Sitting of 3 February 1948

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Directed Persons
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Labour how many men and women have been directed to employment by his Department, and under what circumstances, since the Order came into force.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I assume the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the Control of Engagement Order, 1947, which came into force on 6th October, 1947. Between that date and 31st December, 1947, directions under Defence Regulation 58A (1) were issued to 12 men and three women to take essential work. These figures exclude directions issued to workers normally employed in agriculture and coalmining, requiring them to remain within their industry.
    Sir T. Moore: If the Minister has found his powers of direction so unnecessary, why did he seek them in the first instance?
    Mr. Isaacs: Powers have been necessary to fill this number of jobs. As I have previously pointed out to the House, I was quite satisfied that the vast number of workers in this country would respond to the guidance offered to them and not wait for direction.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Does not the Minister realise that dictatorship will not work in England?

    Profit-Sharing Schemes
    Mr. Prescottasked the Minister of Labour what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to co-partnership and profit-sharing schemes in industry.
    Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) on 9th December last.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is there any significance in the fact that the Labour Party's most recent publication upon industrial democracy makes no mention whatever, in its 8,000 words, about the importance of co-partnership in industry, which surely is the essence of industrial democracy?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am not responsible for what the party has issued.
    Mr. Heathcoat Amory: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that schemes of this kind help to identify the interests of employers and employees?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion.
    Mr. Isaacs: That is a matter of personal opinion which I am not called upon to express.

    Registration
    Mrs. Nicholasked the Minister of Labour why the employment exchanges throughout the country were kept open on Saturday afternoon of 24th January for the purpose of registering persons not gainfully employed, when these people had five and a half days in which to register.
    Mr. Isaacs: The local offices of my Department were open on the Saturday afternoon to enable persons to register who were prevented for any reason from attending on their allotted days earlier in the week.
    Mrs. Nichol: If they were not gainfully employed, it seems incredible that they should not be in a position to register earlier in the week.
    Mr. Isaacs: The local offices were opened on the Saturday afternoon to give them every opportunity of registering, and to avoid the excuse that they were prevented from attending on other days.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many actually registered on that Saturday afternoon?
    Mr. Isaacs: Not without notice.

    Training Courses
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons on the disabled persons register who had enrolled for training courses but were awaiting vacancies at training centres, on 1st July, 1947, and 1st January, 1948, respectively.
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. 3,540 and 2,384 respectively.

    Wage Rates, Coventry Corporation
    Mr. Marplesasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the recent action of the Coventry Corporation in paying non-union labourers 2s. 2½d. per hour as compared with 2s. 6d. per hour paid to trades unionists in the light of the recent wage negotiations in which he took part; whether this deliberate policy of wage rate discrimination inducing workers to join a union is part of the policy of His Majesty's Government; and if he will make a full statement.
    Mr. Isaacs: This is not a matter on which I have any authority to intervene.
    Mr. Marples: Does the Minister agree that the intention of the recent wage negotiations was that increases in wages should be related entirely to increases in output; and does he agree that it is not just or equitable that ratepayers' or taxpayers' money should be used to induce workers to subscribe to trade union funds?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is not a matter upon which I have any authority to intervene, and, therefore, it would be unwise of me to express an opinion.
    Mr. Jennings: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is wrapped up with the whole policy of wages in the country?
    Mr. Edelman: Will not the Minister agree that the Coventry Corporation is an example to bad employers of what good employers should be.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Labour how many disabled ex-Service men there are in Newport; when the new factory providing work for them and authorised in 1946 will be started; and if no provision is to be made this year whether he will take steps to make temporary provision in existing premises which are available in Newport.
    Mr. Isaacs: The number of disabled ex-Service men recorded as unemployed in Newport on 15th December was 197, of whom 32 were classified as severely disabled and needing sheltered employment. The acquisition of a site for the factory proposed by the Disabled Persons Employment Corporation has proved exceptionally difficult. There is one under consideration but its availability for this purpose is not yet confirmed and it is not possible, therefore, to say when constructional work will commence. Efforts have been made to secure temporary premises, but none of those suggested has proved suitable. If my hon. Friend is aware of any premises which may be suitable I should be glad if he would let me know of them.
    Mr. Freeman: Is there any chance of these men getting any other work, and if I submit the names of other places, will the Minister make further investigations?
    Mr. Isaacs: I should be grateful if the hon. Member would do that, because we are most anxious to get this work going.
    Mrs. Ridealghasked the Minister of Labour how many registered disabled men are signing on at the Ilford employment exchange and what steps are being taken to provide them with suitable employment.
    Mr. Isaacs: The number of registered disabled men recorded as unemployed at the Ilford employment exchange on 15th December, 1947, was 157, of whom 40 were classified as severely disabled and needing sheltered employment. Every effort is made through the Ilford exchange both under the quota scheme and otherwise to find suitable employment for these men.
    Mrs. Ridealgh: Could not the Chadwell Heath training centre be used for the purpose of finding work for those disabled men? This training centre has been

    1615
    stopped owing to the cut in capital expenditure, but part of it is quite capable of employing many people. Could it not be used to find work for these men?
    Mr. Isaacs: I could not answer definitely off-hand, but I will promise to have the matter looked into at once.

    Equal Pay
    Mr. Cooper-Keyasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the resolution, a copy of which has been sent him, passed by the National Council of Women, that it is in the best interests of the nation that the rewards of labour should be related to the work done, and not to the sex of the worker; whether he is aware of the demand amongst feminine organisations in favour of the rate for the job; and at what date he will make an announcement of the Government's policy on this subject.
    Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made in the House on 11th June, 1947, by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which I have nothing to add.

    Dispute, Islington
    Mr. Cluseasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a trade dispute is still in being at an Islington firm of engineers, Messrs. Nuckey, Scotts; that labour is being supplied to them by the exchanges of his Department; that the A.E.U. have recognised the dispute, which has been in operation for fourteen weeks, on the ground that the firm have never fully implemented the terms of the fair wages resolutions; and if he is prepared to institute an inquiry into the conditions obtaining in this firm, which is on the Government list of contractors.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am aware of the existence of this dispute and officers in my Department have, from the outset, maintained close contact with the parties. I am assured that workers submitted to the firm through the employment exchange service have, in all cases, in accordance with current instructions, been informed of the existence of the dispute. As regards the third and fourth parts of the Question, I have received no complaint on behalf of the union that the terms of the fair wages resolution ate not being observed by the firm in any particular respect.
    Mr. Cluse: Are the exchange officials informed as to whether the fair wages resolution is in operation in firms to which labour is being sent.
    Mr. Isaacs: The exchange officials would not have before them information which would entitle them to decide whether the fair wages resolution was or was not carried out. That is a matter which, under the Act, must be decided by arbitration, but in this case we are in contact with the union and we have been endeavouring to get the union and the firm to meet. We are drawing their attention to the regulation relating to the fair wages clause and the steps to be taken to decide questions under it.
    Mr. William Shepherd: Is it not a fact that the men engaged in this factory were very happy in their employment, that the six men responsible for the strike were Communists who came in only three months ago, and is not this an example of how the Communist Party are trying to disrupt the nation?
    Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister seriously consider having this firm and firms like it specified when they refuse to recognise the trade union?
    Mr. Erie Fletcher: Would the Minister give an assurance that before any applicants at the exchanges are sent to this firm, they are told that an official strike is in progress.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am very anxious categorically to deny statements that are being circulated about the present case, but when an application is made to the exchange by a worker who asks for a job, he is informed that there is a strike in progress. We cannot do any more.

    Unemployed Farm Workers
    Mr. Goochasked the Minister of Labour the number of farm workers registered as unemployed at the most recent convenient date; and what steps he is taking to get those who are unemployed back on the farms.
    Mr. Isaacs: The number of men unemployed and registered for employment as farm workers in Great Britain at 8th December was 2,173. This is less than half of one per cent. The extent to which local offices of my Department are able to assist, the return of these men to farm work is necessarily limited by the extent

    1617
    to which farmers notify their vacancies. In conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, I am taking all possible steps to encourage farmers to let us know their requirements, but it must be remembered that farmers are free to engage labour and workers are free to accept agricultural employment other than through a local office of my Department. Agricultural executive committees are taking every opportunity in co-operation with my Department to provide work for unemployed agricultural workers but, at this period of the year, those opportunities are naturally limited.
    Mr. Gooch: Does the Minister realise that many farmworkers who are out of work do not register at the exchanges; does he not agree that the existence of rural unemployment at the present time, on the eve of what we hope will be a great food production campaign, is rather disturbing; and will he tell those farmers who show a preference for foreign workers that unemployed British farm workers are to be used on British farms?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am not quite sure if I followed the hon. Gentleman's three points, but this industry has not yet used the employment exchanges to the same extent as other industries. However, the use is growing and steps have been taken to encourage farmers and farm workers to go to the exchanges. As far as foreign labour is concerned, farmers are told quite definitely that they will not be allowed to employ any when British workers are available to take the jobs.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: In connection with the Minister's consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, will he consider the housing problem, which is one of the chief reasons in certain places why there is not more labour?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is so, and that matter has been under consideration. Some steps are being taken towards its alleviation.
    Mr. Osborne: Is not the fact that less than half of one per cent of the farm workers are unemployed good evidence that farmers are doing their duty by the farm workers?
    Mr. Isaacs: That, again, is a matter of opinion. I do not think we could say that the farm workers are any less reasonable in this matter than any other class of workers. I may add that this is the time
    1618
    of the year when there is not the greatest amount of work available on the farms.

    European Volunteer Workers
    Mr. Randallasked the Minister of Labour what is the position of E.V.W.'s who have completed their year's contract in the cotton industry.
    Mr. Isaacs: It is a condition of the recruitment of European Volunteer Workers that they undertake employment approved by the Ministry of Labour and this condition is not limited as to period. There is no employment contract for one year only and the position does not therefore change when this period expires.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it not a fact that the European voluntary workers in the cotton industry generally have given great satisfaction?
    Mr. Isaacs: I could say "Yes," but I should like to go a little further and say that not only have they given great satisfaction and excellent results in that industry, but in every industry where they have been employed.
    Mr. Randall: Is it true that a European Volunteer Worker cannot leave an industry after 12 months?
    Mr. Isaacs: No. European volunteer workers can leave an industry, but they can only take such other employment as is approved by the Ministry of Labour. In other words, they cannot run away from an undermanned industry and compete in an industry which is overmanned.

    Printing Industry (Joint Industrial Council)
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Labour whether the application of the Printing Trades Alliance to be represented on the Joint Industrial Council for the industry has been granted; or why it has been refused.
    Mr. Isaacs: The Printing Trades Alliance is not represented on the Joint Industrial Council. I have no information about any recent application for representation, but this is entirely a matter for the Council.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that the Printing Trades Alliance has applied for representation on the Joint Industrial Council and has been refused, and is not the right hon. Gentleman responsible in

    1619
    this connection, seeing that he was one of the men who tried to stamp this organisation out of existence before he became a Minister?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is a most unreasonable allegation to make and there is absolutely no foundation for it. If the hon. Gentleman has information which indicates that the Alliance have made a recent application, he should say so categorically. As Minister of Labour and as an ex-member of that industry, I do not know that this Alliance has made an application for a very considerable time for representation on the Council.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my assurance that they have made that application and that he, before he became Minister, tried to drive this organisation out of existence?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must remember that imputations and insinuations are out of Order on a supplementary question and would not be allowed on the Notice Paper.
    Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Gentleman inquires of that Alliance, he will find that before I became Minister I was the one person in the industry who endeavoured to overcome the immense difficulties in the way of bringing about a better relationship.

    Strikes, Smithfield
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Labour how many strikes have taken place at the Smithfield Meat Market in the years 1946 and 1947.
    Mr. Isaacs: According to the records of my Department, there were five stoppages of work in 1946, and nine in 1947, involving workers at Smithfield Market.

    Textile Industries (Training)
    Mr. Randallasked the Minister of Labour to what extent mill owners have responded to the introduction in the textile industry of Training Within Industry Schemes.
    Mr. Isaacs: The scheme of Training Within Industry for Supervisors has been widely adopted throughout the textile industries and has been introduced into about 160 firms. Approximately 10,000 persons in those industries have received training under the scheme.

  SCOTLAND

    Educational Building Programme
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the building of school premises in Scotland will be delayed as a result of the restrictions on capital expenditure imposed by the Government.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State. for Scotland (Mr. T. Fraser): The restrictions of the Educational Building Programme outlined in the White Paper on Capital Investment in 1948 apply mainly to major proposals for nursery schools, community centres, adult education centres and youth clubs. They will not, however, delay the building of school premises of the kind most urgently required, such as those to provide accommodation made necessary by the raising of the school-leaving age, the increased birth rate and new housing developments. In fact, the scale of expenditure envisaged permits more rapid progress.
    Sir T. Moore: In view of the deplorable housing situation in Scotland today, why did the Minister agree to any reduction in capital expenditure, which is so essential?
    Mr. Fraser: That is quite another question.

    Doctors' Motorcars
    Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been made to him from the British Medical Association regarding the supply of cars to doctors in Scotland; and what steps he is taking to ensure that doctors in general practice are not prevented from carrying out their work through lack of transport.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. J. Robertson): My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from doctors direct but none from the British Medical Association. Hon. Members are aware, however, that the distribution of new private cars in the home market is left to the motor industry, who have given an assurance that preference would be given to the delivery of cars ordered by doctors.
    Mr. Macpherson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very grave delay in the delivery of cars to doctors, extending over two years in some cases,

    1621
    and will he make certain, by approaching his right hon. Friend, that deliveries to doctors are given preference over exports?
    Mr. Robertson: As hon. Members will be aware, this was a case where a control was taken off and where a particular understanding was come to with the motor industry. I should like to know if the hon. Member is suggesting that this control should be applied again.

    River Esk (Pollution)
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the danger to public health caused by the pollution of the River Esk in Midlothian; and if he will take steps to remedy this evil.
    Mr. J. J. Robertson: I have no evidence that the condition of the River Esk constitutes a danger to public health, although I am aware that the river is unsightly and, at times, malodorous. This unsatisfactory position arises largely through the difficulty of purifying paper-mill effluent at reasonable expense. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of Health have asked the paper industry to co-operate with the Government in research into the possibility of devising reasonably practicable methods of treatment. In addition, the Scottish Water Advisory Committee are considering whether any amendment of the law dealing with pollution is necessary.
    Mr. Pryde: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the paper industry is not the only source of pollution in this way?

    Lord High Commissioner (Grant)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations were made to him asking him to introduce legislation proposing an increase in the grant to the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
    Mr. J. J. Robertson: None, Sir.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made certain representations about austerity? Have they reached the Scottish Office? If there have been no representations for an increase in the salary, why is it suggested?
    Mr. Robertson: The Scottish Office and the Scottish people are fully aware of the representations which have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I have to remind the House that representations, while not recent, were made on this point as far back as 1930, when legislation was suggested.
    Major Guy Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the great majority of the people in Scotland are in full sympathy with the principle that the Lord High Commissioner should not pay dues out of his own pocket, have the greatest respect for the office, and hope that the Government will see this through?

    Schools (Grants)
    Mr. Gilzeanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what education grants, per capita and global, are paid to schools in Scotland, the administration of which is outwith the control of education committees, along with a list of such schools.
    Mr. T. Fraser: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the information:
    Grants to schools not under the management of education authorities are payable from the Education (Scotland) Fund under the Education (Scotland) Miscellaneous Grants Provisional Regulations, 1946. None of these grants is now calculated on a per capita basis. The grants are paid to three types of school as follows:

    (1) Secondary Schools—a grant equal to the lesser of the following sums—

    (a) 55 per cent. of the approved expenditure on school maintenance; or

    (b) the deficit in the school maintenance account.

    (2) Residential Special Schools.—A grant equal to the lesser of the followign sums:

    (a) income from fees, endowments and local sources, including the contributions of education authorities other than those made by authorities in respect of the education and maintenance of individual pupils; or

    (b) the deficit in the school maintenance account.

    (3) Orphanage Schools.—A maximum grant of 55 per cent. of the approved expenditure on education of the pupils.

    The schools to which grants are payable are as follows:
    Schools not under the management of education authorities in receipt of grants under the Education (Scotland) Miscellaneous Grants Provisional Regulations, 1946.
    Secondary Schools.

    Aberdeen, Queen's Cross Secondary School for Girls.

    Aberdeen, Robert Gordon's College.

    Crieff, Morrison's Academy for Boys.

    Crieff, Morrison's Academy for Girls.

    Dollar Academy.

    Dundee High School.

    Edinburgh, George Heriot's School.

    Edinburgh, George Watson's Boys' College.

    Edinburgh, Daniel Stewart's College.

    Edinburgh, Mary Erskine School.

    Edinburgh, George Watson's Ladies' College. Glasgow, Hutchesons' Boys' Grammar School.

    Glasgow, Hutchesons' Girls' Grammar School.

    Glasgow, St. Aloysius College.

    Troon, The Marr College.

    Residential Special Schools.

    Edinburgh, Royal Blind School.

    Edinburgh, Donaldson's School for the Deaf.

    Glasgow, East Park Homes School.

    Roxburgh, Barns Hostel School.

    West Lothian, Trefoil School.

    Orphanage Schools.

    Banff, Aberlour Orphanage Episcopal School.

    Dundee, Dundee Orphan Institution.

    Poles (Education)
    Mr. William Rossasked the Secretary for Scotland what cost has been incurred in providing education in Scotland for Poles under Section 11 (4) of the Polish Resettlement Act, 1947; and how this compares with the cost of similar services for the Poles in England.
    Mr. T. Fraser: A sum of £206,000 has been provided in the Scottish estimate for public education, 1947–48, for the education of Poles, as compared with a sum of £900,000 provided in the vote of the Ministry of Education for the corresponding service in England and Wales. Up to date £154,820 has been paid from the Scottish Vote in respect of education of Poles in Scotland. This sum represents 2/9ths of the corresponding expenditure in England and Wales.
    Mr. Ross: In view of those figures, is the Joint Under-Secretary satisfied that the departure from the old 11/80ths proportion does not mean that we are giving a more expensive education in Scotland, or are we bearing a disproportionate burden to the detriment of Scottish children?
    Mr. Fraser: I do not think we are bearing a disproportionate burden. The position is that during the war, as the House well knows, we had a disproportionate number of Poles in Scotland. and
    1624
    as the Government undertook the responsibility of providing education for the members of the Polish Forces and their families, it followed that there would be a greater expenditure in Scotland than in England.

  HOUSING, SCOTLAND

    Rural Houses (Demolition)
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will authorise the deferment, in such cases and for such period as may be recommended by local authorities, of the demolition of any house being replaced under Part 11 of the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938, in order that no houses suitable for occupation may be destroyed during the present housing shortage.
    Mr. J. J. Robertson: Local authorities already have this power in certain circumstances under Defence Regulation 68B. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a circular issued by my Department on the point.

    Non-traditional Houses
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the reasons for the slow rate of completion of the Lindsay, the Orlit, the Stuart, the Whitson-Fairhurst and the Wimpey permanent non-traditional houses in Scotland; and what steps he is taking to speed up this rate.
    Mr. J. J. Robertson: After the initial stages of the development of prefab. types, progress was necessarily slow, and in addition these programmes, in common with others, were checked last year by bad weather and serious shortages of materials. I have good hopes, however, that a substantial number of houses of each of the type mentioned will be finished during 1948.
    Mr. Willis: Is my hon. Friend aware that 1,300 of these houses were commenced over a year ago and that only 400 have been completed, and can he now give an assurance that he will take steps to speed up the completion of the remainder?
    Mr. Robertson: Steps have already been taken to ensure that there will be a more regular supply of raw materials for the completion of these houses.
    Mr. Gallacher: Can the hon. Gentleman say what effect the increase in the interest rate will have on the building of these and other houses?
    Mr. Robertson: That is another question.
    Mr. Gallacher: It is a very serious question.

    Temporary Houses
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many temporary houses are at present stored in Scotland; and why they are not being erected.
    Mr. J. J. Robertson: Hulls and components of 2,241 temporary houses are at present awaiting completion of foundations and services on the sites to which they are to be delivered. This number is being steadily reduced.
    Mr. Willis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fact that these houses are stored, and the recent announcement that the Scottish temporary programme will not be finished until six months after the English programme is completed, cause a great deal of concern, and will he do something to speed up the programme?

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

    Widows
    Mr. Odeyasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the fact that, since July, 1945, the pension of war widows with children has only increased by 2s. 6d. a week, he will now consider a revision in the light of the advance in the cost of living since that date.
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Buchanan): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 20th January, to which I would add that there has been no change in circumstances justifying a special review of the rates of widows' pensions in advance of any general review of the war pensions provisions.
    Mr. Odey: Will the Minister direct his attention rather to the present than to the past?
    Mr. Buchanan: I am always at the present, as my decisions show.
    Miss Bacon: Is it not correct that since 1945 family allowances have been introduced and that war widows, unlike other widows, receive the two allowances for their children?
    Mr. Buchanan: That is perfectly true.

    Personal Case
    Commander Galbraithasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has considered and. is now ready to give a decision in the case of Mrs. Sybil Morrick of 28 Springhill Gardens, Glasgow, S.1, widow of No. 14210936, Private Henry Morrick, who died on war service on 21st February, 1944, leaving her with little or no means of support.
    Mr. Buchanan: Mrs. Morrick's appeal was disallowed by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in 1945 and she has sinces asked for her case to be referred to the Special Review Tribunal set up to consider cases settled by the Tribunals before certain High Court decisions had been made. The case is one of considerable difficulty in which there is some doubt, but after giving the claim the closest consideration I have decided to grant the pension.
    Commander Galbraith: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, and also for the personal consideration he has given to a matter of considerable difficulty?

  BRITISH ARMY

    Imperial Service College, Windsor
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance. that as soon as alternative accommodation is found for the A.T.S. at present occupying the Imperial Service College in Windsor, these premises will be derequisitioned and handed back to the Windsor Borough Council.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): I am giving careful attention to this matter. I hope that it may be possible to reach agreement with the Windsor Borough Council.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for his Department to put forward as a basis for discussion proposals which stand some chance of acceptance by the Windsor Borough Council?
    Mr. Shinwell: We are very reasonable in this matter.
    Brigadier Head: Is the Secretary of State aware that part of his own flock, namely, the Household Cavalry, are in urgent need of these premises also?
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, and I am fully conscious of my responsibilities in this respect.

    Milton Road Camp, Cambridge
    Mr. Symondsasked the Secretary of State for War how many persons the former United States Army camp at Milton Road, Cambridge, was built to accommodate; and how many persons are accommodated there now.
    Mr. Shinwell: This camp was built to accommodate 850 troops at war scales. On current peace scales it can accommodate 700. The units at present occupying it total some 400. The surplus accommodation is earmarked for occupation by another unit this month.

    Parked Vehicles, Eglinton Castle
    Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrewasked the Secretary of State for War how many motor vehicles are parked at Eglinton Castle, Kilwinniag, Ayrshire; what is going to be done with them; and what number of guards are employed in connection with them.
    Mr. Shinwell: There are at present some 5,000 vehicles at this depot. They will be repaired and issued to Army units. Twelve civilian watchmen are employed at the depôt.

    Anti-Aircraft Gun Site, New Brighton
    Mr. Marplesasked the Secretary of State for War what is the reason for not derequisitioning portions of the antiaircraft gun site at New Brighton by 31st December, 1947, as expected; and what is the revised date for derequisitioning.
    Mr. Shinwell: I regret that owing to shortage of labour it was not possible to finish the erection of the necessary fencing by 31st December. This must be done before the agreed portions of the site can be derequisitioned. The work is now in progress and I hope it will be possible to derequisition those portions not later
    1628
    than 31st March. In the meantime the local authority may have access for planning or surveying purposes.

    Compulsory Boxing
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are being made for compulsory boxing in the Army.
    Mr. Shinwell: Boxing is an excellent form of training for the recruit and is encouraged in the Army. All recruits are taught to box if they wish. Most young men are anxious to represent their units if selected in the many competitions which are organised to encourage both novices and experienced boxers.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Did the Minister make a statement in Berlin indicating that this was a new reform in military training, and will he say exactly how this is suitable for modern warfare?
    Mr. Shinwell: It is desirable that the boys should be encouraged to undergo various physical exercises and, personally, I regard boxing as a healthy sport and recreation which I am anxious to encourage. All that I said was, quite facetiously —in the context it was naturally facetious —that I should like to make boxing compulsory in the Army, but I am afraid that I cannot get my own way.
    Mr. Mikardo: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the relevance of boxing to military training is that it teaches one to love one's enemies?
    Mr. Shinwell: It is quite possible, I believe, to love one's enemies and yet give an occasional straight left.
    Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend say if this is meant as a substitute for the atom bomb and other recognised methods of conducting warfare?

    Polish Units
    Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brownasked the Secretary of State for War why Poles are still allowed ambulances and trucks to convey them several times a week to Lakenheath, Suffolk, for social visits.
    Mr. Shinwell: Transport for Polish units in Suffolk is under the control of British military authorities. Its use is governed by the same rules as apply to transport used by British troops. Under the present

    1629
    rules no officer or other rank is allowed more than one journey a fortnight or one a week in Winter for recreational purposes. All the work tickets of the vehicles concerned have been examined and all journeys have been found to be correctly authorised.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Cannot something more be done, because the people in the area are very disturbed when they find they get no basic petrol, that these lorries should come into the town almost every evening?
    Mr. Shinwell: In so far as these lorries are being used, they are being used for legitimate purposes. If occasionally a Pole occupies a seat in a lorry, I do not think that is to our disadvantage.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brownasked the Secretary of State for War what allowances of clothing coupons are issued to Poles quartered in camps in Eastern England, who' are still issued with military clothing.
    Mr. Shinwell: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: I hope that it will state how it is possible for the Poles to go into the shops now and buy what they like.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a question: it is a wish.
    Following is the answer:
    Members of the Polish Forces still serving in this country and wearing military uniform are entitled to clothing coupons as follows:
    Officers (men and women)—For period June, 1947, to May, 1948: 42 coupons available for articles of service uniform only.
    21 coupons available for other clothing. Other Ranks.
    Men—None.
    Women—io coupons for the maintenance of handkerchiefs, dressing gown and slippers.
    Officers arriving in the United Kingdom from tropical countries may receive further coupons, if necessary, not exceeding 67.

    British Officers, India and Pakistan
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the Sectary of State for War how many British officers have been killed, wounded, mur-
    1630
    dered and missing in India and Pakistan since 15th August, 1947; and whether any of these British officers were non-volunteers to serve after 15,th August, 1947.
    Mr. Shinwell: Seven British Service officers have been killed, of whom two were murdered, in India and Pakistan since 15th August; none have been wounded or are missing. The two who were murdered were volunteers for service in India. Of the other five killed, one, who was killed in a flying accident, was not a volunteer for service under the Dominion of India; information as to whether the remaining four were volunteers is not available in the War Office.
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the Secretary of State for War under what authority British officers, non-volunteers, were bound to serve with Indian troops after 15th August, 1947.
    Mr. Shinwell: It was not possible to withdraw simultaneously on 15th August all British Service officers serving with Indian troops, nor was there enough time to ascertain the wishes of every officer by that date. In consequence, some officers who were not volunteers were employed with Indian troops after 15th August for a short period until passages could be provided for them. No special authority was necessary for such employment.

  PRISONERS OF WAR

    Repatriation
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Secretary of State for War if he will announce the details of the scheme for repatriation of German prisoners of war from Egypt.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not yet able to acid to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on 20th January, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. Marshall: But is the Minister aware that on that date he answered me, and mentioned this scheme? I am asking him whether he can declare the details of that scheme at this moment.
    Mr. Shinwell: As I indicated in previous replies, this is a very difficult problem. We have to consider it in the context of shipping and other difficulties but we are hoping to complete the re-

    1631
    patriation at an earlier date than was anticipated originally, probably some time this year.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does not the Minister agree that on the date to which he has referred, he said that the prisoners of war were being brought back in accordance with a scheme, and is he not able, if there is a scheme, to tell the House what it is?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is what I have done already on several occasions.

    Civilian Workers (Selection)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War on what basis the German prisoners of war who are to be allowed to remain in this country as civilian workers are being selected from those who have volunteered to stay.
    Mr. Shinwell: Those prisoners of war are selected who appear to be most suitable from the point of view of their character, physique and record of previous work.
    Mr. Driberg: Does the "record of previous work" refer only to their work since they have been prisoners, or to their previous service record?
    Mr. Shinwell: I would not care to say, but the procedure for determining whether they possess the proper qualities is, in my view, quite a good one.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there is no political discrimination in deciding which prisoners shall be allowed to remain here, and which shall be forced to go back against their will?
    Mr. Shinwell: In order to remove any possibility of misunderstanding in this regard, I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that the procedure is that a committee deals with the applications. It consists of the commandant of the camp, the representative of the county agricultural committee, and an official of the German Section of the Foreign Office, but the medical officer and the camp leader, a prisoner of war, are also available to give evidence to the committee.
    Captain Marsden: Will these men who volunteered to stay on be allowed to go home to Germany for a period of leave, if they wish to do so?
    Mr. Shinwell: I would say offhand, without definite commitment, that I hardly think it possible to grant them leave, but if they wish to go home I do not believe there is any obstacle in the way.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the fact that they are married or not is taken into account, and will he exercise all his influence on the Home Secretary to ensure that wives are allowed to come over to rejoin their husbands?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is a very wide question. I would like to see it on the Order Paper.
    Commander Maitland: What proportion of those who volunteer are selected?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid I should require notice of that question.
    Major Lloyd: Does the War Office take any interest in the fate of those who are repatriated to the other side of the iron curtain?

    PUBLIC SERVICES PERSONNEL (TRAINING)
    Viscountess Davidsonasked the Prime Minister, in view of the responsibilities which have been undertaken by the Government, under the Education Act, the Health Act, the Children's Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill, now under discussion, what steps the Ministries of Health and Education and the Home Office are taking to secure the training at Universities and other teaching centres for adequate personnel to work the Acts.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The considerable expansion in the capacity of Universities, which has already taken place and will continue in the future, is designed to secure an adequate supply of graduates in various fields of employment, including the public services. Measures have also been taken for increasing training facilities, for example, through the emergency training scheme for teachers and the Ministry of Health's Scheme for post-graduate medical, including specialist, education and courses for training nurses, sanitary inspectors, physiotherapy teachers and remedial gymnasts. Special courses at Universities and other centres are available for child care workers and probation officers, and it is intended to arrange other courses later.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Could the right hon. Gentleman pass on to the Lord President of the Council the importance of encouraging the social sciences, as well as the physical sciences, because a number of Clauses in Bills which are now being considered will be inoperative unless we have an even larger number of these trained people?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure my right hon. Friend was listening intently.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: What is a remedial gymnast; does he differ in any way from any other gymnast?
    The Prime Minister: I think he is very different indeed.
    Mr. George Thomas: Would the Prime Minister also bear in mind the necessity for much further financial assistance for those who are going into the medical profession, in order that this shall not be a closed shop so far as children of working people are concerned?
    The Prime Minister: That is another question, which should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

    MEDRESCO HEARING AID
    Mr. Errollasked the Lord President of the Council what steps he has taken to improve the Medresco hearing aid by further research and development work.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Until there has been practical experience of the model now in production, the question of improving the design does not arise, but the scientific committee concerned is already considering, proposals for new types of receiver and the possibility of other instruments for forms of deafness requiring special treatment.
    Mr. Erroll: As the Government model is already out-of-date, as a result of research and development work by private firms on their instruments, cannot the right hon. Gentleman devise a better research policy in regard to this instrument?
    Mr. Morrison: I will do my very best to do so.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    War Damage (Late Applications)
    Mrs. Leah Manningasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will agree to payments being made by the War Damage Commission in respect of late applications, where notification had been previously made to the war damage department of the local authority and accepted by the authority as a bona fide notification.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): This is a matter which, by virtue of the proviso to Subsection (2) of Section 31 of the War Damage Act, Parliament has entrusted to the discretion of the War Damage Commission itself, who have exercised it with commendable care.
    Mrs. Manning: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the reluctance on the part of the War Damage Committee to pay grants already accepted by local authorities bears very hardly on persons of moderate means? Cannot he intervene in that matter?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, I am afraid Parliament has left it to their discretion, and. I cannot intervene.
    Captain Crookshank: Does "con-mendable care" mean that they have made no payments at all?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, certainly not. They have made a good many payments.
    Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that quite a number of people have notified war damage claims to local authorities, and not to the War Damage Commission, and are now finding that they are not entitled to compensation because their notification has gone to the wrong address?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am quite aware that that has happened in some cases, but the position remains as I have stated.
    Commander Maitland: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give particular attention to cases where the original occupants have died, and there have been considerable difficulties in establishing the claims?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am sure the War Damage Commission will do so.

    Light Hydrocarbon Oils (Duty)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will repeal the tax on light hydrocarbon oils used for industrial purposes, in view of its adverse effect on trade and industry.
    Mr. Odeyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give further consideration to the case for the repeal of the duty on light hydrocarbon oils used for industrial purposes as presented to him by a number of trade organisations in October last.
    Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Salford (Mr. Hardy) on 27th January.
    Mr. Odey: When considering this matter, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the incidence of this duty on the export trade of a number of industries?
    Sir S. Cripps: I will certainly bear everything in mind.

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will remit Purchase Tax for organs used in recognised places of worship, in cases where the organ has been installed and dedicated as a war memorial.
    Sir S. Cripps: Legislation would be required, and I cannot now anticipate my next Budget statement.
    Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that if it is right as a general principle to free war memorials from Purchase Tax, it is wrong to charge it on organs which are inscribed and installed as war memorials?
    Sir S. Cripps: I will certainly bear that in mind.
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that most of the requisites for use in Sunday schools, such as Bible pictures, text-cards, Scripture greeting cards, are subject to tax at the rate of 125 per cent.; and whether he will make some concession in this respect.
    Sir S. Cripps: Pictures are the only Sunday school requisites which are charged with tax at this rate, and I am afraid it is not possible to make exceptions according to the use to which chargeable articles are put.
    Mr. Peter Freeman: Is it not a fact that the discrimination might act in the case of some articles such as pews and church furniture? Is it not a fact that 125 per cent. is imposed on these things, whereas only 10 per cent. is imposed on betting?
    Sir S. Cripps: The difference is according to the article taxed.

    Government-Held Securities
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much, and which, local government 2½ per cent. issues and 2½ per cent. Treasury Bonds which the National Debt Commissioners took up last year as underwriters, have been sold in the last three months; and how much profit or loss has resulted.
    Sir S. Cripps: Like my predecessors, I do not propose to add further to the information regularly published regarding the securities held by Government Departments.
    Mr. Osborne: Does the Chancellor's refusal to give the answer mean that he is trying to apply the folly and failure of his predecessor's cheap money policy?
    Sir S. Cripps: It means nothing of the sort, but that I am following the example of e very other Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Japanese Bonds (Service)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will support American efforts to get the service of Japanese bonds resumed; and what information he has about Japanese plans for resuming the service.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am not acquainted with the efforts to which the hon. Member refers, but the rights of the bondholders will be borne in mind in the discussions leading up to the Peace Treaty. As regards the second part of the Question, Press reports suggest that the Japanese Government is properly anxious to resume the service of its external debt; but the

    1637
    balance of payments position of Japan is such that it is not likely to be possible in the near future.
    Mr. Keeling: May I thank the Chancellor for this modification of the unhelpful attitude of his predecessor to British holders of these bonds, who, I hope he will agree, are just as patriotic and just as deserving of his support as any other British creditors of a foreign government?
    Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member can thank me, but not in those terms.

    Economic Planning Board (Press Articles)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to various articles by Sir Graham Cunningham, a member of the Economic Planning Board, in the "City Observer"; and whether members of the Economic Planning Board are permitted to write for the Press.
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Chancellor satisfied that it is useful to have members of the Economic Planning Board who are consistently and diametrically opposed to every important principle and application of the Government's economic plan?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am not responsible for their private opinions, neither would I wish to censor them.
    Mr. Erroll: Are the permitted to accept payment for their articles?
    Sir S. Cripps: They do not accept payment for anything else I know of as regards the Planning Board.
    Major Bruce: In view of the fact that the Opposition have no official policy—
    Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Question.

    Argentina (Negotiations)
    Mr. Prescottasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding the commercial negotiations now taking place between the United Kingdom and Argentina.
    Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Tuesday, 27th January, to a question by the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon).

    United Kingdom and France (Exchange Control)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a detailed statement of the negotiations held and decisions taken by His Majesty's Government since the announcement of the devaluation of the franc in foreign exchange and gold dealings.
    Sir S. Cripps: Since I left Paris, technical conversations have been proceeding between the French experts and our own, in a spirit of the fullest collaboration. As a result of these conversations, and with the agreement of the French authorities, the Treasury have made an order which is designed to ensure that movements of sterling in French hands are made through accounts closely controlled by the French Government or the government of any other part of the French franc area. This order has been laid before the House and comes into effect today; copies are available in the Vote Office.
    Sir W. Smithers: Would it not be more healthy for all concerned if His Majesty's Government would face facts as the French have done and dispel this haze of Socialist make-believe as soon as possible?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

    Basic Petrol Ration (Abolition)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the sales of petrol from British sources to dollar countries have increased since the abolition of the basic petrol ration here.
    Sir S. Cripps: Sales have not increased at all. The abolition of the basic ration was intended to reduce our imports from dollar sources.
    Mr. Hurd: If the Minister cannot make any statement on that score to justify the abolition of the basic petrol ration, will lie see that when any relevant information becomes available the motoring public are informed?
    Sir S. Cripps: They have had the relevant information as to what the saving was.
    Mr. De la Bère: Was it correct?
    Mr. Hurdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take powers to compensate those innkeepers and caterers

    1639
    who can show that they have lost half their business since the abolition of the basic petrol ration.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. I regret that it is not possible to arrange for compensation in such cases.
    Mr. Hurd: Is the Chancellor aware that some innkeepers have lost three-quarters of their business, and that if this goes on much longer they will be in the bankruptcy court?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that all sorts of changes in the economic situation mean losses to individuals. It is very regrettable but inevitable.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is it not important that these hotels should remain solvent, in view of the importance of attracting tourists?
    Sir S. Cripps: I understand that there is no doubt that they will be open when the tourists come.
    Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many hotel keepers are finding that they have to dismiss their staffs because they have no trade, and in consequence they will not be open when the tourists do come?

    Capital Profit Distribution (Income Tax)
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the ½100,000 capital profit distributed to the shareholders of the Stanhope Steamship Company, Limited, in June, 1947, was subjected to Income Tax.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am unable to furnish information as to the tax liability of particular taxpayers.

    Pound Sterling (Purchasing Power)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state in terms of £s. d. over the whole field of consumers' expenditure the value of the pound sterling in purchasing power on 31st December, 1927, 1937, 1947, taking 1914 as 100.
    Sir S. Cripps: Taking 1914 as 100, the percentages are 59, 62 and 38 respectively.
    Sir W. Smithers: In view of the announcement made last night about the
    1640
    increase of wages to about four million workers and the reduction by about three and a half hours—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member only asked about the value of the pound, not about wages.
    Sir W. Smithers: But my Question has to do with that. Will the Chancellor now broadcast to the nation the folly of continuing this policy—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's questions are really getting a little absurd.

    Income Tax Forms (Confidential Information)
    Captain John Crowderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that confidential Income Tax forms are being taken home by Inland Revenue clerks; and that members of their familes are working on these forms; and if this practice has been approved by him.
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the practice under which certain work is done at home by relatives of members of the Inland Revenue staff. This work is mainly of a routine nature. Every home worker undertakes not to disclose or discuss any information coming to him in the course of his duties. The practice started during the war as a means of overtaking arrears and last year the amount of work done at home was equivalent to the work of 1,000 clerks. The practice is thus a worth-while contribution to manpower savings, and for this reason I do not think it should be abandoned.
    Captain Crowder: Can the Chancellor give an assurance that no confidential information gets into the hands of the families of the tax collectors so that they can possibly relate forms with which they are dealing with any names of employees or wage earners?
    Sir S. Cripps: I should very much doubt whether they would appreciate sufficiently the substance of the forms.
    Mr. John Lewis: Will the Chancellor say to whom these home workers undertake that there will be no disclosure of confidential information, and what form the undertaking takes?
    Sir S. Cripps: I would require notice of that question.

    Foreign Currencies
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT lists of countries considered at the present time to have hard and soft currencies, respectively.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. There is no such hard-and-fast distinction as the Question implies. The position of each currency in relation to sterling is constantly varying and a list showing the position at any particular moment would soon become misleading.
    Mr. Osborne: Are there any varying degrees of softness and hardness, and what really constitutes a soft currency?
    Sir S. Cripps: Certainly, there are constantly changing and varying degrees.
    Mr. Erroll: How, then, can manufacturers tell to which countries their exports should be directed?
    Sir S. Cripps: From time to time they are given advice by the Board of Trade as to which are at the moment the more important currencies.

    Income Tax (Schedule A Assessments)
    Mr. Marplesasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the range of rates of simple interest upon which the Inland Revenue base their Tables of Annual Equivalent of Premiums.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I assume the hon. Member has in mind the method of arriving at the annual value of property for Income Tax, Schedule A, where the tenant pays a premium in addition to the rent. The local Commissioners of Income Tax are the assessing and appellate authority for Schedule A tax, and it rests with them to determine what a premium represents in annual value. The Inland Revenue's estimates in such cases vary according to local conditions but are normally based on rates of interest running from 4 to 6 per cent.
    Mr. Marples: How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile rates of interest of from four to six per cent. with the Government's cheap money policy?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are dealing with two different things. Here we are dealing with the basis upon which annual rent is formed. The basis taken is old-established, and the courts have agreed to it.
    Mr. Marples: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider reducing the average rate of interest from 5 per cent., which is used in these tables, to the 3 per cent. which the Government have in mind for Transport Stock?

    Money Transfers (Palestine)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what steps are being taken to ensure that any money collected in this country for arms for Jews in Palestine is not exported.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: There is no power, under the law as it stands, to prevent the remittance of money through normal banking channels to Palestine or any other scheduled territory.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, according to my information, a fund of £200,000 has been opened in Shoreditch by a so-called Jewish welfare committee with the object of paying for arms for Jews in Palestine, and that the first £100,000 was subscribed in the first 10 days? Will not the right hon. Gentleman look into this again with a view to seeing whether there is some way to prevent such money leaving the country?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, but I have intimated that we have no power to prevent money from being transferred in this way. Palestine is a scheduled territory.
    Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend take action for which he has powers to ensure that the money of British taxpayers is not spent to provide arms for any of the peoples of the Middle East?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is another question.

    RAW MATERIALS DISTRIBUTION
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the revision of the priority system for distributing scarce raw materials to industry, with particular reference to priority allocations of steel.
    Sir S. Cripps: This matter has already been explained by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of that statement.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Could my right hon. and learned Friend say whether that statement was made at a Press conference? If so, is there any reason why it should not first have been made in this House?
    Sir S. Cripps: I understand that it was made in the course of a speech.
    Mr. De la Bère: Why not to the House?

    CIVIL SERVICE (GIRL CLERKS)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what proportion of the sixteen-year-old candidates who were successful in the September, 1947, (Normal) Clerical Class examination of the Civil Service have been offered posts which would involve their living away from home; and what provision is made for the supervision and welfare of these young girls.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Four hundred out of 1,500. Young civil servants assigned to posts away from home are assisted as necessary by their Departments to obtain suitable living accommodation. Their general welfare is the responsibility of an officer specially nominated for the purpose. This is normally the welfare officer for the Department.
    Mrs. Castle: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is very undesirable that such a large number of 16-year-old girls should be offered posts in strange towns, where they may have no friends or relatives, and where they have to live on a small salary? Will he not consider giving girls of this age priority for local jobs?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Wherever possible we try to keep young girls either in or near their homes; but as they go into the Service, they have obviously to go where the posts are for which they are needed.

    MR. DOUGLAS HOUGHTON (PRESS ARTICLE)
    Mr. Draysonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he has considered the article by Mr. Douglas Houghton, general secretary of the Inland Revenue Staffs Federation, dealing with profits of retail traders, a copy of which
    1644
    has been sent to him; and as the information disclosed in the article appears to have been obtained from official sources if he will investigate this and make a statement.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir. The author of the article is not a civil servant and has no access to official records. The references therein to taxation indicate, however, that the writer had information of a general character drawn from official sources. This occurrence may impair the confidence rightly placed by the public in Inland Revenue officials to preserve secrecy and I take a serious view of it. The general secretary to the Federation has, however, expressed his regret at what has happened, and has undertaken that nothing of the kind will happen again. In the circumstances it is not proposed to take any further action on this occasion.
    Mr. Drayson: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am glad he appreciates the importance of information which is disclosed to civil servants being kept secret.

    GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the cost of advertising in the Press and otherwise by Government Departments during the calendar year 1947, with comparable figures for the years 1945 and 1946.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: This information is being collected and will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    BRITISH MARKET RESEARCH BUREAU
    Sir David Maxwell Fyfeasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to what extent the British Market Research Bureau, Limited, of 6, Grafton Street, London, W.1, is supported by public funds; to what extent its activities have been sponsored by the Government; and what type of information it has compiled for the Government.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is not supported by public funds. It is a commercial firm employed on a commercial basis from time.to time by Government Departments

    1645
    to survey certain aspects of public opinion and behaviour. Examples of such work are surveys of the state of retailers' stocks for the Board of Trade, of the working of the points rationing scheme for the Ministry of Food, and of the number of persons who read the Highway Code.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that answer with the fact that on Merseyside their questions were, "What do you think of reform of the House of Lords?" and "How will you vote at the next Election?" Is that done with Government Department support?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have no knowledge of the questions quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I can hardly imagine them fitting in the with the answer I have given.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's last admission, will he cause inquiries to be made into the questions asked?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I certainly will; but I find it very difficult to believe that the questions which have now been quoted to the House by the right hon. and learned Gentleman have anything to do with the inquiries to which I have referred.
    Dr. Stephen Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that this firm, besides Government work, does jobs for newspapers and other bodies?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give that I shall ask leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN
    Charles Stuart McFarlane, Esquire, O.B.E., for the Burgh of Glasgow (Camlachie Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair]

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Obligation of exhibitors to show British films.)
    3.33 P.m.
    Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, after "exhibited," to insert:
    "(including therein a fair proportion of days falling within the last three days of each week)."
    We are very grateful to the Government for having committed this Bill to a Committee of the whole House, although I do not understand the principle on which they have done so, when so many other Measures of even greater interest have gone upstairs. The Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends, is a limited point. The receipts from films in the second half of the week are very often as much as 50 per cent. above those in the first half of the week. We think, therefore, that it is desirable that some words—not of too rigid a character—should be added to this Clause in order to make it a quota offence for an exhibitor to confine the exhibition of British films to the first three days of the week only, when the receipts are much lower. That is the object of the Amendment. I hope the Government will accept it, for I consider it improves the Clause. It prevents any one who wishes to play against the general intentions of the Clause from so doing, and provides the Government with powers which they may use to haul over the cs any one who does so.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): One can well understand why this Amendment has been moved. It is in sympathy with the proposals which have been made for enforcing the obligation of the quota over each house. Also it is in full sympathy with the proposal we inserted in the Bill for time after five o'clock. I feel, on the other hand, that this proposal would be extremely vexatious to carry out. It would not only involve a considerable amount of clerical time and man hours,

    1647
    but would limit the elasticity which cinema operators desire in the matter of booking their films. I recognise there is some danger that, if this Amendment is not inserted, there may be a tendency for cinema exhibitors to concentrate British films mainly in the first half of the week, but I do not feel that it is a serious danger. I am sure we can rely on the exhibitors to give British films a fair deal in this respect, and therefore I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Keeling: I understand, Sir Robert, that you do not propose to call my Amendment to the proposed Amendment in the name of the President of the Board of Trade, but that you have no objection to discussing the rather similar suggestion I have made in it.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Young): No doubt the suggestion contained in that Amendment can be discussed along with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) when the President of the Board of Trade moves his Amendment.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is the attitude of the exhibitor at this moment, when there is a period of shortage of British film products, any different from what it will be a little later on, when 'we hope there will be an increase in production, particularly of British films? I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to bear that in mind. I hope that he and the Film Council will keep this matter under constant review. We cannot forget what happened in the past with the bad type of "quickie," and what has happened when a great many non-British influences played their part in film production in this country. While I agree that at the moment there is no great danger, I think it should go on record that this matter is one which really does need watching very carefully when home produced films are in sufficient supply. It is a contingency which may occur again, particularly in cinemas of a certain type who act unfairly against the producer.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, at the end to insert:
    "(4) In this Act the expression "quota period." means the year beginning on the first
    1648
    day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, and each succeeding year during which this Section is in force.
    (5) The requirements imposed by this Section in respect of any quota period shall be complied with separately in respect of the first six months of that period as well as in respect of the whole of that period."
    This Amendment arises out of suggestions which were on Second Reading. We then felt—I said we have an open mind on the question—that this was an extremely reasonable proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) made this suggestion on the Second Reading, and instead of the Amendment he himself put down we have proposed this one. The quota period will begin in October and if we extend the requirements to six months in each year it will give full effect to what my hon. Friend had in mind. I hope he will agree. It is certainly a fact that exhibitors get by far the larger part of their income from the films shown during the winter months and it is not unreasonable to ask that this additional obligation be placed upon them. I hope the Committee will be prepared to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Keeling: I agree with the Government Amendment but, as hon. Members will see from the Order Paper, I do not think that it goes far enough. I think that there should be an obligation to apply the quota separately to the latter part of the week and to Sundays, as well as generally over the period. Leaving the cinemas free to show quota pictures in the early part of the week rather than at the end of the week might reduce the revenue of producers by as much as 50 per cent. in the case of houses with two changes a week, and 75 per cent. in the case of houses with three changes a week. It has been suggested that to make exhibitors show a proportion on the last days of the week might encourage British producers to rely upon compulsion instead of quality. But if exhibitors in the past had treated British films on their merits, there would never have been any need for the Acts of 1927 and 1938. The fact is that owing to the stranglehold which America has had in the past upon the distribution of films in this country, British films have never been given a chance among independent exhibitors.
    My Amendment to the President's Amendment will unfortunately not be called. It will be seen that it does not

    1649
    ask that a number of British films in excess of the quota should be shown at the end of the week. All I suggest is that the quota should be applied to the profitable part of the week as well as to the whole of the period. British producers ought not to have to leave it to an American renter to determine whether a British film is to be shown in the first part of the week or at the end of it.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I are sure that the whole industry is glad that my right hon. Friend has seen his way to introduce this Amendment and to accept the suggestion which I made during the Second Reading Debate. It will be much more convenient for the quota to be fixed for a 12-month period than for a six-month period. As the right hon. Gentleman recognises, the Board of Trade will not lose anything by this, because exhibitors will be required under the Amendment to comply with the quota period both in the six winter months and in the six summer months. I am satisfied that the Amendment covers in more appropriate language than I had ventured to draft the point to which I directed attention. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), I must say, speaking for myself, I should think it would be very difficult administratively, if not almost impossible, to carry out the proposals he has in mind. Certainly, in many cases it would involve a great deal of complicated records and would add considerably to the burden of exhibitors in this regard.
    Mr. Clarles Williams: As an ordinary amateur on this matter, I think I might be allowed to express considerable surprise and wonder at the fact that the date mentioned in the Amendment has appeared only after the Second Reading of the Bill. It is a surprising point. The hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) intimated that he—and I imagine others—drew attention to this point during the Second Reading Debate. I was interested to hear what was said on this matter by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). I fully realise that in a complicated matter of this nature one does not want to lay down very strict rules and orders. It is rather astonishing that the Government have got what is a comparatively simple outlook on this matter. I cannot imagine
    1650
    why that should be so; but it must be that this is one of the Bills which they inherited from their predecessors, in which-case they would have an adequate brief for it.
    3.45 p.m.
    I have no doubt that this Amendment has been studied very carefully. I suggest that these words should have been in the original Bill. I am satisfied that as long as the control of films remains in British hands there will be a fair distribution of British films. However, I am not entirely happy that the position will be so equitable if distribution is not in strictly British hands. I am afraid that if there are any outside people controlling this matter—such as the Government or foreigners—the position will be much worse. In the circumstances, it seems that the Amendment is rather above the usual standard of Government Amendments.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I understand, Sir Robert, that we are discussing the Amendment to the proposed Amendment at the same time as the Amendment? I do not know whether that is quite right.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment to the proposed Amendment is not to be called, but it can be discussed now.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I wonder whether the Committee might have a little more guidance on this point from the Treasury Bench? The hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) speaks, I believe, with some trade expertness and I have no doubt that his evidence is extremely valuable; but there certainly is trade opinion on the side contrary to his. There is certainly trade opinion that there ought to be legislative provision to make sure that the second half of the week is protected by this Clause, and not merely the week considered as a whole. I am, not, and I suppose very few of us are, sufficiently conversant with the management of the industry to be quite sure which view the Committee ought to accept —the view of the hon. Member for East Islington, or the view which I have roughly indicated.
    The only argument I have heard against the opinion that the second half of the week should receive specific protection, is the argument of administrative

    1651
    difficulty which was put, so far as I can tell, quite fairly by the hon. Member for East Islington. But obviously he puts it, so to speak, ex parte in a sense. There ought to be somebody—and I cannot see who it can be except the Treasury Bench who have had the opportunity of examining and cross-examining both these bodies of opinion inside the industry—able to tell the Committee whether we should regard that argument as decisive or not. If we are not to regard that argument as decisive, we should either have the Amendment to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), or, if it is not to be called now, an assurance of full consideration at a later stage.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I am sure that the Amendment we propose has the support of hon. Members on all sides of the Committee. It sprang from a suggestion made by certain of the exhibiting interests. We were very glad to see that the suggestion came from them in the first instance. I think that it sprang from a desire on their part to show that they could do more than just carry out the showing of whatever quota of pictures was necessary in a 12-month period. I think that not only are many exhibitors anxious to show British films in accordance with the obligation fixed for the 12-month period, but many of them would like to show more than half the annual quota during the six winter months. That, of course, would mean a very big gain in terms of the showing of British films. However, until this Amendment is approved it is not possible to meet them in this way.
    The point was raised both by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) about the spreading of the quota over the various days of the week. That is really the same point as that dealt with earlier. If it were possible to carry that out, certainly it would provide one more guarantee that the quota provisions were not to be rendered weaker in practice. I am quite satisfied that it has been very fully considered and discussed with various sections of the trade, and I am satisfied that the administrative difficulties are virtually insuperable, not only for those in the Board of Trade, because they are responsible for seeing that the quota provisions are carried out, but also for the cinema exhibitors themselves.
    1652
    Some cinemas have a change of programme once a week and some twice a week, and, in some cases, there is a change of programme just for Friday and Saturday, and it would be necessary to make special provision in relation to Sunday as well. I am afraid that it would mean an enormous amount of work for the people concerned, and I am sure the Committee would not want to place that amount of work either on the trade or the Government. In addition, it would limit elasticity in booking which the cinema exhibitor needs if he is to carry on his business satisfactorily and spread his quota of British films fairly over the period.
    Mr. Keeling: I wonder whether the President can give a promise to look into this matter again before the Report stage? We have been told that it would cause administrative difficulties, and I think the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) used the word complications, but we have not had any particulars either of the complications or the administrative difficulties. We all agree that protection should be given to the British film industry, and that is the whole object of the Bill. It does not, therefore, seem to me to be unreasonable that exhibitors, who draw a generous revenue from the industry, should contribute their part. I think it ought to be looked at again before the Report stage to discover whether the administrative difficulties are really as great as has been suggested.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I must say that I am in some difficulty on this matter. I think the Government's Amendment is certainly an improvement of the Bill, and that the Amendment of my hon. Friend would strengthen it still further, but I must admit I was entirely unconvinced by the usual mumble-jumble about administrative difficulties. The Committee knows quite well what that means. Administrative difficulties are insuperable when the Government do not want to do something, but they can easily be overcome when they do. Consider the administrative tangle into which they have got so far. If these matters seem so complicated to them, what is to be the situation later when we reach the more difficult matters contained in this Bill?
    Mr. E. P. Smith: I should like to reinforce the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) and I hope the President of the

    1653
    Board of Trade will take this matter into consideration once again before the Report stage, because what has been proposed by my hon. Friend is merely the logical extension of the Government's own principle in the Amendment.
    Mr. H. Wilson: It is a not illogical extension of the principle followed, not only in the Amendment, but right through the Bill, but I must assure the hon. Gentleman that this matter would require a considerable amount of staff. I am not suggesting that we could not do it; we certainly could, but I am quite sure that the Committee would not want us to employ an unnecessary number of staff or place an unnecessary amount of work on the cinema exhibitors in order to carry this out. I will most certainly—and this is in reply to the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher)—keep this matter under review as we go along and discuss it with the Films Council. I hope the inquiry which will be made into the whole question of the exhibition side of the film industry might also have a look at it, but I do not think there would be any point in my giving any commitment to look at it again before the Report stage, because, quite seriously, this could only be done, in the first place, by making a decision in advance, and, secondly, because we shall bear it in mind, especially in the early years of the operation of the Bill.
    The fact is that there will not be a large amount of films available, and, if we are to have a definite insistence on each cinema in regard to each part of the week, we shall run into a whole lot of defaults which we do not want to see but which we wish to avoid. These defaults would have to be met by way of some lower quota than otherwise would be the case when planning their programmes for a whole week or a whole year. While I give the assurance that we will keep this matter under review, and particularly when we get into the period which has been referred to, a period in which there will be a surplus rather than a shortage of films, I do not think it would be right to give any definite commitment now about looking at it again before the Report stage.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: There has been a certain amount of talk about the large
    1654
    number of extra staff that would be needed. Really, that is not so. Every cinema is already making an Excise return each week, showing how much it took for each film and when it was taken, and so it is a complete fallacy to say that this proposal will mean that a lot more staff will have to be employed. It is simply a matter of a man who is already making a return adding an extra column in that return which he makes for Excise purposes. This is a matter which really can be looked into again, and there are really no grounds for saying that it would mean extra staff.
    Mr. C. Williams: I must admit that my suspicions have been aroused by what the Minister said. The sudden discovery of a Minister getting up in this Committee and maintaining administrative difficulties as the only reason why he cannot deal with the important matter of seeing that British films are shown in some of the best periods of the week is startling. Having had from my hon. Friend in front of me a very able explanation of the situation, it seems to me that there should be no really considerable increase of staff. None of us want to increase the staff or follow out that sort of policy, and I should be the last to do so, but it does seem to me that what is lurking at the back of the Minister's mind here is the fact that he is not really very keen to see that British films should have the best days of the week.
    If that is his outlook, and I believe it probably is, it really would have been a good thing if we put something into this Bill on the subject of British films. It has been proved that there are no difficulties regarding the cinemas, but the Government make administrative difficulties in using two men to do a quarter of the work done by one man. I hope this matter may be reconsidered and that, at some future time, we may have an answer to ensure that British films shall have a proper proportion of the best days of the week, as my hon. Friends have suggested.
    Mr. McKie: I should like to reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friends, and probably throw another light on the discussion. There is a very real danger that British exhibitors will be placed in a state of great jeopardy by this Bill, and I think the President of

    1655
    the Board of Trade will agree with me on a point which has been put to me by the manager of a very large cinema in my Division. I am anxious to see justice is done to the cinema people, and to those who patronise the films. This particular cinema is capable of holding 1,100 people. The manager has pointed out to me that the Clause as at present drafted creates a danger. As the quota of the distributors has been abolished—at all events, dispensed with—
    4.0 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): The renters' quota.
    Mr. McKie: It amounts to the same thing. The danger arises owing to the fact that the renters' quota has been displaced. Both the President of the Board of Trade and his able lieutenant beside him will see the force of my argument. The people associated with the cinema trade, especially those in rural areas, are disturbed lest, because of the abolition by the Bill of the renters' quota, they will not in future be able to meet their liabilities in the way of showing a quota of British films as in the past.
    I do not often use briefs, but I have one here to which I must refer. It points out that if this Clause goes through, even if it is amended—and this is quite a reasonable Amendment so far as it goes —it will leave independent exhibitors, of whom there are 3,500 in this country—I do not suppose the President is in a position to query my statement—and particularly those in the rural areas, entirely at the mercy of two British film distributing organisations. Surely that additional information is very material, and shows that the fears we have expressed on this side of the Committee, that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment does not go far enough, is more than justified. I should like the right hon. Gentleman even now to say something more about this matter, because I, speaking, as I say, on behalf of the cinema people in my constituency, as I am entitled to, do, without being oblivious to the difficulties of the industry in the country at large, am not at all satisfied; and I should be glad if the Government would provide a little additional information.
    Amendment agreed to.
    1656
    Further Amendment made: In page 2. line 1, after "with," insert "any of."— [Mr. H. Wilson.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I should like to pursue a little farther the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie). The renters' quota has been dispensed with, but the exhibitors' quota remains. I think it does pretty clearly mean that this Bill—if it stands as it is proposed—will compel exhibitors to show films which their suppliers, that is, the distributors or renters, are under no obligation to supply to them. They will be compelled to exhibit a certain proportion of certain types of films, but the people from whom they draw their supplies are under no obligation to supply to them those types of films. That seems a great injustice. How is a man to exhibit what he is required to exhibit if he cannot get it from the people from whom he draws his films? That point wants clearing up. There is injustice here. If it is not cleared up now it will have to be raised on the Report stage.
    Mr. Gallacher: I should like the President seriously to consider this question. The Clause, like the Bill itself, is designed to help film production in this country. There is, however, little value in helping film production if the exhibiting of films is not encouraged. I have a letter from an exhibitor who says:
    "I should like to draw your attention to the hardships "—
    note the word "hardships"—
    "that will be imposed on cinema exhibitors in general, and myself in particular, if the Bill is not amended."
    He is concerned with this Clause. The President is not introducing this Clause, I am certain, for the purpose of imposing hardships on cinema exhibitors. Nevertheless, it will have a serious effect on them. The exhibitors must have a range of choice of films from which to make up their quotas. But here the quota is imposed willy-nilly on the exhibitors. In Scotland, in particular, it will create very great difficulties, because many British films, while they may be in general very good, and while they may be very popular in certain parts of England, do

    1657
    not make an appeal at all in Scotland. Some of them do make a big appeal, but there are many that do not.
    There is not merely the language difficulty, although that is a difficulty. I am glad to say that film producers are gradually overcoming it, and learning to speak in basic English—which is as near Scots as it is possible to be—instead of the high-faluting Oxford or pseudo-Oxford language. Some English films show a sense of humour that appals Scottish audiences. In Scotland we have a profound sense of humour, good humour; but we do not like the banalities of some of these films. It will be a real difficulty for the Scottish exhibitors if they are not to have a range of choice open to them even while the quota is imposed on them.
    The exhibitors of Scotland are very anxious to help the Minister to encourage British production, but they want to see something in the Clause which will allow them a margin of choice. They want to fulfil their quota obligation, but to fulfil it with films that will encourage the development of their side of the industry and provide, at the same time, the very best entertainment for those who are contributing finance towards the upkeep of the industry. I hope the Minister will consider the position of the exhibitors, particularly those in Scotland. We desire to get a special Scottish Film Council, but I will not pursue that point as it would be out of Order at this stage.
    Mr. William Shepherd: I cannot support the view which has been put forward by Members who have regretted the passing of the renters' quota—
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I was not regretting the passing of the renters' quota; I was regretting that the exhibitor was not placed on the same level. If one is abolished the other should be abolished, or there should be both.
    Mr. Shepherd: Those who objected to the renters' quota did so because they contend that it reduces the selection which the exhibitor has in drawing on films for his cinema. I have no sympathy at all with the renters' quota; indeed, I shed no tears at its passing. It was responsible for some of the worst efforts of the British film industry. What did the quota in-
    1658
    volve? It involved bribing a man who has no primary interest in production to produce some sort of a film. That man says, "I am in the wholesale film business, and if you make me produce films compulsorily I shall produce a film in the simplest possible way. I will get the help of a hack producer, and an even worse director, and pay them a pittance to produce the worst kind of films for the lowest possible sum." That is what happened through the renters' quota under the old Act, and I think it is wrong for anyone to suggest the perpetuation of the renters' quota. It is very encouraging to find in the Bill a provision to abolish the quota and I am pleased that the Government have taken this action.
    Mr. McKie: I very much hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to reassure the Committee on this point. I am sorry that I must differ from ray hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) on the question of the renters' quota, but I think he was guilty—if that is not too strong a word—of rather caricaturing the attitude of those of us who object to the abolition of the renters' quota. Let me hasten to reassure the hon. Member, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) has done, that our objection to the abolition of the renters' quota resides in the fact that we think it will operate unfairly towards exhibitors. I would like to read a sentence from a letter, which I have already quoted, from the manager of an important picture house in Stranraer in my constituency. He says:
    "Make no mistake. In fairness to cinemas of our type"—
    that is, the cinema providing very proper entertainment, as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) pointed out, for people in the large, but scattered, rural areas—
    "the renters' British quota must remain Alternatively both renters' and exhibitors' quotas "—
    The Temporary Chairman: The renters' quota has nothing to do with this Clause. The hon. Member must now apply himself to what is in the Clause, as amended.
    4.15 P.m.
    Mr. McKie: I was endeavouring to point out that the Amendment of the President does not go far enough to allay our fears

    1659
    —fears which have been justified by the speeches we have heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and the hon. Member for West Fife. I was moved by the cogency of the arguments of the hon. Member for West Fife, and that is why I intervened in support of what he said.
    I do not feel that the Minister's Amendment goes far enough. We have incorporated that Amendment in the Bill. We did not divine the Committee on it, as it went some way to meet the position, but, in our opinion the amended Clause does not go far enough. That is why there has been so much perturbation on both side of the Committee. I thought that the hon. Member for West Fife was too much of an internationalist to speak up as he did on behalf of the Scottish cinema industry, but I am very pleased that he did. I say to the right hon. Gentleman in all seriousness, that despite what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Buck-low, he should take note of the speeches made on both sides of the Committee, particularly by Members representing Scottish constituencies, about the unfair way in which many connected with the cinema industry are sure to be treated if the Clause, as amended, is left in the Bill. I hope he will say something to allay our fears. If he would, that would be quite useful, but if not, I, for one—although I do not suppose that I should get very much support—would be prepared to divide the Committee against the Clause.
    Mr. C. Williams: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) really misunderstood the point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) put to the Committee. My hon. and gallant Friend, and those who supported him on behalf of Scottish constituencies, are not in any way wishing to renew the renters' quota, or anything of that kind; they wish to ensure that the provisions of this Clause get fair consideration. We do not want its provisions to be used in the narrow sense; we want to be sure that they can be adjusted to meet the needs of different localities. We have had speeches from Scottish Members, and while I have no wish to carry on the argument, I must say that the position might arise in which Scottish films might not be right for Wales. I must also empha-
    1660
    sise that we in the West of England wish to have a far higher standard of films than those which other people in England, and in Scotland and Wales, wish to have. I want to see English films made in proper proportion so that the different localities shall have serious consideration.
    Scottish Members have put forward their views, so I am putting forward the point of view of the West Country. We want to see West Country films developed, because we think they would be far more constructive and entertaining than films from any other part of the country. I hope the Government will not overlook my suggestion, and if the Minister wishes to assure me on this point I shall be very happy to help him to get the Clause through. It is easy for Scotsmen to praise their own country. In the West we are usually more diffident, but when even Communist Members feel impelled to bring forward purely nationalistic points, I do not see why we should not do the same from the West Country. I hope the views I have expressed will carry weight with the Government.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 2—(Determination of quotas of British films)
    Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, after the first "percentages," to insert:
    "not being less than thirty-five per cent."
    We feel strongly on this Amendment. The Bill is designed to promote the production and exhibition of British films, but there is no certainty about the quota which the Board of Trade will lay down subsequently. We should try to remove uncertainty. There is no industrial product which is not hampered by uncertainty, and the film industry is a very good instance in point. It is not only that the product of existing studios will be affected by the uncertainty, but that the whole question of the amount of capital which is to be hazarded and invested in studios in the future will depend upon it. If we could have a definite quota below which the production of British films would not fall during the next 10 years, people who might now be wondering whether to invest their money in British film studios would

    1661
    receive encouragement. It is highly desirable to remove uncertainty from the most hazardous part of the film industry.
    The Government were in an awkward position on the last Clause. They were torn, on the one side, by the skirl of the pibroch from the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who has constituted himself a sort of Bonny Prince Charlie of the Committee; and, on the other side, by loud cries of "Westward Ho!" from my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) who sits behind me. I hope that both those hon. Members will support the Amendment, although they hold such very different political opinions.
    In pressing for a quota of 35 per cent. I would remind the Committee that the President of the Board of Trade said, during the Second Reading Debate:
    "I do contemplate an ascending level for the quotas, and they will be fixed from year to year with the most careful attention to the foreseeable output of pictures which will be available."
    "Foreseeable" is now becoming one of the favourite clichées.
    "If the producers are giving us the increased volume of production we hope for, it is the Government's firm intention that the quotas shall be correspondingly increased, and the producers can draw up their production programmes on that basis, and with that assurance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 228.]
    That is certainly something, but we would much prefer to see a minimum percentage put into the Bill than to rely upon Ministerial assurances even if they are delivered by those whom one would expect to remain in this position for a very long time.
    It is not enough to say that the Minister expects to see a rise in the quota. It is not a good enough assurance to induce me to invest my capital, if I were thinking of doing so. We would much prefer to see "35 per cent." put into the Bill, on the assumption that six—or 18, possibly—independent films are to be included in the quota. If they are to be excluded from the quota, we should be satisfied with a lower percentage. There can be no harm in the Government acceding to this request, which would stimulate the production of British pictures by existing companies. I might go further and say it would give an inducement to those who are thinking of entering the
    1662
    industry to invest their capital, with the certainty that the quota for British films would not fall below 35 per cent. over the next 10 years. As the Amendment is in line with the main object of the Bill, I press the Government to accept it.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: I wish to reinforce the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend, and to take it a little further. It is not only the production of films which would be influenced by it but the whole chain of processes from the making of the film to its exhibition. The Bill affects the whole industry. The one ingredient needed to make the Bill work is that every part of the industry should have some idea that its existence is likely to be prolonged for as long as possible. "Flexibility" is another word which is used very frequently nowadays, to take the place of "indecision." The effect of the present position upon those who are working, and those who wish to work, in the industry, is bad. It would he much better for the President of the Board of Trade to make up his mind, according to the facts in his possession now, and to say: "We shall take a definite minimum arid, later, if we find any exceptional circumstances that we cannot foresee at the moment, we might alter it." That would be better than saying: "We are going to leave it open and flexible, and alter it from time to time."
    From the time the Bill is passed we want the industry to work in a different atmosphere and with an entirely different objective. We want the three parts of the industry to work together as a chain. We shall not get that in the difficult period, which will coincide with the operation of the Bill, in which we are excluding, for very good reasons, American films. We need to have a system inaugurated in which as many people as possible in the industry, and others whom we would like to attract to the industry, shall have the maximum amount of certainty. I have seen this matter from the point of view of the general or small exhibitor, and also from the other angle of one who bought his experience by losing a little money in the production of films. The Amendment tries to lay down a firm foundation on which the Government can give the maximum amount of certainty to film production, from the word "Go." I am sure the Amendment is the right one. I am sure that we shall be able to show the

    1663
    same firm front as we took before, in our attitude towards the importation of American films. We want to see a fixed minimum quota, and I ask the President of the Board of Trade to consider this suggestion.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. John Wilmot: I would impress on the right hon. Gentleman the great importance, at this time and in this Bill, of setting down some minimum quota. It would be a great tragedy if this industry went into a decline. There are signs that that is already beginning. The policy being pursued requires a considerable number of first-class British films, and the obtaining of financial support for such productions must take place many months in advance of their actual showing on the screen. At the present time, bank money and other money is not forthcoming for the production of British films of the highest quality, which cost a lot of money, because of the uncertainty of their exhibition both at home and abroad. I think that an important step would be taken in removing those uncertainties and securing that assistance if the Minister now announced some minimum quota as proposed in the Amendment.
    Mr. W. Shepherd: I join in supporting an Amendment which seeks to put a quota into the Bill. English films will not always be able so freely to get access to cinemas as they are at present, when foreign films are denied the showing, and, therefore, we must frame this Bill with regard to the conditions likely to apply in five or ten years' time, because the right hon. Gentleman has an obligation to the industry to give it some sort of foundation and to give some assurance to those who will be putting their money into it. Film production is perhaps the most hazardous of all undertakings. Its financing, even for men with immense resources, is not an easy matter, as has been shown recently in connection with one very big company.
    It is the duty of the Government to give assurance to those contemplating production that they will meet with a market for their productions. It is most desirable to encourage the producers of short films. I hope that we shall have an opportunity of saying something more about that later. They are very much in need of support
    1664
    and encouragement in the future, and a basic quota for British films would help them. The President of the Board of Trade may say: "It is perfectly true. These ends are desirable. I want to see an increased quota for British films, but I look round and see that within the last 12 months it has been very difficult to meet the quota set under the existing Act." That of course is true, but that in itself is no justification for not setting some target now.
    There is no relation between the production facilities now available and those that were available 12 months ago. In January, 1947, there were only 14 studios available for operation; now there are 23. In January, 1947, we had only 48 stages and now we have 67 available for production. Therefore, we have a much greater potential than 12 months ago, and the right hon. Gentleman is under an obligation to set himself a target. I want this quota to be put in, because I want the right hon. Gentleman to have something in front of him. The President of the Board of Trade will be a very important man in the film industry in the next few years. He has to get utilised the space which is not at present being utilised. He has to say to American companies, "Produce or get out." He has to say to those in the industry who are indulging in restrictive practices, and all kinds of things that they should not indulge in, "You have to get down to business, because the future of the film industry in this country depends on what we are going to do, so far as home production is concerned."
    Therefore, I say that it is a duty, from the national standpoint, to have a minimum quota, so that the President of the Board of Trade will be urged to take the action which he must take if he is to get his industry into shape. He has to get together the heads of the industry and knock their heads together if they will not come together in any other way. There is far less being done at the present time for the production of films than could be done. It is disgraceful that at a time when we need films so badly so much of our studio space is idle. I ask the President to set up a minimum quota so as to give some sort of security to those engaged in the necessarily hazardous problem of production, and so that he

    1665
    may also have a target. He can then be urged forward to put the British films industry in a position in which it can produce the number of films which it ought to be producing.
    Mr. Benn Levy: I should like to contest this Amendment not because it is particularly injurious, although I believe it to be mistaken, but because I think that it is of some importance to contest the arguments advanced in favour of it. First there is the danger that any minimum is always likely to become a maximum in fact and if we hurried a minimum figure into this Bill it might well later become a maximum, and yet not be the well-considered figure which the Board of Trade should expect producers to meet.
    Now the arguments have all been based on the dangers of uncertainty between now and the final decision as to what the quota shall be. I agree that that decision should be made as quickly as possible but not because this uncertainty is liable to hamstring production. The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) made that point on Second Reading. I answered him then but unfortunately he had left the Chamber. He has done so again. I do not know what it is about me that drives the right hon. Gentleman out of the Chamber. I think the argument he used then and the argument which he has used tonight do not hold water. He said that no one would put capital into the production of a film unless he knew exactly what the quota was to be. The fact is that no one will put capital into a film, not unless he knows what the quota will be but unless he knows that that film will be included in the exhibited films. That is the important point and the basis of production so far as the financier and the financing of films is concerned.
    The quotation which the right hon. Member for Aldershot made from the speech of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade did seem, I am afraid, to lend colour to the arguments that the quota shall be regulated with reference to the number of films in production. I suggest that that is an entirely wrong principle and that instead of the number of films in production or likely to be in production being allowed to dictate the size of the quota, the size of the quota should govern the number
    1666
    of films in production. I hope that my right hon. Friend will clear up any ambiguity that there may be on that point.
    My own feeling is that the quota should be regulated as suggested implicitly by the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd), by the amount of studio space available. There are, as he pointed out, more studio space and stages available now than there were 12 months ago. There are just on 70 stages available. We have been producing films this last year at the rate of one film per stage per annum. In 1937 we produced at the rate of three films per stage per annum. In Hollywood the normal rate is two films per stage per annum. If we were to utilise all our present available stages at our own present level that would be 70 films a year and at the Hollywood level it would be 140 films a year. I do not necessarily suggest that our producers should be expected in one year to jump to the Hollywood standard of organisational efficiency, but there is no reason why that should not be done sooner or later. So let us not double the figure but say 110, which is about one and a half times what we did before and still considerably less than the Hollywood level. To that we have to add such available studio space as there is abroad because there is no reason why studio space should not be rented abroad—[Interruption.]—I know that there are objections.
    Earl Winterton: Currency objections.
    Mr. Levy: I have taken that up with the Treasury and I understand that the objections are superable. In addition to studios rented abroad there are also accepted for quota purposes films made in the Dominions. Again, there count for quota not only the films made in the current year but also the films made over the previous three years; so that a quota of 150 films is a very moderate allowance. It should really be more. I would say something like 200. The average output of films is about 400 to 500 a year, so a 40 per cent. quota would not be excessive. If we had a quota of that kind always based on studio space it would be in the interest of exhibitors, who, owing to the vertical organisation of the business, are also producers, to see that the necessary films are available. I suggest that the Amendment is based on a misconception. I invite the Presi-

    1667
    dent of the Board of Trade to establish that the principle of quota regulation shall not be as implied in the Amendment or such as the quotation from his own speech seems to imply but be in fact based on studio space available.
    Earl Winterton: This is the first time that I have spoken in this Debate, and, in accordance with the custom of this House, I must disclose a certain personal interest in the matter under discussion. I have connection with the Rank organisation, which is the King Charles' head of every film Debate, because it arouses appreciation in some, and anger and lamentations in others, that anyone should be so successful in so unsuccessful a world. I want to say a word in reply to the speech which has just been made. I think that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) entirely misunderstood and did not deal with the particular point which my right hon. Friend put forward when he confined himself very properly to the Amendment. I invite the Government to have regard to these considerations. It will not be denied that at the present time the position is left in absolute and complete uncertainty. I am not concerned to defend the attitude which has been taken up by the British Film Producers' Association. My personal interest is in other directions. They have so circularised their members that they are entitled to have their points put to the Committee. It is perfectly true and reasonable that the Board of Trade, acting on the advice of the Films Council should vary from time to time the amount of the quota, and should regulate it having regard to the proper circumstances of the day.
    4.45 p.m.
    It seems to us on this side of the Committee that a guarantee of a minimum quota without stating what that minimum is to be is illogical, and it will not be denied by the Parliamentary Secretary when he comes to reply that under the Bill the quota could be 40 per cent. at one time and as low as 5 per cent. afterwards. The fact that there is difficulty in other directions, about which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) addressed the Committee, is not due to any connection with the quota. As I understand the hon. Gentleman's position his attitude does not seem to be logical. He said that
    1668
    real stage producers liked to think that their films would be selected. That is not a reason for leaving the percentage as uncertain as it is in this Clause, and I hope that the Government will give us some explanation of their views on the subject. As I understand the producers' position, they have no desire to go back-to the rigidity of the Act of 1938. What they want is more indication from the Government, and I should have thought that the Amendment deals with that point. I hope the Government are prepared to reply to it
    Mr. Gallacher: It may seem very strange to some Members of the Committee that I want to see my country prosperous and progressive in this and other directions. I do not want to see it a tattered beggar hanging on to the skirts of other nations even though they are in the West with any amount of dollars to spare. I want the exhibitors and the producers to get the maximum amount of time and preparation as to what the quota will be, but it would be highly undesirable to have the percentage in this Bill. For that I will give my reasons in a moment. I listened to the arguments from the other side of the Committee. Those hon. Members will tell any story of any kind to suit their own particular interests and desires. What is their general argument? It is, take off control, and the fellows with the money will show initiative and invest.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member that we are dealing with percentages.
    Mr. Gallacher: This has relation to it. Hon. Members opposite say, "Take off controls and the fellow—
    The Deputy-Chairman rose
    Mr. Gallacher: Wait until I have finished my argument.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.
    Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) says unless we lay down a definite control the men with the money will not put that money into the business. What is to be made of that? The right hon. Gentleman is the representative of high finance in this country and the sort

    1669
    of thing we get from him is, "free the people and initiative will be shown." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. Wilmot) said something similar although he is not committed to the same line of argument. He said that the banks who deal with the cash will not put it into the industry.
    Everyone recognises that this is a very important industry for this country. It is one of the most undesirable things that the film industry in any country should be monopolised by an outside country. It is desirable that everything possible should be done to build up in every way the studios and stages, and to use each one existing at the present time when there is such an opportunity for utilising them. New stages should be built all over the country. At the present moment we are in a deadlock with Hollywood and if it continues, it will not be a question of percentages, but of a 100 per cent. use of British films.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Could we have some clarification from the hon. Gentleman whether these remarks are intended to support my Amendment or are against it?
    Mr. Gallacher: I have made it very clear that I am not in favour of putting percentages into the Bill and I said that. If the right hon. Gentleman would keep his mind from floating away into the realms of high finance and cease for a moment counting his profits, he will hear what I will have to say, and, in particular, if he will find a more agile-minded Mephistopheles than the one whispering in his ear at the moment he will get an understanding of my argument.
    What I want to get at is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has power to direct finance and if the Government are alive to this situation they will use the power. It is not a matter of putting percentages into this Clause, but of using the power of the Chancellor to see that the necessary finance is directed into that industry and that at this particular time no effort is spared in order to utilise every stage as well as have new stages built in all parts of the country. I cannot see why there cannot be stages in Yorkshire and in Scotland. My principal reason for opposing this percentage is a very good one. It would be very undesirable to decide upon a quota until the Scottish Film Council has been set up and is in
    1670
    a position to give Scottish opinion on what the quota should be.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Gallacher: I am glad to see that have the support of one hon. Member on the other side of the Committee. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reject this Amendment, and take whatever steps are necessary to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that capital is directed towards this industry. We have heard much talk about the direction of labour and our lads have been directed in many cases, such as into the Army and into industry.
    The Deputy-Chairman: We are talking about films.
    Mr. Gallacher: Let us have finance directed into this industry and let us have everything possible done to see that the greatest encouragement is given to production. Percentages should not be settled until we have got Scottish opinion on the matter, and Scottish opinion can only be got through a Scottish Film Council.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I will first say to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that it is not only high finance which has a stake in the cinematograph industry. There are a great many others who wish to have some measure of security and certainty about the future of this industry. I am afraid I myself can only bring a bucolic mind to this subject as my main activities in this House have been connected with agriculture. There are, however, various points of similarity between our oldest industry, agriculture, and the comparatively new industry of the cinematograph trade. They were both subject to severe competition before the war from the new world, and there was a certain prejudice at home about taking their products.
    Today, it is true, we find the position is in exact reverse. There is a keen demand for the home product; in fact, the demand is far greater than the supply. I feel I can speak for agriculture and also for the cinema industry and it can be said of both that they have recollections of the situation as it was in the past and they certainly feel that it may recur again in

    1671
    the future. I cannot help thinking that it would give confidence to the industry if they knew that they had secured a certain share of the home market at all times. It is only with that knowledge that they can plan ahead.
    If I understand the argument advanced by the Government on Second Reading and supported to a certain extent by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) this afternoon, it is that if a quota were fixed, conditions would change so that a low quota would have to be fixed, and that would not be in the interests of the industry as a whole. I cannot quite see that argument. Surely, all we are doing is putting in a bottom. It is a low bottom and we all hope that the quota, when finally decided by the Board of Trade, after consultation with the film industry will, in point of fact, be higher than the quota of 35 per cent., and that British producers will be able to produce the films to fill a very much higher quota. That being so, all we are proposing to do is to upgrade not downgrade. I do not see that there can be any real objection to fixing a minimum quota and giving that measure of security which would be of help to the industry.
    Governments, as we all know, change and Governments also change their minds. We should be well advised before we pass from this Amendment to have something down in black and white even though it is a minimum quota well below what the eventual figure will be.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: There is one remark which fell from the lips of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) with which I am in complete agreement. He said that a quota should govern production. There I entirely agree with him. That seems to me to be the strongest argument possible for inserting the minimum quota in this Clause. The President of the Board of Trade must have sensed that the feeling of the Committee is rather against giving him the complete blank cheque which in included in Clause 2 (1). I am not prepared to say that 35 per cent. is the right figure. It may be 30, 35 or 40. I feel, however, that some figure should be included, and we should not be left completely in the dark as to what will happen after 1st July, 1948. I am in agreement with what has fallen from the lips of most hon. Members who have
    1672
    spoken. I do not wish to repeat their arguments beyond saying that upon the whole I agree with them, not forgetting the hope that the President of the Board of Trade between now and the Report stage will be able to consider favourably the idea that he should insert a minimum figure above which there may be a sliding scale, but below which the quota shall not fall.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Belcher: The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) made one point, with which I ought to deal straight away, when he said that as the Bill stands the President of the Board of Trade has a blank cheque for the fixing of quotas. That is not quite true. The President of the Board of Trade, in consultation with the Films Council, will estimate the quota, which is then subject to the affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) will say, "We know all about this; it does not mean a thing."
    Mr. Lyttelton: It is a blank cheque, and it does not mean a thing.
    Mr. Belcher: In spite of the somewhat uproarious interlude with which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) entertained us, this Debate has continued along the lines of the Second Reading. This is far from an issue on which we are split along the lines of political parties; it is more of a technical issue. It is the desire of all hon. Members to assist the cinematograph film trade, whether it be the producing, the distributing or the exhibiting sections. I agree with the right hon. Member for Aldershot that it is most desirable that we should do everything in our power to give a feeling of confidence to the industry, that the industry should know in advance as far as possible what will happen to it, and that we should be as specific as possible; but when it comes to the question of inserting in the Bill a percentage figure for the minimum quota, I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen on this side who have spoken in favour of that.
    In the first place, whatever quota is fixed, it will lose a great deal of its value to the film industry if it is unrealistic, that is to say, if we fix a minimum percentage which we cannot attain. It will lose some of its value if we pitch it low

    1673
    and subsequently find that we can revise it upwards. If we pitch it low, we may tend to discourage the production of British films. That is the danger there. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) who asserted that what decides the producer of a film in making up his mind whether or not to produce and what decides the people who back that producer financially, is not the national percentage quota but the probability or otherwise of marketing their products. That point is quite firmly established.
    I could not agree with my hon. Friend that at this time the quota should not be determined largely by reference to the films available or in sight. In deference to the right hon. Member for Aldershot, I strike out the word "foreseeable" from my brief and use the words "in sight." I do not see how in times of shortage we can fix a quota otherwise than by reference to the probable number of films which will be available in the quota period. There is a strong case for doing what he said, for relating the quota in the future, when we have got over the temporary difficulty of shortage of films, to the amount of studio space available in order to provoke the usage of studio space which would not otherwise be used.
    Mr. Levy: Would the hon. Gentleman agree, if he accepts the principle that the number of films in production or in sight is to govern the quota, that he is in effect giving power to the exhibitors in their other capacity as producers, of determining precisely what the quota shall be?
    Mr. Belcher: No, I do not think so, because not all the exhibitors have the other power. I am looking for a much larger part to be played in the future—I hope it is the wish of the Committee—by producers who are not the big chain owners of cinemas and, as exhibitors, able to influence in that way the production of films.
    Earl Winterton: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question? I think it is legitimate to ask—it has become the custom in this Committee when discussing business questions—if he or his right hon. Friend have discussed this with the B.F.P.A.? Perhaps he would give the answers to the questions which I put and which were contained in a circular which was sent to all hon. Members.
    Mr. Belcher: It is true that the B.F.P.A. has met my right hon. Friend. Owing to my inability to be present, I do not know exactly what took place at the interview, but there was a discussion the night before last between my right hon. Friend and the B.F.P.A. which went on for more than one hour.
    To return to the point about the quota, I should have thought it was quite sufficient for the undertaking to be given by my right hon. Friend that when the time comes to fix the first quotas to be operative under this Bill when it becomes an Act, the quota will be fixed at such a level as to ensure the widest exploitation of whatever films are then in sight. It is always argued that undertakings given by Ministers possess very little real value, certainly as compared with something placed in black and white in a Bill. In many instances that may be true, but in this instance I cannot conceive the present or any other President of the Board of Trade not wanting to fix the quota high as possible with a view to getting the widest possible distribution of British films having regard to the number to be produced.
    Why is it, therefore, necessary to insist on placing a figure of 35 per cent., or any other figure, in the Bill? I should have said that whatever may have been the case for this kind of thing some years ago, we have today reached the situation where British films by their very quality will force their way into the cinemas of this country, not necessarily as a result of any Government quota-fixing but because, quality for quality, they are better than their competitors. I should have thought there was a safeguard there. I must resist this Amendment. I do not feel that it is necessary. Placing this or any other figure in the Bill would not have the desired effect. It would not assist in any way the production of British films, and there are circumstances about it which, so far from assisting the production of British films, might have a limiting effect.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The Parliamentary Secretary says that this would not do the producers any good. That is rather curious because producers, who presumably know their own business even better than the Parliamentary Secretary does, are very strongly in favour of having the percentage put in. That point has been brushed

    1675
    aside, and the Parliamentary Secretary merely says that the producers do not know their own business. Many of the arguments which he used fall to the ground because they are related to the supply of films and so on, but what we want established in the Bill is that, rain or fine, over the next 10 years, the British film producer can rely on a 35 per cent. minimum of British feature films being exhibited in British cinemas. That is not only applicable to those who are engaged at this moment in the production of films but is also intended to stimulate—if not tomorrow, then during the course of the next o years—independent people to come in and produce films in the certainty that at least this market will be assured to them.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that everybody wished to see the widest exploitation—an unfortunate word—the widest expansion, which is the sense in which he used it, of the British film industry, and the mere fact that the quota now might be a little too high or a little too low is no argument why we should not try to get something certain for this most hazardous part of the industry. We feel we must press this to a Division. The arguments against the Amendment are not substantial, and we must record our feeling, which is that the Government have the ability to remove one of the uncertainties in one of the most hazardous parts of the industry and they should seize it and not put forward arguments which, however agreeably expressed, have no substance.
    Mr. Wilmot: I should like to refer to something the Parliamentary Secretary said. I think, with respect, that it is not sufficient to give an assurance that in fixing the quota in July a figure will be arrived at which will have relation to the films then producing or in sight. The fact is that the number of films which will be producing or in sight will be determined by the number of stages in use, and the number of stages in use depends very largely upon a decision arrived at by the integrated vertical corporations who are both producers and exhibitors and who own the majority of the stages. As has been pointed out, we are now producing one film per stage per annum, whereas before the war we produced three films per stage. If we are to get back to three films per stage we must encourage the independent production of films upon the
    1676
    only stages that exist, that is the stages which belong to the integrated vertical corporations. I ought to say that I have some interest in this, being a governor of the Old Vic, and indirectly interested in the production of independent films.
    It is tremendously important that the stages should be fully used. If they are not fully used, we cannot have an active first-class British films industry whose films will go out and earn foreign exchange all over the world. It is vitally important that these stages should be pressed into use, and unless we have early notice of what this quota will be, it will be possible for those who own those stages to concentrate upon the making of a few super-expensive pictures, keeping those stages idle as standbys and so on. I put it to the hon. Gentleman, with all respect, that with the best will in the world it is not sufficient to fix a quota with one's eye on the films in sight because the number of films in sight will be determined very largely by what the hon. Gentleman says now.
    Mr. Belcher: I recognise that there is a great deal of fact in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Wilmot) says. I have not said that for all time the only factor to be taken into account when determining a quota is the number of films in sight. I agree that other factors have to be taken into account, but it is not the case that at present we are not using studio space because somebody deliberately, maliciously or foolishly does not want to use it. There are today all sorts of limiting factors which will not, I hope, be there in two or three years time. However, I do not believe that we shall produce the result that my right hon. Friend suggests by fixing an unreal target in the form of a quota and forcing the producer to come along and produce films. They are limited by other factors. In any case, they must have consideration for their own financial losses—
    Mr. Lyttelton: If the Parliamentary Secretary uses the words "minimum" and "target" as interchangeable, the argument will get into a mess. They are very different things. This is not a target but a minimum below which the British film producer knows the quota will not fall. To describe that as a target is to mislead the Committee.
    Mr. Belcher: I accept that there is a difference between "target" and "minimum." I hope, however, that the minimum to which the right hon. Gentleman refers would be the kind of minimum which would come very close to being a target. In other words, we would not want to fix the minimum so low that it would be unreal in relation to what was possible. I see nothing wrong about that. One of my arguments against fixing a minimum is that we may fix it so low as to be a positive discouragement to the industry. We have here my right hon. Friend urging, with the support of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his hon. Friends, this fixing of a minimum as an incentive to the producers to go ahead and produce, and we then have the right hon. Gentleman getting up and pointing out with some asperity that there is all the difference in the world between a target and a minimum. I know there is, but unless the minimum approaches a target it will not have the effect my right hon. Friend suggested.
    5.15 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I thought I knew more about their job than the British film producers. I can assure him that I am the most humble person on earth. I do not know anything at all about the production of films and I certainly would not attempt to compete in knowledge with any film producer. When my right hon. Friend saw the British Film Producers Association the other evening, he had a long talk with them and he felt that he had satisfied them, because he said that a minimum would be fixed in two or three months' time having regard to what is being produced, which would be related to the potential supply of films in the forthcoming period and, thereafter, there would be annual reviews, with the minimum rising as the production of British films rose.
    Mr. Lyttelton: May I clear up that point? That minimum is to be fixed for one year at a time or for a shorter period. That is an entirely different matter from the one we are now discussing, which is that a minimum should apply for the whole of the 10 years.
    Mr. Belcher: But the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend is that the minimum which will be fixed in July this year
    1678
    will be the minimum and, thereafter, there will be an increase year by year. In the Second Reading Debate my right hon. Friend himself said that.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I am sorry, but I must try to clear this up. If the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman is that the quota fixed to apply to the period beginning 1st October is to be increased subsequently during the rest of the life of this Measure, that is the equivalent of fixing the minimum asked for now: if, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman is saying, "I shall fix a quota which will apply to the first period beginning on the 1st October but, subsequently, although I hope it may go up, it may equally go down," it does not meet the point at all. The Parliamentary Secretary now says that the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking was to fix a quota on 1st October, with the further undertaking that that quota would be increased progressively during the life of the Measure If that is right, it meets our point.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I said so on the Second Reading.
    Mr. Lyttelton: If that is a definite undertaking, that whatever target is fixed on 1st October will be increased, that is equivalent to saying that the figure fixed is, in fact, the minimum, and I see no reason why it should not be fixed at 35 per cent.
    Mr. Belcher: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in his interpretation of what I said. The President's undertaking is that the quota fixed for the period beginning 1st October is the minimum quota and, thereafter, amendments will be in an upward direction; not necessarily every year, but throughout the lifetime of the Bill when it becomes an Act, there will be an upward climb of the minimum and no downward climb. My right hon. Friend said so during the Second Reading Debate.
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: I understood the hon. Gentleman in his first speech to say that in the course of 10 years the quality of British films would rise and that 35 per cent, would not be needed. Therefore, there is the possibility of it going down in 10 years.
    Mr. Belcher: No, what I endeavoured to convey was that the quality of British films, I hoped, would go on improving,

    1679
    over and above the improvement which has already taken place, to produce the effect that the quota would be of less value than it is now. The quota is introduced to support British film production. If the quality and the efficiency of the British film industry improve, as we all hope will be the case, the value of the quota as the supporting factor for the industry will obviously become of less and less importance, and their own prestige will put British films in the cinemas because the cinema-going public will demand to see them. The quota will still remain so long as it is the wish of Parliament that the film industry shall be supported by a quota system.
    Having now straightened out the matter of the increasing minimum, and the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend, I do not know I whether the right hon. Gentleman wishes to press his Amendment to a Division? I can only repeat that I feel that to impose now arbitrarily a 35 per cent. minimum in the Bill is quite unnecessary and will not produce the desired effect.
    Mr. Edgar Granville: The Parliamentary Secretary said that this is an opinion which cuts across all parties, and I should have thought that this was a point on which the President could have taken the general sense of the Committee and perhaps have given some undertaking that he will look into this again to see if he can give us something on the lines of this Amendment. If I interpret the opinion of the Committee aright, it is something like this: what we really want is a 10 year basic percentage. The Board of Trade have had 20 years' experience of the working of the quota and, in the last few years, a great number of cinemas have not been able to comply with their quota obligations because there was a shortage, for obvious reasons. At the present time, as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said, while this dispute is going on with Hollywood, the quota of British films at present might be anything up to 40, 50, 60 or even 80 per cent.
    What the hon. Gentleman did not tell the Committee was how soon is this Committee, which is to determine this percentage, to meet? How often are they to meet? Is there to be a sliding scale upon this percentage? If you had a
    1680
    series of fires, a strike, a similar ban from Hollywood, you might have overnight a position in which you had completely to change your quota. Therefore, what we want is a basic percentage of quota which we have always had. This is a re-enactment. We have had this Debate over and over again in Committee as to whether it shall be 12½ per cent. exhibitors, 15 per cent. exhibitors, 12½ per cent. renters, and so on, and this House has always taken a great interest in the matter.
    If we had the basic percentage fixed as a matter of consultation on a to-year period, it would give, as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) said, some confidence to the production side of the industry here. Then let the right hon. Gentleman's Committee meet which is to determine the short-term policy, which is greatly affected not by that Committee but by what will happen as a result of the negotations between Hollywood and the film industry of this country. That has more effect upon the screen showing time than any quota we are discussing today. There you would have flexibility and elasticity.
    This view is held in all parties in the House. We are all trying to make this a workable Bill to give the British film production industry security and stability in the future in a difficult international situation. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking that he will reconsider this before the Report stage; and try to give us some reasonable arrangement to satisfy the mover of this Amendment.
    The Chairman: I hope we can now come to a decision? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Mr. Fletcher.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: One point made by the Parliamentary Secretary disturbed me because it seemed to be based on a dangerous misconception. It was with regard to the quality of British films being really more important than this fixed quota. It is easy to ride off in a Debate on a phrase that the quality of British films is so much more important that it will be the deciding factor. That obscures the real point, that the British film industry, if not in its infancy, is still a young and struggling infant, and certainly is 30 years behind Hollywood in experience and technique and in the actual production of films. It is perfectly certain

    1681
    that, though the production of films in this country has improved, nevertheless it is obvious that over the next two years there will be the usual ratio of very fine spectacular successful films and then, after that, a great many films into which the same amount of endeavour, the same amount of artistic integrity and keenness, money and all the apparatus that goes with it, have been put but, by that curious alchemy of artistic production, the first picture is a complete success, the next is not so successful, and the third may be even less successful.
    That is normal in the production industry and you are unfairly handicapping an industry by saying in an airy way, "It is the quality that will make it work," when one knows perfectly well that the quality has to be built up over many years. It is exactly that encouragement which is wanted and provided in this Amendment that will allow the film industry of this country to build up. We must imagine a time when there will be another big influx of films from outside, when the differences with America will have been settled in various ways—
    Mr. Belcher: Would the hon. Member mind my interrupting? I am sure he would not want deliberately to misrepresent me. I was not suggesting that I regarded the quota as becoming progressively less necessary. All I said was that the ratio of importance, as between the quota as a protector of the British film industry and the quality of the industry as its own selling factor, was bound to change. For instance, 20 years ago the British film industry probably could not have established itself without the quota; 20 years hence the quality of the industry should be such that, although it is necessary for international financial reasons to retain a quota, in fact what will operate chiefly to the advantage of the British film industry will be quality.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: That is a very different point from the one made. I will conclude by saying that I cannot quite understand the Government's coyness in not telling us now what they are going to do about this. It would be satisfactory to everybody if, instead of preserving in mystery for some time ahead the figure decided on, they would take the plunge, knowing full well now what is the figure
    Mr. W. J. Brown: I want to join in the request from hon Members on all sides to the Government to reconsider this matter. I am concerned about the effect of the Clause, 11 it goes through unamended, on all the categories of film producers in Britain, but especially on the position of the independent producer in Britain. There are three categories of film producers whom we have to bear in mind when we look at the Clause and the proposed Amendment. There is first the category which has been described as the financially integrated category, the people who make, exhibit and own the cinemas and control showing time. Then there is the independent producer, who may own a certain amount of floor space and so be able to produce on his own. The third category is the independent producer who does not own floor space and cannot produce unless he can get somebody else to let him have it.
    Let us look at the effect of this Clause upon those three categories. The effect on the last category is utterly disastrous unless this Amendment goes through—the independent producer who owns no studio space and, in fact, only produces if he is commissioned to do so. He has to be assured that, when ha produces his film, there will be showing time available to him. That guarantee can only be given by the first category of producers, those who control the cinemas; and unless they know what their quota is to be from now on, they cannot even guarantee screen time for their own stuff, much less guarantee screen time for the independent producer who cannot produce unless they invite him to do so. Under this Clause as it stands nothing whatever is to happen until July.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Levy: Surely there is nothing in the world to stop them guaranteeing as much space as they want. They can guarantee 100 per cent. if they wish.
    Mr. Brown: The whole machinery of the Clause and of the Amendment is directed to the point of whether there is to be a statutory minimum of floor space or not, and that means that such facilities as are guaranteed by the Bill have to be divided between the various types of producer. Under those conditions the independent producer is going to have a very bad time indeed. Until July he is not to know what effect this will have

    1683
    on him. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he felt that when the President of the Board of Trade saw the film people the other day he left them satisfied. On the contrary, the first thing that happened after the meeting was that orders of dismissal were given on a large scale, especially by independent producers. They cannot keep artists, scenario staff, and all the rest, hanging about until July before they know where they stand. The effect of that has been catastrophic.
    Mr. Belcher: I would be pleased if the hon. Member would tell the Committee how he is to protect the interests of independent producers as against all other kinds by fixing an arbitrary quota of 35 per cent. in this Bill. He can only do so by going further and saying that of that 35 per cent. 25 per cent. shall be from the big producers, five from the smaller producers, and five from the types he mentions.
    Mr. Brown: Unless I can have some guarantee, I cannot consider the interests of those component parts. What we are dealing with is the guarantee, or lack of guarantee, of the thing as a whole. On Second Reading on all sides of the House of Commons we were all very much concerned about the independent producer. If his lot was bad under the old quota, it is going to be worse than ever in the absence of any kind of quota or proportion at all.
    One of my reasons for supporting the case that the Government should give us 35 per cent., or some other percentage, is that, thereafter, I may begin to argue the case of the independent producer, and invite the Committee to consider how we can protect him against monopolists. I cannot begin to protect him until we know where the whole industry is to stand. The whole industry is to know nothing until July, and a six months' hiatus is a considerable hiatus. The industry is concerned about the casual and insecure character of employment. I can imagine no better way of promoting that casual and insecure character of employment than by leaving the whole matter until July, and not saying now what the position will be then.
    I join in the plea to the Government to consider whether they can give us some minimum percentage, 35 per cent. or some
    1684
    other, which will relieve the industry from its present insecurity. That insecurity has been added to, and not diminished, by the conversations with the President of the Board of Trade, as I know, having seen the film people since, and knowing the consequences of failure to get a per-centage—
    Mr. H. Wilson:indicated dissent.
    Mr. Brown: It is no good the President of the Board of Trade shaking his head. There have been discharges this week; I have seen them. It is no good saying that this has nothing to do with the Bill. I have tried to explain with great clarity that it has a very great deal to do with this Clause, and I join in the plea to the President of the Board of Trade to consider it. I am sure he wants to do the right thing. This is not a party issue. I beg him to reconsider the position and give us what the Amendment asks for, or perhaps something in its place. Otherwise we are bound to divide against the Government, and I would be bound to vote against the Government, not that that would cause us any grief. I want them to do the right thing.
    Mr. Pickthorn: The last speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade brought out what it would not be in Order fully to discuss, the very close connection between this question of whether there should be a fixed percentage —x 35, or not—and the question of how long notice there ought to be. On his argument it seems to me that if x is nothing, or something floating, or unpredictable, unless we are giving very long notice of increases, it will stay for ever and the minimum will become the maximum.
    The main point I wish to put is, if I understood it properly, that the President of the Board of Trade will fix a quota in July. Let us say for the sake of argument that it is 30 per cent. and that he promises in the ensuing 10 years that it may sometimes go above 30 per cent., but never below. I suggest this is the most extreme strain of Ministerial power we have yet seen. The Minister is refusing to allow Parliament to put in a figure for the next 10 years. He is keeping it locked in his bosom like Madam Humbert, who had locked in her bosom the number of a safe which contained I forget how many thousands of millions

    1685
    of francs. She was able to do very well for herself, but not for anyone else.
    The Bill provides for the figure to be fixed periodically in the second, third, fourth, fifth and up to the tenth year by consultation (a) with the advisory committee, and (b) by an Affirmative Resolution. But the advisory committee and the two Houses are being cut out of the authority which the Bill is purporting to give them because we are told on the personal assurance of the Minister that the Board of Trade will stick to x, or more than x, but never less, for 10 years. I suggest that that is such a strain on Ministerial power as against Parliament as has never before been claimed, that it is wholly illegitimate, and such an undertaking could not in fact be held valid for 10 years, nor indeed for 10 months.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The Parliamentary Secretary asks me whether I would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment. The answer is unequivocally, "no." Having listened to all that has fallen from the Treasury Bench, I consider they are manoeuvring themselves into a position which is wholly untenable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) pointed out. I was trying to explain the nature of the undertaking. Imagine my amazement when I understood it to be that in July a percentage will be fixed, and that we were to get an assurance from the Government, apparently to be binding on future Parliaments, that this percentage would never be reduced, but would only be subject to increases.
    Such an undertaking is absolutely worthless, not because of bad intentions of the President of the Board of Trade, but because he and the Parliamentary Secretary have been chasing their tails so much that they have got into a position which no one could define. All the moral arguments are completely knocked over by the fact that they admit that a minimum percentage is desirable in July, but undesirable in February. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) pointed out that it is now that we require the fixing of that percentage. I press the Government to get this thing straight. Because they have moved into an untenable position they should have the grace to recognise the fact, and to promise
    1686
    to look at the matter between now and the Report stage.
    Mr. Belcher: I think the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) would be the first to agree that while it is always competent for a Minister to say on the Committee stage of a Bill that he will look into a matter before the Report stage, it would be most dishonourable and undesirable to give that undertaking lightly, without intending to do anything about it. I do not accept for a moment the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) that as a result of this Bill and the interview that my right hon. Friend had the other day, men are being discharged.
    Mr. Brown: How does the Minister know? How dare he contradict me on a point of fact, unless he has authority for so doing? Has he been told by all the producers in Britain that there have been no discharges since the interview? I assert that there have been discharges. Unless he can controvert that, he ought not to say that he does not accept for a moment what I say.
    Mr. Belcher: I am sorry to learn that I have no right to argue with the hon. Gentleman when he argues with my right hon. Friend. I would point out to the Committee that the meeting between these people and my right hon. Friend took place last Friday night, and while it may be true that there are people being discharged from studios and other places, I think it is beyond the capacity of the hon. Gentleman or myself to say how precisely that is related to this Bill. We have all tried to arrive at some fair solution, and I would not like to run into a stiff hurdle so early in the Committee stage of the Bill.
    I will undertake that my right hon. Friend will go very carefully into this matter between now and the Report stage. Honestly, I am not making a statement in order to get through this particular stage. It will be looked to carefully to see whether there is some way of meeting the wishes of producers, and of many hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. It may be that we can bring forward the date for fixing the October quota, which I think would meet the wishes of all hon. Members who have spoken. The figure would be a bit more

    1687
    of a gamble than if it were fixed by July, but there may be some little room for having a shot in the dark. I will undertake that we will look at it between now and the Report stage.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I think we should accept that statement. The Parliamentary Secretary is perfectly right in saying that no Minister undertakes to look at matters between Committee and Report stage without a general desire to meet the wishes which have been expressed on both sides of the Committee. This is not a case where the Minister is looking at something which requires legal advice, or a complicated piece of Parliamentary drafting. This is not the kind of thing for which he requires any time to consider it between now and the Report stage, except to discuss it with his colleagues. It is very simple. We ask him to see if he can put a definite percentage into the Bill. I do not wish to be dogmatic as to exactly what the percentage should be, but I am content to rely on the assurance he has given that he will endeavour to meet the wishes of both sides of the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out "three," and to insert "nine."
    I am not quite sure that this Amendment is consequential on the one we have been discussing, although it is part of the same thing. It is to prevent hair trigger alterations in the quota from time to time. What we wish to avoid is the situation where the producer starts planning a film on a particular quota and finds in the middle of production that the quota has been lowered against him. If we were to get a suitable minimum percentage under the last Amendment the main point of this Amendment would possibly be removed. The presumption in the Bill, however, is that quotas may go down or up. Therefore, it is most undesirable for a producer to start off when the figure is 35 per cent. and then find, when he has completed his film, that the market has been removed because the quota has been lowered to 20 per cent.
    5.45 P.m.
    Mr. Belcher: Again, I see the force of the argument that the producer needs to know not only what is going to happen
    1688
    to him but also needs to know that as much in advance of the actual happening as is possible. I said so myself on the previous Amendment. The trouble is that the period of notice can be taken to the point at which one is in danger of imposing the unrealistic quota I was talking about. We feel that we have to try to look for a period, which will necessarily be a kind of compromise, which will give the Board of Trade and the Film Council an opportunity of making a fairly accurate estimate of what the quota can be, and at the same time will give to the producers and to all others concerned a long enough period to avoid most of the risks which were suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
    In the case of the initial quota, the 1st October quota, we are limited about the length of notice which can be given by reason of the fact that we are now in the month of February and the quota comes into force on 1st October. I do not know now when this Bill will become law, and, whatever we do about subsequent quota periods, notice about the first one is obviously limited by reason of the fact that it commences on 1st October. For subsequent quota periods we are prepared to meet, perhaps half-way, the objections which are expressed in this Amendment, and to say that instead of giving three months' notice of the quota periods we will be prepared, after the initial one of 1st October, 1948, to give six months notice. If that proposal meets with the commendation of hon. Gentlemen, I hope that they will withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. William Ross: I am glad to hear that that compromise is being accepted. It is on the lines of the Amendment which I and my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) have put down, in page 2, line 22, to leave out "three" and to insert "six." We were concerned not so much about the producers—we have been hearing enough about them—but from the point of view of the exhibitor, who under the Second Schedule, Part 11, Section 18, is allowed to book in advance for six months. He would be at a disadvantage if the Clause remained as originally drafted, as it would have provided that he would be subject to a quota change giving him only three months' notice, which would upset the normal practice. I thank my hon. Friend for his compromise.
    Mr. Lyttelton: We on this side of the Committee would be prepared to accept that compromise, and in those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: There is in Subsection (4) the statement that
    "Before making an order under this Section, the Board shall consult the Cinematograph Films Council and consider its advice in the matter."
    I should not be in Order if I went into the question of the composition of the Cinematograph Films Council. I only mention it at this point to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that it is clearly stated that the Board of Trade will consider the advice given by this Council. When we reach the Clause dealing with the Council hon. Members will have that in mind and it will affect the discussion on that particular point.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Supplementary provisions as to quotas.)
    Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out from the first "film," to the first "the," in line 27, and to insert "of which."
    The Chairman: I suggest that the next Amendment and the last Amendment to this Clause on the Order Paper, which are also in the name of the President of the Board of Trade, might be taken with this one.
    Mr. Wilson: These three Amendments are simple in their effect. They are really designed to clear up a point in the wording of the Bill which on a strict reading might give rise to a little trouble. The combined effect of the three Amendments taken together is to make it clear in the Bill that the cheap British film which fails to satisfy the costing test of 10s. a foot will be treated for quota purposes as neutral, that is, that it receives no quota credit and equally entails no quota debit. On a strict reading of the Bill as it stands, it is possible that these cheap British films would need to have a quota provided against them in the same way
    1690
    as foreign films would, but that was never intended by the Bill, and I have thought it right to put down these Amendments to clear up this point.
    Mr. Wilmot: When I saw that my right hon. Friend had put down Amendments to this Clause, I had hoped that he was, going to amend the labour cost of 10s. a foot, which I submit is entirely inadequate in present circumstances. I am not proposing to speak about the particular figure which appears in a subsequent Amendment; I am speaking about the figure in the Clause as drafted. The President of the Board of Trade now seeks to amend the Clause, but his Amendments leave the figure of 10s. a foot, that is, if I read the Bill aright, and I speak with all humility and subject to correction upon this highly technical subject. This figure of 10s. a foot is, I repeat, entirely inadequate in present circumstances, and puts us in a worse position than that under the 1938 Act, which laid down £15,000 as the minimum figure to qualify for the quota.
    The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that his remarks are appropriate upon this Amendment. They may be appropriate to another one, or when we reach the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."They are not appropriate to the words which the President of the Board of Trade proposes to leave out and to insert.
    Mr. Wilmot: I am, of course, anxious to keep in Order, and abide by your Ruling, Major Milner, but I thought I would be in order to draw attention to the fact that the Clause as amended by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendments would still leave the figure at 10s. a foot, and I wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that that will not achieve the object for which it is put into the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: —In page 3, line 27, leave out "of the film."—[Mr. H. Wilson.]
    Mr. Dumpleton (St. Albans): I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, after "are," to insert:
    "in the case of a long film, less than twenty shillings, and in the case of a short film."

    1691
    Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Wilmot) I speak with all humility on this technical subject. He has strengthened the argument which I ventured to put forward that the 10s. mentioned in the Bill is not nearly adequate to secure the object which we all have in mind—that there should be a cost test to secure that British films qualifying for the quota shall be of a sufficiently good standard. It is a good thing that the cost test is to be applied to all films as distinct from long films, but representations have been made to me and to other hon. Members, by those who have first-hand knowledge of the production side of the industry, that 10s. is not nearly adequate and that 20s. would be much more so. It seems to me imperative that if the quality of the entertainment in cinemas is to be improved and if British films are to be worthy, this higher figure should be fixed. It may be that 10s. is sufficient for the shorter supporting film, but I think that 20s. would be much more nearly a realistic figure for the longer films.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: There is an Amendment in my name which is not to be called, in page 3, line 27, after "are," to insert
    "in the case of a long film, less than one pound per foot and, in the case of a short film."
    It is, in substance, the same Amendment as that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton), and I have pleasure in supporting what he has said. The Minister has recognised in some of the other Amendments which he himself has put down, that there is a need for discriminating between the long and the short film as this Amendment purports to do. We have just had a long Debate on the undesirability of writing into the Bill a figure which might prove to be too low. That argument is strictly applicable also to this point, because although many producers welcome the fact that there is now a labour cost test, they feel that the figure which is written into the Bill is so small as to be absolutely academic.
    The type of "quota quickie" just exceeding 3,000 feet in length, which has so often been made for quota purposes, can still be made under the Bill as it is now drafted, for a labour cost of £1,500.
    1692
    Anyone who has any knowledge of the financing of film production will realise that a minimum figure of even £3,000 is quite inadequate to prevent that type of "quota quickie" from continuing to exist, not now for renter's quota but for exhibitor's quota.
    In some respects the position is now worse than it was before this Bill was introduced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Wilmot) has introduced one figure. If I can put the same figure in another way, I would say that under the old renters' quota provisions there was a minimum labour cost test of 30s. for long films. That is now to fall to 10s. My only doubt about the Amendment we are considering is whether the 20s. figure is high enough, but I am confident the 10s. figure is utterly academic, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider it.
    Mr. W. Shepherd: Like many other Members, I find myself in some difficulty over this Amendment. There is no doubt that there is need for some statutory provision to ensure that the quality of films produced in this country conforms to a minimum. At the same time, there is obviously a real difficulty, in what we all agree is an inflationary period, in fixing arbitrarily a figure below which the level of the cost of production should not fall. Here is an opportunity for something more flexible than the provision which has been put in the Bill. I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to look closely into this matter between now and the Report stage to see if something more fitting to the circumstances cannot be devised. I particularly want to put to him the position of those who produce short films under this particular arrangement. Even under the Amendment as put forward this afternoon it means the film labour cost of 10s. is admissible.
    6.0 p.m.
    What does that mean in terms of producing short films? We have short films of about 2,000 ft. and it means that the total amount that the producer will get is £12,000. Of that, a very substantial proportion will be taken up by distribution costs. It is very questionable whether, on the basis of the present costs, he can get back more than £1,000. Is it possible for the producers of short films in this country really to organise their produc-

    1693
    tions on a proper basis, pay proper salaries, and get good ideas and commentators, for this meagre sum of money? It is impossible.
    I urge the President of the Board of Trade to have a very special regard for the position of those who produce these short films. I am told on reasonably good authority that the company with which the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) is associated hires short films to cinemas in the North of Scotland for 7s. 6d. a week. The cost of sending the films by passenger train is over 3s. so that the wretched producer of this short film has a very difficult time indeed. It is impossible, in fact, in the existing circumstances, for a man producing short films to make a living.
    The present position is that unless something desperate is done to raise the standards of the short film producers they are going under. For four years or more they have obtained substantial orders from the Government. Those orders are now tapering off. They have had substantial orders from private concerns, but in the uncertainty of business—and in many instances because of the threat of nationalisation—those orders also are tapering off. Consequently, that very important part of the industry now finds itself in a state of suspension. It is unable to get a return for its products and uncertain as to its future. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will go very closely into this question and will take steps to see that the producers of short films are protected. They are very important people, and if we get a collapse of the double feature programme—which I think inevitable and even desirable—they will have even more emphasis and importance attached to them.
    Whilst I cannot support this Amendment, because it is much too inflexible—indeed I feel that the Clause as a whole is much too inflexible—I feel that we ought, between now and the Report stage, to try to devise some means whereby we can get something more in accord with the present circumstances. Alterations or amendments could be made if changes come about in the cost of production, but it would not have the effect, which this Clause has—and even this Amendment has—of condemning the producer of a short film to labour costs which will not cover requirements necessary to complete a really good job.
    Mr. Wilmot: I wish to make a most serious appeal to my right hon. Friend to think again about this figure of 10s., because it is going to drive us right back to the "quota quickies" which is the worst possible fate that could befall the British film industry. That that will happen is almost certain. The cost of making a film can be taken to be roughly double the labour cost. The length of a feature film is roughly 10,000 ft. If a feature film is to be made with labour costs of £5,000, or if a film, which can be shown for one and a half hours, is to be made for "£10,000 it will be something which will be cheap and very nasty. We should lose a market and, what is even more important than a market, a place in the artistic world, simply because this Bill has failed to recognise what are the costs of film production.
    I was very taken by the point which the hon. Member opposite made about the somewhat contrary influence upon the short films. I do not understand it, but I was interested to hear what he said. It does point to two things. The first is the necessity of inserting somewhere in this machinery a standard safeguard so that we shall not defeat the whole purpose of the quota subsidy by having people who merely comply with the letter of the quota by putting in rubbishy films in order to conform with it. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that that is the inevitable effect of this Clause. Nothing is more serious in this Bill than this particular figure. It will ruin our industry if it remains. I do beg of him to say that the matter will be reconsidered between now and the Report stage in consultation with the best people in the industry.
    Earl Winterton: I do not think the situation is quite as simple as the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Wilmot) has suggested. I wish to approach this Amendment from a non-party angle. Surely, what the Committee is concerned with—and we are fortunate in having a number of Members who are familiar with this subject—is to steer a rather difficult course through a very narrow channel. No one is in favour of the type of "quota quickies" which have so properly been denigrated in all the speeches. I would point out that if British films, either long or short, are to compete in the truncated state of the market, as it is at the present time, they have to be cheaper than in

    1695
    the past I know I shall be acquitted of any attack on any part of the film industry, certainly on the trade union part of it, when I say that no one who has any contact with film production or exhibition can be otherwise than apprehensive of the enormous cost of films in the old days. Therefore, we have to find a rather narrow channel through which to steer, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be cautious about accepting the Amendment in its present form.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I put my name to the Amendment now under discussion for two reasons. One is to defeat the manufacture of the rubbishy films to which reference has been made by preceding speakers. In my view, there is no question of principle which divides hon. Members on either side of the Committee. We all have the same object in view, but the question with which we are concerned is how that object can best be achieved. So far as my hon. Friend the Member of St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton) and myself are concerned, this Amendment seems to provide the best, or simplest, way of dealing with what is an admitted necessity. Without a higher costs test there is no real safeguard against piling up programmes with inferior supporting films, about which all hon. Members have rightly complained. I will not bind myself to the figure in the Amendment, if the President of the Board of Trade has a better suggestion to make. The higher costs test will certainly ensure a higher quality production and should be a condition of registration of every film under the exhibitor's quota.
    Mr. Collins: I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to give serious consideration to the point that the cost figure has been put much too low to achieve anything like what we hope to do in continuing good quality British films and eliminating very bad ones. I wish to make a point in reply to the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) who referred to the high charge paid for these films. That has nothing to do with the point we are now making. It never has had any direct relationship to the labour costs charged. No actual figures of current costs have been quoted in support of this Amendment, but I have obtained figures of recent films—not long films, which I understand usually have a high labour cost charge,
    1696
    especially features—but actually quite small films, recently produced. One just over 1,600 feet works out at a labour cost of £1 19s. 2d. a foot. Another, of 2,500 feet was £ 10s. 6d. a foot, and one, which was just over 3,000 feet—and which would count as a long film under the proposed Bill—was £1 12s. 1d. They were good quality short films, and the average was in excess of 30s. per foot for the current labour costs charged. There could be no danger at all in increasing the figure in the Bill, and we should be quite willing to listen to any suggestions on that point. There should be no objection to increasing the figure on the ground that it might lead to, or create, difficulties in reducing the cost of British films. I do not think that the acceptance of this Amendment, or something of a similar nature, would do anything but assist in securing the objective we all have in mind, namely, the elimination of the type of film which is made as cheaply as possible only in order to satisfy the quota restrictions.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The Committee is again in complete agreement on its objective. We all want to see very much better films produced than the "quota quickies" we knew in the past. We all want to keep down the cost of film production to the absolute minimum. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton) said, it is a new thing to have any cost test at all on a films Bill, at any rate in relation to the exhibitor's quota. It has appeared in the past in relation to the renters' quota, but not to the exhibitors' quota.
    The actual figure of 10s. per foot, now in the Bill, which some hon. Members have criticised, was recommended by the Films Council. They considered it a reasonable figure to start from. I feel that before we put up our sights any higher in this matter which is essentially experimental, we ought to see how we progress with this figure of 10s. per foot I would certainly ask the Films Council to keep a very close watch on this question, and to advise me whether any change is necessary. It is not as if, once it is fixed, this figure will be unaltered for 10 years to come. Nor should we require—if the Committee agrees with further proposals I shall make later—any new legislation to increase the figure from 10s. to any higher figure considered necessary.

    1697
    6.15 p.m.
    There is already power under the 1938 Act to alter the figure for all films if necessary. That power is retained in this Bill. Later I shall propose an Amendment which would allow us to have different figures for long and short films. It would allow us to prescribe different figures at a later stage, if we thought fit and if we were so advised by the Films Council. If we were so advised, or if we formed an independent view on the matter, we should be free under Section 36 (1) of the Act of 1938 to amend the figure. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept the assurance that this is an experimental figure. We shall ask the Films Council to keep an eye on the matter and to report how things develop. If certain other Amendments are accepted, we shall be perfectly free at any time to alter the figure.
    I agree with what has been said about the enormous importance of short and documentary films. Like the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd), I think that we must go rather slowly in the matter of fixing a figure. Although the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) does not like the way in which the word "flexibility" is used in these days, I hope that he, together with other hon. Members, will grant us a certain degree of flexibility in this matter.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether it would not be wiser to govern this matter by order subject to affirmative Resolution in the House? Possibly the Amendments he has mentioned cover that point, but we do not know.
    Mr. Wilson: Yes. The proposed Amendment provides for dealing with it in that way.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: While recognising that what has been said is very helpful, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go into the matter a little more fully. Surely, it would be possible for him to consult the Cinematograph Films Council and to go forward with the figure of£1. I believe that the figure of £1 is wholly and completely in the national interest. I associate myself with the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) in saying that I am not at all sure whether £1 is sufficient. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree
    1698
    that one of the objects of abolishing the renters' quota was to do away with the incentive to make poor quality films. I ask the Minister to complete the policy and to lay down a figure which will be in greater conformity with what is required.
    It may be said that American films are to be in short supply in the immediate future. Obviously there will be a very great incentive for people to produce films in this country. Unless some cost test is laid down, there will be a great incentive upon them to produce films of a cheap nature in order to produce them quickly and thus to flood the market. That point ought to be borne in mind. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will not consult the Cinematograph Films Council at an early date with a view to amending this figure.
    Mr. H. Wilson: One of the difficulties about introducing progressive Measures—I think it is agreed on all sides that this is a progressive Bill—is that when a new proposal is introduced in any Clause one is immediately pressed to go a little bit further, perhaps further than is sometimes justified. My hon. Friend asked whether I would consult the Cinematograph Films Council. As hon. Members know, the Council will have to be reconstituted when this Bill becomes law. It has not yet been decided how it will be reconstituted. I shall be very anxious to hear the views of the Committee on that topic.
    I prefer this matter to be referred to the new Films Council rather than to the one which is now dying. I should like it to be kept under continuous review. It may be that the new Council can come to a fairly quick decision at an early date. I would remind my hon. Friend that the existing Films Council has already considered this matter and recommended a figure of 10s. I think it would be better to leave this subject now. I have given every assurance that we shall have it examined by the new Films Council, and I think I have satisfied the Committee that it is possible to proceed in the mattter if we want to change this provision.
    Mr. Dumpleton: I must confess that the right hon. Gentleman has relieved my mind to a certain extent. I thought that we were legislating here for 10 years. I did not realise that he proposed to

    1699
    introduce an Amendment or to make provision for revising the figure if necessary. In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 3, line 28, at end, add:
    "shall not be registered as an exhibitors' quota film, and any such film shall be disregarded for the purposes of Subsections (2) and (3) of Section one of this Act."—[Mr. H. Wilson.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Exemption and relief of certain theatres and itinerant exhibitors.)
    Mr. Levy: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, to leave out Subsection (1).
    I willingly admit that the validity of this Amendment is, to some extent, bound up with information which is not in my possession and which it has been rather hard to elicit. Indeed, questions were put to the President of the Board of Trade previously and he did not find it possible to give any definite answer. But with that reservation, it seems to me that there are two lines of argument on the face of it indicating that this Clause should be eliminated. It is a Clause which exempts from the quota provisions of the Bill cinemas which habitually take less than £100 a week.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to interrupt. I think that when the hon. Gentleman uses the word "Clause" he means "Subsection." This does not refer to the whole Clause.
    Mr. Levy: I mean Subsection. The general negative reason which I have for moving this Amendment, is that, as far as I can see, so far—at least on the Second Reading of the Bill—no case has been made out why the exemption should be made. The President of the Board of Trade made a reference to administrative difficulties. I think that our conduct in respect of this Amendment will be determined to a large extent by the nature of his reply on matters of fact, and I hope that I can have the right hon. Gentleman's attention. I do not quite know what the administrative difficulties are. There is no use in my
    1700
    arguing the points because I can only speculate, but I hope that he will be able to make them more concrete to the Committee. The positive reason for moving this Amendment is that the purpose of the Bill is to foster the production of new films. That is the reason for the quota. Any exemption from that quota works against the general sense of the Bill. It may be argued by my right hon. Friend that the number of theatres affected is so small, and the takings are so small, that the loss to the production side of the industry is negligible. That is what we want to know. On the Second Reading I asked what the figures were. Previously it had been suggested that 1,500 cinemas were involved. The President of the Board of Trade said that he understood that the figure was nearer 500 but that his information at that stage was not completely reliable. I hope that by now it is accurate.
    The specific question I want to ask is not only how many cinemas are involved but on the basis of, say, a quota of 33⅓ per cent. or 40 per cent., how much cash would be involved and what, therefore, would be the calculable loss, as closely as he can estimate, to the production end of the industry. I know that he will only be able to give an estimated figure. If it is so small that it would not help the production side of the industry at all, then, of course, he has a substantial case; but if it is any considerable figure, then very much better arguments must be advanced against the Amendment.
    On the negative side, I can only attempt to anticipate arguments, and the only ones I have heard are that it would be unreasonably hard on these small cinemas for two reasons. The first is that they would have very great difficulty in procuring the necessary films for their quota, because they are in helpless competition with the big circuits or even the smaller circuits. But I should have thought that that was looked after by what it is now fashionable to describe as the "escape" Clause. Under Clause 4 (2) it appears to me that small cinemas which are handicapped in this way, or small cinemas from which more would be expected than they could fulfil, are entitled to claim exemption. I do not see, therefore, how that can be a cogent objection.

    1701
    The second reason why I have heard it suggested that it is hard on this class of cinemas is that the quality of British films has risen to such a high pitch in recent years that they drive all the clientele out of the theatre when they are shown. That may be a libel on this stratum of cinema-goer, or it may not; but I find it very difficult to believe that it would be impossible to find sufficient British films, new or re-issued, that were bad enough for the most exacting taste. I ask, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will answer the specific points: what are the handicaps which he apprehends on behalf of the small cinemas which he feels that they would be unable to surmount? Secondly, I ask him what are the figures involved, as near as he can estimate, in loss to the production end of the industry through the exemptions granted in this Clause?
    Earl Winterton: I put my name to this Amendment very largely for the reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy). I support the Amendment, first, because I think that we need far more information about this Subsection than the two Ministers found it possible to give in the course of the Second Reading Debate. Really we have had very little information about it. Also, I confess that, like the hon. Gentleman, I am in doubt as to the need for the Subsection owing to the existence of Subsection (2). Though the matter will arise in a more concrete form on another Amendment, I take the opportunity to say that I do not think that every hon. Member appreciates the diversified nature of the cinema owning industry. It is far more diversified than many people think.
    6.30 p.m.
    For example, in addition to the Arthur Rank Organisation of Odeon Theatres and Gaumont-British, there are 18 other circuits of 20 cinemas and over in the United Kingdom, and they include organisations like Associated British Cinemas, with 447 cinemas, and Caledonian Theatres with 49 cinemas. There are also quite a large number of theatres—2,900 in fact—owned by individual companies controlling less than 20 cinemas. It is very necessary in view of that—and I do want to get on to the King Charles' head to which I referred earlier—in view of the diversified nature of the industry, to have definite information of what is meant by
    1702
    this Subsection, and I hope the President will give us that information, because it raises a really important point. It is either necessary or it is not, and, in any case, it fundamentally affects the position of the industry.
    Mr. Reeves: I think there is a question of principle involved here. I know that, during the war it was very difficult for certain exhibitors to fulfil their quotas, because the circumstances were exceptional, and the difficulties of the Board of Trade were very great. In the future, however, we had hoped that there would be a very much larger supply of British films, in any case; not only feature films but short films. Now that the quota has been altered the small exhibitor will be in a very much better position than ever before to fulfil his quota requirements, and it seems to me that it is hardly fair that, in certain areas of the country, we may have exhibitors who are not interested at all in showing British films. We might get a discrimination there which is hardly fair, not only to the ordinary exhibitor, but also to the public who genuinely want to see British films. If the quota is to be increased on an ascending scale, it seems to me it would be more and more easy for the small exhibitor to fulfil the requirements of the Act, and, therefore, that there is no need whatever to make this exception.
    Mr. Shepherd: I would like a little more information from the President of the Board of Trade as to how he arrives at this figure of £100. We are told by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment that the President himself does not know the actual number of cinemas involved. It seems to me strange, even for a Socialist Administration, that we should decide upon a certain level, which may or not be operated, without previously finding out the effect of such an alteration, and I should like to hear from the President the process by which he arrived at this figure of £100 per week.
    Secondly, I would like to point out that this Clause means a definite loss to the British film-producing industry. If the figure of between 500 and 800 cinemas is, in fact, a reality, it means that the British film-producing industry will lose about £1 million a year in revenue. That is not a matter of little moment, but a very important one to the British film industry,

    1703
    and it is important that it should not lose that £1 million of revenue. Some hon. Gentlemen have put forward the suggestion that, because films are in sort supply, it does not matter so much, but it really does, whether or not they are in short supply. If British films are in short supply, it still means that an exhibitor taking a small amount of money has an obligation to show British films, and, by that means, the producers will have to supply them, with the necessary advantage in production. I hope, therefore, that the President will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Mallalieu: So far, the Committee has considered this Subsection from the financial point of view, whether it is a benefit to the producer or a handicap to exhibitors and so on, which is tremendously important, but there is another aspect of the matter which has not been mentioned, and that is the point of view of the consumer—the person who goes to the cinema. So many of these small cinemas are the only ones in their area, and, if a film is not shown in that cinema, it is not shown to the people in that area at all. I think that this Bill, while primarily designed to help the production of British films, should also be concerned with the showing of British films, and I believe that there is a serious danger, if this Subsection is left as it stands, that, when once again there is a plentiful supply of films, it may be possible for a cinema, with a solus position in a good place to neglect British films, so that the people in their area would never see them at all. I think the Amendment would remove a possibility of that nature.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: I would like to support the remarks which have just been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu), because I believe that this is the best way Lo make certain that the large public has this opportunity, particularly in country localities, of seeing me best productions of British films. The figure of £100 which has been mentioned is a very interesting one, but perhaps we could be told whether it is nett or gross. [Interruption.] Nett? Then that means a loss of revenue to the country, outside the loss of revenue to the production side, which will be fairly considerable.
    1704
    As time passes, cinemas may very well get together and form themselves into groups instead of working, as they are, in practically small, separate entities. I think they should begin to feel their responsibility of showing British films, and should begin to feel that they have a duty of persuading the public by exhibiting these films, which may not at the time be so readily acceptable. By the gradual process of continuing to show them, however, they might find that what they now look upon as a harsh imposition is, in fact, a provision which, in the long run, may do them a great deal of good.
    I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he should not bring out the idea of administrative difficulties without showing us, document by document and return by return, really what these administrative difficulties are. In my view, it is merely a question of a return which every cinema is making every week from the point of view of the Excise Department, and I do not believe that there is any difficulty in doing what they are, in fact, doing already for another purpose.
    Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) made reference to the doubt existing regarding the number of cinemas which will be affected, and he mentioned a figure of 1,500 which was, I believe, quoted in a trade newspaper, and also a lower figure of 500, which my right hon. Friend gave during the Second Reading Debate, when he asked that more information should be given in the President's reply. I want to submit, however, that it is clearly impossible for anyone to say what the figure of the number of cinemas is going to be after October, because we do not know what is going to be the effect on the takings of these small cinemas of the smaller number of American films which we expect will be shown.
    Mr. Levy: My information was based on the post-datum year.
    Mr. Collins: That is exactly the point, and I am submitting that the actual number of cinemas which may have a weekly average takings of less than £100 at the end of the year may be larger than it is at present, and, therefore, we may be speaking of quite a substantial section of the industry, which, at the present time, may be anything from 10 to 30 per cent. of the number of cinemas,

    1705
    but which, in actual fact, when the Act becomes operative, may be considerably more, and I think that is a point which we must bear in mind. In any case, it seems that it is not a negligible proportion of the industry.
    The second point is that the arguments put forward already are of considerable importance in respect of the opportunities which should be given to the patrons of the smaller cinemas, which, in many cases, are in rural areas or very small towns, of showing a range of films which includes a fair proportion of films with a good educative and cultural content. I submit that, under this Bill, and the new quota, it is probable that there will be a number of short films which will be included in the programmes, and that, unless we see that these small cinemas are subject to the quota restrictions in exactly the same way as other cinemas, then British films will, in all probability, be denied a showing in these cinemas, and that will mean not only a big loss to the industry but also a considerable loss in amusement to the patrons of these small cinemas. I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider the point
    Mr. John Foster: The general sense of the Committee seems to me to be in favour of the Amendment, but I would add a small plea in favour of the Subsection as it stands. I agree with hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the benches opposite that we should consider the interests of the consumer, but I drew a different conclusion from them, and consider that the Subsection as it stands is in favour of the consumer, because these small cinemas only have a certain liberty of action, if they are not forced to take British films.
    In my submission, these cinemas will show as many, if not more, British films as a result of leaving this Subsection in the Bill, but, of course, if the Subsection is removed, while the small cinema will not be compelled to take British films, they will be able to get into a more favourable condition in the circumstances in which they operate. In the nature of things, they should maintain their £100 per week, which is very necessary in order that they should pay proper wages and provide proper conditions, though they should have a certain latitude. I believe the right hon. Gentleman may tell us some-
    1706
    thing about the recommendations on this matter made by the Films Council after very careful consideration. It is a matter of concern to these people who go to these small cinemas, and who should see an efficient product, and the product can only be efficient if this exemption is given to these small cinemas.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. H. Wilson: This is a very difficult question, and I am sure the Committee will sympathise with me in the position in which I am in regard to it. As the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) said, this Clause was, of course, based on recommendations of the Films Council, who examined the matter thoroughly; and on Second Reading I said that we were accepting the recommendations because we felt that otherwise—if the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) will allow me to say so—the administrative and clerical difficulties would have been so great. However, having listened to the Debate, and having found this a matter on which the Committee seem to be, with the exception of the hon. Member for Northwich, so much united—
    Earl Winterton: He is the right hon. Gentleman's "Man Friday."
    Mr. Wilson: —and having been impressed by the weight of the names associated with this Amendment, I find myself in a very difficult position. I am in more than usual difficulty here because I have been challenged to give the figures on which the proposal in the Clause is based. I have to admit right away the figures are not available. I have to admit, also, that I do not think I have ever found an industry in which the figures are so deficient as they are in this one, and I can give this assurance to the Committee, that I do not intend to leave the industry in that state any longer; and, indeed, I have already taken measures to see whether we can clothe its statistical nudity. It has not, however, been possible to get any reliable figures on this particular point; so I cannot produce any figures to justify the drafting of the Clause as it stands at this moment.
    I should like to be able to do what has been suggested, and that is simply to take out this Subsection altogether. There are difficulties about that, however. The hon. Member for Northwich mentioned some of them. The arguments that have

    1707
    been used by hon. Gentlemen on both sides are based not only on the importance of ensuring an adequate showing of British films generally, but on the consideration mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), that of cash and the calculable losses involved; and there is also the consideration, first raised, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) and taken up by other hon. Gentlemen, of the importance of ensuring to rural cinema-goers the opportunity of seeing British films.
    I do not know the figures and I do not think they are easily ascertainable, but many of the small cinema owners are rural monopolists who would be in a position to deny if they wished—I do not say they would—their rural clientele the opportunity of seeing British films. I should be in a bad position if I were to retain in the Bill a provision which had the effect, even on a small scale, of denying the British film-goers in rural areas the right of British films.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Irrespective of cost?
    Mr. Wilson: Not entirely irrespective of cost, but we have considered the question of cost in relation to the quotas generally. I have been thinking of the arguments that have been submitted, and I hope that the Committee will leave me to go into this further, and to produce an Amendment on Report. Certainly, I want to give effect to what is the general view on this matter, although I do not think I can meet that view by leaving out the Subsection altogether.
    I do not want now to commit myself too far, and certainly not to particular words, but the compromise that I have in mind is to provide that these cinemas whose takings are less than £100 a week should be totally exempt from the obligations of the Clause if—and only if—they fall into the category which does qualify them for some relaxation because their neighbouring cinemas can get available British films at earlier dates than they can; that is, as is provided in Subsection (2). I think we need not have block exemption; I think hon. Gentlemen on all sides are right in pressing that we do not have block exemption; but we could give partial exemption for those in that
    1708
    special category, and for those facing that strong competition within their particular areas.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not desirable to draw attention to the important fact that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee are repudiating their leader's call to "Set the people free," and are demanding an extension of control?
    Mr. Wilson: We are all in such an embarrassing position on this that I should not like to draw anybody's attention to anything. Certainly, I have to admit that, in proposing a compromise on this, I am letting myself in for more of those administrative difficulties that I have been trying to avoid all this evening. I hope the Committee will allow me to table an Amendment on the Report stage. I think it will meet the legitimate wishes on hon. Gentlemen on all sides—the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough about the calculable loss to the British film producing industry, the point that exemptions shall not deny to people the opportunity of seeing British films; and that about the rural monopolists meeting the special interests of their clients.
    Earl Winterton: We are very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has just said. I think it might be helpful if the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), to whom those of us who agree with him about this matter are indebted, would withdraw his Amendment. I do not know what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who represents the Communist Party, meant by his intervention. I would only observe that in this Committee we vote according to our consciences, and not at the dictate of some Red dictator.
    Mr. Levy: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for anticipating my withdrawal of the Amendment. In view of the assurance which my right hon. Friend has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Dumpleton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, after "of," to insert:
    "long films exhibited as first feature"
    I was hoping that my right hon. Friend, in undertaking to find a compromise about

    1709
    Subsection (1), might find it possible to accept the proposal in this Amendment as the compromise. If he would indicate that he would look into that possibility, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I think there may be something to be said for exempting small cinemas from the necessity of fulfilling the quota with regard to long feature films, but I do not think there is anything to be said for exempting them from fulfilling the quota in regard to the "shorts" in the supporting programmes. Something has already been said about the capacity of the "shorts" producers and the necessity for encouraging them. We have not yet been given the number of the small cinemas. The President of the Board of Trade was unable to give us information on the number. We are assured it is a substantial number, and figures from 500 to 1,500 have been mentioned, up to a total of 4,700. It is a considerable number. I think they should be required to include in their supporting programmes a quota of British "short" films.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will look at this whole matter again. I think some powerful arguments may be advanced about how it is impossible to bring these cinemas into a quota for long films. The arguments that may be advanced are clear, namely, that it is very difficult for these particular cinemas to get long films, and that the kind of terms and conditions the renters demand would make it economically impossible for these small cinemas to comply with the quota. If these arguments are advanced, I hope that my right hon. Friend will very seriously bear in mind the alternative suggestion in the Amendment, which does avoid many of those particular difficulties. On reflection he will realise the tremendous importance of this proposal to the short film production industry. The sum of money involved for British film production is one about which nobody can really make an accurate estimate, but it is clear from the fact that a figure of £1,000,000 has already been mentioned that it is a sum of money which would make a great deal of difference to the economics of short film production. The matter is important, therefore, from that point of view.
    Secondly, this type of cinema is a type which is particularly suitable for a programme comprising a single feature and
    1710
    a short film. They are the cinemas where short films can find suitable showing. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the position of the short films. Some form of special quota might be needed for these cinemas. There is no difficulty, so far as the short films and supporting programme films are concerned, in the way of the British film production industry providing the necessary quantity of films necessary for fulfilling the quota.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I also commend the proposal contained in this Amendment as affording what seems possibly to be a very happy solution to this problem. I was not altogether impressed by the arguments on either side of the Committee against the exception accorded by the Bill to the small cinema owner whose average net takings are less than £100 a week. The President has agreed to look at the matter again, and in doing so he will have regard, I am sure, to the very special difficulties with which some of these small cinema owners have to contend. We would all agree with the observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) that we do not want, unless it is justified, an exception in the Bill which exempts some exhibitors from obligations imposed on all other exhibitors. If we are to have any discrimination, such discrimination must be justified. Here the discrimination envisaged is discrimination in favour of small traders in particular circumstances, because of the particular economic disadvantages from which they suffer in the negotiations that have to take place with renters.
    I do not accept the view that the general cause of British film production will suffer if this exception is continued in the Bill. I think that in a great many of these small cinemas we shall still see just as many British films shown if they are relieved from quota obligations. Indeed, we may see more, because if they are relieved from quota obligations their freedom of action will be so much greater, their negotiating position will be so much stronger, so that they may be able to get more British films on terms and prices they can afford, instead of, as has so often been the case in the past, having to default on quota obligations. There is a considerable difference between quota

    1711
    obligations on long films and quota obligations in respect of short films and documentaries, and I hope, therefore, that the President of the Board of Trade will consider very sympathetically whether this proposal is not a convenient compromise for meeting the problem.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I indicated, on a previous Amendment, the lines on which I proposed to look at this matter between now and the Report stage. Perhaps this Amendment is being pressed at the moment because my hon. Friends are a little doubtful of the result of my looking at the matter; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) was afraid that a powerful argument might be produced which would remove from me my present feeling on this point. I can assure him that I gave a lot of thought to this question before the Debate and that, having heard the Debate, I have made up my mind as to the way in which I want to meet the proposals which have been made to the Committee. I think the right compromise is as between the cinemas which are monopolists and the small cinemas which are faced with severe competition. That is the basis on which I shall move an Amendment on the Report stage. I hope my hon. Friends will accept the assurance I gave earlier, and will be satisfied with it in relation to the shorter documentary or other films which make up a supporting programme.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: I have not had the time to think this out very clearly, but it may well be that an argument will be advanced that the short films might be brought into the quota even for the type of small cinema, which is faced with competition which my right hon. Friend is still proposing to exempt.
    Mr. Wilson: I do not think so. We are providing elsewhere for discrimination for cinemas faced with severe competition. In any case, I do not think we should add further complications to the Bill, to distinguish between main and supporting programmes. With that assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend will be content to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Dumpleton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Earl Winterton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, to leave out "not being a special quota theatre."
    The Committee will be aware that Subsection (2) gives a discriminatory and very proper power to the President of the Board of Trade, but I suggest that that power should be widened. The Subsection excludes the circuits of 200 cinemas and upwards, that is to say, special quota theatres. It is true that the majority of the cinemas in the very large circuits would be able to fulfil their quota obligations, and that the numbers who would not, would be comparatively small, but there are some which not only have to face the competition of other circuits, but also the competition of the first-run theatres belonging to their own circuits—that is, where the circuit has two theatres, one deals with certain films and the other with films of another type. Where this is so, it would be difficult for them not to default. All sides of the industry are willing that the Minister should have this discrimination, and I merely ask that the power should be widened.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: The noble Lord has raised a substantial point. I am anxious to improve the Bill wherever possible, and I am in sympathy with the objective he has in view, although I am not quite certain that his method of dealing with it is the most appropriate. The Bill envisages that, in future, there will be a differential quota, a higher quota for circuits than the ordinary quota for all other cinema theatres. It is not clear, however, whether, under Clause (2, 2)—which we have already dealt with, and which gives the President power to fix, from year to year, both the quota and the higher differential quota—power to fix the higher differential quota for the circuits must necessarily apply to all the cinemas owned by a particular circuit. What is contemplated by the framers of the Bill is that the obligation to show the higher quota shall not necessarily apply to all the cinemas within one or other of the groups.
    I should have thought that Subsection (2) was sufficiently flexible in its language to enable the President, when imposing the higher differential quota for the special quota theatres, to say, "This will apply to such and such theatres in that particular group." I should have thought that it was much better to give

    1713
    the President the fullest and most flexible powers under Subsection (2), rather than to restrict his power in such a way that the circuits may have to ask, under Subsection (4), for exemption and relief. In support of the noble Lord, I would suggest that either this Amendment should be accepted, or that the Government should consider, between now and the Report stage, whether the same object might not be achieved by inserting, in Clause 2 (2), such words as "any or all," in line 15, before the words "special quota theatres.''
    Mr. Belcher: The Committee will recognise that the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has raised a point of importance, which the Government will want to consider sympathetically. He said it was not easy to explain this matter in terms which can readily be understood by those who are not familiar with the technicalities of the industry. We know, however, what the noble Lord is seeking to ensure. I should say that a first or even a second run theatre, with no mid-week change of programme, would always be able to fulfil its quota obligations if they were reasonable. Where there are three-day houses the situation may be very much more difficult. We have power to deal with theatres which, owing to circumstances beyond their own control, are unable to fulfil their quota obligations, and it might be as well to see if we have sufficient power to deal sympathetically with those who, for those reasons, are unable to fulfil their obligations.
    The next Amendment on the Order Paper is, in many ways, related to this one, and I will undertake to examine the noble Lord's proposal between now and Report, particularly in the light of the discussion on the next Amendment. I promise to give earnest consideration to the point he has made, and deal with the matter in a way which we think best to suit the situation.
    Earl Winterton: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman and also to the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) for making with greater clarity the point I was endeavouring to make. I am completely satisfied and, that being so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Shepherd: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, to leave out "three," and to insert "two."
    The Committee will appreciate that this Amendment has a considerable bearing on the one which has just been with drawn. Under this Clause, the Board of Trade have power to relieve certain film exhibitors of a measure of their quota responsibility where they are unable to fulfil it for reasons which are deemed to be outside their control. There are three main circuits of exhibitors. Generally speaking, they have first call on the British films which are released. It may well be that the fourth exhibitor in a locality has no opportunity of showing one of these films until it has been round the three other circuits. We feel that in many cases the independent exhibitor will have to wait until the three main circuits have shown the film before he has a chance of exhibiting that film. There is competition in some localities between the three main circuits and the independent exhibitor, and our view is that it would be unfair to such an exhibitor if he were able to get relief solely on the ground that two competitive cinemas in the same district had a monopoly of the British film in question.
    The Parliamentary Secretary may say that the whole thing is discretionary, which would make the Amendment even more acceptable. I would like to know what the word "locality" means in this connection. Does it mean an area of two, five or 10 square miles? This Amendment is a reasonable one, and we think it should be put into the Bill to safeguard the interests of the hard pressed independent exhibitor.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I desire to support the Amendment, but not because I am entirely convinced by the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Buck-low (Mr. Shepherd). As Members are realising, this subject is extremely complicated; circumstances vary from one cinema to another in a very large degree. While I am not convinced that there is necessarily a hardship to the independent exhibitor, the Bill gives the President power, on advice, to exempt in specified cases. I should have thought that it was always better, where there was doubt whether any citizen could or could not comply with the provisions of the Act, for the President to have sufficiently

    1715
    flexible machinery to enable each case to be considered on its merits, rather than face the exhibitor with the only other alternative, which is default. I hope the Minister will bear in mind that the provisions of this Clause are purely permissive, and that in considering any applications that may be made hereafter for exemption he may well wish to distinguish between the case of the exhibitors who are faced with the larger competition, and those who are faced with the smaller competition.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. J. Foster: I support the Amendment. Default is not something which we should encourage. If the number of competitors is reduced to two, that will help the exhibitors. In some cases default is occasioned by the fact that the renters do not service the small cinemas, preferring those which will show their films. The Committee will have noticed that this discretion is permissive, and it is for the Board of Trade, if they think fit, to grant the permission. Anything which would increase the flexibility of the Bill in applying the quota is to be desired.
    Mr. Belcher: There is always one point in a Debate at which an hon. Member asks the Minister a most awkward question, to which the Minister finds it difficult to reply. In this case, the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) has asked me to define "locality" We are seeking to afford relief and not to penalise individuals, and so I hope that the hon. Member will not press me to be too specific about this definition. Locality can only be that area to which competition extends, but how precisely to define it I do not know, because it is bound to vary. There may be two or three cinemas in a densely populated industrial city which are in direct competition with each other, as they are only a few hundred yards away from each other, while, in a rural district, two cinemas may be in direct competition with each other, although they are two or three miles apart. Locality therefore must vary, according to the territory concerned, and I do not think that it is possible to define the term with preciseness.
    The Government see the force of the argument behind the Amendment. I would like to deal with the matter fully. There is a fundamental objection to the
    1716
    proposal. It is that where there are three or more cinemas competing for the same film, there should be no compelling need for those cinemas to change their programme more than once every six days. I think the hon. Member who moved the Amendment is in general agreement. I have heard him express the view that the changing of the programme in the middle of the week was not particularly desirable. If the cinemas can run their programmes for six days, there should be an opportunity for them to achieve the standard quota percentage. Three films, one for each of the major circuits, are released every week in London. They work their way down the line and through the provinces. In other words, there should be no difficulty, always provided that the quota is reasonable—as we hope it will be—except in the relatively few situations where there are four or more first-run theatres and no fourth film is available for first-run, in keeping the programmes going during the week and in fulfilling the quota percentage.
    Equally, the local filmgoer should be satisfied on such a basis. If he goes to all the three local cinemas, he can see two programmes a week, and can still discriminate to the extent of rejecting one film out of every three which go to his town. The same principle applies to second-run theatres, in large towns. If an exhibitor can keep going by showing foreign films which have previously been shown at one or more cinemas in the neighbourhood, that is how it will go. The same thing applies equally well to British films.
    It has been argued by both hon. Members in favour of the Amendment that Subsection (2) is only permissive, in any case, and that we should not be obliged to grant substantially more relief if we opened the door wider by substituting "two" for "three." We can still make people show the standard quota in all cases, except in those individual cases where relaxations were applied for by exhibitors and where it seemed to us that those applications were demonstrably justified. If many more exhibitors are to be qualified to apply there will be correspondingly more applications to aggravate the administrative burden, which is likely to be heavy, upon the Council and upon the trade. If, in the end, a lower quota were to be shown only by those who had applied, plus a

    1717
    mere handful of exceptional cases, it is very doubtful whether the additional administrative burden, would be justified.
    One recognises that there may be cases of hardship. There may be cases where one or more of three neighbouring exhibitors finds that he is obliged, or that it would be more profitable for him, to change his programme every three days instead of every six days. The three-day house shows 104 first features a year, as against half that number shown by the six-day house. It requires more films, both British and foreign, than the six-day house. Therefore, if we feel bound to concede the exhibitors' right to operate on a three-day basis, where he needs to do that or finds it more profitable, we may have to think very seriously about substituting "two" for "three" in this case.
    This is one of the matters about which we want to be helpful if we can. I have no desire to argue very forcibly one way or the other. Obviously, we would like to consider it in the light of the Amendment and of what has been said by those who have supported it. I give a sincere assurance that we shall look at this matter very sympathetically, in connection with the previous Amendments, including the one withdrawn by the noble Lord. If we can, by the Report stage, find something which will meet what I believe is a genuine need, we shall be prepaerd to do so.
    Mr. W. Shepherd: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said. I would point out that I have never subscribed to the view that the small, individual cinema ought to change its programme twice a week. Many of the country exhibitors and the small, independent cinemas, depend however upon a change of programme. A three-day change of programme is essential in the case of many small cinemas. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. The course which he has suggested between now and the Report stage is the best way of dealing with the matter. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Janner: I beg to move, in page 4, line 2, at the end, to insert:
    "or
    (c) that it is his practice to change the programme at the theatre twice or more each week."
    1718
    The Amendment embodies a very simple point which I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee. We have just heard from the other side of the Committee an hon. Member say that he did not regard changing of programmes in the middle of the week as wrong. On the contrary, he agrees that it is highly essential in many cases. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it possible, when discretion is to be used under the Clause, that if it is the practice to change the programme at any theatre twice or more often each week, the exhibitor should not be put under the necessity of providing a quota of British films.
    The Amendment does not require very much argument and is something for which it is reasonable to ask. If a cinema changes its programme twice or more times within a week it will have difficulty in finding sufficient British films to fill up the quota, compared with the cinema which does not change its programme. Suppose the quota were 20 per cent. A cinema whose programme remained unchanged for the week would have to provide 10 British films. Where the change took place during the week, for the benefit of the public, the cinema would have to find 20 British films, and that might be impossible. In the circumstances, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to agree to add the Amendment to the Clause in order to show what the position would be in that case.
    Mr. Belcher: I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) would not press his Amendment, in view of the undertaking I gave upon the previous Amendment. I recognise the difficulty imposed upon many two-programme theatres. I would not like it to go on record that I thought there was anything iniquitous about the changing of the programme in the middle of the week. I certainly did not intend to convey that impression, but we do not want to do anything which will appear to be an inducement for theatres to change over from the six-day run to the three-day run. If we are able to produce something which will meet the spirit of the previous Amendment, I think we shall have safeguarded the situation of these theatres quite well. My hon. Friend's Amendment is unnecessary, but we will consider it in conjunction with those I have already mentioned. They

    1719
    can all be looked at together. I have a good idea of what the Committee wants to do. We shall try to safeguard the people who, through no fault of their own, may find themselves suffering under the quota provisions.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: The Minister can take this matter seriously, because it is very important for many cinemas. In my own town there are two large circuits and a small one, and four independent cinemas. The two large circuits are in the middle of the town and can depend upon weekly patrons for one show a week. They can depend upon the whole patronage of the town. The small circuit cinema and the four independent cinemas are in particular localities of the town. They do not cater for the town as a whole, but for their particular localities and the people in one locality never think of going to a cinema in another locality. These independent cinemas and the small circuit cinemas have no possibility of continuing unless they have a change of programme. They cannot attract the patronage that would keep the other cinemas going for a full week without changing their programmes. The big central cinemas are not going to make a change of programme simply to affect the quota. Whether they have a one-week show or a two-week show, they will have the quota of British films to exhibit. The cinemas which have to have a change of programme should not be handicapped by having to exhibit double the pictures exhibited by the big circuits. I think the Minister should take this seriously into account in considering these Amendments.
    Mr. Belcher: The three Amendments react one upon the other. I think that is accepted by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). We will look at the whole question in the light of the discussions that have taken place, and endeavour to deal out fairness to everyone concerned.
    Mr. Janner: In view of what the Parlimentary Secretary has said, and what has been said by the hon. Member for West Fife, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Circuit theatres, etc.)
    Mr. Lyttelton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, to leave out "two hundred," and to insert "twenty."
    The object of this Amendment is very clear. It is that circuits with only 20 theatres should not be exempted from the quota obligations imposed on those circuits of 200 or more. If the Committee regard this matter solely from the point of view of numbers, they are likely to reach a wrong conclusion. There are certain localities in which the smaller circuits are in a monopolistic position. There are small circuits—I think that the right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) to whom it is a great pleasure to refer in those terms, will confirm that this is the case in Scotland—which are almost the only exhibitors of films in large areas. We feel that it is wrong that circuits of this kind should be exempted from any of the quota provisions that are imposed upon the larger circuits. One of the reasons why we are apprehensive about the size of the larger circuits is the great hold which they have in the Greater London market. I suggest to the Committee that where a smaller circuit—and the number we suggest is 20 or more—is in a solus position—I believe that is the technical term—there is no reason why it should be exempted from the provisions of the quota.
    Mr. J. Foster: I am grieved that my right hon. Friend should propose an Amendment which seeks to extend the shackles which I would rather not have seen in the Bill at all. It seems to me wrong in principle that the big circuits should be made to exhibit a certain number of these special films, but they are better able to bear these restrictions. It seems a pity that my right hon. Friend, instead of moving that the restrictions on the big circuits should be removed altogether, seeks to extend them to the smaller circuits which are not able to bear them. The smaller circuits are, in many instances, in highly competitive areas. They have difficulty in obtaining the requisite number of British films because they do not produce them themselves, and this Amendment is seeking to impose upon them a burden which they will not be able to bear. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will not accept the Amendment.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment, because when the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) refers to the shackles which we are imposing upon the big circuits, and then questions whether the smaller circuits are capable of bearing them, we must consider what are the shackles. Clause 5 (2) states that the exhibitor may be required to exhibit not more than six films registered as British films in a year. That seems to be a very modest shackle indeed, if we are trying to do something for the benefit of the British film industry. I imagine that when we come to Subsection (2) the overwhelming view of the Committee will be that that shackle should be there. The only question we are now discussing is whether that shackle, commonly accepted by all parties, should only apply to circuits with 200 cinemas or more, or whether it should apply to circuits possessing a smaller number of cinemas. I suggest that the figure of 200 is very high indeed. It will certainly bring in a number of circuits, but it leaves out, I presume, a considerably larger number of the smaller circuits, which, although smaller, are perfectly capable, in my submission, of complying with the conditions that they should exhibit six films registered as British films in the course of a year. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give some other figure which will extend this obligation to a wider area than is now proposed.
    Mr. Wyatt: I think that the contention that the smaller circuits owning less than 200 cinemas would have any difficulty in filling this quota is quite wrong. In many instances, they are the only theatres in a town. Consequently, they could take a much larger quota in those circumstances than could many of the theatres belonging to the circuits of more than 200 theatres. If the hon. Gentleman opposite does not believe that let him think of some of the smaller circuits—the Granada circuit. Shipman & King's. Some of them will be found in the Home Counties. For instance, in Esher there is a solo cinema owned by a circuit of about 20 cinemas. That means circuits owning cinemas in positions where they have no competition, or very little competition, are better able to fulfil a special quota, in those cases, than even the very large circuits. There is one proviso I want to raise which I
    1722
    can deal with if the Amendment in my name further down on the Order Paper is called.
    Mr. Belcher: I see the force of some of the arguments which have been used by some hon. Members opposite. Many of these small circuit theatres are in places where they have no competitors, and quite reasonably could be said to have as much facility for fulfilling this quota as circuits with 300 cinemas. That IS equally true of circuits with less than 20 and it is equally true of individually owned theatres. Therefore, if the absence of competition to an independently owned theatre is a sufficient justification for the imposition of this extra obligation, I see no reason at all why the figure of 20 should have been decided upon. I do not see why we are not asked to deal with each theatre in the country independently. In other words, I do not see why the Board of Trade, the Film Council or someone else should not make a survey of every cinema in the country and find out whether it was or was not in a competitive position.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The reason we did not ask for that was because we thought the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade would say that the administrative difficulties would be too great.
    Mr. Belcher: In addition to saying that the administrative difficulties would be very great—I do not think they would be too great because if we wanted to do it we would recruit the necessary large number of civil servants on a temporary basis, incurring the ire of hon. Gentlemen opposite in doing so, and proceed to do the job—hon. Gentlemen opposite would say we were given too wide powers. I can well imagine if the Board of Trade were given power to go to every individual cinema in the country and decide whether that cinema was in competition or not, hon. Gentlemen opposite would find such powers insupportable, and say that Parliament was placing too much discretion into the hands of the Board of Trade. The fact is that the three major circuits of over 300 cinemas are in a major position. They are not only exhibitors but producers, and in the interest of the film industry we should find it convenient to confine the showing of the extra films to major circuits.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Truly the Parliamentary Secretary has tried to keep his reasoning on too narrow a basis, for there are plenty of reasons outside the ones he has been combating. There is one I should like to put forward, and I regret not having been here at the correct moment but I was elsewhere succulently engaged. There are circuits of quite a large number of cinemas containing as many as 60 or 70, which may in the course of time grow up, and it is likely that the course of exhibiting films in this country may fall into larger groups which will in the matter of exhibitions and number of seats available equal those of the three major circuits. To use a phrase well known, we must have a certain amount of flexibility. We must not have a fixed idea that we are going to have only those three major circuits. After all, some of the smaller circuits have been built up by amalgamations of very considerable magnitude in the North, the Midlands and Wales, and I cannot see why they should not bear a burden comparable to that of the three big circuits.
    During the Second Reading Debate I said certain things against the damage to the form of the whole cinema industry in this country. It has got into such a state when so much is in the hands of so few, that it is highly vulnerable, and one of the best ways of ensuring that that sort of thing does not happen is to see that other independent groups come together more and more. If they do—and I hope that they will from many points of view—they ought to do it with the knowledge that they will have to bear the burden which is put upon the three major circuits. If it is right for the three big circuits, it is right, graduated in lesser degree, for circuits which are no longer independent but are gradually growing up in strength and in number to have to bear a similar portion of the burden. The three big circuits are not the majority, and it is most unfair that the burden should not be spread over a much wider area.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: I should like to make one point. As the hon. Gentleman for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) said, we want to spread this burden if indeed it is a burden. At the outset I should like to suggest that it is not a burden at all. These ought to he very good quality British films. The
    1724
    argument so far, has proceeded on the assumption that the cinemas showing those films will bear a burden. I do not believe they will, but supposing that they do, it should be spread a little more widely. During the Debate on the Second Reading I made reference to the possibility of further large circuits growing up in the next few years. I believe during the difficult years of the early 305 the A.B.C. and Gaumont very largely built up their circuits. If American films are going to be cut off and if difficult days come to the British exhibitor, it would likely lead to some of the smaller circuits at any rate coming together in order to strengthen their financial position. I feel that some number should be taken, and 20 is as good as any. If that number is taken, a good many more cinemas would be brought within the net and would be required to show the six independent pictures, which would be in the national interest.
    Lord Willoughby de Ereshy: I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary has not accepted this Amendment. I suggest that some other figure than 20, but lower than 200, would meet the case. The Parliamentary Secretary's chief argument was one of administrative difficulty or laziness. He has discriminated between one circuit and another and with that discrimination he has got to draw the line somewhere. The only question is did he draw it as fairly as possible? I, myself, cannot see that there is a very great burden in carrying out the provisions of this particular Clause. In fact, I should have called it a responsibility which is placed upon the particular circuits. If we are going to have that responsibility we want to spread it as widely as possible. Even if the Parliamentary Secretary could not accept this Amendment, possibly he could show us another figure which would have spread this responsibility more effectively, more fairly and more widely.
    Mr. Reeves: May I add my plea to what appears to be almost unanimous support for the Amendment? There is no doubt that we have faith in the British film. We feel that it will continue on an expanding scale, that we shall have more films and that it will be increasingly easy for the smaller circuits to do this extra piece of work. Originally it was a voluntary arrangement. It was a good thing and it helped to stimulate British produc

    1725
    tion, and if we can get a smaller figure—we are not absolutely tied to 20—it ought to be a more inclusive figure than the one in the Bill. I am sure that in showing the six extra films, the smaller circuits will not find the difficulties which have been imagined.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, to leave out "certified," and to insert "recommended."
    The aim of the Amendment is to place the final responsibility for the choice of the six films on the Board of Trade, while leaving the Selection Committee to recommend them. Hon. Members will find in Clause 5 (2) that the conditions have to be settled by the Board, the exhibitors are required by the Board to exhibit, the Board have to direct the occasions and the Board have to appoint the Selection Committee. The most important thing of all, the final selection of the films, ought also to be left to the Board who can, or ought to be able to, take a broader view than the Selection Committee.
    Mr. Belcher: I have the very greatest pleasure in telling the Committee that I accept all the arguments advanced by the hon. Member and his Amendment, which I hope will be agreed to by the Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, to leave out "Board," and to insert "Cinematograph Films Council."
    There is no definition in the Bill to show who is to comprise the Selection Committee. In the view of my hon. Friends and myself, this is much better left in the hands of the Council than in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade. We are quite certain of the action which the President of the Board of Trade would take in all circumstances, but during the Second Reading Debate the question of propaganda and film propaganda came up, and it was pointed out that it might leave in the hands of a Selection Committee a very powerful weapon which might in time to come—I am not making any imputations at the present moment—be used for political propaganda purposes if the appointment of the Films Council were in the hands of -the Minister alone.
    1726
    We believe that it is much better, in view of the fact that he will have a Films Council, on whose constitution we shall be talking a little later, that the appointment of the Selection Committee should be in the hands of the Council rather than, as it would appear to be, in the hands of the Minister.
    Mr. Belcher: The effect of the Amendment would be to transfer the responsibility for appointing the members of the Selection Committee from the Board of Trade to the Cinematograph Films Council. That certainly seems a rather odd proposal. The Films Council is not an executive body—its members are selected by the Board of Trade—and the proposal is odd in the sense that the members of the Films Council, having been selected by the Board of Trade, then usurp the Board of Trade's function in respect of the Selection Committee. However, if there is some fear that leaving in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade the choice of people to serve on a Selection Board is open to some political objection, we are perfectly prepared to look at the matter again before the Report stage to see whether we can insert some words to remove any apprehension on that score, but we cannot abdicate our responsibility from the Board of Trade to the Films Council in this respect.
    Earl Winterton: I hope the Minister will give favourable consideration to the point. My hon. Friend's argument is more logical than that of the representative of the Government. I should have thought it followed logically that this Amendment should be adopted. However, I understand that the hon. Gentleman promises to give favourable consideration to the point.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I do not understand what is meant by "abdicating responsibility to the Films Council." The Board of Trade is not giving a responsibility to the Films Council. It was a very curious form of words. I am not quite sure what the Parliamentary Secretary meant by "abdicating our responsibility." Perhaps it meant letting the Films Council have the responsibility. I do not know whether that is what it meant. If that is what the hon. Gentleman meant, it shows a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "responsibility," and of the word "abdicate." One abdicates power,

    1727
    not responsibility. The whole point of the argument put from this side is that this is giving excessive power to the executive Government to do things which may have a propaganda effect, possibly even in internal politics. How does the Parliamentary Secretary suppose that he or his chief could be made responsible for that at the time that it happened? That is what "responsibility" means. What we want is to be sure that it shall be possible to make certain that nobody uses this power in order that the screen shall play a part toned from Whitehall in internal politics. We ought to be told how we are to make the Board of Trade responsible if we think they are doing that, and that is the only sense in which the word "responsible" has any connection with the Debate we are now on.
    Mr. Belcher: I am sorry that my language offended the hon. Gentleman. I quite agree that if I were to put it in the impeccable English which he himself always uses I would not say "abdicate to the Films Council" but "abdicate the responsibility" or "power"—whichever he likes—in favour of the Films Council. I agree that it is desirable to make such provision as can be made to set a Selection Committee concerned with such an obvious weapon of propaganda free from any suggestion that a President of the Board of Trade or any other Minister is using his power in that sense to further party political ends. I have said that I will look at this before Report stage to see if we can devise some form of words to limit the possibility of that taking place.
    However, I must again point out that if there is this fear that a President of the Board of Trade is likely to use his power of appointment wrongly to influence the selection of films to be shown on the screen, we cannot do it just by putting upon the Films Council the responsibility of choosing the Selection Board, because in any case the President of the Board of Trade chooses the Films Council and by choosing the Films Council in the right way he can ultimately influence the selection of the Selection Board. However, we will look into that.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: That is a false argument. The Films Council is drawn very largely, with the exception of a certain
    1728
    number of members, the number of which we shall later debate, from certain stated bodies. I presume that the procedure will be that the President will invite an association of those various bodies to submit a list of names from which he may make selections or to submit selections to him. Therefore, he will draw a large majority of the Films Council from the technical people with direct knowledge of the varying phases of the industry in its three different manifestations. Then there will be five, seven or 10 members drawn from the public.
    That is a totally different body and procedure from direct selection by the President of this Selection Council. To put forward, as the Parliamentary Secretary did, the idea that it is only removing it slightly in degree is wrong; it is altering entirely the principle on which it works, because you will get a body selected largely from the industry, whose politics cannot possibly be known, who are not selected in any way for their political but for their technical qualifications, and they in turn, in our view, would be an admirable body to carry out the task of the Selection Committee mentioned here. If, however, the Parliamentary Secretary gives us the assurance that he is not discarding this altogether, I will certainly withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. J. Foster: The Minister's brief may have been drafted on the assumption that the Selection Committee was still to certify the films but, as a result of the previous Amendment, it will only recommend. That seems to me to be another reason why there would be no harm in letting the Selection Committee be chosen by the Films Council and not by the Board. It is on the Board that the duty of acquiring the films lies, but what possible danger can there be if the Selection Committee appointed by the Films Council recommends six British films a year? I do not think his fears are justified.
    Mr. Belcher: I have no very great fears. I should have thought that the argument just adduced by the hon. Member was an argument in favour of my case, because it this Selection Committee can only recommend, it still remains with the President of the Board of Trade to make the decision. So, if the President is determined to be a villain —the present one is not, but I cannot foretell what will happen in the future; it

    1729
    may be that the hon. Member will have the ultimate determination of the Selection Committee in his hands—and then, if he wants to be a villain, nothing we can do by this Amendment will affect the issue. However, we will look at it between now and the Report stage.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: The Minister is perfectly right. On constitutional grounds the duty and responsibility for appointing this Selection Committee ought to remain with the President of the Board of Trade. and not with a purely advisory body like the Cinematograph Films Council. There ought to be political responsibility on the Minister for the appointment of the Selection Committee so that, if necessary, questions can be asked about it in the House. It would be wrong to delegate that responsibility to the Cinematograph Films Council.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, after "being," to insert "films independently produced, and."
    The aim of this Amendment is to make the Clause less ambiguous than at present it is. The purpose of this Clause is to give statutory authority to an informal agreement which has been in existence for some years between the three big circuits and the Board of Trade, whereby independently produced films of merit get a good showing even though their producers are not connected with any of the big circuits. Although the term "independently produced films" was used a number of times in the Second Reading Debate, the words themselves do not occur in the Bill, and surely they ought to occur. We ought not to be content with the vague words "suitable for such exhibition," because that leaves the qualifications for being suitable entirely vague. Later on, in the Order Paper, at the top of page 684, I have put down a definition of the term "film independently produced."
    Amendment negatived.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Basil Neven-Spence): The next Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) is not selected, that is to say, in page 4, line 42, at end, insert:
    1730
    "Provided that any percentage prescribed under Section two of this Act shall be deemed to include the exhibition of any films required to be exhibited under the provisions of the Subsection."
    The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) is out of Order as far as the first part is concerned, namely, in page 4, line 42, at end, insert:
    "(3) The Selection Committee shall conssit of three persons, one to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, one by the Arts Council, and one by the Board after consultation with the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association."
    Does the hon. Member wish to move the second part of his Amendment?
    Mr. Keeling: Yes, Sir Basil
    I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, at the end, to insert:
    "() The conditions of any such licence as aforesaid shall not require that any film shall be exhibited in a larger number of theatres than appears to the Board normally exhibit the same film."
    This new Subsection introduces into the Bill a provision which exists already in the informal agreement between the Board of Trade and the big circuits. The reason is that the big circuits often have cinemas so near to each other that it is impossible for them to have the same programme at each. For example, the Odeon circuit which controls 350 theatres, never, for the reason I have just given, shows the same films at the same time at more than 280 of those 350.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I can well understand the idea in the mind of the hon. Member in proposing this new Subsection. We are in agreement with it, and we have no intention of carrying out the terms of this Bill in any way different from that which he has in mind. We do not intend to use the proposed Selection Board for forcing films into more circuit theatres than normally show the same films. The only purpose of the scheme, as the hon. Member knows, is to assure the independent producer of a fair chance of getting a normal circuit booking, not an abnormal one such as the hon. Member seems to fear we might insist upon. However, I do not think it is necessary to complicate the Bill by writing in a new Subsection. It is well within our discretion, and I hope he will be satisfied with the assurance I have given.
    Mr. Keeling: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Wyatt: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, at the end, to add:
    "A further condition of any such licence will be that no person controlling more than two hundred theatres shall book a film for a theatre under his control if, within a radius of four miles of that theatre, the renter can show that there is a theatre controlled by a person controlling less than two hundred theatres capable and desirous of paying a higher rental for the film."
    I hope to be able to persuade hon. Members that this Amendment is one of the more important with which we have to deal. One of the main objects of the Bill has been to attempt to deal with the menace of monopolistic circuits. The Government themselves have quite clearly hinted that they have not gone far enough in that direction, hence the need for setting up a committee of inquiry, and attempts at fixing the number at 200 beyond which licences may not be granted to open new theatres, and questions of special quotas for theatres in a group containing more than 200 cinemas.
    This Amendment is a method of dealing with a part of this monopolistic menace. It would certainly very largely ease the position of independent producers and independent exhibitors, as well as to some extent helping the ordinary consumer by giving him a freer and better choice of films. At present the major circuits, A.B.C., Odeon and Gaumont-British take a block booking of films for their circuits. They may not include all the cinemas in a circuit in that booking, but they will include a large number of them. In the block of cinemas for which they have booked the films there will be a number which are really not first class cinemas attracting large audiences every week and not in very good situations.
    To illustrate the point, I give the example of the present position in Gloucester, where there is an A.B.C. cinema which is some way out of the centre of the town. Its weekly takings average about £450. In the centre of Gloucester there are two independent theatres each of whose takings are nearly double those of the A.B.C. cinema. Nevertheless, despite the fact that these two cinemas are very much better, give
    1732
    a better showing, and a better return on the showing, the A.B.C. cinema gets the first release of the film which it has booked for its circuit. The independent exhibitor is done out of his chance of getting a good week of takings by the fact that the A.B.C. has the first run of this film, and takes the cream of the audiences, although it is not taking anything like so much money. The independent producer also gets a much less return for his money, whereas if he could have booked his film with one of the independent theatres, he would, perhaps on a basis of 40 per cent., get some £400 return for the showing of the film in Gloucester. As it is, he will not get more than £200. That is a vital factor in regard to British film producers, when the margin between profit and loss is so very narrow. This happens in many areas throughout England.
    I suggest that if at any time the renter can show that there is a cinema in the same locality as a cinema owned by a circuit which has taken on a block booking, or is proposing to take on a block booking, he shall be allowed to rent the film in that particular area to the other cinema which is able to offer a better return than the cinema belonging to the circuit. It amounts to a form of auction in any locality between cinemas should a cinema demand it of the renter and the renter then lays claim to have that done. It would have the effect, for instance, in Gloucester, which is a good example, that the independent theatre would get the first run of the film, if they made a claim to do so. This is not an impracticable suggestion, as hon. Members may feel it to be, because I find it very difficult to explain this technical concept in simple language. It has already been introduced in America and is working quite successfully there, to the great benefit of the independent exhibitors. In this country it would also help the independent producer. It is true that there have been some legal hitches in the operation of this rule in America, but I understand that that is largely due to the fact that federal law and State law can always be made to conflict if one has a skilful and expensive enough lawyer to make them conflict. We have no such complexity here.
    I ask my right hon. Friend to examine the possibilities of introducing such an arrangement here, particularly before the

    1733
    committee of inquiry has been able to make more drastic recommendations about what is to be done in regard to monopolistic tendencies from which we are suffering. They will not report for some months, but this evil is operating all the time, to the detriment of the producer, the exhibitor, and the public.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The question my hon. Friend has raised is a very familiar one to those who have had any contact with the film industry. It has been very much canvassed, and I referred to it specifically on the Second Reading of the Bill when I announced the establishment of a committee to go into the exhibition side of the industry. I said then:
    "It will deal especially with such matters as competition and monopoly, the relation of the independent exhibitor to the big circuit, and such practices as the booking of films by entire circuits instead of by individual cinemas ''—[OFFICTAL REPORT, 21st January, 1948; Vol. 446, C. 230–1.]
    That is the point my hon. Friend has in mind. We know there are arguments for and against this, and, as he said, this has been the subject of legislation in the United States, although, perhaps for reasons he mentioned, the decree is not yet operative, as far as I know. It is a very important question, and it affects the independent producer. It certainly affects the independent exhibitor, and its importance from the point of view of the consumer is very considerable. I do not think it is a matter on which the Committee could come to a decision tonight. It needs to be gone into much more fully than is possible tonight, and that is one reason why I have set up the committee of inquiry. I think we must leave it to the committee of inquiry, and not try to prejudge the issue. I think my hon. Friend can leave the matter now knowing that it is specifically passed to the committee of inquiry. I have no doubt that that committee will take into account what he has said, and any further arguments adduced in support of the line he has taken.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: What the President of the Board of Trade has told us is very important. I have no doubt that the minds of everybody on both sides of the Committee must have been considerably exercised by this question, which has received more publicity than almost any other point in connection with this Bill.
    1734
    Is the independent exhibitor being oppressed by the bigger man or, on the other hand, is the bigger man to be unduly trammelled in the important job which he is the main instrument in carrying out—the production end, which he feels he cannot carry out without the exhibiting end also?
    It would be unfair to both sides to prejudge the case or to produce arguments now, when we are on the verge of an examination by a body which the President of the Board of Trade is to set up. I would urge on the President that that body should be of the highest possible type, and should contain persons who are able to judge absolutely impartially and clearly. In that way, when we get the facts and answers from this body we shall be in a position which we are not in at the present time, in spite of what the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) said and the instances given by him; we shall really be presented with a document which gives us the evidence clearly and the conclusions arrived at by that body, so that at that moment we shall be able to pass judgment with real knowledge of the facts of the case before us.
    Earl Winterton: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) has said, and I also accept to the fullest extent what the Minister has said. Quite obviously, if this body of inquiry is being set up, and so far as I know there is no opposition to it—no opposition was expressed at the time of the Second Reading—this would be one of the matters into which inquiry should be made. As this inquiry is not within the terms of the Bill we are precluded from discussing it, but I rise because the right hon. Gentleman has very properly pointed out that this is just one of the things into which this body will have to inquire. I do not propose to attempt to answer the speech made by the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), but I must say that if we were debating the whole question I could not assent to many of his propositions. I think the matter was much more fairly put by the Minister, who said that there were a great many arguments which could be adduced on either side.
    There was only one phrase which the Minister used to which I do not say I take exception but which I think was slightly dangerous. He said he had no,

    1735
    doubt that this committee, or Royal Commission of inquiry as I hope, would have regard to what was said in the Debate. I hope that it will not. It is not for that body to listen to the obiter dicta either of the hon. Member for Aston or of myself. The business of the Commission is to arrive at the facts. If Royal Commissions based their conclusions on what was said in the House of Commons their conclusions would be even more infructuous than they are at the present time. Their duty is to listen to the evidence and hear both sides of the question. I hope that the hon. Member for Aston, who put his view moderately, would agree with me that we should be content that both our points of view should be judged by this body which is to be set up.
    Mr. Wyatt: In view of the assurance by the President of the Board of Trade that the attention of the committee will be drawn to this particular point, although I do not ask them to take my speech as evidence, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 21, to leave out from "Britain," to the end of line 23.
    This is complementary to the next Amendment about which I hope to say a few words in a moment. It removes the position which at present obtains under the Bill whereby the ownership of the cinemas in question would obviously be related to a point in time, namely, the date on which this Bill became law. In the Amendment which I hope to move in a moment, I want to relate it to 31st January, 1948, because—I am sure I am only imagining things and seeing bogies which do not exist—we wish to protect ourselves against any danger that there might be a rush to change the ownership of cinemas between now and the date when this Bill becomes law. It is for that reason that I move this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, at the end, to add:
    "unless it is shown to their satisfaction—

    (a) that the theatre was controlled by that person on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight; and

    1736

    (b) that any arrangements in force for securing that the films exhibited at that theatre are the same as those exhibited at other theatres controlled by that person were also in force on the said date."

    I repeat that the reason for this Amendment is that there is danger that there might be a big change in the balance of power in some of these large circuits. The balance of so-called booking strength might seriously be upset if there was a big changeover in the ownership of cinemas. Accordingly, I am suggesting the addition of these new paragraphs, which now relate control to 1st January, 1948. These paragraphs confer a fairly wide power on the Board of Trade. I recognise that that is so and that it is one which could in theory be used in a restrictive way. I give the assurance that I have no intention of using it except for the strictly limited purpose of holding the balance even between the large circuits. The Committee will understand that it is very difficult to do that by means of a legislative provision, and the method I have chosen in this Amendment is the only way I can find of doing it. I hope that the Committee will accept my assurance that I have no intention of abusing the power given by the Amendment, and that they will agree that the importance of preventing this shift-over, which might happen, is sufficiently important to justify this Amendment.
    Question proposed, "That those words be then added."
    Mr. Wyatt: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out "January," and to insert "September."
    The purpose of this and the next Amendment in my name is only to change the date from 1st January, 1948, to 1st September, 1947. If the original Amendment is accepted, the aim will have been accepted that there should be no further merging between circuits. I think everyone knows the particular cases of the Gaumont-British circuit and the Odeon circuit. I ask for the date of 1st September, 1947, to be put in the Bill because since that date there has already been an effective and factual merger in that organisation. It has operated in this way: The Board of Trade has recently asked exhibitors to experiment with what is called the extended playing time system by which, instead of a film being played for one week it may be played for two or three weeks in the same cinema.

    1737
    A.B.C. has complied with that request and has tried the experiment, which it has faithfully carried out. It has played films for two or three weeks in the same cinema.
    The Rank organisation, which controls Gaumont British and Odeon has, since 1st September, tried extended playing time with a bit of a difference. That is, it there is an Odeon cinema and a Gaumont British cinema in the same town, there has been a marked tendency for a film to play for one week in the Odeon cinema and then to move, the following week, or very soon afterwards, to the Gaumont British cinema on the other side of the town. That does great harm or damage to the smaller circuit or independent exhibitor because before the operation of extended playing time by the Rank organisation in this manner the films would have been booked either to Odeon or Gaumont British. So that another cinema owner in the same town will always know that he could have the Gaumont British or Odeon release in his own cinema according to whether a Gaumont British or Odeon theatre is in his immediate locality. Once this experiment has been conducted in this way it has meant that the independent exhibitor has lost a chance. It has already become both a Gaumont British and an Odeon film so that he cannot get the film from the circuit to which in the ordinary way the film would not have been booked.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: I cannot quite follow the argument of the hon. Member. From the point of view of the independent exhibitor, what difference does it make whether the film is put on for two or three weeks at the Odeon, or one week in the Odeon and a week or a fortnight in the Gaumont British theatre in the same place?
    Mr. Wyatt: It makes all the difference in the world. It may so happen that in a small town—Kingston for example—the Odeon cinema is one side of the town and the Gaumont British cinema is on the other side. Consequently, where previously the smaller exhibitor, or circuit, has been able to have a first run of the film, now that is not possible, because it has been switched over from one end of the town to the other. It becomes a joint Gaumont British and Odeon release. My Amendment makes no other difference at
    1738
    all, and if Mr. Rank is genuine in his intention of assisting the Board of Trade he can have no possible objection to this Amendment. It merely puts matters on the old basis, that a film should be shown at the Gaumont British or the Odeon, and not at both, and that smaller circuits and independent exhibitors will know where they stand.
    Mr. H. Wilson: When I saw the Amendment of my hon. Friend on the Order Paper I wondered if he had in mind the question of these experimental arrangements for securing extended playing time which, as he knows, have been tried out for at least three or four months of 1947. I suppose that is why he was worried about this date of 1st January I took legal advice on this question. I was advised that the one or two tryouts between 1st September and 1st January could not be held by the groups concerned to constitute "arrangements in force" on 1st January, 1948. If my hon. Friend accepts the validity of that advice he will agree that this Amendment is not necessary. It is subject, also, to the general criticism that we should not make legislation retrospective more than is absolutely necessary. For that reason I should be opposed to his proposals. If, however, the Committee feels that to be on the safe side, it would wish to go back to 1st September, 1947, I have no objection.
    Earl Winterton: I hope the Committee will accept what the Minister has said. As he has pointed out, there have been some discussions on this matter, and the Minister himself is satisfied. I do not accept for a moment the statement made by the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt). He seemed to read something suspicious into the conduct of Mr. Rank. There is nothing suspicious in it. It seems unfortunate that the name of Mr. Rank can never be kept out of any Debate. The hon. Member cannot say that if there is a film showing on one side of Kingston people will not go from the other side of the town to see it. I think even Socialists can walk or go by bus. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that people will only go to see a good film if it is in one part of the town. That is not true. I think that the Committee should be satisfied with what the Minister told us. There is no difficulty about it in the mind of the Minister, or of any section

    1739
    of the trade. I think the Amendment is quite unnecessary.
    Mr. Levy: I think the noble Lord shows a certain hypersensitiveness regarding the reference to Mr. Rank—
    Earl Winterton: I do not in the least object to any attack on myself, or any business associate of mine, if he is found to be wrong. I construed the hon. Gentleman's speech as suggesting that in some way Mr. Rank was trying to get round the law. That I object to, because I do not think that he is. I think that we have had the answer from the Minister.
    Mr. Levy: The noble Lord showed a certain hypersensitiveness—
    Earl Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that an objection to a charge of dishonesty, or getting round the law, is hypersensitiveness?
    Mr. Levy: If the noble Lord will allow me to finish my sentence he may agree that I was using the word quite legitimately. I was about to say that, in my view, the noble Lord showed a certain amount of hypersensitiveness in interpreting the argument of my hon. Friend in the way in which he did. As I understood it, all that my hon. Friend was suggesting was that when a proposal was made to the film companies that they should try this experiment of extended playing time, Mr. Rank did not do a dishonest thing, or a dishonourable thing, but a businesslike thing. He attempted to make the experiment as painless as possible and as profitable as possible.
    To suggest that there is no such thing as a neighbourhood clientele—which was the second point explicit in the argument of the noble Lord—will not bear examination. It is a fact, though it may be a ridiculous preference, and it may be very reprehensible, that people would rather go to the nearest cinema than to the farthest; but, in point of fact, they do prefer to do so. To that extent there is a very serious advantage in not plastering all the neighbourhood areas of the town with the same picture. The Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend is therefore one of the first importance. If, however, I am correct in understanding the President of the Board of Trade in saying that his legal advice is definitely that such practices as my hon. Friend has described
    1740
    will be precluded, if this Clause is passed as it stands, I am sure the Committee will be satisfied to accept it.
    Mr. H. Wilson: The legal advice I have received is quite definite. These arrangements do not in any way affect the arrangements in force as at 1st January. On the other hand, it is a matter for the Committee to take its own view about that advice. The Committee may decide that it requires more protection. The matter has not been submitted to the courts and if the Committee does not mind going a little further into retrospective legislation I have no objection.
    Mr. Wyatt: Does the President mean that, after the passing of this Bill, the arrangements which I have just described will be automatically ruled out, and it will become illegal for a film to be transferred in the manner I have described for the purpose of extended playing time?
    Mr. Wilson: That was not what I meant. I was taking up my hon. Friend's use of the word "precluded." It would not be stopped; it would not, on the other hand, affect the question of the balance of power between the circuits in relation to the date, 1st January, 1948. It would not, in fact, preclude these kinds of arrangements which were undertaken by the circuits at the request of the Board of Trade. I am very anxious to see these schemes go forward. They were suggested by a number of distinguished film producers who thought it might be of advantage to British film production. Their circuits have operated very successfully in carrying them out.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: This is a very difficult matter from the point of view of draftsmanship. As hon. Members know, this arrangement about the size of circuits has for some time past resided on formal undertakings which have been honourably observed. It is a difficult matter to try to translate them into the technical language of a Bill. I do not think that anyone could pretend that the words "arrangements in force" are capable of precise explanation. In view of what has been said, the intention behind the Amendment in the name of the Minister is clear. If, however, there is any question in the mind of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), or anybody else, whether it would make it more clear if the relevant date was fixed at September, 1947, rather

    1741
    than January, 1948, I see no reason why that should not be done. If the date was fixed at September, 1947, there could be no possible doubt about it.
    I think that one also ought to make it clear that this cannot be regarded as retrospective legislation. We are attempting to stabilise a status quo as at a certain date. It would not matter if it was September, 1947, or September, 1946. Apparently some hon. Members think there has been a change in the last three or four months. I think it would be desirable for the Minister to accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: It is apparent from what was said by the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) that there has been some arrangement between the Gaumont British and the Odeon circuits on the question of extended time which took place before January and had not taken place by September. It would seem that if the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is accepted, that type of arrangement will be precluded in the future. If it is so precluded, it will be of great assistance to the independent cinema which will be in a much more likely position to get first feature films which have already had a showing in one of the two big circuits in question. If the suggestion could be accepted by the Minister I think it would set at rest the minds of many small exhibitors.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I have no objection. I leave the matter in the hands of the Committee. It is really a question of weighing up the doubts referred to by my hon. Friends against the natural desire of the Committee to avoid retrospective legislation where possible.
    Earl Winterton: What was said by the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) does not make the faintest difference—
    Mr. Wyatt: Why worry about it?
    Earl Winterton: I only worried about it because the hon. Gentleman chose the occasion to make an attack on a person with whom I am associated.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment to the proposed Amendment made: In line 3, leave out "forty-eight," and insert "forty-seven." —[Mr. Wyatt.]
    Proposed words, as amended, there added.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6—(Charging of rentals for registered films)
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Dumpleton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, at the end, to insert:
    "and in the case of all British films registered as exhibitors' quota films, with the exception of those films exhibited as first feature films, the exhibitor shall pay to the renter in respect of each reel of film shown on any one day in any one theatre a sum of money equal to not less than a percentage of the net daily box office takings, such percentage to be fixed by the Board of Trade from time to time after consultation with the Cinematograph Films Council."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) claimed that his Amendment was the most important of those on the Order Paper. I do not wish to vie with him in arguing the relative importance of our Amendments, but I think that this one is very important indeed from the point of view of the producers of specialised and documentary films in the supporting programme. A good deal was said during the Second Reading Debate about this Bill, which was otherwise an excellent Measure, being weak in that it did not sufficiently strengthen the position of specialised and documentary film producers. I would like to call in aid the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when, as Minister for Economic Affairs, he gave an address to the Association of Specialised Film Producers. He said:
    "Sooner or later we must somehow or other give the public an opportunity of seeing the output of these units "—
    He was speaking of the specialised film units—
    "an output which I am convinced the ordinary person would enjoy more than many of the second features which now disgrace our screen…this is a matter upon which I have been very keen for a long time."
    Later he said:
    "There must be enough of the receipts left over after paying for the first feature to allow a reasonable sum to pay for the shorts. We do not want quickies or bad shorts, nor do we need short films on which extravagant sums have been spent. We do need, however, to recognise that good shorts must cost a certain amount and that they cannot be made unless a reasonable return can be obtained by the producers."

    1743
    That is the object of this Amendment. I am informed that the present practice of the trade is that a large percentage of the box office takings is paid over by the exhibitor to the renter as rental for first features. In many cases, this leaves very little for films for the supporting programme. That is one reason why the films of the supporting programme have not been of such a high standard as might have been the case. It is also a reason why some of the better-known producers who have specialised in short films do not make their films for showing in cinemas, but confine their activities to sponsored productions. That is a loss to the public cinema.
    There seems to be no reason why a greater percentage should not be paid as rental for first features. It is essential that the amount left over for the supporting programme should provide adequate return to the producers of the films in that programme. Unless this is done, the present uneconomic market for long and short supporting films will not be satisfactorily adjusted. Earlier in our discussions it was said that the essential consideration is the interest of the consumer and the public, though a lot was said about the different sections of the trade. I submit that the present practice does not give the public a well-balanced programme, and does not utilise to the full the resources of the British film producing industry, and I believe that this Amendment would remedy that situation.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: In supporting this Amendment, I should like to give various reasons in favour of it. In the first place, it seems to me that the British short film has an importance equal to that of feature films in the past. It is important because the documentary film in particular is essentially representative of British film making. Indeed, in the days when British film-making, as regards features, was a little low, the documentaries always maintained their high standard. In addition, a good documentary should have both entertainment and educational value, and this value bears little or no relation to the actual cost.
    Let me give an example. Suppose it cost £5,000 to make one of these films. It may very well be that that film goes round, perhaps, 1,000 cinemas, and yet only succeeds in earning £1,500, which
    1744
    is a mere fraction of its total cost. There is another point. Short films are particularly suitable for the small type of cinema, and this basis of booking which we recommend is particularly suitable for small cinemas. What we ask is that the type of booking should be on just the same basis as the first feature film. Indeed, I think it would be very difficult for my right hon. Friend to say why he favours one type of booking for one kind of film and a different type of booking in respect of the short or documentary film.
    Let me give further examples, and here I come to the point of dollar earnings. There will be older films being released now, in view of what has happened recently, and these films will be taking high percentages at the expense of British short films and documentary films, which will be earning practically nothing. In other words, there will be more dollars going out of the country as a result of this method of booking, and we feel that it is necessary to put the British short film on the same basis as that enjoyed by first feature films.
    Finally, it may be said that, if American films are going to be hired, the position will solve itself, but I am not at all sure that that is the case. That is not the point, however. The point is that the Minister is introducing this Bill on a 10-year programme and is looking 10 years ahead. It is necessary now to put this into the Bill, in view of the fact that it may well be that the position with the United States will be cleared up, as I hope it will be, and then there will be no necessity whatever to take these short films.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: I should like to support the Amendment. I must confess that I thought the Chair must have had considerable difficulty in selecting this Amendment instead of the similar one in the name of the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes). As far as I can see, they are almost identical, except that the first refers to "a percentage" of the net daily box office takings, and the second refers to "a given percentage" of the net box office takings. I am rather surprised that, somehow or other, the supporters of these Amendments were not able to get together and decide on one formula. I believe that it is always desirable that the essential purveyors of

    1745
    entertainment, that is, the creators, should be paid by means of a royalty basis on the actual takings of the entertainment. That is a principle which I do not think is departed from, generally speaking, in the case of any creative purveyors of entertainment, and, for that reason, I support the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I do not believe that there is an hon. Member in any part of the Committee who would be prepared at this time to defend the pernicious practice which has been followed in the past of allowing exhibitors to buy the rest of their programmes, in addition to the first feature, in the cheapest possible market. That practice has had the unfortunate result in the past of encouraging cheap, poor quality productions, and, in this connection, I find myself in very considerable agreement with the hon. Member who has just spoken. It is, I submit, right and proper that we should do whatever we can to ensure that a fair share of the money that is paid by the public when it goes to the cinema should go to the producers of the supporting programmes. For this reason, I associate myself with the Amendment, which I hope the President of the Board of Trade will accept. It will be noticed that we have not had the temerity to suggest what the percentage shall be. That is a matter on which the Board of Trade and the Cinematograph Films Council would no doubt come to a satisfactory arrangement.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: As the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) has pointed out, there is only one slight difference between myself and the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton), and I would gladly sacrifice the word "given" if the Minister could accept this Amendment, which is of great importance to the specialised and documentary film industry. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that it provides for the economic life-blood of that industry. I have before me a letter from one of the leading producers of this type of film, and I would like to quote from it. He says:
    "If this change is not brought about, many documentary producers must inevitably close down, for the business of making sponsored films for the Government and industry is shrinking rapidly. A considerable number of technicians will have to be laid off as a result, and their specialised contribution to film making is being lost at a time when, due to the embargo on American films, everything
    1746
    must be done by stimulating all forms of British film production."
    It is becoming a common practice in Ministerial circles to pay lip service to the merits of the short and documentary film producers, but, in spite of the speeches made by right hon. Gentlemen on every possible occasion laying down the world-renowned merits of British short and documentary production, we are still allowing this section of the industry to collapse into economic decay.
    9.0 p.m.
    We have here at the present time some 40 short film companies employing 1,000 technicians and with a number of studios at their disposal. Much of their work is on location. Their present output is about five hundred reels a year. The chairman of the biggest group of these companies has confidently asserted that if they are given the economic possibilities and the economic market that is required this section of the industry could make no less than 50 long and 200 short films for supporting programmes annually. It would be an invaluable contribution at the present time to the British film industry and to the needs of the exhibitors. We have got to do something to enable this section of the industry to get a market and to get a showing.
    As other hon. Members have said, the present division of takings between first features and supporting programmes in the exhibition side of the industry is completely arbitrary and completely unjust. The first feature on a percentage basis gets 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. A hard bargain is struck between the renter and the exhibitor, and when the renter has struck his bargain the exhibitor says to him, "As you have taken so much of my earnings on the first feature you will have to throw in the supporting programme." And the supporting programme is thrown in. The result is that the producer gets a mere pittance, which cannot compensate him for his necessary outlay. This Amendment simply offers a minimum percentage which will enable the supporting programme producer to have some remuneration which makes economic sense. We do not put in a figure. We do not attempt to destroy the natural operation of the market level between a good supporting film, a popular supporting film, and a bad or unpopular supporting film. It is merely a question of providing a floor.

    1747
    Let me give one or two examples of the kind of thing that happens at the moment. I quote one outstanding documentary film of great technical merit. It cost £10,000 to produce. Its length was just under 2,000 feet. It was shown in 700 cinemas out of the 4,700 in the country. The gross takings were £1,100, but the takings of the producer, who had an outlay of £10,000, were between £700 and £800. That is typical of the problem that the small supporting film producer has to face every day. Another example is provided by a very well known series of high class films which earned an average rental of between 10s. and 15s. for a whole week's booking in a cinema, a figure which is quite fantastic. It is a common practice at the present time for a renter to pay £200 for the complete distribution rights in the whole of the United Kingdom of a film which has cost about £6,000 to make. These are the economics of "Alice in Wonderland." If we are honest and sincere in saying that we believe the small film producer is trying to do a good job, and that we want to encourage him, obviously some drastic action has to be taken. At the present time, the total value of the second features in American renting houses in this country is less than 10 per cent. of the turnover. It is quite outstanding for a long feature film to earn more than £15,000 in the United Kingdom.
    This case has been argued in the industry time and time again. It is not really a question of asking for it to be referred to another committee to argue about it again. The facts are known and the facts are clear. This section of the industry is driven to rely on Government or industrial sponsorship because at present the economics of the industry make it impossible for the best producers to earn a decent living. I would suggest to the President that if he feels, in spite of everything that has been urged tonight from both sides of the Committee, that this Amendment as phrased is too dogmatic, he should see if it is possible to put into the Bill some reserve powers which would enable him, after further consideration if that should still be needed, to implement some proposal on the lines of that which we suggest, without having to wait for further legislation.
    1748
    It is an urgent matter. This section of the industry is in economic difficulties now. Its people are unemployed; its technicians are being dispersed. It is a choice of giving it a chance now to get on to its feet or of breaking up a producing organisation which, as we all know, did a wonderful job of work for this country throughout the war years. It may be argued that there is no money in the industry out of which these people can be given a decent remuneration. It may be argued, perhaps, that the feature film at the moment cannot get the necessary remuneration.
    The Chairman: This Debate is straying over a very wide area. I do not see how the last point the hon. Gentleman has raised is related to the Amendment. The Committee stage is very different from a Debate on Second Reading.
    Mr. Hughes: I shall only take another minute, but this is a matter of tremendous importance, and it is very relevant, because if this percentage minimum is put into the Bill it might affect the earnings of the feature films section of the industry. Most feature film producers in this country are linked with the exhibiting and renting side. Though there may not be profits in feature film production there are considerable profits at the other ends of the industry out of which something could be allotted to help the supporting film producers. The case has been argued from both sides of the Committee. I do once again appeal to the Minister, who, I know, is sympathetic, to do what he can to meet this very urgent case.
    Mr. Levy: I should like to make one comment very briefly which, I am afraid, reluctant as I am to do so, will break the complete harmony which seems to have existed so far in the consideration of this Amendment. I am in complete sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment. I agree that the short film makers are the Cinderellas of the film industry and urgently need some sort of help. The caveat I should like to enter, however, is that this Amendment is not the way to give it. It is not the way to do it for this reason. What happens under this Amendment is that what is added to the pockets of the short film makers would in practice come out of the pockets of the feature film makers. It is perfectly true that there

    1749
    is a great deal more money in the pockets of the feature film makers than there is in those of the short film makers, but their costs are enormously more. One of the purposes and virtues of the Bill is that it is attempting to make first feature film production in this country profitable. It is no good doing a good thing with one hand and sapping it with the other.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Is it not perfectly clear from the Amendment that the percentage is to be fixed by the Board of Trade, which would give every latitude to the considerations the hon. Member has in mind?
    Mr. Levy: That percentage is to be fixed by the Board of Trade, but the overall percentage payable by the exhibitors or by distributors is not fixed by the Board of Trade. Any sum subtracted to improve the position of the short film maker would correspondingly depress the position of the feature film maker.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: So small is the amount needed for the short film maker, could it possibly make any real difference to the expenses of the first feature film?
    Mr. Levy: It is a matter of degree, but as we are not discussing specific figures, it is impossible for me to answer that question.
    Now let me say I do not dispute that it is possible to pay proper sums to short film makers, but they would have to come not out of the feature film producers' share, but out of the exhibitors' and distributors' profits. There is no way of ensuring that under this Amendment. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) succeeds in getting his next Amendment accepted—which he will not, much as I would like him to—there would then be a very good case for accepting this Amendment. My hon. Friend's next Amendment would afford the protection which I am seeking. However I ask the President not to dismiss this Amendment simply because it is impracticable, but to sympathise with its purpose and objective and either to submit the matter to the Commission of Inquiry, when it comes, or, alternatively, devise an Amendment himself which can be put forward at the Report stage. If he can do that, he is a better man than I am, but I wish him well.
    Earl Winterton: We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) for being first to attempt to make clear the difficulties which surround this Amendment. The Committee is addressing itself to these matters in a nonparty way, and it may be that I shall have to disagree with some of my hon. Friends on this side when I say that nothing is more difficulty than to put into an Act of Parliament the exact proportion of profit which should go to different sections of any industry—
    Mr. E. P. Smith: There is nothing whatever in either of these Amendments, which are so closely related, which suggests any particular percentage whatever; it is left entirely vague, to be filled in by the President of the Board of Trade.
    Earl Winterton: I have seldom heard a more insufficient answer to a point. If, in a future Bill, which I hope will not be brought in, the President of the Board of Trade laid down the exact percentage which everyone connected with the theatrical industry should receive from any profits which were made there would be natural objections. Everyone is sympathetic to the point made by the mover of the Amendment, that everything should be done to make possible the chances of success of the films which we all have at heart. But I feel bound to disabuse the minds of the Committee of one idea, the suggestion that there is some feeling in the minds of exhibitors against the good short feature film. That is not the point at all; the point at issue here, unfortunately, is that to date the public have not been educated, perhaps through the fault of the exhibitor, to appreciate many of these short feature films. I agree that we ought to find a common denominator to improve these short feature films, but for the reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough I do not believe that that can be brought about by this proposal.
    Mr. H. Wilson: As one of the "babies" of the House, I find it difficult to add much to what has just been said by our "Father" across the way. This question of statutory minimum rentals for the short documentary film producers has been very much in my mind during the last two or three days, during which I have tried to find a way round this very difficult problem. I would like to repeat, once again, what I have

    1751
    said about the importance of the short and documentary film producing industry. Anything we can do to give practical help to this industry we shall be only too glad to do, not only because of the entertainment and educational value of these films but because they are important dollar savers.
    9.15 p.m.
    Last night, I spent an hour and a half with the representatives of these two sections of the industry, and some Members who came with them, when I heard the case which has been repeated tonight. No one can deny that a very striking case has been made out. I asked for figures of actual rentals last night, and I was astonished at some of the figures which were produced. Many will agree that a case has been fully established, and that something should be done about it, but I do not think that this Committee can say how we should solve the problem. I only wish we could. The matter has been examined by various committees and Film Councils over a number of years, but no solution which is in any sense agreed, or capable of being commended to this Committee, has so far been produced.
    I must therefore recommend tonight that we leave this matter to the committee of inquiry. Bearing in mind what the noble Lord said, we shall not expect that committee to be influenced by anything which has been said today, whether by me or any one else, but I am sure that any body of reasonable men and women —and the committee will consist of such reasonable people—could hardly fail to be impressed by the kind of figures which have been put forward in this Debate. I ask the industry to make their case afresh to the committee of inquiry. If they do I am sure they will get a fair and sympathetic hearing, especially if they make their case as well as they did to me last night. What that committee will recommend as a method of dealing with this matter it would be improper for me to attempt to say, but I am sure that this Committee cannot tonight put forward an agreed solution.
    The question of a reserve power which we might take in this Bill is one to which I have given a lot of thought since I met the documentary and short film producers last night. I considered whether it might be possible to recommend to this Committee that we should take general
    1752
    powers, so that if the committee of inquiry reported in favour of something special being done we should be able to carry it out without having to propose further legislation. I found, however, that it was absolutely impossible. I had some first-class legal advisers on the job, and I found it impossible to produce a phrase which would be capable of being swung into effective action after we have had the report of the committee, and which would not, at the same time, prejudge the case which that committee has to consider.
    I very much regret that I do not think I can tell the Committee anything about the method of dealing with the problem which was raised by my hon. Friends. If we tried to do anything about the matter we should probably prejudge the independent investigation which we all want to see. My hon. Friends have made out a very strong case, but I am sure that the Committee will be prepared to leave this matter in the hands of the committee of investigation.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: I would draw attention to the danger of one phrase used by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), because it has a very considerable bearing on this question. He gave the idea—I hope I do not misrepresent him—that the main purpose of the Bill was the production of first-feature films. I do not believe that to be the case. From every point of view the short and documentary film has a much better prestige than the big, feature film. That is a very important point for the President of the Board of Trade to bear in mind when he is considering the matter. The idea that a lot of money has to be spent in making long, first-feature films may do a great deal of harm. The genius of the film production of this country has been shown very largely in the production of short and documentary films. I believe the consensus of opinion in this country would be very much in favour of seeing that a fair deal is given in that direction. At the present moment no fair deal is given in any sort of way to those who are concerned in making those types of film.
    If we push the thesis regarding the big, first-feature film too far we shall be doing a great deal of harm throughout the world to the British film industry. The documentary and short films have been

    1753
    of higher quality, by and large, in this country for the last few years than any other form of film production. It is, I believe, the general consensus of opinion that a fair balance must be struck in future between them. Any idea that the Bill should be tipped over in favour of the first-feature film should not be allowed to go out of this Committee tonight.
    Mr. Collins: I am sure that the Committee has welcomed the very generous way in which my right hon. Friend has dealt with this matter and the way he has, in effect, conceded the case, although he has said it has been impossible to find a form of words to satisfy it. He has suggested that the matter should be referred to a committee of inquiry. To the specialist film industry this is a matter of extreme urgency. These producers are almost out of business now. They cannot go on and make short films at all unless there is some machinery to provide them with a market. That is what the Amendment proposed to do. It is the way we thought a market could be guaranteed. I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would consider accepting a new Clause, if it can be produced by the Report stage, rather than leave the matter to go to the committee of inquiry?
    Earl Winterton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the last suggestion—although I quite see the point of view of the hon. Member. Surely, the argument used by the President of the Board of Trade was conclusive. He said what everyone connected with the film industry knows to be true about the efforts that have been made to find a solution. The argument that he addressed to the Committee that this matter must be the subject of investigation was also conclusive. I am not entitled to speak on behalf of the industry, but I am sure that those responsible for exhibition will regard with respect the views that have ben put forward, with obvious sincerity, by hon. Gentlemen who have knowledge of these matters that, through ordinary trade channels and ordinary discussions, no doubt with the benevolent help of the President of the Board of Trade, some temporary solution could be found.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord for what he has just said. I cannot hold out any hope that we can find a form of
    1754
    words by the Report stage which will solve this problem. The very important discussion I had this morning and the thought which I have given to the matter assure me that we cannot find any form of words that will not prejudge the issue before the committee of inquiry can look into the whole case. I was going to suggest, and am grateful to the noble Lord for anticipating me, that although what has been said in this Committee may, or may not, be taken into consideration by the committee of inquiry, I hope that it will be studied and digested by the industry. I think that the exhibitors have not gone into the problem as they should have done. Some of the rentals of 10s. and 15s. a week for first-class films, to which reference has been made, are fantastic. I hope that the matter will be looked at sympathetically when the committee of inquiry is going into the matter.
    Speaking as a consumer, and as one who consumes this product as often as he is able to, I believe that exhibitors have misjudged the feeling of the average citizen in this matter. The average cinema-goer would rather see a good English documentary film than much of the big feature stuff which he is now asked to look at. I hope that exhibitors will take notice of that point of view and will be able to do something to provide a temporary solution of this extremely urgent matter while the committee of inquiry are going into the more long-term policy. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: If the committee, having considered the matter, recommends that something should be done, will it be possible to do what the committee suggests—if the President of the Board of Trade agrees with the recommendations—without fresh legislation?
    Mr. Wilson: Obviously, I cannot answer that question until I have seen what the committee recommend. They may recommend something which will be acceptable to the ordinary trade. On the other hand, they may recommend things which will require legislation. If so, we shall have to look at them when they come up. The question is a much wider one than it seems.
    Mr. Dumpleton: I thank my right hon. Friend for the very sympathetic hearing which he has given to this matter. I am

    1755
    a little disappointed that he has not been able to find words to meet the situation. I accept what the noble Lord has said as to the desirability of a full investigation of this problem. I wish the President could find some means of meeting the situation. If the committee recommends that something should be done to avoid the necessity of waiting for some possibility in the legislative programme, I would underline the urgency of meeting this need. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Application to non-standard films.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Is there any possibility of the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) and myself being called as a manuscript Amendment, and, if not, can the Debate be adjourned and the Amendment put on the Order Paper for tomorrow?
    The Chairman: We cannot possibly accept the Amendment tonight at such short notice. There will, of course, be another opportunity on the Report stage.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Composition of Cinematograph Films Council.)
    Mr. W. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, to leave out "five," and to insert "seven."
    The curious thing about the proceedings of the Committee today has been the great use of the words "modesty and humility." The Parliamentary Secretary said that he approached certain aspects of this Bill with great humility. The President of the Board of Trade, by his demeanour and his soft cooing tones, proclaimed to all of us his modesty. It is curious that when we talk about an industry which deals entirely in superlatives, and uses such words as "gigantic,"
    1756
    "stupendous" and "colossal" that we, in this Committee, should be talking with such modesty. I fear that has been infectious. The Amendment is an extremely modest one. During the Second Reading of the Bill, there was a great deal of discussion on the question of the number of independent members on the Films Council. I and other hon. Members feel very strongly that we should retain the number of 11 members that was inserted originally. The reasons given against that were, first, that the Council had been a bad, inoperative, practically non-existent body with hardly any powers at all. The figures of attendance given lent weight to that thesis. It is clear that the House intends, the country wishes, and the President of the Board of Trade is going to carry out that wish, that the film industry during the spring-cleaning and the radical overhaul which it is going to have under this Measure, shall have a Films Council with teeth in it.
    For that purpose, it is important that the balance inside that Council should be most carefully considered. It is also very important that the number of independent members—that is the actual point which we are discussing at present—shall be sufficient for the job which they have to discharge. The point made at the close of the Second Reading Debate that II was too large, because we might not be able to get II people who would have the knowledge, the right mental attitude and the time to devote to it, had some weight in it, and that is why we, on this side of the Committee, in putting down the Amendment, have suggested seven. I believe that even at this time when possibly all the best brains are being absorbed by the number of Boards which the Government are setting up in every direction, there will still be seven just men, seven capable men able to devote sufficient time to this extremely important job.
    During this Debate, it has been quite clear whenever there has been anything like a doubt in the mind of anyone, whether on the Treasury Bench or on this side, that the attitude has been one of waiting until the Council is set up so that it can tackle the problem. It will have an infinitely greater responsibility and much more complex problems to deal with in the next few years than were the lot of its predecessors. Therefore, in its selection and balance the utmost care has to be taken. We do not want a lot

    1757
    of figureheads and partisans; we want particularly broadminded people of general knowledge. There is no doubt, in my view, that seven people of this character and calibre can easily be found.
    If one looks at the constitution of this body one sees that it is not quite a "form fours" business, but very nearly. The representatives of the three phases of industry fall more or less into groups of four, and the reason that we have selected the number of seven is that the experience of some of us with the industry is that the weight of the independent members will afford the greatest protection to the investing public and, above all, to the cinema goer. Such arithmetic as I still retain tells me that seven and four make eleven. If the Council is going to be one of 21 the combination of those independent members and of any of the groups of technical representatives who are going to be on the Council will give a sufficient number to see that the independent members are not out voted and overridden. I do not want to over-emphasise this, because, as far as possible one hopes that they will proceed by reason and argument rather than by vote. I often wish that one might see that applied to this Committee, but it has not always come to fruition. In our view it is important to have that balance. When we put forward that modest figure of seven instead of eleven, which sounds rather like crap shooting—
    Mr. W. J. Brown: What is "crap shooting"?
    Mr. Fletcher: I would refer the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) to the experts whom I see around me. Nevertheless, this particular figure is one which strikes a very reasonable balance. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will take heed not only of the number, but of the quality which is probably more important and that the modest increase of from five to seven will meet with the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
    The Chairman: It would appear to be for the convenience of the Committee if the whole of the Amendments dealing with the composition of the Cinematograph Films Council were discussed together. If we can have general agreement we might proceed on those lines. I take it that that is agreed.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I should like to support what my modest Friend the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) has said in this connection. I feel that five independent Members of this Council is too small, because I am quite convinced that if we are to have fair play for the exhibition side of the Council we must have more independents to support them when they can reasonably do so. At present the production side has ten and the exhibition side has only four, which I think is grossly unfair to the exhibition side. This was discussed fairly widely on the Second Reading and I had hoped that by now we might have got something from the President of the Board of Trade to show that he was going to balance up that representation a little better. If he is not prepared to strengthen the exhibition side of the Council I hope he will agree to seven independent members or at least give the exhibition side the chance to find themselves in a strong position when at variance with the production side. I believe I had better leave the wider question to the Motion that the Clause stand part, and on that discuss whether the Council as at present suggested is in any way suitable for the job they will have to do. I will also leave to them the matter of the representation of Scotland on the Films Council. Therefore, I will leave the Amendment by merely supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Bury in asking for seven independent members instead of five.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I want to take up one point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross, Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) and to explain why the Government have not put down any Amendments on this important Clause. I hope the Committee will not take the frequent occasions on which I have said that we would take something back and look at it again before the Report stage as any sign of what the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) would call indecision or weakness. I hope he will agree that it is rather evidence of our flexibility, a word he has already used in a different connection.
    Many of the points raised today, especially those on Clause 8, are not points of party principle or of strong principle one way or the other, and I should think that it is highly desirable on many of these questions, especially as

    1759
    they affect an industry which is an important medium of public opinion as well as a medium of entertainment and education, that we should always seek to try to get the views of the Committee before taking a hard and fast line about them. I recognise that Clause 8, which deals with the composition of the Cinematograph Films Council, is of very great importance, and rather than put down any Government Amendments in the light of what was said in the Second Reading, I thought I should like to hear the views of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee and afterwards say a word as to our attitude about them.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the suggestion that it would be convenient to discuss together all the Amendments put down to Clause 8 I should like to say a few words about the two Amendments in my name. They are: in page 6, line 11, after "makers," insert "renters and exhibitors"; and in line 12, at end, add:
    "(c) the number of members appointed as representing exhibitors shall be six instead of four."
    I was very glad to hear the statement from the Minister indicating that he would he prepared to look sympathetically at suggestions coming from both sides of the Committee in order to arrive at a balanced constitution of the Cinematograph Films Council and at a composition giving reasonable satisfaction to all sections of the community. First of all, I support the Amendment already moved for increasing the number of independent persons on the Council from five to seven. I then suggest that the number of persons appointed as representing exhibitors should be increased from four to six. It will be appreciated that all the burdens imposed by this Bill are placed on the exhibitors; there is no obligation on any producers to produce any films or on renters or distributors to distribute any films. The scheme of the Bill is that certain obligations are placed on exhibitors. They have to exhibit a certain number of films in their cinemas.
    Since the President in fixing the quotas is advised to take the ad vice of the Cinematograph Films Council, it is very desirable that the exhibitors should not only be adequately represented but feel themselves adequately represented, and that there should be a sufficient number of exhibitor members on the Council to
    1760
    enable all the differing points of view of exhibitors to be put forward, whether they represent large circuits, small circuits, persons in country areas or Scotland or other parts of the country. It will be agreed that that cannot be reasonably done if the number of exhibitors on the Council is left at the present number of four, particularly when the representatives of the other branches of the industry are being increased. I therefore hope that the President of the Board of Trade will look sympathetically at the representation of exhibitors who are numerically so strong and so diverse in character and who ought to be adequately represented by six members.
    9.45 P.m.
    The other Amendment has this suggestion for its object. At present under existing legislation there are two persons who are appointed to represent employees. It is now suggested, quite rightly, that that number shall be increased to four. As the Bill is drafted, those persons are to be chosen as representing persons employed by makers of British films. My suggestion is that instead of being confined to the employees of makers of British films, which means employees in film studios, they should be drawn from all classes of employees in the industry, whether working in studios, in cinemas, in cinematograph organisations renting and distributing films, or otherwise.
    In other words, if it is proper, as manifestly it is proper, that there should be an adequate representation not only of employers but of employees on this Cinematograph Films Council, then it is equally desirable that those representatives should be taken from all classes of the industry, just as are the employers, particularly when it is remembered that of all the employees in the industry at the present time only some 15 per cent. are employed in studios, whereas the remainder are employed in cinemas and in other occupations in the cinematograph industry. I hope, for those reasons, that this Amendment will be sympathetically considered by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: On a point of Order, Sir Robert. When I spoke just now it had not then been ruled by the Chair that we were to talk on the other Amendments to this Clause and, therefore, I spoke only on the Amendment standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends on this side

    1761
    of the Committee. May I take this opportunity to say that we on this side of the Committee have the greatest sympathy with the point made by the hon. Gentleman and agree with it?
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: As we are taking all these Amendments together, may I urge that consideration be given to the Amendment standing in my name, namely, in page 6, line 9, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
    "(6) The number of members appointed as representing the makers of British films shall be four, of whom two shall be representatives of makers of specialised and short films, and the number of members appointed as representing persons employed by makers of British films shall be four."
    and the one in the name of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton), namely, in page 6, line 12, at end, add:
    "and the representatives of makers of British films shall include not less than two persons appointed as representing the makers of specialised and short films."
    In view of the importance of the Films Council there should be some statutory provision for representation of documentary and short film producers. In the past, up to 1944, they had a member on the Council, in fact, 50 per cent. of the producer representation. Since 1944 they have had no representation at all, although they employ about 1,000 technicians as against 1,200 employed by the feature films. As there is a general free-for-all in getting representation on the Council, I hope the Minister will bear that in mind.
    Mr. J. Foster: I support the plea for raising the number of independent and also the number of exhibitors' representatives. If the representatives of the exhibitors are raised from four to six, it will enable the exhibitors to have greater representation. As the hon. Member said, the exhibitors are the only people in this Bill who have a statutory obligation placed on them. If the independent representatives are raised in number, it will enable them to act as arbitrators between the exhibitors and the people who, in a sense, are on the other side of the fence, namely, the renters and producers. The exhibitor is nearest the consumer. He is the man who is selling the wares to the man who goes to see the film, and it is important that his point of view should not be lost sight
    1762
    of in this Bill because in the last resort he is the judge of the market. He has to call the tune in the sense that he knows probably better than anybody else what the public wants, so it is important that that point of view should be well represented on the Films Council.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: In this series of Amendments we are being asked to decide on very different problems. We are faced with the structure of a Council which has two functions, which are quite separate and distinct. The prime function is to advise on matters in connection with the cinematograph world. In that capacity it should have a reasonable balance of interest of exhibitor, producer, and independents to advise on what would be tolerable or intolerable to the community and those directly concerned with the industry. The second function is much more difficult. Here we have to consider the structure of the Council to perform the second function, and when they have to perform that function they are sitting rather as a court to judge or give an opinion and advise on whether somebody was justified in doing something, contracting in or out of the existing form of legislation.
    I cannot help wondering whether we are not trying to combine two quite impossible functions within one body without setting out those functions, and without setting out rather different types of bodies. It would be out of Order to pursue the matter further, and it might be better to raise it on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but I could not resist the opportunity of raising it here, as we have to determine the two quite distinct, separate and different forms of responsibility which this Council will have to carry out.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I have listened carefully to what has been said, and of course I keep in mind what was said by hon. Members on the Second Reading. I find myself in general sympathy with a lot of the points which have been made, although I could not go so far as to say I would be in a position to recommend the Committee to accept all the Amendments which have been put down.
    In regard to the independent members of the Films Council, I agree with the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) that we want to see a Films Council with

    1763
    some teeth in it, and we should pay rather more attention to the question of quality than to that of numbers. I think he has made out a case for increasing the number of independent members. For my own part, I feel I could recommend to the Committee that seven would be a reasonable number. It would need slightly increasing the number of the Council altogether, but a very strong case has been made to increase the element of independent members. In so far as the other sections of the Council are concerned, I have been turning over in my mind whether we should consider reducing the renters. It is a very difficult point, but I think we should perhaps keep them at the present figure, particularly when one remembers the position of the American renters in this country. It is desirable to have one of them and a British representative.
    On the question of representation of labour, I certainly agree that there should be special provision for representation of those employed by exhibitors and distributors, and on the Report stage I will be prepared to put down an Amendment in those terms. As I indicated on the Second Reading, I think the exhibitors have made out a case for some slight increase in representation, although I do not go so far as recommending six. I think the figure five would be more appropriate. If we work on those lines, the council would be increased to about 22, which is rather bigger than what I had in mind in the Second Reading Debate. I do not want it to be unwieldy. However, I think the sense of the Committee is that we should expand slightly above the figures stated in the first draft of the Bill.
    I would suggest to the Committee that, if they are agreeable, I should spend a little time studying what has been said this evening. I give my assurance that I am meeting the suggestions about the number of independent members, and I should propose to increase the number of exhibitors to five and make special provision for representation, within the total number, of trade union representatives of those employed in distribution and exhibition. With that assurance I shall be grateful if the Committee will agree that I might put down a composite Amendment at the Report stage, setting out the
    1764
    constitution of the proposed new Films Council as a whole. The House could then look at it as a whole rather than attempt to dealt with the separate figures, because it is difficult to look at any one of them without looking at the picture as a whole.
    Mr. Reeves: Would the President of the Board of Trade make a statement with reference to the request that the specialised and documentary film trade should be represented?
    Mr. Wilson: This was a matter which I discussed last night with the "shorts" and documentary producers. They were represented on the Films Council up to 1944 but have not been since that date. There is a strong case for their representation but I feel that the figure of representation suggested in the Amendment on the Order Paper is somewhat excessive in relation to the other film producers who should be represented on the Council. I shall probably propose that there shall be one representative of the "shorts" and documentary producers on the Films Council. Whether it is necessary to specify that in the Bill or whether it can be done through my powers of appointment is a matter which I can consider between now and the Report stage. I admit the case for representation, but not for two representatives.
    Mr. McAllisterWill my right hon. Friend say something about the suggestion that there should be Scottish representation on the Cinematograph Films Council and also about the suggestion that a separate Scottish Cinematograph Films Council should be established for Scotland as a nation?
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I wish to point out that I had left what I wish to say on that particular point until we reach the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I thought I should be out of Order if I mentioned it on these Amendments.
    Earl Winterton: I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee for not having heard the whole discussion. I only wish to make the comment that the arrangement that the right hon. Gentleman suggested seems to me to be a perfectly fair one. He will understand that my hon. Friends on this side of

    1765
    the House—and I presume it applies to hon. Gentlemen opposite—will not necessarily be bound by the revised draft and that there will be no suggestion that there has been any breach of agreement between us. In fact, it will be necessary, if the right hon. Gentleman decides to meet the points which have been put in these Amendments, to redraft practically the whole of the Clause. There is an Amendment down in my name and in the name of my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends to deal with the case of distributors and exhibitors.
    Mr. Wilson: I have already conceded that point, and I certainly give my assurance that what I put down will not be regarded as an agreed proposition. It will be subject to any Amendments which may be moved.
    Amendment negatived.
    To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Snow.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

    ANIMALS [MONEY]
    Resolution reported:
    "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the period during which payments may be made under the Agriculture Act, 1937, in connection with the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, and to amend the Horse Breeding Act, 1918, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in—

    (a) the sums to be paid thereout into the Diseases of Animals Account to defray expenses under Section twenty of the Agriculture Act, 1937; and

    (b) the sums to be paid thereout to defray expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Horse Breeding Act, 1918."

    Resolution agreed to.

  PRISONER-OF-WAR LABOUR (CONTROL)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. Dye: I desire to bring before the House a matter of some importance, namely,
  1766
  irregularities in the control of prisoner-of-war labour amounting to corruption and what, in my opinion, is the unjust dismissal of one of the labour officers whose action brought the irregularities to the notice of the Norfolk Agriculture Executive Committee.
  I regret having to bring this matter before the House tonight, but I have by Questions in this House on 15th and 18th December, and by conversation and correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, endeavoured to obtain a satisfactory settlement. I also regret that my right hon. Friend is not present tonight to reply to what I have to say. I notice that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is present. He will, I know, give careful attention to what is said. I trust he will not be bound unnecessarily by what has been prepared for him, but that he will be able to use his own judgment. What I am asking him to do is to assure the House that all the irregularities have been brought to an end and that Mr. Pegler, the official to whom I have referred, is reinstated pending some further impartial inquiry into the responsibility for what has taken place.
  It is not surprising that trouble should arise when it is remembered that something like 250,000 prisoners of war have been employed in agriculture during the past three years. They have come under the control of officials—a perfect bureaucracy. It is true that there are committees, but their actions are shrouded in secrecy. The surprising thing is that the system should have survived so long after the war. These prisoners are virtually slaves. They are sent hither and thither by the officials, according to the demands of the farmers, and they cannot complain. They have no interest in what they do and no organisation to speak for them. That makes it all the more necessary to guard against corruption in their use and administration.
  It transpired that one official had used prisoner-of-war labour for the repair and redecoration of his home and that another, several weeks later, had used similar labour for the cultivation of his garden, all without payment. The prisoners were conveyed from the camps concerned in vehicles belonging to the committee, and booked out in one of the working gangs engaged in piece-work

  1767
  jobs. The assistant labour officer who got this labour for nothing could not have done so without assistance of other officials, or by implicating others working under him. Much more important, however, is the way it was possible for some farmers to receive prisoners for work on piece-work rates and put them to other work for which no account was or could be rendered. It was also possible to get the prisoners mixed up with other labour on the farms so that it was impossible to measure up the actual work they had done. Had these prisoners gone out on day rates, and the full charge had been made, no such irregularities could have taken place. But the system whereby the supervisors could make bargains with farmers on an acreage basis opened the door to all kinds of abuse. For example, some farmers would get all the prisoner-of-war labour that they wanted, while others had to go short. I drew the attention of the Minister to these practices in my letter to him of 18th December and I mentioned two large farms where it had been going on.
  The Committee's vehicles have been used for private purposes day and night, some officials always having an abundance of petrol coupons. So far, I have not received the slightest indication that these practices have been stopped. These abuses have been the subject of common talk for some time. Indeed, they were known to exist by members of the Agricultural Executive Committee; but as one member said to me, "We cannot put our finger on the actual spot because those who know would not come forward with the evidence." These abuses were also known and disliked by many of the labour officers in charge of the camps and supervisors in charge of the gangs. Because they wanted to stop this practice, a meeting of 11 officials took place at the Cockley Cley Camp on 30th October.
  I cannot understand why the Committee, knowing as they did that irregularities were being talked about, did not even take their officials into their confidence. The difficulty that confronted these lesser officials was that they did not know how many of their superiors were implicated in these matters or were receiving benefits in some form or another from the farmers who were receiving favourable teatment. Nevertheless, it was agreed that Mr. Pegler should make a report to the chief
  1768
  labour officer for Norfolk or to the executive officer. In an effort to protect himself against any possible retaliatory action on the part of his superiors, he came to me, as the Member for the Division, so that I would be informed of what was taking place. He urged, however, that I should take no immediate action, but should let him make his report so that the matter could be dealt with locally through the Committee. It subsequently proved that their fears were well founded, and so it is that I find myself pleading the cause of an honest man who has been victimised for doing what his workmates asked him to do in the interests of the country.
  What did the Norfolk War Agricultural Executive Committee do when Mr. Pegler's report came before them? They got three of their members together with the three chief officials to hold an inquiry at King's Lynn on 24th November. Mr. Pegler was asked to attend and to give evidence. At no time was he treated in any other way except as a witness. He was questioned by members of the Committee and the officials. He was only present when giving evidence or answering questions. At no time was any charge made against him. In fact, the only charge that could have been made against him was that he did not take effective steps earlier to report his superior officers to the Committee for breaches of conduct. In no way did he benefit by what had happened. He had in fact made earlier attempts without success to see the chief labour officer. When eventually he was successful in fixing an appointment with the chief labour officer, that official informed the assistant labour officer who immediately went to see him and attempted to persuade him not to make the report.
  The assistant labour officer was present all the time and could speak in his own defence. The chief labour officer was also present and to all intents and purposes, he was part of the committee of inquiry; yet he was the responsible officer for the administration of prisoner-of-war labour, and such irregularities as had taken place over the past two years revealed his inefficiency. He knew that his assistant labour officer in West Norfolk was having the use of prisoner-of-war labour and he ought to have taken steps to see that he paid for it properly. There is, however, the point that prisoner-of-

  1769
  war labour should only have been supplied for agricultural work. The decoration of houses and private gardening does not come within that category. Therefore, when the chief labour officer acquiesced in his assistant's action in having prisoners, he was already breaking the rules laid down by the Ministry. His part in the proceedings, therefore, cast a doubt on the validity of the so-called court of inquiry.
  When my hon. Friend, in reply to my question on 15th December, said that he was satisfied with the recommendations of the sub-committee, or tribunal, as he calls it—and it will be found in column 1468 of HANSARD of that date—he certainly could not have considered whether they reached their conclusions after conducting their inquiry in such a way as to do justice to all concerned. I maintain that they were prejudiced against this official, Mr. Baker, by the presence all the time of these officials, and that Mr. Pegler was never given an opportunity of replying to criticism of his actions made in his absence, nor was any charge preferred against him. He was, however, suspended from duty, and was later paid a month's salary in lieu of notice, and he was dismissed from his post and suffered the same fate as two assistant officers who had not only broken the regulations, but benefited themselves in so doing.
  Such an inquiry is clearly contrary to the elements of natural justice. In a written reply to my Question on 18th December, my hon. Friend stated:
  "The committee of inquiry…informed Mr. Pegler that they were dissatisfied with his conduct and asked him for an explanation. This was not regarded as satisfactory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1947; Vol. 445, c 401.]
  Mr. Pegler denied that statement, and he is fully prepared to refute it in the presence of those who made it. In the next Question which I put to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on the same day, I asked him for an impartial inquiry, but the answer I got was that, unless evidence of other irregularities was supplied, there was no reason for a further inquiry. I therefore submitted, on 18th December, a further letter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture giving ample grounds for a further inquiry, and, when we consider the effect which that action against Mr. Pegler had
  1770
  on other officers, I think that the action of the Ministry and of the officials of the Committee is deplorable.
  I regard this matter as of great importance, because I feel strongly that we should keep our public service free from all forms of corruption. The idea has gained currency that, by greasing the hands of officials, it is easy to get prisoner-of-war labour, and great damage has been done to the prestige of the administration. We must remember that, in the county agricultural committees, other services are provided such as feedingstuff coupons, machinery permits, et cetera. I have heard complaints from my own constituency, and also from other counties from people interested in this case, which have not strengthened my confidence in the Ministry, and I trust that my hon. Friend's reply tonight will be reassuring to the House and to those who live and work in the villages of Britain.
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. Gooch: I am sorry the word "corruption" has been used in the statement which my hon. Friend has just made to the House. Undoubtedly, some irregularities have taken place, and that has led to proper action by the Norfolk County Agricultural Executive Committee. I think I should say that my interest in this matter arises from the fact that I was a member of that committee during the whole period of the war, and in addition to that, I served as chairman of the labour subcommittee of that committee for the whole period. Therefore, I think I have good reason for saying a few things about what was happening both in the committee and in the county during the war years. The men who were associated with the work of the committee, as the members of the committee themselves, tried to do their duty conscientiously throughout that period. That applies very definitely to the members of the committee, who worked under difficult conditions. It also applies to the chief officials of the committee who were men of honour and integrity. During my period of office the staff generally gave no cause for complaint.
  Following this Debate the impression may be gained that the Norfolk Committee's operations were accompanied by widespread and long-term corruption, but

  1771
  I want emphatically to deny that that was so. Nor is it so today. It can be said for the committee in Norfolk that directly these irregularities were reported to them action was taken, and the guilty parties dealt with. I gladly pay my tribute to my colleagues on the committee, with whom I had six years' very happy association, and also to the members of the staff of that Committee. Directly the present troubles came to light definite action was taken. I am still a member of the labour sub-committee. I did not know anything about this business until my hon. Friend raised it in the House. Directly the matter was raised here, and on my return to Norfolk, I asked for a special meeting of the committee of which I was a member, so that I could become acquainted with all the facts of the case as known to the staff and members. I attended a meeting of the sub-committee, where the whole of the facts were disclosed to me.
  The committee of inquiry which went fully into this business was presided over, I believe, by a county alderman and a magistrate, whom I regard as a very trusted trade union leader of many years' standing. I was told at the meeting of the subcommittee of the finding of the inquiry, and I must confess tonight that, in view of the facts that were disclosed to me at that meeting, I cannot for one moment quarrel with either the conclusions or the recommendations of the committee of inquiry. I should like to deal with some of the facts of the case as told to me.
  The charge brought against W. Thornton, the deputy labour officer, was that for a considerable period between 3rd December, 1946, and 23rd April, 1947, a prisoner of war from Cockley Cley Camp worked in his garden without payment. Pegler, the man referred to by my hon. Friend was the informant, and he was also in charge of the Cockley Cley Camp. After hearing the very large volume of evidence at the meeting of inquiry from the district labour officers, the camp labour officers and the supervisors, the committee of inquiry were forced to the conclusion that Pegler, who was in charge of the Cockley Cley Camp, was deeply involved. They accepted his evidence that he was away sick from towards the end of November, 1946, until either 6th December or 9th December, 1946. During this period arrangements
  1772
  were made for the supply of a prisoner of war from Cockley Cley Camp for work, and they were made without Pegler's knowledge by a labour officer named Beart, and he was considered to be in charge during Thornton's illness. The fact remains, however, that this was freely admitted by Pegler, that he learned of this irregularity upon his return, and in spite of that the prisoner of war continued to work until nearly the end of April, 1947.
  Pegler was informed of these facts, and the committee asked for an explanation, which briefly was as follows. He realised that the arrangement was wrong and he took steps to see that it was stopped. The steps which he in fact took were to approach Beart, French and Nock, camp labour officers, and he attempted to see these labour officers. Pegler finally brought these matters to the committee's attention early in 1947, but it did appear to the committee of inquiry to be a gross dereliction of duty on the part of a labour officer to allow this practice to continue for such a long period, during which he took no effective action to have it stopped. They considered that when his local approaches failed he should have raised this matter with the labour officer of the committee. No really satisfactory explanation was offered as to why he did not do this. The prisoner of war was withdrawn on 23rd April, 1947, and Pegler did not raise the matter with the committee until early November.
  The committee of inquiry was forced to the reluctant conclusion that the matter would not have been raised but for the dismissal of a supervisor named Bridges during October, 1947. It seems that Pegler was on fairly intimate terms with this supervisor named Bridges, and he knew that Bridges was doing his best to obtain evidence of misconduct of members of the committee's labour staff. The inevitable conclusion was that Pegler thought it not advisable from his own point of view to report the facts to the committee, presumably in the hope of protecting his own position. These are the facts as presented to me. I have no reason to doubt the facts which I have given to the House, and, in the face of these facts, the war agricultural committee is to be commended rather than condemned for the action which they took in this case.
  10.23 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): There is little that I can usefully say to the House in the interests of my hon. Friend's constituent or anyone else beyond what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said to him in a letter of the 29th January, 1948, from which I will quote the relevant portion. He said:
  "Mr. Pegler has instructed a solicitor who has been in correspondence both with the Secretary of the Committee and with the Department's solicitor, as a result of which he came to see the latter on the 19th January. In his letter, Mr. Pegler's solicitor states that he has instructions to take proceedings against the members of the Committee for libel. The conversation between the Ministry's solicitor and Mr. Pegler's solicitor was merely as to the procedure to be adopted in the event of Mr. Pegler deciding to proceed with his action. In these circumstances, Mr. Pegler having instructed a solicitor to act on his behalf, it would be quite improper for me to discuss with you the merits of the case."
  Since interviews have taken place between the two solicitors on the question of the issue of a writ, it would be very improper for me to go any further than that letter, and I hope that the House will agree.
  In order that silence may not be misinterpreted, I would like to say a brief word about the wider allegations of general corruption so far as the committee's officers are concerned. Let me say at once, that I do not believe, nor do I think that any of my hon. Friends who have been associated with the executive committees will accept the allegation that our committee officials generally in the country are engaged in any widespread corruptive practices. They are loyal men. I am concerned about this, because this is, in a sense, a new service, and we have often seen that when a new service begins we have to build up esprit de corps and morale, and it is easy to start off on the wrong foot by suggesting that unsuitable people were going in for the work. If any hon. Member has any evidence of alleged irregularities I will see that it is immediately given the closest possible examination as my right hon. Friend has already promised. I am willing to discuss with any hon. Member any particular case he thinks merits examination and have the closest investigations made. I was sorry indeed to hear my hon. Friend talking
  1774
  about the bureaucracy of the officials. It is not so. It is bad for hon. Members to talk about them in that way, for they are a lot of good fellows who are doing, in my view, a very difficult job.
  We have heard allegations about how prisoners of war are supposed to be treated as slaves. That is the kind of thing we might say among ourselves in this House and it might not mean a lot, but when said in public it could be used outside the House and outside the shores of this country to create trouble and difficulty for us. Let me put it on record that in no case have German prisoners of war been treated as slaves or pushed into employment, as was suggested, with no organisation to look after them. I flatly deny that these prisoners of war have been treated in that fashion. They have indeed been treated better than, I suspect, we would have been treated in similar circumstances. I have heard no suggestion anywhere else that prisoners of war have been treated in any sense as slaves or less than they really deserved. I cannot usefully add any more to the Debate, and it looks as if the individual case to which I have referred must now be allowed to take its course.
  Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that part of the Joint Under-Secretary's reply referred to legal proceedings which are being taken, is it in Order for an hon. Member, who knows legal proceedings are being taken in a case, nevertheless, to raise the matter on the Adjournment?
  Mr. Dye: Further to that point of Order. Surely the House has not been given any evidence that legal steps have actually begun, and, therefore, it is quite wrong for anyone to plead that the matter is sub judice.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Further to that point of Order. This phase of the matter has given us some concern. As I understand it, there have been interviews between solicitors intimating that an action may begin. In the course of my experience, such interviews are sometimes held and no action, in fact, does arise. I suggest that until the process has been issued or the necessary preliminary steps have been taken, it cannot be difficult to see that the matter is not actually

  1775
  sub judice although if the persons have some knowledge of the intention of the parties they might be guided in their action by that knowledge.
  Mr. Pritt: Might I add that the commonsense ruling which the Home Secretary has suggested is the regular practice of the King's Bench?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The question would not appear to arise in this case as it is not strictly sub judice. In any event, the Chair had no knowledge
  1776
  of the details, and, no doubt, the Joint Under-Secretary was correct in the judicious reply he made having regard to the fact that interviews have taken place.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I should just like to say that I was not imputing anything on the part of the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye), but I was only anxious to get a Ruling.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Registration
  Registration
  Limestone Workers (Statistics)
  Limestone Workers (Statistics)
  North Staffordshire
  North Staffordshire
  Remploy Factories, South Wales
  Remploy Factories, South Wales
SCOTLAND
  Agricultural Work (German Volunteers)
  Agricultural Work (German Volunteers)
  Potato Subsidy
  Potato Subsidy
  Tractor Tyres
  Tractor Tyres
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS
  Casualties, Palestine
  Casualties, Palestine
  Disability Pension
  Disability Pension
  PRISONERS OF WAR (STATUS)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (STATUS)
BRITISH ARMY
  Dogs (Quarantine)
  Dogs (Quarantine)
  Reinforcements, Palestine
  Reinforcements, Palestine
  Illiteracy
  Illiteracy
  Requisitioned Property (Claims)
  Requisitioned Property (Claims)
  Discharges (Purchase)
  Discharges (Purchase)
  Military Stores, Palestine
  Military Stores, Palestine
  Rations
  Rations
  POLES, UNITED KINGDOM (PAY AND RATIONS)
  POLES, UNITED KINGDOM (PAY AND RATIONS)
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (ACCOMMODATION, BANBURY)
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (ACCOMMODATION, BANBURY)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  War Damage (Receipts and Payments)
  War Damage (Receipts and Payments)
  Basic Petrol Ration (Abolition)
  Basic Petrol Ration (Abolition)
  Sterling Area (Gold and Dollar Reserves)
  Sterling Area (Gold and Dollar Reserves)
  Members of Parliament (Official Paid Envelopes)
  Members of Parliament (Official Paid Envelopes)
  Argentina (Negotiations)
  Argentina (Negotiations)
  Italian Loans (Interest)
  Italian Loans (Interest)
  Japan (British Subjects' Property)
  Japan (British Subjects' Property)
  Polish Sterling Bonds (Interest)
  Polish Sterling Bonds (Interest)
  BRITISH MARKET RESEARCH BUREAU
  BRITISH MARKET RESEARCH BUREAU
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Footwear and Hosiery
  Footwear and Hosiery
  Unfashioned Stockings
  Unfashioned Stockings
  Home-Grown Timber (Licences)
  Home-Grown Timber (Licences)
  American Branch Factories
  American Branch Factories
  Bespoke Tailors (Cloth Purchases)
  Bespoke Tailors (Cloth Purchases)
  Footwear Repairs (Charges)
  Footwear Repairs (Charges)
  Trade with Japan
  Trade with Japan
  Imported Books
  Imported Books
  Bavarian Chinaware and Glass
  Bavarian Chinaware and Glass
  Whisky (Exports to Palestine)
  Whisky (Exports to Palestine)
  Cotton Industry (Weaving Trials)
  Cotton Industry (Weaving Trials)
  China and Earthenware (Exports)
  China and Earthenware (Exports)
  New Factories
  New Factories
  Furnishing Materials (Coupons)
  Furnishing Materials (Coupons)
  Factory Building, Cwmgorse
  Factory Building, Cwmgorse
  Emigration to Dominions
  Emigration to Dominions
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Contributory Pensions (Regulations)
  Contributory Pensions (Regulations)
  Old Age Pension (Claim)
  Old Age Pension (Claim)
  PRISONER OF WAR CAMPS (NEWSPAPERS)
  PRISONER OF WAR CAMPS (NEWSPAPERS)
  PETROL IMPORTS (DOLLAR SAVING)
  PETROL IMPORTS (DOLLAR SAVING)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Service and Civilian Rations
  Service and Civilian Rations
  Cakes (Queueing)
  Cakes (Queueing)
  Sheep (Transport, Bristol)
  Sheep (Transport, Bristol)
  Imported Carrots
  Imported Carrots
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Caterpillar Tractors> (Spare Parts)
  Caterpillar Tractors> (Spare Parts)
  Hearing Aids (Exports)
  Hearing Aids (Exports)
  INDIA AND PAKISTAN (EUROPEAN JUDGES)
  INDIA AND PAKISTAN (EUROPEAN JUDGES)
  RAILWAY STATIONS (TAXICABS)
  RAILWAY STATIONS (TAXICABS)
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (RESEARCH)
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (RESEARCH)
  PAPER SALVAGE (OLD TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES)
  PAPER SALVAGE (OLD TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES)
  MALAYA (TRADE UNION MISSION)
  MALAYA (TRADE UNION MISSION)
  ADMIRALTY STAFF (OFFICIAL CARS)
  ADMIRALTY STAFF (OFFICIAL CARS)
AGRICULTURE
  Wool Clip (Sale)
  Wool Clip (Sale)
  Foreign Workers
  Foreign Workers
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock. The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.

Prayers.
The Lord Hillingdon—Took the Oath.
The Earl Nelson—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

ISSUING CHARGE FOR WIRELESS LICENCES.
2.34 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether in view of the existing deficiency in the revenue of the British Broadcasting Corporation by reason of the increased costs of productions and other expenditure, consideration will be given to releasing the heavy charge now made by the Post Office, estimated at approximately £1,500,000 per annum, merely for issuing licences to the public, before any increase in the present licence fee of £1 per annum is authorized.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, His Majesty's Government are not aware of any deficiency in the revenue of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The Licence and Agreement between the Postmaster General and the British Broadcasting Corporation provide for a percentage to be deducted by the Postmaster General from the sums received from licences to cover any expenses incurred by him in relation to the broadcasting system. Six per cent. was deducted from the 1047 receipts, and this amounted to £661,800. The expenses cover such items as the printing and issuing of broadcast receiving licences and the prosecution of unlicensed listeners. Of the
822
remaining 94 per cent. it was decided that 85 per cent. shall be paid to the Corporation during the first three and a quarter years of the period of the Charter and Licence, beginning on January 1, 1947, and the balance of 15 per cent. accrues to the Exchequer. There is provision for the percentage of 85 to be revised if the need arises. Your Lordships will recollect that in the White Paper on broadcasting policy it is stared that, if necessary, to ensure the full and efficient maintenance and development of the broadcasting and television services, the whole of the net revenue from licen; es will be made available to the Corporation.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: Are the Government not aware that it is generally understood that the existing revenue of the B.B.C. will not enable them to pay the very heavy additional charges which they have now to meet, owing to the general increase in expenditure? In those circumstances, do no: the Government consider that a charge of three shillings by the Post Office merely for handing a licence over the counter is excessive? Further, do the Government not consider that that sum might well be handed over to the B.B.C. to enable them to meet the large additional charges which it is well known they will have to meet, rather than that there should be any increase in the charge for the licence, which is now £1? It will be very severely felt by many people in the country districts and elsewhere if it is raised to thirty shillings
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am not aware that the expenditure of the B.B.C. exceeds its revenue, and I cannot agree with the noble Lord that a charge of 6 per cent. is excessive in relation to the costs incurred on behalf of the B.B.C.

PUBLICATION OF RETURN OF FLEET
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government why it has not been possible to resume publication of the Return of Fleets as a Command Paper; and when publication may be expected.]
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, the publication Fleets, which was last produced in 1939, has contained particulars of the vessels of the Fleets of foreign countries, as well as those of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Up-to-date information has not been made available in respect of all foreign Fleets and, so far as information about the British Fleets is concerned, considerations of security do not at present admit of publication. I regret that I am unable to say when publication may be expected.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to my noble friend. Can he inform your Lordships which of the Navies has declined to give this information?
VISCOUNT HALL: This is a matter that has been taken up by the United Nations with a view to getting all the naval forces to submit information, but so far they have failed to secure agreement.
EARL BEATTY: Arising from that reply, may I ask the noble Viscount whether it is not a fact that naval attaché s of foreign Embassies can obtain a great deal of that information. If that is so, why should the British public be denied it?
VISCOUNT HALL: It is true that foreign naval attaché s can get the information from certain countries, but not from all countries.

LOW FLYING OVER WEST LONDON.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government, why it is necessary for aircraft to fly at low altitudes over the Western parts of London in the small hours of the morning. The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the request of my noble friend the Minister of Civil Aviation I desire to postpone this question until to-morrow.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).

PARLIAMENT BILL.
2.38 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) for the third day on the Amendment moved by the Marquess of Salisbury on Tuesday last, to Viscount Addison's Motion that the Bill be now read a second time. The Amendment was as follows: Leave out all words after "That" and insert:
"this House,
While re-emphasizing its oft expressed readiness to consider proposals for modifying the basis of its membership which may conduce to the more effective performance of its constitutional duties, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill
which would effect no change in this respect;
for which the nation has expressed no desire;
which would go far to expose the country to the dangers of a system of single chamber Government; and
which can only serve to distract the attention of the country from the economic crisis and from the united effort towards recovery which is so vital at this time."
THE Marquess OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for intervening once again in this debate, but like, I suppose, many other noble Lords, I have been racking my brains since the House rose yesterday evening to try to find some way of elucidating the position and removing the ambiguity which, in spite of all our efforts, continues to surround the words of paragraph 1 of the Government statement which caused so much difficulty to your Lordships yesterday afternoon. As I say, I have been racking my brains and I now have a proposition which I would like, with great diffidence, to put to your Lordships. I hope that this proposition may have the desired result and may be acceptable to the Government.
It has seemed to me, in reading and re-reading these words, that what is wrong with the wording of paragraph 1 is not that the words are bad in themselves, but that they are incomplete, in the sense that they do not seem to cover the contingency of a reasonable period of delay in the event of a difference of opinion between the two Houses. That power of delay, as your Lordships know, has seemed important to us in order that time may be given for public opinion to

825
be informed and to crystallize. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House seemed to indicate, in some of his remarks, that it was the intention of the Government that there should be some elasticity in this matter. I think it appeared to the majority of your Lordships, however, that the words as drafted did not carry out that intention. It occurred to me that they might be made to do so by taking the Government draft, virtually as it stood, and adding a few words.
I have fried my hand at this and have drawn up a Resolution, which might be submitted to the House. I should like to read it to your Lordships because I hope that it may be a helpful contribution towards reaching an agreement—which, I think, is what all desire to achieve. This is the Resolution, as I have drafted it, which I might put down if it were agreeable to the Government:
"That the debate upon the Amendment standing in my name be adjourned and that an inter-Party conference be immediately convened on the issues raised by the Parliament Bill at present before the House without prejudice on either side on the understanding that:
(1) So far as discussions of the powers of the Second Chamber are concerned, these conversations should not extend to any powers other than those at present possessed by the House of Lords, but should be limited to ensuring reasonable time for the consideration of measures by the House of Lords, for the Parliamentary discussion of differences between the two Houses"—
this is new—
"and for the provision of an adequate period of delay in the event of an unresolved divergence of view between the two Houses."
From there on, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 would remain as in the present Government draft. The House will see, I think, that my suggested draft incorporates the whole of the Government's statement but makes one important addition—namely: and for the provision of an adequate period of delay in the event of an unresolved divergence of view between the two Houses."
There is one further addition:
"… these conversations should not extend to any powers other than those at present possessed by the House of Lords."
I put in those last words to make our position quite clear, but the other addition is the important one. I hope that it will tend to remove the ambiguity which has hitherto clouded our discussions and made agreement so difficult. I do not, of course, expect that the Government will be in a position to give any reply to
826
me this afternoon—obviously they must have time to consider my proposal—but I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House may be in a position to inform the House at the beginning of business to-morrow afternoon whether or not that proposal is acceptable to them. If it were acceptable I should be prepared either for the debate on my present Amendment to be adjourned or to take that Amendment off the Paper for the time being, pending results of the conversations envisaged in the Government's proposals. Further consideration of the Bill, of course, would also have to be adjourned for a further period, as I think is already envisaged in paragraph 2 of the Government's statement.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, the noble Marquess has been good enough to give me beforehand a copy of the Resolution which he has just read. I know that he docs not expect me at this moment to do more than say that I will secure that before tomorrow morning it is brought to the notice of my colleagues and is given careful consideration.
2.47 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, this is a very strange debate. There have been many suggested changes but, so far as I can see, we still remain where we were. For my part I think it would have been very wise if the advice which was tendered by the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, in the House yesterday had been accepted, and the House had adjourned with a view to considering, and, indeed, coming to a conclusion on, the question whether some of the suspicions which were in the minds of noble Lords opposite could be cleared away. This would have enabled us to know exactly where we were. The position is now most difficult for those of us who are called upon to speak, but I am going to assume that the situation remains as it was when the House adjourned yesterday.
I listened with close attention to almost all the speeches made in this debate. Like my noble friend Viscount Stansgate, I am just a newcomer to your Lordships' House, and I was reluctant to intervene in this debate. I agree with the view of the noble Viscount, that a little realism should be brought into the debate in order

827
that we might fully realize where we stand in relation to this matter and what is the real purpose of the Bill now before your Lordships' House. I think it is true to say, despite the ambiguity which may have existed yesterday about the intention of His Majesty's Government, that it was generally agreed that the Government had gone a long way towards laying the basis of a compromise in this matter. In my opinion, the only obstacle to a conference taking place as suggested, is the suspicion in the minds of noble Lords who sit on the Benches opposite. I do not propose to deal now with the difficulty which arose yesterday, but to indicate what the Bill now before the House really purports to do. First, whatever discussions may take place—and I hope that a conference, and a successful conference, will eventually be held—it should be made quite clear that His Majesty's Government claim that the supreme interpreters of the will of the people in Parliament must be the directly elected representatives of the people. We cannot admit that your Lordships are entitled, at any time, to claim to know the will of the people better than honourable Members, whom the people themselves have sent to another place to represent them and there to put into legislative shape the programme and reforms desired by the people.
The present Government wish to be placed by the Constitution in exactly the same position as the Conservative Party would have been had they been in power. We require the powers of this measure in order that the legislation submitted to Parliament during the next two years shall find its place on the Statute Book before the end of this Parliament. The attitude of the Opposition is very similar to that of Mr. F. E. Smith who, in his speech on the Parliament Bill of 1911, said that all that Bill would secure for the Libera] Party was three years' supremacy in Parliament. After that the House of Lords would be supreme and would stop the Liberal Party from carrying out their legislation. He asked the Liberal Party whether they thought it worth while to stir up strife merely to secure three years' supremacy. It is very evident from the attitude so far of noble Lords opposite that they want to retain the position which was so well stated by Mr. F. E. Smith. Why should a Conservative Government have that
828
supremacy for the whole period of their Government if they are the Government of the day? It cannot be in accordance with the wishes of the people that one political Party should have any preference over another in the event of either Party receiving the majority.
The political situation to-day is entirely different from what it was in 1888, in 1911 or indeed in 1933, when attempts were made to settle this question. Towards the end of last century, when the first effort was made, the political progress made possible by the passing of the Reform Act of 1832 was just taking place. The Education Act of 1870 had made the first great advance towards universal education and the political issues before this country were rapidly changing. May I take the first change to which I refer—the growth of the political power of the people? The 1832 Act placed about 1,000,000 electors on the Parliamentary Roll—one in every twenty-four of the population. Thirty-five years afterwards, in 1867, another 1,500,000 electors were registered, making the ratio one in every twelve of the population. In 1884, 5,000,000 electors were on the register—about one in every seven of the population. In 1918, 21,000,000 electors, between two and three out of every five of the population, were on the register; and in 1929, when women were given the vote on the same terms, the number of electors registered had increased to over 28,000,000. To-day it stands at about 34,000,000, two out of every three of the population of this country are electors, having the privilege—and indeed the responsibility—of sending to the House of Commons men whom they can entrust to interpret their will and their wishes during the period of the Parliament.
In his speech in another place on the Second Reading of this Bill on November 11 last, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Churchill, said:
"It is not Parliament that should rule; it is the people through Parliament."
Almost the same words were used by the noble Viscount, Lord Chelwood, in his speech yesterday. He urged that the sovereign power of our Constitution is in the electorate, not in the House of Commons, nor in this House. More than 25,000,000 electors voted at the last Election, when for the first time this nation returned a Labour Government

829
with a majority. Is not that the voice of the people? And did not the people themselves express a wish for reforms? Is that voice to be thwarted by an unrepresentative House of Lords who receive their power merely from hereditary rights, and many of whom have little or no contact with the people?
The Opposition still want to challenge the right of the elected House to act. Certainly it is in the last two years of the present Government, but it is expected that the Opposition intend to hold up such measures as the Bill dealing with steel—which is within the mandate—when it is introduced by the Government. Have not the Government the right to protect themselves against such an unwarranted attack? From whence do your Lordships hold the power to interfere with the declared wishes of the people, who expressed a definite view at the last Election upon this matter? No Government could possibly allow a position of that kind to continue. Indeed, we on this side cannot allow to go unchallenged the doctrine that the Government of the day cannot carry out their mandate or can do nothing outside their mandate that is outside the precise programme upon which they successfully appealed to the electorate. The Government of the day must assume the day-to-day responsibility for the general conduct of the affairs of the nation. They must be prepared to deal firmly with all these unforeseen and unforeseeable difficulties which inevitably arise during any Government's term of office.
In these days, when political difficulties move much faster than they did in 1911 and when political issues are entirely different—for every economic and social problem is an important political issue—twelve months is ample time in which to enable the nation to make its views felt on any piece of controversial legislation. Indeed, controversial legislation is usually well aired, in the Press, by the B.B.C., by posters (as it was in relation to the Transport Bill, although with very little effect) and by public meetings, long before the Government proposals have appeared in Bill form, or even before the draftsman has received his instructions. The political controversies of old, such as the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church—a controversy which I well remember—were not confined to one year, as the
830
noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, stated, but raged over a number of years. Bill after Bill was brought in, and Bill after Bill was rejected. The same thing could be said with regard to Home Rule for Ireland and other Acts of Parliament which took up almost a full year's Parliamentary time. That could not and would not be tolerated at the present time, and no Government could allow a controversy to rage over such a period of time.
Little credit is given in some quarters to the great advances in the education of the people, and in this I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, was a little unfair in his speech yesterday. Great advances have been made during the last generation, for it may now be truly said that there is no nation in the world whose people have a greater knowledge and better understanding of the political issues with which it is confronted. Political issues are debated as never before, and political opinions have been formed by the people. Indeed, it can be said that there are no sounder politicians than the British men and women, who fully realize the great advantage of a democratic system of Government, which gives them the right to elect their own form of Government and to see to it that that Government have an opportunity of carrying out their wishes. I would give one instance of the influence of public opinion, even upon a Tory Government. In 1933 we had the strongest Tory Government that this country had ever seen, which introduced a most vicious means test for the unemployed. That means test was fought in the other place, but the Government would not give way. On the Friday they declared that they could not give way; on the Monday the Minister of Labour said that, as a result of representations and information which he had received during the course of the week-end, he felt that he could and should and must, on behalf of the Government, withdraw those regulations. That was in one weekend.
Are the Opposition serious in their desire for a real reform of your Lordships' House which would bring it into line with the great political changes which have taken place in the country and in the composition of another place? Have they a plan of their own? Do they desire a retention of the hereditary principle in

831
any form? I think we shall know from that what their intentions are. Our intensions have been made quite clear.
VISCOUNT CECIL of CHELWOOD: No, they have not.
VISCOUNT HAIL: Not perhaps in the mind of the noble Viscount, but certainly in the minds of most people who want to understand them. I recently read a statement which appeared in The Times that a strong committee of Conservative Peers, under Lord Salisbury, and which included the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, had for some weeks been considering and bringing up to date the late Lord Salisbury's report on House of Lords Reform. They had reached agreement, and completed their task. The statement added that a booklet would be published or issued by the Conservative Central Office, and we expected that booklet to contain some reference to the proposed reform. I took the trouble to purchase a copy of the booklet. It was very good propaganda, but not for the Party opposite. They have a lot to learn about propaganda and particularly about the price they charge. The booklet does not give any proposals for the reform of your Lordships' House but it certainly does stress in more than one sentence the importance of obtaining an agreement on this matter.
I would like to ask the noble Viscount opposite if there is to be a new plan, or whether the Salisbury Plan of 1933 has been revived. We would like to know, because if it is so, it might well be an obstacle to agreement, for the plan contemplates a Second Chamber of some 300 members, of which 150 members were to be elected by the hereditary Peerage from their own number, based, I take it, upon the declared political opinions of the present membership of your Lordships' House, which is made up of some 800 Peers. While it is true that quite a large number of noble Lords give No 1ndication of the political Party to which they belong, there is no doubt from Vacher's that some 450 of the 800 members will take the Whip of the noble Marquess and the Party opposite, whereas my colleagues and myself number forty-four, and the Liberal Party number seventy-one.
We have an example in the selection of representative Peers from Scotland,
832
I am not saying anything to decry the value of the Scottish representatives in your Lordships' House. Most of them have not declared themselves politically, but all those who have, with the exception of one who is a Liberal, are Conservatives. We would like to know whether it is the intention of your Lordships to revive that plan. It is one of the points we shall have to discuss when negotiations take place, if they do take place. Or is the scheme for the reform of the House of Lords recently published by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, a scheme to which the Opposition are giving their support? It will be of interest if, during the course of the debate, the views of the Opposition in this matter are clearly made known.
The proposals of the Government are declared in this moderate Bill which, in the opinion of the public and many Members of Parliament supporting the Government, is much too moderate, for there is, and has been for more than half a century, a strong demand for the complete abolition of hereditary representatives from any Second Chamber. It is strongly contended that such members cannot represent or pretend to speak for the electorate. When the Parliament Act was passed it was over-generous to your Lordships' House, in view of the treatment this House meted out to the Liberal Parliaments at that time. The preamble of the Act made quite clear what was the real intention of the Government; it was the substitution for the House of Lords, as it then existed, of a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of an hereditary basis. In view of that declaration, it is surprising that changes on that basis have not been carried out long before the present time. Any Government with a majority, other than a Tory Government, would have been compelled to act and bring about a much more drastic change than is proposed under this Bill.
When this Bill was introduced we were informed that we were creating a serious national crisis over a dispute between the two Houses. By promoting this Bill, His Majesty's Government have taken the only step at the only possible time when such a step could be effective to make a crisis impossible. There is no real foundation in the assertion that finds expression in the last paragraph of the noble Marquess's Amendment for rejection—namely, that

833
the Bill can only distract the country from giving due attention to the economic crisis and to the need for a united effort for recovery. We all agree that united effort is vital. The Bill has now been before the country for three months. It had a very much easier passage in another place than was expected. There is absolutely no public opinion against it—not even a ripple on the political waves. When I look at Board of Trade returns, and at other statistics, I find No 1ndication that there has been any distraction in the united effort for economic recovery. On the contrary, in the happily swelling figures of production I find nothing but proof of increased unity of effort and of the national determination to conquer our difficulties. Indeed, it may well be that the introduction of the Bill had a stimulating effect upon the increased effort which took place during the latter part of last year.
I have spoken quite frankly and quite plainly. We are not provoking a quarrel on this matter, but we would like a settlement. My noble friend the Leader of the House laboured hard, with great patience and ability, to secure the consent of the Government to a basis for discussion. The Government have gone a long way to meet the Opposition in this matter. In the event of no basis being agreed upon, and should a Division upon this Bill take place, I have no doubt that the Government will be defeated. It would be unfortunate, but the responsibility must rest upon the shoulders of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition and those who follow him. I do hope that they will not lightly throw away this opportunity which might well lead to an understanding on this most important political issue, and so prevent a long and, as I have already said, acrimonious political controversy. We must wait and see.
3.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the hope that the suggested conference will take place and will succeed. I also agree with him in another opening observation, that it is not easy to make a speech in this debate when that issue is still hanging over us undecided. If I am to be quite frank, I am not sure that I should have gathered from some of the noble
834
Viscount's observations that he is so anxious that the conference should succeed. He has examined at some length the arguments that this House is not properly constituted to perform its functions, although at one time I almost imagined that he was saying that he thought on the whole it had better not be altered. None the less, the noble Viscount hopes that the conference about our reconstitution may succeed.
In the interests of time, and in view of the long list of speakers, I am going to confine myself to a single side of this matter, the constitutional side. Before I deal with that, I would like to make two small corrections in what the noble Viscount said. I think that from his own point of view he rather overdid it. There was one passage in his speech, if I did not mishear him, in which he said that at the General Election the voters of this country declared themselves in favour of reducing the powers of the House of Lords.
VISCOUNT HALL: I did not say that.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I may be mistaken. I certainly thought the noble Viscount said that, but I am willing to be assured that that was not what he wished to say. On another matter he was certainly open to a little criticism. It is perfectly true that at the last Election there was a great turnover and that the Socialist Party obtained a larger number of votes and seats than any other Party. But the actual figures show that out of 34,000,000 electors, of whom I, think he spoke, 11,000,000 voted Socialist.
VISCOUNT HALL: May I correct the noble Viscount? 11,900,000.
VISCOUNT SIMON: There is nothing like being accurate in these matters, especially when the accuracy does not make a ha'p'orth of difference to the argument. I apologize for mentioning 34,000,000 electors; I am afraid that there are a few numbers which should be put on to correct that figure, but I think it was mentioned by the noble Viscount. However, between 11,000,000 and 12,000,000 electors voted for the Socialists. I do not think that in itself can be proclaimed as an undoubted proof that the majority of the voters were inclined to support this Government, but it certainly does show that they received more votes than anybody else. They

835
were perfectly entitled to take the fullest satisfaction in that and to form their Government on that basis. But the point with which I want to deal—it is an important point, though one which can be dealt with quite briefly—is the constitutional theory upon which the noble Viscount proceeds; and in these days it is manifestly the constitutional theory which is held by many Socialists.
It is, I think, a new doctrine and it is, well worth while to examine it, as was done yesterday in the remarkable speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood. Where, in the last resort, does the authority lie? Are the majority in the House of Commons, throughout the period of the life of the Parliament, entitled to say, as the Attorney-General said on one occasion: "We are the masters now"? Are they entitled to say: "We have been given a power which we may exercise exactly as we choose until the next Election comes about"? That, surely, is entirely to misunderstand the nature of our constitutional Parliamentary institutions. It is treating the House of Commons and the country—I put an analogy—almost in the relationship which exists between the directors of a limited company and the shareholders. The shareholders in general meeting elect their directors, and thereupon the shareholders very likely think no more about it; the directors are undoubtedly entrusted with the management of the company until the next general meeting.
That is not really, as I conceive it, the relationship between the people of this country and the House of Commons. The conception which I, at least, had in my mind, and which I had been brought up to accept, is that in the last resort this is a country in which the people govern themselves. There used to be instances in ancient times when that was quite obviously so. In the City State of Athens the population was so small that it was possible for every adult free, male Athenian himself to be a Member of Parliament, but of course that is not possible under modern conditions. It is this country which has led the world in the working of representative institutions, institutions which contain representatives by a process of election. I do not for a moment forget the famous proposition of Burke, that a Member of Parliament is something more than a mere delegate. But
836
that is quite a different thing, it seems to me, from saying that because a particular body of men have been elected to be Members of the House of Commons, therefore they have had conferred upon them, or the majority have had conferred upon them, the right to pass any and every piece of legislation they like till the end of the five years, without anybody being able to challenge them. I believe that to be a perfectly wrong conception. It has been a little encouraged by some incidental events.
In this Parliament the Government, from the very first day that they came into existence, decided to demand the whole time of the House of Commons. It was never so before in time of peac: e. Private Members of the House of Commons always had their opportunities for introducing a Bill and for moving a Resolution. There have been many well-known cases in the past in which private measures—that is to say, measures not officially introduced by the Government—have passed into law. But, as things stand to-day, it has come to be thought almost natural by our Socialist friends that the moment there is a Socialist majority in the House of Commons, and a Socialist Cabinet supported by that majority, the whole House of Commons should thereupon surrender the whole of its time to that body. The result is that since the Socialist Government have come into power there has not been an opportunity for anybody else to introduce a Bill or to move a Resolution. I define thus the new idea which is now apparently developing—it is not I believe a correct doctrine: that once a General Election has taken place the people themselves cease to be the real governors of the country, and that for the whole period of the life of that House of Commons, however the opinion of Members in it may change, the Government have had conferred upon them a mandate to be the supreme interpreters of the will of the people.
The noble Viscount opposite, in the course of his speech, used that phrase in quite the wrong way. He seemed to think that the contention of noble Lords on this side of the House was that the supreme interpreter of the will of the people was the House of Lords. I have never in recent days heard a more complete perversion of the view which, so far as I know, every sensible member of this

837
House holds. Nobody dreams of claiming that this House, which is not elected and which contains a very large hereditary element, is, in competition with the House of Commons, the supreme interpreter of the will of the people. Our proposition is quite a different one; it is that it is a mistake to suppose that because there is a majority in the House of Commons, therefore during the whole life of that Parliament anything and everything which that House chooses or seeks to enact must be accepted as coming from the supreme interpreter of the will of the people. The point is really not unimportant and I think it is interesting, because I am sure that a change is taking place there in the view of what is the correct function of our Constitution. I am not saying this with any idea of belittling the duties and immense authority of the House of Commons. I would venture to say that no single man in this House is a better House of Commons man than I am. But that is quite a different thing from saying that because there has been a General Election which has put into office and into power a particular Government, then His Majesty's Government, with the aid of that majority, may legislate as they please at any stage in the history of that Parliament and may claim that they are expressing the will of the people because "At the last General Election we were elected to be the people's representatives."
If I have put my point clearly—and I hope I have put it temperately—I would venture to put a question to my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor. I think he is to speak to-morrow and we shall all want to hear what he has to say. I should be very glad if he would consider the question which I am going to put to him and give us his view. The question is this: Are His Majesty's Government claiming that because they obtained a majority at the General Election they may constitutionally claim that whatever they legislate during the life of this Parliament must be regarded as the will of the people? That question arises directly from this controversy, and most directly from such a speech as that which has just been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty.
It is notorious that the will, the opinion, of the people—which must mean the
838
majority of the people—changes. It is a complete error to suppose that it expresses itself at the time of the General Election and that then it goes to sleep for five years, when it wakes up suddenly and makes a new declaration. That is not the nature of the process at all. The change of public opinion does not take place between night and morning. It is the result of a gradual process; and it necessarily follows that, whatever may be the justice of claims put forward by the Government and the majority in the House of Commons in the early days of a Parliament's life, there is undoubtedly no ground whatever for saying that they retain their pristine supreme authority and that they must necessarily still represent the will of the people right down to the moment of dissolution. I cannot think that that is a view which would be seriously accepted by those who have considered the workings of the British Constitution.
I quite agree that if my view is right it raises a question which is one of great difficulty and delicacy. It raises the question: Well, after all, who is to decide? I am speaking with complete frankness and without any intentional bias. I only want to look at the thing fairly. Who is to decide? I will mention another point which I think it is only just to mention in present circumstances. No doubt you can to some extent get a previous indication of public opinion by a run of bad by-elections. The Government are entitled, I think, to take full credit, so far as it goes, for the fact that that has not been their experience—and it is an interesting fact. But I am speaking in the abstract. What I cannot bring myself to accept is the claim that because we must, of necessity, have periodic General Elections, we really, as the result of a General Election, put in the saddle Members of the House of Commons who can claim that their majority view must be accepted as the supreme declaration of the popular will so long as that Parliament lasts. That does not in the least accord with my notion of constitutional development.
Now comes the question—and I have said it is a most difficult question: "Well, if I am so far right, who is to decide? I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that when the Parliament Act, 1911, was passed—and it was passed only

839
after very mature previous consideration in all sorts of forms, after Resolutions and discussions and, indeed, a couple of General Elections—Mr. Asquith, who beyond all question interpreted the meaning of that Act with matchless accuracy, insisted throughout that the purposes of the Act were, on the one hand, to get rid of the absolute veto of the House of Lords, and, on the other hand, to preserve to the Upper Chamber not one function but two. One function was the function of revision. That, I think, by common consent, we have not carried out too badly in the last few years. The other function was the function of delay. Friends of mine in this House, who shared with me membership of the House of Commons years ago, know that it is impossible not to recognize that it was upon those two principles that the Parliament Act of 1911 was founded. Indeed, Mr. Asquith, I think, referred to the delay as "delay under proper restrictions.
Whatever be the difficulties of the task, it: really is beyond dispute that the Parliament Act of 1911—at first opposed by a very considerable number of our politicians, then universally accepted as one of the principal structures in the Constitut.on, and now, very recently, criticized—aimed essentially at providing, instead of an unlimited, drastic veto which would destroy House of Commons measures, an opportunity in proper cases for a period of delay. That cannot be disputed, and I do not think for a moment that either the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, or my friends sitting opposite who were Members of the old House of Commons, would deny that. If that is so, all that remains is this question: How should that function be discharged? It is not, of course, that the House of Lords claims of its own internal judgment to be wiser than the House of Commons—that is not the proper position at all. Indeed, the brilliant passage from a speech made by Mr. Asquith, which has been used both by Mr. Morrison in another place and, I believe, by the Leader of the House here—I think it was originally unearthed through the industry of a noble Lord on the Back Bench—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I heard him say it.
VISCOUNT SIMON: And I feel sure you copied it out. Anyhow, that passage, I may point out to these gentlemen, is not a passage which is in the least attacking the Parliament Act. It is a passage ridiculing the claim that the House of Lords can have an absolute and final veto. That is the point of the passage. He is saying "What ridiculous nonsense it is to suppose that these gentlemen could arrogate to themselves a superior power of divination." That is not attacking the Parliament Act. Those gentlemen who were in the House of Commons from 1906 to 1910 know why it was necessary. But it is not a criticism in the present controversy at all; on the contrary. The Prime Minister of that day—and no one could have had a clearer grasp of his subject than Mr. Asquith had; he was in his very prime in point of energy, vigour, analysis and accuracy—made it absolutely clear that he was substituting for the unlimited veto which destroyed House of Commons measures something else which was not a veto of that sort at all, but which would provide, in certain cases, the opportunity of delay.
I myself do not think that you can define in exact words when that power should be exercised. I notice a very distinguished and academic figure opposite me, who will, I think, agree with me when I say that long ago Aristotle pointed out that the degree of accuracy with which you could define a thing depended entirely upon its subject matter—and so it does. But, of course, if the Upper House were to attempt to exercise their power recklessly or without adequate justification, they would very soon lose their power. That is the reason why the power is reserved. It is not a power which is exercised because the House of Lords say: "We are bettor legislators than you are." It is a power, and I think an absolutely necessary power to secure that, in the course of a Parliament which may last for five years (it used to be seven years), legislation shall not be passed which is flatly in defiance of the will of the people, so far as it can be at present judged, and which it is thought, if necessary, should be further considered.
The further proof is this—and I do not think this has been pointed out in all these debates. One provision of the Parliament Act was to shorten the seven years life of Parliament to five years. What was the reason for that? It was to secure that

841
the chances of the House of Commons going away from the real trend of public opinion were reduced. When you find in the Parliament Act that the maximum life of the House of Commons is five years, but that the House of Lords is left with the difficult exercise of an occasional duty to impose delay which must extend, or may extend, over two years, you do not need to be a very accomplished arithmetician to draw the conclusion that it confirms the tendency to scrutinize legislation which comes at the end of a Parliament more narrowly than you would scrutinize it at the beginning. It seems to me that noble Lords opposite and politicians who agree with them entirely overlook this fact. The Parliament Act, of course, provides that these three successive Sessions need not be all in the same Parliament.
It is perfectly untrue to say that the exercise of the powers of the Parliament Act, if and when they are used, means the destruction of legislation. It does not mean anything of the kind. If the Government had chosen to do it, they could have introduced the Steel Bill this year; but they have chosen to postpone it to next year. There is, I think, a particularly objectionable feature about this Parliament Bill—namely, that it has a retrospective effect, rather on the assumption (which is surely untrue) that Parliament had agreed to this at the beginning of the Session, when it has done nothing of the sort. From researches I have made, I do not recall a case in which a constitutional change of importance—for from time to time there must be constitutional changes—has been enacted retrospectively. It is perfectly true that in both wars Parliaments which were elected for five years extended their lives, but that is not really operating retrospectively in the sense that it is proposed that this Parliament Bill shall operate retrospectively.
When you consider that point, is it not perfectly obvious that the scheme of the Parliament Act was one which was designed to secure, so far as could be secured in this necessarily imperfect world, that in cases where it was needed there should be delay, and that in the latter years of a Parliament's life a General Election might take place? The noble Viscount opposite claimed just now that the present House of Commons is
842
the supreme interpreter of the will of the people. He does not, I feel sure, mean that that is the case whatever the verdict of the next General Election. He has merely used the phrase in order to present the case as though it were a competition between the wisdom of one House and the wisdom of the other. That is not the point at all. I therefore submit that on this constitutional point there is a grave danger that we shall fall into error.
Nobody can possibly go further than I do in recognizing the immense authority and responsibility of the House of Commons, but that is quite a different thing from saying that we have got to treat it as though it were verbally inspired. The function of a Second Chamber is to ensure—in certain proved or reasonably inferred cases—the prospect of delay. That is all the more important for a reason which your Lordships know but which is not always connected with the subject. Some people say that we have no Constitution in this country. I think I myself have used the phrase, but it is only a figure of speech. We have a Constitution—a Constitution which has existed, subject to modification, through the centuries. The really important thing about it is not so much that it is largely an unwritten Constitution—though that is remarkable—but that it can be altered with exactly the same legislative proceses as can carry the most trumpery Bill through Parliament.
I submit, in those circumstances, that a great responsibility rests upon those who seek to alter this Constitution without adequate grounds. If it were true that this alteration is being sought, not because it is justified on the abstract merits but because it would be convenient to Ministers who were anxious to fulfil all their programme before they have to go to the poll, then that would indeed be a most grievous matter.
Our Parliamentary and constitutional institutions should not be altered by serious and thoughtful citizens unless it be because, on the broad merits of the case, alteration becomes necessary. And if it were true that this is really nothing more than a tactical device for securing that particular measures, or a particular programme of the present Government, should get on to the Statute Book before there is a General Election, then it really is a gross abuse of the power, which no

843
doubt Parliament has, for altering the Constitution. Therefore, while I hope very much that this conference which is suggested will come to fruition and produce what we all desire, if this matter does come to an issue I feel that the arguments I have put forward are arguments which justify a vote against it. My noble friend Lord Samuel told us in a most remarkable speech that be himself was convinced that two years was the proper period. The only difference between us on that point is that, while he is convinced that two years is the proper period, it is not by any means clear that he is going to vote against the Bill. I must say that I think a more simple and more straightforward course for me at least is to say, with him, that I believe that it is a mistake, and an unwarranted mistake, to reduce this period of two years; that being so, my own judgment, for what it is worth, is that the Bill should be opposed.
3.45 p.m.
EARL MANVERS: My Lords, after the delightful and learned discourse to which we have just listened from the noble and learned Viscount, I feel some hesitation in getting up to address your Lordships. I seem to remember, however, that when, thirty-seven years ago, this subject of a Parliament Bill was under discussion, a noble Lord—I fear he was a diehard—remarked, "If we are to be led out to execution I hope we shall bear our fate with becoming fortitude; but we cannot be expected to order the tumbril." There are some noble members of this House, I know, who suffer from what our American cousins call an inferiority complex. They are convinced that we are profoundly unpopular in the country; they fear that if the Government were to go to the country with the cry "Peers versus the people," the electors would come down heavily on the side of the Socialists and the House of Lords would presently vanish into thin air. That is not my view. I feel that we have more friends in the country than we are aware of, that there are many people watching the dilemma that we are in. and that they are looking with kindly interest to see what sort of a fight we shall put up. There are many men, and ladies too, who will rally to our support when their opinion is asked.
What evidence is there of that? Your Lordships will remember the second Election of 1910, when the House of Lords
844
had committed every possible atrocity, when it had thrown out all the leading Liberal measures of the time, including the Budget. Even when that had happened, when the Election took place the numbers of Conservatives and Liberals returned were almost equal at 272. If I have my figures right, there were 272 Conservatives and, I think, 272 Liberals. Mr. Asquith at that time had to depend for a majority on 84 Irishmen who wanted Home Rule, and on 42 Labour men anxious for a reversal of the Osborne Judgment under which it had been declared illegal for Members of Parliament to be paid out of trade union funds. On this occasion, however, the House of Lords is void of offence. The Government, as our venerable leader, Mr. Winston Churchill, has said, are in bad odour; our prospects of victory are not unfavourable. But even if I am wrong about this—even if the House is as unpopular as some people think—then I still say that history will record that we went down with our flag flying and our guns firing.
3-49 p.m.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, I confess that when the Government first announced their proposal to bring in this Bill I had doubts as to their wisdom. That was not because I disapprove of the Bill, but because for a number of years I have believed, and believed strongly—noble Lords may think this is a strange remark to make—that the welfare of the House demanded some sort of Bill like this, that this House suffered, and
"of its good was evil spoken, "
because its sanctions were somewhat too great—too great for their normal use. But I had thought that noble Lords opposite had seen that the power of this House depends on the weight and quality of the debates and not on the balance of the voting in it. Therefore I had hoped that the suspensory powers of this House would be allowed to lapse and become as obsolete as is now the veto of the Crown. I had innocently and foolishly believed that if this House were let alone there was a real chance of that—and I think that if something like that had happened it would have been worth a great deal to what one might call the constitutional peace and agreement of this country.

845
I am bound to say that the course of the debate has shown me that that was on my part a vain dream, that the Government were right, that noble Lords opposite held—and still hold, apparently—a conception of their powers which, to my mind at least, is inconsistent with sound democratic government. The climax seemed to me to be reached yesterday when the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, commended to our astonished admiration the muscle-bound Constitution of the United States. The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition seemed to me to find noble Lords on this side of the House difficult to understand. I have been trying extremely hard and really honestly to understand what the noble Marquess wants, but I just cannot be sure. He seemed to me to want to add to the Constitution the principle of a referendum operated by this House. Other noble Lords spoke in the same way, their view being, apparently, that a referendum is a democratic measure. It has always seemed to me that that is a superstition believed in only by those who have not taken the trouble to see how it works in operation.
As I listened to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and still more, perhaps, as I listened to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, I was irresistibly reminded of a pleasant story of Dr. MacMillan, of Ullapool, one of the famous Highland preachers of the latter part of the last century. He was accustomed to go the round of his village in the evenings and to see that the public houses were emptied at nine o'clock. In explanation of his conduct he used to say: "The law says ten o'clock, but I think nine is a better time." So the noble Marquess seemed to me to want to say: "The elected representatives of the people think thus, but we think that the people should be asked to think again." Who are noble Lords opposite, I would ask, to say that?
I venture to think that part of the confusion which is manifest in this debate is not just because of these pourparlers about these phrases, but because we have not clearly distinguished between two very different conceptions of the powers of this House. It has nothing to do with the existing powers or with the nature of them. There are two different conceptions offered, the choice between which has farreaching consequences. You may hold, as I do, that the power of this
846
House—and when I say power I really mean power to effect things and get them done—depends upon the quality and weight of the debates of this House—which are very great indeed—and on its public criticisms of the Government. If you think that—as I do—you will give this House enough formal power to ensure that its criticism is ample and sufficiently prolonged and is listened to with respect by the House of Commons; and, therefore, this House must have some sanction. You will also give it enough power of delay to give time for its criticisms to sink into the minds of the public. That I think is very important.
If I may say so, I thought that the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, about how you should define that time is very important. It is a point the justice of which none can deny. Also, if you think this way you will be extremely suspicious of anything that detracts from the quality and the diversity of its membership. Now you may think that the power of this House coincides with its formal power of refusing assent to proposals of the Commons. I, personally, think that that is a profoundly mistaken view of the powers of this House. Then you will be concerned only with how great these powers of refusing assent ought to be. In that case, observe, you will be driven, in justice and fairness, as the noble Marquess has been driven in justice and fairness, to admit that the balance between the Parties in the House must be equal. It is a very great change and in fairness it must be acknowledged how far the Opposition have gone in that direction. But, if you do that, and the moment you say in fairness that you are to have these formal powers and voting is going to matter—and I say this with all respect, for it is important—you must not cheat.
Then you begin to count heads, and if you do that it will have most disastrous effects on this House. It distresses me to hear noble Lords opposite talk as if the lessening of the formal powers of this House would make it into what I think was called a mere debating Chamber. A mere debating Chamber, indeed! Democracy is government by discussion; people who despise discussion despise democracy. The alternative to governing by a debating and talking Chamber, is, as we sadly know, governing by shouting and abuse. Therefore do not let

847
us hear these reproaches about "a mere debating Chamber."
The Amendment reproaches the Government for introducing a Bill to amend the powers of this House without also proposing to amend its constitution. I cannot understand why noble Lords opposite are so persuaded, as they clearly are, of the force of this position. What is the use of discussing the composition of a Second Chamber unless you have first made up your minds what you want a Second Chamber to do? That seems to me, in my innocence, to be quite obvious. To maintain, as the noble Marquess has done, the opposite; and to say that the constitution of this House should be changed before its powers are changed or at the same time, makes no sense, unless it means that more powers should be given to a reformed than to an unreformed House. The implied argument is that no one nowadays sufficiently believes in the hereditary principle to maintain that the Second Chamber should have any decisive powers over the First, be able to force a dissolution, to declare motu proprio that the mandate of the First Chamber is exhausted, to discriminate between the legislation passed by the First Chamber as though it were for the Second Chamber and not for the elected representatives in the Commons to say what was the firm and settled will of the country.
No one could fairly maintain—no one on the other side, I think, seriously does maintain, and this is a great advance—that an hereditary Chamber should have such power. But some noble Lords clearly hope that a reconstituted Second Chamber should have at least some of these powers. Indeed, the phrase in the latter part of the Amendment about single-Chamber Government implies that, if it implies anything. Any attempt to reform the constitution of this House on these lines—I repeat this because I think it vital to the discussion—is confronted with the difficulty of the balance of Parties. I cannot believe that the country would long tolerate, and nobody now presses for, a condition of affairs where the Conservative Party had the constitutional right to interfere with the Government of its opponents, while its opponents had not the corresponding right to interfere with the doings of a Conservative
848
Government. I do not think that noble Lords in the Opposition, if I have not misunderstood them, now claim it. The noble Marquess was clear in saying it was a disadvantage that in this House there was a considerably larger representation of the Right than of the Left. I was brought up to call this a meiosis—you can just discern the difference. But they do not now claim that. Any reform of the composition of this House which did not remove that anomaly would be a sham and a pretence.
I am afraid that all proposals for the reform of this House put forward in past times by noble Lords opposite have been intended to make the powers of this House more respectable though not less formidable and not less conservative. If you are going to make a change you must do it fairly. I submit to your Lordships that it would be impossible to secure this equality between Parties without destroying the qualities which give your Lordships' House its great and, I think, unique value as a Second Chamber. I submit that what has happened since the passing of the Parliament Act is that this House, losing partly by the Act itself and partly by disuse, its old power as a balance or check, or as a vetoer or suspender of legislation, has acquired, almost escaping its own notice, other powers which give it its greatest value. If we, in considering the Constitution of this House—perhaps more particularly if successive Governments in considering additions to this House—have carefully to consider the balance of votes, then in concern for quantity we shall lose consideration of quality; and the strength of this House is not in the votes that are counted but in the weight and ability of its speeches. May I take an instance? I am sure that everybody rejoiced in the act of the Government in recommending for elevation to this House two noble Lords, Lord Beveridge and Lord Larton, who are clearly the kind of men who ought to be in this House and who may be guaranteed to vote with some regularity against a Labour Government, and certainly to criticize it very severely.
It has been said as a reproach to the Government that they have introduced this Bill after expressing their appreciation of the work of this House in the last two years. That seems to me an extra-ordinarily foolish reproach. I wish this

849
House humbly to ask itself in what consists its place and greatness, for which I have a great admiration, and for which I quite genuinely have a great concern. This reproach ignores the fact that the qualities which have earned this House in these years well deserved appreciation from all quarters will be enhanced and not diminished by this Bill. The kind of Second Chamber it has become is not improved by the possession of sanctions too serious for ordinary use. On the contrary—and this is a point about which, as a member of my Party, I am concerned—the possession of these sanctions only lets its good be evil-spoken of. The disadvantage of wanting to consider the constitution of the House first, it seems to me, is that it has prevented noble Lords opposite facing up to the question: What kind of Second Chamber do they want? Do they want the kind of Chamber which this House has become, or do they want the kind of Second Chamber, whether with diminished powers or not, which this House used to be? I think the two are quite different.
May I, as a newcomer to your Lordships' House, try to describe the qualities of this House which I have watched for two years with ever growing admiration? The variety of ability in this House, especially perhaps the amount of legal ability, makes it a revising Chamber of enormous value. That varied ability, again, has almost everything to do with the great national value of the debates on all kinds of subjects which, according to our rules, noble Lords may raise. I do not always agree with them, but just think of the value of the Motions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart. Whether one agrees with them or not, it is very important that these questions can be raised—and by people not speaking officially, but with expert knowledge. The country, not we, owes a great deal to the exercise of these two functions—the strictly revising functions, without criticism, and the airing of general questions.
There are two other things, done mainly by the Opposition in this House, which are, it seems to me, of immense value and importance. Time and again in these last two years I have listened to noble Lords opposite saying in effect: "We do not approve of the general principle which is
850
behind this Bill, but if you must do it, at least do it well and efficiently and consistently. Some of the details of this Bill are due to ignorance or obstinacy or (their favourite accusation) doctrinaire theory." Sometimes I have thought them right, though more often wrong; but of the value of that sort of criticism I have no doubt at all. Finally, there is the straightforward Party activity of the Opposition—their attacks on the conduct of the Government, whether in criticism of Bills or in criticism of what the Government have done or left undone. The aim of this criticism is, and really is, to criticize, to hold the Government up to scorn and ridicule before the people of the country. They are perfectly right to do that, and it is very important that they should do that; and it is in that respect that this House must exercise its powers. Does the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, think his scarifyings have no effect on the outside world? They have quite a lot, I am afraid. This criticism has to be done by an Opposition, and this House needs time. That is one of the fortunate points—I give it to you—in there being a Conservative majority in this House when there is a Labour majority in the other place, because however much the Labour majority may hurry the other place they cannot hurry this House, and this House can and does insist, to the great value of the public, that these things shall be done with leisure and time.
A recent and respected author of a very able book on the British Constitution (I think it is the last one I know) says—I think rightly—that our practice at a General Election now is to put a Party in power for a period of years, and to restrain and control it by public and protracted criticism in Parliament. If noble Lords opposite wish to criticize the Government—as I am sure they do—they should criticize them far more for their behaviour about paper and for their behaviour about the Press. It is by their bad behaviour about paper and their bad behaviour about the Press that they prevent public discussion; and public discussion is what matters. In this important function of criticizing the Government in power, this House plays an all-important part. It would be a catastrophe if that part were diminished in any way. If you believe that, as I do, you will see that what matters is not the obtaining of an exact balance of voting in this House.

851
but of a rough balance of debating power. It is enough if the several Parties (even after the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has tied a knot in his handkerchief as he promised yesterday) have a fairly equal balance of debating power.
Effective debate means a small assembly—800 people cannot debate; and I do not think 300 can—and therefore the total membership of this House is far too large. I do not think anybody denies that. I believe you will agree that the numbers of those who ordinarily attend are about right. You will agree, I think, with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood—with whom otherwise I do not agree at all—in his defence of some representation of the hereditary principle. I wonder if hereditary Peers will forgive me when I say that it is not a bad thing in this House, which depends upon debate, that there should be some ordinary "blokes," as well as superior experts. In short, you will agree that something, but not very much, needs to be done to the constitution of this House. Clearly, however, which of the two conceptions of the powers of the House you adopt will make all the difference in the world to the way in which you tackle the constitution of this House. Those conceptions are profoundly different, and it is no use disguising the fact. The difference between them is not small; it is far-reaching and profound. I submit that want of clearness on this difference between us has partly brought about the confusion which has been obvious throughout this debate.
4.15 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, it might almost seem that we had reverted to orthodoxy, and were engaged in debating the Bill which is actually before the House! The powerful advocacy of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and its equally powerful refutation by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, would lend colour to that idea. I must, of course, discount the Cross-Bench speech which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker. But, although an effort has been made to return to orthodoxy, we are all of us perfectly well aware that what is exercising the mind of the country is a hope that, out of the controversy which has been introduced by the Government's Parliament Bill, advantage will be taken of the opportunity
852
to debate, and eventually to settle, the much wider subject of both powers and constitution of the Second Chamber.
That, I feel confident, is what is really interesting the country now, and it might be well to draw attention to the suggestion which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, made at the opening of to-day's debate for the consideration of the Government. That suggestion was offered with a view to making an all-Party conference possible. It is perfectly clear that no conference which is to be tied in advance by certain limitations which are unacceptable to this side of the House is ever likely to take place at all. Limitations of that kind will have to be removed before that conference can assemble. Therefore, although we have so far been debating the demerits and the merits of the Parliament Bill itself, there has, I think, been at the back of everybody's mind the certain knowledge that what we are trying to lead to is such a degree of compromise as will make it possible for the two twin subjects to be considered together in a conference of all Parties.
The First Lord of the Admiralty touched in some measure upon subjects which would inevitably arise if such a conference were assembled. He made plain a fact which has been familiar to us all for many years—namely, the preponderating Conservative element in this House. Has; it not occurred to him, as surely it has to others, that a Second Chamber which was not permanently conservative would be of singularly small use to the country? Of course, I do not use that word in its narrow application, as the name of a political Party; I use it in its wider sense, as representing an attitude of mind. We know quite well that the great strength of all minorities lies in the fact that they do not carry the burden of responsibility. It is possible for minorities, whether of the Right or of the Left, to give vent to their own feelings, to the great encouragement of their supporters, knowing all the time that, whatever they say, they really can do very little harm. What would the situation be if noble Lords on that side of the House were in the majority? What would it be if we, as Conservative Peers, did not even exist? They then would carry the burden of responsibility that now is carried here, and, in common with all other Englishmen, patriotic and desiring to do the best

853
they can for their country, their conservatism would be quite remarkable. They would know it to be their public duty to act in that particular way; and if the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, supposes that by reconstituting this House he is going to create anything in the nature of a permanent Socialist majority, I beg to differ from him.
I have seen, and so have many of us, gentlemen elevated to the Peerage whose opinions after their elevation. have changed most remarkably. I would guarantee that it is impossible for a Prime Minister of any colour to recommend to His Majesty the creation of Peers who, in ten years' time, will remember why they were created. Do not run away with the idea that the majority which has arisen from circumstances that are beyond control is likely to be in any way changed in character by anything that can be done in reconstituting the House. People might start in a most hopeful way from that point of view, but it would not last. In a hundred years' time, any of us who look down upon the Second Chamber, constituted as it may then be by the descendants of a hundred dock labourers, will see that they are conservative to the core—every one of them. Therefore, I am not so terribly anxious about how the House will be constituted in the future. What I am most deeply anxious about is that this House—call it not the House of Lords if you will, but the Second Chamber—shall be endowed with such powers as shall enable it, as a Second Chamber, to compel that degree of consideration and that measure of delay which are absolutely necessary if our British Constitution is to be preserved intact.
Who can guarantee what will happen at the next, or the next after the next, Election? I do not wish to be offensive, but it is conceivable that a disgusted electorate may turn and rend the present Government. It is conceivable that a House of Commons of a wholly reactionary kind may be elected. Would not the people in the country expect a Second Chamber to stand between themselves and reaction, just as they now expect a Second Chamber to stand between themselves and tyranny? On the other hand, an election might produce a result of another kind. An electorate, so goaded by conditions then prevailing,
854
rather than be reactionary to the Right might swing most grievously to the Left. Is it not necessary for the maintenance of stability that there should be a Second Chamber with adequate powers, to give the general body of the electorate time to think? It surely is so.
If we turn our minds back to 1906, when the Liberal Government were returned to power, we will readily admit that that Government suffered grievously at the hands of the House of Lords. But the minds of men have changed since then. This Government have suffered nothing at the hands of the House of Lords. There is no casus belli whatsoever to-day. We have an opportunity which has not presented itself for long, and which may not present itself again. There being no casus belli now, we have an opportunity to get together and consider what really can best be done in the matter of both powers and constitution. This is a rare opportunity not to be lost—it should not be lost. I am not going to say for a moment that the conference will not be abortive, but one can but try. If it should prove unhappily to be abortive, we are again as we were. If this Bill is rejected now we shall see it again all too soon. It will come round, I am sure, in the early days of the next Session, and we can debate it then in a much brighter light than we can debate it now. We shall know what has happened in the meantime; we shall know how far a conference has succeeded, and we shall know whether we are to be driven to the measure of rejecting the Bill again or whether we can deal with it in a broad-minded spirit, so that it can come upon the Statute Book in an agreed form.
The proposal which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has made to-day opens the door, and I beg that the Government will not bang it. The suggestion makes it possible for those who sit upon this side of the House to enter into a conference unhampered by limitations which we cannot accept. It enables us to hope that out of these conversations and conferences agreement will result. But if His Majesty's Government feel that they cannot accept the newest of the proposals which, after great thought, the noble Marquess has produced to-day, and in consequence we are compelled to carry on with this debate until its conclusion, there is nothing which can be done on this side of the House other than to vote for the rejection of the

855
Bill. There is no alternative. To go into Committee, I venture to say, would be folly. How can we go into Committee? What purpose would be served by going into Committee? Either the Government open the door to conference in which the whole wide subject can be debated in a friendly atmosphere, or we shall be compelled to reject the Bill. We should not go into Committee and argue on the merits or demerits of this particuar Bill until we know what is the general view on the subject of the constitution of the House. The two things are so closely related that I think they are truly inseparable.
It is not for me to labour a point like that, but, in common, I feel certain, with the great majority of the people of the country and with the majority of the members of this House, we are anxious that the opportunity should now be taken of conferring together to try and solve for all time one of the most vexed questions of the age. If we could do that, we should have written a chapter in the history of our country well worth while. I trust that the opportunity will not be thrown away. But if the Government are unable to meet the advance that has been made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, I, for one, and, I feel confident, the majority of those who think and speak with me on this side of the House, will go into the Lobby and vote for the rejection of this Bill. Because the Bill as it stands is a bad Bill. It is an unacceptable Bill and it is a Bill which I feel sure it is our duty to refuse, because it places the general electorate of this country in too grave a risk. That is my opinion, and it is an op: nion that I shall continue to hold. I thank your Lordships for allowing me to speak for so long.
4.29 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, in common, I am sure, with every member of this House I have greatly enjoyed the able and witty speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to which we have just listened. I am much tempted to devote some time to examining many of the points which he has made. I am further tempted to deal at length with the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, earlier on in our debate. Many of his arguments I felt to be thoroughly unsound, and I should have liked to controvert them in the course of my speech. But I am sensible that there
856
are many noble Lords who desire to take part in this debate, and I therefore propose to confine myself very strictly to what seems to me the fundamental issues of the whole of this matter. I will confine myself to the question of the powers of the House, because that is strictly the subject of the Bill. I do not propose to digress into the question of the constitution of the House, which is altogether outside the scope of this Bill.
With regard to the whole question of the powers of this House, there are three points. The first is: Should the power of veto of the House of Lords be absolute, or should it be suspensory only? That question was settled finally by the Parliament Act, and I have been interested in the course of this debate to observe that, at any rate so far as the great bulk of noble Lords are concerned, that decision is now accepted as final. It is admitted that the power of veto of the House of Lords should not be absolute, but that it should be limited in time and should be a suspensory veto only. The second point with regard to the power of this House is: If the veto is to be of a suspensory kind, if it is to last for a certain time, how long is that time to be? The Parliament Act said, quite definitely, less than two years. The present Bill proposes one year. I do not propose to debate the question of what is the most desirable length of time. So far as I understand it, noble Lords opposite want not so much a precise length of time as a time which is to depend on the period that elapses between the rejection of the Bill by the House of Lords and its final passage; that is what they seem most desirous of obtaining. I can quite see that the time should be adequate, and that there are dangers in making it too short; but I suggest that there is also great danger in having it too long.
That danger arises from the fact that during the whole period which elapses between the first introduction of the Bill and its final passage into law, the persons concerned under the Bill are held in suspense. Some proposal is made, let us say, for nationalization. It is in some ways rather unsatisfactory that a nationalization Bill cannot be followed by immediate action. But, of course, there have to be the proper debates in the House of Commons and in this Chamber,

857
and there may be a period of eight or nine months between the introduction of the Bill and its coming into law. It is not until then that the people who will be concerned know their fate. To the extent that that period is exceeded, owing to difference between the two Houses, the time of uncertainty prevailing among the persons who are going to be affected is increased. And whilst I am quite agreeable to there being, as now proposed in the Parliament Bill, some increase in the period, I do see grave inconvenience to persons concerned if it is unduly extended. I venture to think that the period of two years in the original Parliament Act was too long, and ought to be reduced.
The third point which has to be considered is the precise method and procedure by which the suspensory powers of the House of Lords are to be carried through. The Parliament Act decided that a particular Bill—meticulously the same, except for certain necessary or agreed Amendments—should be carried no fewer than three times in the House of Commons and I think three times rejected by the House of Lords; it was not until the Bill had gone right through that procedure that it became law. I suggest that whatever the divergencies on other points, this conception of the necessity of solemnly passing the Bill three times in the House of Commons is absolutely ridiculous. It was ridiculous from the first and demonstrably ridiculous to-day. I say that in spite of the fact that there is classical support for a proposal becoming true when it is said three times. I think it was the Bellman in one of Lewis Carroll's works, The Hunting of the Snark, who said "If I say a thing three times it is true." I do not know whether that was the origin of the idea of the promoters of the Parliament Act, but nothing could be more foolish than to imagine that some special merit is to be found in the House of Commons going through the farce of trooping into the Lobbies three times to support a Bill in all its stages.
I can see the point of noble Lords opposite about the desirability of requiring a Bill to come forward again after an interval that might be considered reasonable. But to retain the principle that it must be debated, voted upon, and passed three whole times in the House
858
of Commons, seems to me to have no merit whatsoever. I have not heard a word from the Benches opposite in defence of this three-fold process. Therefore, I hope that if there is one thing we have cleared out of the way in our debate here it is this idea that there is some merit in carrying a Bill through three times. It seems to me that we have achieved a certain amount of agreement. The absolute veto has gone. We appear to be all agreed that the veto must be a suspensory one. The three-fold passage through the House of Commons is not defended; therefore what we are debating now is solely the precise length of time. Noble Lords opposite, I understand, are not wedded exactly to two years, but they think that one year is a little too short. I have ventured to point out from this side of the House the dangers of making the suspensory power too long, having in mind the inconvenience that is caused thereby to the persons who will be affected by the Bill. In view of the degree of difference left between the two sides in this House, the idea that a revolutionary change in the Constitution is proposed in this Bill is a little ridiculous. Some of the words which have been used in chastising this Bill, that it is a monstrous innovation of a wicked and malign Socialist Government, are surely going a long way beyond the facts. I believe that in the course of these debates we have already attained a much wider measure of agreement than anyone thought possible; and I believe that we can make a Bill which is a lasting contribution to the constitutional practice for this country.
4.39 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, as one of the elected Scots representatives and a Cross Bencher privileged to join in this debate, I shall detain your Lordships but a very few minutes, since the points which I wish to stress have been far better made by three previous speakers, notably the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and the noble Earl, Lord Halifax. I am in complete agreement with all that has been said on this issue by those noble Lords. I join now with my noble friend Lord Calverley in hoping that a non-Party conference will arise from the events to be discussed in your Lordships' House to-morrow, and that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
4.40 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, I venture to intervene in this debate because I am profoundly convinced of the value of a Second Chamber. I regard this Bill, wh: ch the Government have put forward, as a reasonable and wise insurance for a Second Chamber. I regard the premium which is asked for that insurance as reasonable and desirable in the interests of the country. We are told that the nation has expressed no desire for this Bill. I think it is true to say that there would have been far more enthusiasm for this Bill in the country if it had proposed not only the abolition of the House of Lords but also the abolition of any Second Chamber whatsoever. Your Lordships have to face up to the fact that there is that feeling in the country againsl a Second Chamber. I do not for a moment suppose that this Bill will divide the country. The feeling in favour of the abolition of a Second Chamber has been entirely dormant because your Lordships' House has been content to act in a revising capacity, as an adviser and nothing more. So long as this House was prepared to act in that way, there was no objection to it in the country. I think, however, that the throwing out of this Bill and the passing of the proposed Amendment would awaken in the country very profound antagonism, both to this House and to any Second Chamber at all. I hope, therefore, that this Bill will not be thrown out and that the Amendment will not be carried.
In my view the important thing about this Bill, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, and one or two others, is that it defines the function of this House. I disagree entirely with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in his suggestion that it is usual to define the composition before the function. I think that it is much more usual, and much wiser, to define function before coming to the question of composition. The function as defined is the function which this House has been content to perform during the present Parliament. I think that during these few years the country has felt that the House of Lords has performed a function of very real value. The tremendous number of Amendments made in this House which have been accepted by another place are proof of the value of the work that has
860
been done here. That work has been done in what I have called an advisory capacity. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, said on this matter, and I am absolutely confident in my own mind that the great power—all the power that is necessary—of this House can be exercised in an advisory capacity.
I would suggest to your Lordships on the opposite Benches that it is really a pity to stir up all the potential possible opposition to this House and to a Second Chamber until the country has had a longer period in which to see this House working in this advisory capacity. There can be no purpose in the proposals for changing the composition of this House except to increase its ability or its representative character in an attempt to enhance its prestige and authority. While I am not for a moment disapproving of the proposal to go into conference on this subject, I would point out that the opening of the question of the composition of this House will stir up an immense controversy in the country. I believe that the proposal to improve the composition of this House makes this Bill all the more essential. It is all the more necessary that: we should have the defining of the function of this House as an advisory function.
I was interested in what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, had to say, but there was one thing that was running through my mind all the time he was speaking. It was the central fact that has been driven into our minds during the last few years—that a Government must have the power to govern. We have repeatedly seen on the Continent the dangers which can arise if a Government in office have not the power to govern. I think, therefore, that while it may be said that the powers of this House cannot interfere with government, they may interfere by delaying measures which may be vitally important and in which speed may be vitally important. Then; has been an assumption underlying all the speeches from the opposite Benches that, if any mistakes are made in government, they are made by the popularly elected House, the House of Commons, and that this House is to be in a position to rectify those mistakes. It seems to me that the power of delay may at times be just as dangerous as the power of going forward. Therefore, it is dangerous—especially in view of the

861
suggestion which I made, that a Government must be in a position to govern—to set up a Second House which has a vital power of delay, such a power of delay, in fact, as to force a General Election before the final decision is made.
When the discussion was going on yesterday about the actual meaning of the first sentence of the Government proposals, it seemed to me that the really central point was: Is this period of delay to involve the possibility of forcing a General Election? I myself believe very strongly that we have got to give up that power. We must realize that all we need in this House is the opportunity to express freely our view on the Government's policies and the Government's Bills that come up to us. There must be ample time for full discussion and consideration, both in this House and in the country; but, having secured that, I believe that we have all the power which it is desirable we should have; and I do not think that that can be justly described as giving either the Government or the House of Commons a blank cheque. The mere fact that during these last two or three years we have been able to insert so many Amendments in Government Bills shows that it would not mean the granting of a blank cheque to the Government.
4.51 p.m.
LORD DE L'ISLE and DUDLEY: My Lords, I am one of those ordinary members of your Lordships' House who cannot claim either great distinction or great experience, so I therefore take my courage in. both hands and, with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, before me, that we have our place in this Assembly, I venture to address a few remarks to your Lordships. This will be for all of us a memorable debate, whatever its outcome. It has taken many unexpected turns, and possibly one of the most unexpected is to hear noble Lords from the Government Benches adjuring us to be more conservative in dealing with the composition of this House. To me, as a tyro in these constitutional matters, and one who has listened with very deep respect to the weighty remarks which have fallen from noble Lords of all Parties, it seems that we are debating whether in fact our country should have a single Chamber or bicameral form of Legislature. I realize that there are arguments—indeed who would not, having sat here for nearly
862
two days?—for both forms of Government, but I think that we should be quite clear what we are debating. In my view, to say you are in favour of a Second Chamber and, at the same time, declare that you support a removal of all its powers, is anomalous—you are trying to have it both ways. I would say that it would be fatal for the people of this country to believe that there was a Second Chamber if that Chamber were endowed with no powers.
My noble friend Lord Hastings, in what I thought was a notable speech, said that this was an opportunity which, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, offered some form of consultation upon this very difficult problem. None of us underestimates the difficulty of the situation, neither the difficulties of powers nor the difficulties of composition—except, possibly, Lord Stansgate on the latter point—but in my estimation the matter must be faced. The noble Lord, Lord Darwen, spoke of the reputation which this House has earned in its dealings with the measures which came before it in the last Session; and I think Lord Lindsay, in another notable speech, came to the same conclusion. Noble Lords on the Government Benches undoubtedly listened with deep attention to the remarks which fell from my noble friends on these Benches in regard to these very complicated matters and details which came before us, but I venture to submit to your Lordships that they listened with even deeper attention because we had the power of rejection. Suppose that the remarks which we made had in fact been purely advisory: how many of your Lordships really believe that those measures would have gone on to the Statute Book in the shape that they have now assumed?
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, were singularly persuasive; I almost found myself persuaded by them. He told us how great and good and wise we were—even the hereditary Peers. But we were warned that our wisdom and our greatness could be only advisory, and I think he supported the contention of the noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Admiralty, in regard to representation in Parliament. In our history—and I will give it to your Lordships, although I achieved only a Third at Cambridge—it seems to me that in the various components of our Constitution, whether it be the Crown or the Houses of Parlia-

863
merit, rather extreme claims have been advanced from time to time; sometimes they have been sustained even to the point of the sword. In time, apparently, experience has moderated those claims. Surely it is the genius of our Constitution that there should be a variety of powers within it. Surely we all recognize, when we search ourselves, that although we may be convinced of our own rectitude, of the justice of our case, yet we ought always to be aware that we may be wrong. And with that awareness, surely, there arises the settled conviction of the British Constitution that there should be checks and balances, not written but customary.'
In these difficult questions of the relationship between the two Chambers of Parliament, there can be no sealed pattern of the exact powers which should be given to a Second Chamber; they can only approximate to the needs of the situation. But surely of the need of those powers there ought not to be any doubt, if we consider the history of Europe in the past twenty years. Surely the lesson of recent events is that the minority can find devious methods (lately very largely improved in Eastern Europe), to achieve power, and then see whether they can get a majority in the country.
Let us take an example. You may say that it is an extreme example, but let us suppose that your Lordships have before you a measure to alter the franchise for the Parliamentary elections. Suppose that the Government of the day, without any mandate, without any reference, or perhaps only a very oblique reference, to its purpose in its election programme, suddenly decided that only those members of the trade union movement who pay the political levy were really fit for adult citizen status. I admit that this is very unlikely, but suppose that they said that none of the other citizens mattered at all—that is a complete supposition—and that they put it into legislative form. Suppose further that your Lordships had no powers and could only advise the people; and that that Bill went on the Statute Book and there was another Election. Nominally, of course, the new Parliament would still represent the sovereign will of the people, and the people would be closely identified with the trade union movement. That may be an extreme: example, but surely
864
when we are framing our Constitution we must not simply regard the persons who have charge of the Government of the day; we must have regard to all contingencies. That is the reason why we have safeguards in our Constitution.
The noble Marquess the; Leader of the Opposition has attempted to put down, using a particular form of draftsmanship, what he considers to be a reasonable basis for a compromise. It seems to me that we are faced really with the question: Do His Majesty's Government wish to have a conference on this admittedly very difficult problem? If they wish to have a conference, do they wish the Parties to go into it with their hands untied? If they do, then there can be a conference. If, on the other hand, they wish to prejudge the issue, if, in effect, they wish the principle of the Bill—which I conceive to be the principle of single-Chamber Government—to be accepted, then there can be no conference. Surely this House is entitled to a clear answer on that problem. Therefore, when we assemble again, we shall await with eagerness and expectation the answer of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
5.2 p.m.
LORD HUTCHISON of MONTROSE: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships' House on this Bill, I feel as if I did not really know what it is I have to talk about. So many red herrings have been drawn across the line of the main issue of the Bill that it is very difficult indeed to concentrate on what we are doing—that is, discussing whether we are or are not to have a Second Reading of this Parliament Bill. The Bill, in my view, is a thoroughly bad one. It is a sectional attack on the Constitution, and it is designed to speed the passing through your Lordships' House of certain legislation which is coming from another place. For my own part, I do not believe that the Bill which is in view is the Iron and Steel Bill. I think that it is much more likely to be a measure designed to do away with representation in another place of the Universities. But, at any rate, this is certainly a Bill of expediency, and it is thoroughly bad because it is sectional. There is no chance that it can do anything towards improving the constitution of your Lordships' House.
As I listened to the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, it seemed

865
to me that he had very little faith that the various offers made on behalf of His Majesty's Government by the venerable Leader of the House meant anything at all. And I do not think they did. Thirty-seven years have gone by since the Parliament Act was passed. I well remember its passing. It divided my household into two sides. I was a simple soldier then, and I followed the lines laid down by Mr. Asquith. The rest of my family were on the other side. That sort of division was pretty general, for the measure created a tremendous upset throughout the country. The present Bill has nothing to do with the constitution of the House of Lords—it is purely a sectional measure. It may well be said that if one sectional measure dealing with one section of the Constitution is brought in and passed, then why not bring in a second measure to deal with another section of the Constitution? I cannot think that this Bill ought to be allowed to have a Second Reading. I say that it ought to be thrown out, and then be enacted under the Parliament Act, if it is thought necessary. Then, when the time comes, and a real reform of the House of Lords, a new Constitution, is desired, the matter should go before the people at a General Election and they should be asked whether they want it or not. I cannot think that any conference of leaders of the Parties can arrive at a proper decision as to what the people want. The matter should be put to the people at a General Election.
Now I would like to reinforce what my noble friend and colleague, Lord Teviot, has said. Though the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, seems to think that there are only three Parties in politics in this House and also in another place, I would have him know that we are very prominent members of the Liberal Party. I only regret that we are not all together. I am very glad to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has just come in. He has put a knot in his handkerchief, we have been told, and I hope that it is still there. But may I say that he cannot possibly have needed to put a knot in his handkerchief, because all along he has been trying to get agreement between our section and his section of the Liberal Party. He has been trying to get us all together. Questions have been asked: Whom do we hate? Whom do we want to fight? and so on. I really think it is going too far to say that the
866
answers are not known. I would remind your Lordships that our section has a bigger representation in the House of Commons than has the section to which the noble Viscount belongs, and I suggest that we are much more entitled to be brought into any conference which may be held regarding the reform of the House of Lords. What the noble Viscount said about putting a knot in his handkerchief was really a little too bad. It certainly was not up to the noble Viscount's usual standard.
It is a pity, in my view, that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, was not allowed to deal with this matter himself. But, as we know, he had to go to the Cabinet, and with the wild men of the Cabinet he simply did not have a chance. He was told to return to the House of Lords and to tell them what was coming to them. He had not the ghost of a chance of getting a conference. But I am of the opinion that it is idle to think that there is a good chance of getting anything done by means of a conference. I remember Mr. Lloyd George saying in the old days with regard to conferences: "If you want anything done, have a conference of one. If you have a conference of more than one you never get anything done—it is merely a way of putting off things, and postponing the evil day." This Bill, to my mind, ought never to have been brought forward. It will bring the Labour Party into contempt in the country because they are promoting it for a single end, and that is to pass legislation which otherwise would probably not pass during the lifetime of this Parliament.
I must say that I did to some extent agree with some of the arguments of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I thought that he was speaking sense when he said we ought to give the Bill a Second Reading and then amend it in Committee. If you amend it in Committee so that the period of delay shall count from the Third Reading in another place, or from the time when a Bill comes to this House, there is adequate time to deal with it, whereas if a Bill remains under consideration for a lengthy period in another place, only a few months may remain for it to be dealt with here. You cannot ensure that the country will be informed of all the aspects of any controversy in three or four months. Therefore, I think that

867
there is something to be said for giving the Bill a Second Reading and amending it in Committee. I do not know what the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition thinks. I will be guided very largely by what he says, but all the same I consider that we are entitled to say what we think. This Bill will go through in any case, whether we have a Second Reading or not, and therefore the noble Marquess ought to consider very carefully what he is going to do.
There is another point of view, and it is a matter of pare politics. If your Lordships reject this Bill without a Second Reading it will result in distorted propaganda throughout the country at every by-election and in every constituency. People will say, "This is how the; House of Lords treats a Bill we want." If we give it a Second Reading, and amend it in Committee, there will not be that distorted propaganda. It is a serious matter, because people do not understand what it is all about. They only know that there is some sort of row going on between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. If we give it a Second Reading, and alter it by means of Amendments, people will become more informed of what the Bill really means and what is going on. I am inclined to think that a Second Reading ought to be given.
This Bill will undoubtedly remove all freedom of action by Parliament, or at least by this House. It will mean one-Chamber legislation and Bills pushed through this House, whether we like it or not, in one year—or whatever less period it may be. The result will be that the freedom of the people will be again trodden under foot. After all, what did this country fight Hitler for? It was for freedom. Yet here is proposed this one-Chamber Government. A one-Chamber Government means a dictatorship by that Chamber, and the people will be in a worse position than the Germans were under Hitler. That is as I see it. What is wrong with the House of Lords? It works. I have never found anybody who says it does not work. The country has faith in it. Maybe it throws out certain measures, but it does not throw them out unless they ought to be thrown out and ought to go to the country to be considered. If you start reforming the House of Lords, you get a Senate—that is, an elected body—
868
and if you have a Senate instead of this Chamber, it will mean a demand for more powers, possibly powers over finance, and the country will be worse off than under the present House.
Great play has been made about the backwoodsmen coming up. Backwoodsmen coming up! They are the protection of the people of this country. I remember long ago, when I was in another place, Lord Younger—George Younger—saying to me "Oh, yes, we can get the backwoodsmen up to the House, but how they will vote, God knows!" They will come up if there is real controversy in the country; they will see that the people are properly consulted. To say that the backwoodsmen will spoil legislation from another place for no reason at all is something which I do not believe. I consider that long years after this we shall still have the House of Lords as we have it to-day—and it is not a bad House. The one good thing about this House is that the people of the country believe in it. I have talked to many of my old friends, and to political opponents in various constituencies, and they have a wonderful belief that the Lords will behave as they ought in dealing with legislation. They admit the splendid work in the way of revising legislation which is hurriedly pushed through, by guillotine and other methods, from another place.
Speaking for myself, I personally do not see very much wrong with the House of Lords. Although one cannot defend it, it works. Give me something that works. If a Senate is created, believe me, the first thing it will do will be to seek more power; and the House of Commons would be in a worse position in regard to this House than they were before. To my mind, this Bill is pernicious; it is bad. Whether it ought to be thrown out at once or amended I do not know: my inclination is towards a Second Reading. In any case I do think that the Government are very much to blame for having brought in such a measure for purposes which are so blatant to the public and to everyone here.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

ELY RURAL (HADDENHAM) HOUSING CONFIRMATION ORDER, 1947.
Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Com-
870
mons under Section 3 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, that no Petitions have been presented against the Orders: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at quarter past five o'clock.