COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 29 October 1952)

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for expediting the procedure. There is nothing of substantial importance here. I can explain quite shortly what has happened in this particular case. We were considering in Clause 5 exemption from the main purposes of the Act. The main purposes of the Act are contained in the first three clauses—that is to say, those which deal with questions of regulation, particularly of non-inflammable films, and the powers of the local authorities. We are now dealing with a matter which is inevitably susceptible of adjustment: which type of film should be exempted and which type should not. The other place has taken a slightly more liberal view of this than we did, for good or for bad. I do not think it is of great consequence because these are only exemptions from the main purposes of the Act. The line of exemption might have been drawn a little to one side or a little to the other.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to subsection (3). Previously, we had said that organisations sliming cinematograph exhibitions which, under a certificate of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, were free of entertainment duty, would be regarded as exempted, but we have now changed that provision. We say that even in cases where the public are admitted and charges are made by non-profit-making organisations, they will be regarded as exempted exhibitions, and therefore will not be subject to the 1083 licensing regulations. But we also have the proviso which the noble Lord will see on the paper, that they must not show exhibitions for more than three days a week. The object of that is this. There are a certain number of non-profit-making organisations, such as, for instance, The Highland Film Guild and I might even say political Parties, who might, from time to time, want to show exhibitions.

§ EARL JOWITT
And educational bodies.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
Educational films would not, I think, come directly under this clause. They might do, but I do not think they would do so directly at this moment. But these other organisations would be able to show films without any licensing at all. We think that even a non-profit-making organisation, if it shows films every day of the week, is in fact making a business of it, and anybody who, so to speak, makes a business of regularly showing films should, in respect of public safety and the welfare of children, be subject to precisely the same sort of regulation. Therefore, we are restricting exemption to non-profit-making organisations which do not show more than three times a week. It is a change slightly on the side of freedom, slightly on the side of making rather more organisations free from licensing, but I do not consider the alterations are of great substance. I beg to move that this House do agree to the Commons Amendment.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, may I ask whether the non-profit-making organisation can show a film upon three occasions without coming within the licensing provisions of this Bill, even although that film is shown in an establishment which shows commercial films for the other four days and which comes under all the regulations of licensing?

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
No. Perhaps I should not have taken the noble Lord quite at his word. He has already agreed to accept an Amendment at an earlier stage which altered that. That comes under Clause 5 (1) (c). There is an addition to that subsection. That subsection, 1084 as we passed it originally, dealt with exempted exhibitions and provided that the Secretary of State could issue a regulation in regard to exempted places in so far as it concerned safety but not in so far as it concerned welfare. Those are the two things upon which, under Clause 2, he has power to make regulations. The matter has since been taken further, and now he can issue no regulations in regard to exempted exhibitions, either in regard to welfare or in regard to safety, except in the case where the premises are already licensed as a cinema under the 1909 Act. If one took one of the big cinemas in London, the safety regulations would apply in the same way; but if one took some other hall that would not be the case, and safety regulations pertaining to that hall would remain as they were.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his lucid explanation which clears up the point I had in mind.

§ EARL JOWITT
My Lords, I am all for freedom in these matters and cutting out all unnecessary permissions, but I am also for safety, particularly so far as children are concerned. There will probably be an increasing number of films, I should imagine, for educational purposes. Can the noble Earl reassure me that there are adequate provisions here for seeing that those films are not exhibited unless there is power to make proper regulations for the safety of the children seeing them? If that power is not in this Bill, I think it ought to be in some other Bill, because if any disaster should happen in this regard, we should all join together in deploring it. Are there adequate powers to deal with that situation, or does the fact that we have this exemption now mean that in respect of a body which is showing films in a cinema for children, but not for profit, there are no powers to make proper safety regulations, as there ought to be?

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
Strictly speaking, my answer to the noble and learned Earl must be "No." There are no provisions in this Bill to deal with the precise point which he raises. This Bill deals essentially with the licensing of commercial cinemas. That is the object of the Bill, and that is the main provisions contained up to Clause 4. So far as children are concerned, we agree of course with what the noble and learned Earl has 1085 said; but children's cinemas—that is, the ordinary Saturday morning cinemas with which we are familiar—are fully covered under Clause 4. Secondly, whenever children's films are shown to children in regular cinemas licensed in the proper way, they are equally covered. The question asked is outside that. That position is not covered by this Bill. If the noble and learned Earl wished to know what the position was in regard to any particular case, for the moment I should have to ask for notice of the question, because there are a large number of different cases. It would not be appropriate, for instance, in this Bill to cover schools or religious organisations. They can be dealt with under different arrangements, but they are not covered by this Bill. The anxiety which the noble and learned Earl feels is apparent, but there was an overwhelming opinion, from outside as well as in another place, that the centre of gravity should be moved rather further on the side of liberty, even in regard to safety regulations and welfare, by allowing private or non-profit-making organisations to be free from regulations under Clause 2. That is the position as it stands. I know it is not entirely satisfactory to the noble Earl, but I think in practice there are other factors which will protect the children.

§ EARL JOWITT
Before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him this question? I do not think there is the slightest difference between us. We are all for liberty in this matter, but we do not in any way want to imperil the safety of children. Perhaps he will see whether he can combine the two things, either now or on some future occasion. Will he bear this matter in mind? Because if any disaster did happen, it would be absolutely deplorable. Let us safeguard it before it happens and not merely deplore it afterwards.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
I quite agree with the noble and learned Earl. He will, of course, appreciate that this Bill deals only with cinemas. With regard to public halls and other such places there are regulations which cover the point. But I will certainly look into the matter.