Lords Sitting of 31 January 1957

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

MARLBOROUGH STREET MAGISTRATE'S COURT
3.5 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: 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 will take steps to make conveniences available for the use of witnesses, defendants and other members of the public who may have to spend protracted periods in the waiting hall at Marlborough Street Magistrate's Court.]
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is having immediate inquiries made to see what it is possible to do, within the limitations of the existing premises, and he has asked me to say that he will write to the noble Lord as soon as these inquiries are completed.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount to convey my thanks to the right honourable gentleman?

BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES IN NORTH AMERICA
LORD BARNBYhad given Notice of the following Question:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will indicate if responsibility for expenditure on Information Services or other means of presenting British policy to North America reposes in the Foreign Office; or if this will now be centralised under the direction of the Paymaster General or other indicated Minister.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking leave to put the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper,
342
may I, with the indulgence of the House, point out the obvious mistake in the Question? "The Paymaster General" should read "the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster."
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, the responsibility for expenditure on the British Information Services in the United States rests with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He also sponsors the expenditure incurred in this country by the Central Office of Information and the External Services of the British Broadcasting Corporation in respect of activities directed to the United States. Responsibility for similar expenditure in Canada, and sponsorship of expenditure in this country on activities directed towards Canada, rests with my noble friend Lord Home.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I ask him whether, in consideration of the replies given last week in another place on this same question, thought has been given to the possibility of having someone of at least the rank of Minister of State placed in charge of the expenditure of the large sum which, as has been stated in the past, is spent on the General Overseas Information Services.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, the responsibility for the conduct of information services in a country abroad must remain that of the Minister responsible for the relations between the United Kingdom and that country, since the primary task of these services is to explain and interpret Her Majesty's Government's policy towards that country. However, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been entrusted with the rô le of co-ordinating Government information services both abroad and at home, and as part of his rôle he is conducting a review of overseas, services with a view to recommending whether it is necessary to alter the balance of effort between different areas in the world or between different forms of activity.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl could tell

343
me whether the Government have considered employing what I believe is called in the United States of America a public relations counsellor to advise on the presentation of the British case to the American public.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord would be good enough to do so, I should like him to give notice of that point by putting down a Question.

MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for persons charged with certain summary offences to plead guilty without appearing before the court, and as to the proof before the magistrates' courts of certain matters; and for other purposes connected with the purposes aforesaid. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved That the Bill be now read la—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

COMMONWEALTH SETTLEMENT BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

GHANA INDEPENDENCE BILL
3.11 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Perth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Consequential modifications with respect to development schemes, etc.
3.—(1) 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.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name in connection with this clause. I think that your Lordships will have realised from the Second Reading debate that there is no real need for this subsection, or for this clause at all. The Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, Section 1, as amended by the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1956, set up the Colonial Development Corporation for the purpose of assisting colonial territories in the development of their economies. Section 9 of the 1948 Act stated:
"The expression 'colonial territory' means a territory to which section one of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940, applies at the commencement of this Act."
It follows, therefore, that as the Gold Coast was a territory to which the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940, applied at the commencement of the Overseas Resources Development

345
Act, 1948, the Colonial Development Corporation is statutorily enabled to operate in Ghana unless and until legislation to the contrary is passed.
From what I gather from the speech of the Secretary of State, that view is accepted by the Government and unless and until amending legislation is passed, the Colonial Development Corporation can operate in Ghana, or in any other of what are now called the "emergent territories." The Government, however, have stated that they propose to insert similar amending legislation to this in the instruments providing for independence of all Colonies achieving independent Commonwealth status in the future. Noble Lords on this side—and, we are glad to say, a number of noble Lords on the other side and at least one on the Cross Benches—feel that this is a fatal policy to pursue. The Colonial Development Corporation were established to provide finance for economically self-supporting development which might or might not be attractive to private enterprise capital, and also to provide economic advice and management techniques often not available from official or private enterprise sources. These functions the Colonial Development Corporation are fulfilling, although not to the extent that some of us on this side of the House would like. That is not entirely, or even mainly, their own fault.
The Colonial Development Corporation now have sixty-six development projects in hand in twenty-one colonial territories. For these, approximately £70 million has been committed, of which about £40 million has so far been employed. En 1955, there was a surplus of £409,000, after paying Colonial Office interest of £307,000, and an equally satisfactory result is expected for 1956. The Corporation are continuing their policy of working in association with private enterprise. Most projects now have commercial partners, and there is also close co-operation with the Colonial Governments and every effort is made by the noble Lord, Lord Reith, and his subordinates and associates to bring local people into participation.
The Colonial Development Corporation in the Gold Coast (in what is now called Ghana) have not done a great deal in the past, but they have done something, and before this Government policy
346
was announced there was every indication that they would do a great deal more. As I said on Second Reading, ever since Dr. Nkrumah became Prime Minister, friendly relations with him have been maintained, and discussions have taken place between his Ministers on ways in which the Corporation can contribute to the development of the country. Among other things, the Gold Coast Minister of Trade has recently asked the Colonial Development Corporation to assist with the establishment of a cement clinker factory, in association with a well-known British cement company. In addition, the regional controller was having tentative conversations with the Ghana Government covering a flour mill, a rubber plantation, a building society—on which the Ghana Government were particularly keen—a quarry for building materials required for roads and housing and par ticipation with the local industrial development corporation.
The decision arrived at by the United Kingdom Government came as a great blow to these interests in the Gold Coast, which were looking forward to association with the Colonial Development Corporation, and the Corporation received from one of the interests concerned, which is, in fact, a British company with interests in the Gold Coast, a most irate letter. It says this:
"We are amazed at your news that you have been instructed not to proceed with any new Gold Coast scheme during the period of six months preceding independence. The most obvious comment is that this news comes about four months before independence date. More than two months of the Gold Coast Government's time and our own have been wasted. During that time other arrangements for the finance of the scheme might well have been made. It is galling that the Gold Coast authorities and the others concerned in this scheme can justly feel that they have been let down because of the close association of the British Government with your Company. How can we negotiate with a financial institution whose policy can be so suddenly And arbitrarily changed? Please return all papers we have sent you in connection with the scheme."
One can see that the name of the Colonial Development Corporation has not been enhanced in any way by this decision of the Government, a decision for which the Corporation were in no way responsible and which, in fact, they bitterly opposed.
Of course, independence to the Gold Coast and other territories concerned

347
will not mean less need for association and technical and managerial assistance from this country, and possibly, also, the loan of finance; it will mean more, because of the lack of experience in Ghana, and possibly because, in certain quarters, rightly or wrongly, there appears to be a feeling that for the time being there will be less political security than formerly. Some organisation will be needed. Merely passing this clause in the Bill will not do anything to meet the need, which will still be there. There will be a need to handle United Kingdom development money—someone will have to do that. There will be a need to enable co-operation to take place with the Colombo Plan, and other projects. There will be a need for someone to deal with matters relating to control of one product or another, and there is the need to retain good will in Ghana towards this country.
The alternatives that have been proposed by the Government here are, in our view, not true alternatives at all. The first organisation that they have suggested should take the place of the Colonial Development Corporation is the Commonwealth Development Finance Company, Limited. Some time ago this Company were good enough to send me a copy of their Annual Report and Accounts, together with an explanatory memorandum upon them. In reading it through I find this statement of the objects of this company the company which the Government think will do away with, and render unnecessary, the Colonial Development Corporation:
"The main objects of the C.D.F.C."—
that is, the Commonwealth Development Finance Company Limited—
"are to provide or procure financial facilities of all kinds for the development of the natural and other resources of any part of the Commonwealth. The rô le of the C.D.F.C. is primarily to help the financing of development undertaken by private enterprise; C.D.F.C. does not, therefore, propose to take itself a direct part in such development and special emphasis is laid on the provision of expert management by those already engaged in the enterprise concerned."
Then the memorandum goes on to general policy, and states:
"The general policy of C.D.F.C. is that financial assistance should only be considered in the case of applicants:

(i) who are unable to raise the necessary capital within the area in which the development is taking place;

348

(ii) who can in appropriate cases show that they have provided a reasonable amount of money out of their own resources;

(iii) who can show they have raised, in appropriate cases, as much as can reasonably be expected through the normal market channels;

(iv) who have or can furnish expert management for their undertaking; and

(v) whose projects offer reasonable prospects of being remunerative."

It goes on to discuss types of projects and enterprises:
"Since its rô le is primarily to help the financing of development undertaken by private enterprise, and in view of the limitation of its present resources, C.D.F.C. will naturally tend not to invest too big a block of its funds in extremely large scale projects, such as are unlikely to yield a return for several years and are probably better suited to Government finance."
I do not think there is any need to comment upon that statement; it shows that, whilst no doubt this particular body may have a useful part to play, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as something which is going to take the place of the Colonial Development Corporation because, of course, one of the great ways in which the C.D.C. can help the Colonies is by the supply of management skill, organisational skill and, if necessary, the supply of technicians.
What we on this side of the House want to know is why the Government are pushing this Company ahead at the expense of the Colonial Development Corporation, and why they are, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said on Second Reading, killing the Corporation. Because there is no doubt about it: this clause means the death of the Corporation. We cannot in any way bluff ourselves that it means any other. It has only a few years of life to live, and it will linger on on an ever-decreasing, scale. We on this side of the House, do not see why the two bodies cannot continue side by side. We feel that possibly both have a place to fill.
Then there are the international organisations like the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation. These are in no way a substitute for the Colonial Development Corporation; they are merely methods of obtaining funds. They do not provide skill, and they do not provide the help the Colonies need. The same criticism may be levelled against the substitution of the Colombo Plan authorities. We were also told that

349
it is all right, and that we do not need the Colonial Development Corporation, because we have the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. This Fund is not a development organisation, nor are its monies intended to be laid out on commercial projects. As its name denotes, it is for development and welfare, the sort of projects in which no commercial organisation would invest—primarily, projects for things such as hospitals, schools, roads and things of that sort. Not in any shape or form can it be regarded as a rival to the C.D.C., although in our view it is a most important partner of the C.D.C., and in many ways the efforts of the two are complementary.
Then there is the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Why the Minister brought this in I cannot understand, because it seems to have nothing whatever to do with this particular field. Yet that was brought in as being a means by which the Corporation could be substituted. Then we have the London money market. That is not a substitute either. The colonial territories have always been able to go to the London money market if they wished. Presumably they will still be able to do so if they so wish. But when they have the money they must be able to carry out the projects.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: May I ask the noble Lord one question, to clear my mind? If he cannot answer, possibly the Government spokesman can. The Colonial Development Fund is really money voted by Parliament here as grants-in-aid. Am I right in supposing that in no case can any grant out of that Fund be made to any non-colonial territory—that is to say, any territory which is completely independent in its Government? Is that the position?
LORD OGMORE: They certainly will not be able to if this clause is passed.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I meant under the law as it is to-day. 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 he applied to a full self-governing territory?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, if I may intervene, the answer is that it could not.
LORD OGMORE: We have had the answer. This is not the point with which I am dealing. I am discussing the substitutes which the Minister has suggested, and he mentioned the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. The fact that the Fund could not be applied anyway is not my fault. It was the Minister's own suggestion as one of the things which could be a substitute for the C.D.C. Now we hear that in any case it cannot be, and under subsections (1), (2) and (3), if they are passed to-day, obviously it cannot.
We feel that the trouble has arisen because the Government have taken far too parochial a view of this question. When a territory attains independence in fall, the Government tend to take the 19th century or the early 20th century view, and say, as the Victorian father said to the younger son, "Well, my boy, you are twenty-one. Here is £50 and a gold watch. Just take yourself off and make your own way in the world." That, we think, is rather the attitude of the Government, the Colonial Office and the Treasury to these territories. Of course, that has no bearing at all in the conditions of the world as it is to-day and in the circumstances in which many of these emergent territories find themselves. There is a leading article in The Times to-day which bears out the point I am now making: that is to say, that there is a great need for the Government to look at the whole question of the emergent territories and the future of the Commonwealth Relations Office and of the Colonial Office, to see what sort of assistance and what sort, of mechanism is needed to help these emergent territories in the circumstances in which they find themselves.
We need, I feel, to establish as many new associations with them as we can and to reinforce as many of the old as can possibly be retained, on, of course, a basis of equality and free will. The present proposals, we feel, can lead only to disaster. Certainly, if there were a member for Russia here, I should have thought that he would strongly support and vote for this clause. Of course,

351
there is not one, but, if there had been anyone who was anxious to support the Soviet Union, he would also be a strong supporter of this clause. This will mean the death knell of the Colonial Development Corporation. It is most discouraging to their staff. They cannot feel in any way enthused to develop the activities of the Corporation, feeling that at any time when these emergent territories come towards independence, any activities that they may be undertaking will be jeopardised and any arrangements that they are hoping to make will have to come to an end, often in circumstances of intense bitterness on the part of the people with whom they have been engaged.
At this stage, I would just ask for a clarification of the wording of this clause. Does the clause mean that after the appointed day no fresh money will be available for operations which have been commenced prior to the appointed day? I understand the Colonial Development Corporation are anxious to have that point cleared up. Certainly we on this side should like it cleared up, because it is an important point. There are one or two projects which have been started. Are they to be denuded of funds or can they obtain fresh funds? I want to obtain the Government's answer to that point. May I also ask this? On the Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that there was a possibility of consultation with Commonwealth Governments. How far has this consultation gone? Has the possibility of using the Colonial Development Corporation in emergent territories after independence been put to them? Has it been recommended to them? Has anything concrete taken place or has it just been a vague, nebulous and unsatisfactory exchange of ideas?
I would suggest that to-day we agree to this Amendment and that we send the Bill back to another place amended in at least this respect. I have had strong requests from people outside as well as people inside this House that this should be done. I feel it is now realised that a mistake was made in another place in not accepting an Amendment to this particular subsection. We can then, in an amendment to the Overseas Resources Act deal with the general principle
352
which is enunciated in The Times article to-day and which I have also tried to place before your Lordships, and which affects not only Ghana and the Colonial Development Corporation but all emergent territories and many other services and associations as well. I suggest that that is the proper vehicle, so to speak, to carry any clause which we may wish to be carried in this respect. It is in a debate on an Overseas Resources Bill that we could really explore the much wider field that I think should be explored before either the House or the Government takes a decision of this kind which will have momentous consequences. I therefore beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Ogmore.)
3.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervened at this stage and then my noble friend will be able to conclude the debate on this Amendment. On the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, gave the House notice that he would return to this question of the availability of capital for investment in emergent Commonwealth countries and, in particular, the use of the Colonial Development Corporation in promoting and producing new schemes of development in Ghana under this Bill. I should like the House to be in no doubt about our general desire that as large a share as possible should be taken by the United Kingdom in providing capital for Commonwealth development. Indeed, I do not know that I need give your Lordships any further proof of that than to say that, even after two world wars and the depletion of the resources at our command, the percentage of overseas investment provided by the United Kingdom in Commonwealth countries is still two-thirds of the whole. That is a formidable percentage.
This Amendment contemplates extending the rôle of the Colonial Development Corporation, which is financed, of course, entirely by the taxpayers' money, and the funds for which have been voted by Parliament for purely colonial territories. The Amendment contemplates that the Colonial Development Corporation

353
should be allowed to promote new schemes in emergent Commonwealth countries. I am not questioning the value of the Colonial Development Corporation. I think it has done a splendid work, and in the colonial territories there is a great deal of good, constructive development ahead which the Colonial Development Corporation can tackle. I hope that we shall not fall into the error of saying that this Colonial Development Corporation is going to be killed, because not only in colonial territories but in the High Commission territories in Africa, too, there is great development work to be done.
I have a lot of sympathy with the general desire to associate the United Kingdom as closely as possible with the fortunes of these emergent Commonwealth countries, but, as Commonwealth Secretary, I am bound to say that I have to look at this question from a slightly different angle from that which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, took. I must insist, and I think your Lordship; will think that I am right, that, when we have passed through Parliament an Independence Bill of this kind, the two principles must not be compromised. Political independence must be recognised as absolute, and the United Kingdom must not, and must not be thought to, maintain any right to intervene in the internal affairs of a Commonwealth country after independence has been granted to it.
The second principle which I think must be understood is this: that the independent Commonwealth country must be able to establish that it is creditworthy in its own right, and anything which postpones that day would be a disservice to the independent country concerned. If a Commonwealth country cannot, in fact, establish that it is creditworthy in its own right, then the whole of the independent Commonwealth is a sham.
Let me take the Administrations in the existing Commonwealth. The Governments of the existing Commonwealth have convinced their own people of their own ability in administration and of their own stability as societies; and, having convinced their own people, they have been able to do two things: they have been able to raise substantial sums in their own country for
354
development because the people have confidence in their Government, and they have been able to raise substantial sums from overseas. The first ambition of any independent Commonwealth country is that it should establish its credit-worthiness so that it may benefit, for instance, from being Able to raise money on the London Money Market and from great international organisations like the International Bank. I am happy to say—the noble Lord asked a Question about this the other day—that the economy of Ghana is in good shape and is likely to remain so as long as cocoa prices do not fall. Therefore, I think it is right to recognise that in an independent country of this kind we must do nothing whatever to suggest that the independence of the Commonwealth country concerned is not absolute.
Against that background, I do not think it is right to authorise the Colonial Development Corporation, as it were by a side wind in an independence Bill, to go into investment in the independent Commonwealth field. If it is necessary to reorganise the machinery for channelling investments into the Commonwealth, let us do it in a different way—I think it ought to be done in a different way, I should like to illustrate to the Committee, if I may, the complications of this question of investment in the independent Commonwealth and list the number of sources upon which independent Commonwealth countries may draw. There are, of course, the private companies in this country who extend their enterprises here and very often establish branches in independent Commonwealth countries. There is the International Bank; there is the International Finance Corporation, and in some substantial cases (although I think there have been only two of them), the Export Credits Guarantee Department has helped to finance one or two big projects.
LORD SALTER: The noble Earl will realise that under the American legislation that Bank can put only American money in. It does not help with the provision of United Kingdom money.
THE EARL OF HOME: I think we in this country contribute 18 per cent. of the money to the International Monetary Fund and the Bank.
LORD SALTER: Yes, to the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank; but not to the Export Import Bank, which is a purely American matter.
THE EARL OF HOME: No, I was talking about the Export Credits Guarantee Department here. Perhaps there was a confusion. On occasion that has helped to finance—I think twice—some considerable projects in the independent Commonwealth. Then there is the Commonwealth Development Finance Company, and, of course, covering the Asian members of the Commonwealth, there is the Colombo Plan. In the total amount of money involved for investment in the independent Commonwealth the amount contributed directly by the British taxpayer is inevitably only a part, and perhaps not a very big part.
Now new Commonwealth countries are coming into the picture, and I think it is probable that their needs will vary to some extent from the needs of independent Commonwealth countries who have come before. But I suggest to the Committee that the way to deal with the development problems is to review the rô le of all the parties concerned in Commonwealth development and to see whether any change is necessary. There are then two things we must do if we are going to invest effectively in the Commonwealth. The first is—I must emphasise this, although I said it the other day—to earn a genuine surplus. The problem is much less one of machinery than of a shortage of capital. The second thing that we should do is to review the machinery for channelling capital into Commonwealth development so that it may be done in the most effective way.
I listened with great care and with a good deal of sympathy to the speeches made on Second Reading by noble Lords opposite and on this side of the House. As the Committee knows, we are consulting the Commonwealth countries on the problems which are involved in the finance of development in the Commonwealth. In the light of the replies which we receive from them a review will be made of the United Kingdom's rô le in the development of new independent Commonwealth countries. This review will cover the form which any service or other facilities might take, and it will
356
include any possibility there may be of adapting those facilities which now exist for this purpose. So we intend to make a comprehensive review of this problem. I hope the Committee will agree that, rather than an effort to introduce the Colonial Development Corporation and to allow them to take on new projects in Ghana, a review of all the possibilities is really the way to deal with this matter; and, if it is found necessary, and if the review proves a case, then the Overseas Resources Development Act could be amended accordingly. I can make no promises. I do not know what the review will show. But we intend to undertake the review, and if the case is proved then the adaptations can be made. I hope that the Committee will feel that that is the sensible and the right way to deal with this great section of our Commonwealth responsibilities, which is to associate ourselves closely with Commonwealth development
3.48 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: I support the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Ogmore, but at the same time I fully appreciate the point of principle on which the Government are taking their stand in this matter, and which has just been repeated to us by the noble Earl, Lord Home. I appreciate also the anxiety that the Government must always feel about creating a precedent in such a matter as this. At the same time, the principle bears a certain resemblance to the old, homely saying, that a door must always be either open or closed, and I feel that what the noble Earl, Lord Home said to us, in effect, was that countries which achieve independence cannot expect to continue receiving the benefits which they enjoyed as dependants.
I cannot feel that the Government really want to deprive the new Dominion of Ghana of anything which might help her economy. Ghana will need all the economic aid which she can get. It is all very well to talk about foreign investors, and so on, perhaps making capital investments in Ghana. But foreign investors have had a series of shocks of recent years, beginning with Abadan and going on to the confiscation of the Suez Canal Company. Then there have been these incidents with the pipelines and pumping stations; and, moving away for

357
the moment from our own country and interest, there have been events in Indonesia, which no doubt have made a great impression upon the minds of foreign investors. On that account, I feel that this is no time for this country to cut off anything in the shape of friendly aid which we can give to the new Dominion of Ghana.
If Her Majesty's Government feel that they cannot accept this Amendment, although I very much hope that they may do so, I wonder whether they will consider something in the nature of an alternative in respect both of Ghana and of other countries which, in the near or far future, may also achieve independence and Dominion status. Would it be possible, in the case of Ghana and such other countries, for Her Majesty's Government to say that the Colonial Development Corporation may continue to operate in that territory for a period of ten years after the country has achieved independence—with one proviso: that the Government of the new Dominion must request the Colonial Development Corporation to do so? I mention that point to meet what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Home, on the necessity for respecting the independence of a new Dominion, a remark with which, with respect. I completely agree. But if the Corporation could continue to operate for ten years, provided that the Government of the new Dominion requested it to do so, full respect for the independence of that Dominion would be assured.
3.52 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, as we feel unable to support this Amendment, perhaps we might give a few reasons for that attitude. In opposing the Amendment, I should like to make a few comments which may be useful when this matter of development in Commonwealth countries is considered—as it must be, and as the noble Earl, Lord Home, has promised it shall be. We appreciate that the motive of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in moving this Amendment is to prevent the territory from being deprived, of any assistance which has been available to it during the period of colonial status; but we submit that this is not the way to achieve the end he has in mind. Here may I say that I hope the Colonial Office will make the time to record sonic of the benefits that have
358
accrued to territories under colonial administration in terms of technical assistance and capital. This is a field into which countless international organisations have stepped in recent years with a lot of "talk" and no so much "do." There is a story of British effort and British achievement to be told to those who besmirch "colonialism." It is a story of responsibility, and responsibility responsibly discharged, for the most part unilaterally, over a wide area of the world.
Clause 3 takes into account the unilateral character of the arrangements under colonial status; but with the new status, arrangements can no longer be one-sided, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has pointed out. The new relationship after independence calls for partnership, and I believe that this conception is quite properly assumed in subsection (3) of Clause 3. It is not to the point that the noble Lord should say we are dealing in theoretical rather than human considerations. I do not believe that any Dominion would so think. At all Dominion Conferences their representatives have stood firmly and have never been willing to depart from the strict letter of the Statute of Westminster.
There is however, a practical objection even if there were not this objection in principle. The capital of the Colonial Development Corporation is quite inadequate for the tasks which it can undertake in the remaining colonial territories. The raising of additional capital, at any rate if it is to be Government-sponsored, for operations within the Commonwealth is a matter for joint decision, in consultation and discussion with Commonwealth countries. Quite apart from the considerations which I have mentioned, I believe it is most important that the whole question of development in the Commonwealth, and how it should be done, should be given the most careful consideration. It is not only a question of Ghana. It is too important a matter to be dealt with as an Amendment to this Bill, and I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will put it on the agenda at a Commonwealth Conference in the very near future.
If I may make a few observations which I consider relevant, I believe that it is profits, or what the Minister has called "surpluses accruing", that must provide

359
the main source from which growth can take place, whether it is in the promotion of agricultural or industrial production. If this is true, and if a profit record is achieved, Government-provided capital is much less necessary. In such circumstances, the Colonial Development Corporation can go into the market to raise capital anywhere, and in my view should be free to do so. If a profit record cannot be achieved, at any rate within a comparatively short time after a period of initial waiting, there is no case for Government-provided capital. Expenditure would be found to have been squandered, and no lasting benefit would accrue to anyone. It would, in fact, be positively damaging to the economy of the territory. In these days, when the greatest creditor nation is showing little understanding of the basic principles of credit provision, it is of the utmost importance that this matter should be studied in this country. Well-meant but ill-conceived aid programmes can only tend to maintain prices at artificially high levels; they are inflationary and tend to undermine the currency of countries which accept aid. They undermine also the enterprise and initiative of the individual citizens and promote Government extravagance and bureaucracy.
I hope that I have said nothing which will be interpreted as a desire to exclude the organisation built up by the Colonial Development Corporation from being used in wider fields. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that it is not only the provision of funds that is important, but management also. And for success, management must be in capable and honest hands. It is not easy to build a team with the experience necessary to judge the factors which make for success in any operation. After a number of unfortunate experiences and considerable loss of capital, the Colonial Development Corporation appear now to be organised and operating on sound business lines. I feel sure that, when this matter is considered in the wide implications which are necessary, the advice of the Colonial Development Corporation will be sought and will be most useful.
3.59 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, I greatly welcome, as I am sure we all welcome, the statement made by the noble Earl
360
the Secretary of State in the latter part of his speech, that there will be a full inquiry as to the mechanism through which to establish the financial and economic relations of this country with territories that have been colonial territories. I hope that that review will be a wide one, and that it will not confine itself entirely to the subjects that have been raised during this discussion. I hope, for example, that it will cover such questions as the provision of experts or officials who have been in the Colonial Service, either to countries that have been Colonies or other countries that have been in more or less a dependent position. If we get nothing more, I think the speeches which have been made on this and the other side of the House, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, both during the Second Reading debate and in moving his Amendment to-day, will have been more than justified.
Having said that, I must say frankly that nothing has been said, either to-day or during the Second Reading, debate, which convinces me that the insertion of this clause—and in particular subsection (4) of the clause, though I would say the clause as a whole—is really wise or necessary. I quite agree that it should be a corollary of the attainment of its new status that the credit-worthiness of Ghana should be established and that the ordinary means of obtaining capital that are available to independent countries should be employed. But surely it is going too far to say that this new status will be a sham if Ghana, or any other country like that, is not in a position to establish sufficient credit-worthiness immediately on the attainment of that status. And surely it is unnecessary for the Government now to deprive themselves or their successors of the existing mechanism, which might or might not be used at their discretion in circumstances which neither they nor we can exactly foresee. We do not know just what will be the credit position, the creditworthiness position, in a particular territory in a few years time. I suggest it is unwise, unless there is a compelling reason, to exclude by statutory provision the possibility of operating through an organisation that has developed itself into an efficient working institution. If it is not desirable that that institution should be used, there is nothing to make the

361
Colonial Development Corporation act; there is nothing to stop the Government of the time from preventing the Corporation from acting by warning it before hand—
THE EARL OF HOME: I really do not think that that would be very honest, or that Parliament would think it right to put a clause in the Bill allowing the Corporation to act and then, by administrative action, to stop it from acting. I do not think that that would be proper.
LORD SALTER: With great respect, this is not a case of putting a clause into the Bill to give facilities. It is a question of whether or not a clause should be put in the Bill which would destroy existing facilities. It would be completely honest, I suggest, to say, either in this debate or at any other time, that it is not anticipated that it, will be the policy of the Government in ordinary circumstances to agree that capital should be available through the Colonial Development Corporation to a country which has attained the status which Ghana will attain. As I say, this is certainly riot a question of introducing a provision to establish machinery and then saying it shall not be used. It is quite the opposite to that. The new Government of the time when a problem arises can, if they wish, warn the Colonial Development Corporation that they will not give consent. The Colonial Development Corporation can themselves say, "We will not go on with the project."
It is also unreal, I consider, to suggest that the Colonial Development Corporation should not intervene in the territory of an independent country. Of course it would riot do so unless Ghana or any subsequent territory in the same position desired it. I would ask your Lordships to look forward to the possible situation which may confront Ghana or another country, such as Malaya, to which the same provisions might be applied perhaps in some years time It may be that the country will be unable to obtain adequate capital from other sources for projects which both their Government of the time and our Government of the time may think of great importance. Even though we may find difficulty in a capital export of pounds from this country, we might be even more anxious to see that the continued adherence to the sterling area of countries like Ghana, like the
362
West Coast and like Malaya should not be imperilled. I will not develop this point, but I would recommend it seriously to the consideration of the Government. I am not suggesting what they should do at that time, only that they should not deprive themselves beforehand, by statutory provision, of the power of exercising discretion at that time.
I think that this is just the kind of question in which this House might exercise one of the three valuable functions that are still left to us after the reductions in our powers and duties that have been made in recent years. We can still be a forum of debate. We can sometimes give the Government, the other place and the country time to think twice about a general Bill. And, thirdly, as a special instance of that, there is the one which is now relevant to-day. Having, as we undoubtedly have, many people with some expert knowledge and special experience, vie can sometimes, without the inhibitions which may operate in another place, where Party discipline is stricter than it is, or I hope ever will be, here, really improve by amending a particular clause or give the Government and the House of Commons the opportunity of considering again whether they will not adopt a modification that would be an improvement.
But if that is to happen, it can be, I suggest, only under three conditions. One is, of course, that the particular Amendment should not be such as to go to the heart of the Bill, and possibly to endanger the tenure of the Government of the day. Clearly, that condition is satisfied in this instance. What we now suggest does not in any way destroy or impair the essence of the Bill; still less does it affect the general status of the Government of the day. Secondly, that being so, the attitude of the Members of this House should be that they should vote freely as to what they think is right on the particular and limited matter, and that, if they have no particular view about that, they should not Note just on the general ground of supporting the Government, when ex hypothesi, in the particular case I have mentioned, this really does not touch the Government's general position. I suggest that this is a case where, if we think that this Amendment would be a real improvement, we should express our views freely.

363
There is, however, one further consideration which I say, frankly, makes me hesitate as to what I should do if we come to a Division later. I recognise that we are extremely near the crucial date, March 6: it is only a few weeks hence. I can imagine—though I do not know—that there may be, in the process of passing an Amendment here, and its going back to the other place and so on, a serious timetable embarrassment. Of course, that is not our fault; but, at the same time, it is a fact. And if I knew that it would seriously endanger this Bill I should not myself go further with the expression of the views I am now attempting to put before your Lordships.
May I make this general remark, which, although it is directly relevant to the Constitution of Ghana, with which we are now dealing, may have a bearing upon future constitutional proposals affecting us even more directly? I sincerely trust that, in order to enable this House to fill the important function of making detailed Amendments—I am not referring to the merely mechanical convenience of putting down Amendments that have occurred to the Government itself, but to Amendments that come out of the experience and special knowledge of some noble Lords on a particular matter—we should not be brought up against the timetable difficulty, the fact that there is a specified schedule which might be upset by the process of amending and sending back to another place if a date is stipulated, such as, in this instance, March 6.
4.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I feel that this is a matter on which no Party question arises at all. Frankly, I do not feel happy about it. Although, in a sense, one might say that it is a small point, it raises an n issue of some difficulty and of great importance, both on the ground of appearance and on the ground of reality—and appearance is important when we are dealing with Commonwealth matters. I hope that the Government can regard this as a pooling of ideas and will try to see what is the best thing to do in the circumstances. I appreciate that we have to work to the timetable, and that this Constitution has to come into force on March 6; but if we
364
are all agreed that a certain procedure or certain words were better than the words in the Bill, I am perfectly certain that in this House, and, equally, in another place, the Leaders of all Parties could give an undertaking and an agreed solution could go through in a matter almost of hours, certainly in not more than a day or two.
The first thing I do not feel happy about is a question of appearance; yet it seems to me a bit more than appearance. In a Bill which gives political status to this new State, I do not like to find a clause inserted that must have the appearance of taking something, away; of a bit of, I was almost going to say, local government finance legislation, which should hardly find a place in such a Bill. It would not have a place in the Statute of Westminster. Is it really necessary? I entirely agree with my noble friend the Secretary of State that independence is financial independence, as well as legislative, constitutional and executive independence; it is, in fact, sovereignty. I think it would be inappropriate, except in a special Act, like the Act authorising the Colombo Plan, to give out what I might call direct grants-in-aid to a self-governing Dominion. I do not think that would be right. That is really the function of the Colonial Development Fund—which of course, does not appear here that is why I asked about it. Grants-in-aid of this sort are not the function of the Colonial Development Corporation. At one time there was a bit of muddle between the two, because (I am not criticising the past) quite a number of things were done by the Colonial Development Corporation which looked a bit too much like giving grants-in-aid. But that is not what we are really concerned with to-day.
Of course, a state has to be creditworthy. I do not think that money ought to be lent to it unless it is. But it is not quite the case of the State becoming credit-worthy. It was my experience, when I was in office, to sec the Corporation develop, and later the working of the Corporation was greatly improved by a proposal I made when in Opposition, which was adopted afterwards not only by the Minister but by the Corporation itself—that was, that the Corporation ought to look for effective commercial partners in undertakings. I understand that the Corporation has increasingly done that, and that is why, instead of

365
finding a lot of liabilities and large sums being written off, the figures, which were given by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, show the healthy state of the Corporation's operations.
It may well be that what Ghana herself will find necessary and desirable is not grants to the Ghana Government, which I think would be quite out of place, but the establishing of businesses, with a good deal of independent capital—it may well be United Kingdom capital, but I hope it will be Ghanan capital as well—arid which will require something more in the way of capital. That is not the kind of business for which the World Bank or the Export and Import Bank or the International Monetary Fund exist, Even in our own country we found that we needed two kinds of Corporation to provide Government credit for private enterprise when the State was intervening. There is one Corporation over which my noble friend Lord Bruce of Melbourne presides, which deals with the issue of millions of funds. The other is a smaller Corporation for the little undertakings which seek to get about £50,000, for which a public issue could not be made. It may be just that kind of business which would be best for everybody concerned here. That is the kind of business which I believe will be found useful in this emergent State, and it may be necessary to have a Corporation with those facilities.
It will also be necessary to provide management knowledge. That is very important. It is as important to help to supply management and technical knowledge as it is to supply the money. It may well happen that as a result of the inquiries being made—and I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State tell us to-day about these—that he has consulted with other Commonwealth countries on the possibility that some suggestions on these lines might emerge. There might well be a partnership between the Commonwealth Finance Corporation, which is Lord Godber's organisation and arranges bigger loans, and this Corporation, which arranges the smaller loans; or one might act as the agent, by consent of the other. I can see any number of permutations and combinations of things that might usefully happen. I should not like to close the door on any of the possibilities.
366
I would add this, as one with long experience of Commonwealth affairs. I know the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will agree, for I remember a paper he once wrote saying that we should not always follow scaled pattern models in the Commonwealth. I do not know whether I ought to refer to it, as it may have been a Cabinet paper. It was certainly a good paper and a heartening one, and I would say in the same spirit: do not let us be "sealed pattern" about this. One thing I nave found is that, as the Commonwealth develops, the last thing that is wanted is complete logic and complete uniformity. Therefore I would ask: could we not hold the door open? I do not think you have to decide simply "Yes" or "No" now. I do not think the noble Earl would be doing anything in the least dishonest if, as a result of public debate in both Houses, with which the Gold Coast will be as familiar as we are, he or the Colonial Secretary, whichever of them runs the Corporation, exercised what is undoubtedly an administrative power to say: "For the time being, until we have had this review, the Colonial Development Corporation will not engage in new operations"—by which I gather is meant some completely new undertaking; they can follow up what they are doing—" in one of these new territories." I am sure that nobody here or in the Gold Coast would regard that as underhand. In fact, in our illogical way, it may be the most sensible way of tackling this.
I feel that this is most important and that there is little difference between us. The Government themselves say that the one thing we want to do as these people get their full status politically is to give them as much help as possible, commercially and financially; and they agree that they are important members of the sterling area. We are all trying to get at the same thing. Would it not be possible for us to come to an agreement to-day as to the means, and do it by simply saying, quite illogically, if you like, that we will preserve the status quo and, so to speak, hold this particular clause in suspense; and the Corporation shall not, until the result of this inquiry, do any more business once a State becomes independent, until we introduce new legislation. We may then find that the new legislation will give it a useful function—or, of course, it may not. But it is in that kind of financial legislation,

367
governing the whole of the financial organisation under which the Commonwealth co-operates and Commonwealth countries benefit, that a clause of this kind should find itself, and not in this constitutional Bill.
THE EARL OF HOME: I should like to understand this. Is the noble Earl suggesting that we should leave the clause in?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: No; I do not want to leave this clause in. I am obliged to the noble Earl. I mean to leave things as they are. It would mean cutting out this clause, but on the clear understanding that effect was given to it by administrative action: that the Corporation can take no action until the noble Earl and his colleagues in another place come to Parliament to say, either: "Having considered this, we do not want it," or "We have a new plan."
THE EARL OF HOME: It would mean cutting out this clause and then, at a later stage, if we wanted to do what we are now trying to do, we should have to re-amend the Ghana Act.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: No; with respect, I think not. Once the Ghana Constitution is there you cannot legislate in this House for Ghana. But this would not be legislating for Ghana; this would be legislating on how we, in the United Kingdom, spend our money. Therefore, it would be open for us to pass the Ghana Bill as it stands, without Clause 3, and at a later stage to come to Parliament with a simple Bill, with this one clause, which would be our domestic legislation.
LORD RENNELL: Amending the Colonial Development Corporation Act
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Yes, amending the Colonial Development Corporation Act, which is our legislation, for which we should require no assent from Ghana. All that would be done in the open forum of Commonwealth knowledge and discussion.
4.23 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: I should like to say a word or two on this Amendment. I agree entirely with what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has just said, and I think that all his points were sound. First of all, one has to look at the appearance of
368
this matter. One looks at this Bill and finds it does have a very chilly look. You have given the child the latchkey, but you say he cannot have any more money. It is starting the thing off on the right foot, with a negative. It seems to me quite unnecessary, because you have certain power, although you need not use it. There is a fear here that you have given complete independence and therefore you have got to assert their complete financial independence. That is all right. But why cut out a power by doing something here?
I thought the last point made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, was perfectly sound. It is not a question of the Ghana Constitution, but a question of the Colonial Development Corporation Act and what powers you give there. Looking ahead, we do not know what the position will be of a number of other territories that are on the way to full status. Some help of this kind is needed. It is not in the least taking anything away from their independence, but is giving us power to help a sister community, not by donations or by subventions from here, but by what is, after all, a kind of commercial association enabling businesses to do business there. I suggest that the cutting out of this clause will make the whole atmosphere better. It will make it more logical. It will not tie the hands of the Government one way or the other, but will leave us free to do just what we want, and that is to help industrial and other development in a sister nation in the Commonwealth without in the least infringeing on their independence.
LORD RENNELL: I agree entirely with what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, have said—in fact, I would go even further. Appearances matter a great deal in these cases, and the opening sentence of Clause 3 of the Bill produces to my mind an entirely deplorable impression. It says:
"No scheme shall be made after the appointed day under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, 1940 to 1955, wholly or partly for the benefit of Ghana."
We know what it means, but nothing could be couched in more unfortunate terms than the opening of that clause. Of the two Amendments down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore,

369
I would prefer the second one, which is the dropping of the whole of Clause 3, including, of course, subsection (4). The noble Lord, Lord Winster, raised the question of an Amendment, but owing to the timetable, to which the noble Lord, Lord Salter, has referred, an Amendment of the terms of a clause must inevitably give rise to much longer debates, both here and in another place, than the alternative which I suggested on Second Reading and to which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, agreed, which is to drop the whole of Clause 3, lock, stock and barrel, and not try to amend it.
Moreover, I am advised that, in fact, subsection (1), which I quoted just now, is unnecessary. The Colonial Development and Welfare Act refers to colonial territories. From the appointed day, by the definitions in Clause 4 of this Bill, this ceases to be a colonial territory, and, therefore, it is unnecessary, I submit—and I have had advice about it—to have subsection (1) in Clause 3 at all, because on the appointed day there is no longer any question of using the Colonial Development Corporation in Ghana. So far as the second main issue is concerned, I agree with what has been said by practically every speaker this afternoon. Why should the Government choose to tie their own hands and stop themselves from doing something which it might be useful to do hereafter, when they could act administratively and it is unnecessary to tie their own hands? If we want to preclude the Colonial Development Corporation either now or hereafter, from operating in any territory, we can preclude them by a direction to the Colonial Development Corporation or an amendment of its Acts. It is out of place to do it in any Act which grants independent status to any territory, whether Ghana or anywhere else.
So far as concerns intervention by the United Kingdom, by consent, in the affairs of independent self-governing Dominions—a point raised by two noble Lords who have spoken—perhaps noble Lords have forgotten the intervention of the United Kingdom in guaranteeing the loans of the Newfoundland Government. The United Kingdom intervened there by consent. There is no reason to suppose that, in future cases, by consent of the independent, self-governing Dominion, this country could not again intervene,
370
whether by providing funds or by using funds which have been provided for investment in certain territories. That includes the organisations that have been mentioned, such as Lord Godber's Company, and others. There is no reason why the existing machinery, by consent, should not be used.
It is surely unnecessary, as my noble friend Lord Swinton has said, to tie our hands unnecessarily, and in a form which cannot but be somewhat offensive to the territory in question. It is a clause of a sort which is really wholly out of place in what otherwise is a magnificent Bill, which is granting, for the first time in history, independent self-governing status to an African territory. Why mess up the picture by putting little scrawls of bureaucratic legislative necessity, or alleged bureaucratic legislative necessity, on to what otherwise is a beautiful picture, and one with which we are all in agreement? I would beg the Government to consider whether it would not be possible, and in the lime available—which I accept is very short—to drop the whole of Clause 3, lock, stock and barrel, and hereafter, if necessary, to introduce amending legislation to amend those Acts where the lawyers consider an amendment is necessary.
I have brought in the Second Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, though he has spoken himself only to the first. But I think the second is the easier course, because I consider it is easier to drop out the whole of the clause than to pick out one particular bit, or amend that particular bit. I therefore find myself in favour of the second of the noble Lord's Amendments and, a fortiori, in favour of the first.
4.34 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: This discussion has become rather more complicated than some of us anticipated when we came into the House, contemplating that it dealt more particularly with the financial clauses, and particularly with subsection (4) of Clause 3 which it his been moved to leave oat. On that particular clause, we realise that the whole timetable, as the noble Lord, Lord Salter, has explained, is involved, and that this discussion will be regarded as of great importance to the territory under review. Indeed, there must be anxieties as to what

371
effect a discussion can have. I should have had some doubt whether subsection (1) of Clause 3 is as offensive to the territory as has been suggested. For myself, I am quite satisfied with the assurance that has been given to the House by the Secretary of State. He has assured us that the territory concerned will receive the assurance of adequate financial assistance.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: We have had no such assurance.
LORD BARNBY: The noble Earl. Lord Swinton, was probably right in disagreeing with me as to who was the chairman of the Company, and I spoke about that in error. He is entitled to put what interpretation he pleases on the assurance we have received from the Secretary of State.
LORD SALTER: This is very relevant to the point some of us were making. I do not think we had an assurance of that kind at all. We did have an assurance that there would be a general inquiry, as a result of which we could doubtless have propositions at a later date of which we do not know the character. That is all, as I understood it.
LORD BARNBY: I should not like to find myself in the centre of a difference of opinion between the noble Lord, Lord Salter, and the Secretary of State; but doubtless the Minister will clear up that matter in his concluding remarks. If it was not an assurance that adequate funds would be there, it was an assurance that machinery would be provided which would make it possible. Incidentally, at this stage, without any suggestion of offence to the noble Lord, Lord Reith, there are some who think that, in referring to the Colonial Development Corporation, if there is going to be any Amendment it would be timely to change the character and to eliminate the word "Colonial", substituting, in view of the feelings which that term seems to raise, some other term.
The subject to which I particularly address myself is that the Secretary of State has repeated to-day what he said in the debate on the Second Reading. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 201 (NO. 24), Col. 157]:
"… I am consulting the Commonwealth Governments on whether or not, in their
372
opinion, any additional machinery is necessary to cover the development required in independent Commonwealth countries in the future."
It is particularly with regard to that that I venture to intervene in this Committee discussion, because that statement suggests that this is going to be a prelude to some revised machinery. The effect it may have on the Bill we are discussing is something which only those who are familiar with that territory can say. For myself, I think it is only right that we should take the chance of reading further the implications of this proposal, because there is in the air to-day, in both Houses of Parliament and in the Press, great concern as to the insufficiency of the machinery whereby funds will be available to the appropriate development of the Commonwealth.
It is for that reason that I would refer to the debate which took place in another place on November 30, which was answered on behalf of the Government by Lord John Hope. Throughout that debate, there were repeated expressions of concern about the adequacy of the machinery. In the debate which took place on the Commonwealth Settlement Bill, of which your Lordships have seen fit to approve the First Reading this afternoon, there were several speeches in which this whole question was raised. I would refer particularly to a speech made by the former Minister of Defence, Mr. Shinwell, in which he wanted (I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 563 (No. 38), Col. 575):
"a permanent organisation, established in a part of the Commonwealth where all matters relating to Commonwealth affairs of mutual interest are under review "
and that there should be
"a body charged with responsibility for injecting economic and manpower realism into our Commonwealth relations."
There is clear evidence of the concern which some of us feel about this matter Whatever may come of the inquiry which the Secretary of State has promised us, organisations like the Commonwealth Development Finance Company, Limited cannot do all that is needed. They have already made advances of £8 million; they have roughly a capital of £3 million and current bank advances of £9 million. Those sums are quite inadequate to deal with anything like the problem which is

373
envisaged in the whole question of Commonwealth finance.
There is one last reference that I would make, and I commend this to the Secretary of State when he is reviewing all the suggestions. The view of the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, was that there might well be some machinery for collaboration—as I understood it, a tripartite arrangement—between the Commonwealth country concerned, the United Kingdom Government and the United States, where reposes the real volume of resources which would give encouragement to the countries contemplating it. And I take it that that includes Ghana. It is really the availability of resources in that connection which, as the Secretary of State has made clear in his remarks, is of more importance than the machinery. Now we can return entirely and specifically to the Amendment which we are discussing. For myself, I am satisfied with the assurances of the Secretary of State.
4.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I hope very much that we shall be able to keep to the level of debate that we had in previous speeches, rather than in that to which we have just listened. I do not want to be unduly critical of the noble Lord, but at least I thought he was rather defending some other view of how it should be dealt with, and perhaps including a particular defence corporation. I may have misunderstood him, but that is how I understood him. Could not we really deal with this matter—
LORD BARNBY: Not "defence corporation" the Commonwealth Development Finance Corporation.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I would rather leave discussions of that type of thing out of account altogether at this stage. I should like to discuss the position of this country in pursuing what I think has not been a separate Party direction but a common course of seeking first to build up colonial territories and then to lead them to independence within a free Commonwealth, that being the general Parliamentary objective of all Parties.
We welcome the fact that the Government have decided to grant independence
374
to Ghana, and have produced the necessary draft legislation to Parliament. But I feel that no one could have put more succinctly than did the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, the kind of effect that this clause will have upon the matter. I do not want just to paint the lily over again in that respect but, especially now that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has returned, I ask him to believe that in this matter we on this side have at heart only, first, the best interests of Ghana and, subsequently, the keeping of the road free for continuing the progressive development of Dominion status for the emergent territories. Moreover, it should be done on the basis not only of retaining ties of fellowship, respect and admiration, but also on the very practical development of means that will be both for their welfare and commercial interest and ours. That is what it I think we really need to do.
On that basis, my noble friend Lord Ogmore moved his Amendment to subsection (4), and he also has an Amendment to leave out the whole of Clause 3, Having listened to the exceedingly powerful arguments of noble Lords on the other side, not only the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, but also the noble Lords, Lord Salter and Lord Rennell. I feel that we have a very reasonable request to make to the Government. If the Opposition take up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton—that we should agree with the Government's proposal, provided that it is understood that, while no new immediate negotiations will be entered into between the Colonial Development Corporation and Ghana, there will be an understanding that the kind of conference which the Secretary of State has indicated will be held—there seems to be good reason for asking that the Secretary of State should at this stage withdraw Clause 3 from the Bill altogether, so that the matter may receive further consideration in another place. We assume that at least great note will be taken of the views which have been expressed by noble Lords from all parts of the House in this matter to try to secure that progressive attitude which we want to see adopted, and which will also be to the great interest not only of this particular territory and its inhabitants but also of the Colonial Secretary and the Colonial Office in the coining negotiations with the other emergent territories, such as Malaya,

375
Singapore, and the new Federation for the West Indies. All these are of very great importance and urgency if they can be assisted in the right direction. If the Secretary of State will do as I suggest, we shall be highly delighted, and I am sure the noble Earl will please a much larger part of the House than is represented by ourselves on these Benches.
LORD MILVERTON: As one of those who took part in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, and who made certain comments on this clause, I feel that I ought now to say, very briefly, that I had hoped that in Committee the Government would be able to meet the objections which were voiced then and have been voiced even more cogently this afternoon. I do not propose to weary your Lordships by stating arguments which have already been much better stated than I could state them, but let it suffice to say that I agree with every word which has been spoken by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and by the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore, Lord Salter and Lord Rennell. I would implore the Government to listen to what has been urged upon them, from all sides of this House, by people who have given a great part of their lives to the consideration of matters of this kind. With reference to Lord Salter's comment about time and embarrassment, I would point out that it is only the Government that can consider that question, because by accepting the Amendment to delete Clause 3 it can be made quite certain that there will be no unnecessary delay in the passage of this Bill when it goes back to another place.
I should like, in passing, to say how glad I was to hear the assurance of the Secretary of State that there was going to be a general inquiry, but I must admit it left me feeling very dissatisfied as to how exactly it would meet our present objections. I thought that the reference to the use of the money of the taxpayer by the Colonial Development Corporation, although perhaps technically correct, left a wrong impression, because the funds used by the Colonial Development Corporation are not grants in aid to Colonies; they are in pursuance of our policy of investment in colonial development, and in their modern management certainly they are prudent investments for the benefit of this country and of the
376
country concerned. I suggest that that is the right way to look at it.
It is quite true that when a country becomes independent it should be able to prove that it is financially credit-worthy and should stand on its own feet. But in the initial stages, when this recent protégé of ours is struggling to prove that, is it not suitable that we should avoid rigid rules which shut us out from giving her such friendly aid as we can? Are we going to wait until she herself has proved that she does not need assistance before we do anything to assist her? Is that not the way to drive an emergent territory into seeking assistance from far less desirable sources than would be found in this country?
There is one final comment I should like to make on this proposal that the Colonial Development Corporation should be allowed to go on, which merely means that matters should stand as they legally stand at present but on the understanding that no new projects should be entered into for the time being. It is not easy to define when a new project begins. The injection of new capital into existing enterprises and expansions which normal business enterprise would dictate would mean that there would have to be a very flexible interpretation of that idea of no new projects; but presumably one could rely upon the Government to take that attitude. As we all know, new schemes of the Colonial Development Corporation are not just entered into at the sovereign will of the chairman and his board. The Government have ample opportunity at several stages—the Treasury and others have to be consulted—and they can, in fact, control the way in which those funds are used. So I earnestly implore the Government to accept this Amendment and to meet the wishes of a large number of noble Lords on both sides of the House.
LORD FARINGDON: I would add a few words of appeal to those of other speakers, but on slightly different grounds. I welcomed the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Home, that there was to be a Commonwealth inquiry, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, I was not immensely comforted thereby. It seemed to me to put the chances of that all-so essential aid to backward territories into the rather remote future. As Lord Rennell pointed out, we have here an

377
instrument which ear: be used for the channelling of funds into territories that need them. It seems to me that to destroy that channel before you have organised any other source of help and support is really a counsel of foolishness, if I may put it so. Surely all of us who from time to time speak on foreign or colonial affairs have always said what I am sure the majority of the Committee believe to be true: that if our ideas of democratic, Parliamentary government are to prevail in the world, if the dictatorship countries are not to gain the day, then we must see that help and aid, guidance and support go out to the backward territories. I beg Her Majesty's Government not to press Clause 3 upon us, for this is a clause which will cut off one of the, at present, all too small and all too few ways in which funds are reaching the backward territories. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will have second thoughts and will see fit to withdraw this clause.
THE EARL OF HOME: We have had a full and very useful and frank discussion, and there are really two proposals before the Committee. The first is that we should keep the clause in the Bill—that we should hold the review which I indicated at an earlier stage in this debate, and, if the need for additional machinery is proved, then we should legislate by amendment of the Overseas Resources Development Act or whatever other Act is necessary. The second proposal is that we should drop the clause, or at least subsection (4) of the clause—
THE EARL OF SWINTON: No, the clause.
THE EARL OF HOME: Drop the clause, and that we should, pending the review, stop action by administrative action. There are certain implications in that which I should like to consider; I do not think it is as straightforward as the proposers suggest. We may incur the odium—most undesirable in the case of an emergent Commonwealth country—that, in wile of a general agreement, the Commonwealth Relations Office has to step certain proposals which are put forward. I did not use the argument of the timetable before because I thought it really was not fair to introduce lit at an early stage, and I did not want the debate
378
to be complicated by that consideration. But it is real. We must get this Bill through by, I think, February 11, if the whole of our sincerity is not to be questioned in Ghana. If an Amendment were made in this House it would have to go to another place and it would have to come back here. Therefore, I cannot commit the Government.
I may have to come back here on Tuesday and, having considered these alternatives, may quite likely—I do not want to deceive the Committee—say that we still find that the Government's proposal is the right one. But between now and then, with my noble friend's permission, I and the Government are willing to have another look at these two alternatives. Therefore, without any commitment whatever, and with the feeling on my side that we shall probably have to stick to our proposals, I suggest that your Lordships should adjourn the Committee stage until Tuesday while we have further discussions, on the understanding, I hope, that noble Lords will feel, quite reasonably, that, for the sake of Ghana, we must get this Bill through by February 11.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: That is not quite as favourable an answer as I should have liked, but it is at least satisfactory that the Secretary of State is willing to reconsider the position as the result of the collection of views in your Lordships' House to-day. He is not very forthcoming as to what his estimate of the result may be. When he speaks about the time required by this legislation, which we all know is urgent and must be passed quickly, may I assure him that, from my point of view, everything will be done through the usual channels to secure that there can be no hold-up in the timing of any measure which your Lordships' House has sent back to another place because of an Amendment here. If the noble Earl would take that 100 per cent, from me, it may help him in dealing with the matter in discussions with his colleagues.
THE EARL OF HOME: I beg to move that the Committee stage on the Ghana Independence Bill be now adjourned.
Moved, That the Committee stage be now adjourned. (The Earl OF Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Committee stage adjourned accordingly.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE (FEES) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL [H.L.]
5.2 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.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
".Payments of levy made by an exhibitor under this part of this Act shall be treated as an allowable expense for the purpose of taxation."
The noble Lord said: May I commence by confessing that this Amendment is entirely out of order. I put it down because I thought it might look better to the noble Lord who will have the opportunity of replying if he saw it consistently before him in black and white than if I referred casually to the matter on the Motion that the clause stand part, The Amendment is out of order because it deals with taxation, a matter with which, according to Statute, your Lordships are not competent to deal. But during the time that this levy was a voluntary affair between the two sides of industry, exhibitors and producers, it was arranged, very sensibly, if I may say so with respect, by Sir Wilfrid Eady—whose name will always be coupled with the British Film Production Fund, which is known not by that title but as the Eady Plan—that levy payments by exhibitors should be treated as a business expense and charged against profits before taxation.
Is it possible for the noble Lord to inform the industry, across the Floor of the House, that lit is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that that provision, which was a feature of the Fund while it was voluntary, will remain? Will that undertaking be carried on when the levy becomes compulsory under the Statute,
380
if this Bill comes into law? That is the simple purpose of this Amendment. Although it is quite out of order and the noble Lord can refuse to answer if he likes, knowing that I shall not press it, I believe I know him well enough to feel sure that he will try to be as helpful on this Amendment as he is on all others which I put before the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
(".Payments of levy made by an exhibitor under this part of this Act shall be treated as an allowable expense for the purpose of taxation.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord is quite right: this Amendment is out of order. I will, however, do my best to deal with it, because I feel that it is a matter on which the industry have a right to know how they stand. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that when these agreements were negotiated between the four film trade associations an opinion was obtained from the Board of Inland Revenue that, in their view, the Finance Acts could be interpreted in such a way as to allow payments to the Fund as deductable expenses. I am happy to tell the noble Lord that I understand that the levy on exhibitors under Clause 2 of the Bill will, in the view of the Board of Inland Revenue, be allowable as a deduction in computing profit for income tax purposes. I hope that that meets the point which the noble Lord wants.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Lord mind kindly repeating that, as my attention was distracted?
LORD MANCROFT: I was saying that the important point is that the levy on exhibitors under Clause 2 of the Bill will, I understand, in the view of the Board of Inland Revenue, be allowable as a deduction in computing profit for income tax purposes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. What he has said has eased my mind. He could not have been more helpful, and what he has said will satisfy everybody. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not think it can be claimed that the next Amendment is out of order. It is a very difficult matter. I do not see how an arrangement like this can be put into a Fill, but this is its object. It has been the practice, in agreements between both sides of the industry and in the memorandum of agreement which was the basis of this Film Production Fund, that the amount of the levy should be deducted in calculating any sum due from the exhibitor to the renter or the distributor in respect of hire of films. If the noble Lord would be good enough to go so far as to suggest that something that has worked very well, with the approval of all sides of industry, during the time that this was a voluntary arrangement, should be carried forward as an obligation now that the levy is to become statutory, I should be quite happy. Perhaps I may hear what is said by the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, before I make any other comment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
(". An exhibitor shall be entitled to deduct from his box office takings an amount equal to any levy payment made by him under this part of this Act before calculating any sum due from him in respect of the hire of films shown during the period in which such levy payment accrued due when such hire is on a percentage basis.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, this Amendment would be in order, but I am afraid I am unable to accept it for a number of reasons. The first reason is that the amount of money which is to be paid by an exhibitor to a distributor for film hire is a matter of commercial dealing and therefore of individual contract, and as noble Lords—especially those who sit behind me—will appreciate, our policy should be to intervene less rather than more in the affairs of the film industry. We certainly should not wish to specify in any way the method by which distributors are to calculate rates of film hire. In any event, the acceptance of this Amendment would not protect the exhibitor, if his distributor were determined to exert his bargaining position, for, if the amount upon which the distributor is to calculate his film hire is to be decreased, then he can always seek to increase the percentage to be charged.
382
Although films are supplied under separate contract by distributors to each exhibitor, it is fairly general for such contracts to include a clause which defines the amount upon which film hire is to be paid as: "the gross receipts (less entertainments tax)." Since contributions to the Fund will, if this Bill is passed, become statutory exactions, it may well be that contracts will also, in future, specify that contributions to the Fund are also to be deducted from the gross receipts before the calculation of film hire. There is no provision in the Finance Acts which says that the exhibitor shall be entitled to deduct entertainments tax from the amount upon which he pays film hire to this distributor; and there seems no reason why treatment of the levy payments should, in this cur text, be dealt with any differently from entertainments tax. I would just add this. The voluntary levy scheme, as the noble Lord has pointed out, was in the nature of an internal agreement within the industry itself, and it was applicable in those circumstances. I should like to remind the noble Lord that the voluntary scheme is to be replaced by a statutory scheme, and that rather alters the situation.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I do not think there is really any difference between the two sides of the House on this question, or between any of the various sections of the industry concerned. As has been said, under the voluntary levy all sides of the industry agreed that in calculating film hire on a percentage basis the levy, like entertainments tax, should be deducted from the gross receipts. I think it is only fair, in this connection, to point out that among the parties to that agreement were American film distributors who were in no way beneficiaries under the voluntary levy. It is true that there is no provision in law for the deduction of entertainments tax from box office receipts for calculating film hire and it would be open to the distributor and exhibitor, if both were so minded, to make a film hire contract for 20 per cent. of the gross receipts instead of 33⅓ per cent. of the net receipts. They could do that if they thought that there was any advantage to them in doing it. I think it can be taken as a matter of course that the industry will,

383
by agreement, do what Lord Lucas of Chilworth wishes to accomplish by his Amendment. I agree with noble Lords on other sides of the House that it is not a suitable matter for legislation.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thank the noble Lord. Lord Fairfax of Cameron, for what he has said. I think he has gone as far as I can reasonably expect him to go. I said that though I thought that technically the Amendment was in order, I did not think that this was a matter which could be brought into legislation. Working on the principle that "a wink is as good as a nod," I think that the noble Lord has said sufficient. I was particularly interested in one thing he said, and I thought it was most gracious of him. He told me that it was the policy of Her Majesty's Government to interfere as little as possible in the film industry.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I said "less rather than more."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should think that in the matter of half an hour I shall have the opportunity of reminding the noble Lord of that remark; but, for the time being, I shall say no more about it. I think, too, as does my noble friend Lord Archibald, that it will be the practice of the industry to come to an agreement. This is a matter for contractual agreement between the parties and not for legislation. The Government have indicated their wishes and desires in this direction and have intimated what they think is the right and proper thing to do. I am sure that the film industry always desires to fall in with the wishes of the Government, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.16 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
" . An exhibitor shall be entitled to deduct from his box office takings an amount equal to any levy payment made by him under this part of this Act in respect of any performance given on a Sunday before calculating any sum payable under paragraph (a) of section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, in connection with such Sunday performance when the same is calculated by reference to a percentage of the box office takings or some part thereof."
The noble Lord said: This is another matter that requires clarifying. As your Lordships know, for years and years various members of Her Majesty's Government—the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has done his fair share, and I have done my fair share; it is a thing which anyone who has sat on the Government Front Bench has had to do periodically—have moved certain regulations under the Sunday Entertainments Act to enable cinemas to open on a Sunday. But there is a proviso in that Act that a certain percentage of the takings must be paid over to charity. Various local authorities who have jurisdiction over whether or not a cinema shall open on Sunday have different ways of arriving at the percentage of the money to be paid over to charity. Some local authorities allow the levy payment to be deducted before the gross receipts are computed, others take a different view.
The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is an expert on this matter. He has a Motion down for February 20
"To call attention to the provision of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932. which discriminates against Sunday opening of cinemas and to move for Papers."
I do not want to encroach upon what he is going to say—perhaps he may be tempted to say something upon this Amendment—but I think it is time that this matter was regularised. I think there should be a common practice all over the country. As I pointed out to the noble Lord, if it needed to be pointed out to him, when the levy was a voluntary matter, the impecunious exhibitor—and there are many of them—who could not afford to pay it could come to some arrangement with the renter. It is hard that in some areas the exhibitor should not be allowed to deduct the amount of levy before the amount to be paid to charity is fixed. In other words, I am trying to write into this Bill that, if the Sunday Entertainments Act goes on, as I presume it will—I can remember the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, defending it to the last ditch on a previous occasion —the procedure throughout the country for deducting the levy should be the same as the procedure for entertainments tax. The noble Lord has granted that. Entertainments tax is deducted from net box office receipts, not gross receipts. Income tax is also calculated on the same basis, and I think that this should be extended

385
to the charity contribution required under the Sunday Entertainments Act. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD JESSEL: Of course, I support my noble friend's Amendment. Obviously he is the expert on this subject. This Amendment is necessary so long as the levy under the Sunday Entertainments Act continues. I hope that after February 20 there may be some chance of having legislation which will make this Amendment, even if it is in the Bill, unnecessary.
LORD MANCROFT: I must confess that I have some sympathy with the point of view which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has put forward. I know something about this extremely complicated question because, as the noble Lord rightly said, it becomes almost a ritual function of anyone who acts for the Home Office in your Lordships' House to move Orders under the Sunday Entertainments Act. When I represented the Home Office, I moved these Orders with monotonous regularity—I moved twenty-seven in all—and on one occasion, most unfairly, a noble Lord asked a question about an Order. I nearly had a stroke, and the consternation at the Home Office was almost indescribable! This question is not really germane to the Bill. I believe that, technically, we could put in an Amendment, if we were so minded, but it would mean a complete re-hash of the Bill, a new Schedule and a great deal of work in order to drag it within the terms of the Bill. I must remind the noble Lord that, since it is outside the general content and subject of the Bill, nobody has been consulted on this point, and I do not think it would be fair to local authorities, who are intimately concerned with this question, if we were suddenly to bring this into the Bill without consulting them in any way. I am sorry that we have not had the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, before this, because it would have been interesting to see how that debate went and what were the views of your Lordships on this question.
Although there are technical reasons why it is undesirable to accept this Amendment, I do not rest my case against
386
the Amendment solely on that. I am afraid that this Amendment would not achieve the result the noble Lords wants to achieve. We know, as he told us, that exhibitors in certain areas are opposed to the calculation of Sunday charity contributions by reference to a percentage of box office takings. The Amendment may allow levy contributions to be deducted statutorily before calculating Sunday charity contributions, but the real point is that a discretion remains with the local authorities to increase the percentage they apply. That is the difficulty I see at the moment. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment. In the first place, I think it would be quite unfair to local authorities to put it in without any consultation whatever on what is a major issue, and one which does not necessarily come within the purview of the Bill. Secondly, I would suggest that the noble Lord might like to think about it, and perhaps discuss it with my noble friend Lord Jessel, because I do not think it would achieve the object he sets out to achieve. As I say, I feel a little uneasy about this matter, because I know that there has been considerable criticism of it, but I do not think that what the noble Lord wants to do can be achieved by his Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before my noble friend replies, I would say that I can see the force of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Without wishing to prejudice in any way what the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, may say during the coming debate, I think that there is a great deal to be said for the abolition of the Sunday charity contribution. There seems to be no justification for it on any moral, ethical or religious grounds. Presumably there is some financial justification, but that comes under a different category. I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, but surely the Sunday charity contribution is a matter for arrangement between the local authority and the cinema proprietor. I know that some local authorities demand a much higher rate of so-called charitable contribution than others, but I cannot see that every local authority would automatically increase the amount of contribution demanded if my noble friend's Amendment were incorporated in the Bill.
LORD BURDEN: I am sure that we all thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for the tenderness which he has displayed for the feelings of the local authorities. I wish that the same tenderness was always shown, and we shall note it for future reference. We do not want to have a "pre-run" this afternoon on the question of Sunday entertainments tax, but I think we ought to tell the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that we hope the result will be to put an end to what I would describe as "face both ways" legislation. If it is right to have Sunday entertainment, why tax it? The tax is some consolation to the good people who think that it is wrong to have entertainment on Sunday. I am sure that we shall have an interesting debate when the noble Lord's Motion is before the House.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am afraid I cannot show the same amount of satisfaction at the noble Lord's reply as some of my noble friends have done. The first thing that surprises me is that the Board of Trade, which has the administration of the cinema industry under its jurisdiction, should be unaware that the Sunday entertainments contribution and the levy were burning questions inside the industry. This has been a burning question for a long time. This Bill is produced to make the levy statutory, and I should have thought that it was apparent to anybody that Her Majesty's Opposition. fulfilling their public duty, would probe everything in the Bill that we thought needed rectifying. Why, then, was there no consultation between the Board of Trade, or the Home Office—if it is a Home Office matter; perhaps it is—and the local authorities? Why do you have to leave it for the odd chance that the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has taken of putting down a Motion, or of my putting down an Amendment, before somebody wakes up to the fact that they will have to consult the local authorities?
I was rather amused at the sally of my noble friend, Lord Burden, about consulting local authorities: "There is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth…". I am rather afraid that consultation with local authorities has been trotted out this afternoon as an excuse for not accepting my Amendment. I think that the Government and the Department concerned have been remiss.
388
If they have not been remiss, why did they not consult local authorities when they knew that legislation was being proposed in your Lordships' House to make a statutory levy, and to impose penalties in this Bill for the non-fulfilment of that statutory levy, and when they knew, or should have known, that this was a matter of disquiet, dissatisfaction and alarm, at least, on the exhibiting side of the cinema industry? If they were not remiss—I do not know what other term to use—why did they not consult the local authorities and say: "What is your view about this proposal?"
I do not quite follow the noble Lord. He served with distinction at the Bar and he was for some time an Under-Secretary at the Home Office. I have had no legal training, and I am subject to correction. I cannot understand why the Sunday Entertainments Act, as regards a levy payment upon receipts from which deductions have to be made under that Act, could not be the subject of an Amendment in this Bill. I have seen many Bills that amend other sections. Indeed, are we not going to amend the Cinematograph Films Acts of 1938 and 1948 by this Bill; are we not going to amend the Cinematograph Films Production (Special Loans) Acts of 1949 and 1950? We are going to extend various parts of those Acts and are going to amend them in this Bill. Why am I now told—the noble Lord may be right about this, and I may be wrong, but I should like to know—that we cannot have a clause in this Bill to say that the statutory levy that the cinematograph exhibitor has to pay upon the price of the seats should be deducted before any percentage is calculated that is imposed or levied by a local authority as a quid pro quo for something else? I am a genuine seeker for information here.
Another reason why the noble Lord says he cannot accept this Amendment is because it would be unfair to the local authority to spring this upon them without consultation, and if the local authority wanted to recover the amount that was deducted as a result of my Amendment, they could increase the percentage. But what about the local authorities who allow it? Is there not unfairness to them? And is that unfairness not due to the fact that the Government have not taken action here? Some local authorities allow deduction of the levy; others do

389
not allow it. All I ask is for common practice, and there is nothing unfair about that. Surely, the noble Lord should make a provision—perhaps he will at sonic future date—that if the Board of Trade saw that the object of this Bill was being defeated, they could take action to ensure that the percentage payment was statutorily imposed and that the deduction for charitable purposes under the Sunday Entertainments Act should be only a statutory percentage after the levy had been deducted. Before we proceed further, perhaps the noble Lord would care to reply to the questions I have raised. I think noble Lords would be interested in what he may have to say, and it will guide us in our future action.
LORD MANCROFT: I will certainly try to deal with the points raised by the noble Lord. I say again, as I said before, that I have never been easy about this matter myself. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that I was once Vice-President of the municipal corporations, and I can well remember the indignation that body expressed if the Government acted precipitously without consulting them. I think it would be a most improper thing to take a step such as this, which would cause a great controversy between one section of local authorities and another, Without consulting them at all. Perhaps I can do something here to help the noble Lord. I can assure him that there is no question of remissness on the part of the Department. Both the Home Office and the Board of Trade are, and have been, aware of this matter for a long time; but it is the considered opinion that this Bill is not the right place to deal with it. There are many other things like this that are causing disquiet in the industry but which cannot be included if relevance is to be observed in this Bill. However, it does not alter the fact that the problem exists.
My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade will later this year be consulting the Cinematograph Films Council and all sections of the industry about detailed amendments to the quota legislation. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to do this. As I say, I cannot accept this Amendment, first, because of the local government point; secondly, because I do not think that, as drafted, it will achieve its purpose; and
390
thirdly, because a great deal of other amendment would, be required consequentially, and a lengthy Schedule, even to attempt what the noble Lord is trying to do. However, if he likes, I will go back to my right honourable friend on this matter generally and consult with him, and also consult with my noble friend Lord Jessel, after the debate on his Motion, to see whether we cannot have second thoughts about it. I am not entirely happy about the position, and I think that to turn it down out of hand and to say that nothing should be done about it would be quite wrong. If the noble Lord will accept that assurance from me, without any question of accepting his Amendment, of course, I will certainly see that his observations and those of other noble Lords are given second thoughts, and we will see what we can do along those lines.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I will take advantage of his offer. He mentioned just: now that perhaps light will be thrown upon this problem when we debate the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, on February 21. We have not yet reached the end of the Committee stage. After the Committee stage we have the Report stage and, therefore, we may anticipate that the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, will be debated before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is on Wednesday the 20th, and Thursday is a Sitting 'Day of the House. As we are privileged to be able to move Amendments on Third Reading that would appear to me to be a convenient timetable. Therefore, I will accept the noble Lord's suggestion, and withdraw my Amendment, with the proviso that I shall wait for him at some convenient time to tell the House the result of his deliberations with his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, and we can then see how to proceed. I will leave it to him to make the next gesture. On that understanding, beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: Before your Lordships give leave to the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment, may I make it perfectly clear that the promise I just made contains no semblance of acquiescence in the timetable which the noble Lord so cheerfully and glibly proposed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I say this with no discourtesy, but, of course, the noble Lord does not arrange the timetable of the House.
LORD MANCROFT: Thank goodness!
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: At least he now knows what is in our minds. I can assure him that, when the usual channels get to work to arrange a timetable, that is what we shall propose from this side of the House in order to accommodate the noble Lord and allow him to have full consultations with his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House for another place. I am quite sure the last thing we want to do is to send untidy legislation, with string and pieces of rag and frayed edges, from your Lordships' House to another place.
LORD BURDEN: Before this Amendment is withdrawn and we pass on to Clause 3, I should like, if I am in order, to put a general point on the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD TERRINGTON): The Motion, "That the Clause stand part" has been agreed. The noble Lord should ask leave.
LORD BURDEN: I think it is a constitutional point. This clause provides for the raising of considerable sums of money which will be administered under regulations drafted and approved by this House. After that, so far as I can see, the sole control which Parliament will have over that expenditure of money is a report submitted annually to Parliament. Can the noble Lord tell me what other industry in this country has similar obligations imposed on it? How is it constitutionally correct? As I see it, neither the Select Committee on Estimates in another place nor the Public Accounts Committee can in any way interfere with, or criticize, what has been done, because, as was drawn out from the noble Lord yesterday, these are not public monies. The point I wish to make is this: is it constitutionally correct that vast sums of money of this kind, collected from an industry and used inside an industry, should be free from all Parliamentary control, except for an annual report submitted to Parliament?
LORD MANCROFT: I do not know whether I am in order in answering the noble Lord, because I believe he was completely out of order.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord was out of order.
LORD MANCROFT: Then I cannot answer the noble Lord, except to say that I disagree with him, and that there are perfectly good safeguards.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
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 payments may be made;
5.46 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved, in subsection (1), after "Trade", to insert:
", after consultation with the Cinematograph Films Council and with organisations representing producers and exhibitors,"
The noble Lord said: In rising to move this Amendment, I realise that we are to some extent going over ground which, if not exactly the same, is at least similar to that which we have been over before in this Bill. But we are now dealing with regulations which will cover the disbursement of the levy, whereas we were dealing previously either with the regulations imposing it or those governing the Agency. To some extent, therefore, it is a new view that is involved here.
I must say that I find myself in a considerable difficulty with regard to the whole of Clause 3. The difficulty is that it provides for a series of regulations, but it fails in any respect to lay down the general principles under which these regulations will be drawn. I considered for some time whether I should put down Amendments to subsection (2) (a), possibly on the lines of those, which we have still to reach, put down by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I found that the difficulty was that, if I tried to say that films of a certain type should be excluded, or that films of a certain type should be included, I might come up

393
against the difficulty of finding later that I had forgotten one kind that should be excluded or one kind that should be included, and that the legalistically minded would argue that, having forgotten to put that one in, it was therefore automatically ruled out.
I considered various methods of securing that the regulations to be made under this clause would be regulations acceptable in general terms and in outline to the industry. I came to the conclusion that it was a fairly hopeless business to try to put down detailed Amendments, and that the more reasonable course was to suggest consultation between the Board of Trade, responsible for drawing up the regulations, and the industry, which is to be subject to these regulations. I confess quite freely that I prefer Amendment No. 20, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to my own Amendment, as l do not think that this is a matter on which the Cinematograph Films Council is the most appropriate body with which the Board of Trade might confer. I think it would be much more appropriate that the discussion should be between the Board of Trade and the organisations representing producers and exhibitors. But that there should be such discussions before the regulations are made is, I think, not only right and proper, but positively inevitable.
I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord who is to reply will be a little more forthcoming than he has been previously, and that he will not reject that part of the Amendment which I want, and accept that part about which I am less enthusiastic. I hope that this time he will not pin his faith only on consultations with the Cinematograph Films Council, but will accept that, in the very specific matters that are to be dealt with by regulation, the advice of more expert bodies is desirable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, after ("Trade") insert the said words.—(Lord Archibald.)
5.50 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Archibald; has said. Of course, we want the regulations to be acceptable to everybody; we want them to be reasonable and we want them to work—and they will, I am certain.
394
Equally certainly, I am sure that we shall consult everybody whom a reasonable person taking an objective view of the industry would say should be consulted. You will not get reasonable regulations unless you consult the right people. But the difficulty is to get that into the Bill. There are quite a number of bodies who might claim to be representative and ought to be put into the Bill. How do we decide who are the right representative bodies to be included? The noble Lord says "with organisations"—he does not say how many or which—"representing producers and exhibitors." Quite a few can claim to be included within that class. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, talks about
"such bodies as appear to the Board of Trade to be representative of makers and exhibitors of British films."
Many such bodies within certain limits are representative and would claim to be representative and would make a considerable objection if they were excluded and not consulted as statutory bodies.
I can see the noble Lord's point. I do not think that either Amendment No. 17 or Amendment No. 20 will meet that difficulty. That is why I have asked noble Lords opposite repeatedly to agree with me that the Cinematograph Films Council is the right body to be included, if you insist upon a statutory inclusion, because that includes everybody. It may be necessary to consult frequently in the course of the ten years ahead and to consult in a hurry. If we put in half a dozen different bodies, it will be difficult to consult them. They may all well claim to be consulted if a unified decision is required. Consulted they most certainly will be in practice, as you can well imagine, on a matter which is directly their concern. That is why I think that to put in the Bill statutorily the Films Council—which does not 'necessarily mean consulting the whole Council in a full meeting but maybe some proper committee or some official—is the right thing to do. I gather that that is what the noble Lord wants—statutory inclusion. I am sorry if he disagrees with me that statutory inclusion is the right way of doing it and not the rather vague way which he and his colleague desire. The Council will be consulted on matters on which they might properly be consulted, but the only practical way of avoiding squabbling, jealousy or delay is to put the Council in the Bill rather

395
than the unnamed and slightly vague representative bodies the noble Lord has mentioned. These other bodies will no doubt be consulted, but I think that they should not be included in the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The longer the noble Lord resists the pleas from this side of the House upon this question, the stronger does the noble Lord make our case. He has now made it in a complete manner. He said, first of all, that he was going to the Films Council because he does not want to discriminate as to whom he should ask and whom he should not ask. Who decides the membership of the Films Council?
LORD MANCROFT: It is already decided.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is laid down. Could the noble Lord tell me the definition?
LORD MANCROFT: With a few minutes' notice, yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will tell the noble Lord. It has to be selected. By whom?—by the Board of Trade. It is the self-same wording as in this last Amendment. Then the noble Lord goes on to say, "Of course, we shall not consult the whole of the Council. We shall consult a sub-committee." Who makes that choice?—the President of the Board of Trade. So somebody is going to discriminate at some time unless you have the whole of the Films Council, and that means independent members as well.
LORD MANCROFT: What is the noble Lord's objection to the Films Council?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The same objection as I have voiced. Here are trivial matters of detail, not policy. The policy will be laid down in regulation. There are matters of detail which concern two bodies, the exhibitors and the producers: one who has to give and the other who has to take. There is no high policy for the future of the film industry. And yet for the purpose, and only for the purpose, of resisting reasonable Amendments put forward by this side of the House we have the "white elephant" or the "red herring"—I give the noble Lord the choice of metaphor—of the Films Council. Then, when we come
396
really to cross-examine, as we shall do continuously, upon this matter, he makes our case: he is going to consult only a section of the Films Council. Which section?
LORD MANCROFT: No. If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I would point out that he is taking this point to a wrong conclusion. For four years I was a member of the Bar Council. The Bar Council was consulted on innumerable occasions when it was right that it should be consulted, and, on innumerable occasions, I was not available at the time, but a proper sub-committee or division or an individual of that Council was consulted. Perhaps twenty or thirty of us, but not all of us, gathered together for consultation. That is the point. It is similar with the Films Council.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are not consulting the Bar Council. The noble Lord wants to consult the Films Council and he has said that of course it will be only a sub-committee, maybe, of the Films Council. I want to know who is going to decide that. The noble Lord keeps on telling us that he cannot discriminate. He has to discriminate if he consults a sub-committee.
LORD MANCROFT: No. I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, because he does not often interrupt me. He is again taking this point too far. I said that the entire Films Council need not gather together to be consulted on every point. It is common or garden practice. Every councillor knows that.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is what I say. My Amendment, to which the noble Lord referred, says:
"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, "Of course, although we put the Films Council in, it will not be the Films Council; it will be that part of the Films Council which appears to the Board of Trade to be representative of the purpose for which they wish to consult it. There is no difference whatsoever." But the noble Lord cannot make sure that at any time the Films Council represents the entire industry.
LORD MANCROFT: Yes, it does.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No; because, as my noble friend Lord Archibald disclosed when he moved his first Amendment, he has become the responsible head or president of a new association of producers. They are not members of the Films Council because they are not in formation yet. But, when they are, who selects them and who invites them to be members of the Films Council? The noble Lord will do far better if he can persuade his advisers that there is no stigma, that he will not get into bad odour, if he accepts an Amendment from the Opposition now and again. There might be some sense in what they say—some chance that, after they have battled in your Lordships' House, trying to present the case, hour after hour, day after day, it might be advisable to say, "Yes, we think you are right; we think this is a better idea than ours." I do not think the Government—
LORD MANCROFT: It is the noble Lord's idea as well; he has it down in his Amendment. I am trying to accept it, but nobody will let me.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have not got it in my Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: We are not discussing the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I know; but in his speech the noble Lord brought in my Amendment—Amendment No. 20. That is why I am arguing it now. So I should like the noble Lord to consider this. I said in regard to Clause 2—I think it was about the last thing I said on the last occasion—that I was not satisfied that the Films Council was the appropriate body. The noble Lord is going to get into an unholy mess by selecting bits and pieces of the Films Council with whom to consult. There are independent people. The Council is made up of everybody in the film industry, including independent members; and this is a simple little question: "What is the best way to carry out the regulations regarding the collection of a levy? What is the best way of carrying out the regulations regarding the expenditure of a levy?" The only people who are really concerned in that are the producers and the exhibitors. Therefore, what I suggest to the noble Lord is, if he likes, that he should accept my noble friend's Amend-
398
ment, because my noble friend has attached to it the words:
"and with organisations representing producers and exhibitors."
It may be that we have got one opening in the door, with perhaps half a foot in, with the noble Lord admitting that in this case the Amendment which I have put down, Amendment No. 20, is by far the better way of meeting the point which we want and have laboured so hard to convince him about. Therefore, hope he will accept my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: May I support my noble friends on this matter? The reason why we on this side of the House are so strongly pressing it is, first, that we do not want, I will not say hand-picked evidence, but selective evidence and selective consultation. One knows how easily that can be obtained. Secondly, we are pleading for this so strongly because of the very limited powers of this House—practically no powers at all—when the regulations have been framed and laid before Parliament. We are told, in a general way, that everybody has been consulted, and we can do nothing about it at all. Again I press on the noble Lord the point that I ventured to make yesterday—namely, that before regulations are laid, this House and, if necessary, the other place, should have an opportunity of considering the draft regulations, to know whether the intentions of the Bill and what has been said in the course of this debate have been fully carried out, as we intend to see that they are carried out.
LORD MANCROFT: Before the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, replies, I want to clear up this question of the Films Council. I am not happy in my mind why everybody seems to be so hostile towards this poor Council. It is set up under the 1938 Act, so that it has a perfectly respectable statutory ancestry. As the noble Lord knows well from his experience at the Board of Trade, the Board of Trade write to all the trade associations asking for nominations to the Council. First, let us for a moment look at the Council to see what it is that the noble Lord's Amendments are going to make of the Council The Council consists of seven independents, five exhibitors, four producers, four employees and two renters, and in normal circumstances the Council can obviously appoint

399
an appropriate sub-committee. That is something about which the noble Lord has made much play. What noble Lords opposite are trying to do in addition is to set up another advisory council. But the interests that one wants to consult, and rightly so, and which I have agreed should be consulted, are all on that Council and can rightly be approached. I have suggested that a reference to the Council should be included in the Bill. I cannot, for the life of me, see the point of not accepting the suggestion that I have thrown out to noble Lords opposite, instead of putting into the Bill the obligation to consult a new advisory council, which will be set up with exactly the same objects in view as the existing Cinematograph Films Council.
LORD BURDEN: Does not the noble Lord see that to define is to limit, and we do not want that limitation?
LORD ARCHIBALD: If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, correctly when he first spoke on this subject, he said that of course these organisations representing producers and exhibitors would be consulted, but that the objection was to putting it in the Bill—and he made play of the fact that there could be a great many such organisations. I think the noble Lord knows that, in fact, there are not very many organisations, and even though a new one is in process of formation, it still does not make the number very great. If, in fact, the Board of Trade are going to consult the organisations representing producers and exhibitors, I do not see any reason why they should not agree to putting that in the Bill. But, as I said earlier, I prefer the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth to my own, and I propose, therefore, to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I shall support that of Lord Lucas of Chilworth when we come to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.8 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (a):
"and shall—

(i) exclude any British films primarily made for exhibition in a television programme, a news reel or a trailer, and any films which an exhibitor is paid to show and any Government films;

400

(ii) provide that in the event of any levy payment being made in respect of any film such film shall not within a period of seven years of the latest date upon which any such payment is made, be exhibited as part of any television broadcast."

The noble Lord said: Now we come to what I suppose will be rather a controversial matter; it is certainly a complicated matter. When I first read this Bill I noticed that in Clause 3 (1) these words appeared:
"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."
Then subsection (2) says:
" Regulations under this section may—
(a) define the classes of British films in respect of which payments may be made."
There is a new medium which we debated the other day—television. I suppose that television is proving, and may continue to prove, one of the greatest competitors of the cinema. As an aside, I should hazard the guess—doubtless the cynic would—that the lower the quality of television programmes, the greater is the hope of the cinemas that their patrons may eventually be driven back to them. Be that as it may, I should think the noble Lord will have some considerable difficulty in not agreeing with me that it would be incongruous, to say the least —I can think of a far harsher expression —to suggest that a levy should be made upon the exhibitors in order to subsidise their principal competitor. That seems to me to be rather strange.
I can see the day, which may not be so far ahead, when films will be the main entertainment provided on television. Today one has difficulty in knowing the difference. In the early days, when we had only B.B.C. television, they were reasonably honest in putting a footnote in italics against every item in their programmes, saying whether it was a live programme or a film. Now, one does not know which is which; and some of them are a hotch-potch, some parts of a television programme being film and some live; and as time goes on, film will form the major part of television programmes, because nobody who sees a daylight scene on television at night can really delude himself that it is not a film. Then we come to films specially made for television. What of

401
films that are not made for television? Should they be allowed? I have tried to safeguard that point in my Amendment, because, first, I wish to exclude from the levy, and only from the levy:
"any British films primarily made for exhibition n a television programme …"
I believe that I am justified in asking your Lordships to do that.
I do not want to go into these highly technical matters, but on Tuesday we were discussing the fact that, out of the exhibitors' proceeds, the Treasury takes £30 million a year in entertainments tax. Television, however, pays no entertainments tax at all. One may sit in one's own home and watch television, and no entertainments tax is paid; there is no restriction. Look at the restrictions with which the exhibitor or the owner of a cinema has to comply, restrictions with which the person sitting watching television at home does not have to comply. Yet that person is sitting in his own private cinema. There are 19 million people in this country who can sit in front of their own private cinema, and they do not pay one halfpenny entertainments tax. There are 7 million private cinemas in this country—over 7 million homes which have a television licence—I gave your Lordships the figures in the television debate.
There are 19 million adults in this country who can view television on their own sets—I am not counting the children. Those people do not pay a halfpenny in entertainments tax. Yet here we have an industry which has to find, out of its box-office receipts, £30 million a year, 50 per cent. of its net takings, for entertainments tax. And it is now to be levied for £3¾ million during the coming year and a minimum of £2 million and a maximum of £5 million in any subsequent year—a levy made, quite rightly, for the purpose of ensuring that the production side of the British film industry can be put on a profitable and equitable basis.
Does it not appear to your Lordships that in equity, as well as in common sense, a film made primarily for television should not he the recipient of levy payments? If the television broadcasting companies want to make films, let them do so. I hope they will make films in greater numbers so that we shall not then have to pay for these half-hour "television twaddles" from America; for I do
402
not "Love Lucy," and I do not "Want to Marry Joan." I hate the wretched people. I hope that our British film producers will produce better things for television; but let the television companies pay the British producer a reasonable amount for so doing. I am sure I speak for producers as well as for exhibitors in this Amendment, which seeks to provide that we should not allow this levy to be syphoned off and find its way into the pockets of those who make films primarily for television. That is my first case.
The next type of film I seek to exclude are newsreels, trailers, films which an exhibitor is paid to show—and there are a lot of such propaganda films—and Government films. If the Government want films they should pay for them. As a matter of fact, I have put in those last three types of film only because they are in now and I will not waste your Lordships' time by arguing that point. The noble Lord will have to give me that point; as they are now excluded from payments from the levy I conclude that they will be excluded in future. But the Eady Plan was in existence before television films came into existence, so there I want a definite exclusion, and not the implication in the Bill that the regulations shall say what films shall receive levy payments. I want to say that at least there is one kind of film that shall not receive such payments.
Then we come to the old film. The levy is paid on a quota film, but your Lordships must not think that the levy is a once-and-for-all payment: it is not. It is paid all the time a film is in quota, and it can get a proportion of what it grosses every year that it is in quota. It gets it for the first four years the original period of the film quota. It can then get an extension of a further three years, making the full period seven years. That is why I put in my subparagraph (ii) the proviso:
" that in the event of any levy payment being made in respect of any film such film shall not within a period of seven years of the latest date upon which any such payment is made, he exhibited as part of any television broadcast; "
In other words, while a long film (not a television film) is in receipt of levy, it should not be on a television programme. If it is in receipt of levy and falls, in

403
any part of its quota period, out of levy, then I suggest that the embargo should be lifted. That is the simple purpose of my Amendment.
I am not tied to the wording of this Amendment. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has a better form of wording. But I do plead in all seriousness for this much-hit industry, and, in particular, for this much-hit side of the industry. And make no mistake about the position. Last year, some 179 cinemas were closed. The little cinema is affected most of all. I do not suppose that television has really affected the West End cinema very much. If you go to a West End cinema, the outing is usually quite a function. Often you go to dinner first. Personally, I prefer to go to dinner and not to the cinema. But that, I expect, is a peculiar choice of my own. When you are sitting cosy in an armchair, and it means taking a bus and going three miles to visit a cinema, your inclination to move may not be strong. You can see the television programme and you will not feel very enthusiastic about going out to see films. I think that something must be done unless nail after nail is to be driven into the coffin of the exhibiting side of the industry—for, in the coming struggle, it is the exhibitor who is going to get, if I may use such a common expression, "the dirty end of the stick".
Television could not exist for five months on live broadcasts, so producers of films will always have a market. Perhaps the television market for films will develop. Most of the circuits now in America are getting into the television industry. It is the exhibitor I am worried about. After all, he is part of the industry. He has played a useful part in providing this country with good entertainment, and he can still provide it. Thank goodness! the film censors are rather more alive to their job than some television censors seem to be. But that is a matter which we can discuss at some other time. I have explained as best I can the reasons for this Amendment and tried to emphasise the importance of the matter in question. I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to support most warmly the Amendment which has just been moved by Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I think that all your Lordships who were privileged yesterday to see the wonderful show of coloured television in this Palace must have been most impressed. I was astounded by something that seems to me to be almost a miracle. I think one must recognise that this incredible invention has become a serious rival to the cinema. I do not think it will kill the cinema, just as the cinema has not killed the theatre; on the other hand, it has undoubtedly become a very serious rival.
I raised this point about television films during the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was kind enough to write to me after that, and I should like to say, before I deal with the content of his letter, that I am glad we did not reach this Amendment last Tuesday, the first day of the Committee stage, because I received the noble Lord's letter only a few moments before the House sat. The noble Lord signed the letter on January 24—which was last Thursday. The letter did not reach me until the following Tuesday—at 2.15 p.m. to be precise. Of course, I realise that that is not the noble Lord's fault, but I think, if I may suggest it with all due respect, that the postal services of his secretariat might perhaps be looked into.
If that letter had been posted to me by his secretariat on the day the noble Lord signed it, and had been sent here, our most efficient Superintendent would immediately have directed it to me, and I should have received it on Saturday. On the other hand, if the letter had been sent to my private address, I should have received it on Friday. In actual fact, it took five days to reach me. From time to time one reads letters in the Press about letters taking five days to travel from S.W.1 to S.W.3. I have always had the highest regard for the Civil Service, and I have always thought that such communications to the Press must have been exaggerations. Now it has happened to me. I should like to suggest, with all due deference, that perhaps this matter might be looked into, because it makes things extremely difficult when one has raised a point, and the Government Department concerned have gone into it and have taken the trouble to give a full

405
answer, if one receives that answer only a few minutes before the Committee stage, in those circumstances, of course, one has not time to consider it fully.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Did the noble Lord have the opportunity of looking al the postmark on the envelope? That would have been interesting.
LORD STRABOLGI: The letter was delivered by hand, as it think I made clear.
Now we come to the point I raised. The noble Lord, in his reply, told me with regard to these television films that the question is really academic, because a film made primarily for television would be outside the scope of this Bill, as only films that have actually been shown in the cinema would qualify for payments from the fund. That. I think, is probably the reason which the noble. Lord will give later for resisting this Amendment. But I believe there have been cases of films that have been made for television being shown later in cinemas. A television film, as your Lordships know, usually takes only about half an hour to show, but there have been cases of two or three films made for television being put together by cutting and then shown later in a cinema. And they have, of course, been paid for by the cinema exhibitors. It is for that reason that I think that serious consideration should be given to my noble friend's Amendment.
6.28 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: If the fears which the noble Lord, Lord. Lucas of Chilworth, so eloquently expressed were well grounded, I should be in full sympathy with him. I think he has made a good case, but I do not think that what he fears is, in point of fact, going to happen. The effect of his Amendment is to define certain classes of film which he thinks should be excluded from payments out of the fund, including films made for television, and cinema films which are shown on television within seven years of the receipt of payments made to their producers out of the fund. As the Bill is at present drafted, the classes of film which are to receive payment out of the fund are to be defined by regulations. I think it is clearly not: desirable to define for the next ten years in the Bill films which may receive: payment. This is an age of rapid technical development in film-making and
406
in television, as some of your Lordships saw yesterday. I, unfortunately, could not get in to see the exhibition, as the room was too crowded, bat I have heard reports of it. In this respect, I think it is not unreasonable to use the more flexible legislative method of regulation rather than a clause in the Bill itself for definition.
We intend that the regulations shall be framed by the Board of Trade, in consultation with the Cinematograph Films Council upon which are represented all sections of the film industry. We do not intend to depart very far from the detailed arrangements which have applied to the voluntary scheme. The Board of Trade would not propose to admit as eligible for payment either newsreels or trailers, films which an exhibitor is paid to show, or films made by or on behalf of a Government Department. We certainly should not propose to include those. The point on television is slightly different. It is difficult to see why it is necessary to specify that films made primarily for television should be excluded from payments out of the Fund, for the reason touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. These payments are made pro rata with box office earnings and it is not proposed to depart from this principle when the Eady Fund becomes statutory. The question of whether or not television films are likely to make demands on the Fund would be a little academic, as I told my noble friend in my much delayed letter, since only exhibitors who wish to book such films showing Lucy and Joan and other friends of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would have box office earnings on which to base a claim. I do not see that happening very often.
The second paragraph of the noble Lord's Amendment is not acceptable in any circumstances. As my noble friend Lord Jessel pointed out on Second Reading, the sale of television rights in a film are an addition to the producers' revenue, which might be of some importance, and there seems to be no reason why they should not sell such rights after they have exhausted the earning capacity of a film in the cinemas. Cinema earning capacity is much greater than television earning capacity, and I do not think it is likely that producers will sell films to television until they have squeezed the last drop out of cinema showing. At any rate, the

407
Amendment is both unworkable and unenforceable. What puzzles me is, who is going to pursue a producer seven years after he has received a payment out of the Fund and ask him to repay it. In seven years' time, who knows what may happen—the noble Lord may be President of the Board of Trade.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not know whether I made myself clear. The levy is not paid in one lump sum and a film can remain on quota for seven years. After four years it can be re-registered for an extended period; that is why I put in seven years, meaning seven years after the initial quota registration.
LORD MANCROFT: I appreciate the point, but I still think that it would be difficult to collect. Another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was that of television films shown in cinemas. I believe that that was done about three years ago, but was not a great success. If cinemas think that television films are worth showing, I suppose they are worth a small slice of the Fund. But I appreciate the basic point of the noble Lord's argument, that this competition is unfair. I do not think that for one moment it will occur, because television films are made with no part of the levy. I will consult my right honourable friend about this matter, but I should like the noble Lord to look at my remarks, because if there is any gap, we might have to fill it up. I would assure him that there is no risk of this competition, which would be quite improper, on the Bill as it stands.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI am grateful to the noble Lord because he has admitted the principle, but I can see his difficulty. I am not tied to the wording, but I should be grateful if he would look into this question further, because the relations of the television industry and the film industry are growing apace and I do not know what is going to be the end of it. Perhaps I had better reserve my remarks to the next Amendment, but I would ask your Lordships if I may be forgiven for not moving the next Amendment to-night. All we "pilgrims of the night" have to go home, and some of us are anxious to go west, and the next Amendment I have on the Order Paper is of such importance that if I started upon it now, I am afraid that the
408
debate would go on for such a long time that your Lordships would not be able to finish it to-night. We shall not get much further than we are now.
May I say that the noble Lord's reply is a good illustration of why I am convinced, in my own mind that the Films Council are not the appropriate body for making these regulations? I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said, and so will the industry be grateful. If we are to leave this matter to regulations, which apparently we have to do, what will happen in a year or two about films which are made for showing simultaneously on both media? Of course, it can be said that if that were done to-day, the exhibitor would not book them, but I wonder whether in the not too distant future the exhibitor will have any choice. I think that force majeure may come into play. I can see films going on television screens in different parts of the country from where they are shown on cinema screens. I grant that this is hypothetical, but we are legislating here for a long time. There is point in much of what the noble Lord has said. But suppose this highly contentious matter, which really lies between the Board of Trade, the exhibitors and the producers, is submitted to a body such as the Films Council, with several independent people on it. Some curious decisions on like matters have come from bodies where there has been a sharp cleavage of opinion and where Government Departments have weakly relied upon the industry to save them from making a decision. That is what I am afraid of. As it is, this is a matter which, in essence, is left to a body chosen by the Board of Trade who are representative of the producers and exhibitors. This is not a high-level trade policy matter, but one of consultation. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: Before the noble Lord does so, will he not agree that everything he says encourages me to think that I am right in confining this to regulations rather than putting it in the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I quite agree, but one has to make an effort to air these things. When the noble Lord said that we should refer this matter to the Films Council, I felt that I should voice my objection. I do not know whether the noble Lord wants to say more. I am willing to withdraw the

409
Amendment, and in doing so, I would ask the noble Lord whether he thinks this a convenient time to resume the House, because the next Amendment, is one of great importance. I would say again that it is not an Amendment that I shall press, but I want the Committee and the Government to listen to the case I want to put, because I think this levy, as it is operated at the present time, may well have the directly opposite effect to that which we all desire and for which it was originally introduced. That is a case that I think should be presented at a time when we have not one eye on the clock. I hope the noble Lord will meet our convenience.
LORD MANCROFT: I am only too happy to meet the noble Lord in that respect. We agreed to sit until seven o'clock, but I am willing to amend that, if needs be, particularly as I understand that the noble Lord wishes to speak on the next Amendment with some expansiveness, and I should not like to stop the noble Lord from expanding. We will start off again on Tuesday. On that day, of course, we have the Ghana Indepence Bill once more, and I hope that we shall be able to keep our remarks on other Amendments perhaps a little less expansive than we otherwise should have done, because we do not want to be here all Tuesday night. However, that can be settled possibly through the usual channels.
LORD FARINGDON: For purely personal reasons, I should like to know whether it is intended to sit to finish the Committee stage on Tuesday night.
LORD MANCROFT: I should think that is what will be discussed through the usual channels, but personally, I should like to finish the Bill on 'Tuesday night, because I am getting a little tired of it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is an important Bill to an important industry. We are only taking the time that is given to us. We have made way for other Business. Yesterday, this Bill was originally down as first Business, but it had to take its place as second
410
Business. I do not complain about that. I may say that, so far as I am concerned, I shall do everything I can to meet the wishes of the House, but the case that we have to put will be fully deployed, whatever time we sit to. I suppose this Bill will be first Business on Tuesday.
LORD MANCROFT: I imagine that the Ghana Independence Bill will be first Business.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I was not listening to that debate. I take it that that is the Constitution: that that Business takes precedence over this.
LORD MANCROFT: As I understand it, yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps the noble Lord could address some of the remarks that he made to those on this side of the House on this Bill to those who are interested in the Ghana Independence Bill. There was only one Amendment on that Bill, and they seem to have taken more time to discuss three lines than we have taken to discuss many more. However, that is how things go. So far as I am concerned, I am willing to sit here next Tuesday night until as late as possible, and as late as will suit the convenience of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that if the Government are no more accommodating in the rest of this Bill than they have been up to date, we shall sit very late and there will be Divisions very late on Tuesday night.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day), and read 1a.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.