HC Deb 18 April 1969 vol 781 cc1503-36

Order for Second Reading read.

12.58 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr (Wandsworth, Central)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The British Film Institute was founded in 1933 with the aims of encouraging the development of the art of the film, promoting its use as a record of contemporary life and manners, and fostering public appreciation and study of it from these points of view. To those functions, in 1961 there were added similar functions in respect of television films.

Since 1964 the work of the Institute has prospered, and it would be cavalier of me not to seize this opportunity of paying a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Education and Science and expressing to her the appreciation of the Institute and everyone interested in its work for the way in which she has helped to forward its aims.

The National Film Archive is an integral part of the work of the Institute. It is not the most important, although those who are concerned with the Archive regard their work with such pride as to lead them to suppose that it is. However, there are other divisions in the Institute, all playing an integral part in forwarding the aims of the Institute as a whole.

The Archive constitutes a permanent collection of moving pictures, including television films. What is important and central to much of my Bill is the fact that the collection, as it has grown, is not a collection of every film made on the same principle as every book published is required to be placed in the appropriate statutory book deposit. Rather, it is a collection of material judged to be of lasting value—that is to say, judged to be of lasting value for the study of film art, the development of techniques of film making and social and historical records.

The Archive spends about £90,000 a year, and this is under the current budget for the whole of the Institute of about £350,000. In other words, it enjoys expenditure of about a quarter of the total budget. The work of the Archive has been beset over the years with the problems of securing the films to store and catalogue. Certain sections of the industry have been quite remarkable in the generosity with which they have donated copies of films to the Archive. As I said when I was seeking leave of the House under the Ten-Minute Rule to introduce the Bill, had the whole of the industry been as generous and farsighted, in its own interests, as the best of the industry has been, there would be no need for me to be seeking a Second Reading for this Bill today.

The generosity has come not only from the film industry. The B.B.C., the Independent Television Authority and the television companies have all shown the same understanding of the need for a strong and active National Film Archive and have contributed very generously to forwarding its work. If I could instance the estimated value of films which have been donated from those sources to the Archive, in 1966 and 1967 it totalled about £18,000 and in 1968 their value was estimated at over £26,000. The House will recognise that, against a budget of £350,000, donations amounting to about 7 per cent. of the total expenditure of the Institute must be regarded as a generous form of public service.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that when the Archive seeks to acquire films, it meets with a very poor record of success. I find that even in the industry itself the selective nature of the process of acquisition is not sufficiently recognised. Of feature films which are shown in this country—the Archive restricts its attempt to acquire solely to films which are shown here—approximately 20 per cent. are selected as suitable material for the Archive. That 20 per cent. is then sought In one form or another, and rarely indeed against payment, from the appropriate distributing or producing companies. The records show that over 10 years between 1957 and 1968 the rate at which we acquired that small proportion of films for which we applied has been disappointingly low.

There are three categories of films: those made in Great Britain, those made by United States companies outside Great Britain, and those coming from other countries. Predictably, the rate of acquisition varies with each source. Over the 10 years to which I have referred, of films made in Great Britain we applied for 237 and it took us 10 years to acquire 126—about half the films made in Great Britain. Of films made by United States companies outside Great Britain, we applied for 360 and over 10 years we acquired 110—about one in three.

It is when we turn—and this is a very important point that I want to stress—to the films which are made in France, Italy, Japan and other countries apart from the United States that we find that the rate of acquisition drops. Of 401 films applied for, over 10 years we acquired only 50—about one in eight.

I want to offer a word of explanation and perhaps exculpation of all distributors of films in this country. It is not that they are particularly difficult or opposed to the work of the Institute. But, first of all, the quality of film which is imported on the basis of foreign language films tends to be higher and, therefore, attracts greater interest on the part of the Archive than other films which are produced or distributed here on an English language basis. So we find that more foreign language films are sought by the Institute than any other.

Second, because only one or two prints are introduced into the country, it is very difficult indeed for the distributors of these foreign films to make available a copy, except against payment of the cost. It is for this reason that some of the most important art films of the recent decades do not find their way into the Archive. It is a matter of great regret surely that Jean-Luc Godard is not represented at all in the Archive, when he must be one of the most important innovators and one of the most brilliant directors of films anywhere in the world.

So we are left with a situation where, starting in 1957, about 1,000 films over 10 years were selected for the Archive and the Institute was able to acquire only 286 of them—about three out of 10. This means that of every 100 films shown in this country, only six find their way into the Archive.

There is a further point, and that is the quality of the film which is deposited. There is inevitably a tendency for even the most generous sections of the industry to donate to the Archive worn prints, prints of poor quality and not useful any longer for commercial showing. Of the last three years for which I have records, in 1966 and 1967 about one out of every three copies of films deposited—free of charge, I would emphasise—with the Archive were assessed as being fair or poor in quality. In 1968 there was some improvement; only about one in two was thought to be fair or poor.

The master material, which is so important from the point of view of copying and showing, is also an indication of difficulties which the Archive faces under its present system of acquisition. In 1966 only 24 copies of master material were deposited out of a total of about 109 films. In 1967 there were 60 copies out of a total of 200, and in 1968 115 copies out of 234 were master material copies.

I hope that this brief account of the difficulties which face the Archive will convince the House that the argument in favour of some system of statutory deposit is a very powerful one. However, I want to emphasise one or two important differences which must continue to exist between the statutory deposit of film material and the statutory deposit of books. Most important is the continuing commercial interest in films as a source of revenue for the producers and distributors. This continuing commercial interest, which we recognise and which the British Film Institute has always respected, is something which gives an entirely different gloss to the problems of deposit. Most of all, the industry wants to know, and we want to explain, why or for what purpose a film should be deposited if it is not needed to be shown and to achieve some kind of commercial return.

Joined to this problem, so far as film deposit is concerned, is the extraordinarily complex and vexatious problem of ownership in the copyright of film. I shall not attempt to embark upon any consideration of this point. I merely want to assure the House and the industry that my Bill is in no way concerned with altering the current practice of the Institute so far as its considerable and emphatic respect for copyright and commercial interest is concerned. There is no question whatever of the introduction of a statutory film deposit infringing the continuing commercial interest of the industry as a whole.

There are other problems in the statutory deposit of film which differentiate it from the statutory deposit of books. The most important subsidiary consideration is the difficulty of enjoying a film. There are difficulties in obtaining a book from the British Museum Library, but, when one has the book out of the library, all one has to do is read it. When one extracts a film from the National Film Archive, on the other hand, one is still left with the business of projecting it and studying it, a technical problem involving a certain amount of capital cost and the provision of adequate equipment.

I draw the attention of the House to the difference between the National Film Archive and other kinds of museum activity. It is easy and a little superficial to regard the National Film Archive as simply a film museum. It is nothing of the sort. The National Film Archives differs from museum activity in this important respect, that museum activity is, broadly, concerned with the acquisition of material from the past the worth of which has been established over a long period of time, whereas the aim of the Archive is to project itself into the future, seeking to acquire material which at a remoter time will then be recognised as valuable material for the sociologist, the historian, the student of film art and related topics. This is a much more difficult task.

All the same, there is an element of museum activity in the work of the Archive. I invite the House simply to consider whether this growing and most popular art form is fairly served with a budget of about £90,000 a year such as I have described, when the museum movement as a whole in this country enjoys expenditure of about £10½, million. It is always difficult to establish a value judgment, but the contrast in this context is startling. I hope that in course of time the budget which the National Film Archive will be able to deploy will give greater equity in relation to the work of other museums and greater benefit to the film-going public.

I turn now to the Bill itself. There are three major principles which need to be understood. First—again I emphasise this as a major point—the British Film Institute is to select the films which it wishes to archive. It is not to seek to archive every film shown. Indeed, it would be a sheer physical impossibility to do so. I doubt that any of us, even those most interested and intimately concerned with film as a whole, can fully comprehend the enormous amount of material which flows out, not just from studios making feature films but from the makers of industrial films and advertising films, not to mention the vast and almost cataclysmic avalanche of television material. The problems not merely of storage but of cataloguing and assessing the totality of all this production would defeat even the most generously subsidised organisation. Therefore, for purely practical as well as aesthetic reasons, there is no question of seeking the acquisition of every film shown. Heaven forbid that, for example, we should be asked to archive every instalment of the "Avengers" or any similar television production.

Second, although the basis of archiving will continue to be selective, the Bill as it now stands applies right across the board to all motion pictures receiving exhibition in this country; that is to say, it will include not just feature films but all other forms of film production, motion pictures produced for television and films from all sources when they achieve exhibition here.

The third important principle embodied in the Bill is novel: the cost of supplying the film or of copying it to make it archivable shall be borne by the British Film Institute. In this connection, I revert to the problems faced by importers of foreign films. This method of meeting costs will relieve the Institute of one of its most troublesome problems in the acquisition of foreign films by relieving the distributors of the near impossibility of making available, free of charge, copies of foreign films.

It is only fair at this point to quote from the Eighth Report of the Estimates Committee, Session 1967–68, on Grants for the Arts, It dealt with precisely this problem of the cost of acquiring film, saying in paragraph 118: The problem here is thus essentially one of availability of films rather than only of money. … Your Committee would not consider the introduction of a payment for the right to acquire a single Archive copy an appropriate solution to the problem. … Your Committee are concerned at this situation, but are compelled to point out that the only solution (short of compelling companies to deposit, which they could not recommend in present circumstances) would involve public funds at a rate admitted by the B.F.I. to be £40,000 for ten years and £15,000 per year thereafter. That was a reference to the copying of films rather than acquisition. The Committee went on: Even then the gaps in the Archive arising out of non-availability of films would remain. At present your Committee could not recommend that allocation of part of the existing scarce resources to this task, though in improved economic conditions they would welcome reconsideration of the question". I come now to another important matter covered by the Bill. Recognising the difficulties, which were repeatedly drawn to my attention in discussing the terms of the Bill before I tabled it, I came to the conclusion that the commencing date of its operation should be left to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and that I should not seeks its immediate operation if it became law. It is for that reason that I have included subsection (2) in Clause 7, leaving the operative introduction of the Bill to the Secretary of State, to be effected at such time as economic circumstances permit.

Clause 1 sets forth the main purpose of the Bill. I believe that use of the phrase "exhibition or broadcast" in line 6 covers the acquisition of material no matter the form in which it is exhibited. I have introduced the concept of an audience of more than six persons in order to give the Institute the opportunity to acquire films which may be of great value socially or artistically but which do not achieve a public showing before a commercial audience. Such films might, for instance, be exhibited privately in this country, and it would be a pity if the Institute were unable to acquire them simply because the definition of public showing were drawn too broadly in the first place.

Also in Clause 1 there is provision for the Institute not only to acquire material but, where acquisition is difficult, where there may be only one or a very few scarce copies available, to have the right to copy the material at its own cost.

Clause 2 deals with the question of who shall bear the cost, which is often quite considerable. On average, it may cost about £250 or £300 to provide an archiving copy, and in the case of certain colour or Cinerama films the cost may soar to £1,500 or more.

Clause 3 would protect the owners of material against loss, putting on the Institute, by implication, the responsibility to provide proper care and protection for any material lent to it, or, if that care and protection proved inadequate, of replacing the material without cost to its owners.

Clause 4 covers the difficult problems of copyright, setting the matter out, I believe, more clearly than has been done in any legislative Measure before.

Clause 4(1) provides that archived material shall become the property of the British Film Institute. At present, under the terms of the agreement between the Institute and the depositors of material there is a right of withdrawal. This has never been used, but in certain circumstances it could be embarrassing for the Institute. Therefore, provision is made for any deposited material to become the property of the Institute.

Clause 4(2) imposes on the Archive the responsibility of preserving copies in suitable form. Thanks to the generosity of the present Government, this has been made possible by the provision of new archiving storage at Kingshill.

Paragraph (b) lays upon the National Film Archive the duty to make deposited material available for private study at the Archive's premises. This is to ensure that people who want access to film for genuine study purposes should not have to seek a commercial showing, and that any commercial showing should not be undertaken without the consent of copyright owners. The matter is further dealt with in subsection (3), which gives protection to the commercial owners of the copyright which is entirely proper.

Clause 5 is a substitute for any sanction. It was difficult to consider whether any sanction was appropriate or relevant to any non-compliance with the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, Clause 5, rather than introducing a sanction, merely provides that the Institute can go to the High Court for an injunction requiring compliance where such has not been forthcoming within the time limit set out in the earlier Clause.

Clauses 6 and 7 are straightforward, and I have dealt with them earlier in my remarks. There is a definition of what is meant by the phrase "motion picture" in order to ensure that nothing shall be lost which may be of interest in terms of a moving picture.

The film industry was consulted about and, I hope, kept informed of my aims in this Bill. I am happy to report that the industry's attitude, although not uncritical, has been one of general support for the principle of statutory deposit. It is one of the most satisfactory developments in recent years—and in part is the result of the tabling of this Bill—that the industry as a whole has come to appreciate, more fully than perhaps previously, the value of the Archive to the work of the Institute to promote the prosperity of the film industry and film activities in all their manifestations in this country.

I appreciate the concern which is felt in certain sections about the consequences, not so much in Britain but overseas, if this Bill is successful in becoming Statute law. The fears which have been expressed to me take the form that if statutory deposit of film becomes universal the cost to the film makers will be vast and, in some respects, prohibitive.

I have sympathy with this point of view, but there is no suggestion that statutory film deposit in other countries is waiting to see what Britain will do. Indeed, we are a little behind certain other countries in introducing some form of statutory film deposit. Film has now established itself on television and elsewhere as an important document, and is bound to lead those overseas to give early consideration to this matter. Moreover, the introduction in my Bill of the principle of depositing copies is one which I hope the industry as a whole will persuade other countries to follow in order to protect the interests of the film industry both in this country and overseas.

It has been suggested to me that the Bill should confine itself to British films only. Clearly, this would be a matter for consideration at Committee stage, and it would not be proper for me now to enter into any discussion of that matter. By restricting the Bill to British films little would be gained to the Archive, as will be seen from the figures I have given. The whole quality of our collection would be gravely damaged in that we should not have a comprehensive collection of the film art. It would be rather like expecting the National Gallery to house pictures by British artists only, excluding Rubens and da Vinci and all the other artists. What is more important is the fear that if the Bill were to confine itself to British films it would be a great disincentive to foreign film makers and distributors to continue the current scheme. Although I am open-minded about the matter, I am reluctant to give any firm commitment about how the Bill might proceed in Committee.

In regard to the social importance of the British Film Institute in general and the National Film Archive in particular, there can be little doubt, even if that importance is not yet paralleled by fully alert appreciation on the part of the film-going public, about the way in which the Institute is assisting the development of film appreciation.

There is no doubt about the growth of interest in film as an art form. More important is the growth of appreciation of its archive importance to the future historian. The increasing numbers of people who today make recordings of their families on moving pictures know how superior are such records to the taking of still photographs and the tape-recording of their children's voices. In the same way the growth and development of our social scene has produced a wonderful record of moving pictures.

The Newsom Report, in paragraph 474, had this to say about film appreciation Here we should wish to add a strong claim for the study of film and television in their own right, as powerful forces in our culture and significant sources of language and ideas. Although the study of these media has for some time been accepted in a small number of schools as an important part of the curriculum, in the majority of schools they are used only as visual aids for the presentation of material connected with other subjects. In such endeavours the work of the Institute and Archive is essential.

I should like to quote from a recent book "Signs and Meaning in the Cinema" by Peter Wollen. He says: It is important that there should be statutory deposit. Then, at least, few people could be confident of seeing the films which they want and need for their work. Unless this happens it is very difficult to see how there can possibly be any significant advance in the study of the cinema. The brutal absence of films will make a mockery of all the fine words about understanding our visual environment. I find that a compelling plea.

My Bill is a simple and useful measure which involves no immediate cost falling up the Treasury. It does not require a Money Resolution. If the Bill is given a Second Reading and goes to Committee stage, it will constitute a great encouragement to the dedicated people who work in the British Film Institute, as well as lead the industry itself to understand and to assist in the work of the Institute in ways which have not yet been fully explored and exploited. The Eighth Report of the Estimates Committee referred to the need for more positive support on the part of the industry. I believe the passage of my Bill would give it great encouragement. For those reasons, I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. John Hay (Henley)

The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) began what hon. Members will agree was a helpful and agreeable speech by what I thought was a somewhat ominous reference to the right hon. Lady the Minister of State, indicating that there might be some disagreement with the Bill from her Department. I hope that that will not be the case, because the whole House will regard the efforts which the hon. Gentleman is making as praiseworthy, in that the Archive should be given more support than it has been able to obtain under the present voluntary arrangements and that the art of the cinema should receive further encouragement.

At the outset I wish to enter a plea. It is that we should remember that although one often talks of the film in art terms, film-making—film production, distribution and exhibition—is a highly commercial activity. I cannot think of another activity in which art and commerce are so inextricably mixed. It is not like making an article to be sold over the counter. Nor is it right to take the example, which the hon. Gentleman took, of publishing a book. Filmmaking is a highly specialised type of business, and although I welcome the efforts which the hon. Gentleman is making—I would certainly not wish to oppose the Bill at this stage—this aspect must be borne in mind in any future consideration of the Measure.

The hon. Gentleman paid tribute, which I echo, to the work of the British Film Institute and the National Film Archive. Despite some recent increases in funds which I welcome, it is not an exaggeration to say that the work which these organisations have done for a number of years has been conducted on a shoestring. Their work merits praise. By passing either this Measure or an equivalent one later Parliament can mark its support of, and encouragement for, the work of the Institute and Archive.

When the hon. Gentleman obtained the leave of the House on 4th February to introduce the Bill—he was extremely fortunate in not only obtaining leave, but in securing a day for its Second Reading when many other Bills were in the queue—he said, and he repeated this today, that the deposit of films with the Archive had been made on a voluntary basis in a somewhat sporadic way over the years and that the record of the whole film industry was not particularly good in this respect, although some of the companies and firms had had a good record. He said that there was a rather poor record of success in obtaining the necessary Archival copies.

There is a reason for this and the House would not wish to blame the whole film industry for not being sufficiently forthcoming in this respect. There is an important matter to be borne in mind, for we are dealing not with the situation as it will be when and if the Bill is passed, but with the present situation.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the cost involved in making a copy of a film which is then deposited with the Archive. This cost is very substantial indeed. The analogy with a book and its deposit in the British Museum disappears. A copy of a book can be printed for a £ or two or even a few shillings, which means that the manufacturer or publisher does not lose very much by giving away a copy, to the British Museum. The cost of reproducing a film, and particularly a colour film, is great. This must be borne in mind when speaking of the attitude of the film industry as a whole, although the hon. Gentleman generously pointed out that a number of companies have had a good record in this respect.

A point which the hon. Gentleman did not make, but which must be seriously considered, is the fact that when copies of films are deposited with the Archive, it is vitally important that they are kept secure. I am not casting the slightest aspersion on those who serve the Archive, but the industry is extremely security-conscious in this matter because copies of films are valuable. Intrinsically, they are worth nothing more than the celluloid on which they are printed, but the rights which are owned in them are valuable and may be able to be commercially exploited for many years to come.

The industry's position in this matter should be understood. It is anxious that there should be no risk of any film which still has a commercial exploitation value being leaked on to the market and being shown to the public in competition with a showing which may be taking place in a commercial cinema, for which the exhibitor has paid a substantial rental. This is one factor that has been in the mind of some film distributors and producers in the past when they have perhaps not been as generous as the hon. Gentleman would have liked them to have been in depositing films with the Archive.

Many of the points about the Bill which I might make at this stage are more in the nature of Committee points and I will, therefore, concentrate on matters of substance. If the Bill goes further, I hope that we will have the support of the Government draftsmen to put some of its errors right. For example, I am not happy with the reference in Clause 1 to persons, organisations and companies having an obligation to deposit films with the Archive. From the text of the Bill, it will be seen that the responsibility is placed on Any person, organisation or company responsible in Great Britain for making available for exhibition or broadcast any motion picture … I do not know whether the obligation should be as wide as that. I suppose that it would be possible to construe those words as meaning that any exhibitor of a film, an ordinary cinema proprietor, is a person responsible for the exhibition of a motion picture and would be liable to deposit a copy of the film in the Archive. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman has in mind and I trust that we can consider those words further in Committee.

From the contacts that I have had with the industry, and from what I gather, the feeling is that it should basically be on the distributors that this obligation is placed, although one would not want to rule out some formula to enable requests to be made, provided the cost is repaid, to producers direct.

Dr. David Kerr

I have had constantly to bear in mind the involvement of television in this matter. It has been necessary to encompass television in this formula. I have taken careful note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks and certainly we can go into the matter further.

Mr. Hay

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman and I had appreciated that the Bill extended to television.

I have been astonished to find that, to the best of my knowledge, the television industry—the B.B.C. and the independent television companies—has not been as active and alert in noticing what the Bill seeks to do as have been the film producers and the Cinematograph Renters Society, which looks after the interests of distributors.

I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he had been urged to confine the activities and operations of the Bill to films made in this country. Although he said that he had an open mind on this subject, I got the impression that he leaned very much against the idea of confirming the Bill to British films. He would like to see the Archive acquire a substantial number of foreign films. I hope that he will reconsider that point. The film industry certainly has the impression from discussions with him that he intends to confine the Bill's operation to British films. More than that, there is a strong argument for so confining it.

We are concerned with the British National Film Archive. Although it may be very nice to have an Archive which contains a number of foreign-made films, we must bear in mind that American films, which constitute the bulk of the world's film industry output, are foreign. It might be nice to have a large number of American films and also a large number of Continental, Japanese and other foreign films, but the important thing to do is to provide that British films, within the definition contained in the Films Act, 1960—about which we can talk more in Committee—should be the yardstick in terms of deposit. As I read it this would include a number of foreign and American films, as well as films which have been made exclusively in Britain, with British artists, technicians and money. I hope that the hon. Member will consider that point.

There is a definition in Section 17 of the 1960 Act which I should like to see written into the Bill. We need not get too technical at this point, but I hope that the hon. Member will give the question favourable consideration, because in Committee some of us will press for something of this kind to be done. It would largely meet what the Archive wants. It does not want a lot of foreign films purely because they are foreign. It does not want films which will not have some lasting merit or value to the student. A definition of this kind might give the hon. Member what both he and the Archive want.

I now turn to the definition of a "motion picture" in Clause 6. I am not very happy about that expression. I know that those words are used frequently in the United States in connection with films, but to my knowledge this is the only time when such an expression has been used in British legislation. We refer normally to cinematograph films. I do not believe that the expression "motion picture" has ever been used before. I understand why the hon. Member has used it. In his intervention just now he explained that he wants to cover television films and television materials as well as ordinary films. I ask him to look at the definition contained in Section 38(4) of the 1960 Act. I shall not weary the House by reading it out but, in my opinion, it is wide enough to cover what he wants to cover.

Next, I want to deal with the question of the obligations placed upon distributors and producers to deposit a copy of a film, or to lend such a copy if so required. No obligation is placed upon the British Film Institute or upon the Archive to do some things which the industry regards as very important. The first is to protect such copies as are deposited against theft or damage. It goes more or less without saying that the people in charge of the Archive will regard themselves as trustees not only for the Archive but for the British film industry as a whole, in respect of copies in their charge, but if we are to bring in powers enabling the Institute to apply to the High Court for a mandatory injunction—that is the chosen form of sanction—we should consider the possibility of making the Institute responsible for protecting films in its charge against theft or damage.

Another point requires consideration in connection with the possibility of films being shown in competition with commercial showings. We shall ask that the Bill shall place a responsibility upon the Institute to refrain from showing films except for study on the premises of the Institute.

I am not very clear about the powers contained in Clause 4(3), which refers to the protection of such deposited copies so long as copyright shall subsist therein I believe that the protection given against the use, in a commercial or quasi-commercial way, of deposited copies should be permanent, and not limited purely to the period during which copyright subsists.

That leads me to the whole question of copyright. The House knows the situation, in broad terms. The hon. Member was right in saying that it is complicated and vexatious. The exhibitor of a film has no copyright in what he shows. The distributor has a copyright, which he obtains from the producer for a limited period—between seven and 15 years. Thereafter the copyright reverts to the producer, who can again, if he so wishes, sell it or release it for a certain period.

The producer has a copyright—subject to any lease he may have granted of his rights—for a period of 50 years. It is not impossible that within a few years from now films made 50 years ago, which have therefore become copyright-expired, may obtain a commercial audience and become extremely popular. Hon. Members will know of the celebrated film "Gone With The Wind". This has just been reissued in a format very different from the original production. Nevertheless, the film was made many years ago. Since we are legislating not just for this moment but for many years to come I cannot see why, if a copy of "Gone With The Wind" had been deposited with the National Film Archive—for all I know it was—when the 50 years' period of copyright has expired the Institute should not be given the opportunity—whether it wishes to take it is another matter—of putting the film out on the commercial market. As the Bill is drafted I apprehend that it could. I think that we should consider the matter in Committee.

Finally, I must draw the attention of hon. Members to the cost involved in this operation. I am still unclear exactly what the hon. Member intends to do about cost. It is clear that a substantial amount of money will be involved in making and providing these copies. It is also clear that under the Bill commercial organisations are entitled to look to the Institute for reimbursement. The formula used in the drafting needs to be examined—that is by the way—but I am not clear whether or not the hon. Member can get his Bill on to the Statute Book simply by relying upon the Institute's being able to pay for the copies it gets. As I understand the situation—perhaps the Minister can help us here—the Institute is financed partly by private subscription and partly by grants from the Arts Council. I believe that the Arts Council itself is financed partly by a grant from Government sources.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee)

Entirely.

Mr. Hay

I am much obliged; my researches had not gone far enough.

If that is the case, the technical rules of the House must require a Money Resolution. If there is an indirect liability upon the Exchequer, we cannot proceed much further with the Bill unless there is such a Resolution. In that case—and here I address a plea to the right hon. Lady—I hope that we shall be given some indication this afternoon of what the Government intend to do. It would be unkind to the hon. Member and disappointing to the many people outside who have been watching the progress of the Bill with some interest if we did not have a complete assurance that copies provided for the archive would be fully paid for.

What I want to avoid is the sort of dreadfully muddled situation in which the Bill comes out of Committee with no clarity as to who shall pay for the copies, with the outcome that the industry is somehow made to provide them free. That would be resented and it would be strongly resisted by the industry, and I am sure that the hon. Member himself would not like to see that situation.

Broadly, I support the Bill. I hope that it will have a fair wind from the Government and other quarters and that it will eventually appear on the Statute Book.

1.52 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) and to the House for having missed his opening remarks. Happily I missed only his introductory remarks, but I have gathered from what the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) has just said that I may have missed something rather important in those introductory remarks because, unless the hon. Member was mistaken, my hon. Friend expressed some anxiety about the fate of his Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will shortly put his fears at rest.

I appreciate the important and interesting points which the hon. Member for Henley has raised about the necessity for some additional financial help from the State, either directly or indirectly, from the Arts Council. I agree with him that it is immaterial whether the money comes directly or indirectly if the source is the State. However, I should have thought that there was no immediate necessity for finance, although there may be at some future stage.

Whether a Money Resolution is necessary depends on how far into the future the possibility of financing may arise. This is a highly technical matter, and I hope that it will not be found necessary to cast doubt upon the Bill because of it. It should be possible to insert a Clause in Committee making it clear that liability will not fall on the Treasury until a certain time. The current practice of the industry is very generous. What collections there are have been made largely without much financial expenditure, and although it is true that the generosity has not been universal, some people have been more generous than others, a beginning has been made without any direct cost to the community.

I therefore hope that it would be no reason to hold up the Bill going into Committee, though whether a Money Resolution will have to be provided to deal with the possibility of future cost is a matter about which my right hon. Friend will no doubt enlighten us in due course. I hope that it will not be regarded as a reason for refusing the Bill a Second Reading. It is something with which we can deal later.

I should like to take this opportunity of expressing to my right hon. Friend the appreciation which we all feel for the fact that the National Film Theatre, with which my hon. Friend is so worthily associated, has been enabled under her beneficient jurisdiction to make a contribution to the British film industry which is significant, necessary, important and growing. It is a contribution no longer confined to the National Film Theatre on the South Bank. It is rightly and properly spreading throughout the country. I therefore hope that she will feel able to give her blessing to this necessary extension of its functions.

The fears which the industry has expressed about the Bill are perfectly understandable. Its members will be required to produce the prints and the questions which have been raised have been quite legitimate. I do not believe that the fears are justified, but I agree with the hon. Member for Henley that we shall have to consider some matters in Committee.

I was glad to hear that my hon. Friend was not, at this stage at any rate, conceding that the Bill should be confined to films made in this country. That would be unfortunate. It is not a concession which should be made without detailed examination in Committee. I would require much more convincing arguments than any I have heard so far to satisfy me that the Bill should be confined to films made in this country. What the British Film Institute would wish to collect would be representative copies of films from all over the world, distinguished films, films which it had been found necessary or desirable to exhibit in this country. The film industry has always been international. To confine an archive to films made in this country would be most limiting, and I hope that it will not be found necessary.

Some of the fears which have been expressed could be met in Committee, but I would need further evidence before thinking that some of the others were justified. All that is asked is that films exhibited here and chosen and selected should go into the archive. The possibility of retaliation by other countries has been a little exaggerated. As my hon. Friend said, if another country intends to create an archive, it will go ahead and do so. About 40 countries are now embarked on this process. Distributors here need not worry too much about this, because the responsibility will clearly devolve upon the exhibitors in the countries concerned. This is not something which need worry production companies in this country too basis.

Mr. Hay

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that some British distributors do a substantial export trade. If a situation arose in which it was a requirement of the granting of the right for a film for commercial exhibition in a foreign country that a copy be deposited free of charge with a national film archive in that country, and if that were done on a wide scale, a heavy burden could be placed on British distributors. This is the basis of the anxiety which has been expressed on this point and the hon. Member must address himself to that.

Mr. Jenkins

I understand the anxiety. The point I am making is that I do not think that this Bill will have the effect which is feared. I understand the fear, but it seems that what we do in relation to our country will not have the same direct effect elsewhere as producers fear. Their fear is understandable, but I do not think it is justified. It is a matter we can examine further in Committee.

All I am saying is that my hon. Friend is right not to concede the point now. Let us examine it more closely in Committee, and if convincing arguments are put forward let us look at them. As of now, I have not seen any argument which convinces me. I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's success in getting a Second Reading; he is to be congratulated upon it and I do so very sincerely. I very much hope that his enterprise in doing something which has long needed to be done will not be frustrated, but that we shall be able to go forward and examine the Bill fully in Committee.

I still have a part-time connection with the world of actors. It might be thought that the actors have something to fear from this. On the contrary, their view is that here is something that they, and all people concerned with film-making, feel gives the industry, and the art, because it is both, an added status. I hope that the Government will be able to give it their blessing.

2.3 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Silvester (Walthamstow, West)

I support and welcome the Bill. Let me list three things that I want to speak on and about which I have some query. I believe that the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) has underestimated some of the difficulties. The first is the width of the description of the film which he wishes to cover, the second is the question of cost and the third is the vexed question, which has been raised several times, of the foreign film.

Dealing first with the width of description, it seems that the Bill provides for some very wide categories of film. Any film which is available for "exhibition or broadcast", says the Bill, and the hon. Member was at pains to say that he would include in that description films made, presumably privately, for a very limited private showing. He was not clear it seemed, exactly how the process of selection would have been made in respect of those films. I began by thinking that he was seeking to select only those films which would be particularly regarded by the Institute as good films, as works of art. He then went on to speak about the value of film as a record of events.

Once we go to this second stage we are moving into a quite different realm of film. For example, I understand that under Clause 6 films which are temporary are not included. But take the use of film to record events from outer space, or the death of Kennedy. Film of this kind is projected across the Atlantic on to the B.B.C. screens, and I have no doubt is contained in the B.B.C. archives. Once we move into the realms of this sort of film we are moving into an enormous area.

That leads me directly to the question of cost. The hon. Member says that his estimate was £90,000.

Dr. David Kerr

The figure of £90,000 is what the archive now spends on all its activities. The estimated cost of implementing the terms of my Bill is about £150,000 a year, additional to the £90,000.

Mr. Silvester

That makes it much clearer. I see that last year's figure of £22,000 is put down for acquisition and carriage of films. Thus at present only a very small proportion of the £90,000 is used for the acquisition of films. I suppose that in buying films the hon. Member is thinking of about £170,000 in the course of a year. That is a very substantial sum, and it depends on his assumption that the British Film Institute will continue a policy similar to that which it is now pursuing in its selection of films.

That does not cover the sort of film that we are now discussing, the small private film and the broadcast, which is not now collected by the British Film Institute. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is seriously under-estimating the cost involved. The archive side of the British Film Institute work is perhaps 5 per cent. of its total expenditure, and is an area of its work which can be expanded. It has my support in a higher proportion of its expenditure. This underlies the point made about the need for some clear indication during the course of the debate about the financial backing which this Measure will receive.

The other point dealt with the question of foreign films. I do not think that the hon. Member has clearly argued his case. We had an analogy with the National Gallery collection of pictures, and we have had various analogies with the British Museum. The position is not the same. A person is obliged to deposit a book if the book is published and printed in this country. There is no obligation for a book produced at, say, Harvard and sold in this country to be deposited at the British Museum. Likewise it is not even true that if a person wishes to paint in this country he has to deposit his work with the Gallery. Clearly he does not. The acquisition of works of art from abroad is made through an acquisition fund, and the selection is made by the Gallery. It is quite different from the situation we are now discussing. I understand the Bill requires someone bringing the film made abroad to be exhibited in this country to deposit that film and then the Institute will pay for the cost of it. That is quite a different situation. I should be willing for the Institute to have an acquisition fund greater than it now has, which would enable it to say: "You are introducing a jolly good film. Can we please buy it?" That is quite different from placing a statutory obligation to deposit before exhibition. It will now be a statutory condition before a film can be shown.

Dr. David Kerr

The statutory requirement would be on the basis of selection and would occur after exhibition. The statutory deposition would not apply to films not yet exhibited or to all imported films. It would apply only to those selected by the Institute for deposition.

Mr. Silvester

I am grateful for the correction. I should not now be talking about the conditions before exhibition. It is still true that an obligation will be laid upon an exhibitor to provide such a copy.

The worry in the industry that at least 42 other countries are now setting up archives and that this will multiply the problem is a reasonable one. If we take this step we are introducing into the film world something for which there is no analogy in any other section of our arts. We are not seeking to extend something which has so far been deprived. I have great doubts about this but, with those two substantial qualifications about the width of the description of film and the question of the inclusion of foreign films I am happy to give a welcome to the Bill.

2.9 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee)

My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) has put the House very much in his debt by introducing this extremely valuable discussion. He has brought to us a wide array of facts and a great deal of experience. I, too, would like to pay tribute to the work of the British Film Institute. My hon. Friend has made an outstanding contribution to that work.

There is no doubt that the voluntary system is not adequate. It is true that some films that we would want to acquire are given, and we appreciate the generosity. It is also true that others, which we should acquire, have not been given. Thirdly, the point was properly made that some of the films are in a very poor condition.

The Government are entirely in favour of the principle of the Bill. We could take a different point of view, but we are entirely in favour of the principle. Film today is extremely important but in the future it will become increasingly important. In carrying out my job during the last few years, I have been impressed by the fact that it is possible for only a very limited public to appreciate the very best in opera, ballet and symphony concerts. It is immensely expensive when we seek to carry those great companies throughout the country. There is also a famine of suitable buildings. These have still to be erected.

The wonderful thing about film is that it can be taken to the remotest part and the smallest village. Therefore, as the Government are concerned to sustain the best of the arts but, at the same time, to make the best more generally available, it should be clear why we give a very high priority to films.

We have increased substantially the grant to the British Film Institute. As has been said this morning, we also made it possible to develop the Archive. Last year, new storage vaults for the Archive cost the Government £64,000. The Archive earns revenue of about £20,000 a year, but it must have direct Government support running at about £80,000 a year. Of course, we would like the money spent in this direction to be still further expanded.

Several hon. Members have raised the question of whether a Money Resolution would be necessary. I am talking without consulting my officials, but it seems to me, on the face of it—and I speak on this point subject to correction if need be—that if the grant received by the British Film Institute was sufficiently increased and in allocating its money for the various projects it decided to give another £100,000 to £150,000 a year, that would cover the financial provision. We need to think in terms of at least £100,000, although that is probably an underestimate, and a realistic figure would be much nearer an additional £150,000 a year.

Governments must always think in terms of priorities. As I say, we give a very high priority to the world of films.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon (Southend, West)

The right hon. Lady is saying that £150,000 would have to be given to the British Film Institute for the Bill to become effective. If a lesser sum were available, would it not be up to the Institute to restrict its choice of films? If only £10,000 or £20,000 a year could be given, at least a start could be made. Why go the whole hog? If it cannot all be done, why not do part of it?

Miss Lee

Because the British Film Institute is spending money on buying films. Some are received as gifts and some are bought. In our system of delegated responsibility, when we give a block grant to the Arts Council, the museums and galleries or the British Film Institute, those bodies must decide how best to spend the money.

I have been delighted that we now have 26 branches of the National Film Theatre in various parts of the country. It is central to Government policy and to what, I think, the entire House would want that we should sustain our great institutions in the capital city but, at the same time, bring diverse opportunities in entertainment, art and education to many of our constituents in parts of the country which we regard as being at present underprivileged.

My first point, therefore, is that the Government recognise the desirability of carrying out the broad intentions of the Bill and that we should have our Archive in such a condition that we are able, from the student's point of view, for enjoyment and for educational purposes, to preserve the films which we want to preserve. They might be in the ratio of one in five or even less. It is not a case of covering the lot. There is no difference of view between us about this.

When we come, however, to the problem of who should pay, we are talking more and more both to the commercial film world and to the British Film Institute, which is responsible for developing films in art form, and we are clarifying our relations. It is important to have clear demarcation lines of the duties and responsibilities of one group and another. The relations between them are good, co-operative and complementary. There is, therefore, a case for thinking in terms of a Bill in which the cost of the Archive would be shared between the film industry, the television industry, and the Government.

I am not, therefore, saying today that the Government would like to see the introduction of a Bill for which they would take complete financial responsibility. I hope, however, that I have said enough to indicate that in a more favourable economic climate this is one Measure that we would like to see on the Statute Book.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central suggests in his Bill that it be left to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to decide the date when the Bill should begin to operate. My hon. Friend will, I think, concede that that is not a desirable way of introducing new legislation. If that method applied in this case, it could apply in other cases and we could get ourselves into a complicated situation if the House gave a Second Reading to a Bill in a situation in which the Government said that they could not in present economic circumstances find the money to implement the Bill.

It is surely much better to be clear whether the concept is one which is accepted or rejected by the Government. This one is clearly accepted in principle. I would like my hon. Friend to consider that perhaps at the end of the day, having heard what I have said, having heard the point of view of hon. Members, on all sides, and having listened to what was said by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), who both expressed good will, but had certain doubts and misgivings on the part of the commercial film industry, he might agree with me when I say that there are many various interests which have been brought together and I am optimistic enough to think that we can all be brought together.

I do not see why we should not—and I hope that it will not be in the too remote future—get this Measure carried through. I must not, however, convey to the House anything more than I have done, which is the good will of the Government and acceptance of the Bill in principle. We would like to consult the British Film Institute, the commercial industry and everyone concerned about how best it should be carried out. That is the gist of the matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central talked about £10½ million for the museums and asked whether this was fair to the Archive. The position is not really like that. What has happened is that over the whole field—museums and galleries, the Arts Council and the British Film Institute—there has been more than twice the allocation of funds that there was before. We would all like to see more spent in this way.

The House can be absolutely certain that the film is a matter of very great concern to myself and to the Government. We see its possibilities, both in education and in the development of film as art and entertainment. Those should not be hostile terms. Good art can be good entertainment. Some bad entertainment can be both bad as entertainment and bad as art.

We are living in a social climate with rising standards of education and expectation. Films like "If …" and "Oh! What a Lovely War" would not have got general distribution at one time, but now distributors are finding new audiences and standards. Anybody who has had the privilege, as I have, of seeing the first of the series of Sir Kenneth Clark's "Civilisation" will appreciate the completely different experience of seeing a spectacle in colour on a large screen compared with seeing a small picture in black and white on a small television screen.

I want every encouragement to be given to television and the cinema. An immense number of gifted men and women exist in Britain and they are helping to raise the general standard of British films.

Having heard this explanation of the position, having heard the comments of hon. Members on both sides, knowing the concern which we feel—we believe that we could get over the copyright complications and financial problems in due course, although we cannot say, in the present financial climate, when the Government would be able to take financial responsibility for implementing a desirable Measure like this—and having congratulated my hon. Friend for the serious thought and hard work he has put into the Bill, I trust that he will not press the matter to a Division. I assure him that his effort is greatly appreciated by the whole House.

2.22 p.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon (Southend)

Like the Minister, I congratulate the hon. Member for Wansdworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) on his excellent Bill. I, too, support it in principle, although I agree that there are numerous points of detail which need consideration. They were eloquently referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester).

I was sorry to hear the Minister say that the Government could not support its Second Reading. That did not surprise me, in view of the cash that would be required. However, considering the way in which the Bill is worded, it is surprising that the right hon. Lady has adopted an attitude of rejection. After all, Clause 7 clearly says: This Act shall come into force on a date to be determined by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. With that provision, it is not fair for the right hon. Lady to say, "We cannot afford the Bill now." Nobody is asking the Government to afford it now. The timing of its enforcement is at the discretion of the Government. The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central, is merely asking the House to get the principle right, and then the Government can implement the Bill at any time, when funds are available.

The Minister accepts the principle of the Measure, welcomes it and thinks that the Bill is an excellent idea. The only thing holding her back is the necessary cash to implement it. Why not implement the principle and enforce the Bill later? She is not being asked to implement it now or this year. Nobody is asking for vast increases in public expenditure. There are many aspects of the Bill which require substantial amendment, but if the right hon. Lady accepted the principle we could go into those matters in Committee. If the Bill is dropped now it may be ages before another hon. Member has the good fortune, through the Ballot, of introducing a similar Measure.

Miss Lee

That is not necessarily so. I made it clear that the Government would like to see a Bill of this kind on the Statute Book. I went on to say that we did not regard this as the financial climate in which to implement it. To do what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting might mislead the House and the public.

Mr. Channon

The House and the public realise that there is no intention of spending cash on the Bill now. Nobody would be misled. Innumerable Bills become law leaving the appointed day to be chosen by the Government. Frequently Measures contain the provision: This Act shall come into force on a date to be determined by the Secretary of State … The case for compulsorily depositing films with the Archive is extremely strong. Although there are differences between depositing films by this means and books with the British Museum, the cases are to a large extent analogous. Future generations will regard it as a tragedy that what to them were priceless films were not kept. In a century from now it will be thought inexplicable that some of our best films were not preserved. Even today films made in the 'thirties and more recently have been lost for ever. This is a tragedy for posterity.

Paragraph 118 of the Estimates Committee's recent report said: … for certain periods it is not possible to find copies of films for preservation as commercial companies used not to be interested in keeping any copies of films once their profit-making life had expired. It went one: Even today, it seems that some commercial companies have a prejudice against giving films to the Archive, lest this should become compulsory here or elsewhere". It is a remarkable tribute to the film industry and all concerned that there has been no objection to the principle of the Bill, although there are, of course, points of detail outstanding.

The important question of whether we should include foreign films in addition to British-made ones is important and could be thrashed out in Committee. My hon. Friends have made telling arguments about the differences between depositing films and books. The film industry is naturally concerned about the possibility of setting a precedent which might result in film makers having to deposit copies of film in every country in which they are shown. It would be unreasonable to expect film companies to supply free copies to 30 or more different countries. Perhaps this is a good argument for setting up an international body to ensure that films of merit, wherever they are made, are preserved.

The B.F.I. does excellent work and I pay tribute to it. The Estimates Committee pointed out that it had received evidence urging more money to be given to the Institute when funds are available.

There are enormous problems for resolution, of course. There are enormous problems, for instance, about television films. I am not quite clear about Clause 6 and why the hon. Member excludes pictures which are recorded ephemerally for the purposes of broadcasting". I am not quite sure what that means. It might cut out some television copies might it not?

Dr. David Kerr

This is a definition in the Television Act, I think. It refers specifically to material which is recorded in such a way that it does not persist on record. It is used ephemerally—for television purposes. It does not have to be scrapped, but it simply fades.

Mr. Channon

Yes, I see. I understand the point. I am glad, however, the hon. Member has included television film within the scope of the Bill.

The right hon. Lady said at one stage in her speech that the proposal in the Bill is interesting and that perhaps one day there might be a scheme which did not put the whole burden on the Government, a scheme in which, perhaps, the Government and the television industry and the film industry would join. I think that is an excellent idea. It is certainly one which should be examined. Who knows?—perhaps we would get the support of the film industry and the television industry for a scheme of this kind. I do not think that such a scheme is outside the scope of the Bill. The Long Title says that it is a Bill to Require the deposit of certain copies of moving pictures in the National Film Archive of the British Film Institute. Any such scheme with the support of the television industry and the film industry and the Government is perfectly within the scope of the Bill.

My experience in this House, and I think that hon. Members who have been here some time will know what I say about this is right, is that when a Government take such an attitude as that which the right hon. Lady has taken this afternoon the only thing to do is to push

them, and very often, when we do push a Government along a course we want them to adopt, we find that difficulties which seemed totally insuperable a few months earlier can be resolved.

Again we should all like to make it perfectly clear that while this Bill is accepted in principle we are not asking that it should come into force at once, and that the date of its coming into operation is entirely a matter for the Government and entirely at their discretion. It is entirely at the discretion of the Government when public money should be expended upon this purpose. Perhaps that will not be possible for a long time. Nevertheless, the principle of the Bill is one for which the hon. Member has made a very strong case, and it is a principle which, I think, is accepted by everyone connected with films. It is a principle which I certainly would wish to support. The film industry does not object to the principle, although, of course, there are points of detail which we should have to discuss in Standing Committee.

I should like to ask the hon. Member this. I can assure him that if he would agree to press the Government today, to press the Bill forward to Standing Committee, he will certainly have my support. I hope he will achieve his aim of getting this Bill into Standing Committee, on the clear understanding that we do not expect public money to be expended at this stage. I hope the hon. Member will not be deterred by what the right hon. Lady has said. We have had her sympathy—she accepted the Bill in principle. Let us make it a reality by getting it on the Statute Book. I invite the hon. Member to press his right hon. Friend to agree to a Second Reading, or to press the Bill forward in a Division.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 48.

Division No. 159.] AYES [2.33 p.m.
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Channon, H. P. G. Lestor, Miss Joan
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Gregory, Arnold Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Bessell, Peter Hay, John Lubbock, Eric
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Heffer, Eric S. Macdonald, A. H.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M) Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Maclennan, Robert
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Marquand, David
Molloy, William Ridsdale, Julian Winnick, David
Neave, Airey Roebuck, Roy
Orme, Stanley Smith, John (London & W'minster) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Prior, J. M. L. Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Dr. David Kerr and
Richard, Ivor Weatherill, Bernard Mr. Frederick Silvester.
NOES
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Kelley, Richard Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Booth, Albert Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Boston, Terence Lipton, Marcus Skeffington, Arthur
Boyden, James Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Slater, Joseph
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Morris, John (Aberavon) Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Carmichael, Neil Moyle, Roland Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Concannon, J. D. Murray, Albert Tuck, Raphael
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) O'Malley, Brian Urwin, T. W.
Dell, Edmund Oram, Albert E. Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Wallace, George
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Whitlock, William
English, Michael Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Rankin, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fowler, Gerry Rees, Merlyn Mr. Joseph Harper and
Horner, John Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy Dr. M. S. Miller.
Hoy, James