HC Deb 03 December 1953 vol 521 cc1440-72
Mr. H. Lever

I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end, to insert "and the approval of the Treasury."

I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary could shorten what I have to say by giving some indication that he will accept this very reasonable Amendment intended to still some of the very considerable disquiet felt about this rather novel Clause? We feel that, in addition to having the benefit of the Board of Trade in securing these debts and in making sure these arrangements are in the public interest, and made with proper regard to the safeguarding of public money, we should also have the assistance of the Treasury. Although I suggested it on Second Reading it seems to me more vital than ever that we should have this provision, after what we have heard from the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary about this Bill and the film industry. It is perfectly true, as has been said, that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but Ministers in this case seem to suppose that safety lies in possessing none at all.

Mr. Hale

Nobody has ever suggested that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It is: A little learning is a dangerous thing, Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.

Mr. Lever

I am aware of the lines, but I said what I said for the sake of the Committee. Ministers can be acquitted for having exposed themselves to the danger of having either a little knowledge or a little learning of either this Bill or the film industry. If safety lies in possessing none at all, they are surely iron clad.

I must explain this somewhat complex matter to the House. Clause 2 (1), to which my Amendment is addressed, is the Clause which gives the Finance Corporation power to make arrangements with their debtors who cannot repay the money except with damage to film production. That means that it may involve a very large debt. Consider the case of British Lion, who owe £ 3 million to the Finance Corporation, coming under this Clause to the Corporation and saying, "Will you please come to some settlement with us other than insisting upon full repayment?" The Finance Corporation is empowered by the Clause to reach some settlement with them, and that settlement can include waiving of interest and almost any other financial arrangement which it likes to make, including taking shares and debentures.

Clearly that is a complex financial matter. I tell the Committee frankly that I would sooner the Treasury were there. I should like to see a really stern Treasury official present when we come to release millions of pounds of public money to a defaulter in this way. Could we not transfer the Treasury official from the educational system to the Film Finance Corporation so that instead of damaging the educational system we could get two benefits at the same time; a better educational system and at the same time ensure that public money is not thrown down the drain to some of these defaulting film producers.

I think the principle of my argument is sound. A man may conceivably be President of the Board of Trade and yet understand very little about debentures, ordinary shares or financial mechanism. With the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Treasury watch dog it is a different matter; this is just their meat. That is specially the case because the Government recognise the facts: they may keep things secret from the House but they do not keep them secret for very long from the Treasury, because in subsection (2) they agree that the Treasury must consent to any remission of the liability of the Finance Corporation to the Board of Trade.

I hope the Minister will agree to accept the Amendment. The Bill says that after the Corporation have dealt with the defaulter it comes to the Treasury, but the right time to have Treasury assistance is when it is making these complex arrangements involving large sums of public money. When there is this disquiet, it could not be harmful to have a Treasury official present. An experienced Treasury official could watch the public interest. He is used to matters like this, whereas the President of the Board of Trade is more used to matters like exports and quotas than he is to highly complex financial arrangements.

I was surprised when I looked at the Order Paper and saw that the Minister had put down what is a very useful Amendment, which shows that he recognises the situation and shows some signs of repentance after his Second Reading defiance. On Second Reading he said all was well, but he has put down a very significant and welcome Amendment. I urge him to accept my Amendment; I do not say I could learn to love the Bill, but I might learn to hate it less, and to hate it less articulately, if the Minister would meet us on this point. It will look better and it will be better if, when the Board of Trade come to deal with defaulters, we have somebody present from the Treasury, some stern man. Take him off the education system and put him on to the Film Finance Corporation; he could do great service to the public and would do no harm to anybody.

Mr. H. Wilson

I want to support this Amendment and to make a special appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary about it. It is, I suppose, symptomatic of the frustrations of human existence that after all the monumental oratory and eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham during the passage of the Bill, it has come down to this: all he is going to get is the acceptance by the Government of a small Amendment which will add the words "and the approval of the Treasury."

In normal circumstances I must say that the idea of myself intervening to support any extension of the powers of the Treasury would be unthinkable and repugnant to me. Certainly, in so far as there may be any proposal to increase the Treasury's powers over our economic life or over the Board of Trade that would be proposed in the ordinary way, I would be very much opposed to it. I have a lot of experience of these inter-Departmental questions, as the Parliamentary Secretary has, and I should like to pay tribute to his right hon. Friend for having resisted the encroachment of the Treasury into certain aspects of the Board of Trade's normal work. I think that his stewardship at the Board of Trade, which I would criticise in many other directions, has at least been remarkable in that direction. But this is not a question of economic co-ordination or interference with the normal and historic functions, statutory and otherwise, of the Board of Trade—this is a question of the protection of the public purse.

I would not go all the way with my hon. Friend in his arguments in support of this Clause, but I feel that he made a very good point when he suggested that, in making the final arrangements for clearance and remission or otherwise dealing with the debt, it would be valuable if the Treasury could be in from the start. I know what the Parliamentary Secretary is going to say in reply, that the Treasury would automatically be consulted and that obviously the Board of Trade would not be free to make these arrangements without the help of the Treasury. I am sure that is right.

We do not in our statutes frequently write in all the Ministers that may be concerned or consulted in the usual way, but I think that a special exception is often made by inserting the phrase, "With the approval of the Treasury," and I think that would be entirely appropriate in this case. I hope that he will agree to the Amendment so eloquently moved by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I hope that the Treasury will be called in in this case. If the Treasury were called in, I am sure that they would keep a very vigilant eye on expenditure in connection with supplying cheap labour for these film companies. I am not by any means satisfied that there has been an adequate explanation of why British soldiers have to act as film stars at very low rates of pay. I am quite sure that if a Treasury official came along, he would say, "So many soldiers were employed for so many days in the production of a film," and that the Treasury would say that a really decent bill must be sent to Mr. Walt Disney. So I suggest that the Treasury should be called in, because at the present time I believe that the British taxpayer is providing for the production of films for wealthy corporations and that the nation is entitled to reasonable and just payment, which I do not think that the Treasury would entirely endorse.

Mr. H. Strauss

I will give to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) the information which it was not convenient to give after his previous speech. That is that the film in which he is particularly interested was not financed by this Corporation and has nothing to do with this Measure.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I am sure that the hon. and learned Member is not trying to mislead the House, but there is no doubt at all that a large number of soldiers was employed in the production of this film.

Mr. Strauss

I hope to have an interesting conversation with the hon. Gentleman about that at some time, but what he says has nothing to do with this Bill.

Let me say at once to the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), who moved this Amendment, and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who supported it, that as the latter indeed supposes there were certain considerations which he put forward which are, of course, present in our minds. Nevertheless, I will give reasons why I think this Amendment is wrong and that the Treasury is rightly not mentioned in the first subsection, although it is rightly mentioned in the second.

9.45 p.m.

The effect of the Amendment, if it were adopted, as the hon. Member, I know, will agree, would be that some outside body, in this case the National Film Finance Corporation, would have to seek two different approvals. I agree with the right hon. Member for Huyton that there may be cases where something of that sort is right, but in the normal way, when Parliament says in effect in the statute, "This needs the approval of the Government," we do not insist on two separate searches for approval. If what is desired to be secured is consultation within the Government, that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is not normally provided in the statute. It is a question of customary draftsmanship. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there are occasional exceptions.

What may have been overlooked by the Committee is that it will not be every case of an arrangement under subsection (1) which will involve any corresponding action under subsection (2). Where there is action under subsection (2), there, quite rightly, the Treasury approval is mentioned. If action is taken under subsection (1) which is likely to result in a corresponding action under subsection (2), it is quite obvious that the Treasury will be consulted by the Board of Trade. But on the grounds of the usual rules of draftsmanship in this matter, I suggest, both to the right hon. Member and to the hon. Member for Cheetham, that there are good reasons for not mentioning the Treasury in the first subsection but for mentioning them in the second subsection. For those reasons, I suggest that hon. Members opposite should not press the Amendment; but I could not advise the Committee to accept it.

Mr. Keenan

Why is the Minister so reluctant to give anyone else the authority? While I am not at all happy about two Departments dealing with the same thing, there is obviously a necessity for authority in subsection (2). We remember the complaint that was made in the discussions on the previous Clause and its Amendments, when we had a clear indication that the Departments evidently were not aware of what had been done previously and did not seem clear as to what was likely to be done. I think, therefore, that there is every justification for the addition of the words, "and the approval of the Treasury" to ensure that there will be supervision.

It does not necessarily follow that the Treasury must veto everything. There may on occasion be justification for the Treasury not to be consulted, but in this instance, particularly in view of what we have heard and the dissatisfaction which has been expressed, there is justification for the inclusion of the Treasury also in subsection (1).

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I was disappointed with the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary and particularly disappointed that he relied on purely technical grounds for resisting the Amendment. I should have thought that in view of the volume of criticism which has been expressed on the Bill—I am not saying that I agree with all of it, for I do not—the Parliamentary Secretary on this occasion would have wished to do everything possible to allay the suspicions which have been expressed.

It is not good enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that it is unnecessary to have the approval of the Treasury coupled with the approval of the Board of Trade. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to bear in mind that the object of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham(Mr. H. Lever) in moving the Amendment to this Clause is to carry the matter a step further and to give the public the greatest possible protection. When we were discussing Clause 1 my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham. West (Mr. Hale) indicated a number of methods whereby, unless the Board of Trade and the Government are particularly vigilant, public money may be lost.

I was disturbed on reading the Second Reading debate to find how little the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary interested themselves in the affairs of the National Film Finance Corporation. The Parliamentary Secretary in particular, when he replied to the debate, almost went out of his way to dissociate himself from the activities of the National Film Finance Corporation. He said in his winding-up speech on the Second Reading: …the Board of Trade do not know normally at all who have applied to the Corporation for loans. Nor do we intervene one way or the other to encourage the Corporation to make loans in particular cases or to discourage them from making loans in others."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November. 1952; Vol. 521, c. 452.] When I read that it seemed to me that the present Government were placing quite a different interpretation on their obligations from the interpretation which the late Government placed on their duties.

It seems to me that the present Government are departing radically from the duty which the House imposed on the Board of Trade when it passed the original Act.

It is precisely when these financial arrangements come to be made—and this is a particularly novel feature of the Bill—that the greatest possible care and vigilance is required. The President of the Board of Trade, in recommending the Bill on Second Reading, sought to justify this Clause on the ground that there are occasions when a lender of money may, for prudent reasons, wish to make a composition or arrangement with his debtor short of cancelling his debt. As is well known, every kind of circumstance may arise when the financial arrangements contemplated by this Clause come to be made. Losses will have been made, and sometimes those losses will be very substantial, perhaps as much as £50,000, £100,000, or £120,000, by a particular company with capital.

One of the things the National Film Finance Corporation has to consider is whether it should write off the whole of that loss; whether it should make some composition with the debtor; and what steps should be taken about such residual assets as the company may have, the foreign rights of the film, the reissuing rights and various other residual rights that have not yet been exhausted. It is particularly important that before any such financial arrangements are made, there should not merely be a full investigation, which I am quite sure the National Film Finance Corporation and the Board of Trade will make, but also that the public should be fully satisfied that every possible step has been taken to safeguard the public interest.

I would remind the Committee that we are taking an entirely unprecedented step in this particular legislation. We are allowing a body set up by this House to write off substantial sums of money, and in the process of doing so every possible risk will be run unless the House is guaranteed that full precautions will be taken by the Government to investigate each transaction. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is particularly important that the Board of Trade should have the assistance of the Treasury and that the public should know that the Board of Trade have the assistance of the Treasury.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West was speaking a moment ago, he drew attention to one kind of case which might arise. There may be a company which has made a large loss in film production, perhaps through no fault of its own, and one course would be for that loan to be written off. In fact, it might be better for the Government to authorise the National Film Finance Corporation to write it off than to make a composition, because a company which has made a substantial loss finds itself in an attractive and advantageous position compared with its competitors, since then, either in the same hands or in other hands, can venture into other fields of production and, if it then makes a large profit, can then set off its previous loss against the new profit and thereby avoid taxation on its profits which it could not do if the loss were extinguished. Who is to get the benefit of these companies with an accumulated loss?

There will obviously be a temptation in many cases for people interested in fresh ventures to acquire the loss of such a company and there is no reason why, as the law stands, people associated with a company should not acquire the debt to the National Film Finance Corporation for 2s. in the £ or some other small figure. It might be that the National Film Finance Corporation in some circumstances might think they were doing good business in getting a composition instead of extinguishing the debt, but in reality they would be doing nothing of the kind because they would be enabling the company to carry on and make a profit which would not be taxable.

I am not suggesting that this is the kind of thing that has happened in the past or is likely to happen, but the mere fact that attention has been called in this Committee to its possibility makes it essential in my submission that we should have the clearest possible assurance from the Board of Trade that every device of this kind will be most carefully watched before any financial arrangement which the House will authorise under Clause 2 (1) is entered into. It is because of the need for obtaining every possible precaution that I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reflect on the pressure that has been put, since the object of this pressure is to protect the public purse. I should have thought it was his duty to give the maximum assurance to the House that the public interest will be protected in this matter.

We are not asking very much and it is not good enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that when these financial arrangements come to be made with the Board of Trade there may be a Treasury representative present. It is not good enough for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Government is one and indivisible. There are plenty of precedents for having two Government Departments mentioned in a statute and for requiring the consent of both of them before a step of this kind is taken.

Even if it be thought that there is a purely technical objection to the phraseology which my right hon. Friend has adopted in his Amendment, I should have thought that could be overcome if the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he accepts the spirit of the Amendment and the reasons which prompt it. If, for example, he would at the appropriate stage insert in the Bill instead of the words proposed "and the approval of the Treasury" some such words as "after consultation with the Treasury," I should have thought that would be satisfactory and would allay the widespread misgivings that have been expressed about this matter and would justify the Committee, if it decided to do so, in giving this Corporation powers of an entirely unprecedented nature which are fraught with great risks to the Treasury unless every adequate safeguard is taken and shown to be taken.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Hale

I do not feel that the necessity for this Clause has been made clear by the Parliamentary Secretary's answer to observations of mine a few minutes ago. When I asked for some day-to-day particulars of the methods of operation of the Corporation, the Parliamentary Secretary said very courteously, "We leave it to them. We do not act as if we were watch-dogs in this matter. We appoint four or five people of ability and eminence and experience and leave it to them. They decide on the right thing to do, subject to limitations imposed upon them by the Act."

There is no other field of activity in which that is done. There is no other form of Parliamentary expenditure in which the Minister says to the House or to the Committee, "One does not want to go into details about this. One does not want to embarrass the House with unnecessary particulars, because the particulars are rather dispiriting and because we have not got them anyway. We are leaving it all to the Corporation."

If they are leaving it all to the National Film Finance Corporation, then for heaven's sake let us have some control. There was a time in the history of the House of Commons, when David Hume was active, when the House would sit for hours looking into the loss of half a crown. Although that would not be wise in these days when we are dealing with millions of pounds of public money, there is no excuse for the reply that this is a delegated matter dealt with in a delegated way and therefore we ought not to look into it. It will be seen from Appendix D of the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of the National Film Corporation that the cost item for craft labour varies from only 7.7 per cent. to 9.3 per cent.

Mr. O'Brien

That, unfortunately, is true for all industry. Craft labour gets the least out of the swag for their toil and trouble.

The Deputy-Chairman

At the moment I do not follow what that has to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Hale

We are suggesting that the Treasury should look at the figures, because it is fairly obvious that no one has done so, or if they have been looked at the proper steps have not been taken to try to get the proportions right. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien) says that in all industries a limited number of people take a disproportionate share of the profits. I do not know about that, but that is exactly what we are here to consider and that is why we should demand that there should be more public supervision where public money is involved and that more care should be exercised.

When the Parliamentary Secretary came to reply to the very able speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), he put forward two alternative pleas. The first was, "It is a very undesirable thing to do." The second was, "We always do it." That is precisely what he said. He said, "We cannot get this sort of thing into the Bill. It will not be right to put it in the Bill." Then two minutes later he goes on to say, "Of course, we always do it." If they always do it, why should it not be in the Bill, and if it is undesirable to do it why do they always do it?

I should like to refer the Committee for one moment to a set of figures in the Report which are directly relevant to this matter. I am discussing "Appendix B, Schedule of Loans—March 31st, 1953."The figures are as follows: British Lion Film Corporation Limited. Total loans approved, £3 million. Less amounts not required, nil. Less amounts not yet taken up, nil. Less amounts written off, nil. Less amounts repaid, nil. There is still £3 million. Is it really argued in those circumstances that there ought not to be some little Treasury consideration before another £3 million goes?

No one is to blame for this. I want to be fair about it; most of this was advanced by my right hon. Friend and he explained that the loss would be very substantial as there was a crisis in the industry. But this is our cumulative experience and certainly not a penny will come back. There is only £1 million actually written off and £2 million outstanding; something might come of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) asked what a businessman would give to get it back; I do not know. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North-West might make an offer.

That is not the only one. There is British Film Makers Ltd. with amounts approved, £706,620; amounts not required, nil; amounts not yet taken up, nil; amounts written off, nil; amounts repaid £140,540, and, finally, £566,080 still owing. Not a soul in this Committee knows what are the chances of recovering that money, whether they are good, bad, or indifferent, but we know that if £140,000 is written off at that stage it is not a very hopeful sign.

Then comes the much more serious item, "other advances." It is the sort of item which on an individual balance sheet is put down as petty cash, stamps mislaid, or sundries. Under that heading the other advances approved amount to £4,163,925. What a document to send to a Committee of the House of Commons to consider. Of that sum £89,771 was not required, £156,000 was not taken up, £1,765,896 has been repaid, and£341,000 written off, while £1,810,000 is still outstanding.

I have never wished to be discourteous to the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I am sure, tries his best, but we are in a situation in which £3 million is owing in respect of British Lion, £566,000 is written off in respect of the British Film Makers Limited and £1,810,000 is owing to petty cash and some items not enumerated.

Mr. Keenan

Do not look at me, I have not spent it.

Mr. Hale

My hon. Friend should not put ideas into my head. We say to the Parliamentary Secretary that the sensible thing would be to have the Treasury in. It is rather like saying to a business man, "Have your accounts audited, or at least have the advice of some financial adviser. As you have been losing money hand over fist, have someone to watch that you do not do it again." The Parliamentary Secretary says, "We really cannot do that." Had he said, "It is no use having the Treasury in because we do not have the facts to put before the Treasury," that would have been a practical, but not a very convincing, argument. It would have made sense and from his previous speech I understand this is what he does say, "We leave it to these gentlemen who are experts."

On a previous Amendment the Parliamentary Secretary assured us of what I heard with surprise. I am bound to say that on reflection I am not sure that I heard it with any great pleasure. He says, "No, we do not do this for cultural reasons or because of artistic reasons; we do not lend because a film might serve an educational purpose. The dominant factor is set out in the Act." I am not suggesting that these are matters not to be considered, I am not suggesting that it may well be that the Film Corporation might not give some preference, other matters being equal, to a film that might serve a purpose, but the terms of the Act are that the money shall only be lent if there is a reasonable chance of getting the money back.

These are the conditions by which these experts are bound. The test of their expertise is that they have lost on nearly everything that they have touched. We are now told that there is £5 million outstanding in relation to a total fund of £6 million, the repayment of a great deal of which is still in doubt. The Parliamentary Secretary occasionally looks at me with an air of mild surprise rather like, was it Cortez, on a peak in Darien? But that is what I understood. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say so far as British Lion was concerned £2 million was still outstanding. [An Hon. Member: "Three million."] I thought that one had been written off. I certainly understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman was certainly not assuring the House that he looked at that with the optimism which he might have looked at it some time ago.

I am not criticising these people. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Film Corporation might not, on balance, have served a very useful purpose. I am trying to examine the Parliamentary Secretary's arguments. He said, "We only lend money if there is a reasonable chance of getting it back."

Point No. 2 is that he said, "We do not ourselves look with very great care at all the accounts and details because we have delegated five experts to do that." Point No. 3 was, "We have lost money hand over fist, possibly to the tune of £4 million to £5 million." Point No. 4 was, "We must still go on leaving it to the experts because these people are experts."

Mr. Keenan

Do none of those in the film industry know how money is made?

Mr. Hale

I do not know, but I do not want to be diverted. I am trying to keep to the very narrow point—I make no criticism of anybody, I do not think I am in a position to do so—that when we have heard all that and we say, "Consult the Treasury in future," that we think the Treasury should give formal approval or, if there is some technical difficulty about the Treasury issuing their formal ukase or the Lords Commissioners being called in from time to time, consult them. The Financial Secretary is an ebullient, friendly and forthcoming man: he is quite easy to consult, and what harm would be done?

It may be of course that the Parliamentary Secretary shares my own view of the Chancellor's budgeting capacity. It may be that he has lost confidence in the financial direction of the country. It may be that he feels that on the whole the Government have made such a mess of so many things that they might make an even worse one of this. There are solid grounds for that view, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had said that I should not press the matter, I should feel that there was some reason in what he said. But he said, "We do consult, we get all the worst of it and none of the best. We consult them without the figures; we consult them regularly, while we have delegated everything to the experts, and on the basis of that consultation we ask you not to accept the Amendment."

That is not fair to the Committee. This is a simple provision which has been added to many Bills. It is not a novel suggestion. Many Ministers have accepted it and no Minister has ever got up and said, "I am sorry that you have made me consult the Treasury; they have not given me very good advice." No one has come and said, that this provision has done any harm. Is there any conceivable reason why the Amendment should not be accepted?

10.15 p.m.

Could there be any conceivable reason? Yet at a time when we might very well be going home to bed we are kept here by what—I do not want to overemphasise it—is really obstinacy. [Laughter.] Hon. Members should not laugh. After all, £6 million is £6 million. Would hon. Members opposite put any money into a firm with a record like this? Would they buy shares in such a firm if they were told that the company had no auditors of any kind—because that is what it means in relation to the operations of the Board of Trade. I have no doubt there are excellent auditors auditing the accounts of the Film Finance Corporation, but in relation to this the House, in relation to the custodian rights of the House and the discharge of the financial duties of the House, which has always been recognised as the supreme duty of each individual Member, we are told, "No, you can take it or leave it." In fact we are told to treat this like a Statutory Instrument. We are told, "You can vote against it or accept it."

Mr. H. A. Price (Lewisham, West)

What, all six of you?

Mr. Hale

The hon. Member is a little ungenerous in saying that. We are in Committee. I have been in Committee in this House since 11 o'clock this morning. We had an important Committee sitting this morning. It is no reflection on the confidence that my colleagues place in my right hon. Friend, and indeed in some of us, that they are happy to leave those interested in this matter to deal with it, knowing that we shall be expressing not merely our own views but trying our best to represent theirs.

There is no reason why, in a Committee in which we are trying to put through Amendments which could readily be agreed, we should have a vast cohort of people sitting here in order to force a vote. It is a measure of the generosity and the decency with which we approach this matter that we have not attempted to force a vote. We have tried the art of pure persuasion. It may be that on Report we may very well consider having to force a vote unless we get a little reciprocity in this matter.

In a sense this is an agreed Bill. It was introduced originally by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton and he has expressed no regret for having done so. It was a Bill which rendered a great service to an industry in its time of distress, and the President of the Board of Trade is continuing it. To a large extent it was accepted at the time of its introduction and it was a bi-partisan Measure…

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon Member is now discussing the principles of the Bill.

Mr. Hale

It is one of the difficulties when one is interrupted by such observations that one gets diverted from the main stream of one's argument, and I am sorry that I permitted that to occur to me.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will try to be a little co-operative. I hope he will say at least that this matter is one which will be considered. We are not concerned about the form of words. Surely this is a good and a right thing to do. Surely it is a prudent thing and in accordance with the careful financial traditions of the House.

The fact that I ask for Treasury approval does not denote any supreme confidence on my part in their judgment or their wisdom. It may be that after another Election the Treasury will improve. But for the moment it seems the appropriate step at least to provide that one not very competent Department is subject to the control of another not very competent Department, and in the present condition of things that is really all we can hope for.

Mr. O'Brien

May I make a brief appeal to the Committee and also to the Minister who is to reply? My appeal is two-fold. The Second Reading debate and the present debate and, if the present tendencies are anything to go by, the debate on Third Reading will give a completely false picture of the British film production industry to the British public. This Committee must never lose its right—

The Deputy-Chairman

I do not at the moment see the relevance of this to the Amendment.

Mr. O'Brien

I think that, if you will allow me, in my inexperience, to elucidate the point, you will see the relevance of it, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I appeal to the Board of Trade to accept the Amendment in principle. Perhaps some other form of words could be devised before the Report stage. I do so because, if necessary, we should give added confidence to the taxpayer in regard to the modicum of assistance given to the industry.

To continue the analysis of facts which are already well known could give the false impression that the film industry is run by a bunch of crooks. That is not so. There is no monopoly of original sin in the film industry. Original sin, by divine wisdom, has been fairly and adequately spread over mankind.

The Deputy-Chairman

I do not think that this Amendment deals with original sin, either.

Mr. O'Brien

It could be argued, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that when one refers to the Treasury one refers to something even deeper than original sin. But, to be serious, I ask the Committee to maintain a sense of proportion in its criticism of these matters and not to carry criticism to such a stage that the public is completely misdirected.

Also I would point out, on the question of consultation with the Treasury, that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and other hon. Members should be a salutary lesson to those in the industry who require it. There are other corporations, large and small, which have been able to carry on with their good work in British film production without being connected with the Film Finance Corporation.

It may be thought that other sections of producers who have had difficulties in recent years and who have safely emerged from them have not done so by their own effective and efficient commercial methods. It may be thought that all producers are in one boat. That is not so. I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to see whether he can give additional confidence to the public by arranging for some form of consultation with the Treasury in future.

Mr. H. Lever

One of the consequences of the somewhat unfortunate way in which we have had to discuss the Bill is—though I do not suggest for one moment that Mr. Speaker will allow it—that we shall be asked to take the Report stage and Third Reading close on the heels of the Committee stage.

The Deputy-Chairman

That does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Lever

It is necessary sometimes that the Minister should have time to reflect, and one has to keep the discussion in progress to provide him with the time.

We have an unprecedented situation in which public money is being dealt with in a way which is novel in the extreme. A simple legal safeguard which nobody could attack on merit has been firmly resisted by the Minister without the support of any of his Friends. This is a genuine non-party matter. I suspect that several hon. Members opposite would feel happier if the Amendment was accepted.

I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite are as anxious as we are to see that public money is protected. This is a non-party point. The Minister, without the support of any of his hon. Friends, has obdurately resisted a most reasonable Amendment. I am trying to help the Minister, so that when we come to the discussion of the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" he will have the Clause in better shape, a shape which will be acceptable to a critical House of Commons, because the House of Commons is now awake and aware of the problem. The Clause provides for the settlement of debts which may at some time amount to millions of pounds.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Gentleman must not anticipate the discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" but must confine his remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Lever

I do not wish to challenge the Chair, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but how can I discuss the improvement of the Clause without in some way discussing how the Clause will stand without the improvement? It is like offering a new nose to a man with a face which could do with a new nose. The Amendment is equivalent to a new nose. How can one argue the merits of the new nose—

The Deputy-Chairman

I was pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that he must not anticipate the discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." He must confine himself to the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Lever

What I am doing is asking the Minister to help us all by accepting an Amendment which, in sound sense, ought to be accepted. Not a single voice other than his has been raised in the Committee to challenge the Amendment. He has no time to consider it except the time which I am giving him at great personal sacrifice by keeping on my feet.

The arrangements are that we shall proceed straight away after this stage to the Report stage and the Third Reading, if Mr. Speaker allows it. I am giving the Minister the opportunity to reflect and to realise that there is not a supporter of his who does not realise that it would be far better if he accepted the reasonable Amendment to the Clause. I hope that while I have been addressing the Committee the Minister has been reflecting, and, in particular, reflecting on the very earnest appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who asked what possible harm could be done by accepting the Amendment.

I do not want to do the Minister an injustice, but, suspicious as I am about the film industry and the faults envisaged under the Clause. I am becoming even more suspicious when the Government resist an innocent Amendment. Why do the Government not want the Treasury to be present when settlements are reached? I entered the Chamber tonight hoping that the Government, who had already shown signs of becoming aware that they had a little duty to protect public money, would go further with me and accept the Amendment. But they will not. Hon. Member after hon. Member has addressed appeals to the President of the Board of Trade, but he still sits silent.

We might also have heard the Treasury view. I feel that the Treasury would like to be in on the discussions.

Mr. Hale

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to suggest a very important reason why the Treasury should be included. It is its knowledge of tax law and of the various methods of evading Income Tax. The Treasury might bring new and powerful light on those matters which might save the country a very considerable sum of money.

Mr. Lever

I am indebted to my hon. Friend for his intervention.

One of the problems about the Clause without the Amendment is that there will not be present at a settlement a really shrewd person to inquire what has been happening in the company in the past. If the Amendment were accepted, it would be easy to have a watchdog from the Treasury present. That would be better than having someone from the Board of Trade, for the Board of Trade is not as experienced as the Treasury in financial matters.

The Clause refers to "financial arrangements." These are essentially financial arrangements in which the Treasury is skilled. I am not suggesting that the Board of Trade is naive, and I do not altogether endorse the remarks which have been made about the incompetence of Departments. When I ask for a representative of the Treasury to be present, I want that representative to be a permanent official. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer is here today and may be gone tomorrow and then we should have another Chancellor. We ought to have a very solid Treasury official present to watch over the use of public money.

If the Amendment is not accepted, we might find odd and unfortunate things happening. Let us examine the point about tax suggested by my hon. Friend. If the Minister continues to be obstinate and foolish enough to resist the Amendment, a company may go to the Corporation and say that it wishes to make a settlement under the terms provided in Clause 2 (1) as it now exists, and, because of the rejection of the Amendment, no Treasury official would be present.

10.30 p.m.

They are the kind of people there who know the kind of arrangements that can be made with subsidiary companies. Whereas the Board of Trade and the Corporation may have lost £100,000 in producing films someone else may have done very well indeed on distribution, on overseas sales arrangements, and so on. The Treasury could find that out. Those are matters for the Treasury to probe, and the more the President resists this proposal the more I am determined to press it upon him.

I am amazed that hon. Members opposite, who gave such an excellent demonstration of their duty to the public interest on the Friday before last, when more than two-thirds of them abstained from voting when the Government attempted to gag discussion, have not shown some of that same spirit tonight. That Friday they prevented the Government from forcing the Closure, and I am astonished that tonight they have not shown the same fervent spirit and patriotic zeal in trying to influence the Government. I appeal to them to give thought to this matter and to support this reasonable proposal.

I should feel happier about the Government's refusal to accept the Amendment if some dispassionate person on the benches opposite were to give arguments in favour of the Government's attitude, but no one has done so. Nor have the Government the vocal support of their followers in refusing to accept the Amendment. The Amendment can do no harm. It has been said it is not necessary. If it is only not necessary, let us put it in and then see what happens.

I should not want the Amendment if the Parliamentary Secretary were to give us an assurance that a Treasury official will be present, at least, when the biggest debt of £3 million is being discussed, the debt of British Lion. I do not want the Corporation and the Board of Trade to settle the debt with British Lion alone. It is a considerable sum of money that is being bandied about. I hope the Committee will make some allowance for my provincial attitude in considering £3 million to be a lot of money. I believe that if a man chooses to do what he likes with his own money that is his affair, and I am all in favour of his being generous with it, and as generous as possible; but this is public money, and £3 million is a lot of it.

If we do not intervene by making this Amendment to the Bill, British Lion will settle this debt with the Corporation and the Board of Trade. We should feel happier if some independent party from the Treasury intervened at the settlement in connection with the country's money, which, admittedly, is going to be conceded to a private profit-making concern on terms which, presumably, will leave British Lion solvent.

The President and the Parliamentary Secretary persist in being obstinate without a single voice being raised in the Committee in their support. They persist in wasting our time and obstructing the business of the Committee by sitting mute and refusing to make concessions. I should give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman at any time he felt like indicating making one. He is obstructing the business of the Committee because he will not give a simple assurance that a Treasury official will watch over our money.

There is nothing that has happened in the past that gives us any confidence that it will be adequately safeguarded without a Treasury official being present. There is not a single person in the Committee to support the Government. Why will the hon. and learned Gentleman persist? Will he give me some assurance—I will try to meet him—that a Treasury official will be present and approve the £3 million transaction when that comes up, as it clearly will do, early in the use of this Clause? Will he give me that assurance? If he will I will give way to him.

Mr. H. Strauss

We have every intention of replying to the debate when the hon. Gentleman sits down, but I am not going to encourage him to go on by intervening in his speech.

Mr. Lever

I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman is at his best in Committee.

I have great respect for him. He knows I admire and respect him, but I am sorry to find that he is not at his best in Committee. He does not shine in Committee because he insists on the stilted mannerisms of the Second Reading and the Third Reading, that are appropriate then, but not in Committee. In Committee we hope for a friendly interchange of ideas and argument, freely, with the minimum of formality and maximum of lucidity and elucidation, especially in financial matters.

The Minister has an opportunity to interrupt me and bring me to a complete standstill; all he has to say is, "You are wasting your energy and your voice and the time of the Committee because there is no need to argue the matter; I will have a Treasury official present before I settle the £3 million loan with British Lion." If he gave me that assurance I would withdraw the Amendment and let him get on.

Mr. H. Strauss

That gives me a hope. The hon. Member constantly speaks as though the £3 million debt of British Lion would be decided by somebody round a table, without any documents being carefully considered or anything of the sort. I can give him an absolute assurance that before an arrangement is made between the Corporation and British Lion—which would certainly have consequences under subsection (2)—the Treasury will be consulted.

Mr. Lever

I want to know whether the Treasury will approve the settlement. If I can be sure that they will approve the settlement with British Lion—and that is what I said; it is within the recollection of the Committee—I shall be satisfied. I do not want the Board of Trade and the Corporation to settle between them the £3 million settlement with British Lion. That is what 90 per cent. of hon. Members would say if they were free to speak. We on this side of the Committee are free to speak, but I am not sure about hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Keenan

Is not the amount owed by British Lion now £2 million? Has not £1 million been written off? Had the Treasury anything to do with it when that £1 million was liquidated?

Mr. Lever

Of course, the Government should answer questions, but they are reluctant to answer any.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) is the expert on this side of the Committee and is probably the only expert in the Committee at the moment on the Finance Corporation. We rely upon him. In theory, the £1 million has not yet been lost. It has merely been written off as a book-keeping item in the books of the Corporation. I will give way if my right hon. Friend wishes to correct me.

Mr. O'Brien

Here is a note about a telephone call for my hon. Friend. Perhaps that might help.

Mr. Lever

British Lion have still the original liability of £3 million. I am not trying to obstruct or take up time.

The Chairman

I am sure the hon. Member is not trying to obstruct or take up time, but he is repeating his argument and if he goes on much longer it will become tedious to me.

Mr. Lever

I was about to sit down, Sir Charles, but you kept me on my feet a little longer by rising with a menacing green book in your hand. I close by appealing to the Minister to respect the wishes of the Committee and give the kind of assurance required. We shall then get on a great deal faster with the Bill, which we are anxious to complete as soon as possible.

Mr. H. Wilson

I want to make an appeal to the Government Front Bench. We have been on this Amendment for more than an hour. It represents a very small point which any other Government, and I believe any other Minister in this Government, would have conceded. We have spent more than an hour dealing with this relatively small point about Treasury approval—but a point which is important in terms of public money. It can only be the pedantic obstinacy of the hon. and learned Gentleman in insisting in raising the very small and technical objections which prevents him from accepting the Amendment. I heard the whole of his reply and to my mind it did not carry the argument any further forward.

The hon. and learned Member has shown that he can read with great skill the brief provided for him, and if he will turn to the bottom of it he will probably find a little note, "This is not a very important Amendment and the Minister is advised to accept it if the point is pressed." I should not be a bit surprised if he found such a note there. If he does not, I would suggest to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he goes into this question and gives the assurance that the hon. and learned Gentleman apparently cannot.

I do not want to get out of order on this point, but I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that we still have to discuss the most unusual procedure that the Government are apparently to inflict on the Committee tonight, namely of bringing a Bill, amended in Committeee, immediately to the Report stage. The hon. and learned Gentleman has wasted an hour by refusing to accept something which has often been accepted and without delay—

Mr. Strauss indicated dissent.

Mr. Wilson

Certainly, I remember hearing this argument many times from hon. Gentlemen opposite and we never thought it worth while to waste time on it. Since more than an hour has been wasted, it provides a bad preparation for the discussion that we must have about this unprecedented proposal to bring an amended Bill immediately to the Report stage.

Mr. E. Fletcher

Are we not to have a reply?

Mr. H. Strauss

I thought I had dealt with the point in answering the hon. Gentleman, but when the right hon. Gentleman says that an hour has been spent owing to an obstinate refusal to concede this Amendment, let me give again the reason why I advised the Committee not to accept this Amendment. I explained that I had some sympathy with what I thought was the idea behind it and I explained why the Amendment was mistaken.

Of course this has been considered carefully. If the Government thought that this was a good Amendment to accept, they would say so. I have given the reasons why I think it is wrong under this subsection, although we have provided it quite rightly under the next.

When the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) said he would withdraw the Amendment if the British Lion composition would not take place without Treasury approval, I at once gave that assurance.

Mr. Lever

Without consultation.

Mr. Strauss

If I say we will consult with the Treasury, I think that the hon. Member knows enough to know that that is normally followed by agreement.

Mr. H. Wilson

In that case will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why he had to use three sentences for what could have been said in a few words, namely, that of course he accepted the principle of Treasury approval?

Mr. Strauss

Because I do not accept it as an addition here in every case. I said in my original speech more than an hour ago that where an arrangement under subsection (1) will clearly lead to a sequel under subsection (2), as it undoubtedly will in the case of British Lion, then of course the arrangement will not be made until the Treasury and the Board of Trade agree that it shall be made.

Of course I give that assurance. It is so obvious that I should have thought there would have been no hon. Member in this Committee who would have had any doubt about it. What I resisted, on grounds which I explained to the House, was the proposal to require Treasury approval in every case.

Mr. H. Lever

In view of that assurance, I beg to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment. I only say that the assurance could have been given an hour ago in unambiguous terms.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. Strauss

I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out from "payments." to end of line 27, and to insert by the Corporation to the Board. I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee, Sir Charles, if this Amendment is taken with the next one, to line 29. They are little more than slight alterations in the language. The language of the Clause is not apt to achieve the object which we have been discussing all along. To make it quite clear, I will read the Clause as it will run if both these Government Amendments are accepted. The relevant words will then be as follows: The Board of Trade may with the approval of the Treasury postpone or remit in whole or in part any payments by the Corporation, being payments of amounts in or towards repayment of any advance made by the Board under section four of the principal Act and used for the purposes of that loan. These words are more apt to achieve the purpose of the subsection which we have all along assumed in our discussions. Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in line 29. after "Board," insert: under section four of the principal Act and used.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss

I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end, to insert: (3) The Board of Trade shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement of any payment or part of a payment in respect of any advance made to the Corporation by the Board which is postponed or remitted by the Board under the last foregoing subsection, together with particulars of any arrangements entered into by the Corporation under subsection (1) of this section with respect to the loan for the purposes of which that advance was used. The first half of this Amendment is to provide that necessary information is given to Parliament of what is done under subsection (2). We have expanded it with the express desire to give effect to so much of the Amendment which was placed on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher)and other right hon. and hon. Members, as we thought ought to be given. It secures that where there is what I may call a sequel under subsection (2) the House gets particulars of the arrangement made under subsection (1). I think that is a sensible proposal and meets substantially what the hon. Member had in mind.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for having put down this Amendment in this enlarged form, because, as he told the Committee, it is in consequence of the Amendment which I put down. His Amendment, as far as I can see, covers the point I wished to cover in my Amendment. The object was to ensure that the fullest possible information is laid before Parliament of all the financial arrangements which the House is authorising under subsection (1).

I do not entirely follow the hon. and learned Member's observation about a sequel. He spoke as if it necessarily followed that some arrangements made under subsection (1) may have a sequel, and others not. I hope we are all agreed that whether any of the financial arrangements under subsection (1) have a sequel or not they are all to be reported to Parliament pursuant to this Amendment.

Mr. Strauss indicated dissent.

Mr. Fletcher

The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. That produces a different effect, and is not satisfactory. The object of my Amendment, which, I gather, was not called because it was considered that the Government Amendment covered it, was to ensure that all financial arrangements authorised under subsection (1) should be reported to Parliament. I fail to see why that should not be the case. If the hon. Gentleman is telling the Committee that it is only those financial arrangements that in his view will have a sequel—

Mr. Strauss

No, not in my view or in anybody's view. It is that where there is a writing off of public money under Clause 2 (2) then the particulars of the financial arrangements under Clause 2 (1) which have given rise to it will be disclosed to Parliament. Where the arrangements under Clause 2 (1) do not result in the writing off of any public money they will not be so disclosed.

Mr. Fletcher

I am not sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman has covered all possible cases. Under the financial arrangements in Clause 2 (1) the Corporation, with the approval of the Board of Trade and with a Treasury representative present, will be allowed to enter into financial arrangements with respect to loans which the Corporation may make. I fail to see why those financial arrangements should not be reported to Parliament.

The object of my Amendment is to secure precisely that. If I had thought that there was this wide divergence between the Government's Amendment and my Amendment I would have intervened at an earlier stage and pressed upon you, SirCharles, for leave to move my Amendment. But it was only because I thought, and I think you, Sir Charles thought, that the two Amendments were substantially the same that you decided not to call mine but to call the Government's Amendment.

A disturbing situation has resulted. They do not mean the same and I must press the matter and, if necessary, ask leave to go back to my Amendment or, failing that, deal with it when we come to the Report stage. The two matters are involved together and before we can pass on I must press the Parliamentary Secretary. Why does he draw a distinction between the financial arrangements which may lead to a sequel under Clause 2 (2) and those which may not? Why did the hon. and learned Gentleman say that he can always tell in advance whether an arrangement will produce—

Mr. Strauss indicated dissent.

Mr. Fletcher

I may have misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman but I do not think that I can be misunderstood when I say that I fail to see why any details of financial arrangements made under Clause 2 (2) should not be reported to Parliament. No one can tell, but any such arrangement may lead to loss of public money in one form or another, and in order to dispel the misgivings that have been expressed I should have thought that the Government would have wanted to give Parliament the fullest possible information about financial arrangements under Clause 2 (1).

Mr. H. Strauss

In courtesy to the hon. Member perhaps I should say briefly why I think that the merits are with our Amendment and why it would not be right to do more. The hon. Member and others sometimes refer to the National Film Finance Corporation as, in effect, the film bank. That sort of expression is sometimes used. It is not always right to disclose or to make public every arrangement, perhaps of a comparatively trivial character, that may be made between the banker and the customer. It might have an adverse effect upon the credit of somebody whom one did not wish to affect adversely at all.

On the other hand, where public money has eventually to be written off, I entirely agree with the hon. Member that in that case the House will certainly expect and will be entitled to have the particulars of the transaction which gave rise to that effect. Those are the reasons why I think in every case which the hon. Member has in mind—and I think I have some idea of the sort of case he has in mind—the effect of this Amendment will give what he wants. But it does not make it obligatory to place before Parliament a number of comparatively small transactions which do not result in the writing off of any public money under subsection (2). That is why, while giving every consideration to his Amendment, we thought the right thing to do was to meet what we were certain was the legitimate reason behind it, which we have done by our Amendment.

Mr. H. Wilson

I thought that in the last few sentences the hon. and learned Gentleman was proceeding on slightly dangerous ground. I shall not pursue him very far on that ground. I thought he pursued the bank analogy a little too far. He quite rightly said that when there was a danger of a loss of public money obviously one must have the publicity which is sought. But I thought his analogy broke down from the beginning because the film bank, or Corporation, is provided by public money in all transactions and the analogy of the joint stock bank does not hold water.

Nevertheless, the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman represents the first signs of grace we have seen from the Government throughout the Committee stage. They have taken the initiative, when they saw the Amendment we put down, to meet what we had in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) mentioned a number of pointson which they had not completely met what we had in mind, but we readily concede that by arranging to report to the House on each and every occasion instead of only at 12 monthly periods they have gone beyond what we proposed. To that extent we thank the hon. and learned Gentleman and support the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. William Shepherd (Cheadle)

I want to say a word or two about the operation of Clause 2, because I think it gives rise to a considerable amount of concern. I share the regret of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien) at the unnecessary discus- sion which has obscured the real objections to this Clause. We are doing something quite unprecedented in forgoing public money. I am anxious to get from the Parliamentary Secretary an assurance about the manner in which it is to be done. It is obvious that the remissions of either capital or interest which are to take place under the Clause are to affect one company, the British Lion Film Corporation. To that Corporation they are largely directed. Before we part from the Clause we are entitled to an assurance that something other than what is now happening will happen in connection with the financial arrangements of that Corporation.

Loans for the National Film Corporation are, in general, governed by each film. It is necessary for the producers to submit the script, the story and the budget before a loan is granted. In the case of the British Lion Corporation no such submission takes place and there is virtually no control of the amount to be spent on individual films. I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for an assurance that the conditions which then existed in relation to the British Lion Film Corporation will be altered when the new arrangements come into operation.

11.0 p.m.

I am concerned very seriously about this matter. A lot of public money is still being hazarded by the British Lion Film Corporation, and I want to cite two examples in the last 12 months. They have, I understand, spent £500,000 on a film called "Gilbert and Sullivan," and then there is a film being made at Shepperton called "Hobson's Choice" which is costing £350,000. People in the film industry are giving 20 to 1 against "Hobson's Choice" recovering any great part of this expenditure.

We are entitled to learn from the Parliamentary Secretary before we leave this Clause that he is going to insist upon the National Film Finance Corporation, under the new arrangements, having the power to veto a budget before film production is commenced. If that is done I am quite satisfied that the British Lion Film Corporation can make a very substantial contribution to the film production of this country, and they can produce films which will be economically sound.

While there is the tendency to spend large sums of money on individal films—much of it public money—there should be a check and curb put on particular companies concerned. I am not asking the Government to do this themselves. I accept that the National Film Finance Corporation is a competent medium to enforce the public interest.

Why we want this to happen is because we want to see the film industry put on a sound footing. I am quite satisfied that if we have this Bill and the Eady plan, film production can be made profitable and it is most important in those circumstances that sums of money like £500,000, which is public money, is not hazarded on individual productions. Therefore, I hope my hon. and learned Friend will be able to give us an assurance.

Mr. H. Strauss

In one point I think that my hon. Friend was not quite right. There are certain differences in procedure between loans made by the Corporation to individual firms for particular films and the use by the British Lion Film Corporation of their general loan, as I think is mentioned in some of the annual Reports. But he is wrong in thinking that there is no supervision in the matter. One of the conditions under which the loan to British Lion was originally made was approval by the National Film Finance Corporation of all budgets before shooting begins. Let me assure my hon. Friend and the Committee that before any arrangements are made between the Corporation and a debtor under this Clause, all these matters will be most carefully considered.

Mr. H. Lever

The points which I have against this Clause I dealt with on the Amendment which I proposed, and I do not want to weary the Committee by making them again. The Committee is not seen to the best advantage at a late hour, and I am not going to be repetitive with the arguments I have used.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not make it necessary for me to make appeal for the postponement of the Third Reading, because I do not think that the Report stage and the Third Reading should take place tonight. We have had a hard day discussing this and other Bills, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will find it possible to postpone the Report stage and Third Reading so that we can consider, on the next stage, what has been said in Committee today.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part.