Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR MAKING LOANS.)

HC Deb 03 December 1953 vol 521 cc1398-440

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever (Manchester, Cheetham)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out "eight," and to insert "six."

The intention of this Amendment is to restrict the operation of the principal Act to one year from the period when it would have expired instead of three years, which is the extension proposed by the Government.

Before we decide what is the appropriate period for the principal Act to be extended, the Committee should know what it is we are extending, what has been the consequences of the principal Act for the past five years in which it has been in operation and what it is desired to achieve. We cannot decide how long we should extend the principal Act unless we know what it is that is sought to be achieved by it. In order that no one should be led to attempt to invoke the rules of order, may I make it plain that I do not intend to occupy more time than is necessary to make the points which I wish to make to the Committee.

When one considers the Second Reading debate on this Bill, one discovers an astonishing position. The Government have not chosen to tell the House why they wish the Bill extended for three years. So far as I can discern the Parliamentary Secretary gave no reason whatever for extending this Bill for three years. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if the three-year period was to be the final period and he was not prepared to say. He was not prepared to say that it was the final period or to attempt to bind the House. I did not ask him to bind the House. I asked for a statement of the Government's intentions. I was not asking him to break a constitutional principle known to every first-year law student, and he should have that clearly in his mind. What I desired to know was something about the intentions of the Government.

I may say at once that I shall be as helpful to the Government as possible. I shall try to assist them to make good the glaring omissions so far revealed in their treatment of the Committee. I imagine, as there was agreement on this matter in general principle between the Government and the Opposition Front Benches, that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary have been misled about this whole matter, and that they decided they could get this Bill without giving any information at all. But at least the Government should take the Committee into their confidence and tell us what is their present intention in the matter.

Do they intend this three-year period to be the last? Will they tell us why they want a three-year period? Is it to perpetuate the principle of the Film Finance Corporation, or to alter it and make it permanent in an altered form? Or is it to evolve a policy for the film industry? We cannot ignore the fact that the instrument we are asked to extend was originally a temporary measure. It was brought before the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), when he was President of the Board of Trade, as a means of rescuing the film production industry. My right hon. Friend told the House then that it was a temporary measure, a regrettable necessity, and with considerable reluctance the then Opposition, represented by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, agreed to it as a temporary measure.

At that time an assurance was given that there was no intention of providing a subsidy for the film industry and that the debt would be self-liquidated. The industry was told five years previously to mark the fact that the Bill would come to an end, and in those circumstances we are entitled to an explanation about why there is to be an extension for another three years. What has happened to cause the change? It is a colossal piece of bluff which happily the Government have not been able to get away with. They now ask for a three-year extension, as if it was the most natural thing in the world, and calmly overlook the fact that the Minister who introduced the Bill originally said that it was a temporary measure, and that that was agreed to by the Opposition.

When further money was required and a further extension in 1950, when another £1 million was asked for, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, speaking for the then Opposition, objected, and said that it was only a temporary measure. He even asked my right hon. Friend what he was gestating. He said my right hon. Friend had had seven months gestating a policy and nothing had appeared. The Government have now had a two-year gestation period and I am wondering whether it is a baby white elephant they are about to produce.

7.45 p.m.

The Committee are always sympathetic in these matters if they are taken into the confidence of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman has a policy—even if it is a baby white elephant—we shall sympathise, but he must tell us. He cannot say, as he said to me when I asked why it was the Government's intention to have a three-year period, "It is going to be three years, because that is what I think right at the moment."

The Minister did not give a single reason. As cool as may be he said, "It is going to be three years, because I think that is right." He must realise that that will not do. Even with Front Bench agreement for such a proposal it is not acceptable. On Second Reading the Parliamentary Secretary said that there was only one hon. Member opposed to the Bill. But if he thinks that he is misled. I am not the only one opposed to the Bill. There exists a feeling of the greatest disquiet among hon. Members in all parts of the House about this matter, and particularly about this three-year period.

If an extension is sought as cover for the production of a policy, then a year is quite enough. If it is to be merely a chronic putting off, a sort of sop to the skilled procrastinators at the Board of Trade, then a three-year period is not enough. There have been five years and practically nothing has been done. Why should a three-year period be any better unless the Government are proposing to produce a policy? Five years ago when this was first introduced the film industry, and presumably the public, were asked to mark the words used from both Front Benches, and by back-bench Members also, to the effect that there was to be no subsidy; and that the Measure was a temporary one for five years. Now the film industry and the public can mark the value of those words.

In my opinion a three-year period is either too short or too long. If a policy is to be forthcoming it is too long. If we are to be humiliated again when the three years have expired then it is too short. I prefer a quinquennial humiliation rather than a triennial one. If the House has to eat its own words it is more helpful that it should be done rather less frequently than is provided for by the Bill. If the Minister assures me that it is intended that the House shall be humiliated again I will withdraw my Amendment.

I must comment on the astonishing behaviour of the Government. They have come to the House as if it is the most natural thing in the world that they should get an extension without any apology or explanation—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

I would remind the hon. Member that he has now repeated his argument several times.

Mr. Lever

That was merely in order to break new ground and to ask the Government whether the original policy still stands. The Film Finance Corporation was set up by the original Act. Presumably those responsible read the speeches on Second Reading, Committee Stage and Third Reading saying that the Corporation was to be self-liquidating, and so on. Have they been told of any change of mind about the extension? What is behind it all? Can we now have a little more information from the Government?

There is another question I wish to ask. I asked it on Second Reading but the Minister, for his own reasons, thought that there was no need to reply. I put the question again. I cannot for the life of me see why the Minister did not reply on the first occasion. Perhaps he was under the illusion that the Front Bench agreement would save him the necessity to answer these questions or the need to learn too much about the film trade which he has in his charge.

Before we extend the Act, we are entitled to be told how much it has cost so far. I do not want out of date book figures of the Film Finance Corporation. This entirely relevant and fundamental information ought to have been proffered to us by the President of the Board of Trade. When I asked the question in the middle of the Second Reading and got no reply, I can only assume that neither Minister then knew the answer I cannot believe that they intended to be obdurate and to tell the House, "We want you to extend the Corporation for three years, and mind your own business how much it has cost so far." That is what it means if the hon. and learned Gentleman does not answer the question today.

If he asks for three more years he must tell the Committee the cost so far. How can we vote for a three-year extension when the Minister will not tell us that?

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

I am trying passionately to follow the argument. I do not know much about films. About 10 minutes ago my hon. Friend convinced me that I ought to vote in favour of substituting the word "six" for the word "eight." Five minutes ago he rather turned round and thought that it was as well to substitute the word "ten" for the word "eight." Now I gather that he is going back to the word "six." I suggest that there must be some time in his speech when he tells us whether he is supporting the Amendment or moving its rejection. I should have thought that—

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member must reserve his argument until later.

Mr. Hale

I am much obliged. In those circumstances, I will address the Committee later and put my points. I hoped that I could put them in a single sentence rather more speedily.

Mr. Lever

I have always found the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) most helpful. Especially when the argument is likely to be clouded, an intervention by my hon. Friend brings us back again to a point which ought to be considered most carefully.

If the Government hope to do what they should have done long ago—and that is produce a policy for the film industry—one more year is quite enough. Then, if they show signs of applying themselves to the task for which they hold office, at the end of the year they will be given a sympathetic reception if they have not completed the job. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to say how much the Corporation has cost so far.

The Deputy-Chairman

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat the same question indefinitely. Once is quite sufficient.

Mr. Lever

I repeated the question about how much it has cost because I want to know how much the Parliamentary Secretary thinks it will cost if we extend the Corporation for three years rather than for the one year which I suggest. We really cannot vote the Corporation into existence for another three years without knowing how much it has cost in the past or how much it will cost in future. That is how it appears to me in my somewhat naive approach to these matters which affect public money. If it costs rather less than what it costs to provide cigarettes for old age pensioners, I might vote for it, and if it costs rather more than the provision of battleships for the Royal Navy I must vote against it.

The Deputy-Chairman

The Amendment deals with the change in the number of years.

Mr. Lever

Whether or not we vote for the continuation of the Corporation for three years must depend on the cost of it. If it is very expensive we may say that we can afford it for a year more but not for three years. I do not see how we can tell whether we ought to keep the Corporation in being for another year, three years or 10 years until the Minister is kind enough at this late stage to confide in us how much it has cost in the past and how much he estimates that it will cost in future. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman know?

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will acquit me of discourtesy when I say that one got the impression on Second Reading that, though the Minister had been briefed on the assumption that the Second Reading would consist of a very pleasant interchange of compliments, there was very little—

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Gentleman must not review the Second Reading debate. He must confine his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Lever

Then I will make the point shortly. We cannot decide whether the Corporation should stay in being for another one year, or three years until we know what are the powers of the Corporation. If the powers are reasonable, three years might be appropriate. If the powers are unreasonable and unwise the Committee might well vote for one year as the most they can allow without asking the Minister to come back again.

Will the Minister be kind enough to tell the Committee what is the policy of the Corporation? We do not know. Until we know, how can we decide whether the Corporation should continue for one, three or more years? We do not know its policy. I asked on Second Reading whether it had the power to lend money without the bona fide expectation of getting it back.

Mr. Hale

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lever

My hon. Friend says, "Hear, hear," but the Minister's reply was extraordinary. He reminded me that I was a member of his profession and that the Act was available to be read. I still want to know something about the powers of the Corporation, and the Committee must want to know before it can decide whether to entrust the Government with power to continue the life of the Corporation for one year or three. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman now tell me whether the Corporation has power to lend money without the bona fide expectation of getting it back?

It was not my intention to speak for too long. I did not intend to prolong the debate, though I could do so. I have had a very generous measure of indulgence, and I suggest that the questions I have asked are most relevant. It is most staggering to me that the House should be asked to decide whether the Corporation shall continue for one year, three years or more without being told how much has been the cost; how much the concession is expected to cost in the three years ahead; what the policy of the Corporation is, or even why there has been a complete volte-face on the part of both Government and Opposition Front Benches.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss)

I think that it will be generally convenient if I do not repeat any argument that was used in the Second Reading debate but confine myself to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever). The effect of the hon. Member's proposal would be that the powers of the Corporation would be extended for one year only. For the reasons given by almost every other hon. Member who took part in the Second Reading debate, it is quite clear that one year would be insufficient. In an industry where I should have thought it would be the unanimous view of the Committee that some planning ahead and certainty about the future was desirable, I suggest that to extend for one year only would be insufficient if the Corporation was to achieve any of its objects.

8.0 p.m.

I hope that hon. Members who attended the earlier stages of the Measure will acquit me of any discourtesy in answering any of the points which were raised. I answered them to the best of my ability. It is clear that on the Amendment we ought to confine ourselves to what the Amendment says, which is that the extension should be for one year only. On earlier occasions the Government have been pressed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to make a longer extension, and the hon. Gentleman is the only one who has suggested making it shorter. If the hon. Gentleman asked for figures, I could have given them to him when they were germane in the earlier debate.

Mr. Lever

I did ask for them.

Mr. Strauss

I cannot give the hon. Member any later figures than are contained in the last Annual Report of the Corporation. When he asks what the cost will be, he must be well aware that the great bulk of the money which it is likely that we shall not recover was lost in the very early stages of the Corporation's life.

It would not be right, nor, I believe would it be in order, now to deal with anything except what the very limited Amendment says. Having regard to the arguments used by my right hon. Friend and myself and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and others on Second Reading, I ask both sides of the Committee to say that the period of one year would be in- sufficient if the Bill is to achieve the purpose which the House approved on Second Reading.

Mr. Hale

I did not desire to intervene in the debate because I know very little about films. However, I have had some little experience of Parliament and I must say that the answer by the Parliamentary Secretary has been profoundly unsatisfactory to the Committee. I do not want to accuse the Parliamentary Secretary of discourtesy, because he is always a very courteous and approachable man, but I felt that he was showing a little lack of co-operation with the Committee in that answer.

Let us consider what he had to say. He was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) why he wants an extension for three years and what is going to be done during the three years. Surely, if the Government are asking for an extension of three years, we ought to know for what purpose the three-year period is required and the nature, scope and ambit of the operations contemplated during that period.

That is at least one very good reason against the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and that is that we might have to face the prospect of listening to a speech lasting two hours and 55 minutes from him once a year for three years, which would be a little more than I should be prepared to endure.

In reply to my hon. Friend's question, the Parliamentary Secretary said he had two reasons. He said that the first reason was that one year would be no good. I have before me the Annual Report of the National Film Finance Corporation. The last section of it is headed "The Last Lap." I rather thought it was a reference to some form of mixed musical chairs, but it appears to be talking about the projected termination of its operations. It says: The Corporation has now started the last year of its active life; the Act does not permit loans to be made after 8th March, 1954. So we are in the position that the Corporation had only a year to go and that it had to endure whatever disadvantages are attached to the fact that it had only a year in which to operate.

My hon. Friend is suggesting that the Corporation should have another year in precisely the same circumstances and conditions. But my hon. Friend went further. He said, "If you will give us some reasons why the period of a year will not do and why you consider that the Commission should be allowed to operate for three years, we might well consider it."

The second reason given by the Parliamentary Secretary was worse than the first. He said that all the hon. Members who spoke in the Second Reading debate, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham, seemed to think that, on the whole, the Bill was all right. I did not gather that impression. I would call attention to the fact that at least 618 hon. Members did not take part at all in the Second Reading debate, and as no vote was taken, there was no means of assessing what their views were. In any event, the Committee stage of a Bill is precisely for the purpose of detailed discussion of the matters we are now discussing which, although they are certainly in order now, would probably have been wholly inappropriate on Second Reading.

We now come to the main point of the matter, and the position is that at the moment there is a limit of £6 million on advances to be made by the Board of Trade to the Corporation and by the Corporation to the producing companies. That figure continues in the Bill. According to the last balance sheet, which is up to 31st March, 1953, £5½ million of that amount was out and. therefore, the Board of Trade is prohibited by the terms of the Act from advancing more than about £500,000.

Mr. Lever

Some of the money revolves.

Mr. Hale

I know that it revolves. I know that some money is coming in and some is going out. That is exactly what I am arguing.

Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton)

It might help the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), and his understanding of the complicated finances of the Corporation, if I reminded him that the Act passed by the House more than a year ago gave the Corporation special borrowing powers to raise £2 million other than by borrowing from the Treasury. There is Treasury guarantee for that, but to that extent it is possible for the Corporation to lend up to £8 million at any one time, allowing for revolving credits.

Mr. Hale

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I was coming to that. The first part of my argument was based on the figures of the Corporation, and on those figures the borrowing from the Board of Trade was limited to £6 million, and that is continued by the Bill. We shall now have a second Act. So far as I know, details of the operation of the first Act have never been made available to the House. I have tried to discover whether any operations have taken place. I do not know whether any operations have yet started or what has been done. In that respect we are discussing the Bill in a vacuum of knowledge.

Surely, in these circumstances, we are entitled to know what is the rough estimate of the turnover which is likely in the next 12 months. Will any money be left at the end of 12 months? Is there any point in having an extension for three years if insufficient money will be coming in? In order to consider that, we come to the vital point raised by my hon. Friend. We had hints on Second Reading—indeed they were more than hints—that there is a good deal more to be written off. We were told, as I understand it, that the main £3 million debt of British Lion is one of doubtful value. I listened very attentively to the Second Reading speeches, and I certainly understood that that was virtually what was being said. If so, what are the operations to be? What is to be their nature? How long will they take?

Mr. Lever

What is the extension for?

Mr. Hale

Yes, what is the extension for? The operations of the National Film Finance Corporation were to come to an end in March, 1954. As my hon. Friend said, it was always represented as a temporary Measure. It must be fair to say—my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) will probably agree—that it was presented clearly as a temporary Measure. It was presented as a life-saving operation for an important industry. It was said, "We are going to lose some money on this, but it is worth doing so at least once. We cannot have the industry closing down."

What is the policy of the Government? Are the Government going to say, "If you give us three years now, we shall never come back for any more"? Are the Government saying to the House. "In our view three years will be enough. At that time we shall not come and ask you for any more money or time"? I was going to speak about the industry having had a "shot in the arm," but a five- or six-year shot in the arm is rather a heavy dose of drugs to apply to anybody. Is that what the Government are saying? The Parliamentary Secretary has no information to give. Do the Government think that there will be some money left at the end of three years? Again, the Parliamentary Secretary has no information to give.

Mr. H. Strauss

The hon. Gentleman is generally very fair to me, I admit, but he has omitted entirely the fact that I said that I did not propose to repeat what was said by the Minister on Second Reading. The case and the policy were deployed by my right hon. Friend, and he also gave the reasons why what had been said originally by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) about the sufficiency of five years had been proved inaccurate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I said what I did not through any lack of courtesy but merely because it is the healthy custom of the House not to repeat on a limited Amendment something which was germane to and was dealt with on Second Reading.

Mr. Hale

I listened carefully to the debate on Second Reading, but it was not made clear to me, and my hon. Friend indicated that it had not been made clear to him. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is now trying to be courteous—and we all appreciate that—might intervene and say what the policy is. Is it a temporary policy or is it a permanent policy? Do the Government expect to renew it? Do they think there will be enough repayments coming in? Does the hon. Gentleman think that the £3 million to British Lion and the £2½ million to other people will bring substantial recoupment, or do they hope that financing these operations with money coming in and money going out will enable this Corporation to last for some years to come?

Mr. Strauss

My right hon. Friend explained quite clearly, in his speech in introducing this Measure, that it extended the lending powers for three years, and he gave reasons for it. He also pointed out that it did not extend at all the figure which they were empowered to borrow, and the hon. Gentleman can make his own deductions from that. We believe that it is right to commend the extension of these powers for three years, and that it is also right not to ask to extend the figure laid down in the existing Statutes.

Mr. Hale

I frequently find myself in some obscurity when the hon. Gentleman tells me to perform the duties of a ferret, but here I have also been asked to adopt the mantle of Sherlock Holmes.

It is clear that the Bill seeks to extend these powers for three years, and I will try to put my comments in the terminology in which Holmes himself would have put them. He would not have said. "This is elementary, my dear Watson." He would have said, "There are a large number of deductions to be drawn here, ex hypothesi, and no particular one giving a greater reason for it than another." He would have said, "We have been told that, if we listen with care, we shall come to the conclusion that all things are possible," but he would also have said that inadequate care had been taken to check up the finances of the Corporation, that inadequate time had been spent on finding the realisable value of the Corporation, and that the Government had therefore brought in a Measure which will continue things for the time being while they hope that something else will turn up, which is language more appropriate to Micawber than either Watson or Holmes.

The second thing he would have said is that the Government are afraid to come to the Committee tonight and ask for this permanent authority, and that they have shoved in three years as being the most which the Committee would stand for, and hope for the best, perhaps also hoping that the climate of political opinion may have altered before they have to come again.

The third hypothesis, which appears on the whole to be the most probable of the three hypotheses, is that the Government do not know, that nobody has thought about it, and that the Parliamentary draftsmen who drafted the Bill bunged in a provisional figure. I deduce that from the strange conduct of the Parliamentary Secretary in the early evening, unlike the strange conduct of the dog in the night time. It will be remembered that the strange conduct of the dog in the night time was that it did not bark, and the strange conduct of the watch-dog of the Board of Trade is that, whatever he says or however he says it, he conveys very little information.

These are some of the points which come up for consideration now, and that is why I feel that we are a little unnecessarily prolonging the debate if we are always talking without information, without an assurance and without understanding clearly what the policy of the Government is upon this matter.

Mr. H. Lever

I feel that the debate could come to an end if we could get the answer to which we are entitled. Could the Parliamentary Secretary, since he merely refers in vague terms to the Second Reading debate, tell us in which particular column we might find these indications of the Government's intentions?

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

8.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Lever

I am not going to invite a kind of blank-wall reply by giving the impression that the time of the Committee will be saved, because we insist on having a reply, and this necessity has been forced upon us by the Government, because no one need imagine that my objections to this Bill are purely obstructive.

I am unable as a Member of the Committee, to vote for the continuation of the Finance Corporation until the Government tell me how much it is likely to cost. I think it is the grossest effrontery on the part of the Government to come to the House and ask for the continuation of this Finance Corporation for three more years when they do not tell us whether it will cost 6d. or £6 million. I think this is the greatest outrage that I have heard since I have been in the House. I am not going to mince my words, because I have asked these questions patiently on Second Reading and again in moving my Amendment, and I have been unable to get a reply.

The Minister knows perfectly well that this is the grossest insolence shown to the House in the eight years since the war. He asks the Committee to vote for the Finance Corporation to continue for three more years, and, though three times pressed to do so, he refuses to tell the Committee or give any kind of estimate how much it will cost. He wants a blank cheque; well, he will not get one from me without protest in the most bitter terms.

The Minister and the Government only show this insolence because the two Front Benches are in some sort of general agreement. I am not blaming my right hon. Friends in the matter, but the Government feel that there is no opposition. Every time I ask questions, the Minister says," Everybody is in favour of it except you." I think that is gross insolence, and I want him to understand that the right of a Member of Parliament to speak his mind where public money is concerned is not in the gift of any political party or Front Bench. I think it is a monstrous outrage that he refuses to answer these questions, and the only deduction I can make of the reason for his refusal to answer is that he thinks he will get the Clause in any case.

Will he tell the Committee what he estimates this will cost? Will he say what it cost over the last five years? He knows perfectly well that on Second Reading, when I asked him whether he would tell the House the actual cost of the Corporation in the last five years before asking the House to extend it for another three years, he referred me to the out-of-date balance sheet shown in the Corporation's report. I ask for the real cost over the last five years, but the Minister sits there and tells me, who, however insignificant and however contumacious, am a Member of this House, "Well, you are the only Member of the House who objects to the Bill any way, and I do not want to give you an answer."

The Deputy-Chairman

I do not want to interfere with the hon. Member expressing his views at all, but I am concerned about his repeating the same arguments.

Mr. Lever

It must be understandable to anybody who understands elementary logic that it is difficult to keep one's indignation within bounds. I think that, if the Minister does not give me these figures in this House, he should be facing impeachment in Westminster Hall. I want to protest in the most forcible terms, not because I think the Minister has been discourteous to me personally, because he is not a discourteous or unapproachable man, but because I think he and the Government are showing complete contempt for the House in asking us to rubber-stamp this Measure—because that is what it is—while refusing to tell the Committee what is the cost and what is the policy.

It is to me most astonishing that any hon. Member of this Committee can conscientiously vote upon this question as to whether or not we should keep the Corporation in being for another three years without knowing what the powers of the Corporation are. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading and I asked him on my Amendment a moment ago, and I still have not had an answer. What are the powers that he is asking should be kept in being for three years?

If the Corporation had evil powers, for example, we might not want to keep it in being for three years or even for three minutes. It is surely relevant, when the Committee is deciding whether to make an extension of the principal Act for another three years, to ask what the powers are that the Committee is asked to extend for another three years. Are they powers to lend money knowing we are going to lose it?

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member is really repeating his argument indefinitely, and I must warn him at this stage that if he continues to do so I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Lever

It is the first time I have made this argument on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I made it on my Amendment but I got no satisfactory answer. The fact that I made it then does not debar me from making it now on this Question. This is the first time I have done it on this Question, as will be seen from the OFFICIAL REPORT.

We are entitled to know what the policy of the Corporation is before we extend these provisions for another three years. I asked these questions on Second Reading. The Parliamentary Secretary said a moment ago that if I had asked these things at the appropriate time he would have given me an answer. It is not true. I did ask these things on Second Reading. I sent the Parliamentary Secretary a written list of the questions in advance so that he would not be able to claim that I had sprung them on him by surprise. Besides, I did not want to be discourteous to him in the matter.

I want to know the answers to these questions, and I do not think we can be asked to extend the original Act and the powers of the Corporation for three years until we know what the policy is. Surely it is elementary that before we extend these provisions for another three years we should know whether this business is to be run in the future as it has been in the past? Or perhaps we are being asked to make the extension for another three years in the belief that it is to be wound up at the end. That is one thing. We could extend it, perhaps, for another three years if we knew that at the end that was to be the case.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member is now discussing the point of his Amendment that has been disposed of. We are now on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lever

I beg pardon if I have strayed from the rules of order, but we are entitled to know exactly what it is for which the Government ask, which is what we shall vote upon in a moment. We have not had a sufficient explanation of the reasons for the three years' extension of the principal Act, and we are entitled to that. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary, but nobody told us, on Second Reading. Nobody has told me on my Amendment, and I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary again on this Question. I give him a chance to redeem himself and tell the Committe why it is that he asks for a three years' extension of the powers under the principal Act. Is it not elementary that he must tell us?

It will not do to say that I have not read the Ministerial speeches on Second Reading properly, or that if I had, and if I had considered the matter carefully, and realised the unanimity on all sides, I should know why quite well. I do not know why. I want to know why. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary before, and I ask him again for a third time— why does he want these three years? Is this the time to formulate policy? Is it the intention at the end of the three years to wind the thing up? We want to know what the intention is. What is the purpose and what is the intention of this extension? Those are questions to which, surely, the Committee must have an answer before it can be asked to vote on this matter with a full knowledge of the facts.

Mr. T. O'Brien (Nottingham, North-West)

Constituency obligations prevented my attendance at the marathon of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) on the occasion of the Second Reading. I spoke on Second Reading following my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who himself has had very wide experience of the film industry. I commended the review made of the position of the British film industry by the President of the Board of Trade. I was at a loss to understand when I got to Nottingham and read the evening papers the unexpected development in the action of my hon. Friend.

I do feel that my hon. Friend, whom I have certainly heard tonight, has strayed very much from the real issue involved. He is entitled to his opinion and to the right of a Member of this Committee to express his view in this Committee. That has been the subject at all times of revolutions and rebellions and what not in the course of our illustrious history. I do not think there is anything in the Bill that could be remotely interpreted as denying a Member the right to express his opinion on any matter, let alone the matter of this Bill.

Mr. H. Lever

I was not complaining that I had not had the fullest right to express my opinion. Indeed, the House was extremely indulgent to me. I was complaining that we had not had the benefit of the information, without which the Committee cannot possibly make up its mind on this matter.

The Deputy-Chairman

This has nothing to do with Clause standing part.

Mr. O'Brien

I am trying to address myself to that. With certain reservations, not very important reservations, reservations that were dealt with on Second Reading and which will probably be dealt with on the next Clause and probably on Third Reading, the film industry, and I mean all sides of the film industry, are very satisfied that the Government have decided to extend the powers of the Corporation. Here I share my right hon. Friend's view that, irrespective of the fact that it is a Conservative Government, we are very pleased in the British film industry that the Government are prolonging the life of the Corporation by three years.

Mr. H. Lever

A gift from Santa Claus.

Mr. O'Brien

It is not a question of Santa Claus. If £6 million in six years is a gift from Santa Claus, I think we ought to disbelieve there is a Santa Claus. I mentioned on Second Reading that the Treasury took nearly £40 million in Entertainments Duty every year. If the Government's return by way of loans to the British film industry of £6 million out of the revenue of £40 million which they get from the industry each year is a gift from Santa Claus, all I can say is that my idea of Santa Claus is very different from my hon. Friend's.

Let us get down to this Clause. I, on behalf of every single worker of all kinds in this industry, support the Clause. That goes for members of organisations I do not directly represent on the trade union side, but as the representative of the largest trade union, not only on the production side but on the distribution and exhibition sides, I say that we whole heartedly support this Clause as a necessity to continue the life of the Corporation. We know why the Corporation is in existence; that has been adequately explained in the House and in Committee on more than one occasion. But to exaggerate the situation in the way in which my hon. Friend has exaggerated it, is rendering a disservice to the industry without fulfilling any national service.

8.30 p.m.

I shall have something to say very briefly on the next Clause when I intend to try to address questions to the Minister in charge of the Bill. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Member Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) will do the same. The one short point which should be digested by the Committee is that unless this Corporation continues for another three years there will be a serious risk of British film pro- duction coming to an end. Although it has been reported by the President of the Board of Trade that the Eady fund scheme has been approved by the trade associations, we are not yet out of the wood in that respect. Difficulties will probably arise in the spring, and they may be of such a character as to endanger the continuation of the Eady Levy unless legislation is introduced—and that would probably exacerbate the situation.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. O'Brien

I hope the hon. Members now leaving the Chamber will not go too far away. I was saying that, with the difficulties which might well lie before the industry next spring in connection with the Eady Levy agreement, which has so far been arranged with the President of the Board of Trade and which will require implementation, if the Corporation goes out of existence at this period it will be a very serious matter indeed for the industry. The British cinema-going public would not like anything to happen at present which would place in jeopardy the continued existence of the British film industry. We produce very good films and, like other countries, we produce bad ones; but we have to take the good with the bad and to maintain our high skill and our prestige.

I am not here to argue that the Corporation should continue merely on the ground that it gives employment to technicians, artisans, craftsmen, artists and actors. That would be rather a negative submission. It is true that the Corporation has maintained a high standard of employment among all our skilled grades, our artistic grades and our writers, but what matters even more is the fact that Britain's position in the world today, challenged as it is even by our friends as well as by our enemies, requires a virile, vigorous, efficient British film industry so that we can portray to the world something of our own way of life and something of the skill of our technicians and actors.

I am sorry that on Second Reading the House took such an irresponsible view of its duties in this matter, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not have regard to many of the arguments which were advanced during the debate by other speakers.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member must not stray too far into the Second Reading debate but must confine himself to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Brien

Your rebuke, Mr. Hopkin Morris, has been shared by many others in recent months on the subject of straying too far from the agenda. I will endeavour to keep myself to the Question. Let me say, before we conclude this discussion on Clause 1, that we are satisfied that this Corporation must exist, but we are not satisfied that it must be given a blank cheque.

In my Second Reading speech, I mentioned that I had certain misgivings with regard to the facilities outlined in Clause 2 of the Bill. Nevertheless, I am not going to take that point to such an extent as to challenge the continuation of the Corporation or to suggest that there is anything fundamentally wrong in regard to the work done up to now by the Film Finance Corporation. After all, the Bill does not extend the financial liabilities of the Crown. The Bill merely is restricted to continuing the Corporation at its previous scope of £6 million, with £2 million which it can raise from other than Government sources.

In passing, may I say with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham—and it is a coincidence that one hon. Friend seems to have the same alphabetical terminology of his constituency as another hon. Member—that I deplore the remarks made by the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) in his very blunt, and, I think, unfair reference to Sir Alexander Korda, because some of us are aware of the strain and difficulties through which he has passed.

The Deputy-Chairman

This has nothing to do with the Clause.

Mr. O'Brien

I think it has. I do not wish to engage myself in conflict with you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but I believe that the continuation of the Corporation has reference to its past history, because my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham has been arguing that he has not got any information from the Government. I feel that unless such information as he required is forthcoming, it was not fair that the hon. Member for Cheadle should have engaged himself in the vituperation which he did no Second Reading.

I commend Clause 1 to the House. I feel that this matter has been adequately ventilated, and I tell the Committee, as I will tell the House on the Third Reading, that this Corporation should be allowed, with the proper supervision that it should have and is getting, to continue its work for the next three years to promote the interests of the British film industry.

Mr. H. Wilson

I would not have intervened at this stage of the Committee proceedings had it not been for the substantial number of questions which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) had put to the Government and the very sketchy answers that we have had from the Government Front Bench to most of those questions.

I say right away that I acquit the Parliamentary Secretary, as others have done, of any discourtesy in this matter. I am quite sure that the only reason that he has not answered the questions is not in any sense discourtesy—he would be the last man guilty of that—but simply that he does not know the answers. It is not for anyone on this side of the Committee to attempt to replace the duty of the Government and to give such answers as can be given from our perhaps limited knowledge to my hon. Friend, but I think that there is one question he put to which he is certainly entitled to an answer, and which the hon. Gentleman has not so far seen fit to give him.

That was my hon. Friend's question about the Government's ultimate intentions concerning the future of the National Film Finance Corporation. Personally, I disagree with my hon. Friend in his view that this should be extended for only one year. It is only right that I should remind him that there has been no sudden change of front as compared with the time when I introduced the original Bill in the House, and that I said myself from the Box opposite that I had been convinced that it would be necessary for the National Film Finance Corporation to be retained in some form or another as a permanent part of the industry's structure.

Mr. H. Lever

In the right form.

Mr. Wilson

Certainly. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman ought really to tell the Committee tonight whether he agrees with that view which I formed after long and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien) quite fairly said, close study of the problems of the industry. That was my view. It would help the Committee in its attitude to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," if the hon. and learned Gentleman were to say whether he thinks that the Corporation should in some form or other be made permanent.

We on this side have been in some difficulty in that we have not had a very full reply to some of the questions that have been raised. I do not think anyone could have done more than the President of the Board of Trade in his opening speech, considering the time he thought right to give to it. I do not quarrel with that; I think it was the right length. He gave us full information about his reasons for commending the Bill to the House and he gave a lot of detailed information about the finances of the Corporation. There were, however, a number of important questions that some of my hon. Friends and I felt it right to put, and these questions have been answered very sketchily, if at all.

I do not want to have to remind the Parliamentary Secretary of the questions which I put about the problem of circuit showings or to go into that matter in detail, because it would be wide of the Clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made it clear that he did not pursue with anything like sufficient speed his researches into the answer to that very relevant problem. My hon. Friend has put a number of other questions, and I can only judge from the failure of the Government to answer our very relevant questions on the Clause that the Minister has not pursued them sufficiently actively.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham that there has certainly been no collusion between the two Front Benches on the Bill. Any suggestion that there is an under-cover or under-the-counter coalition, or a coalition over the Table or anything like that, in respect of the Bill, would be wrong.

Mr. H. Lever

I never suggested that.

Mr. Wilson

I am sure my hon. Friend did not suggest it. It was in case there had been any misunderstanding from what he said that I wanted to reassure him that there has been no collusion about the Bill. My reason for supporting it on Second Reading—I gave my reasons very fully—was not because there had been any collusion, but because the Bill carries on a job of work which I started and which, before I left the Department, I felt was assential to the future of the industry.

I apologise for trying to answer my hon. Friend's questions, but an attempted answer from me is better than none, and we do not look like getting a reply from the Government.

Mr. Lever

Obviously, they are not qualified to reply.

Mr. Wilson

My hon. Friend asked what had been the cost of the Bill. If my tentative answers are not accepted by the Government, I hope they will correct me and give the right answers. My view is that the cost of operation of the Corporation over the last five years—and the Clause seeks to extend it for a further three years—must be measured in heavy negative terms. The cost has been minus several million pounds. In other words, the gain has been several millions to the national Exchequer.

The fact that we were able to keep film production going as a result of the loans has meant millions flowing into the Treasury in Entertainments Duty that would never otherwise have come into the Treasury. To that extent, the million or two that has been already written off is very small compared with the gains to the Treasury that have resulted from the original Act. Second, in terms of dollars and of bargaining power with the American film industry, I believe that the effects of the Act have been immeasurable. They have been worth many millions of dollars to us. That must be the view of the Government or they would not have come along with this plan to continue the Corporation.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we ought to have been told a bit more about the Government's present film policy so that the three years' continuance of the Corporation will be effective. The party opposite have inherited from us a number of improvements in the film industry which have changed the background of film financing compared with the time when the original Bill was introduced. In particular, the levy on cinema seats for the purpose of the Film Production Fund has made a big difference to the finances of the industry. We would like to know more about the Government's intentions about future film policy. So far, we have not been told.

I warn the Government that, although I support the Bill, it will not of itself solve the problems of the industry or do anything on a major scale towards doing so. I believe that the Bill is a necessary condition of solving the industry's problems, but it will not of itself solve them.

We shall in a few months debate other aspects of the financing of the film industry which it would be quite out of order for me to mention at this stage, but I wanted to make clear that the Parliamentary Secretary has not given any answer to the relevant questions put to him, and since he is not going to give the answers—probably because he does not know them—I thought it only right to satisfy some of my hon. Friends by telling them why we should support this Bill and, in doing so, attempt to reply to some of their points.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Hale

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien), with his customary courtesy, began his speech by saying that he thought the matter had been ventilated enough, but this was an invitation which I could not accept in the way that I normally accept invitations from him from time to time. I am not a member of his union. I would be very happy if I were, but I rarely go to see a film. I have seen about two in the last 12 months, and I do not know Sir Michael Balcon, and I have little knowledge of what he does. I am not the least concerned about the different rôles in the film industry, because I have a full-time job looking after my own rôles and have no time to worry about anyone else's.

Regarding the rather fulsome compliments paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North-West, I should like to say that it is a happy situation in which he finds himself, and I do not dissent from what he said. But, speaking as one of the Members for Oldham, if a Bill were introduced giving to the cotton industry £30 or £40 million without supervision, I should feel very happy. I should be able to say that the cotton operatives took no objection to the scheme, that the cotton spinners were enthusiastic for it, and that the whole thing from that point of view was a most satisfactory arrangement.

There is only one person to whom I feel I owe something because I happen to represent him, and that is the taxpayer. I feel that this is a moment when we are entitled, on behalf of the taxpayers, before we renew this Bill, which has now been running for five years, to inquire into its working and its usefulness. It was all very well for my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) five years ago to come along and say, "Here is an industry in a grave condition. Let us put a shot in its arm and see how it works." But it is not right five years later to tell the Committee, as the Parliamentary Secretary did, that the Government do not know how the scheme is working. The Committee is entitled to know, and we ought to be told a little more about some of the measures that are going to be taken in the future to secure two things that are vital.

The two things which are vital are these. First of all, we must see that money is not unnecessarily lost. I should have thought that that at least would be acceptable to both sides of the Committee. The second thing is, if any money is lost, then let it be lost in ventures which are really worth while, which will assist the industry, provide employment, keep the cinemas open and are an addition to the general values of the country and to the entertainment industry. I do not think that in any of our recent debates on this matter we have been given any details of how the scheme works. No one has told us who looks after these finances or how it is done.

Mr. O'Brien

On a point of order. My hon. Friend should read the recent Report of the National Film Finance Corporation and the previous Reports, because they give as much information as any other documents available which deal with Government expenditure.

Mr. Hale

It is always a matter of deep reluctance to me when I am compelled, because of an intervention, to call attention to the shortcomings of one of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North-West pointed out in the Second Reading debate that he had to leave rather early, but obviously he did not come into this debate until rather late or else he would have heard me speaking at length on these Reports.

The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was so quick in answering the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien) that I was unable to reply to the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I would point out to him now that Clause 1 deals only with the extension of time.

Mr. Hale

But it is the operative Clause of the Bill, and if Clause 1 goes the whole Bill goes. It does not merely extend the time. It extends the use of £6 million of public money for three years. What is more, it provides that, if necessary, the whole lot can be lost. Surely, therefore, I am well within the terms of relevance in saying that before we pass Clause 1 we should make several inquiries to ensure that it is not lost recklessly or without a precaution or safeguard. Quite clearly, Sir Charles, I want to limit myself to this Clause.

How are these things financed? My hon. Friend said, "Read the Report." The Report tells us nothing. Where can he find that 100 per cent. or 60 per cent. is lent on a film? I will give way to my hon. Friend if he will tell me, because I want that question answered. From my limited experience of the film industry in years gone by I remember the methods that operated before the last war. A separate limited company was formed for each film, and I suspect and believe that the same thing is done now. That is a practice which is obviously open to objection. It starts the whole process of "Heads I win, tails you lose" or at least, "Heads I win, tails I do not lose." If the film pays, a bonus is declared and the company starts up again. The moment there is a loss, the company goes to the people who finance it, whether it is the Film Finance Corporation or others.

The method before the war was rather more elaborate. A number of people got together who had nothing in common except that none of them had any money. They were men of ideas, men of ambition, men of fertile and active minds. Perhaps one of them had written a scenario or one had written a book and another had turned it into a scenario. Then there was a continuity girl who was working part-time as a typist but who was quite willing to become a continuity girl also. Then there was a producer who in those days could be hired on a Kathleen Mavourneen system of payment—it may be for years, or it may be for ever. All these gathered together and formed a little company, and then they went into the city.

The Chairman

That does not arise on Clause 1.

Mr. Hale

I assure you, Sir Charles, everybody knows how this was done.

Mr. William Keenan (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

My hon. Friend would make a good script writer himself.

Mr. Hale

That, as I understand it, is how it continued to be done until this money was found. Now, of course, they do not have to worry about money. In a speech on another matter this afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) was talking about the people in the city as though they were rooks. They are not rooks but gulls. The film people used to borrow money from the bankers, but they dried up. Then they went to the insurance companies and the insurance companies were nearly broke. Then they went to the people in the city. There was nearly always a syndicate in the city who would like to lend on a film.

How is it done now? As I understand the method, a little limited company is formed for each film just the same. That leads to one or two considerations because, as I understand it, there is no need to have any money now. The Film Finance Corporation have been lending up to 100 per cent., I believe, though I am open to correction.

Mr. H. Lever

The Government do not know, and they would not tell if they did.

Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)

It is not true.

Mr. Hale

This is the situation, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne who used to be Financial Secretary to the Treasury, says it is not true, but he has had no intimate experience of that for two years—

Mr. H. Wilson

Does not my hon. Friend mean the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall)?

Mr. Hale

Yes—I will not embark on arguing whether I have made an improvement or not, but certainly it would have been a change. However, we get no answer from the other side of the Committee. Now, Sir Charles, the next thing which is dealt with to some extent in the Report is whether the money is spent with wisdom. We find in the Report a stream of statistics showing the amount of showing time per—

The Chairman

I hope that the hon. Member will confine himself to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." He is going quite beyond what we are now discussing.

Mr. Hale

I am always most reluctant to argue with the Chair, and particularly with you, Sir Charles, but I ask you to consider this seriously. Here is a short Bill of two Clauses which provides that £5½ million now owing to the Board of Trade shall be made available for another three years to be invested in the film industry on terms that are not in the Bill. Surely on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we are entitled to ask what safeguards there are. I submit with respect that the point to which I am addressing myself is relevant. It is—if £100,000 are loaned for a film, and it is very often much more than that, what are the terms of the agreement? Do those concerned enter into a contract, as builders or contractors do, to produce a film in a number of days and lose money if they fail to keep the contract?

Mr. O'Brien

Not in a number of days, but they enter into a contract with the Corporation. One cannot make a film in a manner similar to building a house.

Mr. H. Lever

Is it in order for the Committee discussion to continue with the Government refusing all information to the Committee and hon. Members having to rely upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien)? Surely the Government ought to be giving the House this information.

Mr. Hale

I am grateful for any assistance, but I shall try to remember where I was when I was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever). This is a very serious point. The Minister is saying, "Give us power to say to the National Film Finance Corporation, 'You can lend money for this, that or the other film.' "But before we pass this Clause I ask on what terms the money is to be advanced, what security is given, what undertakings are asked for and what provisions are made against the reckless spending of the money. I am the last person to try to retail gossip on affairs of this kind, but it is common knowledge among hon. Members that allegations are made in the Press of money being wasted, probably quite unjustly. But at least the Minister can tell us what safeguards he proposes. His answer should clear up that matter and relieve us of anxiety.

I only went once to see a film in production. I went to see at Elstree the production of the opera "La Bohème,"and with that tremendous facility for altering the names of well-known pieces, this was re-christened by the film industry as "Mimi." The National Film Finance Corporation's Report claims at least that there has been a modest advance in film production time per day during the operations of the Corporation, and to that extent its safeguards may be beneficial. But even now it does not claim that on every day two minutes of film time are produced in a day.

When I was at Elstree they were on the set for hours while a little scene in which the gondolier appeared on the river was filmed. The only words to be spoken were the words by the gondolier, "Now we can go and buy the brooch." The doors were shut, filming commenced and everybody was told to keep absolutely quiet, an experience which I found rather trying, though relieved for me by the sight of a bevy of beauties standing on the Rialto Bridge. We were exhorted to remain still while the gondolier's boat was moved, but when the moment came, there was deathly silence on the set. The gondolier had forgotten his words. Things were said then that I had not heard since the day I left the Army. The gondolier had to be moved from one part of the river scene to the other, and the cameras had to be moved round in this and that direction and the whole thing had to be taken again. Is there any improvement on that? Is this sort of thing needed? Is there anything by which we can ensure that the money is spent with care?

9.0 p.m.

Finally, I want to deal with a matter which is quite important. Those of us who have any knowledge of the structure of limited companies know the infinite possibilities for adjustment which are there. If we lend £100,000 on a British film and get a report from the Film Finance Corporation saying, "We are very sorry, we have lost this money," we investigate the whole thing and come to the conclusion that the whole of the £100,000 is irrecoverable and in the end—assuming that a later Amendment is accepted—write it off, what happens after that? The contents of these cameras can be sold six months afterwards for export to France, Germany and Colonial Territories, very often for large sums. Is there any supervision to find out whether any attempt has been made to recoup the loss and whether films have not been sold after the loss has been reported?

That is Item No. 1, and Item No. 2 arises out of the remarks of my right hon. Friend. No one is attacking this provision. I have no objection whatever to the theory of lending public money to keep a great industry going. I often wish we had done it before. It is part of the elements of Socialism that we should consider that where necessary. I am rather surprised that these apostles of private enterprise are coming to suggest it, but that is another matter. Apparently private enterprise is only considered reputable when it is paying big dividends. My right hon Friend said that we got taxes in another way and what we gain on the swings is lost on the roundabouts, or vice versa. That is true and can be said of the motor industry and so on, but it does not absolve us from the duty of seeing whether the money is wisely spent.

This is the situation I envisage, and which does happen. A company is formed with a capital of £100. It pro- duces a film at the cost of a quarter of a million pounds. It borrows a very large sum of money from the Film Finance Corporation and, when its operations are finally completed, reports a loss of £100,000. That loss is borne by the Film Fnance Corporation. That, one would think, is the end of the transaction. But we live in an able and ingenious world, and it has occurred to people in the City long since that a company which has lost £100,000 has a taxation value of £45,000. I only find these things out when I emerge into the criminal law for a time. There is a £45,000 value in a £100,000 loss. Any huge company can buy up that small company and set that loss against their operating costs and save 9s. in the £ on the lot.

What is done about that? I am not for a moment making any imputation whatever on the film industry as such. I am not for a moment suggesting that I have the slightest reason to think they are either more, or less, honest than any other industry. I do not suggest it for a moment, but I do not know these things happen. We have the authority of a very distinguished Lord Chief Justice that anyone who can save paying taxes is perhaps not performing a public duty, but that it is not a matter which should attract public reprobation.

It seems to me that when all these matters are taken into account, it is really deplorable for the Parliamentary Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman to maintain their attitude of saying "Look at the Second Reading debate. We said something about this. If you read something into it and do a certain amount of deduction, put two and two together, they make five and you come to the conclusion that the answer is six." That is really not the way to treat a Committee of this House. I suggest that we should press these questions, find the answers and what safeguards are being applied and how they are applied and what success they are making.

Mr. Keenan

I intervene because it seemed to be implied in some of the speeches I have heard that there are only two or three hon. Members really interested in this matter. I rise to support the demand—I think there is every justification for the request made—for more information because it is pretty obvious to anyone listening to what was said in the debate on the Amendment and on the Question which we are now discussing that information is required and that there is every justification for the mounting criticism of my hon. Friend.

Had it not been for that criticism there would probably not have been given to the matter, even on this Motion, the attention which it has attracted; it would have gone through without any, or with little, notice being taken of it. I rise to support that criticism because it is justifiable, and to add my voice to the demand for the information which obviously should be available.

The criticism has been made that there should be some details about what is done with the money and some justification of the extension of the period. I remember that approximately five years ago it was felt that the film industry required support, but I take exception to what I have heard several times in the course of the justification of the claim for the grant—which is apparently what it is and not a loan—that the industry pays £40 million taxation a year and gets a rebate which it is suggested should be £5 million.

That is peculiar reasoning. I oppose extraordinary taxation on several things. If the pools paid in taxation a third of what they got and if they were to demand free postage, it would be on a par with this proposal. Candidly, I do not think that this proposal is justifiable. There may be a case for assisting any industry, even this industry, though I am not satisfied and never have been satisfied in this case, because it seems to be overlooked that a profit is made out of the industry, that it is not run just for entertainment's sake. Profits are at the end of it, and when we are considering the question of a loan to the industry, with the extension suggested, it seems to me that there are avenues that require closing so that what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) suggested might take place, and probably has, should not occur. For these reasons, I wish to add my voice to the voices of my hon. Friends, because there is a volume of opinion which, if Members were here, they would be prepared to ventilate—and it is the same opinion as that which I am expressing.

Mr. H. Strauss

The hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) thought that if he repeated often enough that a great many relevant questions had been asked and not answered someone was, sooner or later, through the fact of his repeating it, likely to believe him. The fact is that if I did not answer on his previous Amendment a lot of questions that had been asked on Second Reading, it was either because they were irrelevant to that Amendment or because they had already been answered. One of the questions was what were the powers of the Corporation. The hon. Member was told that last time.

Mr. H. Lever rose—

Mr. Strauss

I am not going to give way at the moment.

Mr. Lever

I gave way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Strauss

Another question was, he said, if I remember correctly, about the cost. He brushed aside the obvious answer. He said, "I do not mean anything revealed in the annual report," as though that was perfectly valueless. But it is not perfectly valueless.

The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), in what I thought was meant to be an outburst of generosity, said that no doubt I did not know the answers to any of the questions. I think that that is perhaps not quite worthy of him.

The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) made some points which revealed a genuine interest in this matter. Let me say at once that the reply to him is contained in what he said himself—and quite rightly—that he hoped the money advanced by the Corporation was advanced on sensible terms and in an economic manner in order to do good to the industry. That, of course, is the idea. But having created the Corporation for that precise purpose, and having had experience of the work it is doing, we leave it to the Corporation to decide in individual cases the terms on which money is advanced rather than interfere ourselves.

As regards any money which may possibly be lost, that matter arises more on the next Clause than on this one, but I agree at once that the case for extending the powers of the Corporation is based on the idea that the Corporation is doing a good and sensible job. The hon. Member for Cheetham suggested that I had denied some information about the cost of this Measure—

Mr. Lever

Yes.

Mr. Strauss

The question of cost arises on the next Clause. If the hon. Member will read paragraph 5 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, he will know why I have not given an estimate. That arises on the next Clause and not on this one. If, in fairness to my right hon. Friend and myself, the Committee will bear in mind that we have stated the powers of the Corporation and the purpose for which we propose to prolong them, the only question, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton said, which is left unanswered is why we have not declared whether we want them to go on for ever. We commended to the House on the last occasion, and to the Committee on this occasion, the terms of this Measure. The Corporation is doing a good job by providing capital which is at present needed by the industry and which will continue to be needed for the period mentioned.

Mr. Hale

Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer and his argument about Clauses 1 and 2 is a little unreal. If I may use a metaphor from the matter we are discussing, if my wife and I wish to go to the pictures, we do not say that we will go along and that when we get there we will count our money and find out what is the price of the tickets, and then see whether we can afford it or not. We first go through our pockets—or at least my wife goes through my pockets—to find out whether there are enough resources in the family to enable us to go at all. That is what we are asking now. Can we afford it? Surely that is a relevant question, and something which we should decide before we are asked to vote for this three-year extension.

Mr. H. Lever

The Parliamentary Secretary is going too far. Not only does he fail to reply to a single one of my questions, but he has the cool effrontery to tell the Committee that I thought that if I went on repeating often enough that I had not got an answer, someone would believe me. I cannot see how the Committee can fail to believe me, because the Minister has not answered one of the questions which I have put. They are all relevant and fundamental questions.

I want to know how much the Corporation has cost in the last five years—the actual cost in the estimates of the Board of Trade, not the book figures which are well out of date, and which in any case are not accurate except as book figures, as the Minister well knows. Has he answered that question? What is the actual cost to the State of the Film Finance Corporation over the last five years? Let him answer that question before he has the hardihood to ask us to vote to extend it for another three years.

I repeat for the fifth time—and this is a fundamental question—how can the Committee, in good conscience, vote for a three-year extension of the powers of the Film Finance Corporation when the Minister will not tell us what it has cost to have the privilege of such a Corporation for the past five years? It may be an expensive toy; it may be quite a cheap amusement for the Government to support.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss

I have told the hon. Member over and over again that the figures in the Annual Report of the Corporation are not, as he suggests, valueless.

Mr. Lever

Let us consider the debt of the British Lion Corporation. It stands at £2 million in the books. Is there a single person outside a lunatic asylum who would give £2 million for that debt? Is not the Bill brought into being precisely because that £2 million is practically worthless and cannot be recovered without some of the rigmarole which we shall discuss later? The last accounts of the Corporation are at least six or seven months out of date. I think they are to December, but the printed copy was dated April, if I remember rightly. The Committee is entitled to know the answer.

The second question is that we are asked to extend the life of the Corporation by three years. The least the Minister can do is to tell us what are the powers of this creature that we are to save from death next year, as it would automatically expire under the old Act. I asked him what are the powers of the Corporation. Has he answered that? Certainly not.

Mr. Beresford Craddock (Spelthorne)

Again and again.

Mr. Lever

All he said on Second Reading was, "Read the Act." That was obliging. When he asked us to extend the life of the Corporation for a further three years, I asked whether it was lawful for the Corporation to lend money expecting to lose it. There would be a big difference if the Government asked us to extend these powers for three years and they honestly believed that it was unlikely that the Corporation would lose money because they were lending it with the honest expectation of getting it back.

I asked the Minister on Second Reading, during the discussion on the Amendment, and again a few minutes ago, whether it is the policy of the Corporation to lend money expecting to get it back; or is it the deliberate policy of the Corporation to lend money knowing that it may not, and probably will not, get it back? I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is lawful to lend it otherwise than in the honest expectation of getting it back, and the Minister replies telling me to look at the Act. It is an impertinence to describe that as an answer. Do the Government regard this creature as having power to lend money for artistic and cultural reasons in the world-wide struggle for prestige—that is one thing—or is it the policy that it should lend money not expecting to get it back? Are the Government asking us to keep this creature in being for another three years in the belief that it will recover what it lends?

Further, I ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman will use the three-year extension as an umbrella to cover a policy or whether the Government are proscrastinating in the way that we have had procrastination before? Has the hon. and learned Gentleman answered that? Certainly not. Have the Government any policy other than one of hoping that the Committee will be easy-going enough for them to get the Bill without declaring a policy?

I know that I am contumacious, obdurate and suspicious about the Bill, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who is in favour of the Bill in general terms, agreed that the Minister had not told us any policy. Therefore, it was not some defect either of hearing or understanding on my part that made me think that the Minister had not answered. Will he tell the Committee why there has been thisvolte face from the sarcasms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) in 1950? The right hon. Gentleman complained that the then Minister, who really was doing something for the film industry to put it on its feet so that it could earn its own living—

Mr. H. Strauss

The hon. Gentleman has said again and again that he asked me whether the Corporation was entitled to lend money not expecting to get a penny back. Not only did I answer that question, but I drew the attention of the hon. Member to the terms of the Act. I will read the relevant words again. Some hon. Members attempt to do justice to a Minister's reply. I resent this constant repetition of an allegation when the hon. Gentleman need only read what I said last time to know the answer. These are the words of the relevant part of the Act: They can …make…loans to be employed in financing the production or distribution of cinematograph films to persons who, in the judgment of the Corporation.…

Mr. Lever

On a point of order, Sir Charles. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman unlimited right to interrupt me when he did not allow me to interrupt him?

The Chairman

I thought the hon. Gentleman gave way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Lever

I gave way for a second, but surely the hon. and learned Gentleman is not entitled to continue like this.

The Chairman

I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was answering the question put by the hon. Member.

Mr. Lever

I want to know what document the hon. and learned Gentleman is reading.

Mr. Strauss

I am reading the document to which I referred in winding up the Second Reading debate, namely, the principal Act, which we are here amending. The hon. Gentleman will find the words in section 1 (1,b). The terms are: …financing the production or distribution of cinematograph films to persons who, in the judgment of the Corporation, while having reasonable expectations of being able to arrange for the production or distribution of cinematograph films on a commercially successful basis.… How can the hon. Gentleman pretend that that enables the Corporation to lend to people without an expectation of getting the money back?

Mr. Lever

That proves that the suspicions of my right hon. Friend were always justified and that the Minister did not know until tonight. I asked him on Second Reading—

Mr. Strauss

The hon. Member will find it in Hansard.

Mr. Lever

I have a copy of Hansard here, and that is not in it. The hon. and learned Gentleman refused to answer the question which I put to him. I suggested that the answer was "Yes" or "No," but all he said was "Read the Act." He can see that that is so in Hansard.

I gather that he is now saying for the first time—I am very much relieved that the House now knows it—that the Corporation which he expects us to extend for three years has no power to lend unless it expects to get the money back within the next three years. If we vote for an extension, can we rely upon it that the Corporation will not be lending money for any purpose unless it expects, on a commercially satisfactory basis, to get the money back? I hope I am right in trusting that that is so. The House will wish to understand that the Corporation will not during the three years have the power to lend money otherwise than in the honest expectation of getting it back.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House that he is satisfied that in its five years the Corporation has obeyed the law, if that be the law? Is he satisfied there have been no occasions when the Corporation has lent money otherwise than in the honest expectation of getting it back? On the commercial basis which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward, I suggest that there is good reason for not giving so readily the three-year extension which he desires.

I intervene only to protest that I have not yet been told how much the Cor- poration has cost and how much it will cost and what is the Government's policy and the policy of the Corporation. I have not been told whether the Corporation expects to be wound up in three years' time, whether it is continuing on that basis only until the film industry somehow gets back on its feet, whether in three years' time the industry is to be thrown to the wolves, or what is to be done about the Plant Report and other Reports. I have not been told whether in three years' time the Government will try to buy more time a little more expensively. We have not been told why there has been a total volte face from the position when the Bill was first introduced, when we were told that it was a temporary Measure, to the present position in which the Government seek to renew the provisions without offering a suitable explanation to the House of Commons.

Mr. H. Wilson

I did not wish to intervene again, but I must comment on what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about my intervention. He seemed to be rather nettled and said it was unworthy of me to have accused him of not knowing anything about anything.

Mr. H. Strauss

That is so.

Mr. Wilson

Not at all. I have never suggested that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not know anything about anything. We all know his reputation for being one of the most learned Members of the House. I was complaining that he did not know very much about the Bill or the film industry.

I can justify that on two points relevant to the Clause. During the Second Reading I put a question to him on a number of occasions. He did not go to any trouble to find the answer but just read out what had been put in front of him, and that turned out to be inaccurate, and it also showed that no adequate inquiries had been made. The hon. and learned Gentleman later said that proper inquiries would be made.

The second illustration comes from his intervention a few moments ago. The Committee must be doubly suspicious of a Government coming forward for money if the Government do not appear to have considered the details of the way in which the money is to be dealt with. Certainly, I was able to satisfy the House when the principal Act be- came law, and several times thereafter I took a very close personal interest in all the safeguards necessary to supervise this expenditure.

When the Government—and we get this so often from the right hon. Gentleman and his hon and learned Friend—say in connection with any industry, "Of course, it is not for the Government to say anything about this; it is a matter for the business men in the trade, be cause they know more about it," we often disagree with them. But when the hon. Gentleman says that in relation to the Film Finance Corporation, he really is in some danger of misleading the Committee. It is not right for the hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that the Government do not intervene in these affairs because the Corporation have been doing the job all right and be cause the Government do not want to interfere, because he knows he has been very effective in quoting the principal Act against my hon. Friend—

Mr. Strauss

May I point out that his hon. Friend said that I did not give the hon. Gentleman that answer in winding up on Second Reading and that I was quoting it for the first time then. Any hon. Member in the Committee who is interested and will look at Hansard for 25th November will find that I read out the whole thing in columns 455–6. To say, as the right hon. Gentleman does, that my recent intervention shows how I have neglected my duties on former occasions simply is not right.

Mr. Wilson

If the hon. and learned Gentleman had allowed me to continue, before interrupting in order to carry on an argument with my hon. Friend, he would have seen that the argument I was going to produce was that the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention shows that he has not studied this business as fully as he ought to have done before asking for a further extension of time in the use of Government money. It is not good enough for a Minister to say that the Board of Trade leaves this question of safeguards to the Corporation, because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the principal Act, in Section 2 (3) says: The Corporation shall not, except in such classes of case as the Board of Trade may approve, make a loan to any person unless he is carrying on the business of distributing cinematograph films.… Things can change very rapidly in the film world, and I still have not had an answer to the question I put some time ago. I am not complaining about it now, because I know the Parliamentary Secretary is making inquiries. Surely, both the President and the Parliamentary Secretary should be continually reviewing these classes of case in order to see whether in other cases we should not be expanding the types of loan such as those given from 1949 to 1951, when we were extending the classes and types of case in which loans could be given. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it was not enough to say that it is a matter for the Corporation, because the Corporation can operate only under power given by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

There are certain questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) seems to have overlooked, and I want to raise the question of the expenditure of money under this Bill in relation to Scotland. I see that one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland is here, presumably to give his advice to the Minister, and there is one aspect of this matter which should be taken into consideration.

A lot of money has been spent in Scotland on the development and production of films, and there is one which may be familiar—"Rob Roy"—produced by that famous Scots producer, Walt Disney. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us any information whether any money under these subventions has gone into the production of this "Rob Roy" film?

9.30 p.m.

It has caused a great deal of criticism in Scotland, and Scots people are wanting to know whether the taxpayers of Scotland are subsidising the production of these huge films in the Highlands of Scotland and what exactly is the financial relationship involved. We can understand the argument that it is necessary to subsidise the film industry, but is there any necessity to subsidise it twice? We have every evidence in Scotland to assume that we are not only subsidising these wealthy corporations directly, but indirectly as well, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to throw some light on one particular question.

To what extent was this film of "Rob Roy" subsidised under the Act? We know not only that public money was involved in this; we know also that there is the question of the labour. Is any account taken in the subsidy of the expenditure involved, for example, in respect to the payments of the Scottish soldiers who appear in this film which is being subsidised in this way? There is a good deal of criticism in Scotland because soldiers of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders spent days employed, at very small rates of pay, by Walt Disney in the production of this particular film. There is objection not only from the soldiers, who did not go into the Army for that purpose, but also from the employees in the cinema industry who might have been used in this way. So I think that the more light we have on this question the better for everybody concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.