Lords Sitting of 5 February 1957

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

HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
2.35 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM had given Notice of his intention to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred, that before authorising the discontinuance of the services of trolley vehicles they should satisfy themselves that—

(a) the substitution of motor omnibuses for trolley vehicles will be to the advantage of the travelling public;

(b)any financial advantages resulting from the substitution will be passed on to the local travelling public; and

(c)suitable financial arrangements will be made by the Maidstone Company for satisfying the claims of the local authorities.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House has many 'matters of great import to discuss in a moment, and therefore I will not detain your Lordships for any length of time. I would mention, however, that this Bill would, if passed, transfer the undertaking of the Hastings Tramways Company to Maidstone and District Motor Services, Limited, and would authorise discontinuance of the trolley vehicles. It is being petitioned against by the Corporation of Hastings, and, I believe, also of Bexhill. I would add only that an all-Party committee of citizens has been formed in Hastings, officially representing the political Parties of the town, and that committee, on January 26, passed unanimously a resolution to this effect:
"That…the proposals of the Hastings Tramways Bill are—

(a) opposed to the overwhelming demand of the local public;

412

(b)designed to abolish, without justification, the electric trolley bus service. which is most suitable for this hilly seaside town, and to deprive the Corporation of ids quinquennial option to purchase the Hastings Tramways undertaking; and

(c) contrary to the national interest, which demands the minimum use of oil and the maximum use of electric power."

The meeting, therefore, requested that the Bill be turned down.
My Lords, I know that the House does not believe that matters of this kind can be threshed out in the full Chamber, and therefore after consultation I have ventured to put down the instruction which appears on the Order Paper. I feel sure that justice will be done by the Select Committee, and I therefore express the confident hope that even if the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, the battle of Hastings will not be lost on the playing fields of Westminster. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, matters of the House are not for me, but he will notice that his Motion on the Order Paper is prefaced by the words:
"In the event of the Bill being read a second time."
Therefore, with the noble Lord's agreement, I will now put to the House the Question, That the Bill be now read a second time, and will then put the noble Lord's Motion.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I now put to the House that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, be agreed to.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred, that before authorising the discontinuance of the services of trolley vehicles they should satisfy themselves that—

(a) the substitution of motor omnibuses for trolley vehicles will be to the advantage of the travelling public;

(b) any financial advantages resulting from the substitution will be passed on to the local travelling public; and

(c) suitable financial arrangements will be made by the Maidstone Company for satisfying the claims of the local authorities.—(Lord Pakenham.)

LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, before the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, are decided by the House, I should like to say a few words. Although what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has suggested is a somewhat unusual course, it has, of course, many precedents. But, at the same time—and I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, will correct me if I am wrong—it is an unusual procedure in the case of an opposed Bill. Where such directions are given to a Committee, they are usually of a rather general nature, expressing the hope that the Committee "will have due regard to" the preservation of agricultural land, or the amenities of a national park, or something of that sort. The directions proposed by the noble Lord are of a different type. They deal with the matters which will be argued fully before the Select Committee, and the local authorities will then be given ample opportunity of putting their representations in great detail. In my view we should not attempt to prejudice the case without having all the facts before us, May I, therefore, before I sit down, say a few words about the proposed directions?
The first one is, I suppose, harmless enough; but, to put it succinctly, is it not a case of "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs"? It is exactly what the Select Committee will be assembled to decide: whether the substitution of motor omnibuses will be to the advantage of the travelling public or not. I have sat on a number of Select Committees, including that on the Gateshead Tramways Bill, which was almost identical to this case. We of course heard evidence from all the interested parties. With regard to proposal (b), I think this matter is much better left to the discretion of the traffic commissioners, who normally decide these things. Such a direction might prejudice the negotiations between the omnibus company and the local authorities, as well as once again tying the hands of the Select Committee. Direction (c) is extremely vague and, I imagine, refers to the poles supporting the overhead lines of the trolley buses. As it is drafted, it seems to direct that all claims should be settled, whether they are just or not, Surely all these points are Committee matters, My view is that these directions are unnecessary and undesirable, and I hope that the House will not support them.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, it is, of course, the case that, as a general rule, the House is reluctant to give instructions to Select Committees, and I think that this is one of those cases where it is best that the important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, should be left to be dealt with by Petition against the Bill, in the ordinary way, as I understand from him is going to happen. As these are matters which it is very difficult to decide on the Floor of the House, and which are much better dealt with when evidence is given before the Select Committee. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his instructions.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, without wishing to accept or reject any views, either on the merits of the Bill or on the principles at stake, may I say, in view of what has just been said by the Lord Chairman of Committees, that I do not wish to press the instructions further this afternoon.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

REGISTRATION OF OPTICIANS
2.44 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are proposing to introduce legislation in the present Session providing for the Registration of Opticians. as unanimously recommended by the Crook Committee in 1952 (Cmd. 8531).]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the principle of legislation for this purpose was fully accepted, but its introduction is dependent on Parliamentary time and is, therefore, I fear, unlikely during the present Session.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Earl for his answer, nay I ask whether he is aware that the Bill will be quite non-controversial and of considerable public benefit? May I ask the noble Earl whether or not in fact it has been drafted?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am not quite sure about the last point—I will let the noble Lord know—but the fact that it is non-controversial is generally accepted and will be taken into account when the time-table for the next Session is drawn up.

SECURITY OF ULSTER T.A. ESTABLISHMENTS
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who, under the new defence organisation, is responsible for the security of Territorial Army Establishments in Northern Ireland, and why the new barracks at Dungannon, County Tyrone, which was recently blown up, was apparently unguarded despite the fact that it had been named as a target, as shown by captured I.R.A. documents.]
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, in all parts of the United Kingdom the civil police are primarily responsible for the protection of Territorial Army centres in peace time. Northern Ireland is no exception to this rule, and since the start of the current series of incidents, the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been providing guards, so far as their resources permit, on Territorial Army centres and other public buildings in Northern Ireland. They have been assisted by the Army.
The attack on the new Territorial Army centre at Dungannon, County Tyrone, on January 18, took place after the departure of the builders, who were still working on the building, and before the arrival of the night guard of Ulster Special Constabulary. Because of their many commitments the Police and the Army had to risk this gap in time during which the building was virtually unoccupied. I should emphasise that Dungannon Territorial Army Centre was only one of about fifty targets that had been mentioned in I.R.A. documents, and there were, of course, other possible targets of equal importance. I am glad to be able to assure your Lordships that co-operation between the Royal Ulster
416
Constabulary and the Army is very close indeed and at all times conducted with a great measure of mutual confidence.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord for his Answer.

COST OF ELECTRICITY CONSULTATIVE COUNCILS
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total cost (including staff, office accommodation, travelling expenses, etc.) of the consultative councils operative in conjunction with the area electricity boards for the nearest twelve months for which the figures are available.]
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, the total cost of the twelve electricity consultative councils in England and Wales for the year ended March 31, 1956, was £32,169. This sum covers staff salaries, travelling and other incidental expenses; accommodation is provided by the area electricity boards, generally without charge. In addition, each chairman of a consultative council is paid a salary of £750 in his capacity both as chairman and as an ex-officio part-time member of the area board concerned. Other council members are unpaid. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the work performed by the members of electricity consultative councils who, by their public spirit and endeavour, are helping to give electricity consumers good value for their money.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for that information.

EGYPT: COMPENSATION FOR EXPELLED BRITONS
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the following Question, of which I have given private notice: Are Her Majesty's Government now able to make a statement on the position of British subjects evicted from Egypt?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I hope to make the statement to which the noble Lord's question refers at about four o'clock this afternoon.
LORD KILLEARN: I thank the noble Marquess.

DENTISTS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to dentists and other dental workers with such corrections and improvements as may be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. 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.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Ghana Independence Bill through its remaining stages.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Before the Motion is put, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he can give the House any indication when the remaining stages of this Bill will be taken?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We hope to finish the Committee stage this afternoon. The further stages will of course depend on the Business to-day.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: It would be quite wrong to anticipate whether or not the Bill will pass without amendment, but I do not know whether it would be proper to ask if the noble Marquess will indicate, assuming it is passed without amendment, when the Third Reading will be taken.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If there were no amendment, then all the stages would be taken this afternoon.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—PROCTDURE ON REPORT STAGE OF BILLS
The Committee considered the practice under which, when a Bill has been reported from a Committee of the Whole House without amendment, the motion for the report to be received is made forthwith. The Committee noted that there were sometime; cases in which, even if no amendment had been made in Committee, it would be to the general advantage if the report was not immediately received bit was postponed to a later date on which amendments could be made to the Bill. The Committee therefore recommend that the House should alter its practice accordingly in appropriate cases.
No amendment of the Standing Orders would be necessary, but an alteration would have to be made in the "Companion to the Standing Orders."
2.—CONSTITUTION OF COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
The Committee considered the question of the constitution of the Committee for Privileges. At present, "all the Lords who have been or shall be present this Session" are appointed to the Committee at the beginning of each Session but the Committee cannot sit in a peerage case unless three Lords of Appeal are present. It seems to the Procedure Committee that a committee consisting of all the members of the House is not a really suitable tribunal.
The Committee therefore recommend to the House that, for the future, there should be appointed at the beginning of every Session a Committee for Privileges consisting of sixteen named Lords together with any four Lords of Appeal.
Standing Order No. 65 would have to be amended accordingly.
3.—INTERVAL BETWEEN QUESTIONS ON A DIVISION
It was suggested to the Committee that the present interval of three minutes before the doors are locked, which is prescribed by Standing Order No. 46, was not long enough to enable Peers to reach the House from all parts of the building. The Committee agree, and recommend that the Standing Order should be amended so as to substitute "four minutes" for "three minutes", in both places where those words occur in the second paragraph of the Standing Order.
4.—QUORUM ON DIVISIONS
The Committee considered the question whether the quorum prescribed by Standing Order No. 50 should apply to all divisions and not only to divisions on Bills. It seems to the Committee desirable that this change should be made.
The Committee therefore recommend that Standing Order No. 50 be amended by leaving out in the first line the words upon any stage of a Bill".
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: I beg to move that the Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, the Committee on Procedure made four recommendations. The first relates to the practice under which, when a Bill has been reported from a Committee of the Whole House without amendment, the Motion for the Report is made always immediately. That is sometimes inconvenient, because quite often it is agreed by both sides of the House that an Amendment to the Bill is desirable. If the Report is received at once, then it leaves it to the Third Reading for any Amendment to be made, and that is inconvenient, because the Amendment has not been before the House before. Moreover, it may transpire that the Bill needs further amendment, and in such circumstances there is no opportunity to do it. Therefore what the Committee suggest is that in these exceptional cases there is no need for the Motion "That the Report be now received" to be moved immediately. The Minister need not move it, and then the Bill will go to another day and there will be a Report stage on which any desired Amendments can be proposed.
The second recommendation deals with the Committee for Privileges. At present, all the Lords who have been or shall be present during the session are appointed to the Committee at the beginning of the Session, but in a Peerage case the Committee cannot sit unless three Lords of Appeal are present. It seems to the Procedure Committee that a Committee consisting of all the members of the House is not a very practical Committee, and the suggestion is that the Committee should consist of sixteen named Lords and any four Lords of Appeal, but that in Peerage cases, as now, three Lords of Appeal must always be present. The Committee therefore recommend to the House that, in future, at the beginning of every Session the Committee for Privileges shall be constituted with sixteen named Lords and any four Lords of Appeal.
420
The third recommendation has to deal with the interval putting the Question and taking a Division. Some of the Committee rooms upstairs, notably those belonging to another place, are a long way from this Chamber, and it has been found that even some of the most happily mobile Members of this House, when they hear that a Division has been called, however much they hurry, even if they run like a hare, are not able to reach here in time. What the Committee suggest is that the interval should be four minutes, instead of three minutes as it is at present. Unfortunately, even four minutes will not be long enough for some of us, but one has to strike a balance; and the Committee suggest that we should try this alteration.
The last recommendation has to do with the quorum on Divisions. At present, the quorum has to be thirty, but only on any stage of a Bill. The Corn-mince suggest that it is not really proper that a Division on any Motion—and some Motions are very important—should be taken when there are not thirty Members to vote. The Committee therefore suggest that an Amendment be made in the Standing Orders so that in all Divisions there must be thirty Lords present before a decision is taken. I beg to move that these recommendations be agreed to.
Moved, That the recommendations be agreed to.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords. I rise merely to say that we on this side of the House associate ourselves entirely with the recommendations of the Committee. There are two only to which I think I need refer. One is the introduction of a separate Report stage. I have always thought it a little embarrassing for an Opposition, where there was no Amendment on the Committee stage that they should be deprived of one stage in the proceedings of the Bill. It has been perhaps an encouragement to a recalcitrant Minister not to accept any Amendment at all, in the hope of getting his Bill through. I say that quite impartially, irrespective of the Party which is in charge of the Bill. If this amendment of the Procedure is accepted, there will no longer be that inducement to Ministers; they will be quite free to accept an Amendment without the fear that they will thereby prolong the proceedings by one stage.

421
The only other point concerns the time allowed for Divisions. As the noble Marquess, I know, realises as much as anybody in this House, the average age Pf this House is rising. This is one symptom of the rise in the average age and therefore a reduction in mobility. I feel that, if we go on as we are, four minutes is not the limit. Many of us are getting older. We shall not be able to reach the Division Lobby even in four minutes. Maybe the Procedure Committee will have to come along next year, or the year after, and ask for five or six minutes. At any rate, we are prepared to try the four minutes, and see how we get on. I think the other two recommendations of the Procedure Committee are quite unexceptionable, and we on this side approve them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, if I may say so, I entirely agree with what the Lord Chairman and Lord Silkin have said with regard to the first item in the Report of the Committee on Procedure. I have always thought it not a good plan that, where the Committee stage has been passed without amendment we should proceed direct to Report stage, because we all know that there are occasions when matters have to be referred back to the Government: points have been raised on Committee stage, and everybody knows that in due course Amendments are to be made. If they are left to the Third Reading that is bad from every point of view. The Third Reading is really meant to be for a general discussion on the Bill, in the light of what has passed on Committee and Report stage. If lit becomes merely another Committee stage, then that is lost; and it is undignified, I think, for the House, and unsatisfactory from every point of view. Therefore, I believe that this quite simple proposal of the Procedural Committee will tend to eliminate a growing evil.
I do not think that I want to say anything about the other items. I am sure that four minutes will be better than three, for the purpose which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has mentioned, and the other two items are, as he said, unexceptionable. The only other thing I
422
would say is that if the House agrees to the Report, as I hope it will, there will be, I understand, some consequential Amendments to Standing Orders, and I would propose to put down a Motion to that effect next week.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the Lord Chairman what arrangements, if any, are Lo be made to inform noble Lords who are upstairs in Committee rooms that a Division is taking place here. Four minutes is, of course, better than three, and perhaps five minutes might be better still. In fact, until somebody comes along the passage to a rather remote Committee room, we do not know that there is a Division; then I am afraid that four minutes is not very much better than three.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, with the permission of the House, 'may I say that I am glad that the noble Lord has mentioned that point, because it would be of great help if noble Lords who know that they are going to be some way off when a Division is likely to be called, would inform the Messengers, so that the best possible arrangements can be made to inform those noble Lords. There is no Division Bell which can be rung in the Commons' Committee rooms upstairs to inform your Lordships, but if noble Lords let the Messengers know, they will do the best they can.
LORD FARINGDON: By the leave of the House, may I suggest that perhaps a Division bell with a different tone, or something of that sort, might be installed? I have myself left word with the Messengers, who have done their best to inform me; but it takes them some minutes to get to the Committee room where one happens to be.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: I believe it would be quite expensive to do that, arid. I rather doubt whether Members of another place would like another bell added. That might be rather confusing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Lord Ailwyn be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GHANA INDEPENDENCE BILL
3.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Perth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 3:
Consequential modifications with respect to development schemes, etc.
3.—.(l) No scheme shall be made on or after the appointed day under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, 1940 to 1955, wholly or partly for the benefit of Ghana.
(2) Any scheme in force under the said Acts immediately before the appointed day which was made solely for the benefit of Ghana or any part thereof shall cease to have effect on that day without prejudice to the making of payments in pursuance of that scheme on or after that day in respect of any period falling before that day; and, so far as practicable, no part of any sums paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of any other scheme made under those Acts before that day shall be employed in respect of any period falling on or after that day for the benefit of Ghana.
(3) Nothing in the two foregoing subsections shall restrict the making of, or the employment of sums paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of, any scheme under the said Acts with respect to a body established for the joint benefit of Ghana and one or more of the following territories, that is to say, the Federation or any Region of Nigeria. Sierra Leone and the Gambia, in a case where Ghana has undertaken to bear a reasonable share of the cost of the scheme.
(4) Without prejudice to the continuance of any operations commenced by the Colonial Development Corporation in any part of Ghana before the appointed day, as from that day the expression "colonial territories" in the Overseas Resources Development Acts, 1948 to 1956, shall not include Ghana or any part thereof.
Debate resumed on an Amendment moved by Lord Ogmore on Thursday last, to omit subsection (4) of Clause 3.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): It has been thought convenient, as there is a legal aspect to this Amendment, that I might deal as shortly and clearly as I can with the matters that arise on this point. May I just remind your Lordships of the position that obtained when the debate was adjourned on Thursday? I think it can be summed up in this way. First, all sides of the House had welcomed the undertaking which my noble friend Lord Home gave on behalf of the Government, that we would make a comprehensive review of the United Kingdom rôle in the development of new, independent Commonwealth countries, and that this review would cover the form which any service or other facilities might take, including any possibility of adapting those facilities which already existed for this purpose. The Committee will find my noble friend's account of this in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 201 (No. 27), columns 355 and 356, and your Lordships will appreciate and, I think, did appreciate, the necessity of having the whole subject considered.
Second, while the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, spoke in favour of retaining Clause 3 there remained, despite the arguments advanced by the Government, a strong feeling on the part of other speakers, both from the Opposition side and from this side of the House, that the clause was open to criticism. I will not attempt to restate the nature of the criticisms that were made, which I am sure are familiar to your Lordships.
Third, my noble friend Lord Home, made it quite clear that the Government adhered to their decision, that until the review to which I have referred had been concluded and decisions arising from it had been made, the policy embodied in the clause must stand. On the other hand, if and when it were decided to make any changes in policy, those changes would, as far as necessary, be given effect through appropriate legislation.
As a result of this situation the suggestion was made by my noble friend Lord Swinton, and endorsed on behalf of the Opposition by noble Lords opposite, that it would meet with the approval

425
of this House if the Government were to withdraw the clause, on the understanding that, until the review to which I refer had been completed and decisions taken in the light of that review, the results which it was intended to achieve through the enactment of Clause 3 would instead be attained through administrative action. Your Lordships will find my noble friend's proposal at Column 366. It was my understanding—I believe I have correctly interpreted the varied expressions of opinion that were made—that this suggestion was designed to avoid the inclusion of essentially negative provisions in a Bill with the great positive purpose of creating an independent Ghana. At the same time, this suggestion was designed to avoid prejudicing the decision that would be made by the Government and no doubt debated by your Lordships' House on the wide issue after the general review.
This was a suggestion which, though it had not previously recommended itself to my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the eloquence of noble Lords persuaded us should be further examined, and accordingly my noble friend Lord Home undertook to examine it further, although I should stress that he made clear that he might not be able to do anything else but report that the clause must stand. 13efore I go into it further, may I emphasise that we in the Government entirely recognise the sincerity and depth of feeling of the arguments that have been adduced against the clause, even though we do not agree with them? I am not going to put this on a matter of the time-table. Although I think everyone in the House appreciates the difficulty of the time-table, it might be surmounted by certain measures if everything were agreed upon. But I do not want to put it in that way; I only want to remind your Lordships that I think we are all desirous that this matter should be got through in order that the date, which means so much to Ghana, should not be affected in any way.
I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Swinton that we have given this matter the most serious consideration. I have considered, with my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General, the legal aspects. Apart from that we have tried to find some method by which effect: might be given to the suggestion made by my noble friend.
426
Knowing the legal origin of my noble friend Lord Swinton, although it is overlaid now by many years of public service, I hope that he will believe I am doing him the justice of trying to present the matter as clearly and objectively as I can. I should also like to deal with doubts that my noble friend Lord Rennell had on other aspects of the matter.
The legal background starts, I think, with the Colonial Development Act, 1940. That enabled schemes to be made for promoting the development of any Colony; and in the Act of 1940 "Colony" was so defined as to exclude Colonies possessing responsible government. This is one of the difficulties in considering this matter. That limitation was repealed by the Act of 1950, and for the purpose of these Acts, therefore, "Colony" has the meaning given it by Section 13 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, as amended by Section 11 of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, namely:
"Any part of Her Majesty's Dominions outside the British Isles with the exception of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa."
In other words, for the purpose of the Act of 1950 a grant under the Colonial Development Act cannot be made for the benefit of Dominions under the Statute of Westminster.
Then one comes to the Overseas Development Resources Act, 1948, which set up the Colonial Development Corporation for securing development in colonial territories. By Section 19 of that Act your Lordships will see that it applies to territories to which the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940, applied—I emphasise that the word used is "territory" with its geographical connotation—at the time of the passing of the Act of 1943. So that there is no distinction between the territories to which grants can be made under the Act of 1940 and those in which the Colonial Development Coroporations may operate. Your Lordships will appreciate that I have just picked up the point that at the commencement of that Act of 1948 Ghana had not responsible government. My noble friend Lord Rennell may have had in mind the fact that there is no provision comparable to Clause 3 in the Ceylon Independence Act, 1947. If the noble Lord had that in mind, may I just remind him of the date—it was 1947, before the repeal of the provision which I have mentioned.

427
There was therefore no need for a provision in 1947 because as I have mentioned, "Colony" in the Act of 1940 meant a Colony not possessing responsible government; but this restriction has now disappeared.
LORD RENNELL: Does that mean that Ceylon was included in the provision of the Colonial Development Act, 1940, and that India was also included, because those countries were not specifically excluded?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In 1947, Ceylon had responsible government and therefore automatically moved into the exception to the 1940 Act which excluded from Colonial Development operation those territories which had responsible government.
LORD RENNELL: What of India?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I believe the position would be the same, but I thought the noble Lord had Ceylon in mind.
LORD RENNELL: That was so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It was for that reason that I thought the point should be verified. That is the explanation. My noble friend Lord Rennell also said, during the Committee stage (I believe at column 369 of the OFFICIAL REPORT [Vol. 201, No. 27]), that there was no need for Clause 3 (1) because of the definitions of "Colony" in Clause 4. On that subject, may I point out to the noble Lord that Clause 4 is subject to the words he will find in line 3:
"in any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day…"
It is thus clear that, apart from Clause 3, Ghana would be included for the purposes of Acts passed before the appointed day. The noble Lord will find that that is borne out by the proviso to Section I which deals with certain aspects of the matter. If I may say so with the very greatest respect, the reason why I feel that the noble Lord was wrong on that point is because all that Clause 4 says is that a "colony" in any Act passed on or after the appointed day is not to include Ghana. It is quite clear that unless Clause 3 is kept in the Bill these Acts will apply to Ghana.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Hear, hear!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I now come to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Swinton. It has been suggested, with regard to the Colonial Development Corporation, that if Clause 3 (4) were dropped it would still be possible for the Secretary of State to give a direction under Section 9 of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, that would have the effect of excluding Ghana. This is where the legal troubles begin. Section 9 is deceptively wide at first sight, and I appreciate the noble Earl's view. It says that the responsible Minister
"may, after consultation with the Corporation, give to them directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance of their functions in relation to matters appearing to him to concern the public interest…"
With his great and varied experience in the war, my noble friend Lord Swinton no doubt had in mind the many things which were done under similar provisions; and that was a point which I considered. I believe however, that, when he has considered the matter, the noble Earl will agree with me that, in order to be valid and effective, general directions can, as a matter of principle be given only within the framework of an Act and not so as to restrict or reduce that framework. That is the difficulty which my right honourable and learned friend and I have found.
It is difficult to believe that Parliament ever intended that this power should be exercised in such a way as to impose a rigid restriction on the class of territories entitled to benefit under the Act, and therefore the first point is that, despite the width of the words, there would be a real difficulty on the vires of any direction—because, as I say, it is not within the framework of the Act. Quite apart from this, it would seem, in principle, undesirable to delete subsection (4) if in fact it was intended that the object of that subsection should be attained by means of administrative direction. It would not help, as I am sure my noble friend will appreciate, an argument on the vires if that were the course that had been taken. I hope that I have not wearied the House too much, but I wanted

429
my noble friend to appreciate that I had given the fullest consideration to this point.
LORD SALTER: May I put a question to the noble and learned Viscount upon what he has just said? I fully follow his argument that a general direction quite as wide as that which was proposed by the noble Earl. Lord Swinton, would encounter the difficulties to which he has referred. But is it not the case that it would still be possible for the Government, to stop particular projects, exercising their administrative discretion—not doing it as to 100 par cent. of all cases that might be raised, but doing it in fact to project after project, and influenced in their decision, to some extent, by a policy declaration already made: that they thought that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, it was right and proper that a territory which had acquired this status should acquire creditworthiness and raise by other means any money needed?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Naturally we have given great consideration to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Salter has raised. I would remind him that we are here dealing ex hypothesi with territory that has become independent; and the difficulty of exercising what is, in effect. normal Treasury control across the line of an independent Dominion is. I think, very great indeed; and the personal difficulty in which a Minister would be put in those circumstances is infinitely increased. I ask my noble friend to consider the point—his administrative experience is much greater than mine—abut I should have thought that it was an almost intolerable burden to put on a Minister in these circumstances. I very much doubt whether an attempt to exercise ordinary Treasury control across the bounds of independence is really a practicable matter.
I am afraid that what I have said will come as a disappointment to the noble Lords who put forward this proposal in so constructive and helpful a spirit. But I have to say, having given it all the consideration we can, that we have come to the conclusion that we cannot adopt it; and I trust that your Lordships will accept what I have said on this point. In these circumstances, may I urge one consideration upon your Lordships?
430
Although some of your Lordships may be disappointed at this outcome, they will see that the retention of the clause does not conflict with the purpose behind the alternative proposal put forward by my noble friends and supported by noble Lords opposite. I wish to say again that the Government abide by their undertaking to implement whatever decisions may be reached for a general review, including the introduction of any legislation which may be found necessary for that purpose.
Therefore, I would ask your Lordships not to let us give the impression that we feel that our good relations with Ghana and other emergent territories are going to be damaged by a clause which does those very things which your Lordships would have been prepared to accept if they had been done by administrative action. Let us, instead, put our confidence in the good will and understanding of the Ghana Government who will, from the Record of the Proceedings in this House, be able to see how much good will exists towards them in this House, as well as the reasons why the clause is being adopted. In view of the consideration we have given, and the difficulties we have found, I ask your Lordships to allow Clause 3 to stand part of the Bill.
3.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Not only those of us who were responsible for the Amendment but many others of your Lordships in other parts of the House will be gravely disappointed with the terms of the comment which has just been made by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. II is true that an agreement was reached between myself and my colleagues, on this side of the House, and certain noble Lords opposite, who hold strong views, that there would be an arrangement under which for such period as dated from the passing of the Act up to any conclusions of the Dominion Conference which you are proposing to hold, you could do by administrative action what the clause is designed for.
But that was not really the original case put forward in moving the Amendment. It goes much wider. We were grateful to those noble Lords opposite who, I think, had similar views to our own, to find amongst them a compromise at the moment which would enable the

431
Bill to go back to another place for reconsideration—that would be established by having an Amendment to the Bill—and avoid something upon which we felt very strongly indeed: the starting off of what ought to be the great, bright future of Ghana with a sorry spot of this kind. We are exceedingly sorry to note that, apparently upon completely legalistic grounds, the Government take this attitude. I repeat that they seem to be doing so on completely legalistic grounds. It seems to us that the Government, in considering these matters and the form the relevant legislation should take, have been greatly lacking in their examination of matters that might be expected to arise. To have a measure now presented to us with so great a danger of harmful effects in Ghana is indeed most regrettable.
There is an article in The Times to-day which I hope all noble Lords have read and which supports to the full from West Africa the arguments put forward from both sides of your Lordships' House last week. What we were greatly concerned about was that the Government are, by a special piece of legislation, putting Clause 3 into a Bill which is to grant independence for the first time to an African native territory. They are drafting special new legislation to go into an instrument by which they are proposing to give independence for the first time to a native African territory, and they take all the sugar off the gift by putting this into the Bill. I should have thought that there would have been some imagination left somewhere in the ranks of the Government which would have produced what was going to be necessary for the assistance of a territory of this kind, and that there would be no cause for a dispute such as we have now.
I really am greatly disappointed. I have in mind what the leaders of Ghana may think. They will. I am sure, want to enshrine the beginning of their independence granted by the United Kingdom, the centre of the Commonwealth, with a great deal of ceremony, with a great deal of loyalty and with hopes in all hearts of building it on a sure foundation. The document will be specially prepared, no doubt, upon a piece of parchment. But the instrument enshrining that independence will take away many of the rights of assistance to a great new territory, the
432
first African native territory, and one which for the past five years has been one of the greatest contributors to the stability of the sterling area by the manner in which the people there have administered their industrial and financial affairs. I very much regret this, and before going into a detailed discussion of the clause as a whole the Committee should have an opportunity of expressing their view.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I think the Committee will appreciate that the Government have given deep, sincere and sympathetic consideration to the project which I advanced on the last occasion. Indeed, from what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said, I think it is plain that if this had been legally possible, it was a course which the Government would have been ready to accept and which the whole Committee would gladly have endorsed. Certainly we are all grateful 'to the noble and learned Viscount for having put so clearly and fully to-day the arguments which have weighed with the Government. I think that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition was less than fair to the Government when he said that now, at the last moment, this hopeful solution was turned down on purely legalistic grounds. Of course, it may be said that although my solution, if I may venture so to call it, was put forward only on the last occasion that we debated this subject, the Government discuss all these things with their legal advisers beforehand and ought not to have been taken by surprise; but I do not think that we ought to press that point. Certainly it was a novel suggestion, and the Government have given it full consideration.
I do not think it is reasonable to say that it has been turned down on purely legalistic grounds, as if that were a sort of excuse that could be got round. As I understand it, the position is really this: if my noble friend the Secretary of State purported to give a direction of the kind that we all hoped last time he would be able to give he would be doing something ultra vires and illegal, and what would happen would be that he would be taken to court and the court would be bound to hold that he had no power to do this. Therefore, his order would be set aside. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was very

433
kind about my legal experience fifty years ago or more, but I certainly am not going to set myself up—I do not think anybody in this country would—and say that if, after careful consideration, the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the Crown find that a thing is illegal and the Secretary of State has no power to do it, we should not accept their finding, Frankly, that is a situation which we have to accept.
Nor do I think it would be reasonable, and certainly I should not like to do it, to advise a Secretary of State that he should, so to speak, "get round" the fact that he does not possess dispensing or excluding power, by saying, in nine cases out of ten, "I turn down that particular proposition." I am sure, and I ask the Committee to accept this from one who has had a good deal of experience in dealing with cases of this sort, that that would put any Secretary of State in an impossible position. He would not be turning things down on merits; he would be turning them down by a side wind. All the views which my noble friend the Secretary of State advanced last time about an open declaration that he was not going to give any permission—which I do not accept—would be present on this occasion, and they would lead to the most hopeless misunderstanding. I am glad that we have had this debate, because it has shown the general consensus of opinion on what you: Lordships would like to do. This short debate will be read and appreciated by the people of Ghana as well as by the people here and will show the people of Ghana that we have tried to arrive at what I believe would be a fair compromise—namely, that we should hold our hands and, pending this inquiry as to the future of the finances of these emergent territories, no action should be taken.
For my part, I think we have to accept this position. I would only say to my noble friend the Secretary of State—and I am sure that he would be ready to give your Lordships an assurance on this point—that this is all the more reason for pressing on rapidly and aggressively with the inquiry into what ought to be the whole system of finance. I do not think that it requires an Imperial or Commonwealth Conference; that takes a long time to assemble. I am sure that a great deal could be done by the
434
exchange of telegrams. May I venture to suggest that everybody might agree to have a practical working party constituted, of Commonwealth representatives and representatives of the financial corporations who are dealing with these issues, to work out a practical plan which could be submitted to our Government and to all the Commonwealth Governments. We might get rapid action in that way and an agreement which would produce a new plan for getting the best out of the existing organisations, adapting them and combining them to meet any propositions which would help these emergent territories. I believe that that could be done rapidly, and that it would be clearly understood in Ghana, after this debate, that that was all that could be done. Then the Government could come back and pass as rapidly as possible an agreed measure which would give us all that we want.
3.38 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the trouble which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has taken in disentangling what is, frankly a complicated situation. He has produced what is, for me, a new fact: that at the time of the passing of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, India and Ceylon were not then excluded and were only excluded thereafter, and at that time the Act could have been made applicable to India and Ceylon, too. I must accept entirely what the noble and learned Viscount and the other advisers of the Government have said on this subject.
I remain disappointed, naturally, by the outcome, and I remain equally disappointed by the terms of the drafting of Clause 3. Whether or not the same effect could have been produced by other means, it is drafted in an extremely gauche and somewhat discourteous manner. I believe that if the information which had been collected by the noble and learned Viscount and his legal advisers had been taken earlier, the terms of the drafting of Clause 3 might have been substantially different from what they are and might have occasioned less turmoil and trouble than the clause undoubtedly has done.
I would not wish to do anything which would in any way jeopardise the coming into force of the Ghana Independence

435
Bill at the appropriate time or in any way to risk delay in the drafting of the Order in Council which the Secretary of State has promised will be drafted and presented in the near future, but I hope that the remarks which the Secretary of State for Commonwealth relations made in the course of the Committee stage debate about using existing machinery and existing services so far as possible, may be carried into effect and made use of pending the time when a new set-up and new legislation is enacted to enable these emergent territories to be properly financed.
3.40 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, I should like to offer a few comments on the new arguments that have been put before us to-day. I have heard, with great regret, that the Government feel that they must keep this clause in the Bill. Of course, I accept without question the whole of the legal argument that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor put before us; it would be impertinent of me to do otherwise. In fact I entertain no doubt in my own mind as to the absolute correctness of his argument, and I accept, as a conclusion from that, that the particular proposal made when we met last Thursday by my noble friend Lord Swinton is not really practicable; that is, a general direction that until a certain time there should be no acceptance of any scheme for Ghana under the Colonial Development Corporation.
But I wonder whether that necessarily carries the further conclusion that the clause must be retained. I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor this. Is it not the case that, consistently with his argument, it would be possible, by administrative action, to prevent any particular loan project from going through; possible for the Corporation itself to stop it; possible for the Government to stop it; and possible for the Government to give warning to the Corporation that they would stop it, so as to prevent a great deal of preliminary work from being engaged on it?
Secondly, if that is true, as I suggest it is, would it not be possible for the Government to state their general attitude and principles, with which I entirely agree: namely, that the normal position for a country which has acquired the status that Ghana will have should be
436
to establish its own credit-worthiness and borrow by other means? Having stated that principle, would it not be perfectly proper to exercise discretion on a particular project, taking into account all considerations; not only the intrinsic prospects of the particular project, but also the fact that the territory which is asking for the loan is a Ghana territory and not a colonial territory? What I suggest is, not to adopt the precise solution that my noble friend Lord Swinton suggested before, but (a) to drop the clause; (b) to make a declaration of what the Government understand to be the natural consequences of the acquisition of Ghana's new status; and (c) that, with that declaration in mind, both for Ghana and for ourselves, the different projects as they come along, should be watched, and not agreed to under exactly the same criteria as would apply if the same project had been put forward in respect of a colonial territory?
I suggest that that is legally possible; that it is quite consistent with the argument of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack; and that it is highly desirable that it should be done, for reasons that I will come to in a moment. I fully agree with the Lord Chancellor that that imposes a difficult administrative decision upon Ministers at the time; and unless there were strong reasons for retaining discretion, I agree with the advantages of a statutory provision which would deprive the Government of that discretion. But is there not, in the prospect ahead of us, a considerable reason for saying that there should be some discretion in the Government of the day, at least until the time which may follow the inquiry which the noble Earl has promised us, when adequate alternative machinery will be immediately available?
I would ask your Lordships to look forward to the possibilities of the next few years. Ghana, and other countries, like Malaya, which may acquire a similar status, should expect to borrow their own money by other methods. But can we rely upon that being possible immediately this Act comes into force, or the relevant Act for other territories? Can we anticipate exactly how urgent or important it may be, perhaps before any satisfactory alternative method or mechanism is in being, that we should be able, in a particular case, to exercise a discretion in

437
favour of allowing a loan to go through? Can we anticipate what are the possible alternative sources of capital from abroad for that Ghana territory, and exactly how politically desirable or undesirable it may be that they should have recourse to those alternative sources? I am not sure. Can we anticipate exactly how delicate may be the negotiations that we may be engaged in at the time in regard to relationship of the Ghana territory to the Commonwealth generally and to the sterling area, bearing in mind the importance to the whole of the sterling area and its dollar position of the cocoa earnings of West Africa and the rubber and tin earnings of Malaya?
I do not say that that situation will arise. I do not say that, except in the case of necessity, the Colonial Development Corporation should be used for territories of this kind. But is it wise that, by a statutory provision, the Government should tie their hands? In the twenty years or so that I have been connected with Westminster, this is, I think, the first time that I have ever urged the Executive to take or retain more power under current legislation than they themselves wanted to have. But here I suggest that, until alternative methods are ready and known to be ready, this limited discretion might usefully be retained. Except for what I admit to be the administratively difficult but, as I think, in the circumstances, necessary task which would fall on Ministers at the time, I cannot see any decisive reason why the Government should ask us to tie their hands. If I find a friend in great distress calling upon me for assistance, I do not think it is a very good answer to him to say: "I am sorry; I would have run to your assistance, but my hands have been tied", if he knows, and I know that he knows, that my hands have been tied at my own urgent request.
3.49 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, on the Second Reading of the Bill my noble friend Lord Rennell and I raised this question—and I must apologise to the noble Lord who moved the Amendment on Thursday last that I was unavoidably prevented from being here. To-day I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has said, and I think we must accept the legal position as he has outlined
438
it. The point that struck me as being of importance is that raised by my noble friend Lord Swinton, when he said it was tremendously important that the review which has been promised by the Government should be held at once and that there should be no delay. I think that what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said is true: there is a great deal of psychology in this; and I believe the drafting of Clause 3 is unfortunate from a psychological point of view. I believe that those responsible for the administration world, in similar circumstances, probably draft this clause differently.
As the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said, there is an article in The Times to-day which shows that Ghana is puzzled and apparently distressed at the outcome of the drafting of the present Bill. They say that the provisions of Clause 3 came as a surprise to them. Accepting what the Government say, and stressing what my noble friend Lord Swinton said as to the urgency of the review, would ask the Government whether they could come a little further towards those who feel as I do and wish to support them, because I sincerely hope that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment will feel able not to call a Division in the House. If he does, I think the Government will obtain a substantial majority, and little will have been achieved. The psychological point mentioned by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, comes into play here. We want to send this Bill off with the best start. There has been a most useful and wide discussion. The Government have said that they would like to do what the majority of the House wish to do, but that they are unable to do so from a legal point of view. Could the Government give any sort of indication of how long they think this review will take? Will it be a matter of days, weeks or months? If we could get some general indication it would help us, because until this review has taken place, the Government policy must continue, and the position is open and unsatisfactory to many of us, even though we accept it this afternoon.
The second point I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider is this. They have indicated that they wish to do as the majority of the House have expressed a view: they wish to give help

439
to these emergent territories. They wish to forge a new instrument which will enable that to be done. For that purpose, the review is to be held. Would the Government consider penning an official Dispatch from Her Majesty's Government to the Prime Minister-designate of Ghana so that, at the time of the inauguration of the celebrations of complete independence, the Ghana Government will have an official Dispatch from Her Majesty's Government expressing the general wish and intentions which we understand from the debate to-day are in the mind of the Government? If those two things could happen, we might go some way to overcoming the psychological prejudice about which the Leader of the Opposition spoke. I hope that the Government will say that they will consider those matters, and I will give them my support.
3.54 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: As I have taken part in this debate at its various stages. I feel that I should not be doing right unless I said to-day what I feel after hearing the reasons given by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. I need hardly say that I share the bitter disappointment which many of us feel that the Government have felt it necessary to adopt this attitude. I should not have the impertinence for a moment to do other than accept completely what has been said by the Lord Chancellor. Let us agree that he completely demolished the suggestion made by the noble Earl. Lord Swinton. But that was only, to my mind, a side issue in this debate, and I am still left with my difficulty, which was that I cannot possibly see the need for Clause 3 in this Bill at all. That has nothing to do with the suggestion made by the noble Earl. Lord Swinton.
To my mind, this clause deals with a matter which is quite extraneous to the purpose of the Bill, and it is expressed with singular infelicity. That point has already been stressed. I speak as a mere administrator, who does not pretend to know anything about the law, but I do know how often what an administrator calls "common sense" is, from the point of view of dealing with humanity, preferable to the law, however logical and
440
correct the law may be. The Lord Chancellor said, if I quote him correctly, that it would be wrong for Treasury control to cut across independence. I confess it may be my own lack of sense, but I cannot really see how apposite that can be. If a big business, operating, shall we say, in West Africa—one of those big businesses which do operate there—were to decide, on a project put up to it, that they did not feel justified in going into partnership with the Government, or whatever it might be, and therefore that they would not proceed with the project, surely that would not be cutting across the independence of the country. They are dealing with their own funds, and they are dealing with a decision as to whether or not they will use them in that particular way.
I have been a member of the Board of the Colonial Development Corporation, and I know how they work. I know that in questions of any doubt the wishes of the Secretary of State have always to be considered—and quite rightly so—and that suggestions may be made by the Secretary of State as to whether or not a project is a good one. The Board can always say, without anybody rightly objecting, that they cannot agree to provide funds for a certain purpose. All these facts seem to me to show that those are questions which have nothing whatever to do with this Bill, and I am left still a completely unregenerate opponent of Clause 3. I do not wish in any way—I should be the last person to wish to do so—to delay the passage of this Bill. But what is stopping it? Supposing there is strong opposition to this clause, and supposing there is a reasonable conviction on the part of the majority of this House that the clause is extraneous to the purposes of the Bill, what would be delaying the passage of the Bill? Nothing but the determination of the Government not to accept that view. That is what would be the cause of the delay. It would not be the people, like myself, who are expressing their own sincere and honest conviction that this is a lamentable clause.
I suggest that all that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, urged the Government to hurry on with doing would meet with full support from me and from others who think as I do. That again has nothing to do, if I may respectfully say so, with what we are discussing. That

441
urgency can be used even if we delete Clause 3. There would be all the more reason for it, but the two things are not tied up together. The retention of Clause 3 is a positive hindrance to the urgency of such a consideration, and will prejudice the position which, to my mind, need never have been prejudiced and, I would sincerely hope, still will not be prejudiced. Therefore, I remain an unregenerate opponent of Clause 3.
3.59 p.m.
LORD HEMINGFORD: May I venture to say a word in support of the speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton? Being entirely uninstructed in the law, I, of course, accept the legal opinion that has been given to us. I may he failing through lack of intelligence, but I fail to understand how the legal situation makes it necessary to have in the Bill subsection (4) of Clause 3. I do not like Clause 3 as a whole, but I particularly dislike subsection (4). I should be extremely grateful if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, or any other noble Lord who may be speaking for the Government later, would say whether the dropping of subsection (4) of Clause 3 would create any kind of legal difficulty.
LORD OGMORE: I think the upshot of what the noble and learned Viscount the Lore. Chancellor said this afternoon was very much what was said last week: that is to say that, if Clause 3 is not included in this Bill, the Colonial Development Corporation can, if it and the Ghana Government so desire, operate in Ghana. That is what the speech of the Lord Chancellor amounted to, so far as I understood it; and on both sides we were already agreed upon that.
The new point the Lord Chancellor has introduced is this answer to the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. That is the new ground, as I understand it, to-day. Of course we on this side were prepared to compromise on the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, but, if no compromise is possible, then of course we return to our original ground and we press our point on that ground. I was not quite clear—I say this for future record—why India was brought into this, because, so far as I am aware, India never was a Colony; it never came under the Colonial
442
Development and Welfare Acts or under the Overseas Resources Development Acts. I may be a little confused, because the Lord Chancellor had his back to me when he spoke of India, but, so far as I am aware, India has no relation whatsoever to this matter, and never has had.
THE LORD CHANCELIOR: To be quite frank with the noble Lord—I am sorry that he did not hear—I said I was quite sure about Ceylon. I think he will agree about that. I explained that, but I told my noble friend that I had not actually checked the position of India before independence with the wording of the Act.
LORD OGMORE: I am glad that we have cleared up the point about India, because that may be a little confusing; and often eminent jurists such as the Lord Chancellor are quoted. This is a very difficult matter, as he has indicated, and we do not want any misunderstanding to come in. Of course, naturally we accept what he says on the legal position. We should not think of doing otherwise. So we come back now to where we were before the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, spoke last Thursday. Perhaps we can go on from there and realise that no compromise is possible.
The article in The Times, to which my noble Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has referred, indicates two things. The first is, as I have often mentioned to your Lordships in this House, that colonial affairs debates in this House receive wide publicity in colonial territories and are widely quoted. The House has, of course, justifiably and justly, a very high reputation in colonial affairs. The fact that we do not see colonial affairs reported at great length in the English papers does not mean that they are not quoted at great length in colonial papers; and often they are. I have no doubt that, as The Times to-day says, in Ghana great interest is being taken in our speeches here on Second Reading and on Committee stage, and that they are looking forward with anticipation to our debate to-day. They are also looking forward, no doubt, to the fact that in our debate to-day we shall grant them what they want: that is to say, that this clause shall be deleted from the Bill. Ghana reactions are, as I have been told, quite apart from this article

443
in The Times, very unfavourable to the retention of this clause.
I should like to ask whoever is going to reply, either the Secretary of State or the Minister of State, a few questions. First of all, was this subsection (4) of Clause 3 in the Bill when the Ghana Ministers saw the draft of this Bill? Were they consulted about this subsection before the Bill was printed in this country? What are their feelings upon it? My information is that they never saw this clause at all; that the draft Bill as presented to them did not include this clause, the whole clause—and certainly not subsection (4); that they were not consulted about it, and that the first the Ghana Ministers knew of it was when they saw the Bill as printed in this country. Have the Ghana Government made any representations to Her Majesty's Government, either by Despatch or otherwise, with reference to Clause 3 (4)? Those are very important matters upon which, in my view, the Committee should have accurate information before it comes to the vote, if a vote is taken; and unless we get satisfactory assurances, we shall certainly desire to take a vote.
Another point upon which I should like information from the Government (I have put this question to them twice already, but I have not yet had an answer) is the question of providing fresh capital for existing enterprises. Will it be possible, under the provisions of subsection (4), for fresh capital to be obtained from the Colonial Development Corporation for enterprises which are already authorised, whether started or not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I have verified the point. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. I should have remembered it. "Colonial", in the Interpretation Act, is defined as expressly excluding India. So the noble Lord is right. I am very sorry that I did not remember it at the time.
LORD OGMORE: I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor. I think it is important to clear up that point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I entirely agree.
LORD OGMORE: I thank the noble and learned Viscount.
444
I have been heartened by the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Milverton and Lord Hemingford. I think they are both right. What they say, in effect, and what the noble Lord, Lord Salter, has already said, is: "Why not leave this matter to the Colonial Development Corporation?" The Board of the Corporation are sensible people. They have now had years of experience. They are doing well. They are making money. They are not by any means a "soft touch", as it is called. They are business men, pretty difficult to deal with, quite frankly; but, still, they are looking after money and so on, and they have the right to take what precautions they think fit. Why not leave it to them? What is the objection to leaving it to the Colonial Development Corporation? They well know the views expressed in this House both by the Government, by Back Benchers on the other side, and by eminent noble Lords on the other side, and also by noble Lords on these Benches. So why not leave it to them? We are always told these days that more opportunity should be given to initiative, to freedom of choice; that people should be allowed to employ as they think fit the talents which the Almighty has given them and the resources available to them from other sources. Why not do so here? What is the objection? Why do we not trust the Corporation and allow them to carry on the job which has been given to them by successive Governments?
There is one point about which I must warn your Lordships, and it is very serious: it is the one touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Salter. Supposing these emergent territories, particularly Ghana, Malaya and Nigeria, walk out of the sterling area, as they are quite entitled to do, what is going to happen then? How are we going to maintain our standards of living if they do not support us? As your Lordships know perfectly well, we could never have maintained anything like our present standard of living without the assistance of Malaya, the Gold Coast and Nigeria. For a considerable time, from rubber alone, quite apart from tin, Malaya earned more foreign currency than the whole British export trade. What is going to happen if they walk out? I am happy to say that up to now there is no likelihood of that. They are quite content to stay in. They realise the advantages and

445
they want to retain the bonds of friendship and ties of affection they have with us. But this sort of thing is not going to encourage them to do what we want them to do: to remain in the sterling area.
I have taken the advice offered, and I have not commented upon the other subsections of this clause. But if the Government does not withdraw this subsection we will go on to debate those at a later stage this afternoon. I will read to your Lordships the language in those subsections—the harsh and unconscionable way in which these countries are going to be treated. I think you will agree that, from our point of view, it is very dangerous language to use, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said last week when he referred to the language in which this clause is expressed. My Lords, I regret to say it, but I must say it: I believe that the Government are killing the Colonial Development Corporation, not only by this means —because the various emergent territories will be treated the same way as Ghana—but also by now saying that the Colonial Development Corporation cannot finance projects in colonial territories if the territories can get their finance from any other source. This is the death knell of the Corporation.
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not think the noble Lord should say that without its being met straight away. We are not saying that. We are saying that we shall look at the whole question with a perfectly open mind and review the whole matter of the channelling of investment to independent Commonwealth countries, including emergent Commonwealth countries.
LORD OGMORE: I am very confused about this matter, because I said this on Second Reading and it was never denied by the noble Lord.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said just now was that the Government were trying to kill the Colonial Development Corporation's power to give money to colonial territories. This is not a colonial territory. There has never been anything said by the Government about restriction in regard to colonial territories.
LORD OGMORE: The n able Marquess is not aware of what happens in the Government of which he is a mem-
446
ber. I said the Government were killing the Corporation in two ways: first, so far as emergent territories were concerned, by this clause; and secondly, by the fact that they told the Corporation—and if they have not told them I shall be very glad to hear -it and I stand to be corrected, but I did make this statement on Second Reading and it was not corrected—that they are not to give finance for projects in colonial territories if the colonial territories can get their finance elsewhere. If I am wrong, I shall be glad to withdraw; and I shall be very glad to hear I am wrong. My Lords, we shall press this matter to a Division.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, might I refer to the Colonial Development Report, 1955, which says that the C.D.C. stands by to help essential capital development for which finance is not otherwise available?
LORD OGMORE: Yes, but that does not exhaust their whole field. If they stand by where finance is not otherwise available they must stand by where finance is available. If they are going to undertake only the sort of project for which no me can get finance, they will never make a profit and they cannot continue to operate. Under the Overseas Resources Development Act they have a statutory duty to make both ends meet year by year, which means they must have some good bargains to carry the bad bargains.
4.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I find it a little difficult to wind up this afternoon, because we have had long debates on Second Reading, in the Committee last week and again to-day. Before I deal with the various points raised by noble Lords I should like to try to answer the questions put specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. He first of all asked whether this particular clause was in the Bill when it was shown in the first instance to the Government of Ghana. The answer is that when the Bill went out first it was not in it, and the reason is because the Bill at that time was dealing with policy and policy was under discussion. The text of the clause was telegraphed out before the Bill was published.
The next question the noble Lord asked was whether there has been any reaction

447
from the Government in the Gold Coast to the whole question of the rôle of the C.D.C. To that I would say that there has been to-day a memorandum on the question generally of how we can help Ghana once it is independent. I have not had time really to study this, but it is full of considerations of the sort which are most important and necessary for us when we make the review which has been promised. The last question he asked was whether there can be fresh capital introduced on existing projects, and the answer to that is that it is certainly not ruled out if a project so demands it.
My Lords, I greatly hope that we are not going to divide to-day. I recognise the great disappointment there has been to many noble Lords by the legal opinion that has been given. But I think that the various arguments advanced that the clause should be dropped did not give sufficient force to the legal opinion, which was that, on the basis of the alternative which was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and which the Opposition said they would be prepared to accept, we have been told that it is not possible and that Clause 3 is necessary. I. for one, should certainly not wish to differ from the weight of opinion we have had.
LORD FARINGDON: Might I ask the noble Earl a question? I fully accept and understand, I think, the legal objections; but those legal objections surely are applicable only to the compromise suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, supported by one or two other noble Lords and accepted by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. These legal objections surely do not hold for those of us who wish to have the clause omitted completely in order that the C.D.C. should continue to act. I am not at all taken with the compromise; I do not like it at all; I think it is a horrid, roundabout way of doing something which the clause does, and I am sure the noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor is right when he says it is of dubious legality and that the clause is the right way. But it is doing what I do not want to do and what other noble Lords do not want to do. We do not want the compromise because basically it intends to do, in another way, what we dislike.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I understand the noble Lord's point, and I think that if we took the whole thing out the legal problem would not arise. But we all agreed the other day that we would try for the compromise and find to-day, unhappily, as we have told your Lordships, that it would not work. What we feel very much is that we should not decide this issue of what is the best machinery, and so forth, for Commonwealth development by a side door. We do not rule out the use of any machinery, but we feel that it should be considered objectively and not just happen by chance through one piece of machinery slipping through and others not being considered.
Before I touch a little further on the question of the review, I think it is useful to recall what your Lordships have gained. They have focused attention on the economic development of the Commonwealth and emergent nations and given the review a real sense of urgency. The question of whether lending by the Government, as opposed to lending by the capital markets of the world, is the more appropriate will receive the most careful weighing up, as will that of what is the best machinery for this purpose. In connection with that, we have had the most helpful comments on machinery from Lord Swinton, Lord Balfour of Inchrye and others. As we have, on the whole, in the Commonwealth a shortage of capital for investment—Commonwealth countries are all, with the exception of ourselves, capital importing countries—I think that the way we can best help the emergent nations at the present time is through services and kindred facilities.
It may be useful here, perhaps, to take a look at some of these, for so often the cry from the Commonwealth and the emergent nations is for expertise and technical assistance. Naturally, when that arises, there comes to my mind the services of the Colonial Office itself, its great general experience, its network of professional advisory bodies, and its specialised knowledge arising from all that is involved in analysing and finding finance for Colonial Development plans. Other Government Departments also greatly help, such as the Ministries of Health or Agriculture. Then there are semi-public bodies, such as the Inter-University Council and Medical Research

449
Council, or, in a rather different category, the Trades Union Congress and the Federation of British Industries. And lastly there is private enterprise, with its huge range of industrial, commercial and scientific experts. Here is a field where Commonwealth countries too can assist, for they often have specialised knowledge of problems which affect their own countries. Throughout the world the cry is for technicians, and bodies such as U.N.O. and its various Specialised Agencies or the World Bank call on us to contribute personnel. While this is right and proper, it may also be that the Commonwealth itself can, and should, do more to organise assistance for its own members. Having said so much, I must say one word of warning: we do not want machinery for machinery's sake; and on the whole the existing system works pretty well. None the less, the subject merits review and we have promised that we will give it this review.
In that review, alongside all the other possible machineries that I have outlined, there will, of course, be considered what part, if any, should be played by the Colonial Development Corporation. The last thing that we should want is for Ghana or for other new nations which are shortly to come to independence to think that, having seen their ship of State triumphantly launched, we are no longer interested in the way it sails; and to the extent that Clause 3 may give that appearance, we much regret it. In fact, the exact opposite is the case, and, as other noble Lords have said, when the people in Ghana read of this debate they will see how often we from this side, as well as other noble Lords, have reiterated our intention to help. Indeed, we are most anxious that the voyage should be a continuing success and, in so far as we can, to provide a fair wind, if Ghana cares to seek our advice and guidance on any economic or other matter we will do all that we can to help. We want Ghana to know that our hope is to remain her partner through bad times and good, and that our sincerest wish is that her times should be good.
4.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We have had a very long discussion, both to-day and on a previous occasion, and we on this side of the House are grateful for
450
the great trouble that the Government have taken to reply to our arguments. But perhaps it would be as well, at the end of this long discussion, if I were to venture to remind the Committee of the terms of the Amendment which we have submitted. It is to omit subsection (4) of Clause 3 of the Bill. I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to read subsection (4), because it shows the limited objective that we have in mind at this moment. Subsection (4) reads as follows:
" Without prejudice to the continuance of any operations commenced by the Colonial Development Corporation in any part of Ghana before the appointed day, as from that day the expression 'colonial territories' in the Overseas Resources Development Acts, 1948 to 1956, shall not include Ghana or any part thereof."
What we are asking the House to do is not to exclude Ghana from any future scheme which the Colonial Development Corporation may wish, with the agreement of those concerned in Ghana, to start in that country.
I think that all your Lordships, whether upon this side of the Committee or the other, have accepted the legal arguments advanced with such cogency by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. It is perfectly clear that the objective which we have in mind cannot he obtained by means of an instruction given by the Secretary of State to the Colonial Development Corporation, which was the original suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. I think we must all accept that that suggestion is of no value from the point of view of this purpose. But there are other ways of achieving the same purpose. They have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who was himself for many years a member of the Board of the Colonial Development Corporation, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Salter.
The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said that the Corporation respects the wishes of the Secretary of State, and surely a "gentlemen's agreement" between the Corporation and the Secretary of State would be quite sufficient—a "gentlemen's agreement" that the Corporation would not go into Ghana until the inquiry which the Government have promised had taken place and until the results were known. We are anxious that the inquiry should go forward, and that its conclusions should

451
be reached and made available at the earliest possible moment. Of course, the results of the inquiry may be either that the Colonial Development Corporation should be used in independent territories, or that capital will be available from other sources. But if the first decision is reached, then what your Lordships will be doing by passing this clause in the Bill, will be to make it necessary for the Government to pass amending legislation before the Colonial Development Corporation can go into Ghana. All we want to do is to keep the door open, not to prejudice what happens eventually.
We are not suggesting that the results of this inquiry into Commonwealth development should be prejudiced by saying that the Colonial Development Corporation must go in. Far from that, all we want is the door left open, so that the Colonial Development Corporation may go in without amending legislation which would have to be accepted by Parliament here if the inquiry resulted in a recommendation in that sense. Under the other method suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Salter, who, after all, has immense administrative experience, Her Majesty's Government have control over the sanction of loans; and that is an administrative method that might be used. But I cannot help feeling that the method
of the gentlemen's agreement, suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, is one that would be more satisfactory in the circumstances.
All we are asking Her Majesty's Government to do in this Amendment is to leave the door open, so that until this general inquiry has produced recommendations which will enable these emergent territories to raise the capital they want, either through the Colonial Development Corporation or in other ways, the position should not be prejudiced by prohibiting by law, by statute, the entry of /the Colonial Development Corporation into this territory. A precedent of this kind would, of course, have to be followed in the case of Malaya, which will become independent in August of next year, and in the case of the West Indies and other areas at present dependent which, in the very near future, will become self-governing members of the Commonwealth. So I very much hope that on the merits of this Amendment alone (we shall deal with the clause later on) Her Majesty's Government will accept the views which have been expressed on both sides of the House.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Archibald, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Attlee, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Mathers, L.

Bessborough, E.

Crook, L.

Milverton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Moyne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Faringdon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Listowel, E.

Geddes, L.

Raglan, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Greenhill, L.

Reith, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Silkin, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Hemingford, L.

Strabolgi. L. [Teller.]

Hall, V.

Lawson, L.

Winster, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Perth, E.

Aberdare, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Selkirk, E.

Amulree, L.

Swinton, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Exeter, M.

Woolton, E.

Cawley, L.

Reading, M.

Chesham, L.

Willingdon, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Falmouth, V.

Coleraine, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Furness, V.

Congleton, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Croft, L.

Gosford, E.

Hailsham, V.

Dinevor, L.

Home, E.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Dormer, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Soulbury, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Morley, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Thurso, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Gifford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Newall, L.

Glentanar, L.

Hylton, L.

Remnant, L.

Glyn, L.

Jessel, L.

Rockley, L.

Grantchester, L.

Leconfield, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grenfell, L.

Lloyd, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gretton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Gridley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Hampton, L.

Merthyr, L.

Teviot, L.

Harris, L.

Meston, L.

Waleran, L.

Hore-Belisha, L.

Moynihan, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

House resumed.

EGYPT: COMPENSATION FOR EXPELLED BRITONS
4.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think your Lordships will forgive me if I interrupt the Business of the House in order to make a statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The statement runs as follows:
"The Government announced on December 6 last that it had decided to make a grant of £1 00,000 to the Anglo-Egyptian Aid. Society to assist British subjects from Egypt. Since then the Society, with the assistance of other voluntary organisations, has worked extremely hard to deal with pressing personal problems. The Society has performed a most valuable task in difficult and strenuous circumstances and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the Government's appreciation of the way in which voluntary workers have risen to the demands of this emergency.
"About four thousand people have now reached this country from Egypt and more are still arriving. The operation of assisting these people and enabling them to start their life again will be a large one. The Society has itself taken the view that as a voluntary welfare organisation it should be relieved of the growing responsibility for making payments from Government funds. The Government accepts this view, and proposes to set up a new body to be known as the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, has accepted an invitation to serve as Chairman of the Board, and that among the other Members will be
454
the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, Sir Humphrey Trevelyan and representatives of the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society and the other voluntary organisations. The Board will take over the grant-in-aid front the Exchequer.
"The function of the Board will be to co-ordinate all the work at present being done to assist British subjects from Egypt, including the running of the hostels and the giving of financial help; until the Board is ready to assume this responsibility, the Society will continue its present work.
"An organisation has also been set up within the Foreign Office to classify claims against the Government of Egypt of persons who suffered loss on their departure. A special section is now in being which is recording information about the assets of British nationals in Egypt affected by the measure taken by the Egyptian Government and about other debts outstanding. Both firms and individuals have been invited to submit information on these matters to the Foreign Office. It is hoped that this can be done expeditiously.
" Meanwhile, the Resettlement Board will be authorised to deal with the needs of any British subjects who have come to the United Kingdom as a result of recent events in Egypt and are in need. In helping these people, the Board will deal with each individual case on its merits and, in addition to paying allowances, they will be authorised to meet immediate educational commitments and to make grants or loans in appropriate cases.
"In particular, the Board will be authorised to make advances as may be necessary to former pensioners of the Egyptian. Government up to the full amount of the pension due until arrangements are made for the Egyptian Government again to discharge its contractual obligations."
4.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, for giving us this statement. We welcome the appointment of the new Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board which is mentioned in the statement. There is a matter about which we are specially anxious. In view of the size of the problem, we wonder whether we can be assured, in the first place, that the Government accept (I hope they do) full responsibility for advancing sufficient money to ensure that none of these Anglo-Egyptian people who have been evicted and who are British citizens shall be allowed to suffer any hardship as a result. That is the first point. The second point, which was referred to briefly in the statement, is the importance of securing at the earliest possible moment a comprehensive statement from Egypt as to what is proposed to be done with regard to the release of the assets of the British citizens who have themselves been evicted. If we could have a little assurance upon that matter we should be very glad.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can assure the noble Viscount that the whole purpose of this scheme is to avoid hardship. That will be the aim which will be in the minds, I am certain, of the new Resettlement Board.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: With all the funds necessary?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, I think that if the noble Viscount will look at the statement he will see that it is the full intention of the Government to provide the funds for that purpose. I should say, in passing, that the residue of the £100,000 which was originally given as a grant-in-aid to the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society will be transferred to the new body. There was a certain amount, I understand, of other money which was subscribed from private sources to the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society. That, of course, will continue to be administered by the Society in the exercise of its ordinary functions. The noble Viscount raised a wider point as to Egyptian obligations to us.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The release of assets.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It seems to me that the first thing to be done is to establish the amount of the claims against the Egyptian Government. As I explained in the statement which I have made the Government are setting up machinery under the Foreign Office for that purpose. It should then be possible to formulate further policy which does not, I hope, absolve the Egyptian Government from its clear responsibilities.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: May I ask whether this will include British citizens who normally live in Malta, as well as those who live in this country?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can assure the noble Lord that British citizens wherever they are will be treated in the same way.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, arising out of the Government statement, I hope I shall be in order if I raise one or two subsidiary points. The first is: when will the new Board get to work? I notice no reference in the statement to the use of Egyptian Government funds. I presume that that has been left out intentionally for the moment. The next point relates to moral responsibility—for which I pressed when I spoke some days ago. That is not covered in the statement. I refer, of course, to the moral responsibility of the British Government. Is that omission intentional? My last point is a rather more detailed one. What is to happen with regard to these people who have had deposits in British banks in Cairo—of which there are many? All these have been seized. I presume that that is the sort of point with which the new Board will deal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the first point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, asked a question related to the time when the new organisation would begin to function. I was told by my noble friend Lord Colyton just now that they have already set up an office and are beginning their work at once. I think that all the other questions which the noble Lord has put are covered by the answer which I have already given to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough.
LORD KILLEARN: I thank the noble Marquess.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, arising out of what the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, said, I understand that some of these refugees have assets in this country, including investments in War Loan which they obtained during the war when specially requested to do so, but they are not allowed to touch this War Loan and securities because they are in blocked sterling accounts. I wonder whether that could be looked into.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I understand that this particular point is already before the Government and that they are looking into it as a matter of urgency.

GHANA INDEPENDENCE BILL
4.52 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved to delete Clause 3. The noble Lord said: I do not intend to delay your Lordships for any length of time on this Amendment, because many of the points have already come out on the previous Amendment, but there are one or two things I should like to say. My first point is that this clause is not necessary at al. Your Lordships will remember that on Thursday last, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, interrupted me, as of course, he had a perfect right to do, and asked an important question of the Minister of State. The noble Earl said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 201 (No. 27), Col. 3.49]:
" I think it is rather important to get this point clear in our minds. If no provision were put into this Bill (and I do not say that this clause applies to it), if the law is left as it stands to-day, could or could not any money from the Colonial Development Fund be applied to full self-governing territory? "
And the noble Earl, Lord Home, replied:
" My Lords, if I may intervene, the answer is that it could not."
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am afraid that I misled the noble Earl on that occasion. I was referring only to the Statute of Westminster. I thought he had put his question in a different way and misunderstood him. I am extremely sorry.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I explained this matter in my remarks on the previous Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: I have been somewhat confused, because the noble and learned Viscount was obviously dealing with the position under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act and I could not understand when he said the same position arose under that Act as under the Overseas Resources Development Act—in other words, if no Amendment was made in this Bill then monies under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act could be applied to Ghana. I take it that that is right.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to weary your Lordships, but my noble friend will remember how the difficulty arose. The 1940 Act originally contained an exception for territories with responsible government. That Act was repealed in 1950. What has made the position more difficult, I think, is that the third Act comes in between, in 1948; but that is the sequence and that is what I tried to explain to-day.
LORD OGMORE: I understood the noble and learned Viscount, but I could not relate what he said to what the Secretary of State said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend was referring to the Statute of Westminster.
THE EARL OF HOME: I misinterpreted the noble Earl's question, I am afraid.
LORD OGMORE: We now know where we stand. Unless this clause is in the Bill, then money can be applied under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. That makes the argument under my first head no longer apposite. Apparently it is necessary; therefore, I fall back on this consideration: if it is necessary, is it desirable? That is the ground upon which we shall now fight our battle.
I suggest that this clause is highly undesirable on two grounds: first of all, because the wording is churlish in the extreme. We owe a great deal to colonial territories like Malaya and the Gold Coast, who helped us during the war and again after the war, with our economic and other difficulties. We have had invaluable assistance from them with regard to foreign currency and with raw materials for our economy. Realising all that, as I am sure your Lordships will, I would ask the Committee to consider the wording of this clause and the sort of

459
language that is used. Subsection (1) says
"No scheme shall be made on or after the appointed day under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, 1944) to 1955, wholly or partly for the benefit of Ghana."
That is a blunt slash in the face, as it were. The clause goes on to say:
" Any scheme in force under the said Acts immediately before the appointed day which was made solely for the benefit of Ghana or any part thereof shall cease to have effect on that day without prejudice to the making of payments in pursuance of that scheme on or after that day in respect of any period falling before that day; and, so far as practicable, no part of any sums paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of any other scheme made under those Acts before that day shall be employed in respect of any period falling on or after that day for the benefit of Ghana."
The next subsection says that where there are one or more territories enjoying assistance in a joint scheme, it applies to Ghana only
"…in a case where Ghana has undertaken to bear a reasonable share of the cost of the scheme."
In my opinion, this is the sort of language used to a defaulting debtor, not the sort of language to use to a country which is embarking on independence with all our good wishes. I do not think that any noble Lord who looked at this matter from an objective point of view could regard that sort of language as the language we should wish to see in a Bill of this kind.
I know that the Government do not wish to insult Ghana—I do not suggest for one moment that they would. We know perfectly well that they do not wish to do so; but it is strong language for them to use. Why use this churlish language? Why not take this clause back and look at it again, even at this late stage, and bring it back with wording which is more to the point and which would not give the people of Ghana, and the people of West Africa, the impression that we regard them as defaulting debtors. I expect that soon we shall have other Bills dealing with other emergent territories. Is this the sort of language which is going to be used in all of them, because if it is, I cannot feel that we are going to retain their interest and their affection. If I were a citizen of Ghana or Malaya, and I saw this sort of language used towards me. I should feel most hurt and bitter. In
460
this case, too—although I am not quite so certain about these earlier subsections as I was about subsection (4)—I believe that they were not put to the Government of Ghana, and that the first indication the Ministers there had was when they saw the Bill printed.
The second ground upon which I base the Amendment is this. Even if, as we have now heard from the Lord Chancellor, Ghana would be entitled to benefit from assistance under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts if this clause were not included, why should we not give Ghana the benefit of any assistance they may get under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts for the remainder of their period? Remember that, when the last Colonial Development and Welfare Act was passed—in fact, when all those Acts were passed—Ghana was a colonial territory and, therefore, was entitled to benefits from them. Why cut off the benefit now? Why not allow Ghana to have the benefit which, under those Acts, she was entitled to, and which our Government and the Government opposite intended her to have? I cannot see any immorality in that, and I cannot see that there should be any financial or other difficulties.
Here is a colonial territory which comes within the scope and purview of the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. Certain sums were granted to Ghana for her purposes. Why not allow her to enjoy them, and to have any benefit that there may be from the Acts that we have in force until new legislation is passed? That will not be possible under this Bill as it stands, because it says that from the appointed day (which is March 6):
"No scheme shall be made…wholly or partly for the benefit of Ghana,"
even though it was contemplated, when the last Colonial Development and Welfare Act was passed, that Ghana (then the Gold Coast) would be entitled to benefit under the Act. I would say that if we did that we should be truly throwing our bread on the waters, and we should get back one hundredfold from Ghana what we give her. We all know that the West Africans are delightful and generous-hearted people. They have their faults, as we all have, but lack of generosity is not one of them. They are a generous people, and West Africans, of

461
all people, are most inclined to respond to a generous gesture. I suggest that we should leave this clause out of the Bill and allow schemes to be made for Ghana under the Act and allow them to have the benefit of that Act. I would say, also, that that should apply to other emergent territories for which legislation will be coming before the House when they achieve independence.
I think that the Bill as it stands represents a narrow-minded attitude—a "Treasury" attitude. I cannot believe that the Colonial Office or the noble Earl, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, really agrees with this attitude. As I say, it is a narrow-minded, "Treasury" attitude which will yield nothing but brambles and thistles. The Treasury have taken the point of view of a small-time bookkeeper, and this attitude is a dangerous one when we are dealing with Commonwealth relations. I think the inability of Ministers on the other side to put the matter in its proper perspective is blameworthy, and we shall certainly press the Amendment to a Division unless we get a satisfactory answer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 3.—(Lord Ogmore.)
LORD HEMINGFORD: I should like to speak in favour of this Amendment and to say how deeply disappointed I have been at failing to understand any reason why the Government have seen fit to insert this clause in the Bill. I have listened to the debates, and I have heard certain points made which have seemed to me utterly unconvincing. We have been reminded that Ghana is about to achieve independence and that nothing must be done in any way to infringe that independence. But we do not need to go beyond these shores in imagination to think of a sovereign nation which is not ashamed to receive economic assistance from another sovereign nation. It has never been suggested that our receiving economic assistance from overseas has been in any way to our shame. I fail to see why there should be any kind of argument to the effect that Ghana, because she is about to receive political independence, must not be offered economic assistance.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Perhaps I might make this point. Nobody said that Ghana should not receive assistance at the proper time, in the proper way.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I realise that what the noble Earl says is true. Nevertheless, it is a fact that Clause 3 of this Bill excludes the Colonial Development Corporation from giving economic assistance in Ghana, and it is to that that I take exception. The fact that words have or have not been spoken seems to me of little moment compared with the fact that is to follow the implementation of this clause.
Another suggestion that has been made—not by Ministers of the Crown, I am glad to say—is that the British taxpayer has had many burdens to bear, and it is hard that he should have to continue to bear burdens for a child that is about to become adult. We all know that the services of the Colonial Development Corporation are not the "doling out" of money. We also know—but I think perhaps it needs to be said—that the operations of the Colonial Development Corporation, as it is at present administered, are of advantage not only to overseas territories but to this country itself. Therefore, I shall feel bound to go into the Division Lobby with noble Lords opposite, and, I hope with noble Lords on this side: first, because it seems to me to be to the advantage of the Gold Coast and of this courtly that the operations of the Colonial Development Corporation should continue in that country; and secondly, because I believe that, as this recurring problem of how to assist emergent territories comes up, we must make quite sure that the Colonial Development Corporation is able, by the maintenance and expansion of its services overseas, to attract and to keep highly-skilled staff, men of great and varied technical abilities, men of close knowledge of the countries in which they operate. It seems to me that this clause is to the detriment, not only of Ghana, but also of this country and, indeed, all other countries in the Commonwealth.
5.10 p.m.
LORD SALTER: May I add just two or three words? I myself greatly regret the decision of the Government, both about subsection (4) of Clause 3 and about Clause 3 as a whole. I think the

463
Government would have been wise to drop the whole clause. I am not going to argue that question, on which I have spoken before, but I should like to say this: I did not vote in the last Division, and I do not propose to vote in this Division—for this reason. I hoped that those who thought as I did would do their utmost to persuade the Government on whom the main responsibility rests. We have failed. Had we succeeded, I do not think there would have been a real timetable difficulty. Things would have gone through quickly, with the co-operation announced last time by the Opposition, which I am sure would have been followed by a similar co-operation in another place. But, as the Government have taken this line, I feel that in the circumstances, if your Lordships were to pass the Amendment against the Government, a real timetable difficulty would arise. It is for that reason that I am taking a course which I very much dislike to take, and which may be said to be illogical, that of having first tried to persuade the Government what I think would be the wise course but, having failed to persuade them, refraining from voting against them in the Division Lobby.
LORD MILVERTON: I do not wish to weary the House at this stage by repeating what I have already said more than once in the various stages of this debate. Nevertheless, I think it desirable to declare that I personally, while holding the same views as the noble Lord, Lord Salter, do not carry them to the same extent; nor do I feel any moral impulse not to record my vote, if there is a Division, in the Lobby. I feel so strongly against the inclusion of this clause, and I am so completely unconvinced by everything I have heard from the Government, that I consider it a moral duty to use what experience I have and to express my feeling that they are pursuing a wrong policy.
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Earl, Lord Perth, replies, I should like to say a word or two. I have listened to this debate with an open mind, because I could not believe that the Government had not a good reason for putting in Clause 3. The noble Earl has said on a number of occasions that it is not the intention of the Government to withhold financial assistance from Ghana, and so
464
I am completely at a loss to understand why Clause 3 is put in. If the noble Earl would help me in my own personal dilemma, I should be greatly obliged. There must be some reason other than those which have been put forward hitherto. It is not the legal reasons. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would be the first to admit that there is no legal reason that would compel a Government to put in Clause 3. What are the true reasons for putting in a clause which the noble Earl has said on more than one occasion does not really mean what it says? As it stands, it says that no help will be given. That is the ordinary, common, plain meaning of those words. He then says that it does not mean that help will not be given. Will he please explain then what is the purpose of Clause 3?
5.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, the intention to move for the deletion of Clause 3, not because it is not necessary but on the ground that it is not desirable. The noble Lord then gave us, as I understand it, two main reasons. One was the wording, and on that he asked us whether there would not be time perhaps to undertake some redrafting. I think the idea of redrafting must be ruled out. There is just not time. But when he asks us whether, when other similar Bills come before your Lordships' House, we will take care to have a look at the wording of any clause that would cover the same points as are covered in this, my answer is that we will certainly look at the drafting.
LORD OGMORE: I am very much obliged for what the noble Earl has said. I take it that the noble Earl agrees that these are most inappropriate and churlish words.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I was just coming to that point. Many noble Lords have criticised the wording as chilly—and, indeed, as worse than that, although I do not remember many of the epithets that have been used. I would make one or two observations, which I hope may put things in a somewhat warmer light. I think that it is a question of how one reads the first subsection.

465
It is quite true that you can start off by saying. "No scheme shall be made wholly or partly for the benefit of Ghana "; and that sounds very shocking. But if you read the words of subsection (1):
"No scheme shall be made on or after the appointed day under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts…wholly or partly for the benefit of Ghana"—
and that is the right emphasis—then I think it is somewhat different—in fact I am quite sure it is. It is in that use of the words and that emphasis that it has been understood by the people in Ghana—namely, that once they have left the status of the Colony, once they have become an independent nation, then it is both natural and right that the Colonial Development Fund should not be available for them.
At the same time, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made an appeal as to whether we should not make available to them whatever might be due to them from the past from Colonial Development and Welfare Funds. There are two points to make there. The first is that since 1955 the Gold Coast has not been a party to these Funds, in the sense that they have had no allocations. On the other hand, there is one scheme, a very important scheme, the development of Kumasi Technical College, for which no less than £350,000 was allocated. There we do exercise—I will not call it generosity, but we have clone the natural thing which one would expect under those conditions; namely, that, while they have been debarred from receiving out of the Colonial Development and Welfare Funds, they will have the money allocated from another source; so that what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked me is, in fact, being done.
The noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, said that he felt there was nothing shameful in getting help from other Governments. I am not going to argue that aspect, but surely we all feel much happier if we do not get gifts or other aid from our friends, but can rather stand on our own feet. The noble Lord also asked—and here I would also take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—just what we are going to do. He said that at one moment we say we cannot help the people of Ghana, and that the next moment we say we will help them if need arises. The answer
466
is that we have said in these clauses that we will not help them under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. Whether we can and will help them, whether they have the need of such help in the next few months, remains to be seen; but we have said once—and we repeat it—that those questions can be looked at ad hoc; at that time we can decide what may be the best method of help, if help is indeed needed.
In my view, to suggest or to assume that Ghana is in great need of help is not doing Ghana any service. She is at the moment about to launch out on her own. She has great wealth. She has cocoa, which, if I may so put it, is an international currency. I think that her credit will surely be found to be such that, if she wants any assistance for capital schemes, she will be able to get it. Our feeling, as has been expressed so many times, is that this clause must stand, but that, if people draw from it the inference that we do not wish Ghana well, or that we want to do her some harm, that is the wrong inference. We want to do all we can in every way possible to help Ghana.
5.21 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: There is one comment I should like to make. I am quite sure that the Government want to help Ghana—we have never denied that. What we say is that they are appearing to the people of Ghana, and to the world outside, as if they do not want to help them; that they are trying to do everything they can not to help them. We are better friends of the Government than they realise, and we want them to show a better face to the world than they are doing. What we have heard makes this Amendment all the more desirable. This is really an Alice in Wonderland situation which has been deployed by the Government. Not since Alice drank from the bottle has there been anything so extraordinary as this.
The Government say that it is essential to have this clause because, if we do riot, we might be able to help Ghana under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. There is only one allocation to Ghana under the most recent Act, and that is the sum of £350,000. Then want Ghana to have the £350,000, and they put in this clause to make sure that Ghana cannot have the £350.000 under the Act where it was voted. Yet

467
they are going to give them the £350,000 from another fund or in some other way. Really! that seems to me to be absolutely childish. It appears to be standing ourselves, the Bill and everything else, on our heads. Here we are, putting into this Bill what we on this side—and many noble Lords on the other side, too, judging by the speeches that have been made—regard as a most maladroit clause, in most inappropriate and harmful language. The net result of this clause can be only that £350,000 which might have gone to Ghana under this clause is not going under this clause but is going under something else. It is the only reason for this clause. I suggest to your Lordships that there is every reason why we should vote for this Amendment and not allow the Government to make the fools of themselves that they are now proposing to make.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with:
THE EARL OF HOME: Although what the noble Lord says is accurate, I do not think he quite appreciates the position. I am sure noble Lords would like to understand the real position. The £350,000 that we are to give for this very desirable scheme in Ghana would come from the Commonwealth Relations Office Vote in exactly the same way as it would come in respect of any other independent Commonwealth country. The reason it comes from the Commonwealth Relations Office Vote in this country is that, before the appointed day, Ghana has been a Colony. Now that she is going to be a completely independent Commonwealth country, we must deal with her as such.
On Question: Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 25; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Mathers, L.

Attlee, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Crook, L.

Moyne, L.

Listowel, E.

Faringdon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Greenhill, L.

Raglan, L.

Hemingford, L.

Reith, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Archibald, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Furness, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Goschen, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Hailsham, V.

Gridley, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Hampton, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Soulbury, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Reading, M.

Stonehaven, V.

Hylton, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Jessel, L.

Gosford, E.

Aberdare, L.

Mancroft, L.

Home, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Morley, E.

Amulree, L.

Merthyr, L.

Onslow, E [Teller]

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Moynihan, L.

Perth, E.

Cawley, L.

Newall, L

St. Aldwyn, E.

Chesham, L.

Remnant, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Rockley, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Coleraine, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swinton, E.

Congleton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Digby, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Dormer, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Falmouth, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, we have now come to the final stage of the Ghana Independence Bill, after most extensive debates in another place and in your Lordships' House, and I hope that the people of Ghana, as a result of these debates, will know how seriously concerned is the United Kingdom Parliament with their future and with their prosperity. Legal draftsmanship sometimes leads us

469
into strange language, but I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, recognised that the Government's one concern is that Ghana should prosper and that we should be closely associated with Ghana in her future. And, indeed, our only desire is to place Ghana in the same position as ourselves and the other free members of this great Commonwealth association of nations. So, my Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I know there is in your Lordships' House no controversy whatever about the purpose of the Bill, which is to give to Ghana independence so that we may enjoy partnership with her within the Commonwealth. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Home.)
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, as it was impossible for me to be here on the Second Reading of the Bill, I should like briefly to add my good wishes to the people of Ghana in achieving her independence. I particularly wish to do that because in the past. I dealt with the Gold Coast as Secretary of State for the Colonies and as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and I had my headquarters in the Gold Coast itself as Minister Resident in West Africa during two critical years of the war. There is no doubt that this Bill will carry with it to Ghana the good wishes and the good will of everybody in this country. Of that the new Prime Minister will be assured. I think his most important task will be to ensure that he achieves the same measure of confidence and good will among all the people of Ghana, and particularly the people in the Northern Territories and in Ashanti.
The people of Ashanti have a long history of which they are proud, and loyalties to which they are devoted. The Ashanti Stool, which many people have wrongly thought of as a sort of coronation throne, is nothing of the sort; no one ever sits upon it. That golden stool represents in a symbolic way the soul of the Ashanti people. I remember when I was Colonial Secretary, I think it was in 1932 or 1933, giving back to Ashanti their Confederation. The chiefs in Ashanti had never met since the deposition of Prempeh, I believe at the end of the nineteenth century. At any rate it
470
was a very long time before. And yet, when the great assembly took place and all those chiefs and sub-chiefs in Ashanti, led by the Asantehene, entered their great open place of meeting, every single chief and sub-chief knew his place. They are very proud of that and there is great loyalty.
I remember the first time I met the Asantehene in the war he said to me, "You will always be remembered in this country because you gave us back our Confederation." I said to him, "Has that made the Ashanti a united people?", and he said, "To-clay, not yet; tomorrow, quite." I think it is tremendously important that that great loyalty of the Ashanti people to their own traditions, to their own history and to their own chiefs, should merge itself, as in this great Empire so many lesser loyalties have merged, in the greatest loyalty of all: in a common loyalty to this new community of Ghana. I am very glad that the Secretary of State has had the opportunity in the last few days of consulting on the spot with the Ministry in the Gold Coast and with the leaders in Ashanti. He will have been able to judge better than any of us what is practicable.
I wonder myself whether it might not be possible, whether it might not perhaps be the best solution, that a Second Chamber should be introduced, although I know it is not always easy to man completely in these new territories a single Chamber. I know, too, from the days when I was in the Government, that the Report of Mr. Justice Coussey's commission was against a Second Chamber. I asked Mr. Justice Coussey, one of the wisest Africans I have ever known, why he was against a Second Chamber, and he said this: "It is because I think the chiefs have got to play an essential part, and if they are to play that part it is much more important that they should play that part in the House of Commons, as it were—in the Chamber where policy and action are originated." It may therefore well be that something in the nature of a Second Chamber would be the solution. But, whatever it is, forms do not matter half as much as the spirit; and if the new Government of the Gold Coast goes to all its people with sincerity and courage, and showing clearly that they are not the Government of a section or a

471
Party, but at the start they seek to represent the whole of this new State, then they will have the things that eternally belong unto their peace.
5.41 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we on this side have fought hard on Clause 3 and we do not retract anything we have said on the Amendments. But, of course, we are fully in sympathy with the broad object of the Bill—namely,
"to make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by the Gold Coast of fully responsible status within the British Commonwealth of Nations."
We wish Ghana well, and we wish also that her future may be a happy and prosperous one. Of course, she has many problems to solve, but we trust that both the Government and the Opposition will deal with these problems in the spirit of good fellowship and of good will, remembering that upon their own shoulders now, whether they are in Government or in Opposition, will rest the future of their country. We speed this Bill on its way, and we trust that this day, March 6, the appointed day, may indeed be a red-letter one, always, for Ghana.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE (FEES) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL [H.L.]
5.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, on the Motion that this House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill may I make a suggestion to the noble Earl the Deputy Leader of the House—I can assure him that I do so more in sorrow than in anger? This is the third occasion upon which we shall detain your Lordships late to discuss the Committee stage of this Bill. I make no complaint whatsoever about the reason for this. The Business that has detained
472
your Lordships upon other occasions has been of vital importance to some people, just as this Bill is vitally important to others. I would ask the noble Earl whether he will discuss with the noble Marquess who leads the House and my noble friend who leads Her Majesty's Opposition the prospect of engaging your Lordships longer than two days a week in attempting to get through Government Business. The people who suffer are the Opposition. I know there are schools of thought which would rather have your Lordships' House as a rubber stamp, although I would not make that accusation against the noble Earl, the Deputy Leader of the House. But if the Opposition are to play their part in a democratic assembly, and if your Lordships' House is to fulfil its function as a Revising Chamber, it must be given adequate time, within reasonable hours, to do so.
I want to ask whether the noble Earl will consult with those I have mentioned. Your Lordships will see that there are heavy days before your Lordships' House. You have only to look at the forthcoming Business on the Order Paper to see the highly controversial measures that will have to go through a Committee stage in your Lordships' House, to realise that it will be impossible, within the reasonable limit of your Lordships' time, to get through this Business by sitting for two days on Government Business, on one day from half past two to seven or seven-thirty, and upon the other from three o'clock to seven or seven-thirty. My suggestion is that we consider the advisability of meeting upon another day during the next few weeks, thus preventing the Opposition from having to curtail their activities. I am afraid I shall have to ask your Lordships to sit rather late this evening. If the noble Earl, Lord Home, will consider my suggestion, I am sure that we on this side of the House shall be most grateful to him.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a suggestion and has asked only that I should consider it, which I certainly will do. As we look at the programme to come, it is true that we have some complex legislation in front of us; and we shall certainly bear that in mind. He said that the Opposition are the first to suffer. That is true. I will certainly undertake to consider his suggestion, if he will realise that sometimes Governments suffer, too.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I said that the Opposition suffered only because of our sparsity of numbers, and because such a heavy burden falls upon so small a number. I am grateful to the noble Earl, I knew he would meet my inquiry in the spirit in which it was made.
On Question. Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clause 3:
Payments by Agency to makers of British films
3.—(1) The Board of Trade shall by regulations (made by statutory instrument) provide for the making by the Agency to, or for the benefit of, makers of British films of such payments as may be determined by or under the regulations.
(2) Regulations under this section may—

(a) define the classes of British films in respect of which payment may be made;

(b) specify the rate of the payments or the method by which they are to be calculated and provide for different rates of payment or different methods of calculation in relation to different classes of films;

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (b):
" provided that any regulations under this paragraph shall provide that the maximum rate of payment so specified in relation to any class of film shall not be made to or for the benefit of makers of films who, by virtue of arrangements made with the approval of the Treasury under the Exchange Control Act, 1947, or otherwise, have the opportunity of utilising foreign currency or employing foreign actors and actresses to a greater extent than the makers of other films in the same class in respect of which payments may be made under this section and foreign currency' has the meaning assigned to that expression by the said Act of 1947; "
The noble Lord said: We now come to what I consider to be the most important Amendment in the Marshalled List, but may I tell the Committee straight away that I do not intend to press it to a Division. I put it down to obtain from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is in charge of the Bill, some expression of Government opinion upon the great problem that is facing the film industry, especially upon the production side.
This clause deals with those who shall receive this levy. In the previous clause we decided how it should be collected. The object of this levy, as its name is
474
supposed to imply, is to give to the producer of British films a suns amounting, us the first year to £3 ¾ million and, later, to anything between £2 million and £5 million in any one year. The reason for this levy is that the British producer cannot exist and cannot be kept in existence by his home market. That has been realised by successive Governments since the War. The reason was clearly stated during the Second Reading debate by my noble friend Lord Archibald. The British home market is 15 per cent. of the world market but American-produced films have, in America, a home market representing 65 per cent. of the world market. The remaining 20 per cent. is spread over other countries. The British producer, therefore, cannot hope to compete in the world market with the profit which he gets from his home market. It was realised by successive Governments that the production side of the British film industry was of great importance, not only because of the entertainment value at home; not only for the reason that it employed a fair number of people, and not only because it could be a valuable export, but because it could show, throughout the world, the British way of life. That was the reason for the action of successive Governments in establishing a quota for exhibition on home screens. It was the reason for the foundation of the Film Finance Corporation and the Eady levy.
I think it is as well, therefore, to examine briefly how the British producer is going to fare under this Bill in the conditions that exist to-day. The Government of the day decided upon a definition of a "British film" for the purpose of the 30 per cent. exhibition quota on cinema screens; and when the Eady levy came into existence the same definition was used for that levy—a vastly different purpose. A clause in this Bill continues for a further ten years the definition of a British film as in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948; and it may seem rather strange when I tell your Lordships that it is possible for a film designated and registered as a British film to have not one individual working in the United Kingdom employed in its production.
The object of the Amendment is to draw attention to the very grave and unfair difficulties facing what I might call the all-British producer. Through the

475
passage of time there has been built up in this country a system of Anglo-American producers. That has happened because of the arrangement made in 1950, under what is known as the Johnson Agreement, whereby American films can come into this country without paying any duty. I ask your Lordships to mark this fact: they are on no quota whatsoever, and they show to the extent of 70 per cent. on the screens of this country—I make no complaint whatsoever about that.
Under the Memorandum of Agreement of 1950 between the Government of the United Kingdom and the motion picture industry of America, the American industry is allowed to take out of this country 17 million dollars a year. The balance of its earnings from the exhibition of films in this country has to be retained here for use in this country for diverse purposes. It is known to-day as "unremittable sterling." It can, however, turn into dollars£17 million worth of dollars to go to the United States of America. The unremittable sterling is used for the production of films in this country. The dollars which are remitted from this country to America are used, quite frankly, to the disadvantage of the British producer—for this reason: an American film made in this country can rank, first of all, as a British film for levy; then it can go to the United States of America, and none of the earnings in America from that film have to come back to this country. That is the position that has arisen. There the British producer is at a great disadvantage.
As I have tried to explain to your Lordships, the one hope for the survival of the British film producer is to export. He must get into the markets of the world. He cannot expect any great increase in his home market. He starts off with the great disadvantage that, if he wishes to engage international American stars for his picture, he has to go to the Bank of England for dollars, whereas if an Anglo-American company in this country make a British picture, the dollars for that purpose can be found from the remittances of the earnings in America.
Perhaps the best way I can explain this to your Lordships is to give an example. To be registered as a British film for quota purposes, a film must be technically produced by a British company but can
476
be wholly financed by American money. On Second Reading, I brought up the case of what I said was an American film, when I offered a modest protest about a certain poster; and I was then under the impression that the film which the poster advertised, Zarak, was an American film. I learned, to my astonishment, that it was a British film, produced with American money by, technically, a British company in this country. That film has already been shown in the United States, and all the dollars earned by its showing there remain in the United States. I am informed that if, when that film is shown in this country, its box-office receipts reach the optimistic estimates of its makers, it will take out of the levy anything up to £100,000. I do not know whether any of your Lordships has seen the film. I have not, but I have seen excerpts from it on television, and by no stretch of imagination would I say that it depicted the British way of life. The chief stars of that film were paid in dollars.
Another film which is going to be made by a technically British concern will be filmed in Ceylon. I doubt whether any part of it will be made in this country. The chief star will be an American and, I am informed, will receive a quarter of a million dollars for payment. And that film will be shown in this country as a British film. It will rank for levy, and immediately it gets out of this country it will sail through the world as an American film. There is a clause in the 1950 agreement that, technically, a "British" film must employ either 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. British labour; but two stars of foreign birth are allowed and their payments can be taken out of that. That may enable these companies—in fact, it does enable them—to employ American stars. They need not go through the ordinary channels of the Bank of England for their dollars. While the agreement states that the salaries of all artistes, as well as the payment for labour, is to be either 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the film cost, it does not say that they must be paid in sterling. And these American stars require payment in dollars.
I do not quarrel with any of this, but what I do quarrel with—and, I submit, on good grounds—is the fact that the British

477
producer cannot do the same thing. If the British producer produces a film and wants au international star, an American star, and that international star says, "I require payment in dollars ", the producer has to go to the Bank of England. And the Bank of England do not like giving dollars. Yet the other company, technically British, all their production costs guaranteed by an American circuit, have a resource in unremitted dollar earnings—dollar earrings that they do not have to remit back to this country—to pay to these stars. Successive Governments have said that the British film production industry must stand on its own feet, and if that is anything other than a pious expression, surely this industry should be enabled to stand on level terms with its competitors. There is no doubt that the American film is the chief competitor of the film made by the British producer.
May I make it perfectly clear, beyond any argument whatsoever, that I am not averse to the making of American films in this country? It brings valuable currency to this country; it employs Britishers in this country. I do not object for one instant to the showing of an American film in this country—indeed, we should never have any cinemas if there were not American films. I should like to see London the centre of the film-producing of the world. But while the object of this levy, and the avowed object of successive British Governments, is to encourage the British British producer, it may well be, if we go on as we are going on, that in the last analysis the only producers of films left in this country will be the producers of the British films that are financed by America. Why is that allowed?
I hope I am making myself clear. I do not want any of the advantages that the American-financed British company enjoy at the present time taken away. But what I do want to ensure, if possible, is that the British producer who is not financed by American money, who has not built up reserves in America of dollars to pay these stars, shall not be at a disadvantage. I trust that I have made that clear. You may say: "Why cannot the British producer hire American stars". In the first instance, if they insist—and they do insist—on being paid in dollars, the British producer has to go to the Bank of England and if the Bank
478
of England say: "No"—as they invariably do—
LORD JESSEL: Surely not.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am told that that is so.
LORD JESSEL: What about the case of the Palladium?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am glad that the noble Lord has raised that point. I am going to deal with it in a minute. The only way in which the British producer can get the necessary dollars in America to pay an American star who wants payment in dollars is to sell his distribution rights to an American circuit, so that the American circuit will be enabled to make—if they can—profits out of exhibition in America. But a hard bargain is always driven in such cases, because the American circuit know that the British producer is in a quandary. He must have the star, and the bargain is usually such a hard one, from his point of view, that it is not worth entering into.
A question in this connection is asked by one trade paper, a copy of which came into my possession this afternoon. It says:
" Treasury policy allows transfer of payments of royalties on all literary, artistic, dramatic and musical material."
It does not include films. The article continues:
"Under this ruling Val Parnell can bring in Danny Kaye as a top-liner at the Palladium paying him in pounds which can be converted into dollars. TV is allowed to spend what it likes in dollars—though doubtless places a self-regulatory quota on its exuberance. (Latest published figures show that between July, 1955, and March, 1956, they did spend three million dollars.)"
That was the amount spent on the import of American material. Now what the paper asks is: why should precious currency go out like this? It mentions a name, the name of Mr. John Davis, and asks why Mr. John Davis should
"not be allowed to employ Danny Kaye in a film—a project which could reasonably he expected to earn far more dollars than would be expended upon it?"
I hope the noble Lord will give us the Government's answer to this question.
One last word, because I have explained the point as well as I am able. When I was in Hollywood, I discussed with film producers why British films did not get on so well in America. One

479
day I said to a big producer of American films, "What do you think of the British actor?" He said, "The British actor, as a character actor, is the finest in the world; but the British cinema actor cannot make love; and that is "Box Office' in the United States and the rest of America." I am not saying whether I believe that this is true or not, but the British film industry has found that international stars are necessary to break into the American market, as they must, if they are to survive the future. I would repeat, in case your Lordships have not quite understood, that I do not want to do anything that will prevent American films from coming into this country, or American money from coming into this country. All I ask is that the British maker of films shall have precisely the same advantages as the British-American maker of films. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, at end insert ("provided that any regulations under this paragraph shall provide that the maximum rate of payment so specified in relation to any class of film shall not be made to or for the benefit of makers of films who, by virtue of arrangements made with the approval of the Treasury under the Exchange Control Act, 1947, or otherwise, have the opportunity of utilising foreign currency or employing foreign actors and actresses to a greater extent than the makers of other films in the same class in respect of which payments may be made under this section and foreign currency' has the meaning assigned to that expression by the said Act of 1947;").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.):
6.12 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I do not think that I would go quite so far as my noble friend and say that this is the most important Amendment we have to consider, but I certainly would agree that it is probably the most complex that we have before us this evening. It deals with a matter on which it would be difficult to find unanimity. I know that there is not unanimity on this matter even within the ranks of the British film producers. I am going to say a few words about the Amendment, because I feel that if I do not, my silence is likely to be misinterpreted. The situation is more complicated than that described by my noble friend, and that was complicated enough. When I come to look at the terms of the Amendment, I find myself in considerable difficulty. If my noble friend will permit me to say so, he appears to me to have
480
created a new offence in law—I am no lawyer and the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, will correct me if I am wrong—the offence of having a better opportunity than someone else. At some time or another we all have an opportunity of committing a crime. Providing we do not avail ourselves of it, no punishment can fall upon us. But, speaking strictly within the terms of this Amendment, it seems to me that the producer who is deemed to have better opportunities for certain things than others is to be penalised, whether he uses the opportunity or not.
Let us look to see who it is who might be deemed to have this greater opportunity of employing American talent in films. Looking at the structure of the industry, we naturally look first at the two giants. I am sorry if I have to name companies; I do not like doing that, but I do not think that the situation can be made clear if I do not. I particularly do not like doing it because it may savour of advertising. I am told that my noble friend's reference to a certain film was worth something like £100.000 in advertising value. I do not want to hand out gratuitous prizes of that kind, and I will take the names of companies rather than the names of films. Warner Brothers of America are well known to have a laree interest in the Associated British Picture Corporation and the managing director is an American. On the surface one would say that there is an American association which ought to give Associated British an ample opportunity, greater than that of the small people, perhaps, of getting American talent. When we come to the other giant, the Rank Organisation, we find that 20th Century Fox of America have a large interest in the Gaumont Company, and the Rank Organisation are well known to have some affiliation with Universal Pictures of America. It would seem, therefore, that they would be in an advantageous position to get American talent. But, by that strange contrariness which sometimes seems to operate in the film industry, they do not use so much American talent, and in fact seem to find it difficult to get American talent.
On the other hand, there are film producing companies, which do not come within my noble friend's definition of technical British companies, but which

481
are actual British companies, set up by British people and using British finance, which are using a higher percentage of American talent—and they have no particular or special opportunities. There is a company called Romulus—and I believe that there is also one called Remus, but I am not sure—who have made a number of outstanding British films. They are a British company, with British people and British money; yet they use a lot of American talent. Why? Because they use the process that my noble friend has described. They get a subject which they think is worth a film and which will be of much more value if it has an American star. So they approach an American distributor and make a deal for the distribution of the film in America. The American distributor advances the dollars to pay for the American star, or star and director, whichever it may be. It is true that the British producing company have to surrender a share of the profits arising from American distribution, but it is a matter of bargaining, and obviously they will not surrender a bigger share than they think is worth while to give up in order to get American talent in the film and increase its profitability throughout the world. In a deal of that kind, it would not mean that none of the earnings of the film in America come back to this country. A share of [he American earnings will be retained by the American distributor who has taken the risk of putting up money in advance, but the remainder of the profits will come back to this country.
Let me give a hypothetical illustration which I think will show something of the complexity of this matter. Let us assume that a British company who set out to make a British film are in the unique, almost unheard of, position of having enough money of their own to finance the making of the film, so that they do not make a distribution contract before production, as is usually the case. They finish file, film and then it is their job to show it to British and American distributors to see who will offer the best deal. If the best deal conies from a British company, then the film is British in every particular. But if the best deal comes from an American company, is the film less British because it is now going to
482
be distributed by an American company? If that American company says to the producer: "We are quite willing, now that we have taken the film, to advance you 75 per cent. of its negative cost against the receipts from distribution, and it will make it easier for you to make your next film," then does that American association make the film less British, and subject to discrimination in any respect, so far as British law is concerned?
Take another example. There is a British production company which has been in continuous production in this country for over twenty years and has made some of the best of British films. It has at one time or another had its own distribution, been distributed through an American company, been distributed through a British company and has to-day gone hack to distributing through the American company. But the nature of its production has been consistent. It is entirely British in its set-up and in its attributes, and it has recently been described as being "as British as a bowler hat". Under the terms of this Amendment, as its products are being distributed by an American company, it comes into the category, presumably, of having greater opportunities than some other British producers to get American talent. Its films are no less British than they have ever been, and I think it would be absurd to try and make out differently.
I give one final example. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth referred to the company which made the film whose poster he did not like, and from the excerpts he has seen of the film he does not think it shows the British way of life. I think we have all seen films made by purely British companies whose representation of the British way of life left a great deal to be desired. But the same company—it is no secret that this is operated by two Americans who have been resident in this country for some six years and are consistent makers of films—made "Cockleshell Heroes", which was as British a film and as good a representation of the British way of life, of British character and heroism, as anything that could be made by a purely British producer. Their films are not made entirely with American money—here I would correct my noble friend—and the earnings from their films in America are not wholly left in that country. So that, even in their case, the

483
verdict, so far as his charge is concerned, at least, would have to be "Not proven".
My final point is this. Under the Anglo-American Film Agreement we restrict the American companies to the remittance of 17 million dollars. They are not only permitted, but were originally encouraged, to make films here with their unremittable sterling. I think it would be rather unworthy if we were to say: "You cannot remit your money. You may make films with it. We shall be glad to have these films count as British for quota purposes, but they will be regarded as 'second-class citizens' for certain other purposes." I do not think that that is a fair and proper method. All I am arguing is that if we start to discriminate I just do not know where we can draw the line, because the different categories, classes, terms of appearance, and so on, are so infinite in their variety.
I think there is only one test. I can think of only one category of film which I should like to see excluded. In the past occassionally we have had the situation where an established American producer, working in Hollywood, having, in effect, got the whole set-up for a film—script, cast, director and so on—decides that that film could be better made in England, and he, so to speak, puts the package under his arm and brings it over here and a technically British company is supposed to make that film. That is really an American film being made on location here. But it may be possible for it just to "get in under the wire" and qualify as a quota film. It should not in all cases qualify as a quota film.
I have recently had my attention drawn to the decision of the Board of Trade a few years ago, which was upheld by the courts, in the case of a film called "Monsoon", where it was held that, because the arrangements for the making of the film had been carried out other than in this country and other than by a British company, the technical making of the film by a technically British company did not bring it within the category. It may be that the exceptional case I speak of, where it is really an American film being made on location, could be covered by the operation of the decision embodied in the "Monsoon" case. If there is any doubt about that, then if a formula could be found, either legislative or administrative, to exclude such a film both from
484
quota and from Eady participation, I should say that that is about the one case where discrimination would be justified. But, taking it by and large, my view is that the complexities of the situation are so great that discrimination would create more difficulties than it would do good.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to raise one point that was made by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I have listened with great interest to his argument, but there was one matter that he raised with which I am afraid I cannot agree, if I understood him aright; that is, when he said that he thought that British films should, for the best part, portray the British way of life.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I did not intend to say that. I said that one of the prime reasons why successive Governments always wanted to keep alive the British film producing industry was because it did portray the British way of life.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry if I misunderstood my noble friend, and I am grateful to him for his explanation, because this is a kind of parochialism that I am afraid I cannot agree with. We had that argument on the Television Bill, when I think it was suggested that all television programmes should be thoroughly British. Without wishing to go over the ground again, I should like to say that the aim of British film producers should be to make good films, whether they are about the British way of life, the French way of life or the Eskimo way of life. If they can keep that end in view, then I think they will have much more success than they have had in the past. One of the best British films that the British film industry has ever made was "The Third Man". That certainly did not portray the British way of life, but, nevertheless, it was a first-class film.
LORD MANCROFT: I think the Committee will have gathered by now that this is a difficult and complicated subject. We have had three interesting speeches from noble Lords opposite, none of whom wholly agrees with the other. That only typifies how many and how divergent are the views held on this subject. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has indicated that he does not intend to press this Amendment, because

485
I think it would hardly be suitable for inclusion in a Bill like this. He has made it quite clear that he merely wished to take this opportunity of ventilating a difficult subject, upon which he clearly feels strongly and upon which others feel equally strongly in divergent ways.
I may say that I do not disagree with many of the remarks of the noble Lord. This is not a problem of black and white and one cannot always draw a clear line, I think probably that the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, has the right solution when he says that if you depart from this principle and attempt to discriminate it is difficult to know where to draw the line. That is the real problem. We naturally want to preserve many of the virtues emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was right when he mentioned "The Third Man" which is probably the best film that many of us have seen since the war, as being the perfect example of the current scheme working well.
I do not deny for one moment that many of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised are, on the face of them, a little difficult to justify. In a flexible scheme like this, there must inevitably be some lack of consistency and sonic lack of logic. I am going to suggest to the House that, with all its faults, the present scheme is probably the best, without suggesting for one moment that what the noble Lord has said is wholly wrong. If we were to take his view, we should be producing a whole new principle in the Government's policy towards film production in this country. The 1938 and 1948 Cinematograph Films Acts expressly make provision for some foreign participation in British quota films. Broadly speaking, 75 to 80 per cent. of the labour costs (excluding one or two, as the case may be, foreign directors or actors) must be in respect of British labour, and the studio used, if any, must be within Her Majesty's Dominions. The terms of the Anglo-American Film Agreement, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred, provide specified uses, including film production, for the earnings from American films which could not, under the terms of the agreement, be remitted to the United States. I think the noble Lord's tongue betrayed him at one moment. It was
486
17 million dollars which could be remitted and not £17 million worth of dollars.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I meant 17 million dollars can be converted, which means about £6 million.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord made a slip of the tongue. I quite agree with the noble Lord. We have always realised that the British film industry must look to the export markets for additional earnings. It is for that reason that I welcomed wholeheartedly in my Second Reading remarks the decision of the Rank Organisation to set up their own distributing organisation in the United States. The noble Lord also produced the argument about a small market compared with that of the Americans. The argument that our market is a smaller one than that of the United States could, I suppose, be applied to the whole range of British industry. Nevertheless, we have been pretty successful in many of those markets, and have more incentive than ever.
The present voluntary British Film Production Fund, the Eady levy, which has been operated for five years by the industry itself, admits as participants films which qualify as British registered quota films. It is this flexibility which has allowed such a rich diversity of material to be used in the making of films in the United Kingdom—those films to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has referred, and which my noble friend Lord Westwood remarked en Second Reading had been made in collaboration with American companies, and are so much welcomed by exhibitors in fulfilling their quotas. If the British filmgoer were to be deprived of those, I think it would prove to be a real hardship. Why, then, should we think it necessary or desirable to impose a very difficult discrimination of the sort which the noble Lord has been advocating in his remarks? Film making is a creative occupation and, I suggest, must be allowed greater freedom than other trades.
As the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, have suggested, these hard and fast rules would, I think, end in chaos and disaster. We have hitherto sought to provide minimum requirements about the British content of a British film. Those requirements may not be wholly justifiable in logic, but

487
they have worked well. They have allowed a high level of productive activity and employment for our actors, technicians and directors, and have provided films of remarkably high entertainment level for the picturegoer. Again, I say it is not a hard and fast rule, but if we depart from this, and if we start to draw the line as we know the noble Lord wants, we might get to more logical waters, but probably more difficult ones.
The noble Lord will find himself in trouble with the British film actors, having informed your Lordships that, in the opinion of some, they cannot make love. I am quite certain that the noble Lord will find angry deputations from the Film Actors' Federation calling on him in the next forty-eight hours. He may or may not be right. But I think he will agree that the present system has not worked too badly and, unless he can produce an alternative system a great deal more promising than the one he has put before us, we would do best to go on with the existing one.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Before my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth replies, I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whether he will consider the point I made, about the rather exceptional case of the film which is made here, and which may be technically British, but which it is apparent to everyone is really an American film made here on location. I am not asking that the noble Earl should reply now, but I ask him to consider whether, if no formula can be found to meet the difficulty, it cannot be done by a word from the Board of Trade to the Motion Picture Producers' Association of America, pointing out to them the impropriety of a film of that kind making application for a benefit under the production levy. I think that might be an effective method of dealing with the trouble. As I said, it is a complicated matter, and I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend was aiming at in his Amendment. If I appeared to controvert it, it was because I saw the difficulties and not because I was deficient in sympathy.
LORD MANCROFT: I had made a note of what the noble Lord said. I was not wholly concerned with the deficiencies of it, but to see if we could do something about it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not in difficulties: difficulties are here to be overcome. I made it abundantly clear that I had to find some words to put on the Order Paper in order to raise this matter at all. I could have moved to leave out the whole clause. I can find quite an easy definition, and it is this: that some regard should be paid to the film, the foreign earnings of which have to come back to this country. This is the only industry in this country that has to bring its foreign earnings back here. Surely, in the availability of dollars, the British producer should not be placed at a disadvantage with any other producer. All I have been asking, all the way through my argument, is that the noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, or the Government, or the Board of Trade, or whoever it is, should give this matter some consideration. This is operating, and it has a "snowball" effect. After all, the noble Lord is not so hidebound to believe that what was a good thing in 1950, is necessarily equally good in 1957 or 1958. The world goes on.
I want the noble Lord to take into consideration this fact: the British film producer is doing a real job for this country; yet the more he does it—the more he exports—the greater is his disadvantage, because more foreign earnings have to come back to this country, whereas his competitor does not have to return the earnings to this country. Why should the British film producer be practically the only individual who cannot have dollar availability? My noble friend put his finger on the problem in the first sentence he used, when he said, "What I want is equality of opportunity for everyone." I am not going to continue the matter now, because the Amendment has served the purpose I intended, and with your Lordships' permission I will withdraw it and leave the matter for the Government and the film industry to consider.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) Regulations under this section shall not be made save after consultation with such bodies as appear to the Board of Trade to be representative of makers and exhibitors of British films."
The noble Lord said: I shall not say more than two words upon this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft,

489
and I have argued this particular point about four times, and I do not intend to bore your Lordships with another dissertation upon it. I will await the Amendment which he has promised to put down at another stage of the Bill to see what it looks like before I return to this particular subject. if noble Lords will prefer, I will not move the Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: I should prefer the noble Lord to move it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will move it and then see what the noble Lord has to say, in view of my conciliatory attitude over this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: I asked the noble Lord to move the Amendment only to give me an opportunity of replying and still being in order. The Amendment which he refers to is already in draft I shall be happy to show him a copy of the draft the moment the House rises. He asked that he should be shown it to see what it looks like. I assure him he will see that it looks very pretty.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Nothing that the noble Lord ever does or has any connection with is other than pretty. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
6.42 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
Power of Agency and their officers to obtain information
".—(1) The Agency shall have power, for the purpose of enabling it to perform its functions under this part of this Act, by notice in writing served on a maker of British films, to require him—

(a) to furnish to such person as may be specified in the notice such return or other information relevant to his entitlement to receive levy payments as may be specified;

(b) to keep such records relevant to his entitlement to receive levy payments as may be so specified;

and any member, officer, servant or agent of the Agency may at all reasonable hours enter any premises occupied for the purposes of
490
his business by a maker of British alms and may require him or any person employed by him in connection with the business to produce for examination by such member, officer, servant or agent of the Agency such books or other documents relating to the business of the maker of British films and relevant to his entitlement to receive levy payments as may be reasonably specified.
(2) If any person on or to whom a notice or requisition is duly served or made under the foregoing subsection fails to comply with the notice or requisition, he shall, sinless he proves that he had reasonable excuse for the failure, be guilty of an offence under this subsection and he liable, on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
(3) If any person in purported compliance with the requirements of a notice under subsection (1) of this section to furnish returns or other information makes a statement, or furnishes a document, which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement, or furnishes a document, which is false in a material particular he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such a fine.
(4) Any offence under this section may be tried by a court having jurisdiction either in the country or place in which the offence was actually committed or in any county or place in which the alleged offender resides or carries on business."
The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will be good enough to turn to Clause 4, you will see that the Customs and Excise, who have the task of collecting this levy, are given some very wide powers to see that the accounting of the people who have to pay the levy is in proper order and that whit they gain from their collection is the right amount. The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, speaking, if he will permit me to say so, so ably for the first time in a debate of this kind, said it was Government policy—at least, he could not have said it was not Government policy—that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." This Amendment seeks to insert a clause, in precisely similar terms to Clause 4, to give the Agency the same powers and the same right of investigation and search in respect of the claims made upon them for payments out of the Fund, as are given to the Customs and Excise to see that their job is done correctly. I cannot for the life of me see anything wrong with a principle like that. There may be one thing wrong with my Amendment. Perhaps it would have been strictly correct to include with

491
producers, renters and distributors. If the noble Lord likes to alter it at the next stage, I shall not mind. That is the simple purpose of this Amendment. Why should the Customs and Excise have all these powers to see that they collect the right amount, and the Agency have no powers at all to see that they distribute to the correct beneficiaries the money that is collected? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord is quite right in saying that his Amendment is simple, but it really is not at all a nice one. Let us look for a minute, if you Lordships will be good enough, at what the noble Lord is seeking to do. I believe he is really putting down this Amendment to "pull the Government's leg". I do not believe that he honestly has it deeply at heart. What this Amendment does is this. It gives the Agency the power to require makers of British films to furnish returns and information and to keep such records as are necessary to show their entitlement to receive payments out of the proceeds of the levy; and it also gives power to the Agency to enter premises and require the production of books for the same purpose. Failure to comply with such requirements and the provision of false information are made criminal offences.
I cannot think it is necessary or desirable to give such wide and important powers to the Agency, and I do not really believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on reflection, would wish to add such powers to the Statute Book and give them to a statutory body of this kind. There is one important reason why it is quite unnecessary. The regulations, which we have frequently discussed, to be made under Clause 3 of the Bill, will provide that no maker of a British film shall be entitled to a payment out of the proceeds of the levy unless he has supported his claim with such evidence as the Agency may require. That is the situation. The film producer cannot come to the Agency and say, "I want money for my new film." The Agency will turn round and say, "I want to see your books, your budget and your prospects", and the film producer is not
492
in a position to turn round and say, "Oh no, you cannot", because he will not get the money unless he provides the information which the Agency wants. If he does not provide all the information which is required, he will not get what he wants. Most of the information he desires is set out in the noble Lord's Amendment which seeks to impose penalties if the information is not provided.
LORD STRABOLGI: Can that information be checked?
LORD MANCROFT: If the Agency is not satisfied with the information, it will not give the money. It can check it up hill and down dale. The Agency can take any steps it likes before producing the money to satisfy itself that it is a good case.
LORD STRABOLGI: Has the Agency the right to check the books under Clause 3 (2) (c)?
LORD MANCROFT: The Agency has the right to refuse the money unless it is satisfied that a proper case is made out for the money. If it thinks that it is necessary to check certain books or look at certain accounts before allowing the money, then certainly it can do it. But no criminal offence is involved. That is the difference.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred to "sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander" over the question of entertainments duty and the Customs and Excise. That is not an accurate parallel. The noble Lord has talked about the powers which are accorded, under Clause 4, to which the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, has already referred, to the Customs and Excise in the collection of the levy. These powers, however, march with the powers for the collection of entertainments duty. They do not amount to the widening of the number of people enjoying powers of this sort. Apparently we shall get between us exactly the same result. Information which the noble Lord wants to be compulsorily produced will be produced voluntarily, because the money will not be forthcoming unless those who are to provide it are satisfied of all the things which he has put in his Amendment. I am sure that on reflection the noble Lord would much rather it were done

493
that way than by the creation of a new power. No money would be forthcoming unless the information required by the Agency were also forthcoming.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I want to take only a moment on this matter. From what I know of British producers, there is no reluctance on their part to provide all the information that may be required of them. This is a fairly simple matter. The producer now has to produce to the Board of Trade full and complete information about the costs of production of his film, broken down over a number of categories, and I think I am right in saying that the statutory declaration he makes before he gels his film registered for quota must provide that information in a complete form. After the film is made and is shown in the cinemas, the distributor of the film is really responsible for building up the data with regard to film hire on which the Agency, presumably, will calculate the payments to be made to the film. The Amendment, I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth said, does not include the renter, but no doubt the Agency (and on this I should like the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft) would require not only the producer but the distributor of the film to provide evidence of whatever was needed. I take it that if they were not satisfied they would say they wanted it investigated by a chartered accountant and have his certificate as to its accuracy, and that would be the line of procedure. I am completely at one with my noble friend that the Agency should be in a position to get all the necessary information for its purposes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If have the noble Lord's categorical assurance that the Agency will not part with any money until it is perfectly satisfied with the validity of the claims made, and that it has powers under this Bill to make all proper searches, I shall be satisfied. I do not say that the producers of films who are going to be the beneficiaries under this Bill are any less honest than the exhibitors who have to pay the money, but it has come to light in the operation of this levy on a voluntary basis that there have been malpractices. I know of one that has been publicised in a printed document. It is the contract which some renters insist producers shall
494
sign whereby the levy goes is effect to the distributor and the producer is not the direct beneficiary. This Fund is for the benefit of British producers. Will the noble Lord tell me whether there are powers whereby, if the Agency have their suspicions that these things are done, they can call for the books and make an investigation, and unless they are given all the information they want they will withhold the levy? I am coming back now to one of the things I clearly stated to the noble Lord. Such are the tortuous ways of some of these things that this Agency would have been well advised to have had upon it a representative of the producers and a representative of the distributors, so that it should be advised—I think I used the expression at the time I was arguing this point—of all the "tricks of the trade."
Then there is the dual booking, where a programme is booked. Although under the 1948 Act the renter is supposed to apportion the rent as between, it may be, a first and a second feature film, it has been known that the British film is carried on the back of an American second feature film, but the renter has so put the story over that the British film, which has not contributed so much to the box office as the American film, is assumed to have earned more, so that it qualifies for the levy. These are some of the things which happen. If the noble Lord will give me his assurance that these things will be looked after and will not slip through, then I have no desire to put this Amendment on the Statute Book; but I want the noble Lord's assurance. Can he give it?
LORD MANCROFT: I am firmly under the impression that the Board of Trade consider the powers they propose give sufficient safeguard and avoid the creation of further offences. I cannot give that assurance without checking my information. The Board of Trade are, with all due respect, a cynical and tough body of men and women, and l do not believe they would say that unless they were satisfied. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment in consideration of the promise I give him that I will make certain I have my facts right before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I feel we are at one in our desire on this matter. I was not trying to pull the

495
Government's leg. I have tried many things but I have not tried to pull its leg. I will withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4:
Power of Commissioners of Customs and Excise and their officers to obtain information
4.—(1) The Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall have power, for the purpose of enabling them properly to perform their functions under this Part of this Act, by notice in writing served on an exhibitor, to require him—

(a) to furnish to such person as may be specified in the notice such returns or other information as may be so specified;

(b) to keep such records as may be so specified;

and any officer of theirs may at all reasonable hours enter any premises occupied for the purposes of his business by an exhibitor and may require him or any person employed by him in connection with his business to produce for examination by the officer such books or other documents relating to the exhibitor's business as the officer may specify.
6.55 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "information" to insert "relevant to his liability to levy". The noble Lord said: I hope the noble Lord will do something for me here, because subsection (1) of Clause 4 seems to me to be a 100 per cent. snoopers' charter. Remember that this clause gives or seeks to give, or should give, the Customs and Excise the right to collect the levy from the exhibitor. These are the powers it gives: the Customs and Excise may serve a notice in writing on an exhibitor to require him:

"(a) to furnish to such person as may be specified in the notice such returns or other information as may be so specified;

(b) to keep such records as may be so specified;

and any officer of theirs may at all reasonable hours enter any premises occupied for the purposes of his business by an exhibitor and may require him or any person employed by him in connection with his business to produce for examination by the officer such books and other documents relating to the exhibitor's business as the officer may specify"
and if he does not do it he can be fined £100. All these Amendments of mine, Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25, have as their object to see that the officer can do all these things only so long as he is seeking information relevant to the exhibitor's liability to pay levy.
According to the clause as it stands, however, the Customs and Excise may demand documents and accounts about his ice cream sales, his chocolate sales, his sweet sales, and, I should almost think, without much stretch of imagination, if the man's wife is a co-director, the marriage certificate. Surely the noble Lord does not want those powers. All he wants is for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to have powers as far as they are relevant to the collection of this levy, and for no other purpose. But this clause does not say so. It relates to anything. The powers are wide. I am at one with the noble Lord in wishing to give the Customs and Excise sufficient powers to collect the proper amount of the levy, but, as I have said, this is a snoopers' charter; the officer can do anything. It is no good for the noble Lord to shake his head. This officer can do anything.
I should like to consider all these Amendments, Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25. The first one is to insert "relevant to his liability to levy". That applies to line 6, line 8 and line 13. On page 4, in line 14, I seek to put in the word "reasonable". I think that is perfectly all right. It is at the end of the first subsection:
"…to produce for examination by the officer such books or other documents relating to the exhibitor's business as the officer may specify."
I should have thought that was a most reasonable thing, to ask. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, after ("information") insert ("relevant to his liability to levy").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD ARCHIBALD: As I have down an Amendment which is on the same point as that of my noble friend, for the convenience of the Committee may I say a word in support of his Amendment? That will enable me to leave mine unmoved when we come to it. I think the point at issue here is one which the Government should reasonably accept in some form or another. The really alarming words in the Bill as it stands are, to my mind, those at the end of Clause 4 (1) which have just been quoted by my noble friend: that the officer may demand the production of
"such books or other documents relating to 'the exhibitor's business as the officer may specify."
No doubt it is intended that the officer should specify only such documents and

497
books as are relevant to the payment of the levy, but the Bill does not say so. As the Bill is drawn, there is no doubt that the officer, if he were an awkward, difficult officer, wanting to make things as troublesome as possible, could, as my noble friend has said, ask for the books relative to chocolate, cigarette and ice-cream sales, those relative to the revenue from advertising on the screen, and to any ancillary business carried on by the exhibitor. I am sure that is not the intention. It would be a simple matter to put in a few words, such as those suggested by my noble friend, or as suggested in my own Amendment, to make it quite clear that it should be a restricted field of inquiry and not a general "fishing" inquiry that is to be carried out by the officer. The exact form of words should not be difficult to find. I hope that on this occasion we shall not simply be told that it is the intention, but that it will, in fact, be put in the Bill.
LORD JESSEL: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in his four Amendments, and also the Amendment of Lord Archibald. The noble Lord, Lord Westwood, who is, unfortunately, unable to be here to-day, and who, as your Lordships know, has had at least twelve years' practical experience as an exhibitor, has asked me to say that he has had experience of Customs and Excise officials who have entered cinemas in order to check records concerning entertainments duty and have demanded to see and to examine the staff wages book and the private ledgers of the company. I understand from Lord Westwood that these matters were subsequently brought to the notice of a superior officer and instructions were given to these inspectors that they should examine only such books and records as applied to the collection of entertainments duty, and that there has been no further trouble in this respect. Of course, the same considerations will apply in connection with the levy. I suggest that this clause is far too wide, and I trust that the Amendments will be accepted.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: It would be convenient to deal with Amendment No. 22 and the Amendments down to No. 26 together, as the two noble Lords opposite have already suggested, because they are. rather on the same point. In
498
reply, may I point out that the powers given by Clause 4 may be exercised only for the purpose of enabling the Commissioners of Customs and Excise properly to perform their functions under part I of the Bill I should like to refer your Lordships to the words which appear early in subsection (1):
"for the purpose of enabling them properly to perform their functions under this Part of this Act."
That is the safeguard; and it is, I think, the answer to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. These Amendments seek to restrict still further the powers given to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, but their effect might well be to make the exercise of the powers difficult, particularly in those cases in which their exercise is most necessary. The addition of any of these limitations might make it possible for a person determined to avoid payment of the levy to refuse to make returns, or to produce books, on the ground that such returns or hooks were not relevant to his liability to levy or were unreasonably required. Without the making of the return or the production of the books, it would be virtually impossible to disprove this contention. I believe that is a strong point, because if these Amendments were to be accepted it would make the task of the Customs and Excise officers difficult, if not almost impossible; and as I have pointed out. I believe that in the two lines hat I have read there are already ample safeguards to meet the point raised by noble Lords.
Lastly, I should like to refer to the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, that the Customs officials are already empowered in this way in regard to the collection of entertainments duty. This is not a new power. It is given to them under Section 2 of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916. Clearly, it would be somewhat impracticable for a Customs official to have power to inspect the same or similar records for one purpose and yet not be able to do so for the other purpose. In both cases, the information required is the same, and if these Amendments were to be accepted, one would certainly feel that a somewhat anomalous situation had arisen. I hope, therefore, in view of what I have said, and in view of the safeguards I have pointed out to him, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: Before the noble Lord leaves the point, may I say that I find it difficult to follow his reasoning. It may be all right, but the plain question I should like to ask is this. Would the records of a cinema in regard to the sale of ice-cream, chocolate, and things of that kind, come within the purview of the examination of Customs and Excise men? Would they be able to demand their production? That is the point we wish to clear up. I think it admits of a plain and straightforward answer.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I think the reply to that is: not on the face of it. Not being a lawyer, I would ask the noble Lord not to press me further at the moment on that particular point.
LORD BURDEN: That makes us most cautious in regard to the matter. Broadly speaking, the reply of the noble Lord means that he is doubtful and that the Customs and Excise man might, by virtue of what he thinks to be right, do what we do not think he ought to do.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I must confess to being deeply disappointed at the reply which we have just heard from the Government. I am bound to say that I thought the reply lacking in substance and not what we had a right to expect. It is perfectly true that in subsection (1) the Commissioners' power is limited to that "for the purpose of enabling them properly to perform their functions under this part of the Bill" and to require certain things. But the noble Lord will see that it goes on to say that any officer of theirs may enter premises and demand certain books. There is no interpretation of that limitation, and it is doubtful whether it could be argued that a limitation which is expressed with regard to the powers of the Commissioners can be taken administratively to apply to the definition of the powers of officers. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, of occasions when officers have demanded books which, clearly, were outside the purpose of their inspection. All that we are asking is that the books which they have power to examine should be books that are relevant to the purpose of their examination. No reason has been given to show that these Amendments would in any way hamper the officers in the performance of their duty. There has been not a single argument, but simply
500
a blank statement that these Amendments would hamper them. In what way would they hamper the officers? The exhibitor could not refuse to produce his books. He would be open to process of law if he did so.
LORD MANCROFT: I am advised that if the Amendments were inserted in the Bill, he would be in that position.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, he would not.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I am saying simply that the books and documents which the officer may demand must be relevant to the calculation of payment of the levy. It should not cover books or other documents relating to the exhibitor's business and not to the payment of levy. If the officer specified books which have nothing to do with the levy it would be wholly unreasonable but at present we have no guarantee that he will not do so.
LORD MANCROFT: Who is to decide?
LORD ARCHIBALD: I do not think it would be difficult to leave the decision with the Customs and Excise man.
LORD MANCROFT: If he cannot see the books, how can he decide?
LORD ARCHIBALD: If he asks to see the private ledger or the wages book, clearly that is not relevant to the levy.
LORD MANCROFT: But he should not ask.
LORD ARCHIBALD: But he can ask. Under the Bill it is open to argument whether he has the right to ask for books relevant to the sale of cigarettes, chocolates and ice cream, the private ledger and the wages book—books having nothing to do with the matter.
LORD MANCROFT: But there he is on quite the wrong track. Subsection (1) says:
"The Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall have power, for the purpose of enabling them properly to perform their functions under this Part of this Act …"
Clearly, the Commissioners have no right to ask for what was referred to as "marriage lines," for that would not be part of their duty. Nor could they ask for anything else which would not enable them to perform their duties. There

501
comes the problem of the borderline case —the book which the cinema man says is not really necessary for the performance of the Customs and Excise Officer's duty and which the officer says is necessary. Unless the officer can see the book, how can he tell whether it is or not? The Bill lays on him the stern duty to keep within the bounds of his proper function, but unless he can see the book he cannot judge it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The clause does not say that at all. It says—these are the words on which the noble Lord relies:
"The Commissioners of Customs and Excise shall have power, for the purpose of enabling them properly to perform their functions under this Part of this Act, by notice in writing served on an exhibitor, to require him—

(a) to furnish to such person as may be specified in the notice such returns or other information as may be so specified;

(b) to keep such records as may be so specified; "

and then it goes on—and mark the wording:
"and any officer of theirs may at all reasonable hours enter any premises occupied for the purposes of his business by an exhibitor and may require him or any person employed by him in connection with his business to produce for examination by the officer such books or other documents relating to the exhibitor's business as the officer may specify."
In my view any interpretation gives the Customs and Excise power to serve notice in writing requiring the exhibitor to furnish such returns or other information —and any officer can do all these other things. All I seek to put in the Bill is that any search of that kind shall be relevant to the purpose of the Bill and no other purpose, such as the exhibitor's liability to pay the rent.
LORD BURDEN: Perhaps the noble Lord can answer both our points.
LORD MANCROFT: We are at one in that clearly we do not want officers prying here and there. I do not think this clause gives them any such power. I believe the two lines which we have discussed reflect down to the point which the noble Lord has made. If not, they clearly should do so, and if the noble Lord is worried on that point, I am perfectly prepared, since we are it one in what we are trying to do, to get the lawyers to look at the noble Lord's point and to make certain that the first two lines of subsection (1) do
502
reflect on to the last line, and make certain that the Customs and Excise have not the power to look at "marriage lines." I believe that they have not and that this particular clause confines them; but if I am wrong we must put it right. I will not at this stage force it upon noble Lords. If we can draft it more clearly to meet the point that he has now made, we will certainly do so; but I hope that the noble Lord can see the logic of my argument, not the legal aspect of it. If there is any doubt in the course of investigations, then unless someone has power to look at all the books it is impossible to whether or not there are any grounds for doubt. That is why I quarrel with the Amendment. If, by redrafting, we can meet the noble Lord's point we will certainly do so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am glad that the noble Lord has conceded the point. I only want what he wants. I will therefore withdraw my Amendment now, and perhaps we can have discussions when he has had consultations with his legal advisers. If I am not satisfied with what the noble Lord then intends to do, I will put down an Amendment on the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I will accept the noble Lord's offer and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In view of the offer which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has made, with the Committee's permission I not move Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25, but perhaps when the noble Lord is looking at the point I have just raised he will take into consideration my Amendment No. 25, relating to the words,
"such books or other documents relating to the exhibitor's business as Me officer may specify."
I believe those words are as important as the others. With the Committee's permission, I will not move either this or the other Amendments I have mentioned.
7.20 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD had an Amendment on the Marshalled List to add to subsection (1):
"and which are relevant to the calculation of the amount of the levy due to be paid by the exhibitor or to the payment thereof."
The noble Lord said: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said, I do not move this Amendment, but reserve the right to return to the point at a later stage.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Accounts and audit]:
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved in subsection (3) (b) to leave out "and Auditors". The noble Lord said: I rise to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend. It is a drafting Amendment. The Bill, as at present drafted, describes one of the bodies from amongst whose members the auditors of the Agency's accounts may be appointed, as "the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors". This title is incorrect and should be:" The Society of Incorporated Accountants". This Amendment makes the necessary correction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, leave out ("and Auditors").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Interpretation of Part 1]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had an Amendment on the Marshalled List to add to the clause:
"(3) in this Part of the Act the expression ' Government films' means—

(a) films of which the earnings become payable either wholly or partially to a Government Department whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; and

(b) films originally produced by or for a Government Department notwithstanding that the right to receive the earnings of the same shall have become vested either wholly or partially in some other person or company; and

(c) any film which has been made by or on behalf of a Department of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of the Government of any other part of Her Majesty's Dominions."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is part of the interpretation of a previous Amendment. The noble Lord has given me his assurance that the points dealt with are covered, and that there is no intention that the films to which this Amendment relates will rank for levy. Therefore it is not worth while my moving the Amendment. With your Lordships'
504
permission, I propose to adopt the course of not moving the Amendment.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Expenses and receipts of Commissioners of Customs and Excise and Board of Trade
9. Any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in collecting the levy imposed by virtue of this Part of this Act and any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade under section six of this Act in making loans to the Agency shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, and any sum retained by the said Commissioners out of the proceeds of the said levy or received by the Board by way of repayment of, or payment of interest on, loans made under the said section six shall be paid into the Exchequer.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out "retained by the said Commissioners out of the proceeds of the said levy or". The noble Lord said: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is feeling in a more generous mood to-night than he did when I previously argued an Amendment similar to this. Clause 9 of the Bill deals with expenses and receipts of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise and the Board of Trade. Under Clause 9, the Board of Trade may receive money back in payment of loans that they may at any time make to this Agency. That is quite in order. They may have to make loans and it is in order that they should be paid back. What I object to once again is that:
"Any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in collecting the levy imposed by virtue of this Part of this Act…"
shall be retained by the said Commissioners out of the proceeds of the levy before the money is paid out. This really, I think, is iniquitous.
We learnt when we debated this point before, that £18,000 approximately is going to be the cost to the Customs and Excise of collecting this levy. Frankly, I think we have come to the state where industry now has to pay for tax collection and P.A.Y.E. It is a tremendous burden. There is no political point in this. Successive Governments have sought to get this levy changed from a voluntary to a statutory levy, for the purpose of underpinning—I could almost say "subsidising" but I will not, because I know what an aversion noble Lords opposite have to that hateful term; but, in fact,

505
it is nothing but a hidden subsidy—the production of British films. And the Departments concerned are going to collect some £18,000, or less than one half of one per cent., for their services. I should have thought that the Government could make a gesture in this connection and say nothing about the cost. I do not suppose that this collection will be done by the same people as those who collect entertainments tax. Why do not they charge for their services? I am not going to say much more about this now: I am simply going to ask Lord Mancroft whether he has had a change of heart about it, while satisfying myself by just formally moving this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 41, Leave out ("retained by the said Commissioners out of the proceeds of the said levy or").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)>
LORD MANCROFT: The time is getting late and I will not argue again on the same lines that the point was argued upon two or three days ago. The point, briefly, is that since the levy is intended to operate as a film industry measure, rather than as a subsidy—that is where the noble Lord and I pant company—it seems to us appropriate that any expenses incurred in the running of it should be met out of the levy rather than out of the general revenue. That is the long and short of it. The noble Lord makes the sum £18,000, but I make it about £15,000. It is a small sum. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment. I brought to the notice of the Board of Trade the remarks made by the noble Lord when we first debated this matter. All I can promise to-day is to bring them again to the Board's notice on this particular point. We have not had time to discuss it in any detail because we have been pressed on other matters relating to the Bill. I cannot accept the Amendment nor can I hold out any promise except that I will make certain that the matter is carefully discussed with my advisers before the next stage of the Bill is reached.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask how the accuracy of the figure can be disputed? This cause gives the Customs and Excise carte blanche—a
506
blank cheque. We have heard that it is their usual practice to charge less than a half of one per cent. The noble Lord says it is £15,000. I have not troubled to work it out; I have heard noble friends behind me murmuring certain figures. I suppose there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Customs and Excise from saying "£50,000". In what document is the amount going to be disclosed—the amount they have charged for collection? And by what process does Parliament dispute the fairness of it? Can the noble Lord tell me or does he want to give the Customs and Excise a blank cheque to charge this fund with any sum they think fit to charge? I can understand that the Board of Trade should charge interest on their loans, but how are we going to cheek the amount deducted by the Customs and Excise for the amount of the levy?
LORD MANCROFT: I should like to confirm this point, but my impression is that the Agency, having to produce their accounts to Parliament, must disclose the figures and so open their accounts to public scrutiny. I think that that must be so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Do the Agency have to produce their accounts to Parliament?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes. Clause 7 says:
"The Agency shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts, and shall prepare in respect of each financial year of the Agency a statement of accounts in such form as the Board of Trade, with the approval of the Treasury may direct, being a form conforming with the best commercial standards."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The "best commercial standards" have to make a note of payments, so we may take it that if the noble Lord's persuasive powers with his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade are not strong enough, that is where we shall see them. But I think it would be a nice gesture on the part of the Board of Trade to say that these expenses shall come out of the public funds. However, I withdraw my Amendment, so that perhaps between now and the next stage the noble Lord will provide me with an answer.
LORD MANCROFT: May I draw the noble Lord's attention to subsection (5) of Clause 7 which says:
"The Board of Trade shall lay a copy of every such report before Parliament."
There it is in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Extension of time within which, and purposes for which, loans may be made by Corporation
10.—(1) For paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section one of the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act, 1949 (which, as amended by the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act, 1954, empowers the National Film Finance Corporation to make, during the eight years beginning with the passing of the first-mentioned Act, loans to be employed in financing the production or distribution of cinematograph films to persons who, in the judgment of the Corporation, while having reasonable expectations of being able to arrange for the production or distribution of cinematograph films on a commercially successful basis, are not for the time being in a position otherwise to obtain adequate financial facilities for the purpose on reasonable terms from an appropriate source) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
"(b) to make, during the period of eighteen years beginning with the passing of this Act, loans to be employed in financing the production or distribution of cinematograph films to persons who, in the judgment of the Corporation, have reasonable expectations of being able to arrange for the production or distribution of cinematograph films on a commercially successful basis".
7.32 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved to omit subsection (1). The noble Lord said: Although I will be as brief as possible in moving this Amendment, I shall have to take a little time to develop my argument because I regard this Amendment as dealing with an important point of principle in the Bill. Coming up in the train this morning, I was reading the delightful Portraits from Memory of Bertrand Russell—or should I say, in your Lordships' House, the noble Earl, Lord Russell? Describing the eccentricities of the Cambridge dons of his young days, he writes of one who, whenever a new proposal was brought up at the University, would say, "When a measure of this kind is suggested, I ask myself two questions: Has the old system worked badly? Is the new system likely to work better? I see no reason
508
to answer either question in the affirmative, and I shall therefore vote against the proposal." That is not an attitude of mind which I would normally share. I may say, I hope without offence, that it is an attitude more often found on the other side of the House. But when I come to deal with Clause 10 of the Bill I am bound to say that I find myself in considerable sympathy with the attitude of the Cambridge don. Actually, the Amendment is the new clause and the onus is really on the Government to justify the new clause, rather than on us to oppose it.
May I remind your Lordships of the background? The Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act, 1949, which was agreed broadly by both sides, here and in another place, was introduced for the specific purpose of providing finance for British film producers who were unable to find finance elsewhere. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth was responsible for piloting the Bill through your Lordships' House, and I have just been reading it up. I find that on that occasion he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 160, col. 423]:
"It is not the intention of this Bill to provide finance for the large producing companies, but for the independent or free-lance producer who is not directly linked with exhibiting circuits."
He went on to say:
"…loans may be made only to qualified borrowers who are not able to obtain adequate finance from alternative lenders."
So that, for the last eight years, the National Film Finance Corporation have been limited to lending money to prospective film producers who could not find alternative sources.
Like the Cambridge don, I am entitled to ask: Has that system worked badly? If it has not worked badly, can the Government spokesman give us any solid reason for changing it? At that time, the argument was that public money should be put at risk in this field only if there were no other method available of keeping British film production going. If by no other means could a sufficient volume of British films be maintained, then in that situation, and only in that situation, should public money be put at risk. Now we have a complete change in attitude, and the National Film Finance Corporation are to be allowed, presumably, to lend to any producer they think

509
fit. They will be able to lend to the big integrated combines, to the Anglo-American companies, or to the British producer who is self-financed. Surely we are entitled to some solid reason for this change.
What is wrong with the old system? In what way has it broken down? Until we have heard the Government case for making this change, it is difficult to develop the argument for my Amendment, because what I am saying in effect is: Tell us why you want this amendment in existing legislation, so that we may find out whether your reasons are valid. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, he dealt very slightly with this matter in his Second Reading speech and we are still waiting to hear the Government's justification for this amendment of the Cinematograph Finance (Special Loans) Act. When we have heard that, it twill be possible to say if they have a good ease. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 6, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Archibald.)
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I think this Amendment has been prompted by certain anxieties in the noble Lord's mind which have come through his remarks. In form, the noble Lord's Amendment is misconceived, as its effect would be to bring to an end on March 9 the loan-making power of the National Film Finance Corporation. However, I understand that it is not the noble Lord's intention to bring this power to an end but to prevent the extension of the Corporation's powers to the lending of money other than to film makers who cannot obtain capital elsewhere.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Would the noble Lord explain why my Amendment would bring those powers to an end? My Amendment seeks to delete subsection (1), not to amend or leave out subsection (2), which extends those powers from eight to eighteen years.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I am advised that the noble Lord's Amendment, as it is drafted, would bring the Corporation's powers to an end. Perhaps I can go into that point more fully in a moment. I understand, however, as I say, that it is not the intention of the
510
noble Lord to bring those powers of the Corporation to an end, but to prevent the extension of the Corporation's powers to lend money otherwise than to film makers who cannot obtain capital elsewhere. The intention of Clause 10, as at present drafted, is to enable the National Film Finance Corporation to accept propositions for films which seem likely to be commercially successful, and not to refuse such propositions because the applicant for the loan can obtain financial consideration elsewhere. The clause should be considered together with Clause 11, which makes it clear that the Corporation should in future so conduct their business as to seek to save further losses of their loan capital; or to put it another way, to prevent erosion into capital. That is an important point which I would particularly draw to the noble Lord's attention.
The principal Act which defines the loan-making powers of the Corporation is perhaps somewhat difficult, in that it defines a person eligible for the loan as being at once in a position to make a film on a commercially successful basis, but not in a position to obtain finance for such a venture. The Corporation have thus virtually been forced to accept only those propositions which do not commend themselves to other finance houses. It is now proposed that they shall be able to accept any application which seems to them likely to be commercially successful. But the terms upon which they are prepared to make loans are considered by some film-makers to be quite onerous, so there seems little likelihood that financially strong organisations which can readily obtain accommodation elsewhere will seek their services. I think that touches on the point which the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, made in his Second Reading speech: that the resources of the Corporation can be absorbed by one large organisation.
Especially in view of this latter point, I cannot accept the contention of the noble Lord that such financially strong organisations as have been mentioned might absorb the Corporation's loan-making capital, to the detriment of the smaller producers. I think that is what has been going through the noble Lord's mind. These smaller producers might be in a position to make good films if they could obtain the money, and we consider that

511
they will be able to obtain it from the Corporation. If such a situation as that which the noble Lord has in mind were to arise, however, it could be dealt with by a direction from the Board of Trade under section 3 of the Act of 1949. This allows the Board of Trade to give the Corporation directions of a general character as to the exercise of their functions. I hope that this will allay some of the fears that have been in the noble Lord's mind and enable him to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not know whether it has allayed any fears in the mind of my noble friend, but it has only strengthened the fears in my mind. If the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, he has given a shocking answer. First of all, all that the Amendment of my noble friend seeks to do is to delete subsection (1) of Clause 10. That subsection goes no further than to take out paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section I of the Cinematograph Films Production (Special Loans) Act, 1949, as amended by the Cinematograph Films Production (Special Loans) Act, 1954.
LORD MANCROFT: Is that not the power to make loans?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No. It is a power to make loans on a special basis; and the special basis upon which Parliament originally agreed to this Act was because it was not in competition with the usual and recognised channels of finance. If the noble Lord now says that the Film Finance Corporation will in future have to conduct their business and comply with the ordinary forms of banking, then why not do away with the Film Finance Corporation altogether?
My noble friend has quoted words from my Second Reading speech on behalf of the Government in 1949. I then said, also: [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 160, col. 424]:
"As I have already pointed out to your Lordships, these loans will not compete with the present channels of finance; they are supplemental."
If you are going to say to the Film Finance Corporation: "In future you must conduct your business along the ordinary banking channels," why have the Corporation at all? I agree with the
512
noble Lord that you would have to read in connection with this Clause 11, which enjoins the Corporation that they have to carry on their business like an ordinary commercial concern and not, if they can possibly help it, make a loss. In other words, they must do precisely what a bank would do. If they do not like the credit standing, or they have a doubt, or even if they think you are cast-iron, they will want collateral. Is have never known a bank lend a person money without wanting security of about four times what he wanted to borrow, as well as a joint and several guarantee, and a mortgage on his house and all his property as collateral. Is that what the noble Lord means the Film Finance Corporation to do? If he does, why have it at all? Why compete with the joint stock banks of the country? It is doing away with the whole purpose.
I cannot address the noble Lord on a close argument like this if he must have consultations with his noble friend next door to him. Perhaps the noble Lord will save your Lordships' time by saying that the Government will reconsider the whole thing. When the noble Lord makes the point that one of the reasons for this is the onerous conditions that have been demanded by the Film Finance Corporation, what did they do? They loaned money, as was their object, at a lower rate of interest, under special conditions which ordinary normal banking would not have; that is to say, that, perhaps without security, they took a percentage of the profits. I know that there was a time when some producers in the industry thought the percentage they wanted was too high.
But do not forget that the original purpose of the Film Finance Corporation was to save the British film industry. There have been many claimants for the privilege and honour of saving the British film industry, but there was one man who deserves 99 per cent. of the credit, and that is my right honourable friend Mr. Harold Wilson, who was the originator of the Film Finance Corporation idea. I remember saying at the time, about the amount of money which the Government were going to put at the disposal of the Film Finance Corporation, that it would be a good day's work if they lost the whole lot, the £5 million, but kept the independent British producer in business.

513
That is how it turned out—they lost a lot of money. But that was the object. Is the noble, Lord saying that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, there now is no need for the Film Finance Corporation at all? Is he saying that, and, therefore, that there is no need for the Film Finance Corporation and that British film producers are now so strong that they can go to the ordinary channels of banking for finance? Is he saying that? If he is saying that, he is suffering under a delusion. If he really thinks it, why does he not wind up the Film Finance Corporation altogether?
My noble friend's point, and I absolutely agree with him, is that there is as much need to-day for the Film Finance Corporation as ever there was. But there will be no outlet for the energies of the Film Finance Corporation as envisaged when it was first started, if you are going to say that they have to run on ordinary banking lines. That is what the noble Lord is saying.
LORD MANCROFT: Try to, if possible.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHYou have to read Clauses 10 and 11 together. Clause 11 reads:
"It shall be the duty of the National Film Finance Corporation to exercise and perform their functions in such a manner as appears to them best calculated to secure the avoidance of default's being made in the discharge, as regards any loan made to them after the passing of this Act, of their obligations with respect to repayment of the principal of the loan and the payment of interest on any sum for the time being outstanding in respect of it."
In other words, if I were the managing director of the Film Finance Corporation, I should take it as a directive that I had got to have security plus security, and guarantee upon guarantee, precisely the same as would have to be given to a bank.
I feel as strongly upon this as does my noble friend. The noble Lord says that the Film Finance Corporation should go on precisely in the same way in the future as it has done in the past, and not, as my noble friend said, have all its funds swallowed up by big concerns, because there are hundreds of people who to-day want finance. I think the Film Finance Corporation has done a very good job of work. I hope that my noble friend, if not now, then at some later stage of this Bill, will press this matter to a Division,
514
because I am certain that the Corporation should remain intact without the fetters being placed upon it which are imposed under Clause 10.
LORD BURDEN: May I say one word in addition to what has been said? I suggest that the Department have landed themselves in these difficulties because there has not been adequate discussion with all the interests concerned. The borrowing powers of the National Film Finance Corporation, as I understand it, finished in April of this year. As far back as February last year, the matter was raised in another place, and a little later a letter was addressed to the various sections of the industry. Although some replies were received, adequate consideration has not been given by the Board of Trade to the fact that other sections of the industry, as well as the producers, the distributors, and so on, all have a direct interest in the way in which this Corporation does its job. But since then no steps have been taken by the Department to get the interests together to discuss what is now in this Bill, and that is why the Government have landed themselves in this difficulty. I hope my noble friend will press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD ARCHIBALD: On looking at the Amendment again, I am bound to admit that I think the noble Lord who spoke for the Government was right in saying that my Amendment is technically at fault, and that it would not merely prevent the change of function but would lead to the cessation of function. That is something upon which I shall have to take advice, as to how to frame a new Amendment for a later stage. I warned the Committee at the beginning that all my Amendments were of my own drafting, and I see that on this one I have gone astray.
But the point at issue remains the same, and here I think we have not received a satisfactory explanation from the Government. I may say that I raised this point not as someone associated with the film industry. So far as I know, I have not heard a word from producers that they have even thought about this subsection. I do not know what their views are at all, if they have any views. I do not know the views of any part of the industry about this clause. I raised it, if I may put it in this way, as a

515
Parliamentarian, because here we have what will be an Act of Parliament which introduces something quite new—the provision of public finance for such sections of the industry as are able to get their finance from normal channels. I think it is true to say that the original Bill would not have gone through both Houses by agreement if it had then been proposed that the Film Finance Corporation should be entitled to lend to all and sundry of British film producers, or that it should compete with the banks or other sources of finance. It was an agreed measure because it was a limited measure —because it was providing something that could not be provided from other sources. Now we are having the fundamental conception of its functions changed without, in my opinion, adequate reason therefor.
I thought the noble Lord allayed a number of fears which I had, in fact, neither expressed nor felt—for example, that the big corporations might borrow all the money. The noble Lord attributed that to me in my Second Reading speech, but I made no such suggestion. I put the hypothetical case that borrowers who did not need the money might, in the early part of the year, come along and borrow so much that other producers who could not get money elsewhere, coming along later, would find that the funds were used up. Naturally, that is exaggerating the situation, but it is not a wholly impossible picture, and it is only partly met by the suggestion that it could be dealt with by a directive which might by then be too late.
I also thought that the noble Lord was a little contradictory when he suggested that the conditions laid down by the Film Finance Corporation were so onerous that people who could get their money elsewhere would do so, while at the same time he was arguing that people who could get their money elsewhere would be people who had the more attractive, and likely to be more commercially successful, films in the offing. Their borrowings from the Corporation would enable the Corporation to offset some of the risks in lendings to films that had a less prospect of success. You cannot impose such onerous terms that you frighten off the commercially attractive and at the same time have the commercially attractive to
516
offset the commercially unattractive. You must make up your mind on which leg you are standing. On the ground that an insufficient case has been made for this change of function, I intend to return to it, but, naturally, I shall be unable to press it now. I gather that the noble Lord has something further to say, so I shall not withdraw it until he has had the opportunity to speak.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: If the noble Lord is going to move it again, differently drafted, perhaps that might be a better occasion on which to say something about it.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Duty of Corporation to pay their way
11. It shall be the duty of the National Film Finance Corporation to exercise and perform their functions in such manner as appears to them best calculated to secure the avoidance of default's being made in the discharge, as regards any loan made to them after the passing of this Act, of their obligations with respect to repayment of the principal of the loan and the payment of interest on any sum for the time being outstanding in respect of it.
8.2 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved, after "secure" to insert "taking one year with another". The noble Lord said: To some extent the ground here has been covered, but noble Lords will notice that in moving the previous Amendment I tried to avoid any reference to this one, although I realised that to some extent the two were linked. Other noble Lords have linked them, but I have not made any reference to this in my previous remarks. I want to make some reference now. Here again, we have to go back to the attitude of Parliament when the original Act was passed. I cannot do better than quote the words which were used by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in the Second Reading debate, when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 160, Col. 432]:
"If we are going into this business at all… then we have to lake a risk. After all… the Government take a great deal of money out of this business already…It is not unreasonable that a little of that money should be ventured back in a risk."

517
In other words, it was accepted on both sides of the House that this money had to be risk money or the Film Finance Corporation would not serve any useful purpose at all.
Now this new Clause 11 puts an added restriction on the operations of the Film Finance Corporation. In effect, it is an instruction to the Corporation to exclude the element of risk as far as humanly possible. When I put this point during the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was good enough to write to me. He put the point that it requires the Film Finance Corporation to endeavour to avoid losses, to avoid being in the position that it could not repay its loans to the Board of Trade, but that it did not put any restriction on the Corporation with regard to the loans which it made. I venture to suggest that that is really a quite absurd argument. If the Film Finance Corporation is to be in a position to repay its loans to the Board of Trade, then it must be in the position of recovering all the loans that it makes. Quite clearly, that means that it has, as I put it, to look only for the more or less gilt-edged propositions. It is, in effect, telling the Film Finance Corporation that it is no longer to carry out the purpose for which it was set up, that of providing risk money. It is in future so to conduct itself that it will not make losses, so that it is in the position of being able to repay the Board of Trade in full.
I regard this as a very sad clause altogether. It is a mean clause. In my opinion, it is putting the Film Finance Corporation in an impossible position. No man who is a director or managing director of that Corporation, faced with this clause in the new Bill, can be other than very hard and strict indeed in all his lendings. There may well be films of great artistic merit of which the box office possibilities may be a little doubtful, where the Corporation will have to say, "Sorry; we cannot lend you arty money because we might make a loss; then we should not be able to repay the Board of Trade, and that would not be in conformity with this clause." The Amendment which I have put down is, if I may use an Americanism, only a "gimmick" on which to have this matter discussed. This is probably a clause of which I should have moved the deletion, because I think it sets out a
518
thoroughly bad principle. The Government would be well advised to allow the Film Finance Corporation to carry on under the powers of the original Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 39, after ("secure") insert ("taking one year with another").—(Lord Archibald.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not know whether my noble friend, Lord Archibald, will agree to this course, but in order to be helpful I would suggest to him that he withdraws this Amendment for the time being to let the Government think about Clauses 10 and 11. If not, if he presses it we shall have to go on, but I suggest that it will be better if the Government consider this. Our attitude on this side of the House is this. We desire the Film Finance Corporation to have extended life. It has served a useful function; it will carry on serving a useful function, and we want it to continue on precisely the same lines as it is carrying on to-day. We have no objection to the Board of Trade from time to time giving it directives, as they always have done, but we do not want its powers impaired, as they are by Clauses 10 and 11. If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would like to do that, and if he cannot accommodate us upon the lines I have suggested, then on the Report stage we can put down either or both of these Amendments again in a different form, because my noble friend said he would do that with regard to Clause 10. It could also be done with Clause 11. I want to make it perfectly clear that we shall press our point of view on this matter. I should like the Government to have the opportunity of considering the attitude we adopt, which we think is reasonable.
LORD MANCROFT: I can answer the noble Lord quickly. This particular Amendment No. 31 would be unacceptable to us for a technical reason—that is, that the words "taking one year with another" have nothing to do with the main substance of the argument. However, if noble Lords are worried about this point (it is a major one, and we do not want to stay till midnight discussing the future of the Film Finance Corporation), we will try to win them over and not "bulldoze" this clause through. But

519
win them over we will endeavour to do. I will certainly give the noble Lord the undertaking that we will think about this matter, and it would be improper not to pay attention to the noble Lords' arguments. I will certainly undertake to consider carefully, between now and the next stage of this interminable Bill, whether we can help the noble Lords to clear up their doubts.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has said, though I am bound to say that personally I should be quite willing to stay here till midnight discussing this very important point, and I do not regard it as an interminable Bill. This is a Bill affecting quite an important industry, proposing many very important changes, and I do not think there has been an undue amount of time devoted to its discussion. I do not begrudge any of the time we are spending on it now. The point here is that I think the Government are changing a fundamental principle. They are trying to take out the element of risk. May I point out that since the Film Finance Corporation was set up the Government have probably taken over £250 million from the industry in taxes. Compared with that, the losses of the N.F.F.C. are trifling. I do not know why this new clause should have been put in at all, but if it will be thought about again we can discuss it on another occasion. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Extension of period during which exhibition of British films is obligatory
14. Section one of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948 (which makes compulsory the inclusion of British films amongst registered films exhibited to the public in theatres in Great Britain during the period beginning with the first day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-eight and ending with the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight) shall have effect with the substitution, in subsection (7) thereof, for the words "nineteen hundred and fifty-eight", of the words "nineteen hundred and sixty-eight".
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved to add to the clause:
"and in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twenty-five of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, for the words 'His Majesty's
520
dominions' there shall be substituted the words 'United Kingdom'"
The noble Lord said: The first two of the three Amendments standing in my name raise the same point, which I can put very briefly to your Lordships. Lest I should be suspected of any unfriendliness towards any overseas members of the Commonwealth, I would mention that I am one of the small minority in your Lordships' House who have had the pleasure and privilege of being a student of an overseas Commonwealth university, and I am very far from having any unfriendly feelings.
Your Lordships will remember that the first Cinematograph Films Act of 1927 was introduced and passed as a result of a resolution which was passed by the Imperial Conference of 1926. That resolution read as follows:
"The Imperial Conference, recognising that it is of the greatest importance that a larger and increasing proportion of the films exhibited throughout the Empire should be of Empire production, commends the matter and the remedial measures proposed to the consideration of the Governments of the various parts of the Empire with a view to such early and effective action to deal with the serious situation now existing as they may severally find possible."
The United Kingdom only took steps to implement this resolution, and part of the implementation took the form of extending the advantages of being a British film to films produced in other parts of the Commonwealth. I do not think that any member of the Commonwealth who has not taken steps to give to British films the same advantages that their films would receive in this country can possibly take objection to the fact that we should now narrow our beneficence, if I may put it so, our advantageous treatment of British films, to the United Kingdom only. This is the object of the first two Amendments which stand in my name. I apologise if they are really rather clumsy in form, but owing to the structure of the Bill I have no option, and I take it I could not have done better because I took professional guidance on the matter and was helped by the officers of the House.
The first Amendment deals with the use of studio space and the second with labour, but the basic point is the point I was making: that there has been since 1927 no reciprocal action on the part of other members of the Commonwealth,

521
and it seems to me only fair that the advantages we wish to give to British films should, in the circumstances, failing reciprocal action, be limited to the United Kingdom. With your Lordships' permission I will move the first Amendment, and, depending on the treatment it receives, I will either move or ask leave to withdraw the second.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 4, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: May I first of all speak to the first Amendment. Do I understand that the noble Lord is going to move each one in turn?
LORD FARINGDON: Just as the noble Lord likes. The point is exactly the same on both, although they apply to different sections of the industry.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I am afraid I must tell the noble Lord I cannot accept any of the Amendments. The effect of the first one is to provide that films shall not be registered as British (and therefore will not get a share of the levy) unless made in studios in the United Kingdom. This would certainly raise difficulties within the Commonwealth, which would have to be examined very carefully before Her Majesty's Government could take a firm attitude on this proposal. In the case of the second Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, its effect would be to provide that in calculating the requisite amount of labour costs for the purposes of registering a film as a British film, persons domiciled outside the United Kingdom (instead of at present outside Her Majesty's Dominions) should not count as British. This would raise serious difficulties within the Commonwealth which would require very careful examination before the Government could take an attitude on this proposal.
In the case of the third Amendment standing in the noble Lord's name, which is slightly different, its effect would be to disqualify a film as a British quota film (and therefore entitled to a share of the levy) unless 95 per cent. of the laboratory costs in making the film were incurred in a laboratory situated in the United Kingdom. At present it is believed that a high percentage of the laboratory work
522
is done here, even for films made on location, but there are some films made on location at a great distance from the United Kingdom: for example, in South Africa and Australia, where it is not reasonable to expect the "rushes"—I am sure the noble Lord is familiar with that word—to be brought back to this country for processing. There seems no need for this Amendment, since it is not thought that there is any tendency for the work to be done outside the United Kingdom. For those reasons—and I hope the noble Lord will appreciate them—I am unable to accept his Amendment.
LORD FARINGDON: I confess I am not enormously impressed by the noble Lord's argument, certainly on the first two Amendments. I do not 'believe it would give rise to very considerable difficulties with members of the Commonwealth. I am certain that members of the Commonwealth would fully appreciate that if they were unable or unwilling to give reciprocal advantages to British films there would be no reason why they should benefit as if they were giving those reciprocal advantages.
I do not intend to press these Amendments. I would ask however that they should be considered. The noble Lord said that very careful consideration would have to be given to the situation which would be caused by the adoption of any such Amendments. I suggest that this attention begin to be given at once, because there is quite a serious point here. Moreover, if, in fact, it would give rise to difficulties with other members of the Commonwealth, I suggest that the advantages which we in this country give to Commonwealth films must be of a certain value. If they are of a certain value, I imagine that it is quite possible that the overseas members of the Commonwealth might he prepared to give reciprocal advantages. I shall, however, not press the first Amendment.
I had not spoken to my third Amendment. The noble Lord took the words out of my mouth. At this late hour I think it is reasonable to cut things down to the shortest possible period. Frankly, I do not accept his point. I am not wedded to the actual percentage in the Amendment on the other hand, even for films which were being shot on location in. South Africa, the time needed to fly them back to England is really quite short. Whilst he says that he is

523
informed that in fact there is no danger that the use of overseas laboratories will take much custom away from our own laboratories, I am informed otherwise—that is to say, I am informed that there has been a tendency recently to have an increasing amount of the laboratory work done outside this country. I am therefore unable to accept his plea. However, with the permission of the Committee, I will withdraw the first Amendment, and, when the time comes, will not move the other two. I suggest, however, to Her Majesty's Government, that these are both points which merit consideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.22 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to omit Clause 14. The noble Lord said: We may be able to deal with this Amendment quite quickly or it may take us a long time it all depends on what the noble Lord opposite has to say. Part III of this Bill, and especially Clause 14, extends the period during which exhibitors are obliged, under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, to show British films, and increases the maximum amounts of certain fees payable under the Cinematograph Films Act. 1938. Clause 14 deals with the extension of period during which exhibition of British films is obligatory. To-day, it is obligatory to show on British screens at least 30 per cent. of British films—and the definition of a British film we discussed fully earlier to-day.
When this Bill was mooted, about last February, the President of the Board of Trade said that he wished to discuss with the film industry, in all its sections, three major points. The first was whether the Eady levy should be made statutory or should remain voluntary; the second was the borrowing powers of the Film Finance Corporation, and the third was whether or not the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948 (that is the quota Act), should be extended or altered in any way. He asked the Film Finance Corporation to circularise the entire industry. This they did, pointing out that the first two objects I have mentioned were of prime importance and the Film Finance Corporation would not ask the industry to pass on any comments about the third object until some later date.
I will not go through the whole of this unfortunate history, but it was firmly in the industry's mind that the Government intended to bring forward legislation that would amend the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948. Whilst the Government may not have known that every section of the industry wanted it amended, I do not think there is a section in the industry that disagrees with the fact that there should be a quota. But on the exhibitor's side it is said, quite frankly, that there is not enough latitude to take care of the unfortunate exhibitor who, through no wish of his own, really cannot fulfil the quota. My information is that, of the 4,500 cinemas in this country, the number of defaulters in quota amounts to 1,000 a year: that the law is absolutely unenforceable and, therefore, is brought into disrepute. I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is here at the moment, because I feel certain that it is one of the most distasteful things for any Lord Chancellor to know, that the law is brought into disrepute because it is unenforceable and because it is so silly. That is on one side. On the other side, the exhibitors have their reason for wanting it altered, and in all there is a feeling within the industry—I say this with great respect—that the Government have not played fair.
I ask your Lordships to take into consideration the fact that the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, does not expire until September, 1958. I hope that the noble Lord will not tell me that the reason why it is necessary to put through an extension of the quota without any Amendment in this Bill is because there will not be any legislative time between now and 1958. He might "tell that to the Marines," but I hope he will not try to tell me that. That is the stock phrase that is put into the mouth of every Government spokesman. When the Government do not want to do anything, or when it is inconvenient for them to do it, of course they say that there is no legislative time. But if the Government want to do anything, they generally manage to find legislative time to do it. That is the reason why we have not put down any amendment to the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, because any amendment that would be worthwhile, and acceptable to the Government, would have to be the result of long and careful—I say "long," but at any rate

525
extending over a month or two—consultations will all sides of the industry.
This is a highly technical matter, and I do not think it would have been fair to go into it—I will be quite frank with the noble Lord—because it would have prolonged these proceedings. The noble Lord says that they are getting too protracted. I do not think so; I think we have got through very well. This Bill is of tremendous importance to an important industry. The noble Lord must not get tired because he cannot have his own way all the time. I have not succeeded in one of my Amendments, but I am not tired. The noble Lord should never be tired of well-doing.
What I want to ask the noble Lord is this: will he give me an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will consult with the industry as soon as may he and get an Amendment to the Cinematograph Films Act, the "quota" Act, within a reasonable time? Frankly, I do not think Her Majesty's Government have played fair. They should have carried out their original intention. They did not tell the industry that they were not going to do so. It was left to a statement made in another place by the then President of the Board of Trade, and it has caught the whole industry on the wrong foot. I have a letter which reached me only yesterday saying that at a meeting of the producers, the exhibitors and the trade unions, a letter was written to the President of the Board of Trade expressing the unanimous disappointment of all four associations represented at the meeting at the decision of Her Majesty's Government to limit Part III of the Bill to Section 1 of the Act of 1948. That is just that one section which specifies the time.
I hope the noble Lord will not tell me that the quota provisions of the Act of 1948 cannot he amended because that matter does not, come within the Long Title of the Bill. One of the advantages in your Lordships' House is that the first Amendment to a Bill proposed by the Lord Chairman is, "That the Title of the Bill be postponed," for the very important reason that, if your Lordships so desire, you can pass any Amendment so long as it is germane to the subject of the Bill. If we so desired, we could have put down Amendments on the Report stage and on this stage and we should
526
have been quite in order. As I told the noble Lord, we did not do so because we felt that it would be jumping the gun". And, as I have said, I feel that the very important Amendments that are needed to bring the quota provisions up to present-day requirements, in the light of experience, require close discussion between Her Majesty's Government and all the interests concerned. That is the reason why I have put down this Amendment. I hope that perhaps the noble Lord is going to be conciliatory about this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 14.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD JESSEL: I touched on this point on the Second Reading of the Bill, and as a result of my remarks the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was kind enough to write me a letter in which he said that he would see whether something could be done to reassure the industry that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to let quota legislation run on unamended until 1968. I know that the exhibitors, who feel that they have been pretty shabbily treated in this matter, will be most anxious to know what he is going to do to see that this does not happen. I would make one further suggestion. If Her Majesty's Government cannot accept this Amendment as it stands, would it be possible, so as to reassure the industry, to accept an Amendment which continued the existing quota system for one year? That would give plenty of Parliamentary time to bring in another Bill, at the end of one year, to put right what most of the industry consider are serious defects in the existing quota system.
LORD MANCROFT: This is an important subject. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has begged me not to do two things which I have no intention of doing, and not to do a third thing which I did with some vehemence in the course of my Second Reading speech. I am afraid that I am not going to please the noble Lord. This clause extends by ten years, to September 30, 1968, the period during which exhibitors are obliged to show a certain percentage of British films. It is important to be clear as to what its omission would mean: it would mean that the quota provisions of

527
the Cinematograph Films Acts, 1938 and 1948, would expire in September, 1958, unless legislation were promoted in the present Session, or in the 1957–58 Session.
I would ask all noble Lords who favour this to consider its probable effect on British film producers. We are already devoting a good deal of time in this House to discussion of film production problems, and I was not complaining in any way that we were devoting too much time, or that this was not an important matter which should not be fully debated; I was fixing a self-denying ordinance on myself not to be more "long-winded" than was necessary. By the time the present Bill has been considered in another place, we shall be well into the present Session. I wonder whether, at the moment, it is in the best interests of film producers that time should be sought in the Session beginning next autumn to go over their affairs again.
Words of disappointment have been used, and I was rather discouraged to hear allegations of bad faith levelled against Her Majesty's Government on this particular clause. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that Her Majesty's Government had caught the industry "on the wrong foot." If we have done so, I can assure the industry at once that there is no question of bad faith. If we have embarrassed them, I am truly sorry, and I apologise for any inconvenience caused to those in the industry who would have wished other than what is now done, but I can assure them that there are no evil motives. I appreciate that industry may be somewhat surprised to find that the Bill extends the quota provisions of the 1938 and 1948 Acts, and that this has been done before the consultations which were promised by the President of the Board of Trade earlier this year, on revision of all the clauses of quota legislation; but I think the reason will be understood. Because of pressure of other business, it has not been possible to conclude the work in time for the present Bill. I can say categorically, however, that we propose that these discussions will begin in the autumn this year, just as soon as the present Bill, and regulations made under it, are completed, with a view to legislation as soon as possible after that. I cannot be more categorical than that and I do not think
528
your Lordships can expect a more categorical statement, but that is what we have in mind.
In all those circumstances, I suggest that this programme should prove to be the most practicable and most desirable for the health of the industry. I therefore ask your Lordships not to press for this Amendment but to approve the clause as it stands. I hope that I have given the categorical undertaking which the noble Lord wanted. I wish that I could have gone further, but I think he will realise that to attempt to be more specific would be stupid, because I cannot pledge my successors or put my hand on my heart and say without a doubt what will be done. I can only repeat that we hope this legislation will be introduced as soon as possible after the date I have mentioned.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Did the noble Lord say that conversations with the industry will commence in the autumn of this year?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I quite understand that he does not want them to start while this Bill is going through Parliament. But why wait until the autumn? Is there any point in waiting? Would the noble Lord alter the statement to say that negotiations on discussions with the industry will start, not in the autumn but after the Bill has gone through Parliament? I can quite understand the difficulty of carrying on one set of conversations about legislation while this legislation is going through. Will he say that Her Majesty's Government will undertake to bring in the later legislation as soon as possible after those discussions?
LORD MANCROFT: I do not think the noble Lord is being unreasonable. I will certainly undertake that the conversations shall take place as soon as possible, and that legislation will be introduced as soon as possible after the conversations.
LORD BURDEN: Will Her Majesty's Government stand by this extension till 1968, or will there be legislation to consider that if this Amendment is withdrawn? In other words, would it not be good policy to accept the suggestion which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, to have this clause withdrawn, and

529
the quota system as it is to-day continued for another twelve months, to allow the discussions to proceed and fresh legislation to be got through? Otherwise, this ten years is riveted on the industry.
LORD MANCROFT: That would be a very bad idea. We want, and the whole industry want, the quota legislation. If I attempted to meet Lord Burden's requirements, we should only have a year's safety—then we should have legislation again, or the whole thing would go by default and we should have a great gap in the legislation which would be very much to the disadvantage of everyone concerned. I am sure that our proposal is the tidiest way of dealing with the matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I take it that by this Bill we extend the quota provisions of the 1948 Act.
LORD MANCROFT: That is so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the Government, after discussions with the industry, decide amendments of the 1948 Act are necessary, an Amending Bill will have to be produced to amend the 1948 Act. This Act only carries on the quota provision of the 1948 Act?
LORD MANCROFT: That is so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will accept that. If I may say so, I think that the noble Lord has been eminently fair. I am sure that the industry will wait with cheerful anticipation, immediately this legislation has gone through Parliament, for a summons to discuss the proposed Amendments to the 1948 Act. I am sure they will be very satisfied with the Government's undertaking that discussions will start, and that if it is decided to legislate, legislation will be introduced as soon as possible after those discussions.
LORD MANCROFT: Not immediately, but as soon as possible after those discussions.
LORD FARINGDON: I should like to inquire whether these consultations on this legislation will be the occasion when my Amendments to Clause 14 could come under consideration.
LORD MANCROFT: I think that is a perfectly fair question and the answer is, "Yes".
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Increase of maximum amounts of certain fees]:
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD had an Amendment on the Marshalled List to leave out Clause 15. The noble Lord said: As this would have been a consequential Amendment in the unlikely event of the Government's having accepted the previous Amendment, I will not move it.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Schedule [Provisions relating to British Film Fund Agency]:
8.45 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved to add to paragraph 7 (1):
", and regulations under section three of this Act may include provision for requiring the Agency to set aside, out of the proceeds of said levy in respect of the last period in respect of which it is imposed, such sum as appears to the Board sufficient to defray the expenses of the winding up"
The noble Lord said: The Schedule provides that, where there are no further functions to be discharged by the Agency, the Board of Trade may by order provide for the winding up of the Agency. No provision has been made in the Bill for the payment of the expenses of the winding up. These expenses should not be very great but will no doubt include the salary of a liquidator and the normal expenses associated with a winding up, such as the expenses of advertising for creditors of the Agency. This Amendment gives power to the Board of Trade to include in regulations made under Clause 3 (which will relate to the distribution of the levy), a requirement that the Agency shall set aside such sum as the Board of Trade consider sufficient to defray the expenses of the winding up out of the proceeds of the levy collected in respect of the final levy year. On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, at end insert the said words, —(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I can quite see the reason for this Amendment and I am not going to oppose it. But I think I had better have something

531
on the record. I want to get an assurance from the noble Lord on behalf of the Government that this does not portend in any way the winding up of the levy. I do not mind your making provisions for its being wound up, but I cannot foresee, and I do not think the industry can foresee, the time when this levy in some shape or another will not be necessary, because it may well be—and this is what I want to impress on the noble Lord—that the more British film production expands, the greater the amount of levy that will be required. I want to draw his attention to what I said on the first Amendment which I moved—that the British picture industry can never be self-supporting on a home market. I cannot foresee the time when it will not require financial assistance, either direct grant from the Government or a levy of this description. I want it clearly understood that in agreeing to this Amendment we understand that this is not one of those cases of "coming events casting their shadows before" and that it is not the intention that the levy shall be discontinued and the British Film Production Fund come to an end. Can the noble Lord give me an undertaking that that is not what is intended by the Government by this Amendment?
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I give the noble Lord the assurance that that is not the Government's intention.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether the said Schedule, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD BURDEN: On one or two occasions previously I have mentioned the point of the regulations, and this Schedule provides for the making of regulations. These regulations will be of profound importance to every section of the industry, and I hope I can take it, or have the assurance, that in the framing of these regulations, consideration will be given to each section of the industry and appropriate consultations will take place. The next point I should like to make is this. These regulations are usually in draft for quite a long time before they are laid before Parliament, and when they are laid we are not in a position to amend: we have to accept or reject, and rejection, of course, is not a conceivable possibility. Will the noble
532
Lord take into consideration whether it is not possible for a debate to take place on the draft regulations at a stage before they are laid before Parliament for consideration? That is a way which would get us out of many difficulties, and I think would be helpful towards getting an Affirmative Resolution when the time comes for that. May I ask the noble Lord that consideration be given to that matter?
LORD MANCROFT: The answer to both questions which the noble Lord has put to me is: "Yes."
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.