HC Deb 27 October 1952 vol 505 cc1661-78

7.56 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, at the end, to insert: or by any organisation which has been approved by the Education Authority and in respect of which the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have certified that the organisation is not conducted or established for profit. I think I need not apologise for having handed in this Manuscript Amendment, for it follows conversations and the discussion which we had on the Committee stage on this point. On that occasion the Home Secretary was good enough to say to me, as reported in column 1489 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, … if the hon. Gentleman would care to put down an Amendment again for the Report stage I will look into the matter specifically. The reason I put down the Amendment for further consideration, and in the hope that the Home Secretary will find it acceptable, is that although he gave specific views as to why I should withdraw it in Committee, I notice, on looking at the matter very carefully, that he is reported in column 1488 as having said this: If an organisation such as the hon. Gentleman has described—the example I had in mind was a youth club, a film society, a church organisation, or, of course, the organisation he mentioned"— and the organisation which I mentioned was the N.C.C.C.C.— gives similar shows for children, such shows would not be subject to licensing simply because the children are members of a club, society, or association. And then he said these important words, which have caused me to put my Amendment down again— provided that its objects are wider than attendance at cinema exhibitions. Later, as reported in column 1489, the Home Secretary again did his best to reassure me, and when I ask whether there would be any difficulties, he said: I cannot see any. I am told there would not be. I do not want there to be any doubt about it at all. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1488–89.] I have been advised that there may be doubts about it, and that, if there is, what would happen would be something like this—that the very type of children's club which we wish to encourage would find difficulties put in its way. I need not go into this at length, because we discussed the matter at length on Friday. The typical examples are those of the Stoke-on-Trent club, which is specifically mentioned and praised in paragraph 111 of the Wheare Report, and the type such as the Northern Counties Children's Cinema Council.

The reason why we feel they may fall outside the range of exempted organisations is this. The wording in the subsection ends as follows: as part of the activities of an educational or religious institution. I am advised that the group of teachers who are responsible for the Northern Counties Children's Cinema Council could not in themselves be considered as an education institution, for they are a body of private citizens with special knowledge of children's needs. Indeed in Stoke-on-Trent, although the Council is formed by the Director of Education, some members of the Education Committee, and teachers and parents and senior children from a number of schools—prefects—they cannot be considered part of an educational institution.

8.0 p.m.

It is reassurance, therefore, on this point that we are seeking, knowing full well that the Home Secretary would do nothing—none of us would ever do anything—to prevent the extension of the work of the people who know most about the children, and whose work has been highly commended by the Wheare Committee. In fact, in this Bill we have had to develop the safeguards for our children; but we do not want to hinder anything positive for the good of the kind of activity they need.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Test)

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth)

As Clause 5 (2) stands, a cinema show specially organised for children who are members of a club would always be an exempted exhibition if it was part of the activities of an educational or religious institution, or if the purposes of the club were wider than the narrow purpose of attendance at cinematograph exhibitions. The hon Member, I see, agrees with that. The intention of the subsection is to ensure that children's cinema clubs run by commercial exhibitors do not escape licensing control, and this, I can assure the hon. Member, will be made clear in the advice which the Home Secretary will give to the licensing authorities when the Bill becomes law.

In his speech the other day, and also, I think, today, the hon. Member referred to the activities of the Northern Counties Cinema Council and other organisations of teachers, parents and children who put on special cinema shows and have regular meetings for the benefit of young children, and he has described the objects of these organisations as essentially educational. I think that is the effect of what he has said.

I can assure the hon. Member that there really seems to be no doubt at all that the wording of this clause as it stands now would not deprive shows organised by such organisations of the exemption which is desired. I can give him a firm assurance. If the position is as he states it, the wording of the Clause is adequate for the purpose needed. Indeed, it is hard to think that there would be any children's cinema club, except those run by commercial exhibitors, which would not have a wider object than attendance at cinema exhibitions or be connected in some way with activities of an educational or religious institution.

It does not, therefore, seem necessary to make any further Amendment to the Clause, but, beyond that, there is some objection to the Amendment which the hon. Member has moved, as it might give the impression that it was necessary for any organisation other than a religious or educational institution to obtain a special exemption from the education authorities and it does not seem necessary, I think the hon. Member would agree, or desirable to put it to this trouble. For those reasons I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

May I put a question before the hon. Gentleman sits down? There is a kind of marginal case which, I think, is illustrated by a church cinema in Edinburgh—the Gateway Theatre, they call it. I am not quite sure whether that can be described as being used for other purposes except entertainment. I understand the purpose of it to be to put on films, shows—theatre shows—of a kind free from any objections whatsoever either for adults or children, and also entertainment which is to have a moral purpose; but it is run, I think, on semi-commercial lines, and it would appear to me, from what the Joint Under-Secretary of State has said, that that would not be subject to any exemption at all. I take it it would come in the ordinary cinema regulations?

The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly know about the particular case, but I can see in the future the church may decide to set up some sort of cinema entertainment in order to get round the difficulty that this Bill is trying to get round, namely, to provide entertainment for children as free from any objection at all—children's entertainment for church development—and charging commercial entrance fees. I take it it would be subject to the same conditions as the ordinary cinema?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I would hesitate to give the right hon. Gentleman or the House an undertaking on a particular case of which I have not seen the particulars, and I really am anxious not to say anything to take the matter further, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the words of the Clause and what I have said. It is intended to cover, and, indeed, does cover, the specific case of an educational or religious institution, or the case where the purposes of the club are wider than the narrow purpose of attendance of cinematograph exhibitions. It may be that the case the right hon. Gentleman has referred to would fall clean within those latter words, but I could not give him a specific answer without detailed knowledge of the facts.

Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)

I think the House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) for raising this matter. When we dealt with it on the Committee stage it seemed to me from what was said on both sides of the Committee—even what was said by the Home Secretary—that there was some doubt here as to whether this type of organisation, excellent in itself and doing wonderful work, would or would not come within the four corners of this subsection, and it turned, in our view, on the emphasis to be placed on the word "institution."

The Joint Under-Secretary of State has made it quite clear to the House that the Home Secretary—and, I take it, also the Secretary of State for Scotland—will make it perfectly clear to the licensing authorities that this type of organisation, these clubs, others similar, will be taken care of whether we put these words into the subsection or not.

At first I was inclined to think, if the Joint Under-Secretary of State thought the words were covered, and that it was the intention that this should be done, that there was every reason to make this entirely clear, and that the words put down in the Amendment might be included, but, on reflection, I think what he has said has a good deal of weight in it, and, therefore, so far as I am concerned, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central may see his way to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Joseph Reeves (Greenwich)

There is one word I should like to say on this aspect of the Bill. First of all, let me say how glad we are that the interpretation we hoped would be placed on this Clause has been officially placed upon it. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) may not know it, I was personally associated with this experiment that was held in that part of England in the early days. I remember that the purpose of the scheme was not only to provide exhibition films but to create some measure of film appreciation among the younger people. We hear of classes for the appreciation of literature, music and other arts, but we do not organise courses in the appreciation of films.

Educational bodies ought to be doing this. People ought not to go to the films by habit merely because that is their type of entertainment. They ought to be discriminating and select their films. I hope most hon. Members go to see a film because they want to see it and not merely because it is being shown at a particular cinema. Children ought to be taught to be discriminating. Co-operation among local authorities, teachers and parents in this respect is valuable educational work. I am delighted to have had opportunities in days gone by of being associated with this work.

We are exempting societies for adults, and it is proper that societies involving children should also be exempted. I am very glad that this broad interpretation has been given to the Clause.

Dr. Stross

In view of the assurances which have been given to us, if I had any doubt about the meaning of those words I should be lacking in understanding of Parliamentary language. I am delighted to have had further assurances that those who know best what our children need at different ages can go forward with their experiments in positive treatment. This is not merely the negative treatment of preventing children from seeing unsuitable films, but of enabling children to see films which are suitable. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

8.13 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)

In speaking to this Motion, I should like to assume the pleasant duty of thanking hon. Members on both sides of the House for their helpful and constructive approach to the Bill. We had a most useful debate in Committee last Friday. I should like to refer to one or two points which I then promised to consider further.

The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) expressed some concern about the proviso to Clause 5 (3). He thought it might interfere with the activities of film societies and other noncommercial organisations. I have considered this matter very carefully, and I do not think there is any real cause for alarm. The proviso relates only to exhibitions to which the public pay for admission: most film societies do not throw their shows open to the public, and very few of them would wish to give as many as three performances in a week. For shows to members, or to which the public are admitted without payment, there is no limit to the number which can be given in a week.

Where an organisation gives regular cinema shows consisting of entertainment films in no way connected with the objects of the organisation, and where money is taken at the door from members of the public, the dividing line from ordinary commercial shows is very narrow. The Government are satisfied that this provision is necessary, both in the interests of public safety and to prevent the exemption being misused for purposes for which it is not intended. We do not think there is any danger that it will interfere with the legitimate activities of film societies.

I would like to tell the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) that I was going to deal with his point in the remarks which I am making on the Third Reading, but as he put down an Amendment, and as my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has dealt with it, I do not think the hon. Member needs any further reassurance.

Perhaps I might for a moment enter the wider sphere. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley criticised the Government in a very friendly way for having failed to introduce this Bill in such a perfect form that it would require no Amendment at all. On reflection, he may think his criticism was a little severe. I readily acknowledge that the Bill has been improved by the Amendments made to it in Committee, but its main structure has not been greatly altered. The only Clause to which many Amendments have been made is Clause 5, and even here the House has accepted the general principles on which the Clause was drafted.

It has always been the intention of the Government that film societies, religious bodies and other non-commercial organisations who use films as a means of educational propaganda should be free from licensing control, except where control is necessary for reasons of public safety. Apart from the fact that such organisations will no longer be subject to any safety control unless they give their shows in licensed cinemas, there has been no important change in the proposals of the Bill. The discussion in Committee showed very clearly that in this matter, as always, whether discussing visiting Forces, cinemas or practically any subject to which we may turn, there is a conflict between freedom of expression and the danger that freedom will be abused—a conflict which it is not easy to resolve.

It is one of the few consolations in introducing Bills into the House, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will fully realise, when the Government's proposals are criticised from both directions as being too liberal and too restrictive. I hope there will be general agreement that the Amendments made to the Bill hold the balance fairly between those two extremes. If that is so, we need not feel that the time we have given to consideration of the Bill has been wasted.

I hope hon. Gentlemen will not misunderstand me when I say that is an example of something at which this House is particularly good when dealing with a subject which is not a first-class political matter and concerns the daily lives of ordinary people. We can get together, pool our knowledge and critical faculties, and work out something which we hope will resolve the problem that our constituents have tacitly set us.

8.20 p.m.

Dr. Stross

If, by what he has said to us, the Home Secretary wished us to understand, that this House is greater than any party that has ever sat in it—then we all agree. When this Bill came to us we were not happy about some of its provisions, but by now, with the help of hon. Members from all sides of the House, it has become vastly improved. Between us we have been able to remove some of its original anomalies.

I think we are all agreed that the Bill is now a good one. If it suffers from anything, it is from the handicap of its original birth, for it attempted to do two diverse things. It attempted to protect children on the one hand and, on the other, to do something connected with the change-over from inflammable films to non-inflammable films. The complications and anomalies which seemed to be present in the Bill were due to attempting to remedy two defects in one short Measure.

As the Home Secretary mentioned on the Second Reading, there were four main recommendations of the Wheare Committee. Three of them are now well covered and without any distress to any citizen. The fourth, which was not accepted, was that a central committee on children and the cinema should be established in order to classify films in the interests of children. We have not included that and, I think, quite rightly. The voluntary organisation, the Consultative Committee, with its sub-committee, which has upon its board people with special knowledge in the handling of children's films, is a better setup than any central organisation could ever be.

Quite rightly, we in this House are always afraid of giving too much power to the executive or any central authority. This Bill gives us sufficient safeguards to enable us to swallow a dish which is unpalatable to all of us, namely censorship of any kind. So we are left with the fact that the Bill, as far as it goes, is a good one. But however good the Bill may be by now, it is fair to say that it is still negative. It offers protection without doing anything decisive in the way of a positive remedy for the need which we all have in mind.

In my own division we know from experience that when we ask for films suitable for children we get them in the ratio of about one to six. The reason is not far to seek. It is because there are not enough films for children available and, until there are, we shall never be successful in solving the problem we have been discussing. The sum of £100,000 is not enough, and I hope I am not out of order when I say that if we had an extra £60,000 it would be possible to have an opera film for children which would be unique and which would give joy to each successive generation of children. Benjamin Britten is ready to write the score. The libretto is ready. The Children's Film Foundation would give almost anything in the world to receive this little extra gift.

On that note, perhaps I had better sit down. May I conclude by saying that we are all grateful for the courteous consideration which we have received from the Home Secretary?

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole (Bedfordshire, South)

I want to endorse what has been said at greater length by various hon. Members. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has drawn attention to the fact that there have been two parts to this Bill. Let me put them in a different order. The raison d'etre for this Bill at the present time has been mainly the change to the use of noninflammable film. The children's part has come in as a necessary part, not as the main part.

As we are legislating not only for the present but also for the future, we have to remember the effect of films on children for good or ill. I do not want to exaggerate either the good or the ill. As regards the films which we hon. Members of the House of Commons see, it was inferred that we have so little time that we are rather more selective than to go merely as a habit. The remedy lies in the hands of the parents and children in selecting films. If films are not attended because of their poor quality, in due course the film producers will give us better films. As a filmgoer for 35 years I know that is happening. Over the years the public have become more selective, and that is why we have a better standard of films today than we had 35 years ago and have films for children which were largely unknown then.

I want to pay tribute to what has been done by the film producers, particularly by large organisations, to meet the special needs of children. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) said on Second Reading, they need assistance in carrying out this project either by guidance or by financial help. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central also said that we cannot have adequate showings for children in this country until there is a sufficient supply of the appropriate films. A number of cinemas in London show interest films and cartoons, but those give a limited supply and we must apply our minds to the producing end as well as to the viewing end.

What this Bill is doing, and what has been done in the film world up to now, has been a compromise. We have had various stages. We now have the Universal film which is regarded as being suitable for children as well as adults. All the time we are working to the end of having a children's film of "C" category. We cannot go on indefinitely with the compromise of allowing children to go to Universal films merely because they have the magic letter "U" attached to them. We must have special children's films just as we have special children's books.

Let me point out the analogy of the theatre. The theatre has had a longer impact than the film upon the public and the children; it has brought about its own solution to this difficulty. One of the greatest theatre arts in the world today is in the form of pantomime, and here, I suggest, is the answer to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. The pantomime is the family entertainment, both for adults and for children. I look forward to the day when we shall have something of the same character in the film world to which all can be taken with safety.

This Bill of 1952, like the Bill of 1909, deals with the position as it stands. It still leaves out many matters which I should like to see included a regarding the welfare of children. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), during the Second Reading, remarked that: if their children go to the cinema under the conditions laid down they can have reasonable grounds for believing that no great harm will happen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 929.] The right hon. Gentleman was talking then of physical harm on the grounds of safety, but equally important is the question of the moral, mental and spiritual harm.

I speak with some knowledge of this matter when I say that we need have very little fear of responsible cinema owners not paying proper attention to safety precautions. It is in their own interests that they should have safety. No cinema owner wants a fire—it is bad for business, bad for public opinion, and bad for the industry. But what it is not always possible for them to see to, and what it is our duty as the House of Commons to consider, is the spiritual harm which may result from the wrong kind of film being shown.

Therefore, I welcome very much what my right hon. and learned Friend has offered in the way of consultation. As in all other matters, he has been most helpful in this, and I pay tribute to him. At the same time, I look forward to the day, within the foreseeable future, when we shall have a Cinematograph (Children) Bill, which will be directed not only to the protective side of the welfare of children, but will give due attention to an objective understanding of what we must provide for children in the film World.

8.32 p.m.

Dr. King

This is a useful little Bill, and as a contribution to the great problem of providing the children with healthy and good entertainment, I am sure that everybody in the House welcomes it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has said, however, the Bill is a negative Bill. It is a skeleton which has to be given flesh and become a body. If we take from it its merely negative character, I think that the Home Secretary and the local authorities will be able to do that if they use their powers under Clauses 2 and 4 to create wise and positive regulations.

I hope that the passing of the Bill will be taken by the local authorities as an inspiration and an opportunity to imitate the example of Stoke-on-Trent and the northern counties in setting up children's cinema committees in various parts of the country in order to tackle this question. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) was right when he said last week that we needed a second Bill. I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) re-echo that we need a children's cinema Bill.

Some of us are distressed because the Minister proposes to set up only the Children's Advisory Committee that he has mentioned, and we regret the failure to carry out what we regard as one of the vital parts of the Wheare Committee's Report—the setting up of a central committee on children in cinemas. It may be, however, that we are wrong, and that under the Bill we shall yet be able to create, both nationally and locally, bodies keenly interested in children which will make a positive approach to the various questions that we have raised during the debates on the Bill.

I sincerely congratulate the Home Secretary on the skill and kindness with which he has taken the Bill through the House. We are very pleased with it indeed.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Peter Legh (Petersfield)

In the midst of the general satisfaction that the Bill is almost on the Statute Book, it is only right that, before we give it the Third Reading, tribute should be paid from the back benches on this side of the House to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for the courtesy and charm he has shown in piloting the Bill through its various stages. When we reflect upon the remarkable patience that my right hon. and learned Friend has shown, we should remember that in the last 10 days or so he has had to spend what must have been for him a formidable number of hours upon the Front Bench. So far as this Bill is concerned, he has not only been charming, courteous and accommodating, as indeed he always is, but he has also, almost without exception, either accepted or met every point which was put to him by hon. Members who thought they knew how the Bill could be improved.

I think I am perhaps the only person who did not get all he wanted; nevertheless I want to express my gratitude to my right hon. and learned Friend for the assurance he gave me in Committee that any safety regulations made under this Bill in respect of commercial exhibitions of non-inflammable films in unlicensed premises, such as village halls, are unlikely to be much more strict than the regulations which already apply when those halls are used for public music, dancing or theatrical entertainment.

That assurance was very welcome, and I am quite confident that so long as my right hon. and learned Friend and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State remain in charge of the Home Office—and we all hope that will be a very long time—they will watch over and safeguard the interests of the small travelling cinema operators who go from village to village exhibiting commercial noninflammable films in the local halls, thereby giving a great deal of simple pleasure to the inhabitants of those villages.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)

The Home Secretary, as we all realise, has had a very busy day. On the Bill which preceded this an enormous number of bouquets were flung at his feet. I should like to feel I also had an opportunity to cast a few modest violets in the same direction, but I am very inclined to divide my bunch and distribute some of them to hon. Friends behind me. It is quite obvious to those of us who have sat through the debates on this Bill that if it had not been for the Amendments put down, in the main but not entirely, by hon. Members on this side of the House, we should not have made the Bill as good as it is. The Bill has had a very easy passage, far easier than it would have had if perhaps it had been another Minister in charge on the other side.

There is something about the right hon. and learned Gentleman which does predispose us on this side of the House to assist him when he is putting a Bill through. If I had to analyse the reason, I would say that he is extremely forward-looking for a Conservative in matters of this kind. We found when we came to talk to him that he saw that our proposals were things which should go into the Bill. We are very grateful to him for his courtesy, for the assistance he has given and the acceptance he has accorded to the Amendments moved by us and spoken to, I freely admit, by some hon. Members opposite.

But for our combined efforts on this Bill and the willingness of the Home Secretary to meet us this would have been a quite shocking Measure and a disgrace to the Statute Book if it had remained in the form which it came to us from another place. It attempted to bring the law up to date so far as safety conditions were concerned due to the changeover in the commercial cinema by users of the 35 mm. film from inflammable to noninflammable film and thus to put them outside the licensing regulations and conditions provided for in the 1909 Act. Therefore, as we have all realised, something had to be done.

The most interesting part of this Bill to all of us has been, I think, the provisions made to include in it some of the recommendations at least of the Wheare Report. When all is said and done, so far as the Wheare Report is concerned, the Bill is little, if anything, more than an enabling Measure. On this side of the House we shall most certainly look forward to the regulations which are to be promulgated in due course. Still more shall we be interested to watch the effect on the attendance, the health and the welfare of the children who go to the cinemas.

One of the good things that has come out of this Bill so far as we on this side of the House are concerned has been the very ready promise of the Home Secretary not to let things remain here. He has made a promise, if he remains in his present position long enough—we have grave doubts about that—to see that a newer and better Bill dealing entirely with children and their attendance at cinemas is, introduced. I am positive that when that Measure comes before us we shall all, regardless of party, welcome it if it does what we all want to see it do, namely, to implement the recommendations which the Committee which sat under the chairmanship of Professor Wheare has suggested.

We welcome this Bill so far as it goes. We are grateful to the Home Secretary for the reception he has given our Amendments and I am also grateful to my own party for the way in which it has helped, and materially helped, to make what I consider to be a poor Bill into something worth while. We shall watch with the utmost interest the effect of the regulations which will become possible under the Act, quite certain that if the Home Secretary carries out his promise to consult the various interests which are affected, we shall in them secure something of benefit to the children not only of this country and Wales but also of Scotland.

8.43 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)

It would be a pity if the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) were allowed to escape with the suggestion that his friends and his friends alone had been responsible for the attention and consideration given to, and in some cases the improvements made in, this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say so."] He did not say so in actual terms but he certainly claimed the lion's share of the credit, I think with a certain amount of ungenerosity to people who put in a good deal of work on this matter.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

We did miss the presence of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman here on Friday, when the real work on this Bill was done. We felt that as he had put his name to certain Amendments the least he should have done was to have been here to help to argue them before the Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

It was precisely on that point in relation to the right hon. Gentleman's exceedingly ungenerous reference that I wish to speak for a few moments.

I think it is generally accepted in the House that engagements in one's constituency have to be carried out, and there are many occasions upon which those duties and our duties here clash. If we attacked the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends on every occasion on which they were attending to their duties in their constituencies instead of being present at all stages of the passage of a Bill through the House, we might have to animadvert pretty severely on their conduct.

I simply say this, that we did bring certain points to the attention of the House on Second Reading and that those points were further put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) speaking for all of us, which fortunately we can do on this side of the House. We were able to put certain points with sufficient force to impress the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and to obtain from him what we considered were useful and valuable concessions. There was, in particular, the concession when he said that he would not expect Scottish cinemas to … impose the 'A' film Regulations in Scotland until the Committee had reported, because the Committee may well report that there should not be such a condition at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1464.] That seemed to us a useful concession which was not obtained by pressure from that side of the House but from this side.

Although I wish to tender my apologies to the House for a clash of engagements, I think it is accepted on all sides that a clash of engagements between constituency work and work in the House——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not return to that.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I do not wish to return to it at all. I was merely animadverting on the somewhat excessive claims made by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley on behalf of himself and his right hon. and hon. Friends as to the moulding effect they have exercised on the Bill. This has not been a party Measure and moulding has been exercised, I think rightly and properly so, by hon. Members on both sides. We on this side of the House are only too willing to pay tribute to the kindly and forthcoming attitude of the Home Secretary and his colleagues in charge of the Bill, and it is right that testimony should be offered from both sides of the House today.

It is a difficult problem and does not raise a purely party issue. It is difficult to deal with the problem of the young and the effect of many powerful dangers turned upon them at the outset of their careers. It may be that we shall find ourselves having over-safeguarded the young, in that there is always a danger that they may bolt violently away to some more extreme sources of information about the facts of life than those we are willing to offer to them. I tremble to think of what would happen if the young really began to read the plays of Shakespeare or some of the editions of "The Arabian Nights." It is not the easiest thing in the world to deal with this matter, and I am sure we shall get no further if we approach it on a party basis.

We welcome the Bill so far as it goes. We consider that at some points it could have been improved, as I said on Second Reading and as my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark said when he was putting forward our case. We hope these matters will be further considered when the operative parts of this Measure are submitted for our further consideration.

8.50 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would wish me to thank hon. Members for the things which have been said about him during this short debate. It has been positively uncomfortable to be sitting on this bench in the rain of bouquets which were descending. I am glad that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was able to throw one last bouquet—as I understood it to be—at my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

I do not think there is anything in the debate that calls for a reply. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) described the Bill as having been a shocking Bill as it arrived in the House. I think possibly that was rather strong language. It has not been fundamentally altered, though I quite agree that it has been altered and improved as the result of the efforts of all parts of the House; but the Bill itself is still very largely on the same broad lines as when it first came before the House.

The debate has been concerned mainly with the future administration of the Bill, and perhaps I may say this finally. Everything that hon. Members have said in all parts of the House will be carefully noted, and I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend will continue to do his best to see that the Bill proceeds in the future with the same co-operation from all those interested in this matter.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.