§ Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 7, line 3, at end insert new Clause " A ":
§ Mr. Speaker has not selected these for separate discussion, but they may be referred to in debating the Minister's Motion.
I hope that the House will bear with me if I now repeat some of the things which have been said at earlier stages of the Bill.
There is very wide sympathy for the principles which motivated the noble Lord who moved the inclusion of this Clause in another place, and those who both supported him there and Members of this House who may feel inclined to lend their support now.
I shall deal, first, with principles. The preservation of copies of films made is the responsibility of the British Film Institute, of which the National Film Archive is a part, and Ministerial responsibility rests with the right hon. Lady the Minister of State for the Arts. In those circumstances alone, therefore, the Bill now before us is not a correct place for legislation of this kind.
993 But, quite apart from that, the House may like to be reminded that just about one year ago a Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) which had as its object the provision of legislation the effect of which, if enacted, would have been very much the same as the present Clause is designed to achieve.
That Bill was not given a Second Reading, and it was said during the debate that the British Film Institute—and, therefore, the National Film Archive—is financed mainly by a grant from Government sources. The grant to the British Film Institute has been increased from £100,000 in 1963–64 to £625,000 in the current financial year, and the archive itself has benefited substantially from this.
The Government have for example, provided £64,000 for new vaults opened in 1968, and this year the Institute's grant includes £29,000 for further vaults, and £37,000 for the duplication of nitrate film. The right hon. Lady the Minister of State further said that in a more favourable economic climate this was one Measure which the Government would like to see on the Statute Book. She went on to say that she would like to consult the British Film Institute, the commercial industry and everyone concerned about how best it should be carried out.
I know that there are many pressures on money available for the arts, and, as the right hon. Lady indicated a year ago, this is a question of priorities. It has already been made clear on several occasions that the Government are sympathetic to the general principle involved. But to implement a provision which envisages purchase by the archive of films which are offered to it would involve extra demands on public funds which the Government cannot contemplate at present.
I recognise that the new Clause intends that the existing procedure whereby films are offered to the archive will continue. These offers are made voluntarily, and the archive receives many copies of films without cost to itself. This arrangement, which can and should continue, is of great value to the archive.
I know that there is a feeling within the House that the difficulty of introducing a Measure of this kind now, because the Government cannot at present provide 994 funds, could be avoided by including in the Bill a further provision whereby this Clause would have no effect until brought into force by Statutory Instrument. I cannot accept this proposition. As I have already explained, responsibility for the National Film Archive does not rest with the Board of Trade, and it would be totally wrong for the Board of Trade to be given responsibility through this Bill for bringing into force a legislative provision which is the responsibility of another Department.
This device also has the objection that if it were used in relation to the new Clause the Board of Trade would be asked at some time in the future to bring into force a Clause which is in a form which is, in any event, quite unacceptable, a matter to which I shall refer in a moment.
In view of the fact that the matter was obviously to be brought before this House on the present occasion I have taken the opportunity of again discussing this matter with my right hon. Friend, and I can say she is entering into consultations with the various interests involved to explore further the practical issues with particular reference to the possibility which she mentioned last year that the costs should be shared by the film industry, the television industry and the British Film Institute. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept that positive action is being taken.
So much for the grounds of principle on which I am bound to ask the House to remove this Clause from the Bill. There are very strong objections to a legislative measure as presented to us by the new Clause. Since the Bill was published with this Clause in it I have received representations from both the Film Production Association of Great Britain and from the Kinematograph Renters' Society that the Clause should be removed from the Bill. These organisations—and I share their views on this point—like most of us here are not opposed in principle to the deposit of films in an archive, and are at this moment exploring ways and means of improving the existing co-operation between it and the commercial side of the film industry.
The compulsion which the Clause seeks to place on the distributors of films, however, has a number of strong objections 995 to it. The Clause would require the applicant for the registration of a film, before he applies for registration, to give or offer or offer to sell a copy of the film to the Archive. Without such a gift or offer being made the film could not be registered and it would then be illegal to show it. I think that this is an unreasonable sanction, because the applicant for registration—usually the distributor—will often not have the right to make copies of films for offer to third parties, yet it is the applicant for registration who would have to comply with such a provision.
The logical outcome would be that cinema exhibitors in this country, who remain in business under considerable difficulties, would have those difficulties greatly increased by a serious reduction in the number of films available to them. The Clause makes no transitional provision for existing contracts. This would be particularly difficult where the copyright owner is a foreigner.
There is the further important point that the application of this Measure to foreign films would be likely to lead to the introduction of similar compulsion in many foreign countries, which would be unlikely to include a provision that their archive must pay for the print demanded. Moreover, the archives of some foreign countries may not be so meticulous as our own archives in respecting copyright. I know of a number of cases where archives abroad have made use of copies for public showings, and this can be seriously prejudicial to the commercial exploitation of the film concerned. It would be difficult for us to object if we have already applied conditions of this sort to foreign films entering this country.
I hope that the House will accept my assurance that the Department primarily concerned in this matter is actively pursuing it. However much we may recognise the principle behind this provision, and however greatly we regret the necessity for opposing it, for the reasons I have given I must ask the House to support the Motion.
§ Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)
I think that the Lords' Amendment may be defective in some small technical ways. The Amendment 996 which has not been selected would have been a contribution to putting that right, but I do not think that this is the time or place to go into details of the Amendment, because it is the principle that we want to debate.
The Amendment was accepted in another place by a majority of 59 to 20 in Committee, and on Report their Lordships voted 62 to 55 in favour. Together with the contents were a large number of noble Lords who normally support the Government. I find it impossible to discover in the House anybody who is opposed to the Amendment. Not even the Government are opposed to it. The right hon. Lady the Minister of State and the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary have declared themselves in favour of it. We seem to be in the curious position that everybody is in favour of the principle, and yet the entire might of the Government is whipped to defeat the principles of which they are apparently in favour.
To keep the argument short, there appear to be two reasons why the Government wish to defeat the Amendment. The first reason was given by the noble Lady, Lady Phillips, in the other place, and by the hon. Lady tonight. It is that this is not the appropriate Bill in which to legislate about records because the costs of such legislation should fall upon the Department of Science and Education. That is broadly the argument. I should like to remind the hon. Lady that legislation about nationalised industries has caused them to deposit their records in certain public repositories, the cost of which fall upon the Lord Chancellor's Department.
The Minister of State may remember certain discussions about transport records or transport relics which were dealt with in the Transport Act by the Ministry of Transport. The cost of storing these records and housing these relics will fall on her Department. But this strange bureaucratic demarcation argument has never been used before. It is commonplace for one Department to legislate on a subject which falls naturally within that Department, but to make another Department responsible for carrying out the legislation. That argument of the hon. Lady, therefore, does not stand. If the Government made the finance available 997 there would be no difficulty about accepting the Amendment.
The hon. Lady's second objection is that there is a shortage of finance and that it would be impossible to house and to store a satisfactory number of films in the film archives. This parsimony is very unlike the right hon. Lady responsible for the arts, who has become the public lady bountiful, always telling us by how much her Vote has been increased. It is surprising that the sum of £100,000 or £150.000 will not be made available for what seems to be the most important of all her functions—that of making sure that whatever we do about the present, the records of the past are not neglected, destroyed and denied to future generations.
The British Film Institute spends £90,000 a year on its film archives and it would be a question of increasing that sum by as much as public funds would allow. But the point is that it does not matter how much is made available—whether it is a lot or none; for to give the Institute power to require the statutory deposition of films does not of itself cost a penny. If the Institute is kept on a tight rein, it cannot afford to buy as many films as it would like to buy. The difficulty about the present situation is that it has to rely on the generosity of the film producers to a large extent and it gets films which are given free and not films which it might prefer to have but which are not given free and which it cannot afford to buy.
Passing the Amendment would cost the State not one penny. The State can make such provision as it thinks right for the Institute and for the film archives in the future. No more money is involved in passing the Amendment, which is an enabling Amendment giving the Institute the statutory right to buy any film it wishes to buy.
It is only right to acknowledge the generosity of the film industry which has been giving about £20,000 worth of films a year to the Institute, but in my view it is wrong that a great national archive should have to rely upon gifts. It should have its own money to buy what it thinks it right to buy. The successful, or it may he unsuccessful, producer of a film should not be under a moral obligation 998 to spend up to £1,000 on providing prints —especially if the film has been unsuccessful, for he may not have recouped his costs.
It would be better to give the Film Institute enough money to buy what it needs and to leave it to decide what to take. The main priority is to ensure that the past is satisfactorily recorded. That should have first call on the Minister's funds. I am horrified that she seems to say that among all her functions this important function is one which she is not prepared to carry out.
I suspect that the true reason for the Government's attitude is that there is a lack of agreement between the two Departments. They have not made up their minds how to deal with the problem. Neither the Ministry of Education nor the Baord of Trade have been able to find a solution. They wonder whether there should be two archives or one. They have a working party which is wandering its slow, bureauratic way through this difficult problem and they were caught napping when another place put down a reasonable and sensible Amendment which could have been accepted by the House tonight, enabling us to go to bed and to spend no more time on the problem.
I know that some hon. Gentlemen have received letters from the Imperial War Museum, which is the alternative to the archive, because it houses the films of interest to the student of war and has a very fine collection. I am happy to tell the House that the Museum and the British Film Institute last week signed an agreement, on statutory deposit, as to the way that they would administer the Amendment if it became law, so that both would be satisfied, both would be able to get the films they want, and there is no question of disputed claim to films. The two repositories are now absolutely agreed on how this should be done.
I have in my hand a copy of the signed and deposited agreement between the two bodies. So there is no problem any more. There is neither a problem as to whether it should be the British Film Institute or the Imperial War Museum, nor is there a problem with regard to money, nor is there any substance in the hon. Lady's case that this is the wrong Bill in which to do this.
999 The real truth is that in some curious way the Government are blind and obdurate to the will of Parliament. This is a small point, late at night. All that they have to do is to accept the Amendment. Where it has been democratically demonstrated that it is the will of Parliament that the Amendment should be accepted it is time that the Government recognised this and withdrew their objection to the Lords Amendment. If they do not we will certainly vote against this.
§ Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)
The House and Parliament owes a debt to Lord Willis, who introduced this Amendment in the Lords. The object of the exercise is one which as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has said, is universally desired. It is desirable that there should be a National Film Archive and that this institution should be enabled to do a more complete job than it is currently able to do, with its present limited funds.
The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord leaves something to be desired and our difficulty is that at this stage we are limited in our powers to correct the technical difficulties in the Amendment. This is a problem. I am glad that my hon. Friend has given us an assurance which I would like to explore a little, and which I hope will enable us not to press the Lords Amendment. I had an Amendment, which has not been called, which was intended to provide my hon. Friend with a solution to the problem. I am sorry that she did not feel able to accept it. It would have given her the opportunity to say that she accepted the idea in principle, but would introduce a statutory order as and when she was able to.
I understand that this is a matter which in some respects at any rate is more one for her right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, whose presence I welcome. Provided that that assurance is as firm as I understand it to be, and I presume that the presence of her right hon. Friend is an indication of the firmness of the assurance, I believe that we can accept the position as it stands. The apparent difference which existed between the Imperial War Museum and the National Film Archive has been resolved. This 1000 morning I received a letter from the Curator of the National Film Archive in which he said that:Yesterday we concluded a formal agreement with the Museum in which we undertook to use any statutory powers accorded to us to apply for films on their behalf. The Museum has accordingly agreed to withdraw its objection to the Amendment.There is, therefore, no difficulty. As soon as the Government's discussions have been completed and the necessary money is available, we can proceed to accumulate a more satisfactory archive.
In these circumstances, I hope that before the debate is concluded, my hon. Friend will clear up a point about the negotiations which are taking place. I understand that it is hoped that as a result of those negotiations, new legislation will be introduced, but am I right in thinking that that legislation would be introduced by my right hon. Friend and would be—
§ Mr. Jenkins
The hon. Member says that it will be introduced by hon. Members opposite. He is wrong and I am afraid they will not have the opportunity to explore his curiously " archayic " method of pronouncing archives which he maintained throughout Committee, but could not sustain at the box.
I ask my hon. Friend to say whether I am right in my understanding and that her right hon. Friend will be introducing legislation, that is to say, by the Department of Education and Science. If that is what my hon. Friend says, I should not press my Amendment to the Lords Amendment, even if I had the opportunity to do so.
§ Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye)
I should like briefly to add my support to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), and I shall confine my few remarks to the Imperial War Museum. It seems odd that in the Amendment which has come from the other place the reference is only to the National Film Archive. It seems even more odd that the Minister tonight spoke about the archive, not once, but many times, and 1001 referred only to the archive in the singular. In fact, there are two archives.
The Imperial War Museum was founded in 1920 and is the oldest archive in the world. It has 30 million feet as as against the 38 million feet of the National Film Archive. It has conditions in which it is storing film as good as any in the world, and it has testing and preservation arrangements which are unequalled. One other thing that is worthy of mention is the way in which the Imperial War Museum has its indexing organised on as advanced a computer film index as is to be found anywhere. In these circumstances, to have discussions about keeping films without reference to the Imperial War Museum seems to me to be entirely wrong. That was why I put down the Amendment which has not been selected.
Any suggestion that there is disagreement between the Imperial War Museum and the National Film Archive must be entirely erroneous, because at least twice in every month there is a discussion between the curator of the National Film Archive and the deputy-director of the Imperial War Museum and the two organisations work very happily together. With these few words concerning the Imperial War Museum, I support my hon. Friend's observations.
§ Dr. David Kerr (Wandsworth, Central)
As one who must claim some responsibility or blame for starting this off a year or more ago, I feel that I owe it to myself to say something about the statutory deposit, and to be as brief as possible in saying it.
I am in some difficulty. I am reluctant to seek for allies on the Opposition Front Bench, for I am sorry to say that some of the things which they have said I would want to reject out of hand.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was less than fair. He was positively hostile to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, who has granted to the British Film Institute a considerably increased sum of money precisely for archival improvements to which he has referred. The British Film Institute was so surprised that it has since scratched its head wondering whether and how it can spend the money which my right hon. Friend has granted. I will defend her to 1002 the last breath that remains with me when I sit down against any charge of lack of generosity in this respect.
The hon. Gentleman misses the point. The problem which the British Film Institute and the National Film Archive face is not so much that of the archiving of the past, but of the archiving of the present. It is the acquisition of current firms which remains a very grave problem for a system which ought to be depositing and accumulating a growing footage of most valuable social, historical and scientific documents, which is today not, perhaps, appearing so much in the nation's cinemas as on television and in specialised film showings. That is the problem.
When I introduced my Private Member's Bill last year, the support which was expressed on both sides gave wide recognition—admittedly in a circle of cognoscenti—to the importance of preserving material which, if it is not preserved within a short time is in grave danger of being lost for ever. A great deal of film has already been lost for ever, and more is falling by the wayside. It is not a matter of just saying that if we wait a few more years we shall have the money to rescue the situation and go back over the ground again. Once film is lost, once video tape fades, and material is lost to future generations, there is no way of re-creating it. That is why it is so important that some measure of encouragement should be given to the British Film Institute.
We have been told about the generosity of the film production industry. I have tried the generosity of the film production industry, and I must tell the House that it falls short of what the nation requires. I might add that I am a little sick of the crocodile tears that are being shed for the poor film producers. If any poor film producer had to face a tax of £1,000, which might be the cost of a deposit copy of a very expensive colour film in 70 mm. CinemaScope, it would be very small—in some cases almost trivial—in comparison with the high cost of the production of such films.
In any case, it is not that kind of film that presents the gravest problem to the archive. The gravest problem is that presented by the good quality film which 1003 comes from overseas, and which is not easily charged against the producer of the film but must be charged against the distributor, whose margin is very much less.
The curious thing is that in many cases the distributors of foreign films have been very generous whereas, by contrast, the producers of some of the more expensive films have been less than generous, and some of the most important films produced in this country by British or American producers have failed to find their way into the National Film Archive. This is the problem that must be dealt with.
My right hon. Friend was very sympathetic when my Bill was rejected last year. I hope that the discussions which I understand are now going on will be fruitful. The trouble with the content of the Lords Amendment is twofold. My hon. Friend claims that it is inappropriate for her Department. I said on Second Reading that it was an inappropriate Bill to contain any reference to statutory deposit. I still take that view. I still think that a Films Bill dealing with the economics and finance of the industry is an inappropriate Measure because it looks as though the Bill labels statutory deposit as a way of taxing the industry.
I am losing heart. If a Measure came before the House which involved taxing the industry to require a statutory deposit I would now find myself looking at it in a very friendly way. That was not the way in which I tabled my Bill because I hoped that 1 should have sufficient support from the Government and the industry not to make that necessary. I do not think it right to impose a tax of this sort on the industry.
§ Mr. Ridley
The hon. Member will be aware that the industry is asked to donate the copy, so it is not a tax on the film industry.
§ Dr. Kerr
The question about whether the industry should be paid for this is at the root of the problem which besets the Government. Sums of money of about £150,000 a year have been mentioned. I do not know whether this is accurate, but I think it a reasonably good working figure. If we are not to have at this stage a kind of voluntary deposit which 1004 the industry ought to be offering, the Government would be well advised not to be so generous in their approach to the industry as I was prepared to be generous on the Government's behalf when I tabled my Bill and as is implied in the Lords Amendment.
This is a confused and confusing situation, but I have tried the generosity of the industry and found it wanting. I hope very much that we shall be able to find a way which is fair both to the Government with their museum responsibilities and problems and to the industry which numbers among its members some who have been very generous indeed to the archive and to whom we and the nation as a whole should express gratitude, but this is not true throughout the industry.
My second reason for suggesting that this is not as watertight and perfect as it should be rests on the fact that what is asked in the Lords Amendment of the industry is that it should supply, or offer to sell or give a positive print. For re-showing that is fair enough, but for archiving, that is to say depositing for future reference, a positive print is useless, particularly if it is a worn print. This is why the Lords Amendment is not sufficient to carry us along the road to an adequate deposit programme to satisfy the requirements of the National Archive.
I cannot support the Lords Amendment as it stands. I should like to see it drawn up with more technical advice from those concerned, but it has been encouraging that their Lordships have given support to this principle, just as last year it was encouraging to hear my right hon. Friend say how much she valued the wider deposit of film and to hear hon. Members opposite support it in unequivocal terms. This is not quite the moment, but I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends with Government responsibility will have taken note of the widespread support for extending the resources of our national film archive and will act with urgency to stop up a gap which is allowing so much valuable material to be lost to us and those who come after us.
§ Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)
Of the 80 films a year which it wishes to acquire the archive manages to acquire about 20, of which some are donated by the industry. The archive 1005 receives a grant from the Independent Television Authority which we are glad to hear is to be supplemented from other sources. Even so, this sum is obviously nothing like enough if the archive can acquire only one-quarter of the films it wishes to acquire.
Therefore, something must be done. Taking the two extremes, one solution would be to compel those who apply for licences to donate a copy of their film to the archive. The other extreme would be to give something to ensure that the archive could buy a copy of any film it wanted. There must be an intermediate solution; because not only would the extreme solution of requiring all applicants to donate one copy of their film be unsatisfactory from the point of the view of the foreign film which is to be shown to only a few people, but it would be unfair that the very small film maker making a documentary in this country which might be of great value but which will not be commercially very successful should have to hear the cost of putting one copy of his film into the archive.
As to the second extreme, it might be unreasonable to give the archive sufficient money to enable it to buy a copy of any film it wanted, because many films cost an enormous sum to produce and, if successful, gross an enormous amount. It must he remembered, though, that the producers of such films can well afford to donate a copy of their film to the archive.
Guidelines are necessary so that the industry may know what is required. It should be possible to produce such guidelines so that the very small man can say, " Given my costs, this is an unreasonable sum for me to be expected to contribute to the archive. I cannot afford it ". However, it should be clear that the licensee of the purely commercial film which will make a great deal of money should donate a good copy—not a worn-out copy—to the archive.
The hon. Lady said that importers of foreign films might not have the right to produce a copy of such film to go into the archive. Such a licensee must make the necessary arrangements. It may be that as a consequence there would be some foreign films which we should miss, which would be a pity. The licensee could ask the archive whether it wanted a copy of the film. If a copy was re- 1006 quired, the licensee would have to decide whether it was worth going to the trouble of getting the producer to agree to this contribution to the archive. Perhaps in consequence the film would not be shown. I suggest that it would operate in exactly the same way abroad: British producers would have to consider whether they would be prepared for copies of their films to disappear into the national film archive of Ruritania. A British film producer who was unwilling for this to happen might prefer that his films were not shown in Ruritania.
That is feasible. The Lords Amendment would give a framework on which the industry and the National Film Archive could work, and I hope that the Government will change their mind about it.
§ 12.15 a.m.
§ Mr. John Hay (Henley) rose—
§ Mr. Hay
Before my hon. Friends cheer too loudly, I must warn them that I propose to tell the House that I shall not support them if they go into the Lobby on this Lords Amendment.
I agree with the Minister on the attitude which she has taken. This is, after all, the final stage of the Bill. The main reason why I oppose the new Clause which was inserted in the other place is that it is completely unworkable. It does not tell us, for instance, what is to be the position regarding matters like copyright. It does not make failure to comply with the requirement for a statutory declaration an absolute bar to registration of a film. It does not indicate what the National Film Archive is to do with the copy of the film deposited, or what protection there is for distributor or exhibitor against showing of the film in competition with the commercial cinema.
In short, the Lords Amendment does not do all those things which the Bill presented a year ago by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) sought to do. I spoke in support of the hon. Gentleman's Bill and voted for it, though in my speech then I expressed doubts about some of its drafting. It was a pity that the right hon. Lady at that time was not able to advise the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. If it had succeeded at that point, and if we 1007 had had a chance to debate it in Committee, we should not have had the sort of half-baked proposal now before the House in the form of this Lords Amendment.
I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friends. They take a view on this which I do not share. But this is the last opportunity we have of looking at a piece of legislation, and it is no good our putting into the Bill, even after all the pressure in the other place, a provision which, frankly, is unworkable and which, I am certain, would cause far more trouble in future than what is now proposed, that is, sensible discussions with the industry as a whole to try to find a workable solution for the whole problem—which is what everyone wants.
For those reasons, I support the Minister. This is the first time I have supported her on anything to do with the Bill, I believe. I hope that my hon. Friends will think again before pressing the House to a Division on what I regard as a completely unworkable Amendment.
§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody
May I have the leave of the House to speak again?
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) has stated the position correctly. The Amendment is not a workable one. It would not in the long run assist either the industry or the archive. We are in process of having talks about this problem. It is far more sensible to reach agreement with the people involved than at the last moment to make an Amendment such as this in a piece of legislation mainly concerned with something totally different. I ask the House, therefore, to disagree with the Lords in the Amendment.
§ Mr. H. P. G. Channon (Southend, West)
I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). It is all very well for the Government to say that they are in discussion with the various bodies concerned about this matter. The hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) produced his Bill over a year ago. Why have there not been discussions at least in the past 15 months? Nothing hap
§ pened until this Amendment was made in the other place, and even tonight we have no clear indication from the Government of how far the negotiations have gone, when they are likely to be concluded, or what is likely to happen. We have had an example of complete Ministerial inaction in the matter.
§ The right hon. Lady gave us a speech in favour of the principle last year, but, after voting against it, has done nothing since. We can be sure of that; otherwise, we should have been told in the other place. There was no mention of negotiations there. I suspect that they have been going on for about the past 48 hours. We heard nothing about this during any of the debates in another place. We would have had a far clearer discussion of the matter if the Government had accepted the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
§ This is not the moment to argue the details. We are asked to vote for or against the system of having a statutory undertaking whereby people would be paid for the films. Nobody is being asked to give the films free. The Amendment does not cost a penny. It gets the principle on to the Statute Book, and the amount of money it costs will depend on how much the Government offer.
§ The British Film Institute is in favour of the Amendment, as is the Imperial War Museum. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not. I am sorry that the Government are reduced to saying that this is not quite the moment to legislate on the matter. It was not the moment a year ago, but it is now. The hon. Members for Wandsworth, Central and Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) are here. They voted for this on the last occasion, and I am sorry that they will not be with us in the Lobby tonight. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) voted with us a year ago, and I hope that he will have the courage of his convictions and vote the same way again.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 83.1009
|Division No. 123.]||AYES||[12.21 a.m.|
|Alldritt, Waiter||Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)||Bessell, Peter|
|Archer, Peter||Barnett, Joel||Bidwell, Sydney|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Bence, Cyril||Bishop, E. S.|
|Booth, Albert||Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)||Palmer, Arthur|
|Boston, Terence||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred|
|Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)||Hoy, Rt. Hn. James||Pentland, Norman|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)|
|Buchan, Norman||Hynd, John||Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)|
|Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'burn)||Johnson, James (K'stonon-Hull, W.)||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Leadbitter, Ted||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Coe, Denis||Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)||Probert, Arthur|
|Coleman, David||Lee, John (Reading)||Rankin, John|
|Concannon, J. D.||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Lomas, Kenneth||Richard, Ivor|
|Dalkteith, Earl of||Loughlin, Charles||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)||McBride, Neil||Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||MacColl, James||Roebuck, Roy|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)||MacDermot, Niall||Ross Rt. Hn. William|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Macdonald, A. H.||Ryan, John|
|Dell, Edmund||McElhone, Frank||Sheldon, Robert|
|Driberg, Tom||McGuire, Michael||Sillars, J.|
|Dunn, James A.||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Silverman, Julius|
|Dunnett, Jack||McNamara, J. Kevin||Slater, Joseph|
|Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)||Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Ellis, John||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)||Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)||Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|Faulds, Andrew||Mapp, Charles||Taverne, Dick|
|Femyhough, E.||Marks, Kenneth||Tinn, James|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard||Wallace, George|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|Ford, Ben||Mendelson, John||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|Forrester, John||Millan, Bruce||Witkins, W. A.|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Gardner, Tony||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Golding, John||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Winstanley, Dr. M. P.|
|Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Woof, Robert|
|Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||Murray, Albert|
|Hamling, William||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael|
|Harper, Joseph||Ogden, Eric||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||O'Halloran, Michael||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Haseldine, Norman||Orme, Stanley||Mr. Ray Dobson.|
|Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Oswald, Thomas|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)||Pounder, Rafton|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Pym, Francis|
|Astor, John||Harvie Anderson, Miss||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)||Hiley, Joseph||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Batsford, Brian||Holland, Philip||Royle, Anthony|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Howell, David (Guildford)||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Biffen, John||Hunt, John||Sharpies, Richard|
|Body, Richard||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Silvester, Frederick|
|Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward||Iremonger, T. L.||Speed, Keith|
|Braine, Bernard||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.|
|Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)||Kershaw, Anthony||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Temple, John M.|
|Carlisle, Mark||Kitson, Timothy||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Waddington, David|
|Clegg, Waiter||Mac Arthur, Ian||Walters, Dennis|
|Corfleid, F. V.||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)||Ward Christopher (Swindon)|
|Crouch, David||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Dean, Paul||Maddan, Martin||Whitelaw, Rt. HA. William|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)||Maginnis, John E.||Williams Donald (Dudley)|
|Eden, Sir John||Marten, Neil||Willson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Elliott.R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Wolrige-Gordon Patrick|
|Fortescue, Tim||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Fry, Peter||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Wylie, N. R.|
|Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Munro-Lucas.Tooth, Sir Hugh||Younger, Hn. George|
|Gitmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||Onslow, Cranley||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Gower, Raymond||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Mr. Reginald Eyre and|
|Grant, Anthony||Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)||Mr, Hector Monro.|
§ Committee appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Channon, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Haseldene, Miss Jennie 1010 Lee, and Mr. Ridley; Three to be the quorum.—[Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.]
§ To withdraw immediately.
§ Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.