§ 11.36 a.m.
§ Bill read a third time.
§
Viscount Mersey moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
§
Levy on feature films, pre-recorded video cassettes or blani video tapes.
(" . The Secretary of State, after one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and after consultation with persons considered by him to be representative of the film production industry may by order made by statutory instrument, establish arrangements to supplement the financial assistance provided under section 5(1) of the Act by funds derived from any or all of the following schemes, that is to say—
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this composite amendment which we discussed at Report stage concerns a levy on feature film at a new point of exhibition which is the television screen. I maintained that without such a levy the British film industry is doomed. At Report my noble friend produced a very thorough and detailed counter-argument: so thorough, indeed, that I said that I must go through it in Hansard with a fine tooth comb. That I have now done. With some sorrow I inform my noble friend that I still have many points of disagreement with him on his speech.
§ The British film industry has needed subsidy or central funding ever since the war. Now, as people leave the cinema for television sets in their living rooms, it needs it more than ever. But there is another reason for moving this amendment. The BBC licence fee is now agreed. At all other stages of the Bill, both here and in another place, there was the difficulty of the licence fee. Really the twin issues of levy and licence came at us in the wrong order. Only now has that order been put right. No longer can it be said that the BBC should pay a levy while at the same time and contrariwise it should not put up its licence fee by too much. All now is decided on that front—£58 it is!
§ My noble friend and I have had a quite extraordinary argument about the price that we pay to watch films on television. I keep assuring him that I am paying next to nothing. He keeps assuring me that I am paying quite a lot although I do not realise it. He talks of my buying goods advertised on television and therefore paying for film indirectly through the increased price of the goods. But my understanding of advertising is that its aim is to increase the volume of sales and that therefore it can actually lower the unit price of goods. At Report my noble friend mentioned that we paid via the self same BBC licence fee, to which I replied that even with a £65 licence fee the cost of viewing a feature film is only 6p. Now that the licence is £58, the cost of viewing such a film is more like 5p, unless five people are watching the same screen, in which case the price comes down to just I p each. Surely we are getting something for nothing and surely the inevitable result of that will be the bankrupting of the British film industry?
351
§
I should like to take issue with my noble friend on the question of video companies. At the Report stage on 26th March, he said (at col. 956 of Hansard):
Of the 65 video companies listed in the BFI directory, no fewer than 21 have co-invested in film production".
That is true if we include half our programmes on baby care, gardening and pop promotions; but it is not true if we include only British independent feature films because then the figure sinks I think to a mere three video companies out of the 65.
§ My noble friend also speaks of the £96 million allocated to Channel 4 for film and video. However, my understanding is that the £96 million is Channel 4's total budget, not just the budget for feature films alone. Whatever may be the figure for Channel 4, the material made for it is very different from that made for the big screen. At no stage has the following point been made before, but it really is a fundamental one regarding the whole issue. A cinema film tells its story basically by pictures, and can therefore in theory be understood by a deaf man. A television film tells its story in sound, and can therefore in theory be understood by a blind man. The reasons for this strange difference between picture-based and sound-based films are historical. The British film industry arose from silent talent—for example, Chaplin, Eisenstein and Flaherty. The television industry arose from sound talent, that is, the wireless. It is odd but true that even today "Dad's Army" and "Yes, Minister" are just as good on wireless as they are on the small screen. All too often the pictures in a television film are just chewing gum for the eyes.
§ The consequence of the difference is as follows. Pictures are international; they know no language barrier and hence the export record of films made for the big screen is top class. However, sound is English and national, and so a film which relies on sound does not export so well. Television film exports less well than film made for the cinema. That is why I argue still that our export-market film industry needs support from our home-market television industry.
§ My noble friend argues against a redistributive levy; he calls it robbing Peter to pay Paul. No, my Lords; if anything, it is robbing Dives to pay Lazarus, and not by much at that because the total sum which we are talking of is only 1 per cent. of television's income. The British film industry asks for between only £10 million and £20 million, and that must be compared to the £93 million that that self same industry earned in exports in 1983 alone. I know that my noble friend is understandably frustrated that we keep resurrecting the issue of the levy. However, I must say that we in our turn are also frustrated that my noble friend has not really budged an inch on any issue connected with the Films Bill. I cannot understand why that is so. I listened to him when he spoke on the Insolvency Bill last Tuesday and all was sweetness and light. He is a flexible man except when it comes to the Films Bill. That leads me to conclude with an apt pun. The British film industry needs financial aid: all it is getting is Lucas-aid!
§ Lord AucklandMy Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend and I shall do so briefly because it was discussed very fully at the 352 Report stage at a very late hour, but that was no fault of the Government. However, I wish to make one point. The terms of the last paragraph of the White Paper were a eulogy on the performance of the British film industry. That is fair enough. However, one only has to go to Pinewood Studios to see how many studios are not now in operation. My fear is that this Bill will exacerbate that situation.
As I ventured to mention on Second Reading, I am not necessarily pleading for central Government funds. However, when it comes to videos there is one point to be made. It is one thing to praise the achievements of the British film industry. However, one wants to see films, as it were, in the raw. Not everybody has a video. Many people like to go to the cinema to see films and do not wish to see them on a cassette. Despite all the pleadings and complaints of the video industry—and I respect the good work that that industry is doing—if the Government are not prepared to provide central funds (and in view of all their other commitments I can well understand why they are not so prepared) I do not see why the video industry should not be submitted to some reasonable payment in this regard.
§ 11.45 a.m.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I share the regret of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, that it is necessary to bring the same amendment at Third Reading as was moved and then withdrawn at the Report stage. But the fact that it is necessary is evidenced by the fact that the arguments for the amendment—particularly those so ably put forward by the noble Viscount a few minutes ago—become stronger, and the arguments put forward by the Government against the amendment become weaker.
The noble Viscount has pointed out a number of misstatements in the Government's winding up at the Report stage—for example, the reference to the total budget for Channel 4. I shall not weary the House by repeating any more of them. Under the rules of order at Report stage it is not possible—or at least it is certainly very difficult—to correct errors of that kind in the course of debate. The only way in which to correct the record is to bring the matter forward at Third Reading. Therefore, I share the noble Viscount's regret, but the judgment must be that it was the correct course to take at this stage.
I would only add to the arguments of the noble Viscount by saying that the Government should really consider why it is that what they are proposing for the British film industry is at variance with the proposals put forward by virtually every Government in the Western world, and indeed the rest of the world. There are very few countries which have a natural home film market which is sufficient in size to permit a varied and successful film industry without any intervention by government. The obvious examples of that are the United States and India; and I suspect that to a lesser degree countries like Brazil and China also have the same opportunities where they are protected both by the sheer size of the market and by the particularity of language. In virtually every other country in the world such a protected market does not exist and for this country in particular, which shares a language with a 353 very much larger film industry—the United States film industry—the position is very much worse for our indigenous film industry.
If we were to take the broader view and if we look at the very modest amount of support to which the noble Viscount has referred in moving the amendment, we would find that the United Kingdom would be very much in line with the civilised world and not so completely out of line as implied by the proposals of the present Government in this Bill.
§ Baroness WhiteMy Lords, I have not previously intervened in the discussions on this Bill and I would have hesitated to do so today had I not realised, from the speech of the noble Viscount and my noble friend on the Front Bench, the attitude still being taken by the Government towards the British film industry. It appears to me—and the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, was referring to it in those terms—that their attitude is that they praise the plumage of our successful British films but forget the dying bird. This is surely the whole essence of the arguments that are being put forward.
I am myself now very much out of touch with the film production industry. There was a time—I was for 16 years art independent member of the Cinematograph Films Council advising the then Board of Trade—when it was considered that the late Reginald Maudling and myself were the only two people in another place who really understood film legislation. It is quite clear to me, although some detailed circumstances have changed, that the present Government certainly do not appreciate that the only way in which we can keep a flourishing British film production industry is by some transference of resources between the different parts of the industry. The details have changed; the principles have not.
It is clear from what is being said that the Government have not grasped what is an absolutely essential fact, in particular for a country which shares a language, among other things, with a very much larger country and has no protected market in the sense that China or India or other vast countries may have through other circumstances. I believe that, unless we have a much more reassuring reply from the Government than can be expected, they are making the gravest possible mistake, and it is very depressing.
§ Lord WillisMy Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, on his tenacity and on the way in which he introduced this particular amendment. As I indicated in some of our earlier debates, it is an amendment that gets a great deal of sympathy from me but I am afraid it is not one that in all honesty I can support. I like certain things about it. I like the fact that the Government should look at the problem again in a year's time. I like the idea that the Government should look at a levy on tapes. But I must resist the suggestion that the television companies, already giving massive support in one way or another to the film industry, should be regarded still as a milch cow to which we go automatically. Their advertising revenue is slipping. As has already been said in other debates, satellites and cable are over the horizon and in two or three years' time the television companies—some of them at least—may well be 354 fighting for their lives. I do not think we can continually go to them with an empty bucket and expect them to fill it.
I believe that the real answer to this problem is that there must be more direct money from central Government. I believe they have been mean and shortsighted and have shown lack of vision in this respect. Most of all, as I said before, what we need are financial incentives for investment into films. The experience of the Australian film industry is that once those tax incentives are given the money flows in—not only money for the making of a film but the start money, the risk money, which flows in to enable the scripts to be written, budgets to be prepared and production to go ahead. So in sorrow I must say I cannot support this particular amendment though parts of it, I believe, are pleasant and useful.
§ Lord Lloyd of HampsteadMy Lords, in supporting this amendment I should like to take as realistic a view as I can. I am far from accepting all the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, adduces against the idea of a television levy. I think the noble Viscount has put the arguments extremely well. But I do not wish to join in that particular debate because I recognise that the Government have quite made up their mind that they are not going to support a television levy. Therefore I prefer, if I may, to concentrate my few words on the tape levy, which seems to me to afford the principal hope for getting additional resources into the film industry, which is what those of us who support the film industry wish to see achieved. For this purpose I should like to divide my remarks. First, I shall deal with pre-recorded tape, involving feature films, and then say a work about blank tapes.
In regard to pre-recorded tapes, the noble Lord the Minister and his Government seem to put the main force of their argument in terms of their total hostility to the idea of some kind of recycling mechanism, but for the life of me I find it very difficult to understand the basis of their hostility. What the noble Lord the Minister said on a previous occasion was simply that this is not the right way of encouraging an economic activity which should have its feet firmly planted in the market place. But what they do not seem to go on to do is say why that should be so in this particular case. The only support that I have been able to elicit from a very careful study of the various statements which I have heard the noble Lord the Minister make and which I studied subsequently in the Official Report is that he says it would be inefficient because it would tax the successful producers in favour of those who otherwise would perhaps not have found investments. Surely this is totally to misunderstand the whole process of film making, whether in this country or other countries. After all, success, especially in the cinema, is a totally unpredictable thing. The cinema industry is a mixture of many flops and occasional successes. This is why it requires a constant injection of supporting funds if we are to get commercial funds to back this rather dubious kind of commercial enterprise.
In my submission, therefore, it is not efficiency for which we are looking here; it is where we are to find money to save this industry and keep it going. 355 Therefore the argument against recycling, I would suggest, is totally irrelevant. On the other hand, the noble Lord the Minister dismisses any arguments regarding the use of videos as irrelevant to a levy on pre-recorded tapes. He says producing pre-recorded tapes is a perfectly proper business of publishing video copies of films. I dare say that that is perfectly true in a sense, but it ignores the use to which video tapes can be put and the effect that they have, and are bound to have, on the cinema-going habits of the public.
If I may pray in aid the observations on a previous occasion of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, he pointed out how people can rent a pre-recorded video tape for a very small sum and gather together groups of friends and relatives who can all see it. It is true that they may not enjoy the same experience as seeing the film in a cinema, on which the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, rightly placed emphasis. Nevertheless, we are in this way probably depriving the cinema of a considerable number of its potential audience. This is, of course, an effect which flows from the character of a pre-recorded video tape.
Again, there is the potentiality of unlawful copying of video tapes, made even more probable, as I mentioned on a previous occasion, by the recent introduction of the double video recorder which would facilitate this process. Then the Government say, "All we can ask for, for those who are struggling to help the survival of the industry, is to take money from the taxpayer". But of course the whole essence of a levy is that it does not take money from the taxpayer, at any rate in no sense in which Her Majesty's Treasury is involved, in exactly the same way as the Eady money did not take money from the taxpayer. It was a recycling mechanism and, as I venture to submit, there is really no crucial objection to such mechanism.
§ 12 noon
§ Then may I say a word about blank tapes. Here I have struggled hard to understand the Government's position on this, and I am happy to see that they do not at any rate go so far as the writer of an article in The Times the other day, presumably put forward on behalf of the video industry, who argued that domestic tape recording is a matter of personal freedom on the principle, as he put it, that a man can do what he likes with his own tape.
§ I do not know whether the writer of that article had attempted to think this through: for instance, whether he would say that if I buy a book written by a certain author that that gives me the right to publish copies of that book in defiance of the ownership rights of the author or the copyright owner. Happily, as I say, the Government do not go so far as that. Indeed, at any rate since their Green Paper they indicate that they might be prepared to contemplate a levy on blank tapes, but then unfortunately on conditions which would render any such scheme wholly nugatory and unworkable because, they say, first of all such a levy is in no sense to be a redistributive or recycling levy because their mind is totally set against that.
§ What must it be? It must be a compensatory levy based solely on copyright criteria. Now, what does that mean? Does it mean that every copyright owner has to 356 be identified and given his fair share? Is it possible to identify these people to evaluate their contribution and allocate compensation? Surely this is completely out of the question. Indeed the Government themselves seem to recognise that by the passage in the Green Paper, to which I drew attention on Second Reading of this Bill, where they said that there might be an amount of the levy channelled into a central fund for the benefit of the film production industry. One welcomed that suggestion because it seemed to propose something constructive. But unfortunately now comes along the right hand of the Government which, perhaps understandably in a way, "Knoweth not what the left doth" and this is said: it can only be done on a purely voluntary basis. There must be no Government intervention to divert money into a fund. It must be wholly voluntary, we are told.
§ If so, having laid down that draconic principle, the Government would encourage such a scheme. But surely this is absolutely unworkable. With whom, by what mechanism, would such voluntary assent be procured? How if it ever were procured could it be enforced? One therefore feels oneself forced to ask whether the Government are really serious in this proposal.
§ I believe that they sincerely want to help, but basically they seem to have the feeling that they have done all that they can and they want to wash their hands of any further responsibility, and simply leave the industry to secure its own survival in whatever way it can. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, this is totally at variance with the attitude of other leading film-making countries towards their national film industries. The result is likely not to be the euphoric one that the Government paint for us, but that they will administer the last rites over the film industry despite the goodness of their intentions.
§ I suggest therefore that it is of the highest importance that this great product of British film, which has contributed so much to the culture of 20th century Britain, should not be cast away in this fashion, and that the tape levy presents possibly a last resort whereby, without tax, a substantial injection of funds can be put into the film industry without causing any grave detriment to anybody else. Therefore I strongly support at least this part of the amendment, and I hope that your Lordships will also give it your support.
The Viscount of FalklandMy Lords, I should like to rise briefly to support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, but with a slight reservation which is based on Lord Willis's remarks on the contribution which television could make to the cinema. I seldom agree with the Government's views on a free market, but I think it is healthy that the television companies should be able to negotiate with film companies across the table and come to an agreement based really on the market as it stands at the time.
On the other hand, with video cassettes, whether they be pre-recorded or blank cassettes, that is another matter altogether. I do not think it is unreasonable in the way that this amendment is framed that we should 357 lump the television contribution (should the need arise to consider that) and the question of video tapes together.
We are talking about money. The film industry needs enormous amounts of money, but the video cassette market is here to stay and is growing. The Secretary of State ought, quite properly, to have the power, should the occasion arise, to be able to call upon contributions from that sector particularly. I do not think that he will need to use his powers where television is concerned.
Perhaps I may inject one brief note of optimism. The Times newspaper today shows that the recent figures of cinema attendances have taken quite a cheerful upturn with recent successes in British cinema. We are also now moving into the British film year which gives us every hope that the British film industry is now moving into a much more cheerful era. If the exhibitors, film producers, and everybody connected with it, including the Government, can pull together I am sure that the disappointing pattern we have seen of film attendances in this country will change. It is changing. With this change perhaps the Government's attitude will change.
I should not like just before we start the Recess to say that the noble Lord the Minister has been unhelpful, but I would say that the general attitude of the Government in their production of this Bill has been unhelpful and not understanding of the needs of the film industry. It has been rather dismissive of the film in British life, which is now beginning to find its own momentum. I would support this amendment in the hope that it will never need to be used, but the Secretary of State ought to have these powers.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth)My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords in the House this morning who have repeated the arguments that were deployed on at least two previous occasions, both during Committee stage and Report. Since the arguments have not changed I hope the House will forgive me if I do not reiterate why the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment.
I want though to concentrate on two points to which my noble friend Lord Mersey has referred fairly consistently since he first put down the amendment. He bases his amendment on two main propositions: first, that the film industry needs more money; secondly, that television and other media would be the appropriate victims of a levy because, so he argues, when he watches films on television he is getting something for practically nothing. May I deal first with the suggestion that watching films on television is getting something for nothing.
I do not follow the argument. I never have followed it, and I do not follow it again today. I suppose I could equally say that if I watched a television transmission from Covent Garden or Glyndebourne I would be getting something for nothing there. If it is true for ballet or opera 1 suppose it is reasonable for me to say the same for soccer, snooker, racing or the Royal 358 Tournament. I have not heard any call for television transmissions of all those events to be subjected to a levy. I do not think we should forget either that these entertainments are normally shown considerably in advance of the three years' delay to which a film is subjected.
My noble friend argues that the film industry needs more money; he mentioned £10 million or £20 million. May I remind your Lordships of a number of basic figures. First, under this Bill the Government will be contributing £2 million a year for five years for film production and project development. Taken together with the money to be provided by the participants in the British Screen Finance Consortium, this means that the consortium will have twice the external funds that were available previously to the NFFC. This was the point that my noble friend Lord Auckland made. I remind him and other noble Lords that this is a considerable amount of money.
While the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has said that he does not favour the television milch cow, he calls for more Government money. I have stood at this Box so many times and heard calls for Government money. Of course it is not Government money; it is the taxpayers' money. If I were to respond in the affirmative every time I was asked this I do not know what the taxpayers would say to us. We do not believe that this is the right way of using taxpayers' money.
I described Channel 4's record of commissioning feature films. I want to pick up one point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, made in that somewhat disarming way which may lead your Lordships to believe that he is right and I was wrong. He commented on the remarks I made at Report about the Channel 4 budget. He implied that the figures I gave at that time were not perhaps exactly so, giving some cause for doubt. I checked again afterwards with the Independent Television Companies Association, which confirmed that the figures I gave were right. I suggest to your Lordships that a number of the figures that I have given are factually right. For example, my noble friend Lord Mersey was talking about the number of video companies investing in film production. I gave the figures before and I give them again now: 21 of the 65 companies listed in the BFI directory have invested in film production.
In addition, the television companies and the BBC will be making greatly increased contributions towards the National Film and Television School. I also referred on Report to the significant and growing contribution which the video industry—I have referred to that again today—is making towards film production and distribution. Let me add to those figures the £20 million film production fund which Goldcrest announced last autumn, and the 175 million dollar finance facility which Thorn EMI announced last month—all specifically aimed at independent producers. These are substantial sums and those figures alone demonstrate that the market can supply finance for films without resorting to the artificial intrusion of a levy such as my noble friend favours. In short, I do not think that he has made out any case whatsoever for the extra money he asserts is needed.
§ 12.15 p.m.
§ I want briefly to touch on the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made. I thought his argument revolved. At one stage he was telling us that the exhibition industry was on an upturn. He referred to The Times article this morning, which I saw. He said that at the beginning of British Film Year there was an upturn in the industry and this was welcomed. Then he turned the argument round the other way. I remind the House that the Government are providing in addition £325,000 for British Film Year.
§ I do not have any intention of wearying the House by going in detail over the ground which I covered pretty comprehensively a short time ago during Report. Nothing I have heard today causes me to alter my view that a statutory redistributive levy, whether it is on films shown on television, on films sold as prerecorded video tapes or on blank tapes, would be wrong in principle and counter-productive in application. The fact that this amendment is permissive makes no difference because the Government have no intention of enshrining in statute a provision to which we are strongly opposed.
§ Finally, I hope my noble friend Lord Mersey will not be too disappointed—though I am sure he will not be surprised—if I say that the Government have made their position quite clear both in the White Paper and in the many debates in Parliament, both in your Lordships' House and in another place. The Government believe that the commercial film industry is just that: a commercial industry. Like any other industry, it will prosper and raise finance for new work only if it is making a product which the consumer is prepared to buy. Where the Government are prepared to help—I have described the way in which we have done this on more than one occasion—is in the limited area traditionally covered by the NFFC, the riskiest end of the market. Beyond that, at present we see no justification for Government involvement. I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
§ Viscount MerseyMy Lords, I think it is clear that the movers of this amendment and the Government are fundamentally and chronically opposed on this issue and we shall not get any further. My noble friend Lord Lucas has not shifted his opinion. I suspected that he would not. I am disappointed but I certainly am not surprised. I feel that if this amendment is to go down at least it must go down with all flags flying, and so without further ado I wish to press this amendment.
§ 12.18 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 62.
360| DIVISION NO. 1 | |
| CONTENTS | |
| Amherst, E. | Birk, B. |
| Ampthill, L. | Blease, L. |
| Ardwick, L. | Boothby, L. |
| Auckland, L. | Bottomley, L. |
| Banks, L. | Briginshaw, L. |
| Beaumont of Whitley, L. | Broadbridge, L. |
| Buckmaster, V. | Lovell-Davis, L. |
| Garmichael of Kelvingrove, L. | McGregor of Durris, L. |
| Coleraine, L. | McIntosh of Haringey, L. |
| Collison, L. | McNair, L. |
| Craigavon, V. | Marley, L. |
| Davies of Leek, L. | Mersey, V. [Teller.] |
| Ellenborough, L. | Mulley, L. |
| Elwyn-Jones, L. | Newall, L. |
| Ennals, L. | Nicol, B. |
| Evans of Claughton, L. | Oram, L. |
| Falkland, V. | Parry, L. |
| Fitt, L. | Peart, L. |
| Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.] | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. |
| Porritt, L. | |
| Hampton, L. | Prys-Davies, L. |
| Hanworth, V. | Rathcreedan, L. |
| Harris of Greenwich, L. | Ritchie of Dundee, L. |
| Hatch of Lusby, L | Robson of Kiddington, B. |
| Hayter, L. | Sainsbury, L. |
| Hooson, L. | Shaughnessy, L. |
| Houghton of Sowerby, L. | Shinwell, L. |
| Howie of Troon, L. | Somers, L. |
| Hylton-Foster, B. | Stallard, L. |
| Jeger, B. | Stamp, L. |
| John-Mackie, L. | Stoddart of Swindon, L. |
| Kagan, L. | Strabolgi, L. |
| Kennet, L. | Tordoff, L. |
| Kilbracken, L. | Wallace of Coslany, L. |
| Kilmarnock, L. | Wells-Pestell, L. |
| Kirkhill, L. | Whaddon, L. |
| Lawrence, L. | White, B. |
| Lloyd of Hampstead, L. | Wilson of Langside, L. |
| Longford, E. | Wootton of Abinger, B. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | |
| Airey of Abingdon, B. | Ironside, L. |
| Alexander of Tunis, E. | Lane-Fox, B. |
| Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Lauderdale, E. |
| Beloff, L. | Long, V. [Teller.] |
| Belstead, L. | Lucas of Chilworth, L. |
| Blake, L. | Macleod of Borve, B. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, L. | Mancroft, L. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Margadale, L. |
| Caithness, E. | Massereene and Ferrard, V. |
| Cameron of Lochbroom, L. | Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L. |
| Campbell of Alloway, L. | |
| Carnegy of Lour, B. | Merrivale, L. |
| Cathcart, E. | Norfolk, D. |
| Cottesloe, L. | Nugent of Guildford, L. |
| Cox, B. | Orr-Ewing, L. |
| Crathorne, L. | Pender, L. |
| Davidson, V. | Plummer of St Marylebone, L |
| De Freyne, L. | Rankeillour, L. |
| Denham, L. [Teller.] | Renton, L. |
| Drumalbyn, L. | Romney, E. |
| Dundee, E. | Skelmersdale, L. |
| Elles, B. | Soames, L. |
| Ely, M. | Strathcarron, L. |
| Fortescue, E. | Strathspey, L. |
| Fraser of Kilmorack, L. | Teviot, L. |
| Glanusk, L. | Teynham, L. |
| Glenarthur, L. | Trefgarne, L. |
| Gray of Contin, L. | Trumpington, B. |
| Gridley, L. | Vaux of Harrowden, L. |
| Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. | Vickers, B. |
| Vivian, L. | |
| Henley, L. | Young of Graffham, L. |
§ Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
§ 12.26 p.m.
§ Schedule 1 [Certification for purposes of section 72 of Finance Act 1982 in case of British films]:
§ [Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 not moved.]
§ Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment.