Lords Sitting of 6 March 1952

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Birdwood—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBY SHIRE TRACTION BILL [H.L.]
Committed: the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

INSURANCE CONTRACTS (WAR SETTLEMENT) BILL [H.L.]
4.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, this short Bill enables Her Majesty by Order in Council to give effect to Agreements made between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and foreign Governments relating to insurances and reinsurances affected by the war. The Bill follows well-established precedents in its procedure. In the Treaties of Peace following the First World War, special provisions were inserted to regulate the position of contracts of insurance and reinsurance affected by that war, and legal effect was given to those provisions by Order in Council under the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919. A similar provision was inserted in the recent Japanese Peace Treaty. The Treaties of Peace with Italy and, I think, with certain other ex-enemy countries following the last war, lay down certain provisions in respect of ordinary pre-war contracts, but provide that contracts of insurance and reinsurance shall be subject to separate Agreements between the Government of the allied or associated Power concerned and the Government of the ex-enemy Power.
552
An inter-governmental Agreement regarding insurance and reinsurance contracts has already been made with Finland—it was set out in Command Paper 7886—and, in the case of Italy, an Agreement has been negotiated between the representatives of British insurers and representatives of Italian insurers. The Italian Agreement is regarded as satisfactory and in due course will be embodied in an Exchange of Notes between the Governments. An Agreement on somewhat similar lines has also been negotiated between representatives of British insurers and representatives of German insurers operating in Western Germany. All these Agreements follow broadly the provisions of the old Versailles Peace Treaty.
The broad principle of these Agreements is that direct contracts of insurance between an insurer and an insured should remain intact, but that contracts of reinsurance should be terminated at the beginning of the war. The reason for that distinction is this. Broadly speaking, reinsurance differs from direct insurance in that in reinsurance the contract is between insurers, whereas in the case of direct insurance, of course, the contract is between an individual and an insurer. If a reinsurance or a treaty of reinsurance is cancelled, the insurer may be made responsible for larger particular risks than would ordinarily be considered prudent; but he is generally in a position to effect a fresh reinsurance. An individual, on the other hand, is in no such position, and he may be subject to ruinous loss if, contrary to his expectation and, perhaps, as in the case of war, by force majeure, the contract is abrogated. I am advised that the law in regard to the effect of war on insurance contracts is by no means clear, and may differ from country to country. That may be agreeable to lawyers but it is not so agreeable to unfortunate people who have effected a contract of insurance. In the interests of insurers and insured, it is therefore very desirable that any legal doubts should be removed as speedily as possible and without unnecessary recourse to litigation.
Moreover, the United Kingdom is the world's foremost international insurance market. It transacts a very large overseas insurance business, representing premiums of the order of £500,000,000 a year. Although the greater part of this business is with America and the Commonwealth,

553
an important part is with Europe and it is very desirable that our insurers should continue to hold their own on the Continent. The speedy implementation of the Agreements reached regarding the position of pro-war contracts of insurance and reinsurance is one of the most effective ways of creating an atmosphere conducive to further business in European countries. The contracts which are maintained will not covet loss due to belligerent action by the forces of either country. This follows, I am told, the settled rule of English law on this point. For the protection of our own insurers, it is intended that we should mike it clear to the other Governments concerned that an Agreement will not be made enforceable by Order in Council here unless we are satisfied that corresponding action has been, or is about to be, taken to make the Agreement legally effective in the other country. What your Lordships would wish to know, I am sure, is that this Bill has the full support of the British insurance companies and of Lloyd's. In view of the world wide importance of British insurance, it is very desirable that these matters should be placed beyond doubt.
Turning now to the clauses of the Bill—or rather to the one clause—I would point out that subsection (1) enables effect to be given by Order in Council to the Agreement already made with Finland (to which I have referred) and also to similar Agreements which it is expected to conclude with the other countries I have mentioned. Under Orders made under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the interests of German enemies in insurance contracts were vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property; but in order to be in a position to give effect to the German Agreement, it is desired to transfer these interests back to the original German parties. Subsection (2) enables this to be done by a general re-vesting provision, instead of by having to make individual assignments. Subsection (3), your Lordships will see, makes any Order in Council subject to a Negative Resolution. It follows, therefore, that if any special point should arise under a subsequent Agreement to which effect is given by an Order in Council, that matter could, if necessary, be raised on a Prayer. Generally, I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is very important that we should safeguard and encourage invisible export insurance.
554
And as those who are responsible for securing and insuring these invisible exports are wholly in favour of the Agreements which have been made or are in process of being made, I feel sure that your Lordships will wish to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Swinton.)
4.10 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, this is a complicated, a difficult, and an abstruse subject. Indeed, it is so complicated, so difficult and so abstruse that I have seen to-day what. I have never seen before and what I thought I should never see—I have seen the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, read a speech, almost every word of it. That makes me highly suspicious, being naturally of a suspicious nature. Although I believe it to be perfectly harmless, and in some respects admirable, I suggest that the Bill is none the less a constitutional outrage. I should like to know what noble Lords opposite would have said had I introduced a Bill like this. The first part of the Bill is quite impeccable. There has been an Agreement with Finland. I have the greatest sympathy with Finland, as we all have, in the position in which she found herself during the war. That Agreement has been signed, and the Government now come to Parliament to ask for its ratification. That is perfectly right and in accordance with standard, orthodox practice, so far as this Bill is orthodox. That Agreement was prepared and signed in the days of the Labour Government and what the Government now propose is the proper course.
I do not think that we are in any sense responsible for the second part of this Bill, although I do not pretend to know. The second part proposes to give the Executive carte blanche, subject to the right of Prayer, to give the force of law to any Agreements which they may make hereafter and which are not specified. I will ask the noble Viscount this question: Is it proposed that these Agreements shall affect the rights of individuals? Suppose there is a Mr. "A" who had entered into a contract of insurance and that contract was voided by the war because he and his opposite number became enemies. Is it proposed that Mr. "A" should become liable, by virtue of the fact that that contract, which had been destroyed by

555
the war, is brought to life again? If so, what steps have to be taken to make sure that Mr. "A" has been consulted and that he has agreed? I appeal to all noble Lords in every section of the House. Surely, if this is not done, it is a great hardship on Mr. "A." I do not know whether it is a fact that individuals are affected. I well understand, as the noble Viscount pointed out, that the great insurance companies and Lloyd's think that on the whole this is a good Bill. But Parliament is bound to look at this matter very carefully to see exactly what impact it may have on the individual. It would be wholly wrong to reinstate, to the prejudice of an individual, a contract which has become dead, without giving that individual every opportunity of being heard and saying what he wants to say. Therefore, I ask the noble Viscount to have regard to that point.
I know that the noble Viscount introduces this Bill with the best intentions. I am prepared to think that on the whole it is a good Bill, but I think the form of the Bill is wrong. I do not remember precedents for this Bill, and if there are any precedents I think that they should not be followed. If it be said, as it may be said, that this Bill was on the stocks under the Labour Government, and that we should have had to introduce it, then I stand in a white sheet. In principle, I agree with the Bill, but I do not think I should have introduced it in this form. The right form is to make an Agreement first and then to let Parliament consider that Agreement and decide whether to give legislative effect to it—not for us to give the Government a blank cheque and say that we will approve all Agreements they may make hereafter. I agree that there is a safeguard—there is the right to pray against it. The value one attaches to the power of Prayer partly depends upon which side of the House one sits. In the last few years I have heard noble Lords who are now sitting on the other side of the House suggest that there was not very much value in it. I expect I used to contend to the contrary. Now I rather begin to think that perhaps they were right in what they said. At least I would say this. If we are going to trust to this power, instead of providing for a mere Negative Resolution procedure we should have an Affirmative Resolution. That would give
556
us an opportunity to consider the terms of an Agreement, to consider whether it affects individuals, to consider whether individuals are properly protected and have had a chance of having their case heard, and to receive representations from individuals. At the very least, before we can allow this Bill to pass through all its stages. I shall ask whether the Government cannot please us to that extent. If what I have said on this constitutional point is worthy of any weight, I hope the noble Viscount will agree that the proper way of dealing with this matter is to make the Agreements first and then come to Parliament. These are the points of substance which arise.
I have made inquiries and they lead me to the same conclusion as that which the noble Viscount enunciated. There is no organised exception to this Bill at all. Indeed, I have ascertained that Lloyd's and the insurance companies think it a good Bill and desire that it should pass. But even to please Lloyd's, I shall not be prepared to pass a Bill in this form without a protest. I believe that in principle this form is wrong and not appropriate for this type of matter.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition. It is indeed interesting to see how one's point of view changes with the quarter Of the House in which one sits. I never thought, even with this chance of venue, that I should see the noble and learned Earl denouncing, in the manner of Satan rebuking sin, legislation by Order in Council. I congratulate him on his conversion, however late. I think all the Agreements were negotiated under the late Government, though the period of gestation of this Bill leaves me in doubt about exactly where the paternity lies—it may be a joint one. The noble and learned Earl would not expect me to give him an answer now to his point about an Affirmative Resolution. He will appreciate that the Bill does not originate in my own Department. If he would put down on Committee stage an Amendment providing for an Affirmative Resolution, I will consult my right honourable friend President of the Board of Trade and see what his ideas are about it. I am sure it is not unreasonable to have the Agreements made effective. The great point is that the insurance companies should be able to go on doing

557
business in these countries. Assuming the Agreements are right and reasonable, the quicker they can be put into force and carried out, the better. I think we can agree in this case, much as I dislike legislation by Order in Council, that that is the only way to do it. Difficulties over Parliamentary time are much greater in the other place than they are here, and it would be most unreasonable if, as a result, a measure we all wanted to see passed were held up for weeks.
As regards the impact on individuals—I speak without instruction and entirely in the light of such common sense as is vouchsafed to me—I should have thought that, if the noble and learned Earl's criticisms were apt at all, they were apt not to procedure by Order in Council but in respect of the particular Agreement itself. Though the Order in Council makes the Agreement operative, it is not that which governs the rights of the individual, but the inter-governmental Agreement which has been made between the two Governments. Certainly, so far as I have been able to learn anything about this Bill it is greatly in the interests of individuals. After all, what is made effective here is the right of the person who takes out a policy of insurance against the company with whom he insures. The whole purpose, therefore, is to safeguard the right of the individual—I understand that what his rights would be is a very doubtful matter of law.
EARL JOWITT: No.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I can only say I am instructed that it is a difficult matter of law.
EARL JOWITT: May I just point this out, so far as the Agreement is concerned? An Agreement between two Governments does not affect, adversely or favourably, the rights of an individual. What does vitally affect the individual is when that Agreement made between two Governments is given the force of law.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I quite follow that. I agree that until you have given the Agreement the force of law it does not vitally affect the individual. I imagine that that applies in this country, although the treaty-making power is in the Crown. I am not quite sure how far
558
one could carry that argument, because here, as distinct from the United States of America, for example, the treaty-making power is the prerogative of the Crown. Both the noble and learned Earl and I have had dealings with these matters. When, as President of the Board of Trade, I made a treaty, I was bound as soon as I put my signature to that treaty; whereas in the United States a treaty is not binding until it has been approved by the Senate. It is true that we bring certain Agreements to Parliament, so that Parliament may ratify them; but I thought that that was in order to give Parliament the opportunity of expressing an opinion. Indeed, where we do that, in making the Agreement we, as the Executive, defer the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown to make the treaty until Parliament has given its approval.
EARL JOWITT: Yes, that is correct. When the noble Viscount makes an Agreement, the convention now is that the prerogative of the Crown is not used until Parliament has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion about the matter. But when he makes the Agreement, although it binds the two Governments, it does not bind any individual citizen—the individual citizen can treat it as of no importance. That is why you have to have these things, in order that the Agreement becomes not merely an Agreement between Governments but operates with the force of law, binding every one of the lieges.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is perfectly right. I can recollect on many occasions presenting legislation to Parliament in order to make the terms of a treaty entered into between two Governments binding upon the individual citizens of this country. But surely that does not affect the point I have made: that although you do not make the Agreement binding upon the citizens of this country until it is made effective by an Act of Parliament, what you really have to look at, to see whether the thing is reasonable or not, is not the Act of Parliament, which is, so to speak, a formal signature to it, but the Agreement itself. I do not think these is any doubt that these Agreements are in the best interests of British citizens—and there should not be doubt in the noble and learned Earl's mind, because, as a matter of fact, all of these Agreements were made by the

559
late Government. I do not want to use that as a debating point, because I am certain that we all regard the matter from the same point of view of the interests of the individual citizen. I feel sure that when the late Government were in office they considered this question entirely from the point of view of what is in the best interests of the British citizens.
The Foreign Office and the Board of Trade are no doubt both concerned in this matter. The Finnish Agreement we were bound to keep; that was carried out and signed when the late Government were in office. But the other Agreements, which were largely negotiated when the late Government were in office, have again been looked at by us, and we are satisfied that they are in the interests of the individual. I think the noble and learned Earl can rest satisfied that, so far as legislation can help or hinder an individual, he is covered here. Certainly without this legislation no individual can have any rights. It is agreed that it is desirable to give the individual these rights, and this is the only way to do it. I think the only point of substance remaining between us is whether there should be an Affirmative or a Negative Resolution procedure, and that question I should like to consider between now and the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

DISTRIBUTION OF GERMAN ENEMY PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
4.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lord, here again I am afraid I shall be guilty of keeping rather closely to my brief, because this Bill, though equally short, to the uninitiated is hardly less complicated. Its sole object is to make one small amendment to the Distribution of German Enemy Property Act, 1949, for which, at any rate, the noble and learned Earl
560
opposite was responsible. The purpose of that Act was to provide for the distribution of the proceeds of German enemy property in this country, which had been allotted to us as reparation by international agreement, to British persons who could establish claims in respect of German enemy debts. The expression "German enemy debt" was closely defined in Section 8 (1) of the Act of 1949. As I understand it, the principle behind this definition was that a German enemy debt, in respect of which a claim to share in the distribution under the Act could be entertained, had to arise out of an obligation by a German person to a British person incurred before the outbreak of war. However, in the case of bearer bonds which are dealt in on United Kingdom stock exchanges, and which, of course, frequently change hands, it is often quite impossible to prove after this lapse of time that any particular bond was owned by a British person on September 3, 1939, the date of the outbreak of war.
The issue and the placing of some of these loans by the German and Austrian Governments was actually done with the commendation of the British Government of the day. When transfer difficulties had arisen, the German Government had undertaken to find sterling. Certain of these bonds had been "enfaced" with a certificate to show that, at a pre-war date, they were of British ownership. Sums due in respect of these bonds—which were known on the Stock Exchange as "Reich" Bonds—were therefore specifically relieved by the Act of 1949 from the necessity of proving that, on September 3, 1939 they were in British ownership, and they were specifically included in paragraph (b) of the definition of "German enemy debt" in the Act of 1949. This was a small departure from the main principle of the definition, which was considered to be justified by the special position of these bonds.
The non-Reich sterling bonds of German States, municipalities and corporations which are now listed in the Bill (your Lordships will see that there is a Schedule) were not given similar special treatment under the Act of 1949. At that time it was feared that this treatment would open the door too wide to foreign holders of these bonds to come in and participate in the distribution, and that thereby we should unduly deplete the

561
fund which was intended to be available for British creditors. Also it was hoped that the difficulties of establishing ownership as at the outbreak of war could be overcome administratively.
Your Lordships may remember that we had some discussion about this matter when the earlier Act was before this House in December, 1949. During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who was in charge of the Bill, admitted that the question presented some difficulty, but he said that the Government hoped to get the advice of the Advisory Committee which it was proposed to set up when the Bill became law, and he thought there might be some means of securing adequate evidence of ownership. That was followed up, and the position of these bonds was in fact considered by the Advisory Committee on the Distribution of German Enemy Property, on which the British creditor interests were fully represented. In their Report, the Committee drew attention to the inequalities and, therefore, the inequity of the treatment which was meted out as between Reich and other German bonds which arose from the wording of the definition in the Act of 1949, and also to the insuperable difficulties which would confront the holder of non-Reich sterling bonds in trying to prove British ownership of his bonds at September 3, 1939.
The purpose of the present Bill is to remove these inequalities and these difficulties, and is consequently in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. Its effect is to render it unnecessary for holders of non-Reich sterling bonds which are dealt with on the Stock Exchange to prove, as a condition of establishing claims to share in the distribution of German enemy property, that on the outbreak of war the bonds themselves were owned by a British subject. In this respect, therefore, the Bill assimilates the position of the holders of these non-Reich bonds, which are set out in the Bill, with that of the holders of Reich bonds, who were entitled to come in under the Act of 1949.
The risk that there might arise a large number of claims by foreigners who were not intended to come in and share in these assets is met in rather an ingenious way in the recommendation of the Committee. They recommended that, in
562
addition to the conditions prescribed in the Act, a claimant should be required to show that a debt was due to a British person at a current date. That recommendation was accepted, and an Order in Council was made under the Act laying down that claimants must show that any bonds they hold were owned by a British person on November 7, 1951. It is thus impossible for someone suddenly to appear with a bearer bond not so owned and put it into the hands of a British holder and collect what was intended for British subjects. I draw your Lordships' attention to this point, because it follows that, although the Bill does represent a departure, however slight, from the principle that the German enemy debts must be in respect of an obligation due to a British person in 1939, it does not open the door, as it was feared it might, to a large distribution to foreign holders of these bonds think the Committee have found a very ingenious and, I am sure, a very effective way of doing justice to British holders, while at the same time not conferring an undeserved—and, to us, undesired—bonus upon foreign holders.
This Bill, with which I understand the interests mainly concerned are quite content, will put all the German Reich and non-Reich sterling bonds which are dealt in on our Stock Exchange on the same basis as regards the conditions under which they are entitled to share in the distribution under the Act of 1949. Frankly, I found this Bill easier to understand than the first one, and therefore I have explained it mire intelligently. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Swinton.)
4.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I was going to ask the noble Viscount how much money was involved. I am very doubtful whether the question I am going to put is in order, but if I am told that it is not, I shall certainly cease speaking. This question of German debts allows me, at any rate, to ask the noble Viscount this question: What is being done about the enormous debt which, morally, the Germans owe for the genocide of the Jews in their country? Israel is at the moment struggling with enormous economic difficulties. We

563
remember that at a time when a poor distraught lad killed some diplomat because his parents had been murdered in a concentration camp, Hitler imposed a penalty of £85,000,000 on the Jewish community in Germany. We now see the Jewish State in tremendous difficulties because they are trying to admit everyone to their State in case that Hitler type of cruelty should come into existence again. One might say that their economic difficulties are directly due to the actions of the Germans. If the noble Viscount is able to answer (and I appreciate that this is rather a wide question) I should like to know, and I am sure the public would like to know, what is being done to exact from the Germans the money reparations—they could never make moral reparation—which they owe in respect of these actions.
4.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I do not know whether it is in order for the noble Viscount to ask a question of that kind on a Bill the sole content of which is to say that a very limited number of German corporation stocks which happen to have been held by a British subject at a particular date shall rank for a claim against a specified and limited sum of money which has been received and is deposited in this country. It would certainly be quite out of order for me to engage in a discussion which raised the whole wide issue of German reparations and to observe, not merely whether there should have been German reparations for this country, but whether we should, then or now, have put into an agreement an obligation by which the Germans were to pay reparation to the State of Israel—which I gather is what would be involved. It would not only be entirely out of order for me to engage in any such discussion, it would also be abstract in the extreme and perfectly useless. There are no means by which we can alter an agreement entered into a long time ago.
The noble Viscount did ask one question which was in order, and that was: how much money is involved in this? The answer is that we do not know; and, indeed, we cannot know until the bearer bonds are produced with a certificate on the face of them that they were in the possession of a British holder on the date
564
laid down by the Order in Council. I do not think I can give any further information, because we can know only when the holders of bonds present them.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I rise only to apologise on behalf of my noble Leader, who has been called away. He had intended to say a few words on the Bill. We offer no objection to the Second Reading of this measure, which seems to be in order and desirable, but we may have to look at one or two points before Committee stage.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his remarks I had not the least intention of asking anything that was not proper, but I thought he might possibly be able to tell us something of the negotiations which are, in fact, in progress for the settlement of this matter.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CINEMATOGRAPH BILL
4.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The Lord MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Exemptions for non-commercial exhibitions
5.—(1) The following exemptions shall have effect in the case of cinematograph exhibitions (hereinafter referred to as "exempted exhibitions") to which the public are not admitted or to which the public are admitted without payment, other than children's cinema club exhibitions, that is to say:—

(a) a licence under the Act of 1909 shall not be required by reason only of the giving of an exempted exhibition, and for the purposes of subsection (2) of section seven of that Act (which exempts premises used only occasionally for cinematograph exhibitions) the giving in any premises of an exempted exhibition shall be disregarded;

(b) section four of this Act shall not apply to an exempted exhibition;

565

(c) regulations made by the Secretary of State under the Act of 1909, being regulations made by virtue of paragraph (b) of section two of this An, shall not apply in relation to an exempted exhibition;

(d) in connection with the giving of an exempted exhibition in premises in respect of which a licence under the Act of 1909 is in force no condition or restriction on or subject to which the licence was granted shall apply except in so far as it relates to the matters specified in paragraph (a) of section two of this Act:

Provided that (without prejudice to the operation of paragraph (a) of this subsection) paragraph (a) thereof shall not have effect in the case of exhibitions where the pictures are produced by means specified by regulations or the Secretary of State under the Act of 1909 as means involving risk such that it is inexpedient that the said paragraph (a) should have effect.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1) after "children's cinema club exhibitions" to insert:
"and which are given as part of the activities of educational institutions or of religious organisations or as part of the activities of such other institutions or organisations as may be certified by the licensing authority as exempted."
The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I ventured to submit some considerations which I thought worthy of attention. I have not had an opportunity since then of consulting with the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill. I am not making any complaint of that, but I felt it desirable, in order to keep before the Committee the points which I thought worthy of consideration, that I should put down this Amendment on the Order Paper.
Let me say at the outset that I am in no way wedded to the precise terminology of this Amendment; but I would again venture to urge upon the noble Lord that the exemptions provided for in Clause 5 of the Bill are far too wide, and that these nation-wide exemptions under the conditions as described in Clause 5 do need serious consideration. Broadly speaking, the purpose of my Amendment is to bring the licensing authorities into the picture. The local authorities have functioned well in the past. The very high standard, mentioned by the noble Earl himself during the Second Reading debate, attained in this country is due in no small measure, I think, to the local licensing authorities. It is due also to the way in which the industry has responded to every reasonable demand made upon
566
it. I do not want anyone to think that these licensing authorities are just a set of "busybodies," interfering with matters which are best left to the discretion of the trade or the public, because, after all, the first and supreme consideration, as in other matters, should be the interests of the public and not of the trade itself.
I have before me a copy of a typical licence issued by a country borough council. It runs into some fourteen pages. I am not going to inflict upon your Lordships any lengthy quotation from this document but there are just two of these clauses which I should like bring before your notice. This is one:
"No poster, advertisement, sketch, synopsis, or programme of a film shall be displayed, sold, or supplied, either inside or outside the licensed premises which is likely to be injurious to morality, or to encourage or incite to crime or lead to disorder, or be offensive to public feeling or contain any offensive representations of living persons."
That is pretty wide. Here is the other clause which I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention:
"No person shall be permitted to enter or continue within the licensed premises in a state of intoxication, and all persons who may be guilty within the licensed premises of any breach of the peace, tumult, or disorder or of any violent language or demeanour calculated or having a tendency to incite any breach of the peace, tumult, or disorder, or any indecent, obscene, or blasphemous matter shall be forthwith removed therefrom."
I know that the Secretary of State is taking power under this Bill to issue safety regulations, but so far as I understand the Bill there is nothing in it which would allow the Home Secretary to issue any regulations of the type which I have read out from these typical licences. What I am asking is that the licensing authorities shall, as I say, be brought back into the picture.
Your Lordships will remember, from a speech made by my noble friend Lord Ammon, that the most important local authority in the country, the London County Council, is already gravely perturbed at some of the provisions of this Bill and is making the most urgent representations in connection with some of them. While I would not for one moment venture to prophesy when the somewhat slow-moving legal machinery of the local authorities will get moving, I venture to think that there will be further urgent representations from the local licensing authorities on some of the provisions in

567
this Bill. I do not want the noble Earl to think that I am condemning this Bill as a whole. It has a number of useful provisions. Neither am I against a reasonable flexibility for certain organisations which we all agree should have that flexibility. But I think your Lordships, on reflection, will agree that a Bill ought not to create grievous anomalies.
Let me give your Lordships just one example of what I have in mind. Within the last few years, holiday camps have increased in popularity. Every year they draw large numbers of holiday-makers. Some of these very enterprising concerns have a theatre, and it would be possible for them to run cinematograph shows also in that theatre. As I am sure the noble Earl knows, to-day there are buildings of that type which hold a considerable number of people. I speak subject to correction but I believe that a theatre, built as such and owned for that purpose, if used for stage plays to which people were admitted, would require licensing; but, on the other hand, if the people who were enjoying the amenities of the holiday camp were admitted without any charge to a cinematograph show, then for that purpose the theatre would not have to be licensed. So that on one day for one hour it would be licensed, and for another hour it would come under some other direction.
These points, which are really Committee points, are, I believe, capable of adjustment. The Minister and the noble Earl in charge of this Bill can come to some understanding with the people who are interested, both those who wish to exhibit educational and religious films and things of that kind, and the local licensing authorities who do not wish to see an arrangement of a dual sort within their area, one building being licensed under their conditions while another building within the same area, possibly holding the same number of people, because it conforms to the wide conditions in Clause 5 would not come within their purview. With those few remarks, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Is the noble Lord moving all four Amendments at once?
LORD BURDEN: If one goes, of course all four go; but if the noble Earl
568
has something which would be comforting for me on one Amendment, I shall be happy not to prolong the work of the Committee unduly.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, after ("exhibitions") insert the said words.—(Lord Burden.)
4.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am glad to find that we are in a high degree of agreement on this Bill. In fact, the points which the noble Lord has mentioned are, if I may say so, minor ones. We agree that we want to strengthen the safety regulations, we want to strengthen the provisions for the protection of children and we want to provide, in certain circumstances, limited public censorship of films for commercial exhibition. We all agree on that. There are only two points at issue. One concerns the borderline cases which might affect children and others (films which I think we may call contra bonos mores), and the other relates to holiday camps and a few other things of that sort. I agree that those points need consideration. I will say straight away that we are further considering this clause in the light of some of the remarks of the noble Lord and in regard to other matters, but I must say that I have no evidence that the London County Council are gravely perturbed about this Bill. I think it is a pity to suggest that in any sense of the word, because what we are really doing is greatly to strengthen the licensing power of the London County Council.
LORD BURDEN: Will the noble Earl forgive me for interrupting? Perhaps my remarks were too wide. I was referring to one or two clauses of the Bill, not the whole Bill.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I hesitate to say that they are even perturbed about that. Be that as it may, I want to emphasise this point: that when licensing authorities decree that no poster shall be put up which in injurious to morality, and they do that under the provisions of an Act passed in the year 1909 which was designed to secure safety from fire in cinemas, all it does is to show the infinite flexibility of British judicature. The powers under which the licensing authority have done that in the past have now been put upon a proper basis. The only question on Clause 5 is really a

569
question in a few marginal cases between liberty, which might be licence, and the proper control of commercial films. I must say that, whilst the words used by the noble Lord are interesting, from a practical point of view I do not think they quite achieve the object he has in mind. I should like to explain what he is doing. He is suggesting not only that exempted exhibitions should be those for which either there is no payment, or, alternatively, the public are not admitted, but that here should be an additional hurdle, and that additional hurdle is that they should be given by either educational or religious bodies or such other bodies as are certified by the licensing authority as exempted. On the face of it, it looks as though the procedure would be for the London County Council or the local licensing authority to certify such bodies as film guilds. It would exclude holiday camps, but it would still avoid that type of thing. Look at the words "educational institutions." It is a very wide term. May I remind the noble Lord that it certainly includes certain sections of the Communist Party.
LORD BURDEN: Would the noble Earl call them "educational"?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: In some cases, certainly they are certified as such. From what he said, I am sure the noble Lord did not mean to include that type of thing.
LORD BURDEN: I certainly did not.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I suggest that the Amendment as drafted would not meet the case at all, and that it is an open question whether, for instance, you would call a political Party an educational institution.
LORD BURDEN: Would that depend upon the political Party?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is a matter of opinion, of course. I am suggesting that we are actually seeking to leave political Parties free to show exhibitions without any licensing authority at all. We think they should do that. That is part of our object in the Bill as it stands at the present time. I think the noble Lord's first Amendment goes too far. Our main objection is that it is too vague as to what it does or does not cover. In any case, film guilds might be brought in
570
under Clause 5 (3), which excludes nonprofit making organisations. I do not know whether that is what was in the noble Lord's mind.
LORD BURDEN: Yes.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The phrase "educational institutions" might include something much wider than the noble Lord has in mind.
By the second Amendment in the noble Lord's name, we are asked to delete paragraph (d), which would mean that in licensed premises where an exempted exhibition was taking place the full licensing permission would apply, not only in regard to safety but for all matters. I am very uncertain what the effect of removing this paragraph would be. It may be that it would remove from the licensing authority the power even to exercise safety precautions. If the noble Lord looks at the clause, he will see from subsection (1) (a) that a licence is no longer necessary. But the position is restored in limited terms in subsection (1) (d), and if you delete paragraph (d) you revert to the position under paragraph (a). On another reading of this you find that under the Act it is not required by reason only of giving an exempted exhibition. If it is read in that way, it means to say that in licensed premises, even in regard to an exempted exhibition, the full licensing conditions, including censorship, would apply—in other words, that you could not have an exempted exhibition in licensed premises. I suggest that that is going much too far. For that reason I do not think that this is a very happy Amendment. It means merely that no exempted exhibition can ever be shown in licensed premises.
The next Amendment, I think, is intended to be consequential, but in point of fact it is not. It means that censorship would apply with regard to inflammable films, whereas it would not apply in regard to non-inflammable films. I think we agreed on Second Reading that that is completely illogical. The final Amendment is consequential. I would submit that the drafting of this clause is not easy, and I assure the noble Lord that we have these points actively under consideration, in order to make quite certain that, so far as possible, we do ensure the fullest liberty where it should be properly exercised, retaining only those

571
controls which the licensing authority should exercise in the proper execution of their duty. In conclusion I would say just this: that there is really no question of throwing over the experience of the licensing authorities. It is being maintained much more strongly than hitherto. Only in a very limited sphere are we excluding them. In my view, a film organisation should be left free to carry on such exhibitions as they think wise and, therefore, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Earl for the explanation which he has given. It shows the unwisdom of my venturing into the province of Parliamentary draftsmen, and also how one can be led astray in criticising Parliamentary draftsmen on a particular clause. From what the noble Earl has said in regard to these attempts to frame what I had in mind, quite clearly it is a skilled art. The noble Earl has been quite forthcoming and candid in his reply. He has said that the points which I have ventured to submit to the Committee are being considered and, where it is legitimate, attempts are being made to meet them within the framework of what the noble Earl has indicated. In those circumstances, and on the assurance that these negotiations and considerations will be continued—perhaps the whole matter will have to be dealt with in another place—I again thank the noble Earl for his consideration, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

JUDICIAL OFFICES (SALARIES, &C.) BILL
5.8 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

FESTIVAL PLEASURE GARDENS BILL
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.