Lords Sitting of 11 June 1953

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Earl of Portsmouth—Took the Oath.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

HOSPITAL OF ST. MARY MAGDA- LEN (COLCHESTER) CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
3.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this Charity originated in the reign of Henry I, to provide for the leprous and infirm; it was confiscated by the Crown at the time of Edward VI but revived in the reign of James I of England. The Master of the Charity, which consisted of five almshouses in the City of Colchester, is the rector of one of the parishes there. It has been found increasingly difficult in modern times to find any incumbent prepared to take on that living, where his stipend has to provide for the upkeep of these almshouse as well as his own living. The inmates of the almhouses are, of course, poor persons, but they provide their own board: they have old age pensions or some slight private means, or they can go to the National Assistance Board. The Master is responsible for maintaining the buildings and for certain small statutory obligations to the inmates. In order to make it possible to find incumbents who will accept this living, it has now been decided that there must be a separation of the almshouses and the living. Therefore, a split has been made whereby a certain proportion of the money will go towards the stipend of the incumbent of the ecclesiastical parish of St. Mary Magdalen, and the balance will be available for maintaining these almshouses. I may say that, in preparation for the split, the Church has put the buildings in a state of thoroughly good repair,
872
and the money remaining over for the support of this Charity will be something over £200 a year, which the Charity Commissioners think adequate for the purpose.
To summarise, the result of this Bill will be that it will make available a proper standard of incumbent for the Parish of St. Mary Magdalen; the financial status of the inmates of the almshouses will remain as before; and the historical link whereby the incumbent looked after their spiritual welfare will not be broken. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he make this plain? Has the incumbent of this living any other source of income, such as glebe land, endowments, or anything of that sort?
LORD HAWKE: I understand not. The total emoluments were in the neighbourhood of £500 a year, of which, under the new split, approximately £300 goes to the Church side, and £200-odd goes to the almshouse side. I do not want to take up time in moving. There is a considerable field for curiosity over these matters, and in my reply I shall be only too pleased to try to answer any questions. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
3.12 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we take a particular interest in this Bill because its genesis occurred during our term of office. Naturally, the present Government, through the ordinary channels, are responsible for what appears in the Bill, but, notwithstanding the fact that we have not been able to continue with the Bill, we are prepared to give it our support. There are, however, one or two questions of human detail which I should like to put to the noble Lord, and the answers to which, I believe, will enable your Lordships to reach a conclusion more satisfactory to yourselves than might otherwise be the case. The total amount of money held by the trust was in the neighbourhood of £18,000. Of that amount of money £11,000 or a little over is to be transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the remainder, amounting to £8,000,

873
is to go to the Charity Commissioners. The first question, therefore, is whether the division is a fair one, and whether the sum that is left is ample for the purpose of fulfilling the foundation of the Charity.
The noble Lord has indicated that the income expected to be derived from that share which remains with the Charity will be about £200 a year. As there are five inmates of the almshouses, that is approximately a clear income of£40 a year each. As I understand the noble Lord, however, it is not the intention that the whole of that money shall be devoted to payments to the people in the almshouses; other charges will fall upon that income, and it is upon that that I am now asking him for further information. In the Bill itself it is provided that the cost of repairs, insurances, administration and management expenses shall be met out of that income, but it is also proposed that out of that income of £200 a year, £50 a year shall be earmarked in order to provide a fund out of which major repairs can be carried out at intervals as required. It will therefore be seen that a considerable portion of that £200 is already earmarked. I should like to know what payments have Actually been made to the alms people during the past few years, and whether it is proposed to continue payments at the same rate.
I should also like to know, if possible, something about the ages of these people. If they are over sixty-five or seventy years of age, presumably they will be entitled to an old age pension. But if they are younger than that—and they seem to be persons of mixed ages—then these pensions will not be due to them. My other question, therefore, is this: Are there any other funds from other sources which can be added to those made available by this trust? Finally, will the noble Lord explain to us what the original purposes of the Charity were—that is to say, whether full support was given originally to these people, or only partial support?
3.17 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, replies, I should like to supplement the remarks of my noble friend. I believe that consideration of this scheme was started during my time in office, although I have no definite recollection of it. Traditionally, however, this House has been very careful in
874
matters of this sort, and ought not to shirk its responsibility by saying that other people are looking into it. I am sure the noble Lord will agree. I should like to know what the stipend available to this clergyman is. All of us who have tried to fill livings know that one of the tragic things to-day is that we have to endeavour to get people for such very little money that they can hardly keep body and soul together in decency. Of course, it is quite impossible to expect to get a good man unless you give him some reasonable sort of emolument. I quite understand that aspect of the matter.
On the other hand, this seems to me to be a case extraordinarily like the celebrated case—I have not looked up my reference—of the Reverend Septimus Harding and. I think, Mr. John Bold. It is almost precisely parallel. I am referring, of course, to the story of The Warden by Anthony Trollope. In this case a sum of money is, most unfortunately, not definitely allocated, but is to be expended between, on the one hand, a clergyman and, on the other, five old pensioners. I fully understand the desirability of splitting up that fund so that so much of it shall be available for the one and so much for the other. To avoid misunderstandings, misapprehensions and trouble in the future, I think it is probably wise that we should split it up.
Then I think arises the question: How ought it to be split up? As I follow it, it is not being split on what is called a "fifty-fifty" basis; it is being split up so that the clergyman has the larger proportion of the sum available and the five inmates the smaller proportion. I am far from saying that that is wrong: looking at all the circumstances, it may be entirely right. But feel that this House ought to know, if not now then at a later stage of the Bill, exactly what are the circumstances which justify a division which, I think, is roughly (the noble Lord will correct me, if I am wrong) four-sevenths to the clergyman and three-sevenths to the five pensioners between them. I do not want it to be thought that I am suggesting that that is inequitable, or that there is the slightest impropriety in it. All I am saying is that if we as a House authorise such a Bill as this, we ought to have all the facts quite plainly set before us, so that we can be

875
completely satisfied. The responsibility is our own and nobody else's, and we ought to be satisfied that justice is being done. I have no doubt that if we are given the full facts by the noble Lord—he has probably gone into them, and I do not think for a moment that he would have supported this Bill unless he had himself been satisfied—we shall be satisfied. But there remains a good deal that we do not know, and, as I say, we ought to be given full information so that we can be quite satisfied that what we are doing is fair and reasonable.
3.21 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am glad to see that the procedure I suggested has found favour, that I should leave it to my reply to furnish any details which noble Lords might desire. I will first deal with the question of the split, raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. He is quite right: this scheme did come up in his time; and it is the Lord Chancellor who has to find the incumbent for this living. It was because he found considerable difficulty in doing so that he set in train the proceedings that led up to this scheme. The Charity is bound only to provide the lodging for these five single, industrious persons: no age limit is specified, and there is no stipulation as to sex. I understand that in fact they are ladies, and I assume that they are elderly; but I have not made specific inquiries about their ages. Perhaps before the next stage, if the noble and learned Earl wishes me to do so, I will ascertain this. But, as I say, the trust is historically bound only to provide for these good persons 1s. per week each, plus an allowance of faggots—which nowadays is translated into terms of coal—so that there is not a very large call upon the funds. The Charity Commissioners are satisfied that the amount left to their side, which, incidentally, is approximately £220 a year, of which the first £50 is earmarked for the special repairs fund, will be sufficient to fulfil all the obligations which the trust enjoins upon them.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord said that the trustees are bound legally only to pay 1s. a week, plus a number of faggots. Can he tell us what they have actually been paying to the pensioners?
LORD HAWKE: I have always assumed that they have paid what they were bound to pay, as laid down in the trust deed.
EARL JOWITT: And nothing more.
LORD HAWKE: Moreover, of course, they have had to keep these almshouses in repair; that has been the heaviest charge. As I have said, that responsibility has been looked after by having the buildings brought fully up to date, and by earmarking for repairs this £50 a year. Having regard to that, the Commissioners are satisfied that the balance available is fully sufficient to cover their obligations in the matter. As to the stipend, on the other side, as the noble Earl knows, there are various methods by which stipends in the Church of England are to-day made up to something like a living wage. I believe that in the majority of dioceses £550 a year is the figure aimed at. I have not the least doubt that this stipend will have to be made up to that level by the Church Commissioners or the parish in due course before an incumbent is appointed.
As regards the original Charter of the Charity, this ordained that the foundation should consist of a Master and five poor persons, single or unmarried, and that the Master should have the cure of the souls of the parishioners; that these should be chosen by the Master, placed in the hospital for life, and paid 52s. a year; and that the Lord Chancellor should be the Visitor of the hospital and appoint the Master. That, I believe, answers Lord Shepherd's point. I think I have dealt with all the questions except that of the ages. I must confess that I have made no precise inquiries about the ages of the ladies: perhaps that can be ascertained before the next stage.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I ask the noble Lord a question before he finally sits down? Referring again to the amount of 1s. a week each that must legally be paid, will the noble Lord be good enough to cause an inquiry to be made as to what has been actually paid during the past few years to these people? I rather suspect that it is slightly more than 1s. per week.
LORD HAWKE: I will certainly do that.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOSPITAL OF THE BLESSED TRINITY (GUILDFORD) CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
3.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this is another scheme, put forward for slightly different reasons. In 1629, George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, established the Hospital of the Blessed Trinity in Guildford. It was originally intended for between fourteen and twenty men and women—though now, for one reason or another, the numbers have expanded to twenty-two. The old Charter lays down that the Master shall be a single man of fifty years of age, born or having lived twenty years in Guildford. Under the new scheme, the qualification of being a single man is removed, and that is one of the prime reasons for the Bill, for it has been found much easier to provide a Master if he could be a married man.
At the same time, opportunity is being taken for a general tidying up of some of the other ancient provisions. The Governors, for instance, have been increased in number from nine to fourteen. They consisted formerly of the Mayor, three rectors, the Master of the Grammar School, four members of the Guildford Corporation, who were to be the two senior aldermen, provided that they belonged to the Church of England, and the two senior councillors, also if they were of the Church of England. In practice it was sometimes found difficult to decide who fulfilled that qualification, so the new Governors are the Mayor, three rectors, the Master of the Grammar School, four men or women appointed by the Guildford Corporation—not necessarily of themselves—and five co-opted members. It is intended in the first instance that of these five co-opted members, four shall be the existing representatives of the Guildford Corporation. The choosing of the alms persons was originally clone alternately by the Mayor of Guildford and by the Master; now it is to be done by the Board of Governors. The new scheme generally brings the whole provisions up to date, and makes it possible for the Governors to provide attendants in case of illness or permanent infirmity, which of course is a great improvement. That is a brief sketch of the objects of this scheme. If
878
there is any further information that noble Lords require, I will endeavour to answer any points that may be raised when I exercised my right of reply. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we support the Second Reading of this Bill. As there is, apparently, to be no transfer of funds and no question of reduction or discontinuance of a small payment, we do not feel it necessary to continue the discussion upon this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ACCOMMODATION AGENCIES BILL
3.32 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.—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Illegal commissions and advertisements
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person who, during the continuance in force of this Act,—

(b) demands or accepts payment of any sum of money in consideration of supplying, or undertaking to supply, to any person addresses or other particulars of houses to let; or

shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person being a solicitor shall not be guilty of an offence under this section by reason of his demanding or accepting payment of any remuneration in respect of business done by him as such.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "let" to insert:
"unless in respect of each such house he has been authorised in writing by the owner or his agent to effect a letting,"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name. On the occasion of the Second Reading, everyone who spoke felt that this was a

879
very worthy Bill and that there was no quarrel with its principle, but I did indicate in my speech that it was necessary to give it somewhat close examination because it created a number of new offences. Whenever Parliament creates a new offence it is a matter which should receive the most careful consideration, particularly when the Bill is promoted by a private Member. The evil which this Bill is directed against is that certain persons have set themselves up as estate agents and have fraudulently obtained money from persons who are desirous of obtaining a house to let. They have done this either by making a charge for registration or by making a charge for a list of properties available for letting. In both cases, the essence of the thing was that the agent had not genuine accommodation to let or was not authorised by the owner of the house to effect the letting.
I will not trouble the Committee by quoting from the speech of the noble and learned Viscount in opening this matter, but throughout that speech he implied—indeed, he went further than merely to imply; he actually stated—that persons were obtaining money by fraudulent means, and he gave us some indication of the extent of the evil. For instance, he told us that something like £100,000 had been obtained by fraudulent methods, that there had been seven prosecutions and that there were to-day some sixteen agencies still operating out of an original number of forty in Greater London. I imagine that this particular evil is largely concentrated in London. It is not a major matter but, as we are all agreed, it is a cruel fraud on people of small means who are seeking accommodation and who are not able to afford even the small charge which is usually made for registration.
I have examined Clause 1 in the light of that background to see whether the evil that we want to remedy is met, and whether the proposals go beyond what is necessary for effecting the remedy. I am of opinion that in certain respects we are going considerably beyond what is necessary in order to remedy this evil, and it is for that reason that I have put down this Amendment. Under Clause 1 (1) (b), it is an offence to demand or accept
"payment of any sum of money in consideration of supplying, or undertaking to supply, to any person addresses or other particulars of houses to let."
880
That, in itself, does not seem to me to be an evil thing to do at all. Why should not a person make a charge for supplying names and addresses of properties that are to let? The evil arises if, as the noble and learned Viscount pointed out on the Second Reading, the person who supplies the list has no authority to supply it; he has not been authorised by the owner of the property to effect the letting or, in some cases, the properties may not even exist or may not be available for letting. In other words, a demand is made for payment for something which the agent is not in a position to give. I have drawn my Amendment so as to limit it to cases where a demand for payment is made in respect of properties which it is not in the power of the agent to let. I provide that, in effect, it shall not be an offence if the agent has been authorised in writing by the owner or his agent to effect the letting.
In those cases, I see no reason why an agent should not make a charge for providing a list of bona fide lettings which the owner has authorised. I know it is not the normal course of procedure. In the ordinary way, you go to an agent and he gives you a list of properties, if he has them in good faith, and if you are seeking to rent a house you do not pay the agent any fee; it is the owner of the property who pays the fee or the commission to the agent. But that is not the invariable procedure. It often happens that the owner of a property will say: "I am prepared to effect this letting but I am not prepared to pay the commission. The prospective tenant must pay the commission." That is a perfectly lawful thing to do and there is no reason why that sort of arrangement should not be allowed to continue as lawful in the future.
My Amendment provides that, where an agent supplies in good faith a list of premises, in regard to which he has been properly authorised by the owners to effect a letting, and makes a charge for providing that list, it shall not be deemed an offence. That does not cut against the principle of the Bill at all. It will still be an offence to charge for providing a list where the agent has no authority to effect a letting, and will still be an offence under Clause 1 (1) (a) to demand or accept payment of a registration fee,

881
merely for registering. In those circumstances, I hope that we shall not deliberately make this Bill wider than is necessary and that we shall not make it an offence for people to conduct their businesses in a way which is perfectly lawful and perfectly honourable, and in a way which is quite commonly carried out at the present time. For these reasons I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, after ("let") insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
3.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I have considered the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has put down. I have discussed it with my advisers and with those who are promoting this Bill, and I have come to the conclusion that I must ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment. The noble Lord has, of course, stated quite accurately the provision: in the Bill and the normal practice of reputable house agents. He is proposing to add these words at the end of paragraph (b). What does paragraph (b) do? It seeks to make it illegal to demand or accept money from a would-be tenant for supplying addresses or particulars of houses or flats to let. The noble Lord quite correctly said that the accepted practice of reputable house agents is to look to the lessor, to the owner, for their remuneration. His Amendment refers to the owner, and speaks of the owner as having authorised the agent in writing (which cannot be very common) to effect a letting. I cannot see that there is any reason at all for proposing this exemption.
Let us take the case of the owner of a whole block of flats—500 of them. What is assumed by this Amendment is that the owner of these 500 flats should, in writing, authorise his agent to effect a letting, to find a tenant. But is that any reason in the world why the agent should say to the would-be tenant who is eagerly seeking a flat, "I have on my books a lot of flats which would suit you and I am authorised to find a tenant, but I will not give you the list unless you pay me something"? That seems to be a very unusual and, I should have thought, a most discreditable claim. The agent looks to the owner to remunerate him; he does not look to the man who applies for a flat and demand payment from him
882
before he will give him the list. Yet that is the situation which is contemplated in this Amendment.
The accepted practice among reputable house agents—I emphasise the word "reputable"—is to look to the owner for remuneration, and there is nothing in this Bill which in the least interferes with that. The Bill merely says that it will become an offence for an agent, whether or not authorised by the owner to look for possible tenants, to say to the applicant. "I have a long list of flats which I think will suit you; pay me or else I will no give you the list." That is the justification for resisting this Amendment. I may point out that paragraph (b) in the Bill has been considered by very responsible bodies of house agents, and they approve of the paragraph as it stands. They do not ask that this exception should be inserted, and I cannot see any ground why it should be inserted. If t is inserted it will go far to destroy the effect of this part of the Bill.
Consider this practical difficulty. The owner of some flats may very well put the letting of them in the hands of more than one agent—I should think in many cases anybody who has a house which he wants to let does put the letting of the house in the hands of more than one agent. Is every one of these agents to be entitled to demand payment from a person who is seeking a house, before ho gives particulars of the house? The effect of the Amendment would be to permit these dishonourable exactions, which are due to nothing except the shortage of accommodation and the great desire of many people to find somewhere to live, to be demanded over and over again. When the poor person for whom the noble Lord very properly expressed sympathy seeks the accommodation which he needs, the effect of the Amendment would be to impose upon him the risk of being required to pay to the agent, over and over again, what lie demands for supplying the addresses and particulars of flats, not one of which may be in the least suitable for his requirements. In many cases the flat will already have been let by another aunt, though the other agents employed may riot know it.
I am sorry, but I cannot think that if this Amendment is understood and its effect appreciated, the Committee will be prepared to make this change in the Bill,

883
which, as it stands, is accepted by all reputable house agents as a very proper provision, and one which they heartily welcome. For those reasons I regret that I cannot indicate any willingness to accept the Amendment, and I hope that the Committee will refuse to do so. As the noble Lord has said, this Bill is the effort of a private Member in another place, but it is a Bill which has been surveyed and considered by the Government Department principally concerned, and the Committee may hear from the Government Front Bench whether this Amendment of the noble Lord appeals to them. If it does not, then I hope the Committee will without hesitation reject it.
LORD MANCROFT: This, of course, is a private Member's Bill, and the Committee will very properly look to the sponsor, my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, for ultimate advice as to what decision should be taken. In view of the fact that upon the Second Reading I intimated that Her Majesty's Government were in favour of the proposals contained in it, however, I feel that your Lordships would wish me now to indicate what views, if any, Her Majesty's Government hold upon this particular Amendment. I will not weary your Lordships by repeating any of the arguments which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, so cogently advanced. I will content myself by saying that, in the opinion of my right honourable friend, the inclusion of this Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would not improve the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: I do not propose to press this Amendment, but the noble and learned Viscount did not really deal with the question as to why this charging of a fee should be made an offence. I did not pretend that it was the normal course for an agent to charge a fee for providing lists of addresses. I did indicate that we ought to be extremely careful before we increased the number of offences, and the noble and learned Viscount has spoken as strongly as anyone in this Committee on that very subject. Merely to do something which is unusual is not an offence, and I see nothing particularly reprehensible in making it a condition of going to the
884
trouble of supplying addresses—genuine addresses—of places that are available for letting, that a person should be paid for it. I think the noble and learned Viscount was a little fanciful in imagining that a large number of agents will have large numbers of properties available for letting and that the unfortunate would-be tenant will go round paying all these agents for exactly the same addresses. If that were the case, I do not think there would be very much need for the Bill at all. It is because of the shortage of accommodation that the need for the Bill arises. Having regard to the views of Her Majesty's Government on this Amendment, however, I do not propose to press it, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.53 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to omit subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the second Amendment which stands in my name. It refers to the provision in Clause 1 of the Bill which exempts a solicitor from the penalties that can be imposed on ordinary people. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 provides that:
"A person being a solicitor shall not be guilty of an offence under this section by reason of his demanding or accepting payment of any remuneration in respect of business done by him as such."
I take that to mean that if a solicitor does any of the things set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) he is not guilty of an offence under this Bill. On the occasion of the Second Reading, I asked why there was this special exemption for a solicitor. Why exempt a solicitor who demands or accepts payment of any sum of money in consideration of supplying or undertaking to supply addresses of property to let even if (I say this in view of the decision on the last Amendment) they are not genuine addresses, or he has not been instructed? Why should he be exempted? And if a solicitor is to be exempted, why not other people? Indeed, this Bill applies to any person with the exception of a solicitor. The purpose of moving this Amendment is to find out why this particular profession—of which, I must admit, I am a member—should be favoured in this way. I know that this provision was not in the Bill originally, and I believe that some representation

885
was made by Scottish solicitors for a provision of this kind. As I understand it, no representation was made by English solicitors. I do not think they are particularly interested in being exempted. But beyond the fact that representations ware made by Scottish solicitors. I no not understand why solicitors should be so favoured under this Bill. I should be very glad to have an explanation from the noble and learned Viscount. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out lines 5 to 8 inclusive.—(Lord Silkin.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: The noble Lord has raised this question, if I may be allowed to say so, very reasonably, and he has put to the Committee the considerations which moved him in proposing to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 1. As he says, subsection (3) was not in the Bill when it received a Second Reading in another place. It was inserted in Standing Committee there, and the reason for its insertion was that which the noble Lord has just indicated. The Law Society of Scotland—I do not know whether one can regard it as the counterpart of the organisation which we know as the Law Society here—asked for the subsection to be inserted in the Bill because they feared that otherwise the Bill might interfere with one of the legitimate professional activities of Scottish solicitors. Apparently, in Scotland, at any rate, solicitors do act to secure the tenancy of a house. It is a difference between Scottish practice and English practice, I dare say; but that is the fact, and the members of the Law Society of Scotland were, therefore, anxious to secure that what in their country is a quite legitimate professional occupation should not be brought into question by the language of this Bill.
The noble Lord, very naturally (I am disposed to admit. that asked it myself when I saw the subsection) asked the question: If you make this provision for solicitors why should you not equally make provision for other professional sons—barristers perhaps—who might be concerned in letting the property of owners who employ them? The answer is that the members of those other professions do not regard it as any part of their professional business to secure tenancies for houses. It is conceivable, I suppose,
886
that such a situation might arise with an English solicitor, a man acting, perhaps, for executors wishing to find a tenant for a house with which they had to deal, who might, in the course of dealing with the testator's property, find and put forward someone who wanted to take the house. But that is a very doubtful instance, I should think. The House of Commons came to the conclusion that it was right to put in subsection (3) really to quieten people's anxieties. I myself do not believe that makes any real difference whether the words remain in or are taken out. I think the effect is probably the same, because the Scottish solicitors who are engaged in this letting business do not demand or accept payment of a sum of money from an individual who comes to them and asks for a list of property to let. But that is the justification. Therefore, it is not difficult to see why subsection (3) is put in. The Law Society in Scotland asked that the position of members of the profession in Scotland should be made quite clear, and I suppose that we should be willing to give them that assurance in the Bill.
I think it is a sufficient answer to the noble Lord, who has put his point very reasonably (for, as I say, I shared his query when I first saw it), to say that this is simply a protective clause to calm the possible anxieties of respectable and. eminent gentlemen who feel that the question might be raised as to whether what is part of their ordinary practice was an offence under the Bill. It is not intended that it should be an offence: they do not have to do what is mentioned in subsection (1). However, it is right that Parliament should include in the Bill a subsection which removes anxieties, even though I confess that I think they are rather fanciful. In the circumstances, I could not suggest that the House should accept this Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: I regret to say that I am unable to whip up any tumultous excitement this way or that about this Amendment. Looking at it generally, the advice I would give your Lordships is that the Bill will probably be better without Lord Silkin's Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Viscount is not enthusiastically in favour of the retention of this provision, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, gave no reason at all why it should be retained.

887
I am afraid that I remain unconvinced. I feel that the Bill would be better without subsection (3). As the Bill stands, it appears that no one may commit the offences under subsection (1) except solicitors. I am sure that that is not the intention, but that is how it strikes me, on reading it. I suggest that the noble and learned Viscount should think about this again: there is still a Report stage and Third Reading. Possibly he will have second thoughts and agree that the Bill would be better without subsection (3). I will not press the matter, nor will I ask him to give any undertaking; but if he cannot remove this provision I hope that between now and the next stage he may think of better reasons for retaining it than we have just heard. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am quite willing to respond to that appeal. It is not an unreasonable request to make. Certainly one does not want to pass a Bill which could be understood to mean that these are offences which no one must commit except solicitors. I recall the passage in The Water Babies, where one of the rules which the madman in that admirable book used to observe was that not more than three Westminster boys should be shot in any one day lest black game should become scarce. And of course we wish to make the same rules for solicitors as for anybody else. Whilst I will certainly look at this point again with my honourable friend who is responsible for the Bill in another place, I do not think it is likely that it will be found possible to omit subsection (3). I expect that what has been said here to-day will produce another message from Scotland, and perhaps from the Scottish Office, which will inform us that they think it important to keep this provision in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
EARL JOWITT: May I take this opportunity of mentioning one other matter to the noble and learned Viscount? I do not want an answer now, but I wish to give him an opportunity of considering it. It occurs to me that subsection (1) (c) is a little too wide. In paragraph (c) we are not dealing with any sum of money but with the issuing of an
888
advertisement of a house being to let without the authority of the owner of the house. Obviously, we do not want to catch within the ambit of this clause highly respectable firms. It sometimes happens that eminent firms send round to their clients a list of houses they offer to let. It may be, perhaps owing to a mistake, or because one of the houses has been disposed of, that one of the houses is no longer available. I myself have had these lists, and I expect many noble Lords have had them, and I have on occasion found, when inquiring about a particular house, that there has been a mistake and that it is not, in fact, available. Obviously, we do not want that to come within the ambit of a criminal offence, as I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will agree; and although no judge would treat it as such, it is desirable that we should make the position clear in the Bill. I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount would consider whether some such words as "without reasonable excuse" would not be an improvement to that paragraph. Such words would avoid a result which he will agree would be the last result he would want to achieve, and which would be quite ridiculous. If it were a mere clerical error, then an eminently respectable firm might find themselves unwittingly committing a criminal offence. I should be glad if the noble Viscount will look at this to see whether he can devise some form of words—I have not one in mind—if he thinks there is anything in my point, to meet it.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am obliged to the noble and learned Earl. I see his point. None of us wants to land an eminently respectable firm in an accusation of crime when there is an explanation that there has just been a mistake. I will certainly look at this matter, and perhaps I might have an opportunity of asking the noble Earl what he thinks. His suggestion is that when we come to paragraph (c) we might consider inserting, perhaps in the beginning of the paragraph the words, "without reasonable excuse, "or some words of that kind. It is a legitimate point. I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl. I will have it looked at.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
House resumed.

KENYA
4.10 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, may I interrupt the proceedings for a few moments in order to give the House a reply which the Colonial Secretary is making in another place to a Question which has been asked of him this afternoon in relation to Kenya. I should make it clear that when I use the word "I" in the course of the statement it is, of course, the Secretary of State speaking. The statement is as follows:
"The situation in Kenya has greatly changed since I last reported to the House. The favourable features outweigh the unfavourable. The latest advices which I have received from the Governor show that the tendencies which I observed when I was there are still maintained. First, the flood of confessions which began a few weeks ago has continued. Increasing numbers of Kikuyu are coming down upon the side of the Government and are expressing their confidence in it. Secondly, the flow of information from the Kikuyu to the police has greatly increased.
"Thirdly, the Kikuyu Home Guard is building up rapidly and in some districts, notably in Nyeri, Fort Hall and Kiambu, the necessary numbers have already volunteered. In these districts the Government of Kenya do not Intend to ask for further recruits but rather to concentrate upon training. The House will remember that Colonel Morecambe, lately in command of he Suffolks, who had a long experience in Malaya, was appointed on May 14 to the General Staff in Kenya with special responsibilities for the Home Guard. Lastly, the Mau Mau movement has not spread—significantly—into other tribes although some bad characters from Nairobi have been creating trouble on the fringes of the Meru and Embu country. In the Rift Valley Province the improvement in the situation is maintained and activities by the gangs are only on a small scale.
"Such are the favourable features. The unfavourable are that the movement of between 50,000 and 60,000 Kikuyu from farms hack into the
890
Reserves has swollen the size of the gangs in the fringes of the forests. This is not a disadvantage where they can be engaged by police and troops, but although they have not got many firearms their increased size does increase the danger both to the Home Guard and to the loyal population, until we can root them out. Again, this emphasises the need for improving the training and equipment of the Home Guard to which I have referred. This is being carried out with great energy.
"I wish to make clear the extent to which this is a struggle within the Kikuyu tribe itself between the loyal forces on the side of peace and order and the forces of murder, arson and savagery. This is shown by the fact that since the Emergency began, 411 Africans have been. killed by the Mau Mau, seventeen Europeans and four Asians. This gives the lie on the one hand to those who claim that this is a struggle between black and white, and on the other to those who would have us believe that the Kikuyu tribe as a whole is ranged against the Government.
"Many attacks have been made against the Kikuyu Home Guard. Nevertheless they lave resisted there with great steadfastness and frequent success, and I take this opportunity of paying the tribute due to brave men. Upon the strong request of the Asian Community, conscription for Asians has been introduced. I told the Press in Nairobi when I left that I regard the present as a phase of decision and the appointment of General Erskine to be in charge of the operations against the Mau Mau is to bring the Emergency to an end as quickly as possible.
"Turning to political events, the Kenya African Union has been proscribed. Many members of the Kenya African Union are, of course, loyal citizens but it had been found in the course of the Kenyatta trial that the Kenya African Union was being used as a cover for the organisation of Mau Mau. As an illustration, two of the most wanted terrorists in Kenya, Dedan Kimathi and Stanley Mathenge are both Kenya African Union members. Kimathi was Secretary of the Rumuruti Thomson's Falls Branch and Mathenge a member of Nyeri Branch.

891
There can be no doubt that the subversive Kikuyu Central Association, which was proscribed in 1939, infiltrated into the Kenya African Union shortly after its establishment, and by 1947 had dominated its members and corrupted its purposes. More recently the detention of Odede, who had become the President of the Kenya African Union, was necessary because he was implicated in trying to organise Mau Mau in the Nyanza Province.
"It is not, of course, our wish to prevent the expression of legitimate political opinion by Africans. We must be sure, however, that ostensibly political bodies are not used as instruments for spreading disorder and terror by a small part of one tribe. The best course is, I think, to build on those local associations which have shown that they can be trusted to pursue the interests of their people by legitimate means. The Kenya Government will do all that it can to help along these lines.
"I discussed the matter of public meetings with the Governor while I was in Kenya and we agreed upon a statement which he has now issued. Here it is:—
'In order to allay any misunderstanding that may exist, the Government wishes to make clear its attitude on holding of meetings by African members of the Legislative Council. The Government will welcome the calling of meetings by African members of the Legislative Council to address their constituents in support of law and order.
'The same applies to meetings addressed by other Africans who are staunch supporters of law and order. On account of security reasons, it will be necessary for those arranging meetings to obtain the consent of the District Commissioner and the police.'
"I wish now to refer to the speeding up of the processes of justice. This will be done within the framework of British law by emergency assizes and by the creation of a number of supernumary judges of the High Court. Accused prisoners will be brought directly before the High Court without any hearing before a magistrates' court.
"Lastly, to turn for a moment to future measures for economic and social progress. The Government have a number of schemes in an advanced
892
state of preparation and, upon my advice, they intend to announce them one by one when they are ready to be put into force. The time has passed for general assurances and we must show that we are now ready to act.
"Finally, a Deputy Governor has been appointed. He will be able to assist the Administration particularly in regard to reconstruction. He will also take some of the load off the shoulders of the Governor, who will thus have more time to tour the country. Where he has been able to do so he has been received with acclamation. The response has been encouraging and has given evidence of the way in which he can lead, guide and inspire public opinion, particularly African. These visits have shown the population that he is with them, and they have shown that they are with him.
"To sum up, the position in Kenya is still one of danger, but it is improving. The population is coming over to our side in large numbers, the Home Guard is building up, the schemes for long-term reconstruction are well advanced. Mau Mau has not spread significantly. The great mass of the population are loyal and in peace. I shall report to the House from time to time on the progress made. While we must continue to watch the situation with anxiety, and must be prepared to face some setbacks, we can regard the outcome with complete confidence."
4.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Munster, for his full and reassuring statement about the position in Kenya. We shall need time to consider this statement before we can decide whether we wish to ask the Government for an opportunity to debate the matter before the Summer Recess. I should like to offer two comments about matters in the statement, which would certainly figure in any debate that might take place. We welcome the intensification of the anti-Mau Mau campaign, and particularly the reorganisation of the police and military under a unified command. At the same time, I must express certain doubt—it is no more than a doubt—about the desirability or efficacy of proscribing the Kenya African Union, which is

893
the largest organisation for the expression on the part of Africans of constitutional opposition to the Government policy.
The other matter which we consider of great importance and which was scarcely mentioned in the noble Earl's statement is the question of promoting measures of social reform and reconstruction simultaneously with the repression of Mau Mau in order to remove the causes of this subversive movement.
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Leader of the House for having this statement made, and to the noble Earl for making it. I welcome it, because it makes it unnecessary to put questions on the Paper which might appear to be, or be represented as being, an effort to impede the Government's chosen policy. At the same time, there are one or two questions which I should like to ask the noble Earl concerning his statement. The first is, did anything come of Mr. Blundell's suggestion that the land of delinquent Kikuyus should be confiscated? That was made about two months ago and, I understand, was being considered. The second question I should like to ask is, what has been decided about the use of aircraft against offenders? The first time that was mentioned a Government statement was put out to say—I have the words here, but I think this is right—that it was a rumour spread by the Mau Mau. The next time the upper reaches of the mountains were proscribed, and it was announced that they might be bombed. The third time they were bombed. General Erskine has now given a Press interview in which he said that he is considering carefully the use of aircraft against these people. I believe the public would wish to have clear information on that point. The third question I should like to ask the noble Earl is on the point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Listowel—namely, are the Government satisfied that this dreadful business can be brought to an end without an understanding of the African outlook and how will they get an understanding of the African outlook if they proscribe what is recognised to be its main organisation?
4.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, may I reply to the questions addressed to me by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and
894
the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. In the first place, let me, in my own words, repeat the remarks which came in the statement about social reforms. They will be introduced, and your Lordships will no doubt have ample knowledge of them through the medium of the Press as they come into operation. I should not like to be pressed to-day to state which social reform will be undertaken in the first place. I would, however, remind the noble Earl that it was only a short time ago that Her Majesty's Government: agreed to grant a further sum of £500,000 for the general development of the country. To turn to the noble Earl's second question, about the proscribing of the Kenya African Union, I have no doubt myself that this organisation has harboured many of those responsible for the present outrages, troubles and terrors in Kenya. On that point I would give the Colonial Secretary my strong and full support.
Now I pass to the three questions which were asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. At the moment I have no information which I cart give him of Mr. Blundell's suggestion, but I will certainly communicate with the noble Viscount privately. Ai regards the question on the use of aircraft for bombing, I may say that no aircraft can be used for bombing Mau Mau in any part of the territory without the full authority of the Director of Operations. In each case where bombing has been carried out—and I think the cases are very few—the Director of Operations has first given his personal authority and approval. I would only say this, in conclusion, to the noble Viscount, on the question of proscribing the Kenya African Union. I fully agree with him that it is vital that all African people should have some organisation of a political nature to which they can turn. Those organisations may be good but when they delve into subversive activities and encourage all the horrors and atrocities with which we are familiar to-day, I wholeheartedly support my right honourable friend.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am grateful for the courteous way in which the noble Earl has answered my questions, but I am not satisfied on his reply as to the use of aircraft. It is not sufficient to say that the General has to give permission for the aircraft to be used.

895
The question is whether you are attacking offenders—people who are guilty or presumed to be guilty. If you are flying over a forest, do you see your target? Do you know who is beneath you? When you have dropped your bombs, do you know who is killed or wounded? Is there any means of succouring the wounded, some of whom may be guiltless? The use of aircraft against native people in forests is not only morally wrong but extremely questionable from a practical point of view.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I have little further to say except that I should have thought that the use of aircraft certainly saved a great deal of human life. It is far easier and cheaper from the point of view of expenditure of human life, and I have no doubt whatever that the aircraft have been used for bombing villages in those districts, and no other, where it is known that Mau Mau attackers definitely exist.
4.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am in general agreement with the policy which has been undertaken to repress this outrageous state of affairs in Kenya. But on the other hand, one is anxious about certain points such as those raised by my noble friend Lord Stansgate, because surely the decision does not lie solely with the Director of Operations. It is not clear to me whether it is a decision of the local Director of Operations or whether it is a direct decision at headquarters here—a decision of the Director of Operations in London. I am told that it is a local decision. Then surely the general authority must be purely a Cabinet responsibility. The use of aircarft in this way is so much a moral question that I suppose we are to assume from the noble Earl's statement that it is a definite and deliberate decision taken by the Government. I agree that it may save human life in some cases, but it is the kind of thing that many of us have opposed in the past—indiscriminate bombing without consideration for the victims. That raises great moral issues in the minds of the people.
There is one other point I wish to raise before the noble Earl replies, if he wishes to, and it is this. It is a point I should like the Leader of the House to answer,
896
because he is famous for his careful consideration of such points. Those of us who have been in authority in this kind of situation in the past are a little concerned at the growth of the practice of commanding officers giving Press interviews on the Mau Mau before departing. It is a practice which is growing. I prefer the kind of statement made by the Secretary of State to both Houses of Parliament to-day, which gives an idea of the general proposals to be followed and the general policy to be practised. Much as I admire the personal qualities and military experience of that outstanding officer General Erskine, I should welcome it if he would give no interviews before he flies over to Kenya.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, may I say one word on this general question of bombing? I fully appreciate the preoccupations of noble Lords opposite, and I think we should all be opposed to what might be called indiscriminate bombing. With all deference to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, I do not think that that description could fairly be applied to the operations to which reference has been made. I think it was made perfectly clear in the statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, that bombing was done only as a military operation under the express direction of the Director of Operations in wooded areas where—I understood this to be the position—the Mau Mau were known to be operating. If you are going to draw too meticulous a line you will never be able to use bombing at all. As the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander, knows perfectly well, there were cases in the war where we had to do it. We did not enjoy doing it, but it had to be done, and I think that in the long run it did save life. This is a military operation—it is no good regarding it as anything else. I agree that there must be careful supervision and that the bombing must not be in any sense indiscriminate; but I should not be prepared—and neither, I am sure, would the noble Viscount, if he were on this side—to say that in no circumstances should bombing be used.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, or some other legal authority could answer this ques-

897
tion. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, in the statement he made, referred to the Kenyatta trial. Jomo Kenyatta was the President of the Kenya African Union. The noble Lord gave it as an opinion that the Kenya African Union was illegal. Now the appeal of Kenyatta against his preliminary conviction has still to be heard. I ask the Lord Chancellor or some other legal authority to say whether the statement made with regard to the Kenya African Union, of which Jomo Kenyatta was President, does not grossly affect the appeal which Kenyatta is presently to bring forward.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): If the noble Viscount makes an appeal to me I will answer it categorically in the negative. I would much rather there were no further discussion in case something is said which might, in fact, prejudice the case.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It is obvious that nothing said on this side could affect the justice of this case when it is heard: the judge would not permit it. But the statement has been made by a member of Her Majesty's Government that the Kenya African Union, of which Jomo Kenyatta is President, was, in fact, a seditious organisation, and I should have thought that that would clearly prejudice the possibility of a fair trial of Kenyatta.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not agree in any way with what the noble Viscount has said and I am not prepared to be led into further discussion upon the matter.

NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) BILL
4.32 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I should like to point out that its purpose is to remove an anomaly relating to the wills of sailors and marines. Many of your Lordships are aware that during the late war, and, in fact, during the previous war, and during the period of emergency which still exists to-day, a member of the Armed Forces was able to write his will on a piece of paper without any witnesses, or to make a will orally, provided that
898
there were two witnesses to say it was done, and could thereby will away the whole of his assets. This has been found to be a very necessary provision for men in the Armed Forces and, of course, enables them to make a will quickly. On the other hand, when the present emergency ends, while naval ratings and marines will be allowed, under the present law, to leave their civilian property in the way I have mentioned, the curious thing is that they will not be able to leave any naval assets, such as prize money, bounties, arrears of pay and so on, in that manner. This short Bill will have the effect of repealing previous legislation on this matter, and will enable the present emergency provisions to be replaced by permanent legislation. It will bring sailors and marines into line with other members of the Armed Forces; in fact the naval assets of a seaman or marine will be treated in the same way as the other assets of any other serving soldier, sailor or airman.
Your Lordships may ask why sailors have not in the past been treated in the same manner as members of the other Armed Forces. I think the reason is that in years gone by the sailor would come ashore and perhaps quickly will away his naval assets when in undesirable company. It is now considered, and rightly so, that sailors are well able to look after their own interests, and that there is no reason why they should be treated differently from any other members of the Armed Forces. I would add that this Bill passed through all its stages in another place without amendment and is, I understand, welcomed by the Admiralty. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Toynham, has fully explained the purpose of this Bill. It is a very useful Bill, which will remove present anomalies and avoid others that might arise in the future. We will facilitate the passage of this Bill by not taking up any more of your Lordships' time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
4.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill No. 45 as first printed for the House of Commons.]
Clause 38, page 20, line 7, leave out subsection (2), and insert—
("(2) Any sum paid to the Secretary of State in pursuance of section twenty-seven of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, in respect of a fine recovered under this Act shall be deemed to be Exchequer moneys within the meaning of that section and shall be paid by the Secretary of State into the Exchequer.")
Clause 44, page 23, line 21, leave out ("first day of July") and insert ("thirtieth day of September").
First Schedule, page 24, line 24, leave out from ("and") to end of line 29, and insert ("any sum paid to the Secretary of State in pursuance of section twenty-seven of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, in respect of a fine recovered under this paragraph shall be deemed to be Exchequer moneys within the meaning of that section and shall be paid by the Secretary of State into the Exchequer.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is an unusual case. You are asked to consider certain Commons Amendments to a Consolidation Bill, and our researches have not led us to discover any case where a similar situation has arisen. Your Lordships will, however, be grateful to hear that there is no conflict between the two Houses. These Amendments are Government Amendments which have been made as a result of a discovery that in a complex and difficult measure certain matters have been overlooked. The discovery was made by the Home Office and the Registrar-General after the matter had passed through the searching test of the Joint Committee, under the eagle eye of my noble friend Lord Llewellin.
Subject to anything that your Lordships may say, I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the Amendments in detail, and if it is convenient to your Lordships I will take them all
900
together, merely explaining that the first Amendment, and the third Amendment are really in the nature of drafting Amendments to give effect to a situation which had not been fully examined in Joint Committee. The second Amendment, which substitutes September 30 for July 1 as the date for the coming into operation of the Bill, is necessitated by the fact that it is desired to bring into force on the same date as the Registration Service Bill another Consolidation Bill the Report stage of which I shall be moving later this afternoon. I do not wish to shirk any explanations which any of your Lordships may desire, but perhaps you will think it sufficient if I put these Amendments. I beg to move, that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I should like to say one thing, as I had the honour to preside over this Joint Committee. This is a point which was discovered after the Committee had sat. From the Lord Chancellor's final remarks it is obviously a great advantage that these two measures should come into force on the same day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to my noble friend. The House is very greatly indebted to him for his many services.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (REAR LIGHTS) BILL
4.39 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I have already made a number of speeches on this Bill, on the Second Reading, and on the Committee and Report stages. I could, if you wished, make very much the same kind of speech again, but I suspect that noble Lords want to get on with other business. I will therefore content myself with moving formally that the Bill be now read a Third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Llewellin.)
On Question. Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

REGISTRATION SERVICE BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

THE NATIONAL FILM FINANCE CORPORATION
4.40 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD rose to call attention to the report of the National Film Finance Corporation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not sure that I should not start by apologising to the House for inflicting a Motion on your Lordships at so late a time on a Thursday afternoon; but perhaps more appropriate would be a protest through, or to, the normal channels for so arranging our Business that the Motion comes at such a time on a Thursday afternoon. The Motion that stands in my name is not by its nature a Party Motion and it is brought forward in no Party spirit. That does not mean, of course, that it is an entirely non-contentious matter, and no doubt in the course of the debate we shall hear quite sharply contending views. When I first spoke about the film industry some three years ago in your Lordships' House, I could claim to speak from first-hand knowledge of the industry, having left it only a few days previously, after some thirty or forty years' experience in it. Having now been out of the industry for three years, I cannot speak of it with the same intimacy as I could then, but what I have lost in detailed knowledge I may perhaps have compensated for by greater objectivity. In any case, one does not lose interest in an industry in a few years after having spent a lifetime in it.
In considering the Report of the National Film Finance Corporation, we must, I submit, take into account the general economic condition of the whole cinema business. Film production and its problems cannot be considered in complete isolation. Like practically every industry, the cinema industry is divided into the usual three sections: the producers or manufacturers, the distributors or wholesalers, and the exhibitors or retailers. The two big combines, Associated British Pictures and the Odeon-Gaumont, are probably operating in all three sections, while some other concerns, like British Lion, are operating as manu-
902
facturers and wholesalers. To a certain extent, the three sections of the industry have common interests, but that is not to say that the interests are identical. I want to emphasise that point, because in this House and elsewhere, from time to time, the industry is told that it should get together and evolve a common policy, or that it should get together and settle its own affairs. That very often means that the point on which the industry is told that it should settle the problem for itself is one in which the interests of the different sections of the industry may be completely arid unalterably opposed; and a common policy therefore, may be almost out of the question. By comparison with other industries which this House has discussed from time to time—recent examples, of course, being the steel industry and the transport industry—the cinema industry is not a very big one. Yet it is by no means a negligible one. Its three branches employ more than 100,000 people, and the capital invested in it is said to be more than £250 million. It provides entertainment for more people than any other branch of the-entertainment industry and probably for more than all the other branches of the entertainment industry put together. That, so to speak, is the background or the industry.
Turning to the Report itself, let me say straight away that I have no substantial criticism to make, either of the Report for the year of the National Film Finance Corporation or of the work of that Corporation. I think the Corporation have done a good job, and have again presented an interesting Report. Opinion in the industry is not, I gather, entirely unanimous about the Corporation and the details of their work. The Corporation have their critics, as is to be expected. I am not going to join the ranks of the critics. The points on which I might criticise the Corporation's work are of a: detailed and technical nature, and I am ready to admit that they are no more, than the normal differences of opinion on technical matters in which the Corporation may well be perfectly right. This year's Report is particularly interesting, in my opinion, because of the light that it sheds on all the problems of the industry, and particularly on the general economic position of the industry to which I first made reference.
Looking at the Report, we find that during the year the Corporation have provided finance for about fifty feature films. This compares with sixty-five films financed in the previous year, and thirty-six in 1950–51. It is interesting to compare these figures with the number of feature films registered over the same period for the British quota. The comparison obviously cannot be an exact one, because some of the films which have been financed in any given year will not be registered for quota until the following year. But for the past three years, the numbers of feature films registered for quota have been:1950–51, 76; 1951–52, 64; and 1952–53, 80. It should be made clear that although these are films of 6,500 feet or over, they are not by any means all first-feature films, as that term is generally understood. Neither, of course, are all the films financed by the Corporation first-feature films: it is anyone's guess how many of those are registered as first features, or how many of those financed are first features. Therefore, the comparison becomes almost an impossible one.
All that one can say, I think, is that there is no evidence, either from the number of registrations or from the number of films financed, of any marked or substantial improvement in the volume of British feature film production over these past years, despite the fact that we have had the Finance Corporation operating now for four years, and the British Film Production Fund—better known as the Eady Fund, to which I will refer subsequently—operating for two years. That, I think, must be a disturbing and disappoining thing to anyone who wants to see an expanding British film production industry. The reasons for it are, I think, to be found set out, or, if not set out, at least implied, in the Report of the Corporation for the last year. Before I turn back to the Report, may I say that further evidence that the film production industry has not progressed substantially, if at all, in the year under review is to be found in its employment figures. For the last three years, employment in the film production industry has been around the 4,000 mark (I was pulled up last year for a slight discrepancy on the exact figures of employment. I therefore content myself by saying "around the 4,000
904
mark"), and the past year has not shown any improvement worth talking about.
Before I go on to discuss that part of the Report which deals with the condition of the industry I should like to refer for a moment to Section III, on page 2, dealing with the British Lion Film Corporation Limited. It deals with the loan of £3 million to that company and, as was brought out clearly in the debate a year ago, that loan was not made on the responsibility of the Film Finance Corporation; it was made, in effect, before the Corporation came into existence, and what I am going to say, therefore, is not a criticism of the Film Finance Corporation. The Report states:
"Any permanent repayment of the working capital loan could therefore only come from a curtailment of production."
But one might add, "or by the provision of new working capital from some other source." If, as the Report says, profits are non-existent, or at least very low, then obviously they can neither provide the new capital nor attract it. If we accept that, then we have to say what ought to be done.
I agree with the Corporation that the curtailment of production is most undesirable. We have had good films from the British Lion Corporation, and I think no one wishes to see the production of their films stopped. But in that case, the £3 million loan becomes a permanent or semi-permanent loan, and I suggest that it might be wise for the Government to consider the conversion of that loan into some form of equity, with representation on the board of directors. Consideration might also be given to the position of the British Lion Studio Company, which paid a dividend of 15 per cent. on its ordinary shares last September on account of the year to March 31, 1952. I am not arguing that the dividend was excessive, particularly in view of the fact that dividends had been passed, I think, for the two previous years. But when the subsidiary studio company pays a dividend whilst the parent film production company is unable to repay its loan, then I think an unfortunate impression is created; and the conversion of this £3 million loan into equity, or part equity and part debenture capital, with representation on the parent company board, might help to dispel that rather bad impression.
I turn to Section IV of the Report, the accounts, on which I have only two brief points to make. First, I should like to express my personal satisfaction that the Film Finance Corporation have been able to take the place of Mr. Stephen Court auld in the financing of Ealing Productions. It would have been a great pity if the steady flow of production from Ealing, containing, as it has done for many years, such a high proportion of fine films, had been brought to an end through lack of finance. I am glad, therefore, that the Corporation have stepped in. My second point is a very small and technical one and concerns completion guarantees. I have on a previous occasion given the House the arguments, and I will not repeat them again to-day. I will content myself with saying that I would ask the Corporation to reconsider the matter and whether they should not give completion guarantees, thereby saving producers a considerable amount of money.
I want now to pass on to Section III, Costs and Revenues, a section in which we really get to grips with the problems within the industry. The new Table, Appendix E, which I welcome, is most illuminating. If we take it along with paragraph 33, and make the adjustment referred to in that paragraph, it seems to show profits on films financed by the Corporation for the years to March, 1951, and March, 1952. amounting to £187,000 and £80,000 respectively. In each of these years something like £5 million was invested in the production of films, and considered as returns on a £5 million investment, profits of £187,000 in one year and £80,000 in the next year can hardly be regarded as entirely satisfactory, though they do, I agree, represent a welcome improvement, particularly on the losses shown in the two previous years, of £967,000 and £758,000. But paragraphs 37 to 41 deliver a chill warning against even the mild optimism that these meagre profits might have engendered. There is what the Corporation describe as a "marked deterioration" between 1951 and 1952, and the indications are that that marked deterioration will continue. Only fifteen out of the thirty-four films financed by the Corporation in 1952 are likely to be profitable, even with the help of the Eady Fund. The losses on the other nineteen films are expected to
906
exceed the profits on the fifteen, and as a result, only 99 per cent. of the aggregate cost of the thirty-four films is expected to be recovered. This again is a very grave and disappointing situation, which one must examine in a search for some explanation.
Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the Report give some indication of the reasons but, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to look at the reasons rather more exhaustively than is possible in the Report. Our main concern in dealing with the Report of the Film Finance Corporation must obviously be with production; but as I said at the beginning, we cannot look at production in isolation: we have to look at it in relation to the other sections of the industry, and I think it would be useful to look first at what has been happening to the exhibiting or retailing side of the cinema industry. Over the past five years, taxable cinema admissions have fallen from 1,480 million per annum to 1,180 million, a drop of just over 20 per cent. in five years; and the fall is still continuing. In the same period, exhibitors' costs have risen substantially. Wages alone are said to have risen by £3½ million a year, and in the main these rising costs are, for various reasons which I will not go into, beyond the ability of exhibitors to control. During that five years there have been changes hi the incidence of entertainment tax, and there has been the introduction of the Eady Plan or the British Film Production Fund levy.
It is therefore quite impossible to make a straight comparison of net cinema receipts over these years. But it is possible and, I think, interesting and important to see what has happened since the introduction of the Lady Plan in 1951. In round figures, the changes in entertainment tax and admission prices provided for in the 1951 and1952 Budgets were expected to give the exhibitors about £5,500,000 extra in net takings in a full year. The Exhibitors' Association calculates, in fact, that the net increase is no more than about £1,500,000, or a shortfall of about £4,000,000, with the result that many of their members are arguing that instead of the British Film Production Fund levy, the Lady Fund levy, being something paid by the public, it is in fact becoming an additional tax on the exhibitor.
The exhibitors have asked for entertainment tax concessions estimated to cost the Exchequer about £3,700,000. So far, they have been refused. I believe that the Finance Bill is not yet at a stage where one can say that the refusal is absolute and final, but, in so far as they have been refused, I would say that they have a just grievance. In fact, I would go farther and Say that I think the exhibitors have been much too modest in their request. The concession for which they have asked would do no more than put them in a position to meet their increased costs. But with attendances falling, and falling steadily, something more than that is required. I think that cinema admission prices have to come down. The fall in attendances is accompanied by a tendency for patronage to transfer from the dearer to the cheaper seats, which I think is indicative, and something is needed to attract bigger audiences. I can think of nothing more likely to achieve that than to reduce prices of admission.
So in addition to a tax concession of some £3,700,000 to put exhibitors on their feet, I think there should be a further and substantial tax reduction, provided it is made clear and laid down that it is to be passed on to the public in the form of reduced prices of admission. I do not know what the figure would have to be. I imagine that to have any substantial attractive effect on the prices of admission, it would have to be in the range of £5 million to £7 million. If the whole of that was devoted to reducing prices of the more popular-priced seats, I think that would be all to the good. The higher priced seats would then probably have to be reduced in price in order to keep in step with them. I do not think that that would represent a net loss to the Exchequer. The Chancellor is now dealing with a business which has reached the phase where the law of diminishing returns applies. I think he would probably find that the actual tax loss would be less than the calculated adjustment. The increase in attendance which I think would be effected would compensate in some measure for the change in the amount of tax per seat.
But I am not arguing the case for entertainment tax reduction solely for the benefit of the exhibitor, though in justice I think he is entitled to a reduction; I
908
am much more concerned with what will happen to British film production if no such concession is made. There will be a series of consequences. There will be increased resistance by exhibitors to the payment of the Eady Fund Levy. That, I think, is a bad but inevitable result of worsening conditions on the exhibiting side of the industry. We must remember that the levy is paid on the number of attendances, and if these continue to drop, as they have dropped steadily over the past live years, then the amount in the Eady Fund—which is not by any means too large now—will be further reduced.
Furthermore, the exhibitor has so many costs that he cannot control that he is bound to try to cut the amount he pays in film hire. I agree that American films constitute 70 per cent. of our programmes. Therefore, a cut in film hire by the exhibitors would affect principally the American films. But it would affect also British films. The trend towards cutting film rentals is already there. It is indicated in the Film Finance Corporation's Report and elsewhere. As conditions grow worse, that tendency will naturally grow. We are going to get an increased resistance to the payment of the levy, and we are going to get a drop in British film rental. I believe that unless there is some amelioration of conditions cinemas will begin to close down. They will tend to be at first the smaller cinemas in the more sparsely populated areas. But it will not stop there—particularly with the increasing competition of television. I am told that hundreds of the smaller cinemas in the United States have closed as the result of television competition affecting their attendances. My argument is not that the cinema should be given some special help in order to meet the competition of television but simply that its handicap should be somewhat reduced. Closed cinemas will not pay contributions to the levy, or film hire for British films. Nor, may I add, will they pay any entertainment tax to the Exchequer.
Now I wish to go on from the exhibiting side to the intermediate side, the side of the distributor or wholesaler, in connection with which, for the first time, we have some very useful figures. Appendix E on page 44 of the Report provides these figures. It is shown that in the year to March, 1950, distribution

909
fees in the United Kingdom amounted to £604,000, which represents a distribution fee of about 20 per cent. of gross film revenue in the United Kingdom. If, however, you go on from there to Appendix F and take into account the distributors' share of losses, which amounts to £286,000, then the distribution percentage is reduced to about 11 per cent. which is perhaps not unreasonable—it might even be rather on the low side. In the past, the distributor's defence of a distribution fee as high as 20 per cent. of gross revenues has been that he gave guarantees to the producers and that he made substantial losses in meeting some of those guarantees. Therefore he had to have a high overall revenue out of which to meet these guarantee losses.
Keeping that in mind, let us look now at the figures given for the two following years. On the films begun in the year to March, 1951, distributors had a share of the profits (and no losses to meet) in so far as films financed by the Corporation are concerned, amounting to £68,000 to add to the distribution revenue, bringing it up to about 22½ per cent. In the following year their loss was only about £23,000, which brought their commission down by the negligible amount of ·2 per cent. What accounts for the difference?—the operation of the Eady Plan. The number of films making losses on their guarantees has gone down and the amount of losses on those still making losses has become very much less; so that the justification for the high distribution fee would appear to have gone, at any rate so long as the Eady Fund remains in operation. It is likely, almost certain, that distribution costs, like those of most other businesses, have gone up. Therefore I am not making any dogmatic suggestions about what a proper distribution fee should be but, on the evidence shown in the Report, I think there is a strong case for the reconsideration of distribution fees with a view to the fee being reduced and the producers' share of the revenue being increased. Incidentally, speaking as one with long experience of the industry, I think the time is ripe, even overdue, for the industry to review the whole machinery and system of distribution to see where economies can be effected.
I come now to the third and, in my view, the most important part of the
910
industry—production. The Government's announcement in March last that the Eady Plan would continue for at least three years after 1954 and that, if the trade failed to agree, there would be a statutory scheme, was most welcome, even if somewhat belated. How much better would it have been if the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, had been able to make that announcement when. I made a plea for it in our debate a year ago. However, this is a case of "better late than never." There is no doubt that the British producer cannot continue without the help of this Fund. I would go further and say that British production cannot continue in a satisfactory condition if the Fund fails below £3 million. When it was inaugurated it was expected that it would yield roughly £3,400,000 in a full year—that is, in the second phase of the Fund. In its first full year it yielded just under £3 million, and I am told that this year it looks like yielding no more than £2,700,000. This is not entirely satisfactory. But what is important is that it will fall further, to a point at which it will be inadequate for its purpose, unless this fall in cinema attendances can be arrested. I have already given my argument as to how I think that matter may be dealt with.
Before going on to my next main point, may I interpolate a small item with regard to the Eady Fund? Even though it is handled as a voluntary fund, it was inaugurated by the Government, and therefore it is a fund for which the Government have some responsibility. I think there is a slight danger of what I may call "Eady quickies" developing in the industry. We are all familiar with that old evil of cinema legislation, the "quota quickies." I do not want to elaborate the point too much, but "Eady quickies" might be regarded as films which have a quick and perhaps ephemeral attraction—films of the type of No Orchids for Miss Blandish, if I may take an illustration. These are not films of the kind which the Government or anybody on these Benches or the sponsors of the Fund want to see. We want the Eady Fund to promote the making of worthwhile British films, not of what I would call cheap, catchpenny films, turned out as soon as producers see something which would make a quick success, in the hope of getting their share of the

911
Eady Fund. That is not what we had in mind.
I think the Government should interest themselves in the administration and disbursement of the Eady Fund and consider whether there is not some sort of test that can be applied. Please do not misunderstand me: I am not suggesting a committee to determine quality, because I know that that is quite impracticable, but I am sure there are tests that can be found. For example, in the main a worthwhile British film would earn money overseas, whereas the catchpenny film, designed just to skim the cream quickly off the domestic market, will have no overseas value at all. It may be that overseas earnings should be brought into account to give a weighted figure for the disbursement of the Eady Fund. I mention that in passing as something on which an eye might be kept for future use.
I return to the Report. What is abundantly clear from it is that, even with the help of the Eady Fund, British film production has not reached such a stage of prosperity as to attract private finance on anything like an adequate scale, if at all. In the debate a year ago I expressed the hope that the Film Finance Corporation might soon become unnecessary and that the British producer would be able to get along with only the two props of the quota and the Eady Fund. I present myself in a white sheet of repentance and say I was hopelessly optimistic on that point. It is now clear that, with an expectation of recovering only 99 per cent. of the aggregate production costs, there is no hope of attracting the private financier, so that the continuation of the Film Finance Corporation is essential. If its lending stops in March, 1954, as the existing Act lays down, there is no doubt that after that date a large proportion of British production will come to a standstill. The Odeon and Associated British combines may continue with their own financing, but most independent producers, and, so far as I can judge, all really worthwhile independent producers, would be quite unable to find the finance which they need, and particularly that 30 per cent. of end money which to-day they get from the Film Finance Corporation. Therefore, I urge upon the Government—and
912
this is the most important point that I can possibly make to-day and so, in a sense, my justification for initiating the debate and taking up the time of the House—that at an early date they should introduce a measure to extend the active life of the Corporation for a further five years. Paragraphs 42 to 47 of the Report put the position clearly and. I think, unanswerably. I hope that the Government will agree with the case set out there and accept what is to me the inevitable conclusion, that the Corporation should continue for a further period.
Briefly, the position as I see it can be summed up under three points. Cinema attendances are falling, while the costs of operation are increasing. Unless some stimulus can be given by lower admission prices, this downward trend will continue, and the smaller cinemas will close. The revenue of British films will suffer, both by reduced film rentals and by reduction in the Film Production Fund. The stimulus of lower admission prices can come only from a reduction in entertainment tax. Perhaps I should say at this stage, so that I shall not be misunderstood, that I accept that a high level of entertainment tax is inevitable, because 70 per cent. of our screen time is devoted to American films, which causes a heavy dollar expenditure, and entertainment tax helps to keep that dollar drain in check. Therefore, I accept that entertainment tax must continue at a high level; but my point is that it is too high and could be reduced with advantage. My second point is that the industry should help itself by a reduction in distribution costs, so that a higher proportion of box office revenue may go to the producer. My third point is that the continuance of the National Film Finance Corporation for a further period of years is essential if British production is to continue on anything like an adequate basis. The report which is before us suggests, to me at any rate, that the present Corporation is well fitted to be asked to continue with its task. My earnest plea to the Government is that they should extend the life of the Corporation for an additional five years. I beg to move for Papers.
5.22 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this stage, because I have some observations to make concerning the Government's

913
future policy and intentions towards this industry which may be of assistance to noble Lords who are to follow me in this debate; and then, if I can have the permission of the House, I would seek to speak again and answer any other points that may have arisen and which I have not covered in my opening remarks. I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, who speaks with such authority on this matter, for having raised it, and for the lucid and helpful way in which he has put his points before us. I must say straight away that with a great deal of what he has said I am in complete agreement. I remember, of course, that he raised this matter at about this time last year. I remembered it, as soon as I saw this Motion on the Order Paper, with slight misgivings, because I also remembered that I, from a back Bench, had taken part in that debate, and I was anxious lest I should find myself this afternoon standing at this Despatch Box scratching with the toe of perplexity upon the heel of embarrassment, having given vent to some views which were in direct conflict with those which I propose to give vent to this afternoon. I am happy to find, however, that that is not the case.
In last year's debate it was noticeable how frequently the word "crisis" was used by speakers; indeed, any listener to the debate would almost have come to the conclusion that the words "crisis" and "British film industry" were synonymous—an unfortunate impression, but one from which one could hardly escape. Now, a year later, we again debate the fortunes of that industry, and I think it is profitable to look at the year's work to see whether there has been any movement forward from that state of crisis. Here I think I part company a little with the noble Lord who has just spoken. I am slightly more optimistic than he is. I admit readily that the progress, such as has been made, is neither spectacular nor wholly satisfactory; but I think clearly that in the course of the last year the British film industry has made some progress forward from the depression of the last few years, and shows signs of maintaining that progress. The great problem is to maintain that progress and to maintain confidence in the industry.
To take some of the figures which the noble Lord gave us and analyse them a
914
little more closely, I feel that we can draw comfort from the fact that this year, of the major films registered—the 6,500-footers to which the noble Lord referred—the number is 85 as opposed to 63 in the previous year. That, I feel, is ground for some comfort. And I think we can take some comfort and pride in the fact that in the course of the last year these films have included upon the British screen such examples of British film craft as The Cruel Sea, The Planter's Wife, Sound Barrier, The Beggar's Opera, The Story of Gilbert and Sullivan and Moulin Rouge. I take those films only because they happen to be six films which I myself have seen, and they would seem to me to be creditable examples of British film craft of which we should be proud. There has also been a marked improvement in the quality and the quantity of the shorter films which have been shown. We have recently had two examples quite in a class by themselves—namely, the two Coronation films, which I am certain will bring great prestige to the industry.
We can also take some comfort from the current production plans. Of major films awaiting distribution at the end of last year, the figures were far higher than in the previous years. Looking forward, nearly one-third—about 29 per cent.—of total studio space has been booked for twelve months ahead, compared with a figure of 4 per cent. in 1951, 4 per cent. In 1950, and 10 per cent. in 1949. That shows a substantial improvement. Allowances must, of course, be made in these figures for a fall in the stage area available. I do not want to over-exaggerate the progress, but I think it shows a healthier situation, amore stable outlook for employment, and generally a condition which we have not been able to enjoy in the film industry for some years past. Producers have maintained their efforts to reduce the cost of production, in the face of difficulties of wages, salaries, laboratory charges and other technical charges. I do not suggest for a moment that there is not room for still more economy. I do not say for a moment that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, when he says that there should be some review of the cost of distribution. There is certainly room for improvement in nearly all the branches which I have mentioned.

915
One important point, above others, which emerged from the noble Lord's speech was this question of the future of the Corporation. The noble Lord asked me point blank whether the Government had made up their mind what was to be the future of the Corporation. Your Lordships will remember that under the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act, 1949, the National Film Finance Corporation have power to make loans during the five years which end on March 8, 1954. The Government propose in due course to introduce amending legislation to enable the Corporation to make loans for a further three years after that date. That decision has been taken in full consultation with the Corporation, and it is a decision which I hope will find a welcome not only in your Lordships' House but in the industry as a whole. The industry, of course, is faced, as the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, suggested, with a two-fold problem. There have been sudden developments of new techniques in the industry (the wide screen, three-dimensional films, and so on), and there has been the influence of television growing markedly stronger each day, an influence which I am certain will have gathered even more strength from the rôle which television has played in the last memorable weeks. Therefore, the prospects for the industry to become self-supporting, although perhaps a little better than in previous years, are by no means guaranteed, as the noble Lord himself has clearly suggested. The prospects of private capital being made available to the industry are far from bright. Therefore, I believe that the decision which the Government have taken, to continue the life of the Corporation for another three years, is clearly a right decision and that if the powers of the Corporation were allowed to lapse disaster would come upon the film industry.
To turn to the Report itself for a moment, I should like to begin by paying tribute to Mr. Stop ford and to Mr. Lawrie and their colleagues for the able work that they have done, and particularly to Sir Michael Balcon, their adviser, who has been a great help to them. I should like to pay tribute to them not only for their own work but for the efficiency of their Report. I do not think I have ever seen a more helpful or illuminating
916
Report than this Fourth Report of the Corporation. One fact which emerges, if you look very carefully into it, is that this particular body is much more stringent and economical in its own domestic policy than many other public or similar bodies, to whom it might well be a good example. There is a small deficit against a small profit last year. Roughly the same number of films have received assistance. British Film Makers, Limited, and the Elstree Group have terminated their agreement with the Corporation, and are now working without financial assistance. I should like particularly to draw attention to Group 3. That is the Group which specifically helps young writers, directors and technicians, and assists the rather more unusual type of film. They have had a good deal of success in the course of last year, and I think most of us will be looking forward with interest to see what they make of the Everest film in which they are at present engaged.
The other two main subjects of the Report, apart from the future of the Corporation, are, of course, the British Lion Film Loan and the Eady Fund. The £3 million loan to British Lion Film Corporation is not a matter to be treated lightly. This is what the Report says:
"No repayment has in fact been made, nor has it been possible for a programme of repayment to be prepared."
In another part of the Report we see these words:
"In the Corporation's view, the problem of the British Lion Loan cannot be considered apart from the general question of Government policy for the industry after the expiry of the Corporation's lending powers in 1954."
The Corporation have been discussing with British Lion the necessary steps that must be taken to protect this very considerable sum of public money which has been advanced. The National Film Finance Corporation hold the view—and Her Majesty's Government consider that view to be the correct one—that the best way is to strengthen the structure and organisation of British Lion, rather than try to enforce any immediate repayment which undoubtedly, I should have thought, would cause a very serious disturbance—a disturbance which would not be to the interest or well-being of the industry as a whole or, indeed, to the well-being of the taxpayer. In view of the statement I have just made of Government policy, I hope that the Corporation may now be able to go ahead

917
with appropriate measures to deal with this very difficult but very important problem.
The question of entertainments tax, naturally, was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Archibald. I think his views are now fairly well known. The pros and cons of this vexed matter have been discussed at considerable length, not only with reference to the film industry but with reference to every other kindred industry. Of course, entertainments tax with regard to the film industry has a particular interest and a particular difficulty all its own. I hope the noble Lord will not think that I am trying to avoid the issue, or evade the question he has put to me, but, since we are faced with the Committee stage of the Finance Bill in another place at this moment, and in view of the fact that one of his right honourable friends has put down an Amendment on this very subject, I feel that it would be unwise, and probably for me a little awkward, if we were to discuss the matter any further to-day. I will say merely that I will make it my business to see that the views which the noble Lord has put forward are brought fully to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if they are not already, as I suspect they are, well known to him.
I will now turn for a moment to the British Film Production Fund, the Eady Fund. Here I quite agree with the noble Lord that we have at all costs to avoid what he neatly called "Eady quickies." I entirely agree that the fewer films like No Orchids for Miss Blandish that we have upon our screens, the better. Indeed, I remember that one of the first "quota quickies" I ever saw, which caused a certain amount of trouble at the time, was called Archibald, Certainly Not! Here I entirely agree with the noble Lord. The Report welcomes the Government's desire to continue the Eady Levy for the three years after August, 1954. I wish to say only this about the Levy: it has caused some heartburning within the industry, and it has caused some slight arguments. It may be that, in due course, some form of statutory scheme will be required to put this matter on an even footing. I sincerely hope that it will be possible to get this matter straightened out within the industry itself. I know that there are uncertainties about the fairness of how the burden falls and
918
uncertainties as to the actual amount of money available to them. With good will and with common sense it may be possible to reach an agreement, and legislation will not be necessary. That, at least, is the Government's hope.
After the particular statement that I have made concerning the future of the Corporation, perhaps it might not be a bad idea to conclude with a few words of stocktaking and a few sights into the future. We have to face the fact, I am afraid—the noble Lord has faced it perfectly squarely, and so must I—that there is a decline in the cinema-going public m this country, and a decline which shows no signs of halting. Admissions in 1952 were 4 per cent. below those of 1951 and 6 per cent. below those of 1950. One reason stands out a mile, and that is the competitive attraction of television This is causing, I know, much difficulty and heartburning throughout the industry. I do not think I ought to go into it in any great detail, because we may be discussing television in another aspect, perhaps in the not too distant future, It has had exactly the same effect on Hollywood, and Hollywood, in their attempt to meet the opposition of television, have taken measures which in their turn are reflected in the British film industry, of which the wide screen and 3-D films are only two obvious ones.
Because of this difficulty, this rivalry, and this competition, I feel that the intention of the Government to lengthen the Corporation's life is particularly important at this moment. But this does not alter the fact that the industry must itself do everything in its power to increase its efficiency, to avoid wasteful and extravagant expenditure, and to reduce the restrictive practices which have so often marred the history of the industry in the past. Above all, it seems to me that the industry has to do one thing: it has to produce films that people want to go and see. We can stand here and talk about Eady Funds, quotas, financial support and British Lion assistance, but an industry which has to be continually looking round for outside help, and has to face a future where artificial aid is normal rather than exceptional, is not an industry that can fill its admirers with everlasting hope and enthusiasm. The real backbone of the industry's success must be its ability to produce films which you

919
and I will put down hard cash willingly to go and see. The fact is that the standard of entertainment is rising rapidly in so many fields that people are becoming "choosey," and will no longer go to the cinema merely to go to the cinema. They will go to see a good film—the queues outside any cinema showing any of the films which I enumerated earlier in my remarks are surely proof of that—but they will not go to see a bad film. The number of casual cinema-goers is clearly decreasing, and that seems to me the danger light, of which the industry must be aware—as indeed it is: one is preaching to the converted, one hopes.
The industry must realise that it is a good film, above all, which will attract the cinema-goer; and as the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, so rightly said, it is for the Government to remove from the industry any handicaps in the way of producing those good films. That is what the Government's policy is. The Goverment want to get into the film industry as little as possible. They want to stand back and let those who can make good films make them; and they want to do everything in their power, as I say, to remove the unfair and unnecessary handicaps standing in the way of the film industry. But no Government intervention can be a substitute for good, economical, entertaining and well-produced films. The Government can only provide the basic conditions which will enable the industry to exercise its skill and creative ability, and its ingenuity too, to take this industry from a state of crisis to a state of stability. That is all the Government can do. My hope is that what I have said this afternoon suggests that the Government are doing their level best to fulfil what they see to be their real duty.
5.42 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, we are all greatly indebted to the noble Lord who initiated this debate, and we congratulate the Government on their decision to extend the life of the Film Finance Corporation. I am convinced that this will come as a very welcome gesture to everybody connected with the film industry, and especially the independent companies that are now cropping up in larger numbers. I think it was a bold and brave decision on the Government's part, because the Report of the Film Finance
920
Corporation has not been too rosy, to say the least of it; but this decision will help the industry—and the independent companies—to reorganise and get themselves working in the best possible way. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, said. After all, we are all, on both sides of the House, at one in desiring to see the film industry working in the best possible way.
I do not want to go into too great detail on the financial side, but I wish to make a few suggestions which may help concerning the difficulties in which the industry finds itself at the present time. The last time I ventured to speak to your Lordships I mentioned the matter of script-writers, and I propose to say a few further words on this subject. I am convinced, the more I talk with directors and producers, that one of the main difficulties is this question of getting really good script-writers. At the present time, a script-writer produces, perhaps, one script in every eighteen months which is accepted. Script-writers therefore tend to get out of training and, like other people, if they are not kept continually at their work they get out of the way of it; and that is how the difficulties come about. I believe that if in some way it could be made possible to form a pool—it would entail some expenditure, but I do not think it would be very much—whereby a certain number of these young scriptwriters could get down to their work and be paid on a regular basis, it would in the long run pay dividends from the point of view of the industry as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned the question of British Lion and the troubles they have got into. I know that one of the leading directors in that organisation has run into great difficulty over this matter of finding good scripts—in fact, he has not produced a film for eighteen months for that reason. I think, from what both Lord Archibald and Lord Mancroft said, that this is a matter which is causing considerable worry to the film industry. Over three-dimensional films I think the problem is not worrying us so much in this country, but Hollywood is getting into a panic about it. In this country we are keeping our heads. I thought that what Mr. Anthony Asquith said when he was speaking to the union was very sensible: it was to the effect that at the moment we should keep calm

921
and cool, and see how things progress. I feel that one other great barrier is the question of the vast extravagance which has taken place in the making of some films in the past. This, I believe, is at last dying out. I think that the producers, directors, and staffs on the sets are now doing their best to keep costs as low as possible. Some of these directors, men with high standards—and, perhaps, with a temperament, which I suppose one must expect of those who produce good films—are troubled about the allocation of money from day to day. But taking it as a whole, they are doing what they can to bring the whole situation into proper alignment.
I would for a moment go back to the question of script-writers. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that in both France and Italy they have schools of script-writers where young directors and young producers get together and work as one. I think one can say that, certainly since the war, the films that have come out of Italy and France have been very remarkable. Certainly the Italian industry has made a remarkable recovery since the war, and I believe that: in many ways this is due to script-writers having had the right training. In France it is possible for a man who wishes to go into that side of the industry to go to the Sorbonne for a couple of years and work with men from the other sides of the industry.
The question of making films of the right type for people to see is a very complex one. The film public is extremely large, and it is difficult for producers and directors alike to sum up accurately the type of film that is wanted by the cinema-going public. In my view, some very remarkable films have come out of the British studios in the last three or four years, and, with luck, there are some very remarkable ones to come in the next few months. But it is a wide field, and tastes of every kind have to be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, I am certain that they offer as high a standard as possible. Occasionally we see the film industry run into trouble on this point, but on the whole I think that it is doing its best. I agree with Lord Archibald when he says that if it were possible to reduce the prices of seats in the cinemas it would help enormously. The Eady Plan seems to be working fairly
922
well; there is good co-operation between producers and exhibitors. Certain companies, and especially the independent companies, who are in a precarious position financially, are seriously thinking that they will have to go to the Board of Trade in the near future asking for legislation to be introduced to make certain that all this money comes back to the right quarters.
5.50 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, in winding tip this debate for Her Majesty's Opposition, I feel that we are once again in deep debt to my noble friend, Lord Archibald, who has given us a factual survey of the British cinematograph industry at a most opportune time. Speaking from a life's experience of the industry, he has given us a fine background against which we can all form our own conclusions. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for intervening when he did and making the Government announcement, to which I shall refer later. I have no acquaintance with his friend Miss Blandish, and the lady's reputation is such that I certainly would not give her any orchids, but, if I could produce a little "quickie," it would certainly be A Bouquet to Lord Mancroft, for the excellent way in which he, as the Government spokesman, has dealt with this subject. He said some useful things.
May I first deal with the Report of the Film Finance Corporation, which, in common with my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord St. Just, I think is an admirable document. I join with them also in paying a compliment to the work of the Film Finance Corporation. In my view, they have done an extraordinarily good job of work. The value of this Report, however, is not so much in its description of the work which they have done as in the fact that it brings before us, in stark reality, the totally uneconomic position of the British cinema industry to-day. I have a great interest in the Film Finance Corporation as I was responsible, when I was on the other side of your Lordships' House, for piloting through the Bill that set it up.
The Report and the Accounts for this year state quite clearly that the Film Finance Corporation has lost an aggregate of £1,500,000 since its

923
inception. That is money well spent, considering the fact that if it had not come to the aid of the industry four years ago I do not think the Exchequer would have netted over that period somewhere in the region of £100 millions in entertainment tax. As a business man, if I could spend £1,500,000 in order to get back £35 millions a year for four years, I should think it was a pretty good business deal. But the disturbing part of their Report is where they say, quite frankly—I paraphrase their exact language—that if their activities come to an end in March, 1954, the financial state of the British film industry upon its production side will be just about where it was when they started their operations four years previously. I am not going to spend much time in holding an inquest into the past, except to say that we have had one disappointment in the activities of the film industry over this last year, and that has been the failure of the new scheme of groups which was tried out. Two of the groups have disappeared. The third group, as the noble Lord said—that which encourages the younger producer—is the only one left, and I intend to make a suggestion later on as to the reason for this. I will not do so at the present moment.
I think mistakes have been made by the Film Finance Corporation; slight errors of judgment have been made in the placing of finance in some of these films. Perhaps one of the tragedies revealed by this Report is the finance that was put into the film The Magic Box. I agree that the Film Finance Corporation put a substantial amount of money into that film from not altogether commercial reasons—let us be fair to them. But that film well illustrates one thing that is fundamentally wrong with the British film industry. I went to see the film when it was being produced, and I cannot imagine how anyone in the film industry upon the artistic side, or who is financially interested in that industry, could ever have thought it would be anything else but the biggest failure on record—and that is what it proved to be. I know that if I could have backed winners every time in my business career I should have been very clever. I do not expect anyone always to be on the right
924
side in this speculative industry. But too much money has been put into too many bad films. As my noble friend, Lord Archibald, pointed out, in spite of all the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, there is one thing you cannot wish away in this Report, and that is that on all the films financed by the Film Finance Corporation, they will recover only 99 per cent. of the production costs. You cannot get away from that.
But I am not so much interested in the past, because I think the time has arrived when Her Majesty's Government must have a policy for this industry. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, did admirably in his speech until he started looking at the peroration in his brief. That peroration had a somewhat familiar ring in my ears. You cannot just wash your hands of this industry. You cannot say: "The industry must put its own house in order" and do nothing else. We have said that for four years. I said it more often than the noble Lord has said it. But experience has proved that it is not possible; and if we want in the future to use the film as the greatest means of propaganda —which it is—for the British way of life, then the Government must take an interest in it. You cannot just say that the industry must put its own house in order at a time such as this and allow the Exchequer to take £36 millions a year out of it.
I am going to say quite bluntly to the noble Lord that one of the reasons for the crisis, if you like to use the term, in the film industry to-day is the fact that it costs the general public too much to go to the pictures. One must realise that fact, when one compares the cost of television entertainment with the cost of some of the seats in the picture houses in London or the suburbs. It is now beyond the purse of the average individual, to a greater extent than it was some years ago. Do not forget that £35 millions a year have been taken out of the industry in entertainment tax. I have always held the view up to now that a reduction in the entertainment tax would not help the British film industry. My Lords, I am changing my mind. I believe, to use a technical term, that we have got over "top dead centre"—in other words, it is now a case of diminishing returns. We must find

925
some way of bringing down the prices of seats in the cinema. I think the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got to take a business gamble; he has got to try to make up on a wider spread, with a smaller incidence of taxation. I think that if he reduced taxation and the price of seats came down, the gross return would about equalise itself and the industry would gain immeasurably.
But, in any case, I beg the noble Lord to realise that we cannot to-day look upon the cinema in this country as a purely commercial entertainment. It is a portrayal, a factor of propaganda effort, of the British way of life, and its value, I think, is incalculable. The noble Lord quite rightly mentioned the Coronation Film. I went to see the film A Queen is Crowned. It was the greatest piece of "selling" of this country that I have ever seen in my life. I admit that its star was the greatest star that ever appeared in the cinema firmament. I beg the noble Lord, however, to look upon the cinema as something slightly different from commercial entertainment. His right honourable friend has done it with the live theatre. The cinema is now a greater projection of the British way of life than ever it has been, and I hope that the noble Lord will bring this point home to the Government.
The next thing this Report points nut to us—and this is another point that the Government must take into consideration in the formulation of a policy—is that the film industry or the cinematograph industry will not in any useful foreseeable future time attract finance from orthodox sources. I do not want to bring the skeletons out of the cupboard and tell your Lordships how much the losses in the film industry have cost the banks and the insurance companies of this country. But we have got to find a method of finding finance for worth-while films other than from the traditional financing institutions, and the "angels" have flown. That is why I welcome the statement which the noble Lord has made, that the National Film Finance Corporation are to be given another three years of life after March, 1954.
I hope he will not think that I am looking a gift horse in the mouth when I say that of course that is only another pallia-
926
tive. We have gone on like this since 1945. We formed the Film Finance Corporation as a temporary expedient; then we had to think of the Eady Plan. I stood at this Despatch Box and begged that the Eady Plan should be made statutory—but no, it could not be done. Now, as has been admitted by the Government, it will have to be. From the word "go" when I introduced into your Lordships' House on behalf of the Labour Government the Bill to set up the Film Finance: Corporation, I said that in my opinion that Corporation might well have to play a permanent part in the life and make-up of the British film industry. I believe that it will, and the time has now arrived to make it a permanent institution. If we look at the situation in stark reality, we see that already 70 per cent. of the screen time of this country is occupied by American films; and if we withheld the £6 million that is available through the coffers of the Film Finance Corporation for British production, the British cinematograph industry would revert to something like a distributive agency for American films.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned British Lion. I think he said that we had to find a way of safeguarding the £3 million loan. I am going to make a suggestion to him. In my view, the Film Finance Corporation should take the equity in British Lion, because it will never get its money back in any other way. The only way in which it stands a chance of getting that money back, or of getting some return on that money, will be for the Film Finance Corporation to take the equity in the £3 million and to appoint directors to the board of British Lion. As my noble friend pointed out, of the things that the Government should look into, because it is not peculiar to British Lion, is the circumstance where a property-owning subsidiary can pay a dividend of 15 per cent. and the production end of the same company cannot even repay its loan. I am not at all certain that the set-up in other production units in the British film industry does not need similar examination. It has been said that fools make films for wise men to exhibit. I am not at all certain that in some cases wise men do not acquire properties and rent them for fools to produce. I think that is a side that should be examined. My noble friend

927
Lord Archibald is quite right in saying that distribution costs too much. He is also quite right, I think, in saying that the expense of production is still too high, in spite of the fact that it has gone down enormously. In my examination of film production costs I have never thought that directors and producers have been underpaid for what they do.
My Lords, the Eady Levy has got to go on; but it is really a comic way of financing an industry, especially an industry like the film industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, said, the Eady Levy is only an extra tax on the industry. The administration of the Eady Levy will have to be radically altered. I am going to be bold enough to suggest that, after the Film Finance Corporation has taken over the equity in British Lion, it had better takeover the administration of the Eady Levy, because some better yardstick for payment than there is at the present time will have to be found and the money channelled into projects more worthy of support. I would point out—with some reserve, because at this juncture the noble Lord probably knows more about this than I do—that the Report says, quite frankly, that a great deal of the money from the Eady Fund goes into the pockets of the American companies. Although they are admittedly of British production a great deal of the money goes into the making of these 6,500-footers, of which the noble Lord said we produced eighty last year. But length or quantity is no guarantee of quality or of box office success, and one of the troubles to-day is that the British film industry is not producing enough good films. As Lord Archibald has pointed out, there are first feature films and films of first feature length; and there is a world of difference between the two. I suppose I should be right in saying that about sixty films of first feature length were produced last year. About twenty of them should never have seen the light of day. Now the production of a film, good or bad, costs money, and when it loses money the industry suffers.
The film industry is facing a most difficult time. It has to face the growing competition of television; it has increasingly high costs to meet. I think statistics would show—the noble Lord has
928
mentioned them—that attendances are falling, while income is being kept up only on the precarious basis of the increased cost of the seats, and sometimes, we are told, by the sale of ice cream. I believe the revenue will fall. I do not think we can look for any alleviation of these difficulties as a result of the new technical developments. In my view a lot of nonsense is being talked about the wide screen and the three-dimensional film, with all its ancillaries and derivatives and all the refinements of it. I am told on good authority that the cost of converting a cinema, from the smallest to the largest, to carry these new developments is anything from £300 to £8,000. I am also told that Hollywood has 300 million dollars worth of flat films on its shelves which have somehow to be liquidated and turned into cash. These new refinements will never be a commercial proposition in this country until they can be standardised right through the exhibition side of the industry, because at the present time for every 3-D film that is made a flat film—an identicalcopy—has also to be made, so that it can be shown on the ordinary screens.
In my view, the future of the film industry can be said to rest on similar factors to those which govern the success of all commercial enterprises. When you are seeking to make money by entertaining the public in cinemas, there is no effective substitute for a policy of offering high entertainment value in your films and charging low prices for seats. Some of the recent British films are undoubtedly good. I am told that a film which the noble Lord mentioned, The Cruel Sea, has been an outstanding success. But some of the trumpery colour films that have cost three times as much have not even paid for the colour used in them. With all these considerations before him, I ask the noble Lord not to be too optimistic. He started off by saying that he was more optimistic than my noble friend Lord Archibald.
LORD MANCROFT: That was not saying very much, was it?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Optimism is the mistress of noble Lords who speak from the Despatch Box on behalf of the Government, but they are

929
very fickle lovers. I would ask the noble Lord to look at this matter in the light of the bald facts which appear in this Report, which I think is an admirable Report in all respects. It tells us exactly what the position is. I hope that the contributions which have been made to this debate to-day will be helpful to the Government, and will enable them in the next few years—I think perhaps they may look forward to a breathing space of three years—to formulate a policy which will bring tighter control of finance, and save the taxpayers' money and see that it is used in the best possible channels.
6.15 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask permission of the House to speak again, in order to answer one or two points which were not covered in my opening remarks? I should like to begin by thanking the two noble Lords who have just spoken for the welcome they have given to the Government statement of policy with regard to the National Film Finance Corporation. I should like also to disillusion the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to say that he has no ground for accusing me of over-optimism. I was only one degree more optimistic—or should I say less pessimistic?—than the noble Lord, Lord Archibald; and, as I have already remarked, that is not saying much. I find some ground for comfort in that the situation this year is not quite so bad as it was last year, but I agree with the noble Lord that the situation of the film industry is one that gives cause for very considerable alarm. Let there be no mistake about that.
Another point I should like to take up is this. Lord Lucas asked me a question about Her Majesty's Government taking over the equities of British Lion and eventually taking over the administration of the Eady Levy. That point will be looked into by others more capable of doing so than myself. I doubt whether they will look into it with any more enthusiasm than when I first heard the noble Lord give vent to his opinions. It seems to me, on first reflection, that to do as the noble Lord suggests would be putting the Government into the business in a very big way, in rivalry with people already in the
930
business. It seems to me that this would be a little crack, the beginning of the opening of the door towards a nationalised industry.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? The Government are in this already. They are in it now up to their necks, to the tune of £3 million.
LORD MANCROFT: I agree that they are in it to the tune of the £3 million for which they are responsible to the taxpayer. But the noble Lord really would want to give them much more than equities.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Later perhaps.
LORD MANCROFT: If you give the Government equities, you give them much more control than they have. I can see what the noble Lord is getting at. Naturally, I am reluctant to see the Government getting mixed up in this, at present, private industry. I see what the noble Lord is getting at, but I do not like the way he is getting at it. I am sorry that he did not seem to be impressed with my peroration, which I am horrified to confess I wrote myself. If, as we are all agreed—I certainly agree—the British Government have got to stay financially beside the industry, then the industry must understand that it has got in its turn to play its part. It has got to put its own house in order. I hesitate to use the term "feather-bedding," for I remember the terrible repercussions that occurred after its use elsewhere. We do not want there to be any ground for an accusation to be levelled against the industry at some future time to the effect that it sat back arid did not play its part merely because the Government's money, the taxpayers' money, was behind it. There must never be grounds for levelling that accusation against the industry. I will have the whole of this question looked at, but at the moment I am not myself extremely enthusiastic about the idea.
If I may, I should next like to answer what the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, said about script-writers. What he says certainly seems to me to make sense, but the matter is not one, I should have thought, for the Government to interfere

931
in at all. It is a matter for the industry itself to put in order. When the noble Lord says that it is very difficult for the producer to guess exactly what the public taste will be, to gauge how the public enthusiasm, fickle as it may be, may change in the matter of films, I agree entirely. But surely it was well said that if you bring out a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door. If you cannot gauge the public's desire for these films—which after all is an important part of your business—then I suggest you had better clear out of the business altogether and stop losing the taxpayers' money. If a boot maker cannot make footwear which appeals to the wearers of footwear, or if a mousetrap maker cannot make mousetraps which really do catch mice, then he goes bankrupt. I cannot really see why the taxpayer should be asked to finance inefficiency. We are being asked, and rightly so, to assist in financing a national and vitally important industry which, through no fault of its own—this is a point which both noble Lords have emphasised—cannot at the moment be financially self-supporting. But in turn we are entitled to ask that the industry itself should give as much efficiency and skill as it possibly can. I will take up no more of the time of the House, except to thank both noble Lords for the cordial reception they have given to the Government's proposals, which I hope will produce the beneficial results that they have been good enough to suggest may come.
6.20 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I have been struggling with the temptation to reply in detail to the various points that have been made in the course of the debate. I am sure your Lordships will be glad to know that I have found strength to resist the temptation, for I feel that if I were to cover the various points it might disturb the cordial atmosphere of the debate, in which everyone has been aiming at the same result, the well-being of the industry. Therefore, I think I should content myself with thanking noble Lords who have taken part in making this a most interesting debate. However, I should be completely failing in my duty if I did not express my great satisfaction at the policy announcement made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I am particularly encouraged because a year ago I made a plea for the continuation of the Eady Plan, and some months later the Eady Plan was extended for another three years. To-day, I have made a plea for the extension of the life of the Film Finance Corporation, and without having to wait months I get an immediate response. My third plea was for a substantial reduction in entertainments tax, and as the Finance Bill has not yet finished in another place I must remain, as the noble Lord described me, slightly optimistic. I express my great appreciation. I think the Government have made a very wise decision. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past six o'clock.