Lords Sitting of 9 April 1957

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TRADE WITH CHINA
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Queston which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received representations from the Sino-British Trade Committee representing the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers, the China Association, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the London Chamber of Commerce strongly urging the removal of restrictions on trade with China; and whether, following on the Bermuda Conference, they will approach all the Governments associated in the confidential committee sitting in Paris known as "Cocom" with a view to securing their acquiescence in the termination of the out-of-date China embargo, which, in the words of a leading article in The Times newspaper of 22nd March, 1957, "has long outlived its justification."]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade stated in another place on March 21, Her Majesty's Government have received the representations referred to by the noble Viscount. With regard to the second part of the noble Viscount's Question, following upon further consultations with our friends and
1128
Allies, Her Majesty's Government hope to be able to secure a satisfactory solution to the problem of the China trade controls in the very near future.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer, which will be received with satisfaction by the British industrial community. In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary said in another place, on his return from Bermuda, that the Government were prepared to wait only a little longer before taking further action in this matter, may I express the hope that "a little longer" really will be only a little longer before they proceed to independent action on behalf of British industry and the British economy?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, that, indeed, is our hope, too.

WHITE FISH MEAL PRICES
2.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Silkin, who is detained at a meeting, I beg to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the steady rise in recent months in the price of white fish meal; whether they believe these increases are fully justified; and whether, in view of the effect of these increases in feeding costs, they are prepared to take action to bring about a reduction in these costs.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, I understand that the price of home-produced white fish meal ex-factory has been stable since the autumn. From such information as I have been able to obtain to-day the only increase in the delivered price from merchants in recent months has been a rise of a few shillings per ton to cover increased transport costs.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, does the noble Earl really think that the present price

1129
for fish meal is justified? The cost, delivered, is now something like £76 ton. How does the noble Earl reconcile that with the need for trying to keep down, for example, costs of pig production?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the figure is nearer £74 a ton. Figures which I have received to-day from three merchants in various parts of the country all show prices of somewhere in the region between £74 and £74 10s. 0d.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is not much better, is it?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, for the sake of accuracy, I felt we should record it. So far as I can ascertain, I think the price is justified. It compares favourably with lower-protein-content imported fish meal. As the noble Viscount knows, the price quoted is not so much a ton basically; it is so much per unit of protein content.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But the fact remains that in the course of a very few years this commodity has gone up by about £20-odd a ton—nearly £20 a ton, at any rate. That is a very heavy increase; and now that pig prices are dropping it becomes a serious factor for the pig producers.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords may I give some of the ex-factory prices? In 1954, it was £64 10s. 0d. per ton, and in October, 1956—and the same price rules to-day—it was £68 per ton. That is ex-factory.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But I am referring to the cost delivered through the merchants to the producer. It is fundamental, I think, that I should be able to tell my noble friend Lord Silkin if the noble Earl could answer his other question, what steps the Government propose to take to get the cost down.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, we do not propose to take any steps at the moment. The noble Lord's original Question referred to "the steady rise in recent months," and there just has not been a steady rise in recent months.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Those who pay the piper know.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the lighting of vehicles on roads. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL [H.L.]
2.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The references are to Bill No. 56 as first printed for the House of Commons.]
Clause 2, page 2, line 17, leave out from second (" of ") to end of line 22 and insert (" each of ten successive periods of fifty-two weeks, of which the first shall begin not later than the twentieth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven.")
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think it is a matter of poetic justice, in view of what happened to the Bill after it left your Lordships' House, that we should be considering the Commons Amendments to this Bill immediately before the Budget. I am glad to say that none of the Amendments on the Order Paper is in any way concerned with entertainments tax. The first Amendment is uncontroversial. It is only concerned with an adjustment to the timetable, and the purpose is to avoid leaving a gap between the start of the statutory levy and the end of the voluntary levy. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 2, page 2, line 32, leave out (" may ") and insert (" shall ")
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. It was proposed by the Opposition in another place and it is acceptable to the Government. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, in moving the first Amendment the noble Lord prefaced his remarks to your Lordships by saying that it was rather appropriate that we should be considering Amendments to this Bill on the same day as the Budget is being introduced into another place. I suggest that it might have been far more exciting if we could have had this Bill to-morrow. We then might have had something really to talk about, because I feel certain that, whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer does, if anything, it will not meet with the approbation of every Member of your Lordships' House who is interested in this industry.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has down a number of other Amendments of a kind similar to this. Has he now, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, resolved for all time the argument which I have heard in your Lordships' House ever since I have been here, that there is no difference in the mind of the Parliamentary draftsman between "may" and "shall" that when the Department concerned want to interpret "may" as "shall", they shall, and when they want to interpret "shall" as "may" they may? Will the noble Lord tell us now that there is a difference between the wording of a Bill which says that a Minister "may" do something and the wording of another Bill which says that the Minister "shall" do something? If he is going to say that that is now the accepted principle of Parliamentary draftsmanship, he has taken away a lot of alibis from certain
1132
Departments in future. I think he has done a national service in that we shall know in future precisely what we want and where we stand.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am flattered to think that the noble Lord thinks I have done a national service. Unfortunately, it is not quite as noble as all that. I will try to explain on the next Amendments, which are more suitable for explanation on this point, that there is a slight difference between "may" and "shall". It is not of such importance on this particular Amendment as it is on subsequent Amendments.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Why is it not so important?
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 3, page 3, line 22, leave out (" may ").
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this also is a "may" and "shall" Amendment, as are the Amendments which march with it—that is, Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 and 8 to 11. The point is this. Clause 3, which we are now discussing, enables and requires the Board of Trade to make regulations; but under the Bill as it was originally drafted the Board were permitted, but not required, to prescribe certain conditions in which payments may be made out of the British Film Fund by the Agency to British Film producers. During the Committee stage in another place, it was decided that it would be much clearer to make it mandatory for the Board of Trade to prescribe certain conditions.
So the effect of these Amendments will be as follows. The Board of Trade must prescribe definitions of films which are to participate, the rate of payment, the furnishing of information, the persons to whom payments are to be made and arrangements for provisional payments and recovery of over-payments. The Board of Trade will have the power, but need not necessarily exercise it, to prescribe three things. The first is the different rates of payment for different classes of films; the second is the provisions allowing payments to assignees; and the third is any incidental or consequential provisions which may be necessary. So I think the noble Viscount,

1133
Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will see from that the difference between a mandatory and a permissive power. There is, in point of fact, quite a marked difference in this particular clause between the "may" and the "shall". I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 3, page 3, line 23, at beginning insert (" shall ").
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this also is consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 3, page 3, line 25, at beginning insert (" shall ").
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 3, page 3, line 26, after (" and ") insert (" may ").
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is also consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 3, page 3, line 29, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
(" (c) shall contain provisions requiring the making of claims for payment and the furnishing of information required for the determination thereof or of any question arising in connection therewith.")
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, Clause 3, as it was originally drafted, required the Board of Trade to prescribe by regulation
"the persons by whom, the form in which and the time at which claims for payment are to be made, and the information to be submitted in support of claims."
On thinking the matter over, however, it did not seem that it was desirable to prescribe by regulation this degree of day-to-day detail, and we thought it would be better to leave the Agency to decide the actual form which applications are to take, and the times at which they are to be made. Although we have said that the regulations will closely prescribe the work of the Agency, I do not think it would be right to prescribe this degree of detail. The regulations, as your Lordships will remember, are subject to Affirmative Resolution. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
2.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, can help me. If he has nothing to say on the next four Amendments, perhaps we can take them together. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft has already referred to them, and perhaps he will move them en bloc.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 3, page 3, line 33, at beginning insert (" shall ")
Clause 3, page 3, line 34, after (" and ") insert (" may ")
Clause 3, page 3, line 37, at beginning insert (" shall ")
Clause 3, page 3, line 39, at beginning insert (" may ")
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in that case I beg to move that Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 12, page 8, line 6, leave out from (" a ") to (" is ") and insert (" company which satisfies the Board of Trade that it is and will remain a British company and ")
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this point is of slightly greater importance. We have now moved on to Clause 12, a long way away from the last Amendments. Clause 12, as drafted, permits the transfer of the assets and liabilities of the National Film Finance Corporation to a person who satisfies the Board of Trade that he is willing and able to make adequate financial facilities available to persons who wish to arrange for the production or distribution of cinematograph films. The effect of this Amendment with Nos. 13 and 14, is to limit the class of persons to whom the assets and liabilities may be transferred to companies which satisfy the Board of Trade that they are, and will remain, British companies as defined in the last of the Amendments: that is to say, a company incorporated under the laws of Great Britain which is controlled by one or more British subjects or by one or more British companies or by a British company and a British subject.
We considered whether the persons to whom the assets and liabilities might be transferred should be limited to British companies or should also include British subjects resident in Great Britain. We decided to exclude such British subjects, since it would be impossible to ensure that they would remain resident in Great Britain. In the case of companies, it would be possible, if it were thought necessary, to make it a condition of the transfer that there were included in the Memorandum or Articles of Association provisions for ensuring that the control of the company remained British, and for preventing any alteration of the Memorandum and Articles without the consent of the Board of Trade.
As your Lordships may have noticed, there was a deal of discussion in another place as to whether even these Amendments could entirely provide against the possibility that the Corporation might at some stage find itself in foreign hands, or, alternatively, in the hands of those who might not be in a position to continue to make loans to British film producers on the same scale and conditions as at present.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships, in case there are any doubts or apprehensions still existing, of the requirements of Clause 12 as a whole. This requires the Board of Trade to be satisfied that a
1136
purchaser is and will remain British, and can make adequate financial facilities available to producers. A second point is that any order made by the Board to provide for such a sale has to be laid in the House of Commons and approved by Affirmative Resolution. I conclude by assuring the House as firmly as I can that the Government would look most carefully at any sale proposal and would not allow any transfer which would result in damage to the film production of this country. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the first Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the noble Lord and of your Lordships' House if we discussed these three Amendments together. This principle of selling the taxpayers' assets—that is what it really amounts to, a thing which the present Government seem to like doing—came under criticism when this Bill was before your Lordships' House. I am sorry that, in face of the criticism which was made at that time, the noble Lord did not discuss this proposal then. With the wealth of legal knowledge in your Lordships' House he might have arrived at a better conclusion than the present one, because, if I may use the expression, the watertightness of this clause hinges upon what interpretation the Government may put upon this first Amendment, to insert:
"a company which satisfies the Board of Trade that it is and will remain a British company."
The definition of a "British company" which is contained in the third Amendment is a sad and sorry thing. It can mean anything: it can mean two naturalised British subjects living in any country in the world. That is the interpretation that I should put upon Amendment No. 14. I do not think the Government really want that. If they do, I think they are playing a Jekyll and Hyde game with Parliament. I do not believe that the Government really want to sell these assets to an American-controlled and dominated concern in the film world. That is the fear, and it is a possibility, because, as I say, where you get two persons, naturalised British subjects, living in

1137
Hollywood, they can be regarded as coming within the third Amendment, unless the first Amendment which the noble Lord is moving here, Amendment No. 12, is rigidly enforced. I do not know how the Government would rigidly enforce this Amendment—perhaps he can tell us. I should have thought that by far the better way of dealing with this matter was that which my noble friend behind me and I suggested—namely, to delete the clause entirely.
For what purpose do the Government want to sell the Film Finance Corporation? Every Government spokesman that I have heard upon this subject has gone out of his way to pay tribute to the sterling work of the Corporation. I think I said something to that effect when this Bill was before your Lordships' House, both on Second Reading and on the Committee stage. It was one of the master strokes of my right honourable friend Harold Wilson, who was at the time President of the Board of Trade; and it saved the British film industry from extinction—of that there is no doubt. It was a statesmanlike conception, and has proved to be extremely useful to all independent producers. I am not saying that it has been of any great benefit to the large organisations of film producers, but to the enthusiastic genius without any money—being a genius and having a large bank balance never run together—it has been a godsend.
From the start we on this side of the House questioned why there should be put into a Bill of this description power for the Film Finance Corporation to sell itself. I remember asking the noble Lord that question, and my recollection is that I did not get an answer—of course, that is not an uncommon experience for anybody speaking from this Dispatch Box. I am not making the allegation solely against the noble Lord; one manages to get more answers from the noble Lord than is usual from the Government Front Bench. But I would ask: why do you want to sell it, and to whom do you want to sell it? I do not know whether the noble Lord would care to give me an answer now, even at this late hour.
The Government have been under pressure in another place. We did not put sufficient pressure on the noble Lord here—perhaps weight of numbers was against us. But why do you want to sell it and
1138
why have such a clumsy definition—as this is—of what constitutes a "British company," for the purpose of really camouflaging something, I do not know what? I should have thought it would be far better if, rather than put in this definition, Her Majesty's Government had put in words to the effect that the assets of the Film Finance Corporation shall not be sold without the consent of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will perhaps say," That is already half-true ", for I believe that Her Majesty's Government cannot transfer the assets, or, to put it in colloquial language, cannot sell the concern, without the permission of the other House of Parliament. Your Lordships will have no say in the matter at all, on the grounds that the assets of the Film Finance Corporation would be considered to be taxpayers' money—perhaps the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong there—and, of course, where taxpayers' money is concerned, unfortunately, your Lordships cannot be consulted. I do not know what other noble Lords may think about this Amendment, or what we can do about it; but I feel that it can be severely criticised because it does not help Her Majesty's Government. I believe it is a lot of camouflage to satisfy demands made by the Opposition in another place, quite genuinely and with force, that the assets should not be sold at all.
If at any time in the future the Film Finance Corporation ceases to serve a useful purpose in financing British films, then it should be wound up, though I can never see that day arriving, for I can never see the film business of this country doing without it, even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in two hours' time, is as open-handed as the cinema industry would like him to be. There will always be the very element that one wants to encourage in film production: the genius without any money. He will always have to be provided with money, because his is a risk at which the orthodox channels of finance will never look.
I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft could get a better or more comprehensive definition than that in Amendment No. 14 for the case for which he is trying to provide, and I should have thought that the very thing which he himself ruled out—that is, the provision relating to residence—would have been

1139
an added safeguard. The noble Lord said that Her Majesty's Government had considered it but had ruled it out, which gives force to my argument that there may come a day when two naturalised British subjects resident in Hollywood, or a company controlled from Hollywood, could govern from America the whole finance of the rising genius of the British film world. That is possible unless a very strict interpretation is put upon the first Amendment which the noble Lord has moved. I am sure that neither he nor any other noble Lord would wish to see that happen. I see no point whatever in disagreeing with the Commons in this Amendment, for it would cause undue complication and perhaps would be a waste of your Lordships' time. However those are my criticisms and I hope that in voicing them I have uttered the thoughts of many of your Lordships.
3.5 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I do not find that the Commons' Amendment goes anywhere near the whole way to meeting the objections which have been expressed in your Lordships' House to this particular clause, Assuming that the wording of the Amendment is as watertight as Her Majesty's Government hope it is, it removes one objection only: the objection that the Film Finance Corporation might pass into foreign hands. But I can see very grave objection to its passing into the hands of private owners in this country, for the specific and particular reason that one of the merits of the Corporation has been its even-handed administration of its funds. It has not "played favourites." Naturally, it has considered propositions entirely on their merits, and on the merits of the producers putting them forward; but if this Corporation were to pass into private hands, though those private hands might be a company which at the date of transfer was willing and able to provide funds, we have no guarantee that, even if it continued willing and able to provide funds, it would provide them in a fair, equitable and, particularly, undiscriminating manner—undiscriminating not as between merits but as between propositions other than on their merits. As long as there is in this country, a need for an organisation performing the functions of the Film Finance Corporation, that organisation
1140
should remain in public hands, with a Minister responsible and its whole operation subject to Parliamentary scrutiny from time to time. But as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, objection to this Amendment would not take us very much further in what we want, and we have, perforce, to leave it as it is.
3.7 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the two noble Lords opposite are not going to object to these three Amendments. I admit that Clause 12 was, and is, controversial on the question of whether or not these assets should be put on the market. I hasten to add that I have no knowledge of what may or may not be in my right honourable friend's Budget, but my private guess is that this whole suggestion is a little academic. I cannot myself see these assets appearing on the market in the near future. We are not, therefore, arguing at the moment the pros and cons of Clause 12, but whether or not we have taken proper steps to ensure that, if the assets do come on to the market, they do not fall into hands which might turn them against British film interests. That is the point of these three Amendments.
I should not like to cross my heart and say that these three Amendments, as drafted, are completely watertight. There has been difficulty in getting them even as watertight as we hope and believe they are. But there are two safeguards to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. I do so because the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Archibald, is a good one. We do not want to see these assets finding their way into hostile hands in Hollywood which might use them detrimentally to British interests. One safeguard which I hope will be accepted is that the Board of Trade are here under an obligation to make certain that they are satisfied that the assets, if transferred, will be transferred to companies that are, and will remain, British companies. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that that expression is open to interpretation, but the Board of Trade are certainly not going to accede to something which will produce results such as the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, fears. That safeguard is written into, and is I implicit in, the Bill.

1141
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, knows, there is a further safeguard: the matter has to come before Parliament—though admittedly, for the reason which he has given, before only one House. That is an additional safeguard and one which ought to calm all the fears of noble Lords opposite. But, my Lords, as I said at the beginning, I believe that these fears are academic. I cannot easily see this state of affairs occurring. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will see fit to agree to this Amendment which, if not perfect, does go a long way to meet the fears of noble Lords opposite.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House, which I hope I shall have, because I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, one question—it relates to the point made by my noble friend Lord Archibald, which I thought was rather a good one. I rather laid stress on the finding of these assets in the hands of foreigners. But, as my noble friend has said, quite rightly, as much damage could be done to the British film industry if they found their way into hands—I will not say of unscrupulous, but, at any rate, of unsatisfactory, people in this country. Therefore I ask the noble Lord whether he can give the House the assurance—I cannot expect him to go further—that it is the intention that if these assets do find their way into other hands it will be into the hands of people who will give the same liberal interpretation to financing the film industry of this country in the future as in the past.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I readily repeat the assurance which I thought I had made clear when I was moving the Amendment. The Government will look most carefully at any sale proposal, at home or abroad, and certainly would not allow any transfer, either at home or abroad, which would result in damage to British film production in this country.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 12, page 8, line 11, leave out (" person ") and insert (" company ")
Clause 12, page 8, line 19, at end insert—
(" (3) In this section ' British company ' means a company incorporated under the laws of Great Britain, being a company over which
1142
a British subject has control or two or more British subjects are together in a position to exercise control or over which a company which is a British company by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this definition has control or two or more such companies or such a company and a British subject are together in a position to exercise control, and ' control ' has the same meaning as in section three hundred and thirty-three of the Income Tax Act, 1952.")
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, these two Amendments are consequential and perhaps I might move them together. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 14, page 9, line 4, leave out (" sixty-eight ") and insert (" sixty ").
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is upon a point that occasioned a certain amount of argument on the Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House—namely, the extension of the quota system. Everyone agreed that it was desirable to have the quota system extended, but there was objection to the way in which it was being done, and a suggestion that precipitate action had been taken by Her Majesty's Government. I gave a firm promise that discussions on these and kindred subjects would be opened in the near future. I thought your Lordships were reassured by that. At least the House did not press the matter to a Division. As the Bill stood, it was clear that the new quota arrangements could go on until 1968. We have now changed that in order to meet objections that this might put off discussions indefinitely. We have brought it down to a date which means that legislation will have to be introduced not later than the 1959–60 Session. I hope that that meets some of the objections voiced by my noble friends, Lord Jessel and Lord Westwood, who were both uneasy about it. I do not think that, there was any need for that uneasiness. I hoped that what I told your Lordships at the time would set your Lordships' minds at rest—but no! So now, in response to requests, this earlier date has been written into the Bill. I beg to move that this House doth

1143
agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.16 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I think that if anyone can claim any credit for this Amendment it should be the noble Lord himself, for he has forced the Department, greatly against their will, to hold the umbrella over his head. The noble Lord will no doubt remember that on the Committee stage we forced out of him, greatly against—I will not say his inclinations, but against the inclinations of those who advised him, an undertaking to your Lordships' House that immediately this Bill was on the Statute Book the Board of Trade would enter into discussion with all sections of the film industry for the purpose of amending the 1948 Quota Act. I remember that he wanted to delay till the Autumn. I said: "Why wait till the autumn? Why not do it immediately after this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament?" I think his exact words then were: "The noble Lord is so eminently reasonable that I will agree." From that moment onward, the Board of Trade were "sunk" No longer could they maintain that it would take them ten years to think out amendments to the 1948 Quota Act. That was what they wanted—ten years to sweep this around as they have swept it around for the last ten.
I am very glad that a way has been found of doing it. This means that the Government are going to introduce legislation to amend the 1948 Quota Act by 1960—that is, of course, if they are fortunate or unfortunate enough to be in power in 1960. I have no authority to pledge any succeeding Government to amend this Act, but I should think from what I hear in another place that the cinema industry are now pretty safe in thinking that the 1948 Act, and all the very controversial matters in connection with it, will now receive some amendment.
I want now to ask the noble Lord a question, because in reading the proceedings upon this Bill in another place I noticed that in reply to one or two suggestions that there might be an alteration in the incidence of the levy—I do not I
1144
mean in the amount; I mean in the manner of its operation—the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade said on February 27: [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 565 (No. 61) col. 1334]:
"It is the intention of the Government to adhere as nearly as possible to the present voluntary arrangements which have worked well, and which received the assent of the industry."
Will the noble Lord give me his assurance that that statement is not to be interpreted as meaning that the Government have prejudged any issue that will be subject to discussions between all sides of industry and the Board of Trade? I think it would be most unfortunate, after the debate we had in your Lordships' House, and in view of the widespread dissatisfaction that exists on all sides of the film industry—the producing side, the exhibiting side and the trade union side—with many aspects of the operation of film legislation as a whole, that there should be any prejudgment of any issue that might come before us.
The noble Lord will no doubt recollect that we pressed him hard, and he gave way to our pressure, to have a number of subjects—in fact, practically all the subjects contained in this Bill—discussed with the Films Council. We wanted it done some other way, but we agreed with him that this and many other subjects were eminently suitable for discussion with the Films Council. If on one part of the Bill—indeed, as I say, practically all parts of the Bill—the Government have undertaken specifically to discuss various matters with the Films Council, I think it is unfortunate that the Parliamentary Secretary in another place, if I interpret what he said aright (I hope the noble Lord is going to tell me that I am wrong) should have prejudged the issue by saying that it is the Government's intention
"to adhere as nearly as possible to the present voluntary arrangement."
I know that he was talking about the levy, but one cannot deal with the quota without dealing with the levy, and the levy is bound to come up in the discussions which will take place on the 1948 Act. The noble Lord said to me, across the Floor of your Lordships' House on Committee stage, that there would be no inhibitions in these discussions and that the range of subjects to be discussed before any further legislation would be as wide as the industry itself would desire.

1145
If the noble Lord will give that undertaking, I shall be pleased to agree with this Amendment.
3.21 p.m.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, when he says that it is a great pity we are discussing these Amendments to-day under the disadvantage of not knowing what is happening in another place, because the whole of this Bill, from start to finish, depends entirely on the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Speaking on behalf of the cinematograph industry, I am pleased that this Amendment has been submitted to your Lordships and I trust that it will be accepted. I only regret that my noble friend Lord Mancroft was not allowed to accept it when we discussed it in your Lordships' House.
There is a pressing need for the Act to be amended as early as possible, especially to assist the small, subsequent-run cinema exhibitors, who at the moment are finding it extremely difficult, and in many cases impossible, to book sufficient good British pictures to enable them to fulfil their quota. Some of the smaller people away in the Provinces, and the little village cinemas, change their programmes twice or three times a week; and even, in some cases, four times a week. They need good British pictures. The President of the Board of Trade admitted in another place only last week that the present quota system can be substantially improved. It is full of anomalies and difficulties, and I trust that the Board of Trade will agree the matter with all branches of the cinematograph trade as early as possible. We all submitted our recommendations to the Board last September and October, and I do not see any reason for any further delay. I hope that these consultations will take place very soon.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for the helpful remarks he has made. For one terrible moment I thought he was going to launch into a powerful
1146
speech about the break clauses, but instead of following that line, he went on to the question of quotas. The procedure that was followed when the voluntary levy was in force is being kept now for the compulsory levy. Unfortunately, I have not in front of me the actual reference which the noble Lord made to my right honourable friend's speech, but I remember his remarks well and I am certain that he was referring then only to Part I of the Bill. There, of course, he was right, because we do want, if possible, to follow as closely as we can the procedure which already existed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, it is on Part I that I want the noble Lord's assurance that what his right honourable friend said in another place does not mean that the Government's mind is closed. If he will give me that assurance, I shall be perfectly satisfied. I cannot see how discussions on Part III of the Bill are going to be satisfactory to everybody unless some amendment is allowed to Part I, or to the incidence of Part I. I do not wish the Government to go into consultations with their minds rigidly made up that no alteration can take place to Part I.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I readily give that assurance. There is no rigidity of mind in this matter at all. The only matter we want to be certain of, if we can, is that these consultations should be with all branches of the trade, and that, whatever steps are taken are taken in the form of an agreed arrangement. I readily give the assurance that we shall have no closed mind, and we shall be only too happy to receive any advice which noble Lords opposite and on this side of the House who are experts on this matter care to give, to see how we can get some smooth arrangement. I think that this Amendment is an improvement. My last words on this measure are that the Government intend to do everything possible at the present time for the benefit of more and better British films.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRIES (No. 2) BILL
3.26 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I am sure that this Bill will be welcomed on all sides of the House, if for no other reason than that for the first time we are extending to the herring fishing industry a subsidy similar to that which has been enjoyed up to now by the white fishing trade. As your Lordships may have heard, for many years now the catch of herrings landed at our fishing ports has become progressively smaller and smaller each year. Whether that is due to a change in the habits of the fish themselves or to some other cause, one fact has been established: that is, that for some time it has been more profitable to fish for white fish than for herrings, with the result that an increasing number of ports are leaving the herring industry and going over to white fishing.
I should like to say a word or two about the serious position which will arise for British fish canners after this Bill passes into law. The herring catch is utilised in a variety of ways—fresh herrings, kippers, salted herring and canned herring; and surplus quantities are used for fish meal, about which we have heard earlier this afternoon. The canning industry, with which I am connected, export every year about 60 to 70 per cent. of their pack and in this way contribute to the prosperity of the industry. Up until now the Herring Industry Board, by agreement between the fishing interests and the canners, have had a scheme whereby a certain minimum quantity of herring is allocated to the canning industry each season at fixed prices, and with provision for canners situated at places other than the port of landing to obtain supplies on special terms, at what are called "away port" prices. For a number of years this scheme has worked well, to the satisfaction of both the canners and the fishermen. In the meantime, and before news of this subsidy for herring became known, the
1148
Herring Industry Board announced that as from next month the special terms arranged for canners will be abolished, that canners will have to obtain their supplies from day to day at public auction, and that the concession for canners at "away ports" will be withdrawn.
If these new arrangements proposed by the Herring Industry Board are promulgated, then I say to Her Majesty's Government that the earned herring export trade of this country will be virtually killed. It is quite impossible to operate an export trade in canned herring unless the price of the raw material is known in advance and a minimum quantity of fish is made available to the industry. Offers of canned herring to the trade in Australia, the United States of America and other world markets, have to be made months in advance of delivery and in competition with Dutch, Norwegian and other canning interests. Even to-day our export prices of British canned herring are higher than those of competing countries. But, so far, we have been able to hold our trade because of the excellent quality of British herrings and the technical ability of the people in our canning industry. We have recently been warned, however, particularly by trade associations in Australia, which is our biggest customer, that if there is any further increase in price—or, indeed, if there is not some price reduction—the Australian market may well be lost to British canners.
The proposals of the Herring Industry Board which are now being considered by Her Majesty's Government would mean that canners would have to pay a price for their herrings which would completely price us out of the export trade. That is the opinion of the whole industry, and it is known to Her Majesty's Government. Yet, I think it is argued by the Herring Industry Board that if they fix prices for herrings they may come within the ambit of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. But surely that is nonsense. That Act provides that Government-sponsored schemes like this shall be exempt from the provisions of the Act. Already, in anticipation of the acceptance of these proposals of the Herring Industry Board, one or two canners have closed down their factories and dismissed their workpeople; and if

1149
these proposals are accepted, I am sure the same thing will spread to other parts of the country.
I trust, therefore, that in providing this much-needed subsidy for the herring fishing industry Her Majesty's Government will have regard to the serious objections made to them by the fish canners section of the Food Manufacturers' Federation of the United Kingdom, and that the Herring Board scheme for canners will be modified in a way that will enable this valuable export trade to continue.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome which the noble Lord has given to this Bill. As I see it, his real concern is with the 1951 scheme, under which this rule to which he has referred has been made. As the noble Lord knows, that rule has been advertised in accordance with the statutory procedure laid down; and, as he is equally aware, a number of objections have been received from the majority of the various sections of the industry. What happens next is that my right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland must consider the draft rule and the objections; and in the light of the objections, they must decide whether or not to confirm the rule. While my right honourable friends are giving this consideration
1150
to the matter, I am afraid that I cannot enlarge further on the rule itself.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

DENTISTS BILL [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

ELECTRICITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

FINSBURY SQUARE BILL [H.L.]
Referred to a Select Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before four o'clock.