister might be prepared to consider the matter between now and Report stage.
    The effect of that Amendment would be to introduce an alteration in Section 12 of the Act as amended, and it can be best appreciated by considering the Second Schedule at page 19. As the law stands, both renters and exhibitors are required to keep certain records, and to make certain returns. The Bill, in its
    1872
    present form, provides that certain additional information shall be kept by both renters and exhibitors. The object of my Amendment was to suggest to the Minister that it would be quite sufficient for his purposes if the additional obligation which he desires is placed upon renters, and that it would be unnecessary to extend its scope so as to require the exhibitors also to keep this additional information. It would impose upon them a considerable amount of clerical work which would be duplicating information available elsewhere. I hope the Minister will consider the matter between now and Report stage with a view to removing this additional obligation from the records of information which have to be kept by exhibitors.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Two points are raised here. First, whether exhibitors should or should not be required to maintain these records; and, secondly—though my hon. Friend did not refer to it—where they should be kept. The question where they should be kept was one of the subjects on which discussion took place, and whether they are required to be kept at individual theatres. On the main point, whether it is necessary to require exhibitors to maintain these records, I am afraid I must tell the Committee that it is essential to require that. I agree there is an apparent duplication if renters have to keep records, and exhibitors have to keep records of presumably the same payments for presumably the same film. If no records of rentals were kept, there would be no evidence in the exhibitor's records on which he could be convicted of knowingly making false returns. These returns are required for assessing which of the two features in the same programme represents the first feature, because there was a test applied in the relevant Clause of the Bill, based on the amount of daily rentals. If we did not have these records, we should not be able to convict an exhibitor—although I hope it will not be necessary—of knowingly making false returns.
    On the other hand, it is certainly not essential that exhibitors should be required to keep these records at each individual theatre. I know that in many of the larger circuits particularly this would be a very heavy burden, because most of the records are usually kept centrally. The important thing is that records should be kept and produced on demand

    1873
    to an authorised officer of the Board of Trade. Subject to that, in my view the exhibitor ought to be at liberty to keep these records of returns where he likes. I quite agree that the present wording of the Bill would not allow exhibitors to keep the records wherever they consider most convenient, but requires them to keep the records at each individual theatre. I would be prepared to meet my hon. Friend to this extent, that on Report I will put down a form of words to make clear that records can be kept in a central place and not necessarily at each individual theatre. But we must insist on records being kept somewhere.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—(The Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, as amended by this Act.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
    The Chairman: As the Committee will have appreciated, the Second Schedule is intended to be a mere reprint, or reproduction of the 1938 Act, with the Amendments which the Committee have already made to that Act by the present Bill. It would obviously be a waste of time to call any of the Amendments on the Order Paper. With the agreement of the Committee, I would therefore propose to instruct the Public Bill Office to make the appropriate Amendments in the Second Schedule, in conformity with the decisions to which the Committee have already come in this Bill. The only question before the Committee in those circumstances is, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill." That enables the Committee to decide whether, In their view, it is for the public convenience—and I imagine they will think it is—to have the Schedule, as amended, reprinted as the Second Schedule to the Bill.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I rise, Major Milner, not in the least by way of hesitation, doubt or criticism, but because I am not sure that I have fully appreciated the point. I think I have, and I have no doubt you are right. However, since an important point of procedure might be involved, may I inquire whether this is the first occasion upon which exactly this line has been taken, or whether it is something to which we are
    1874
    accustomed, and about which I ought really to know? I think the latter is probably the case.
    The Chairman: I think this is the first occasion upon which this precise proposal has been put forward.
    Earl Winterton: This seems to me to be the right course to take, but, if I may say so, I am grateful for the intervention of the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) because—and here I must tread rather delicately—I think it very desirable to establish that this can be done only with the approval of the Committee, and not on any Ruling of the Chair. Might I, with great respect, ask that the Question be put in the form, "Is it with the approval of the Committee," or some similar form of words, in order to make it quite clear? I think that is the position. This does raise rather an important point.
    The Chairman: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I thought I had, in fact, asked that this should be done with the approval of the Committee. The point is perfectly simple, and it might be as well to have it on record. The Second Schedule is a mere reprint of the 1938 Act as amended by the decisions of the Committee on this Bill. The reprinting of the Act as amended is a convenient practice for which I think the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) was responsible some years ago. Obviously, it is convenient to have a reprint of the amended Act as a Schedule or an appendix to the Bill which makes the Amendments. It is a matter for the Committee whether or not they agree to the course I suggest. I would submit it is a sensible course to adopt, because were any of the Amendments proposed to the Committee they would either be Amendments in conformity with decisions already arrived at, in which event they can be put in formally by the Clerks of the Public Bill Office, or they would be out of Order, as being in conflict with decisions already arrived at by the Committee. The common sense course appears to be to instruct the Public Bill Office to make the appropriate Amendments, and merely to put to the Committee the Question, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill," in order that the Committee may say whether they approve the procedure of reprinting the Schedule with the necessary Amendments.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

    LEATHER (CHARGES) (No. 1) ORDER
    Resolved:
    "That the Leather (Charges) (No. 1) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 2800), dated 30th December, 1947, made by the Treasury under
    1876
    Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and Section 5 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, a copy of which was presented on 20th January, be approved."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

    ADJOURNMENT
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes to Seven o'Clock.