Sitting of 19 February 1948

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, at Seven o'Clock.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOUSING

    Grimsby
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the concrete type house being built in Grimsby is not as popular or satisfactory as the traditional brick type; and, in view of the fact that brick houses can be built as cheaply, if he will ensure that future houses are built of brick.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): No, Sir. As regards the general part of the Question, however, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 5th February.
    Mr. Osborne: Would the right hon. Gentleman consult the housewives now living in these concrete houses to obtain their opinion before he has any more built?
    Mr. Bevan: All the housewives I have consulted have been delighted with the houses.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Minister ensure that future houses are not built on foundations of sand, as were the Tories' coalition plans?
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that Grimsby is more than adequately represented in the person of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department; and is this not a piece of "grate crashing" on the part of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne).
    Mr. Osborne: Is not the hon. Member aware that I represent 11,000 voters in Grimsby, and that this estate is within my constituency; and will he please withdraw his remarks?

    Birmingham
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Minister of Health the number of eviction notices served upon tenants of requisitioned houses in Birmingham; the number of cases in which eviction has taken place, and the steps taken to provide housing accommodation for tenants turned out of their dwellings.
    Mr. Bevan: Up to 3rst December, 1947, legal proceedings have been taken in 33 cases against persons who have been housed by the council in requisitioned property, and evictions have taken place in 14 cases; as these proceedings were taken only on the ground of failure to pay charges properly due, no offer of rehousing was made.
    Sir P. Hannon: Is it not a pitiful situation that these evictions should take place in Birmingham in these circumstances? Will the Minister take steps to remedy this miserable state of affairs?
    Mr. Bevan: I would remind the hon. Member that evictions do not take place only at the instance of local authorities.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that evictions in the City of Birmingham are becoming a serious problem, and that the estates department is totally inadequate and unable to cope with the problem? Is he further aware that weekly we get photographs in the Press of families who have to walk the streets until someone will give them a floor to sleep on?
    Mr. Bevan: I am aware that the housing problem in Birmingham is still acute, as it is in other parts of the country, but the Question relates to evictions from requisitioned property. The hon. Member is probably referring to evictions by private landlords.
    Sir P. Hannonasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to returns of population shown in the Annual Abstract of Statistics of the United Kingdom for the period of 1935 to 1946, from which it appears that Birmingham has now become the largest provincial city in Great Britain; and if, in view of this increase in population, special consideration will be given to the gravity of the housing problem in Birmingham.
    Mr. Bevan: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 5th February.
    Sir P. Hannon: Will the Minister take this pitiful situation in Birmingham into serious consideration? Will he let my hon. Friend in the Labour Party and myself meet private builders to see whether we cannot do something to solve this problem?
    Mr. Bevan: It is a very great pity that the hon. Member did not address himself to the pitiful housing conditions in Birmingham during the last 25 years.
    Sir P. Hannon: I hope that I am within the recollection of the House in saying that I have raised this question on repeated occasions with very unsatisfactory replies being given each time.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Is it not the case that Glasgow is a "large provincial city"? Having had such scurvy treatment in the matter of housing from the Tories is not Glasgow now entitled to priority?
    Mr. Bevan: I would be the last person, being a Welshman, to refer to Glasgow as a "provincial" city. I understand that Glasgow has all the housing under construction—and this applies to Birmingham too—that labour and materials will enable to be completed.
    Mr. Shurmer: While I admit that Birmingham has taken the lead in housing, may I ask the Minister if he does not realise that there are 63,304 applicants on the Estates Register, and that the number is being increased by 300 or 400 a week, while there are 5,000 houses which are so dilapidated that they are falling down?
    Mr. Bevan: I cannot accept that. No hon. Member should accept the number of persons on the waiting lists as necessarily being an accurate measure of the housing needs.

    Agricultural Workers
    Mr. David Rentonasked the Minister of Health how many houses for occupation by agricultural workers have been authorised by his Department for building during 1948 by local authorities in Huntingdonshire.
    Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to Appendix B to the Housing Return. Tenancies are not allocated till the houses are nearing completion, but a substantial proportion of the houses under construction will be allocated to members of the agricultural population.
    Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware that the demand for housing of agricultural workers in Huntingdonshire still far exceeds the supply, even when the houses now authorised have been completed? Is he further aware that some of the local authorities are confident that with their existing resources of labour and materials they could complete more houses than have been authorised? Will he give instructions for authorisation to be given for the building of more houses?
    Mr. Bevan: Where the supply of labour and materials in rural areas will permit further houses to be built in addition to those which are under construction, authorisation is being and will be given.
    Earl Wintertonasked the Minister of Health why he has rejected the scheme submitted to him by the Horsham Rural District Council, and strongly supported by the West Sussex War Agricultural Executive Committee, for the erection of 156 houses for agricultural workers; and if he is aware that a resolution was passed without dissent at a recent meeting of the district council in question, strongly protesting against his action.
    Mr. Bevan: I am aware of the views of the Horsham Rural District Council. They have now been authorised to go to tender for a further 12 houses, and the position will be reconsidered in the light of further progress made with the 223 houses which have already been approved and not yet completed.
    Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the intensification of both horticultural and agricultural operations in this neighbourhood in the last seven years there is a great need for these houses to accommodate the agricultural workers? Is he further aware that the local council claims that it has on its books the names of private builders prepared to build the houses?
    Mr. Bevan: There may be on the books names of private builders prepared to build houses, but the labour and materials may not be available. If I can be satisfied that labour and materials are available, approval will certainly be given.
    Earl Winterton: Will the Minister be prepared to receive a deputation if necessary?
    Mr. Bevan: There are 1,450 local authorities in Britain, and if I received a deputation from each of them, I should be in some difficulty. I am, however, prepared to receive any representations which the noble Lord may like to make.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

    Papworth Industries Limited
    Mr. Stubbsasked the Minister of Health what will be the position of Papworth Industries Limited, after 5th July, 1948
    Mr. Bevan: The Industries will continue under voluntary management, but the sanatorium will become part of the Hospital Service.
    Mr. Stubbs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the employees of Papworth Colony, most of whom are out patients, are much alarmed at the rumour that the Industries would not be taken over: and will he consult the management and the trade unions concerned before any change takes place?
    Mr. Bevan: As I have said, the Pap-worth Industries will not be taken over because they are not part of the Health Service.

    Optical Practitioners
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Health when he will be in a position to
    1308
    tell this House and the Association of Optical Practitioners the conditions of service provided for the optical profession in the new Health Service due to operate from 5th July this year.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresbyasked the Minister of Health when he proposes to announce the terms under which the optical practitioners will be asked to enter the new National Health Service.
    Mr. Bevan: An announcement will be made as soon as discussions with the representative bodies are concluded, but I cannot say yet when that will be.
    Commander Galbraith: Does that mean that hitherto negotiations have not been completed; and, if so, could the right hon. Gentleman say how he could possibly support the recent Resolution on the Health Service?
    Mr. Bevan: Negotiations are continuing. If the hon. and gallant Member looks at the recent Resolution he will see that there is no conflict.

    Doctors (Negotiations)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Health if he will now invite representatives of the British Medical Association to meet him so that a further attempt may be made to ensure that the National Health Act will have the co-operation and good will of the doctors when it begins to operate on 5th July.
    Mr. Bevan: I remain ready to co-operate closely with any professional spokesmen who want, with me, to make the new Service a success.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister go a little further and invite representatives of the doctors to meet him, because, in the interests of the Health Service, all the country wants is a victory for common sense?
    Mr. Bevan: We all want a victory for common sense, but I should not be entitled to go behind the back of the House and suggest that Parliament can surrender any position it has taken up.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to make a start towards proper negotiations again by withdrawing a statement which he made about the "raucous voiced" leaders of

    1309
    the British Medical Association, who have now been shown clearly as only interpreting the wishes of their constituents?
    Mr. Bevan: It remains to be seen how long they will interpret the wishes of their constituents. The answer to the hon. Member is that, as the Debate last week showed, every concession has been made by the Government. It is now time that concessions were made on the other side.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister see that the loyal and gallant minority, of doctors who are willing to co-operate with the Government, is protected against any possible form of intimidation and victimisation?
    Mr. Bevan: Certainly.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the Minister aware that I am not asking him to go behind the back of Parliament, but to follow up some of the concessions which were suggested, or some of the doors he opened, in his speech in the House, to see if it is possible to resume negotiations?
    Mr. Bevan: I am always ready to listen to any fresh representations that may be made to me. I have always been ready to meet the representatives of the medical profession, and am still ready if they have any fresh suggestions to make.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Streptomycin, Leicester
    Mr. Bowdenasked the Minister of Health if he will consider the immediate allocation of a supply of streptomycin to the Leicester hospitals; and if he is aware that the nearest supply to this populous district is a considerable distance away.
    Mr. Bevan: I regret that owing to the limited supply of streptomycin available at present, it is not possible to add to the number of hospitals at which treatment with this drug can be given. As supplies improve, the needs of Leicester will be borne in mind.

    Tuberculosis (Institutional Treatment)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Health how many ex-Servicemen and women are being treated in municipal sanatoria for tuberculosis; and how many are waiting to be admitted.
    Mr. Bevan: At 31st December, 1947, the latest date for which particulars are available, there were 2,879 ex-Servicemen and 185 women under institutional treatment for tuberculosis in England and Wales. The numbers on the waiting lists were 329 men and 16 women.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the varying treatment which these ex-Servicemen and women are receiving, will the right hon. Gentleman consult with his colleagues in the Service Departments to ensure that they get better treatment?
    Mr. Bevan: I believe that those who are in institutions are getting good treatment. The waiting lists are still very large, but the number of ex-Servicemen and women is not so large, and I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that we ought not to give them preference over other members of the civilian population.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the seriousness of these figures will my right hon. Friend consult the Secretary of State for Scotland to obtain a co-ordinated scheme whereby nursing services will get priority over the demands of women for the Armed Forces?
    Mr. Bevan: After the new scheme comes into operation on 5th July there will be such co-ordination.
    Mr. Shepherd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the waiting time for tuberculosis patients?
    Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will put down a Question I will try to give him a reply.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some sanatoria have as many as 40 empty beds, because of the shortage of nurses?
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir; the shortage has been acute for some years.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (VOTING DISPENSATION)
  Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that chairmen of local authorities claim that he has granted dispensation to councillors who are connected with the cooperative movement enabling them to vote upon a motion for the transfer of the

  1311
  authority s banking account to a co-operative society; what are the terms of such dispensation; and under what authority is it given.
  Mr. Bevan: My predecessors and I have granted a number of dispensations of this kind under the authority of Section 76 (8) of the Local Government Act, 1933. The terms of the dispensation are not always the same, but if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to send him a copy.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Do we understand from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman only grants dispensations in specific cases? If that is so, will he give an assurance that in no case will he grant dispensations where the disability imposed upon members does not reduce them to less than a quorum?
  Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. I cannot do that. I am under an obligation by Statute to act in a semi-judicial capacity. Therefore, I cannot give a ruling in any hypothetical case.
  Squadron-Leader Fleming: In view of the fact that these co-operative councillors are directly interested in this matter, would it not be far better, in the interests of the public. that they should abstain from voting?
  Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will read the terms of my reply, he will find that both I and all my predecessors have found it necessary to issue dispensations. If he will examine the Local Government Bill, which is now before the House, he will see that we are removing this nonsense.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Has the dispensation ever been extended to councillors who are paid employees of the co-operative movement?
  Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will put down a Question, I will endeavour to give him an answer if the information is available.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: May I ask whether In the case referred to in the original Question, a similar dispensation has also been given to members connected with the bank to which the banking account is proposed to be moved?
  Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will look at the Bill, he will see that we are amending the situation.
  Major Guy Lloyd: If the right hon. Gentleman is acting in a semi-judicial capacity in this matter, is it right that he should tell the House that he thinks it is all "nonsense"?
  Mr. Bevan: This has almost become nonsense owing to the development of the facts.
  Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of Health why he gave permission to co-operative society members of the Manchester City Council to vote on the issue of granting shops to the cooperative society on the Baguley Hall estate; and whether he received a request in writing from the interested councillors.
  Mr. Bevan: The answer to the first part of the Question is because it appeared to me to be in the interests of the inhabitants of the area; and to the second part is "Yes."
  Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that the dispensation granted caused the original recommendation to be overthrown in open council? Has the Minister considered the attitude of private traders, and does he not realise that they cannot feel they are having a square deal when the council chamber is packed with interested voters?
  Mr. Bevan: I cannot make any comment on the decision of a local authority. All I can decide is whether the dispensation was or was not justified in the circumstances, and I believe it was.
  Squadron-Leader Fleming: Does the Minister make any inquiries, before he grants these dispensations, to see whether the co-operative councillors are paid employees?
  Mr. Bevan: That is entirely irrelevant at the moment. The question is whether or not I can, under the Statute, reasonably grant a dispensation. I do grant dispensations, as did my predecessors on very many occasions.

  EDUCATION

    Maladjusted Children
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Education the number of vacancies available at the present time for maladjusted children, both boys and girls, under his

    1313
    Ministry and the local authorities; and the number of such boys and girls, separately, ascertained as maladjusted.
    The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): Special schools and boarding homes have accommodation for 527 maladjusted children, but I have no information about current vacancies. In January, 1947, there were 3,896 boys and 1,899 girls ascertained as maladjusted: the great majority of these can appropriately be treated by attendance at a child guidance clinic.
    Mr. Osborne: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the hostels which were set up by the Ministry of Health for difficult children under the evacuation scheme have been closed, and how many could be used for this purpose?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I could not say, but eight proposals for special schools are under consideration at the moment.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will my right hon. Friend take charge of the Tory candidate in Paisley, who is sadly maladjusted?
    Mr. Kirkwood: Good old Paisley.

    Exchange Students (Passports)
    Mr. Bernard Taylorasked the Minister of Education if he will afford facilities in 1948 for an exchange of students with other countries, including the Scandinavian countries, and arrange for a collective passport for each school taking advantage of an exchange.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I will gladly do anything I can to help such exchanges, and I have no doubt that the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges, which will shortly be established, will be able to assist in this matter. The question of issuing collective passports is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and I will bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to his attention.
    Mr. Taylor: Will that concession apply to youth organisations, as well as to schools?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I do not know that it is a concession; it is simply a facility which is available.

    School, Kenton (Canteen Provision)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that the two departments of the Glebe Avenue School, Kenton, serve over 500 dinners daily in halls and classrooms; on what grounds the local authority has now been informed that a feeding unit is not regarded as necessary although three years ago it had a higher priority than other local schools where such units have been recently installed; and whether he will take steps to have this decision rescinded especially in view of the fact that three classes occupy the halls used as dining rooms.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes." It has recently become necessary to arrange canteen projects in strict order of urgency. There are other Middlesex projects judged to be more urgent than the replacement of the existing canteen provision at Glebe Avenue, but this project will take its turn as soon as possible.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a neighbouring school, which did not have to accommodate classes in the halls used as dining rooms, has had a feeding unit installed although it was 19th in the priority list as against the 16th position of Glebe Avenue School?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, that was installed before the necessity for urgent rearrangement took place.

    School Uniforms
    Mr. Viantasked the Minister of Education if he is aware that a number of head teachers at local education authority schools where distinctive dress is the custom are, despite the short supply of materials, insisting on the parents providing their children with such garments, and, will he send out a circular to the effect that such insistence must cease.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The attention of local authorities has already been called to the need for cutting out unnecessary demands for children's school clothing, and special reference was made to the undesirability in present circumstances of prescribing a school uniform.

    Playing Field, Rackheath
    Mr. Medlicottasked the Minister of Education how soon he anticipates that a decision will be made upon the application of the Parish Council of Rackheath, Norfolk, for a grant under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, towards the provision and equipping of a playing field for the parish.
    Mr. Tomlinson: A provisional offer of grant has now been made by my Department toward the layout and equipment of a playing field.

    French Educational Films
    Captain Bullockasked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced in obtaining an adequate supply of French films suitable for showing in schools in this country; and what action he is taking to assist in this matter.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am not aware of any special difficulties. The Ministry is at present negotiating with the French authorities with a view to an exchange of educational films between the two countries.
    Captain Bullock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of schools which ask for French educational films obtain only old-fashioned films, which are scratched and worn?
    Mr. Tomlinson: If they will bring their requirements to the notice of the section of my Department which deals with this matter it will assist in the negotiations which are taking place.

    Art Collection, Upton House (Students' Visits)
    Sir P. Hannonasked the Minister of Education if his attention has been called to the gift of Upton House, Warwickshire, with its rich collection of art treasures, to the National Trust; and if arrangements will be made to enable school managers and teachers to send parties of students in colleges and schools in the county at appropriate times to visit this centre of cultural interest.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, and I have no doubt that the local education and school authorities, whose responsibility it is, will arrange in suitable cases for visits by school parties.
    Sir P. Hannon: Is it the policy of the Ministry, in all cases of this kind, to see that the best use of these centres for cultural purposes is made by local education authorities and schools?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, it is the duty of the local educational authority to arrange visits. A regulation relating to other than secondary schools has been removed in order that visits of this kind should be made easier.

    Size of Classes, Birmingham
    Mr. Ralph Morleyasked the Minister of Education the number of classes with between 40 and 50 pupils on the register, and the number with 50 and over on the register in the schools under his jurisdiction in Birmingham.
    Mr. Tomlinson: There were, in maintained and assisted primary and secondary schools in Birmingham, on 9th February last, 2,036 classes with between 40 and 50 pupils on the registers, and 543 classes with 50 and over on the registers.
    Mr. Morley: What assistance and advice are the Ministry giving to the Birmingham education authority with a view to helping them secure an improvement of the very bad state of affairs now existing, and a reduction in the size of classes in that city?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I recognise that the position is serious in Birmingham, and I have been reviewing the matter with the Teachers' Interim Committee. A meeting of the special working party which has been set up to deal with the matter is to be held on Monday, and I shall not hesitate to take any steps which I think are practicable to secure the necessary improvement.
    Mr. Lipson: Will one of the steps be the restarting of the Emergency Training Scheme for Teachers?
    Mr. Tomlinson: That would not assist in the immediate—and it is an immediate—difficulty. I would point out that the position in Birmingham is very exceptional.
    Sir P. Hannon: Is there any reflection on the capacity and efficiency of the Birmingham Education Committee?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Not in the least.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider what has been done in Oldham and elsewhere, where an appeal has been made to part-time teachers and married women?
    Mr. Tomlinson: That has already been done by the Director of Education for Birmingham.

    Women Teachers (Training)
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Minister of Education why, in view of the grave shortage of women teachers and the increased number of children in infant schools, there is no accommodation in training colleges for over 1,000 young women willing to teach and anxious to enter college; and what action is now contemplated.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Two year training facilities are being expanded as rapidly as possible and 5,300 women students were admitted in 1947, as compared with about 3,000 before the war. It is planned to increase the number of admissions this year to about 6,000 and to effect a further substantial increase in 1949, as more Emergency College buildings can he made available.
    Mr. Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider diverting some of the present buildings, as the situation is so serious? Is not 1949 a bit late?
    Mr. Tomlinson: We are converting buildings as speedily as possible but we cannot close a college in the middle of a session, and turn it over as a permanent training college for teachers. We are turning buildings over as quickly as we can, following the end of a session.

    Youth Organisations (Grants)
    Mr. K. Lindsayasked the Minister of Education from what date the change in policy, whereby local education authorities become responsible for all annual grants to youth organisations, came into operation.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The change in policy was announced in Circular 51 issued on 15th June, 1945, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. Lindsay: Was the Circular put into immediate operation?
    Mr. Tomlinson: The local authorities were asked to make provision in 1946–47.

    Adult Education (Residential Colleges)
    Mr. K. Lindsayasked the Minister of Education how many new residential colleges for adult education have been established since the 1944 Act; and how many of such colleges have ceased operation.
    Mr. Tomlinson: According to my information eleven residential colleges and centres of adult education, established since the 1944 Act, are in operation and others are projected. I am not aware that any of the colleges have ceased to operate.
    Mr. Lindsay: Would the Minister encourage this movement because there are large numbers of young men and young women who will not be able to get into the universities for the next two years, and this is the only way available to them of getting an equivalent education?
    Mr. Tomlinson: We are encouraging this to the greatest extent possible by the provision of buildings that do not require the utilisation of much labour and materials for their conversion.

  INDIA AND PAKISTAN

    Railway Employees (Compensation)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, why covenanted subordinates of the Indian State Railways, holding contracts signed on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council, have been refused any compensation, if they wished to leave their employment on the handing over of the railways to the Dominions of India and Pakistan
    The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): The contracts of the persons in question were, for legal reasons, made in the name of the Secretary of State for India. But, in fact, they were signed by an agent of the Government of India, and contracts made in the United Kingdom bore a note stating that the official would be subject to the orders of the Government of India, and that his salary and pension, if any, would be subject to the vote of the Legislative Assembly. These officials have not been dismissed in consequence

    1319
    of the transfer of power; on the contrary, the continuance of their conditions of service was guaranteed by the Indian leaders. If, nevertheless, they now wish to retire, the terms on which they do so must evidently be settled by the Government by whom they are employed.
    Mr. Digby: Is the Minister aware that these people are suffering great hardship because they can, get no compensation, whereas those in a slightly higher grade are able to obtain compensation?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The difference is that the latter were appointed by the Secretary of State as part of his service, and when his control over them ceased their career was terminated. The career of these other people is not terminated if they choose to carry on.
    Mr. A. R. W. Low: When the right hon. Gentleman says that their career is not terminated, has not their career been much worsened by the fact that the Minister of Communications in India has publicly stated that he will give preference to Indians over Europeans?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I quite admit that that is a point for consideration.
    Mr. Edward Evans: Have these employees to pay their own passage if they want to come home?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: That is another question. If the hon. Member will put it down, I will answer it.

    Officer's Pension Claim
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations why Captain J. Parker, late Indian Army, who before joining the Army had eight years' service in the ranks with the R.A.F., nine years and 258 days' colour service with the Lancashire Fusiliers, and four years and 166 days' commissioned service, does not qualify for an officer's pension.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Captain Parker has received the retired pay which is allowed under Article 634 (a) (ii) of the Royal Warrant to an officer promoted from the ranks to an emergency commission. I will send my hon. Friend full details about the Royal Warrant and about the way in which Captain Parker's claim has been dealt with.
    Mr. Wyatt: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that if Captain Parker's first eight years service in the ranks had been with the Army and not with the R.A.F. he would have received an officer's pension; and does he not think that it is a shameful thing to allow a technical quibble to deprive a man of a pension to which every other consideration entitles him?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. Member may call it a technical quibble, but it is part of the regulations that only a maximum of four years in another Service can be counted and only two of those years count for pension. I have no power to alter the Royal Warrant or the way in which it is applied.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Children's Shoes, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there are difficulties about the supply of children's shoes in the city of Aberdeen, about which he has received correspondence; and in view of these If he will arrange that more of the better quality of children's shoes be made available; and that the number of coupons required to be surrendered for children's shoes be reduced
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds) on 29th January. I am not aware of any special difficulties in the city of Aberdeen. On the matter of coupons, children's shoes are already pointed at a very low rate compared with adults.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that special conditions are found in the North-East of Scotland owing to the climate, and that strong shoes are particularly necessary? The present ration makes undue inroads on the coupon supply of the people who require them. Will he take that into account?
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir; it is taken into account.

    Gramophone Records (Royalties)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the President of the Board of Trade whether British publishers are drawing royalties

    1321
    on records now being made in this country by a firm known as London Records on the works of American writers and being exported to the United States of America; and whether the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1911, are being complied with in regard to the conditions for publication in Great Britain of the originals of works by these American writers, records of which are now being made in this country.
    Mr. H. Wilson: If a record of a copyright musical work is made in this country royalties are payable to the owner of the copyright, but I cannot say whether payments have been made in any particular case. There is no registration of copyright, and the question whether the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1911, relating to copyright in a work first published outside the United Kingdom have been complied with, can only be determined by reference to the facts of each case, or, in case of dispute, by the courts.
    Mr. Cooper: In so far as my right hon. Friend's Department has made a decision on American films in order to save dollars, will he give consideration to the possibility of earning dollars by obtaining royalties from at least one British song on one side of records being made in this country and exported to America?
    Mr. Wilson: We have explored very Cully the possibility of earning additional dollars with gramophone records in the United States, and a lot has been done by way of exports there in the last few months. I will give further thought to the point made by my hon. Friend.

    Foreign Tourist Traffic (Petrol)
    Mr. Marloweasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the abolition of the basic petrol ration Is likely to drive dollar-earning tourist traffic to countries where petrol is unrationed; and what action he proposes to take to safeguard this valuable industry.
    Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir. There is no evidence that the abolition of the basic petrol ration will affect the number of tourists visiting this country. Overseas visitors bringing their cars with them or buying a new car for subsequent export get a special ration.
    Mr. Marlowe: Is it not a fact that this is a very small ration, and does not the
    1322
    Minister think that Americans coming to Europe will be more inclined to go to the Continent where petrol is freely available and will, therefore, be driven away from this country?
    Mr. Wilson: The ration available for tourists in this country compares not un-favourably with the ration available in other countries, and there is no evidence that they are being driven away from these shores. The bookings to come into this country are pretty full for the corning summer.
    Mr. Drayson: Is the Minister aware that a number of hotels where foreign tourists may wish to stay will have to close owing to the withdrawal of the basic petrol ration, and many of them may have to go out of business?
    Mr. Wilson: That question has been raised on a number of occasions.

    Trading Estate Companies (Directors)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will implement the recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee on Estimates on the administration of the North-East Trading Estates Company with reference to the appointment of directors, and take powers to appoint them himself.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I have asked the chairman and directors of this company, in common with those of other Trading Estates companies, to amend their articles of association so as to make this possible.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Would my right hon. Friend say what attitude has been adopted by other companies in the country besides the North-East Trading Estates Company?
    Mr. Wilson: All have accepted my suggestion and altered the articles of association. I am meeting the chairman and directors of the North-East Trading Estates Company this afternoon. I do not know what line they are proposing to take.

    Prefabricated Timber Houses (Import Duty)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade why an import duty of 20 per cent. was imposed on prefabricated wooden houses im-

    1323
    ported from Finland by the Scots Forestry Commissioners.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Import duties are chargeable on prefabricated timber houses, as on other dutiable items, whether the transaction is on private or public account. I am informed that the houses in question were correctly charged under the Tariff Schedule with the rate of duty appropriate to those items.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the serious shortage of houses in rural Scotland, and the statement made by the ex-Secretary of State for Scotland that these import duties are absurd, will he urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abandon them?
    Mr. Wilson: If they were unnecessary we would have no hesitation in going to the Treasury about it, but the import duties have not stood in the way of these houses being available.

    Periodicals (Imports from Eire)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the President of the Board of Trade why, when periodicals and magazines published in this country are allowed free entry into Eire, there is a ban on the importation of the Irish produced publication "Junior Digest."
    Mr. H. Wilson: Our general import policy on periodicals from all sources is governed primarily by balance of payments considerations. Licences to import periodicals from Eire are limited to those which had been imported before August, 1946, when the Open General Licence was revoked. "Junior Digest" was not published until December, 1946, and, in common with other new periodicals, cannot be licensed for import.

  FUEL AND POWER

    Coal-Burning Power Stations (Air Pollution)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will give an assurance that in all new coal-burning power stations the most modern methods will be used to prevent pollution of the air by smoke, grit and sulphur oxides from the chimneys and by dust from the coal unloaded.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): Yes, Sir, whenever this is necessary.
    Mr. Keeling: Does that mean that what are known as the Battersea or Fulham conditions imposed by previous Governments will be imposed in all urban areas from the outset?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think that we should tie ourselves down to the introduction of gas washing plant in all circumstances at all power stations. It is a very costly business. Generally speaking, the answer to the supplementary question is "Yes."

    Illegal Dealings (Allegations)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many letters have been received by his department this year accusing named individuals of black market deals in petrol; what proportion of these is anonymous; and what action is taken about such communications.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Since 1st January only two such letters, one of which was anonymous, have been received by the headquarters of my Department, and have been referred for inquiry to the Regions concerned. In addition, I understand that the Russell Vick Committee has received a fairly large number of letters, of which about one-seventh were anonymous containing a variety of allegations, some of them relating to black market petrol. In the case of all the letters I have referred to, in which offences are alleged, provided that sufficient information is given, inquiries are made at once either by the police or by the Ministry's officers, with a view to appropriate action.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Minister say whether there is any difference in the treatment, assuming the information to be equal, of a letter which is anonymous and a letter which is signed?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Naturally.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Imports and Exports (Prices)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why we have been im-

    1325
    porting coal at an average price of 90s. and exporting it at an average price of 55s. a ton, for similar qualities; and what steps he is taking to prevent taxpayers' money being wasted in such an unbusinesslike manner.
    Mr. Gaitskell: In order to assist the build up of coal stocks during last summer the Government arranged in June, 1947, to import 20,000 tons of coal a month from Poland and about 600,000 tons in all from the United States. No further contracts to import coal have been made since last June. The United States' contract was completed in November, 1947, and arrangements are being made to terminate the Polish contract which was originally to have run until June, 1948

    Coal Board (Property)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the approximate total value of the nation's property now controlled under the direction of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Until the valuations of the assets transferred to the National Coal Board now in progress have been completed, it will not be possible to give the total figure asked for. The hon. Member will, however, be aware that the "coal industry value" of the transferred interests—comprising the collieries and main coalmining assets—was determined by the Greene Tribunal to be £164,660,000.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister prepared to answer any questions in connection with this £164 million of the nation's property, or cannot he give an answer because it is under the control of the National Coal Board?
    Mr. Gaitskell: These proceedings are not under the control of the National Coal Board. This arises under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: When will the valuation of the properties be completed?
    Mr. Gaitskell: It will take some years at any rate
    Mr. Gallacher: Can the Minister give us any indication of how much of the nation's property is still in the hands of the robbers represented by the party opposite?

  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister on which aspects of the work of the Central Office of Information he answers in this House, and on which aspects questions should be addressed to the Lord President of the Council and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As I explained in my statement of 7th March, 1946, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council is charged with general supervision of the machinery which was set up to secure the proper integration of the information policy of Departments and to co-ordinate interdepartmental action both at home and overseas. Treasury Ministers are responsible to Parliament for the Vote of the Central Office of Information, and also deal with matters affecting the staffing, efficiency and methods of the Office. Publicity policy on the other hand is the responsibility of the Departmental Minister concerned in each case.
  Mr. De la Bère: Will the Prime Minister impress on his right hon. Friend the urgent need to separate the world of fact from the world of sham, and is he further aware that the C.O.I. urgently needs a complete overhaul?
  The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question my right hon. Friend is very well aware of the distinction. As to the second part, I do not agree with the hon. Member

  EMPLOYMENT

    Further Education and Training Scheme
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Toothasked the Minister of Labour whether awards made under the Further Education and Training Scheme are subject to a means test on the part of the applicant; and whether any income earned by the applicant during the period of training is taken into account in arriving at the amount of the award.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Awards made under the Further Education and Training Scheme are in all cases subject to financial necessity. Maintenance allowances are payable only in the case of full-time study. Half of any

    1327
    earnings from employment which forms a regular part of the approved course of study is taken into account in assessing the amount of a student's award. Earnings from other employment are disregarded.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the penalising of earnings made by those undergoing training is unfair to those doing the training and a clog on the national economy at the same time?
    Mr. Isaacs: I do not thing it is penalising them in any way, and I do not think it is a clog on the national position, because otherwise we would be paying people money from the nation's funds.
    Mr. K. Lindsay: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? He was good enough a year ago to dispense with the irregular earnings, and could he not reconsider what little earnings can be paid to a student while he is also studying?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, because a student's further education and training is something for which he gets paid, and he would get paid twice if he got full wages and maintenance at the same time.

    Placings, Shotts Exchange
    Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Labour what steps he intends to take to ensure that the unemployed persons, registered at Shotts Employment Exchange, obtain their share of placings in the factories at Chapelhall and Newhouse Industrial Estates.
    Mr. Isaacs: It has been arranged that vacancies arising at Newhouse and Chapelhall Industrial Estates will be shared by Airdrie with Shotts, Mother-well, Coatbridge, Wishaw and Bellshill in accordance with the volume of unemployment for the time being at each place. This arrangement is subject to the overriding rule that the best qualified applicants must be submitted.
    Miss Herbison: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that of the unemployed registered at Shotts since July, 1947, 0.5 per cent. have obtained placings in these factories as against 2.4 per cent. of those registered at Airdrie Employment Exchange; and that we were led to believe that these factories would provide work for the unemployed of Shotts and district?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. The effort we are making is to share proportionately the employment in the towns named As to the proportions mentioned by the hon. Lady, I was not aware of those particular facts, but I should like to look into them and make inquiries.

    Trade Unions (Political Funds)
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many trade unionists are still not aware of their legal rights regarding contributions to the political fund of their unions, and if in the light of this fact he will issue a leaflet setting out these legal rights in simple terms.
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I have no reason to believe that the procedure prescribed in existing legislation is not operating satisfactorily.
    Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware of a leaflet, a copy of which I have here, which has been given a very wide circulation amongst trade unionists, and that this leaflet contains very thinly veiled threats of victimisation to those who contract out of the political levy? In the light of that does he not think it is of the utmost importance that trade unionists should really understand their legal rights?
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot comment upon a leaflet which I have not seen and of the origin of which I have no information, but all trade unionists are aware that they must publish the Registrar-General's rule relating to that matter in their rule books. Any trade unionist who wants to know his position has only to look at his own rule book.
    Mr. Berry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Conservative Party have given very wide publicity to the question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am aware of that fact and seeing that trade unionists are doing all that is required by law, and that other people are also interested in the matter I do not think that anything further need be done.
    Major Beamish: Is the Minister aware that the leaflet to which I refer is called "Hey, Half a Minute!" and is published by the Socialist Party, and is not the

    1329
    reason for the publication of this leaflet the annoyance of the party at the loss of income principally caused by men and women contracting out of the political levy?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is another question.

    Domestic Servants (Country Hotels)
    Mr. William Teelingasked the Minister of Labour the number of elderly people who have been domestic servants in country hotels who have lost their jobs due to the ban on petrol since 1st December, 1947; and what other work will be found for them.
    Mr. Isaacs: The required information is not available.

    Appointments Branch
    Mr. Somerville Hastingsasked the Minister of Labour what was the total cost to the Exchequer, of the London Appointments Office and its Scientific and Technical Branch for the year 1947, and how many applicants who registered with them were successfully placed in employment during that period.
    Mr. Isaacs: The approximate cost of these two Offices for the year 1947 was £330,000. This covers all the other services provided, namely, administration of the Further Education and Training and Business Training Schemes and Careers Advice as well as the placing work. The

    Branch.

    Date of Inception.

    Live Register at January, 1948.

    Appointments obtained since inception.

    Unemployed.

    Employed.

    Technical and Scientific Register

    …

    April, 1942

    1,038

    3,691

    37,302

    Appointments Register

    …

    April, 1942

    13,067

    18,527

    99,686

    Nursing Appointments Register

    …

    May, 1943

    852

    1,014

    122,804

    Totals

    …

    14,957

    23,232

    259.792

    38,189

    The other information asked for is not available.

    Prisoners of War (Undermanned Industries)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that German women are to come to this country to work in undermanned industries, he will extend this arrangement
    London Appointments Office, which covers the London and South Eastern Region, placed 6,708 in employment and the Technical and Scientific Register which covrs the whole country placed 2,808.
    Mr. Cooperasked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of names now registered with the Appointments Branch seeking appointments; what is the total number of names registered since the inception of the scheme and the total number of appointments obtained, giving the percentage of successful appointments obtained, compared with the total number of names registered since the inception of the scheme.
    Mr. Isaacs: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Cooper: In view of the fact that there are some 2,000 officials in this section of the Ministry of Labour and that the cost is not far short of £1 million a year, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the information which is now available indicates that this section is being run really efficiently and that every official is pulling his full weight?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is quite another question and I do not see how it arises out of my answer.
    Following are the figures:
    to those prisoners of war who have been repatriated and who are anxious to return.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): No, Sir. The proposal to introduce German women is related to the special

    1331
    needs for women in particular industries and to the fact that the supply of single women amongst displaced persons is becoming exhausted, while that of men displaced persons is still adequate.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is there not a measure of inconsistency in this policy; and does not my right hon. Friend recognise that to allow Italian prisoners to come back here and to forbid Germans to return seems absurd when we want all the production we can get?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I should have thought that our first obligation was to the victims of Nazism in Germany?
    Mr. Scollan: Is it not the case that we need the Italians to make ice cream?
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Labour whether, in the case of those prisoners of war who have no homes, relatives or work to which to return and who wish to stay in this country in employment in undermanned industries, he will make arrangements to have them classified and treated as displaced persons.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. Such prisoners of war have the same opportunity as other prisoners of war to volunteer for employment in agriculture, but there are no other arrangements under which they can stay on in this country.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to arrange for an expansion of the industries in which these prisoners can stay in view of the fact that in many instances they are undermanned and there is not enough British labour to secure the necessary production in them?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. There are plenty of displaced persons in Germany to whom we have a moral obligation. These prisoners of war are now engaged in agriculture. If they want to continue to stay here, they can do so by remaining in the jobs where they are now.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask whether in the case of a German who is remaining here in a civilian capacity and has a wife in the British or American zones, permission will be given for that man to have his wife here provided accommoda-
    1332
    tion can be made available without upsetting British people?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I should like to see that question on the Order Paper. I could not give an answer straight away.
    Mr. Stokes: Arising out of the original answer, and having regard to the very serious representations made by liaison officers and camp commandants, do I understand from my right hon. Friend that in the case of these technical people who stayed behind and volunteered for farm labour, some hope can be held out that some day in the future they will be allowed to transfer to something more suitable?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not want to be unsympathetic but I must emphasise to the House that our first obligation is to the victims of these people in Germany and we must try to get them fixed up before we start extending preferences to the Germans.
    Mr. Vane: When the right hon. Gentleman uses the word "agriculture," is he referring to agriculture in the sense of persons whose wages are governed by the Agricultural Wages Act or agriculture in its narrower sense?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I refer to agriculture in the wider sense.
    Mr. Bramall: Why are prisoners of war in the County of Kent who desire to remain here, not allowed to do so?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have no knowledge of that but I will certainly look into the matter.

    Polish Ex-Service Men, High Wycombe
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Labour whether he has investigated the case brought to his attention by the hon. Member for Mile End of Polish ex-Service men being employed as barmen, waiters, porters and musicians at the Red Lion Hotel, High Wycombe; whether permits were granted by the Ministry of Labour for these men to be employed in that capacity; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am making inquiries and will write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Piratin: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him

    1333
    to bear in mind that the Polish musicians are taking the place of a band, all the members of which belong to the Musicians' Union?
    Mr. Isaacs: I have to inform the House that the Musicians' Union have already asked me to inquire into this matter, and I am dealing with it.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not the case in some quarters of the House that if the Poles take jobs they are abused and if they do not they are called drones? Was there not a time in our hour of greatest danger when many thousands of Poles meant more to this country than the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin)?
    Mr. Piratin: May I ask the Minister to bear in mind that the essence of my Question is merely to ensure that such Poles who are in this country do not in any way scab or blackleg on British labour and that in this case they are actually replacing British labour? That is the essence of my Question, and if the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) disputes that, he is in favour of scab labour.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of this vendetta against Poles who want to work here rather than to return to Communist Poland?
    Mr. Isaacs: May I confine myself to the Question? There has been a complaint. The understanding which was reached and has been accepted by everybody is that foreign labour can only be employed when no British labour is available and willing to do the work. I will say no more about this case until the results of my inquiries are available.
    Earl Winterton: Does that mean that for all time our ex-Allies who are allowed to work in this country have to go to the right hon. Gentleman before getting permission to take a job?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. This is much too lengthy a subject to deal with by question and answer. These men are first in the Resettlement Corps and they then go into a job. After a lapse of time, they become completely free and they will then be entitled to take any employment they choose.

    Restrictive Trade Practices
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Labour what action he has taken to bring about the abolition or suspension of restrictive practices which have an injurious effect on production and which are not covered by the decision with regard to the Restoration of Pre-War Trade Practices Act, 1942.
    Mr. Isaacs: If there should be any trade practices requiring relaxation the matter is one for determination through the normal machinery of the industry.
    Mr. Lipson: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is not consulting with industries to see whether anything can be done in this matter?
    Mr. Isaacs: It is very much a question of letting sleeping dogs lie. If any employers' organisation in any industry think that there are practices which ought to be removed, their first course is to negotiate with the workers' representatives. From then onwards, if there is a dispute, we can intervene. We have no right to initiate discussions.
    Mr. George Porter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a new restrictive practice is now being introduced by the ship-repairing employers on Merseyside by withdrawing the production bonus paid to the workers in that industry?

  NATIONAL SERVICE HOSTELS
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Labour whether he will institute an inquiry into the management and conduct of the National Service Hostels.
  Mr. Isaacs: I am not aware of any grounds for a special inquiry into the subject.
  Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the standard of management in these hostels has considerably declined, and that when I brought him complaints from residents there he referred them to the Hostels Corporation, making that body the judge and defendant in their own case?
  Mr. Isaacs: I am not aware of the allegation in the first part of the question. I am aware, however, that the control and management of these hostels is car-

  1335
  ried out by devoted men and women, who give themselves wholeheartedly to the task. As to bringing complaints, I have no authority to go over the head of the Corporation, who are responsible for the day-to-day work and management, and I must refer complaints to them. However, if any dissatisfaction is felt after the complaints are made and cases are brought to me I will see what I can do about them.
  Mr. Cooper: Does the Minister recall the fact that I have brought cases to his attention on several occasions during the last nine months, and if he cannot institute this inquiry will he at least consider setting up a representative advisory council so that complaints can be made through the recognised channels?
  Mr. Isaacs: I will take no such steps, because I am completely satisfied with the administration. My hon. Friend said that he brought certain matters to my attention. He will recall that I drew a certain matter to his attention.
  Mr. H. D. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that in one of these hostels which I recently visited there were 350 residents and a staff of 50? Will he look into the matter to see if there cannot be some saving in manpower in that establishment, which seems to be over-staffed?
  Mr. Isaacs: I should say it was the other way round, for if there are only 50 people to feed, to look after and to provide welfare and maintenance for these residents, it is not an unreasonable proportion.
  Mr. Edelman: As my right hon. Friend has denied the facts of these complaints will he undertake to examine them impartially if I submit them as I have received them from the residents of these hostels?
  Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, provided those responsible for making the complaints, before they did so to my hon. Friend, used the facilities provided by making use of the Residents' Committee.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Christmas Parcels Scheme, East Africa
    Mr. Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what undertakings
    1336
    were given to the organisers of the special Christmas parcels scheme in East Africa on waiving the clearance fee in connection with these parcels sent by air; whether he is aware that the fee was in fact charged in all cases; and whether he can make an official statement on the matter in order to clear up any misunderstanding.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I understand that the carriage of these parcels was only prepaid to the airport of arrival; the forwarding agent employed made, as usual, a charge for clearance and delivery. There was no charge, nor any delay, on the part of the Customs and no undertaking has been disregarded.
    Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that this misunderstanding on the part of the people of East Africa has arisen and why so many people there misunderstood the position and are today complaining bitterly about the way they were treated?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I cannot help it if people misunderstand what has been arranged. So far as my Department are concerned, there was no misunderstanding and we made no charge whatever.

    Road Transport (Taxation)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the present revenue from motor fuel taxation and the licence duty on road vehicles is likely to amount to approximately £100,000,000 in the current financial year; and whether, in view of the fact that this sum greatly exceeds Government road expenditure, he will consider revising the basis of taxation on road transport in order to effect some reduction in the transport costs of industrial and agricultural production.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the importance of reducing the cost of British exports of which road transport costs are an important factor, he will now consider limiting the taxation on road transport to a level which will provide sufficient funds for the maintenance and construction of roads but no more.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply of my right

    1337
    hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member on 17th February last.
    Mr. Gammans: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate, in view of the fact that a very large part of this taxation is paid by commerce, industry or agriculture, the effect that it must have on our competitive power throughout the world?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is, of course, true of almost any tax.

    Old Silver Coins
    Mr. Longdenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the black market in the silver of old coins; and what he intends to do about it.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have seen isolated reports in the Press both that old silver coins and that silver coins of recent years are being bought at a premium for the purpose of melting into bullion. Careful inquiry has failed to disclose any trace of such transactions, which are in themselves improbable. Apart from other impediments, the face value of either type of coin is much above the price of a like quantity of uncontrolled silver. I would add that the melting down of such coin is an offence for which heavy penalties are provided.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Will the Minister make it abundantly clear that anyone hoarding silver or other coins is doing a disservice to the country, and will he do everything possible to prevent it in order that industry may have the necessary small change to pay weekly wages?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir. We would like to feel that what the hon. Gentleman has said is generally understood.
    Mr. Longden: Are not the Government withdrawing silver for its intrinsic value?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I could not hear a word of that supplementary question.
    Mr. Longden: Are not the Government withdrawing silver for its intrinsic value as against its face value?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Government are withdrawing the old coinage in order to take out of it the silver content which is there That is quite a different thing from melting down coins in order to sell it as bullion. The present silver price is nothing like the present face value of the coin.

    New Capital Issues (Untaxed Profits)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to counter the inflationary effect of the large untaxed profits arising from new capital issues.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The result of such a transaction is not necessarily inflationary since there must be purchasers as well as sellers.
    Mr. Collins: But is my right hon. Friend aware that these profits are certainly untaxed, and will he convey that fact to the Chancellor, and also point out that they are equal at least to the increased cost of maintaining food subsidies at their present level and covering increased costs by increased subsidies?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think my right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the point put by my hon. Friend, but I would remind him that capital appreciation up to now has not been taxed, whether in this form or any other.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the loan transactions upon which these capital issues are based are definitely inflationary and that in a recent instance a company with a prewar profit of £4,000 and a post-war profit of over £100,000 received the permission of the Capital Issues Committee to float on that basis, and will he look into that matter?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It all depends on what the seller does with the money he receives.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. ERIC FLETCHER:
  72. To ask the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, when computing savings of dollars on basic petrol rationing, he takes the price of crude oil expressed in dollars at Gulf ports at the time when basic petrol rationing was introduced, or whether he varies this figure with each statement that he makes.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that Question No. 72 addressed to the Minister of Fuel and Power appears on the Order Paper in my name. I did not, in fact, put it down, and I can accept no responsibility for it.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry about that. There must be some hon. Member who writes very badly. That is all I can say.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: Could the Leader of the House tell us the Business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. Monday, 23rd February—Supply (2nd allotted day);—Committee stage of Civil Supplementary Estimates contained in Papers Nos. 49 and 67, beginning with India and Burma Services; Ministry of Education; Ministry of Food (revised estimate); Ministry of Health.
Tuesday, 24th February—Third Reading of the Local Government Bill; and further progress will be made with the Water Bill [Lords].
Wednesday, 25th February—Second Reading of the River Boards Bill [Lords] and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Thursday, 26th February—Supply (3rd allotted day);—Committee stage of the Civil Vote on Account 1948–49. A Debate will take place on Civil Aviation.
Friday, 27th February—Report and Third Reading of the Police Pensions Bill; Committee and remaining stages of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill [Lords]; Second Reading of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution and, if there is time, Second Reading of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Mr. Cocks: On the Business for Monday, amongst the Supplementary Estimates there is a vote of £2 million as contribution to the cost of the Greek Armed Forces. Will there be an opportunity of discussing that?
Mr. H. Morrison: If there is time, there should be an opportunity.
Mr. Mikardo: With reference to the Debate on Civil Aviation, is it intended to include a discussion on the Courtney Report on the Tudor I aircraft?
Mr. Morrison: The Ruling as to the scope of the Debate is a matter for Mr. Speaker, but I should have thought, and
1340
I gather it was intended, that that should be within the scope of the Debate and therefore it may be necessary to put down appropriate votes from the Ministry of Supply as well as the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I am not quite sure how we do it under the new Standing Order.
Sir R. Glyn: Can the Leader of the House give any indication of a date being fixed for discussing the Member's Fund?
Mr. Morrison: A discussion will take place on the legislation which is being prepared. We hope it will be ready at a fairly early date.
Mr. Hale: With reference to the question I put a fortnight ago, can my right hon. Friend now say when we shall have an opportunity of debating the conditions in the textile industry and the textile machinery manufacturing industry?
Mr. Morrison: On textile machinery, there is hope that a Bill may arise. I cannot be quite certain but, if that is so, that would be an appropriate occasion. If it should not be so, we shall have to look at it again, but I hope that legislation can be brought forward.
Mr. Scollan: On which day of next week shall we be given an opportunity of introducing the vote of confidence given to the Government by Paisley?
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Can the Leader of the House say what was the result—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of the by-election."] I wanted, Mr. Speaker, to refer to an even less promising result than that in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite; I wanted to ask what was the result of the meditations of the Leader of the House, which he promised a fortnight ago, as to the possibility of a Debate on the White Paper on the utilisation of land for the Services? Is he aware that this White Paper lays down certain limitations on the normal procedure of holding public local inquiries, and does he agree, therefore, that it should be discussed by this House?
Mr. Morrison: My meditations on this point, and the result thereof, were expressed last week. There was fairly considerable discussion on the matter in relation to the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill which I thought had fairly covered the ground. If, however,

1341
there should be further Debate wanted, it might come up on an appropriate Supply Day.
Mr. Driberg: With reference to my right hon. Friend's reply to me last Thursday, could he say whether the usual channels have yet bad an opportunity of considering the promised Debate on the subject of Questions to Ministers in regard to the administration of nationalised industries?
Mr. Morrison: I think the usual channels are working but they have not yet come to the vigorous outflow that is necessary. However, I reckon that such a Debate will take place fairly soon.
Mr. Gallacher: Is the Leader of the House aware that many hon. Members on this side are getting very appealing letters from the old age pensioners, and in view of the vote I gave in Paisley yesterday, might I ask him if he would give a day or afternoon or evening sometime for a discussion of the Motion on the all-important question of the condition of the old age pensioners?
[That this House, deeply concerned about the statement of the Chancellor that the £1 was only valued at 7s. 6d. compared to 1914 and the hardship this imposes on old age pensioners, disabled soldiers and injured or incapacitated workers, particularly miners suffering from diseases and accidents peculiar to the mining industry, demands an immediate overhaul of all such pensions with a view to bringing them into line with the urgent needs of the recipient.]
Mr. Morrison: I told the hon Gentleman last week that I was afraid though we have an understanding about the matter, we could not give a special day for the Motion he has put down, not even in consideration of the very improper gesture he has made in relation to the vote he gave yesterday though, as the ballot is secret, I do not think it is a firm bargain anyhow.
Mr. Daines: May I ask the Leader of the House if we shall have an opportunity of discussing the report of the Lucas Committee?
Mr. Morrison: I do not think there is any arrangement made to that end, and it would be best if the hon Gentleman were in the first place to put a Question to the appropriate Minister. He might then pick it up on the Adjournment.
Mr. Daines: Who is the appropriate Minister?
Mr. Morrison: Either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Food, but I think it is the former.
Mr. Austin: Reverting to the question of aid for Greece, may I ask whether, in view of our straitened economic circumstances and the anxiety of hon. Members to make themselves aware of how the money is being spent in Greece, the Rule can he suspended on Monday to make certain that we can discuss this very important matter?
Mr. Morrison: I have explained that we cannot suspend the Rule on a Supply Day. As to the other parts of the hon. Member's question, they are matters of substance for the Foreign Office and the Treasury, and surely he would not like to get me into trouble with either of the Ministers concerned?
Sir Arthur Salter: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of when the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill will be taken?
Mr. Morrison: The Bill was committed to a Committee of the whole House. I cannot say what the date will be, but the right hon. Gentleman can be assured that there will be a reasonable interval for consideration and the drafting of Amendments.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Lord High Commissioner (Church of Scotland) Bill has been indefinitely postponed, and that the increased grant has been frozen?
Mr. Morrison: I am not certain at the moment, but I think my hon. Friend can sleep safely and soundly in his bed, at the moment.
Mr. Willis: When are we to take the Motions altering Standing Orders to enable the new arrangements for Scottish Business to operate?
Mr. Morrison: We will take them as soon as we can.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
  Further considered in Committee (on recommittal).
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  POSTPONED CLAUSE.—(Provision of entertainments.)

  (1) A local authority may do, or arrange for the doing of, or contribute towards the expanses of the doing of, anything necessary or expedient for any of the following purposes, that is to say—

  5

  (a) the provision of an entertainment of any nature or of facilities for dancing;

  (b) the provision of a theatre, concert hall, dance hall or other premises suitable for the giving of entertainments or the holding of dances;

  (c) the maintenance of a band or orchestra;

  10

  (d) any purpose incidental to the matters aforesaid, including the provision, in connection with the giving of any entertainment or the holding of any dance, of refreshments or programmes and the advertising of any such entertainment or dance:

  Provided that the powers conferred on a local authority by this subsection shall not be exercised in relation to any entertainment or dance held in any place outside the area of that authority, or in relation to a theatre, concert hall, dance hall or other

  15

  premises situate in any place outside that area, unless—

  (i) that place is convenient for residents in the area of that authority;

  (ii) the local authority for the area within which that place is situate consent.

  (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the preceding subsection, a local authority—

  20

  (a) may for the purposes therein specified enclose or set apart any part of a park or pleasure ground belonging to the authority or under their control not exceeding one acre or one-tenth of the and of the park or pleasure ground whichever is the greater;

  (b) may permit any theatre, concert hall, dance hall or other premises provided by them for the purposes of the preceding subsection and any part of a ark or pleasure ground enclosed or set apart as aforesaid, to be used by any other person, on such terms as to payment or otherwise as the authority think fit, and may authorise that other person to make charges for admission thereto;

  30

  (c) may themselves make charges for admission to any entertainment or dance held by them and for any refreshment or programmes supplied at any such entertainment or dance:

  35

  Provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise any authority to contravene any covenant or condition subject to which a gift or lease of a public park or pleasure ground has been accepted or made without the consent of the donor grantor, lessor or other person entitled in law to the benefit of the covenant or condition.

  (3) The expenditure of a local authority under this section (excluding capital expenditure, but including loan charges) shall not in any year exceed the product of a rate of sixpence in the pound, plus the net amount of any receipts of the authority from any such charges or payments as are referred to in the last preceding subsection:

  40

  Provided that where a local authority exercise any powers under any statutory provision other than this Act for the provision by them of entertainments or the holding by them of dances, any expenditure incurred by them under those powers (excluding capital expenditure but including loan charges) less the net amount of the receipts if any, of the authority in respect of the exercise of those powers shall, for the purpose of

  45

  determining whether any and if so what, expenditure may be incurred in any year under this subsection, be taken into account as if it was expenditure under this section

  50

  (4) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of any enactment by virtue of which a licence is required for the public performance of a stage play or the public exhibition of cinematograph films, or for public music or dancing, or for the sale of intoxicating liquor or tobacco.

  (5) In this section, the expression "local authority" means the council of a county borough, metropolitan borough or county district or the common council of the City of London.

  55

  (6) The following enactments are hereby repealed, that is to say, paragraph (3) of section forty-four of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1003; paragraphs (d),(e) and (h) of subsection (i) of section seventy-six of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907; subsections (1) to (4) of section fifty-six and the proviso to subsection (1) of

  3.43 P.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I count it a real honour to move this new Clause; nothing I have done from this Box so far has given me greater satisfaction. Not that I would seek to take credit for it for my right hon. Friend, except the credit due to him for having agreed with the local authorities. The major credit must go to the local authority associations upon whose unanimous request the Clause has been put down. The local authorities themselves put forward a new Clause which was not quite as we thought it should be, and when it was withdrawn in Standing Committee we undertook to put down a Clause ourselves. I had wondered whether the right hon. and gallant Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) would not claim this as the first fruits of the Conservative gains in the municipal elections, but, since seeing the Amendments, I gather that this Is not so.
  1346
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me if I remind him that on the Second Reading he lectured my right hon. Friend and me about not listening to what the local authorities said. Here is a case where local authorities are united, and they come together agreed that they want to cultivate this new field.
  Commander Galbraith: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he is speaking of local authorities in Scotland, as well as in England?
  Mr. Edwards: I am not speaking for Scotland; I am speaking for England and Wales. If there is any need, no doubt the Secretary of State for Scotland will say something about Scotland. I thought there was perhaps a chance that hon. Gentlemen opposite would welcome this proposed Clause in the same way as I am certain Government supporters will welcome it. But perhaps that was too much to hope. After all, one does not gather figs from thistles, even when they are somewhat sophisticated thistles which come from the Scottish Universities.

  1347
  This new Clause is not very different from the one which was put down in Standing Committee and withdrawn. It gives very wide powers to local authorities for the provision of entertainments, various kinds of facilities for dancing, the provision of accommodation like theatres and concert halls, the maintenance or helping in the maintenance of bands and orchestras and so on; and, because we cannot take it for granted that all these activities will pay their way—although I am certain that a large number of them will—we have provided further that local authorities may contribute up to the product of a 6d. rate covering all the various activities outlined in the Clause. For 40 or 50 years, Parliament has agreed that it was right for local authorities to provide entertainments.
  One is entitled to ask, "If it is right that a local authority should be able to show a film on disease, why should an authority be prevented from putting on an ordinary feature film?" Why should an amateur play be right, but a professional play wrong? Why should a pierrot show at Southend be right, but a variety show at Blackburn wrong? Obviously if it is contended that one thing is right and the other is wrong, it will not be because of objections either from the audiences, the stage or the musicians. If there be objections, they will obviously come only from the entertainment industry, which fears competition. If it is said that the entertainment industry will be subject to unfair competition, I would point out that private enterprise in this field of public entertainment, whether lowbrow or highbrow entertainment, has only partly met the public need.
  It is clear that private enterprise alone is either unable, or unwilling, to deal with the expanding cultural needs of our people. This provision, therefore, will make possible the filling in of the countless gaps which there are in this provision, whether it is, as I say, of the highbrow or low-brow kind. Some time before I entered the Government I prevailed upon Mr. Priestley to write a book which has recently been published under the title of "The Theatre Outlook." In that book there is, among other things, an interesting map which shows the parts of the country which are ten miles or more away from the nearest theatre. Looking at the map, one finds great areas of England and Wales, quite
  1348
  apart from the sparsely populated districts where there is no theatre. This is the kind of thing which I hope will be put right.
  May I take another example? When I was in Leeds recently, I learned with great pleasure of the work that had been done by their local symphony orchestra. No one knowing the facts could reach any conclusion other than that the crowded audiences coming to these symphony concerts held in Leeds would not have been able to get high-class music of that sort if it had not been for the vision of the Leeds City Council. One could give other examples of the same kind of thing, where farsighted municipalities have been doing their best, with quite inadequate powers, to help forward the arts in various ways. Even in this House, as far back as 1929, a substantial majority of over 100 agreed to bring in the Municipal Repertory Theatres Bill. It is true that the Bill made little progress, but even as far back as 1929 a majority of the House of Commons, including people on both sides of the House—although the Measure was introduced by a Labour Member—agreed that something of this kind ought to be done.
  It may be said that London is already fairly well provided for in this respect. Certainly, London is an oasis by comparison with the rest of the country, but even here in London no one who knows anything about the theatre world can really be happy about a situation in which the control of the fabric of the theatre is sufficient to prevent quite good productions from running at all, and sufficient to permit quite low-class productions going on for a long time. I have the conviction that if the local authorities are given these powers, they will help to deal with the relative cultural poverty of the Provinces, and that they will put private enterprise entertainments very much on their mettle. I hope that local authorities will take the fullest advantage of the provisions of this Clause when the Bill becomes an Act. The local authority is pre-eminently the body which ought to be able, in the light of local circumstances, to interpret popular demand in its own area.
  This is not a matter which can be subject to any kind of remote control. That is why we have left out the county councils from the list of the authorities. We take the view that this kind of work can be done much better by the district

  1349
  councils which are on the spot, in touch with their own people. It is the township, the district council, the county borough but not, I think, the county council, that is particularly suited for this kind of work. The work need not be done according to a stereotyped or standard pattern. There is plenty of room for the greatest possible voluntary activity, for voluntary work of one kind or another, backed up by the help, sometimes financial, sometimes by the provision of buildings, which the local authorities will be enabled to give under this Clause.
  I commend the Clause to the Committee. It is a signal to show that local authorities, pre-occupied though they have necessarily been with quite utilitarian projects, can see beyond those projects. The councils which, for reasons into which I need not go this afternoon, have had some of their trading functions taken away from them, and some local authorities which have had powers transferred to major authorities, will find here a new field of work which will revive their interest and, I believe, expand their influence over their own people. I believe that the local authorities will bring to this work the same kind of business acumen which they showed in running their trading undertakings. But they will bring more than that. They will help to revive throughout Britain all the cultural activities which are essential to a good democracy.
  I think that the local authorities will show that they can approach this matter combining sound business principles with genuine artistic enthusiasm. Perhaps I may he forgiven for placing a bias here on the more highbrow kind of activity. I do not want to rule out the other activities which are covered by this Clause, but we can well learn in this matter from the ancient Greeks, who knew that a live democracy also carried with it certain artistic activities, and that it was part of the public business to cultivate a taste for the drama. These things are matters in which we ought to have leadership from our locally elected bodies. Finally, I would say that this Clause will give an opportunity to local authorities to challenge the assumption all too frequently made by hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is only the aristocratically organised community that can be the vehicle of genuine culture.
  The Chairman: May I suggest to the Committee that the best course would be to give the Clause a Second Reading and then take the Amendments, and that any general Debate which is required could deal with the Clause in its final form rather than in the form in which it now appears before the Committee, with quite a number of proposed Amendments.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On that point, Major Milner, I should have thought that the Minister having made an introductory statement, it would only be reasonable that a short Debate should arise on that. I feel that my hon. Friends would take the view that however the Clause may be amended, certain general principles stand out, and the Second Reading stage is obviously the best time for that Debate to take place rather than when the occasion arises to debate the Motion "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill." I do not think that the time of the Committee will be in any way encroached upon if we have the opportunity of a short general Debate before we deal with the Amendments.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): May I suggest that if we have a general Debate now on the general principles of the Clause, the discussion when we reach the Motion "That the Clause be added to the Bill" might be limited to whatever Amendments have been incorporated in the Clause, and that there should not be a repetition of the general Debate?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That would certainly be agreeable to us on this side of the Committee, and I think it would be of general convenience to the Committee as a whole that the Debate on the Motion "That the Clause be added to the Bill" should be a relatively circumscribed Debate on the Clause as amended.
  The Chairman: I am obliged to both right hon. Gentlemen, and am agreeable to that course, on that understanding, namely, that there should be a general discussion on the Motion "That the Clause be read a Second Time," and, if necessary, a limited Debate on the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  4.0 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Clause before us which, by arrangement, we are taking

  1351
  at a time of the clay which permits of the maximum attendance, and I hope the maximum sufferance and consideration, is one which, in many respects, does not arouse any party hostility, either on one side of the Committee or the other. Amendments which will have grave import to the Bill have been put down from both sides of the Committee. There is an Amendment standing in the name of an hon. Member sitting below the Gangway, which he intimated himself last night, was one for which he is prepared to go to considerable lengths. Therefore, I think we shall make more progress if we do not follow too closely the somewhat narrow party line adopted by the Minister in moving the Clause. After all, the provisions of this Clause are provisions which the House has granted for many years to many local authorities in many parts of the country.
  Conservative and Liberal Governments have, in the past, been most willing that cultural activities should be pursued by local authorities, and the somewhat naive attempts of the Minister to colour the whole of that great sphere of action as a privilege of himself and his hon. Friends will really not carry conviction. It will certainly not carry con viction with those of us from the City of Glasgow who remember well the great collections formed in that City by the local authority which, at that time, was not drawing any of its strength from the proletarian masses of the City and which had, in many respects, embarked upon artistic and cultural enterprises of a very far-reaching kind. The City of Edinburgh also—and the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) will no doubt speak at a later hour—has only recently given evidence of one of the most striking advances in the cultural field that any city in the country, and no doubt any part of the United Kingdom, has given for many long years past.
  We must address ourselves to the practical issues concerned. I would deprecate the attempt of the Minister to hold out these activities as a sort of consolation prize to local authorities who have been deprived of their great business undertakings by the action of this Government. To take away from the working people of this country the opportunities for self-education which are given by the running
  1352
  of a great electricity undertaking, a great gas undertaking or a transport undertaking, and to say that they will find fitting recompense in being allowed to manage a symphony orchestra is scarcely up to the level of argument one would expect in this Committee. These proposals must be justified on their merits. Either it is good or it is not good for a local authority to undertake these things, and the limits of any way in which it is to undertake them should also be laid down.
  The hon. Member prayed in aid the great City of Athens and the striking advances that were made by that popular, or rather, I should say, highly aristocratic city, in culture and the provision of opportunities for culture for the citizens. He might have remembered the classical denunciation of Demosthenes against the citizens of Athens, whose ancestors were willing to give up their lives and liberties to defend themselves against their enemies. "And you," he said, "are not willing to sacrifice your theatre tickets." The great argument of Demosthenes against the theatre devotees is rather germane to the very argument that we are now conducting.
  One point we would wish to bring forward to the attention of the Committee is the enormously wide limits which are being laid down for these enterprises by the Clause as it is now drawn. In many respects, we consider the objects of this Clause are good, and we seek to amend them so as to define them more closely. We would say, in the first place, that, at the moment when we are adjured by every authority sitting on the Government Front Bench—and many below the Gangway—to limit the opportunities for expenditure in every possible way, to bring in a Measure which allows the expenditure of a 6d. rate over the whole kingdom is really an extravagance for which, at this time, there is no justification. A 6d. rate in the City of Birmingham reaches £188,000. Does the Parliamentary Secretary really seriously contend that the annual loss of £188,000 is a loss he would wish to justify to this Committee? The expenditure of a 6d. rate over the whole country would come to over £8 million.
  Does the Parliamentary Secretary seriously argue that the sanctioning at this moment by this House of expenditure running up to £8 million is what he wishes this afternoon? The Minister cannot have it both ways. He said he did not believe

  1353
  that the loss of these enterprises would be anything like the loss provided for. We trust, therefore, he will allow the somewhat modest limit to operate which some of us have suggested by an Amendment. If not, we can only say that his ideas of expenditure suitable for the country at this time differ very radically from our own.
  We say, further, that the general procedure here is altogether too lax, and that the procedure by Private Bill, which is still in many ways the most appropriate way of proceeding, might well be supplemented by procedure by affirmative order. That has been found very useful in many relations between the central authority and the local authority. It brings the matter under the review of the House and requires that the purposes for which these powers are sought should be laid before the House and defended by the Minister. That seems to us not at all an unreasonable step to take at this time and not an unreasonable thing for the Committee to ask.
  Everyone who has the remotest connection with the entertainment industry knows that there is no field in which one can go wider or lose more money, with less satisfaction to those for whom the money is ostensibly spent, than in the field of entertainment. If this bottomless purse, this £8 million from the rates, is to be thrown into this form of extravagance, then a very dangerous field is opening before us, not only as regards expenditure, but also as regards satisfaction to the public. The final sanction of the public on this matter is staying away from the entertainment—
  Mr. Bevan: Or not electing the council.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman will know very well that elections are not turned solely upon the entertainment policy of the authority in question. I can imagine, if it were, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer being almost unanimously turned down by the electors, and the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer getting a very high majority indeed. When local authorities are brought into the field of entertainment, perils arise which are graphically described by the recent vote of censure by the Central Committee in Russia upon the music which was being provided by the composers, and the arrogation to itself of a complete power not merely of criticism but of sup-
  1354
  pression of the entertainment which was being provided. I quote from the "Manchester Guardian," and from the resolution of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party published on 12th February:
  "The Party Central Committee considers that the opera, 'The Great Friendship' … is faulty both as regards its music and it, subject and is an unartistic production."
  The Resolution later says:
  "The Central Party Committee has therefore resolved to instruct the Propaganda and Agitation Administration of the Central Committee and the Arts Committee to bring about an improvement of the state of affairs in Soviet music …"
  Clearly, there are dangers in private enterprise in entertainment, but the Minister will also agree that there are dangers in the public development of this art also. I myself have always taken the very greatest interest in the development of drama and of what might be called cultural activities in the City of Glasgow. I was associated both with the first repertory theatre and with the second repertory theatre, the Citizens' Theatre, now running in that city. But I think that these things are better done by associations of public-minded citizens, rich or poor, than merely by putting the thing on the rates and leaving it unfettered, as it is sought to do in this Clause.
  For those reasons, we on this side of the Committee, while not unsympathetic to the general objects which, indeed, are in line with the policy that we have pursued for many years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They are in line with the policy which we have pursued for many years, not merely in Parliament but in the many municipalities which have been in the control of members of the Conservative Party for many years past. We say that we do not find ourselves in opposition to the Clause as a whole, but we certainly will seek to improve it by Amendments. Naturally, we reserve our view on the Clause as amended, until we see it in its final shape.
  Mr. Gibson: I wish to support this Clause in general. It is true that most of the local authorities who have any concern for the development of cultural activities among their people, have been asking for these powers for many years. I do not believe that, even if the rate limit of 6d. is left in, there is the slightest danger of any outrageous

  1355
  waste of public money. Some of us are very keen that the local authorities in our districts should be able to meet the needs of the people in a way which, so far, private enterprise has been unable to do. These powers will give the local authorities the opportunity of doing that with some assurance that the cultural needs and desires of our people will be strengthened as time passes.
  I should be pleased if the Minister would reply to one small point. When moving the Second Reading of this Clause the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that county councils are excluded from using these powers. I can see a good argument for that over the country as a whole; but it appears to me that it will deny London some of the opportunities of benefiting under this provision. It may be that that is not intended. During the war, at the request of the Government, the London County Council organised widespread "Holidays at Home" entertainments of one kind or another. All of them proved a great success and, in spite of bombs, we had people sitting in open air theatres watching good operas and plays. I would like to know whether that kind of activity, which has become most popular among Londoners, will be excluded if the Clause is adopted in its present form.
  4.15 p.m.
  I am also anxious that encouragement should be given to large orchestras such as the London Philharmonic Orchestra. In London, at any rate, the County Council has given considerable financial assistance. I hope that that kind of thing will not be excluded by the wording of this proposal. It is public knowledge that the London County Council has already voted some £20,000 to the Philharmonic Orchestra with a view to encouraging good music among Londoners generally and among school children in particular. The idea is to give to tens of thousands of Londoners, especially children, an opportunity which otherwise they might miss of hearing the best kinds of music. I am afraid that if the permission given by the Minister excludes the county councils as such, the very good work which the London County Council has been doing will be brought to a halt.
  We have been trying to widen our activities in this direction. The committees
  1356
  of the London County Council responsible for this type of work have planned some large and widespread public entertainments, including sports, music, plays, dancing and ballet, for the coming summer. I am sure that there is no intention on the part of the Government or the Minister to stop that. I would welcome an assurance that this Clause will not have that effect. Apart from that, I think that this Clause is well supported and that it should have the unanimous support of the Committee. I do not think that there is any danger of gross waste of public money if a limit of a 6d. rate is prescribed.
  Mr. Lipson: I wish to give strong support to this Clause. I thought that the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) found himself in a somewhat embarrassing position this afternoon. As spokesman for the Opposition, he felt that he had to criticise anything that came from the Government side of the Committee, but he could not forget that he is also a distinguished representative of the Scottish Universities which stand for so many of the things which this Clause is trying to bring to the masses of the people. Therefore, I thought that he was somewhat half-hearted in his opposition and that while, as a loyal Member of the Opposition, he was willing to wound, as a university Member he was afraid to strike.
  I welcome the Clause all the more because the borough which I have the honour to represent already does a great many of these things. Reference was made to the additional glory which the City of Edinburgh recently added to its name by what it did in the way of a musical festival. We in Cheltenham have our festival of contemporary British music which has been a great success and which we propose to extend. We have taken part of a building which was no longer required for its previous purpose and turned it into a civic playhouse. We have found these things, for the most part, a very considerable help to the rates. It is only a measure of precaution that provision is made for the loss of a 6d. rate. Even the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities is prepared, apparently, to see a loss of a 3d rate, so the real difference between the two sides of the Committee is not £8 million, but £4 million. I think it

  1357
  is only pessimism to think that, for the most part, there will be losses of this kind.
  I think that my right hon. Friend, in giving these powers to district councils, is really doing something to revivify interest in local government. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities asked whether they could possibly be as interested in this work as in running an electricity undertaking. I have been a member of the electricity committee of my own authority, and I am also a member of the town improvement and entertainments committee, and I know which I find the more interesting—providing cultural entertainment and discussing drama and music or discussing the details of running an electricity undertaking. I believe that we shall, by increasing these powers, bring to local government citizens who normally would not be attracted to local government work, men and women, educated and cultured, whom we ought to bring into this work, but who, for too long, have stayed outside and criticised those who have stepped into the breach. They are people who themselves have a very valuable contribution to make to local government work, and I welcome this proposal as the first step in a new direction by a Government which, in recent times, has tended to move in the wrong direction. Instead of taking away powers from the district councils, the Minister is here giving them an additional and very welcome one.
  I believe also that the fears of those in the entertainments industry that this will provide serious competition to themselves is really unfounded. It is wrong to assume that the whole field has already been covered, and that all the people likely to be interested in entertainments are able to have their needs satisfied at present. On the contrary, local authorities have an opportunity to create a new and increased public if they do their job properly in the entertainments world, and, in point of fact, inspired by the competition of the local authorities, perhaps those engaged in the entertainments industry will feel that they will have to give a new direction to some of the entertainments which have hitherto been provided, since they will have to meet additional competition. Anyhow, it ill befits hon. Members of the Opposition to object to increased competition. I thought that that was the whole philo-
  1358
  sophy of their party. For the reasons I have indicated, I wholeheartedly welcome this Clause.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: I only want to intervene for a few minutes in order to reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who assumed that all these entertainments will require the absorption of a 6d. rate. I was convener of the Entertainments Committee in Glasgow for a period of years, and I have to admit that cultural music did involve a loss, but, on the other hand, another convener, who ran our Kelvin Hall, which is very well known to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, for a particular entertainment, year after year made an astounding profit which went to the common good.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman always uses an analogy embarrassing to Labour. He used the analogy of Russia, though I do not know why, because Russia has not got a Labour Government. A little nearer home, however, there is one country which I think stands highest in Europe in entertainments, particularly cultural entertainments, and that is Sweden. Nearer still, there is Norway. Why should we think there is going to be a loss on these entertainments, and, in particular, on cinema entertainments? In Norway, I was taken over the area of a great many of the local authorities last year by members of the Stortinget, and I found that they all have the option of running their own cinemas. All local authorities in Norway have that option, and they may do so or not just as they desire. I found that every local authority ran its own cinema entertainments, and I thought that was rather striking, because there were so many local authorities that were not Labour-controlled.
  Why, therefore, did these local authorities run their own cinema entertainments? It was the force of public opinion, and the fact that neighbouring local authorities, which were Labour-controlled, found themselves making a huge profit, and the news spread around. Fredrikstad built its magnificent library from the profits of its municipally owned and run cinema. Therefore, all the other local authorities, Tory or otherwise, insisted that they must have their own municipal cinemas. Those of the delegation who were with me were struck with the

  1359
  remarkable amount of money accruing to the local authorities throughout the whole of Norway from these municipally owned and controlled cinemas. We made inquiries, and also found that British films were the most popular in these cinemas.
  Mr. Sidney Marshall: Were they cultural films?
  Mrs. Mann: No, they were all kinds, documentaries, cultural, feature films, and sometimes the double feature. We want to see this introduced into Britain. The Norwegians asked us why we had not introduced it in Britain, and some of us almost felt that we ought to have said, "Because it would be depriving private enterprise of some of its profits," but we did not say so. We did feel, however, that the ratepayers ought to have some of these profits, and that it would be lovely to see some of our beautiful libraries, as in Norway, built out of the profits of municipal cinemas. For those reasons, I very much welcome this Clause.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. S. Marshall: In this Measure, there is much to be commended from many angles, but I am very disappointed to find that anyone should contemplate that we should go in for further expenditure in this field. I know that some people oppose municipal trading of any sort—and I speak with experience over many years—and I know what we can do under present conditions under the 1925 Act, and also under the Education Act of 1944, in regard to the provision of cultural entertainments. This proposal does not suggest for one moment that the 6d. rate is to be used purely for cultural entertainment. I was very amused to hear the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) refer so very clearly—and more than once—to the profit motive. I asked the hon. Lady whether the films, by which the money was to be provided for that intellectual pabulum which is generally associated with the library, were of the cultural type. With a great deal of circumspection she said, "Yes, and certain other films, and two-feature films." I must confess that, as a non-picturegoer, I do not understand that, although I expect that there are hon. Members who do understand what two-feature films might be.
  Mrs. Mann: If the hon. Gentleman likes, I will take him to a two-feature film.
  Mr. Marshall: Not having been able to go to the cinema for quite a long time, I shall, if this Debate finishes at a reasonable hour tonight, be very pleased to avail myself of the hon. Lady's invitation. If we cannot go tonight, perhaps we can make an assignation for some other time?
  Sir William Darling: Is not my hon. Friend afraid to go in the dark?
  Mr. Piratin: I hope the hon. Member will recall that this is Leap Year.
  Mr. Marshall: How does the hon. Gentleman know my marital condition?
  I really cannot see why one local authority, a district council, should be enabled to incur still further expenditure in this regard, while the county councils are precluded. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that, owing to the number of duties which have been taken away from the local authorities—he instanced, of course, the electricity and gas undertakings—they would be very glad to turn themselves into entrepreneurs and to provide entertainment. It was even suggested by another speaker that there was no reason why local authorities should not equally be able to provide this sort of entertainment in the same excellent fashion that they ran their electricity and gas undertakings. I can see no connection whatsoever between the two things. I do not know whether hon. Members who have served on electricity or gas committees, which, I understand, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) has done, would like to claim that their experience in running electricity or gas undertakings has qualified them to run the entertainments now proposed.
  Mr. Lipson: I am afraid I could not have made myself clear. I did not say that one would learn from serving on an electricity committee how to run this entertainment. Personally, I should find it much more interesting to serve on a committee carrying out the functions of this Clause than on a committee running an electricity undertaking.
  Mr. Marshall: I agree with the hon. Member; I am sure it is much more interesting to entertain Danny Kaye and to

  1361
  sponsor an entertainment in the hon. Member's locality by such a personality. It is much more interesting, but is it the right thing to do? The gas or electricity undertakings are obviously carried on by the hon. Member for Cheltenham because of his great sense of duty. But here is an entirely new aspect.
  I am very well acquainted with a borough which only recently embarked on running its own municipal dances within a 2d. rate. They are very successful. The excuse given for running those dances is that they will be able to get enough money from them to be able to run symphony concerts next winter. That may sound all right, but does the House seriously believe that, in order to bring culture to the masses, we must, shall I say, with great respect, pander to their cheaper desires for entertainment?
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is a shocking thing to say.
  Mr. George Porter: If the hon. Gentleman never goes to the pictures and objects to dances has he any vices at all?
  Mr. Marshall: I expected that question from one who is probably a pastmaster of all of them, but I do not wish to cast any aspersions in that regard. I think it is a very cheap and low form of appeal to be asked to run such entertainment for the masses in order to provide cultural entertainment for the rest of the people. I hold no brief for any entertainment society on this matter, but I firmly believe that the entertainment, which it is now suggested local authorities should engage in up to a 6d. rate, is best provided by private enterprise. I cannot imagine the local authorities being the best judges of what kind of films should be shown, nor do I believe that they have the ability which the ordinary entertainment proprietor possesses to put on the entertainment which appeals to the masses.
  Is it seriously suggested that, except, perhaps, in the more remote districts which were mentioned by one hon. Member, we cannot provide all the entertainment needed by the people of this country? Are we not pandering too much to people today by endeavouring to provide entertainment for them? Is it not still possible that these people can provide their own entertainment? One hon. Member said
  1362
  that the encouragement of drama could be furthered by this 6d. rate. I know from my own experience that we do not require a 6d. rate in my district in order to encourage the love of drama among the young people. Under the Education Act, 1944, we are able to assist youth councils and youth organisations in their activities. One of the activities in which they are finding their greatest expression today is their amateur dramatic societies.
  Mr. H. Hynd: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that that is not private enterprise? That is exactly what he is arguing against. He is arguing that we should not go into private enterprise, but leave it to the private profit seekers.
  Mr. Marshall: I said that provision for drama is made under the 1944 Act. We are paying money to these clubs in order to support and encourage them in the production of these dramatic classes.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: That is the second time the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the 1944 Act. For many years it has been possible for youth organisations to engage in drama, but the tragedy is that there is so little public drama which they can go to see when they reach adult age.
  Mr. Marshall: In many ways, the 1944 Act enables grants to be made to youth organisations. It is through those grants that these things are encouraged, far beyond the extent to which we were formerly able to encourage them. I still think that the present facilities with regard to the promotion of public entertainment are ample, without adding to them in any way.
  The 6d. rate is really an appalling thing. What will happen is that we shall get local authorities with no idea of running entertainment, who will be quite happy and comfortable even if the 6d. rate shows a loss. I am certain that this will not conduce to the provision of better cultural entertainment for the people. I am not in agreement with my hon. Friends to this extent, that I would not go so far as to agree to a 3d. rate. I admit that the principle is the same, whether it is a 3d. rate or a 6d. rate; if one agrees to 6d. or 3d., one might as well agree to is. I do not think any local authority should be encouraged to

  1363
  increase its rates at present. Year after year the local rates continually increase, and surely it is not necessary that public entertainment should be subsidised to the extent proposed. It will only lead to a prodigal expenditure of money compared with any advantages which might accrue.
  I know that many people favour this sort of expenditure and do so in the cause of cultural entertainment and advancement. I am not so sure that the people in this country are so ready to be culturally entertained. Those people who desire cultural entertainment already have it provided for them, and they take advantage of it. I cannot for the life of me understand why the district councils should be allowed to spend the product of a 6d. rate on cinema entertainments and such things. I support neither the Amendment which proposes a 3d. rate nor the provision for a 6d. rate in this Clause. The idea seems to be that we are having a "new look" on this sort of thing, and that the Minister, out of the generosity of his heart, has produced this new Clause either to meet the wishes of hon. Members on this side of the Committee or, perhaps, to curry favour.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: I have listened with very great interest to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall). I did not follow his argument very easily, but I did gather that he does not know very much about the subject. He spoke with some feeling, but I doubt whether he has investigated the differences and the inequalities that exist between one area and another in the Provinces. Those of us on this side of the Committee, and many hon. Members opposite, are entirely agreed that this Clause has not come too soon. If there is any objection at all, it would appear to come from those who speak for the entertainment industry. I agree with the hon. Gentleman for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) that this Clause will enable a great mass of people to become acquainted with all aspects of entertainment and who will, therefore, wish to take advantage of music, drama and ballet for the rest of their lives.
  Of course, the last thing in the world we ought to do is to promote a sort of "third programme" type of entertain
  1364
  ment for all of the people; it would not be reasonable. That will not happen so long as the unit which we use is something like the local authority. The local authority will provide some guarantee against cultural snobbery and minority pressure from groups who have peculiar ideas and who are apt to feel that everybody else should feel as they do. This provision is permissive and imposes no obligation. It allows the people to ask for what they want in a normal democratic way. I think it is reasonable to point out what is really self-evident, that just as in the past we have had great inequalities, the fact that we are to have permissive legislation will not mean that we shall iron out those inequalities. In backward areas the councillors and aldermen who represent the point of view which has been expressed by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam are likely to use the same arguments that he used. They may say, "We have got all we require. There is no need to offer anything more to any one. Let them provide their own amenities and find their own method of enjoying themselves. Why should we spend money on them?"
  4.45 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary expressed the hope that this Clause would help to abolish the relative cultural poverty in the Pro Minces. It cannot do that successfully if the unit of administration is too small. If the unit of administration is confined to the county borough, in many cases it will inevitably confine a good deal of our rich heritage of culture to the citizens in that county borough. What will happen just outside, in the small towns and in the country districts? There will inevitably be a great disparity. In the city where I live, I would expect full advantage to be taken of this provision, but just outside the city I would expect nothing, or very little.
  How shall we overcome this problem? The solution is not difficult to find. Neither the county borough alone, nor the county council, nor any other area, is necessarily the proper administrative unit. There should be combinations of areas which fall naturally into suitable geographical units, and each of those areas should have a progressive and fairly large town in its centre. These proposals will come to nothing unless we have personnel

  1365
  trained in fairly large numbers, and they should be mostly volunteers, for I agree that we must depend on voluntary movements if we want to reach the people in the most effective way. We must train the personnel, whether as youth leaders or to teach music, or to offer the villages and the small country towns the benefits of drama. They can only be trained in a large central area, and such an area is very often the centre of the county council area or a large county borough.
  In North Staffordshire where I live, there is an obvious unit, and one which we shall certainly use. There is included in it Stoke-on-Trent with a quarter of a million people. Round about it is the whole of North Staffordshire which is fairly empty save for small towns. It also includes Burton-on-Trent, a county borough about 30 miles away, and it can act in full liaison with Stafford and the county council itself. We shall combine and associate—we are discussing it already—and we should pool our resources, so that outside our own ambit we can take the benefits of this service to the small town and village where there is a county hall or, if there is not one, where we shall try to build one when possible.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) referred to what Demosthenes said to the Athenians, and I know he will not mind if I refer to what Pericles said when speaking of the Athenians. He suggested that they were the most cultured people in the world and could face any crisis in life with the utmost facility and grace. He described them thus with some justification, because Athens was a democracy—a democracy based upon slavery just as we, in turn, today are becoming a democracy based upon enslavement of the machine. We enslave the machine, but they enslaved human beings from outside, the barbarians. I think we shall go on with our efforts to enslave the machine and to work out our own form of democracy, which I think is the finest. The analogy is correct. It is our duty to offer to all our people, in all our cities, the opportunity of facing any crisis in life with the utmost facility and grace. We shall do best, I am sure, by giving them the opportunities of full emotional education, a life rich in colour and experience, until
  1366
  ultimately, I hope, this small beginning will enable everyone in Britain to boast a true creativeness in the arts instead of being what we have often tended to be in the past—merely watchers of what other people do.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: I feel a little embarrassment in following the last speaker from these benches, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall), but then I have not the advantage of his vast and unique ignorance of the subjects about which he was talking. I must declare my interest in this matter. I am a dramatist, and deputy chairman of the League of Dramatists, and, therefore, I speak for myself and for my professional association. It will make a great deal of difference to the stability and comfort of my old age and to the provision which I hope to be able to make for my offspring if this new Clause comes to be accepted; and, therefore, I heartily commend it to the Committee. The Clause is welcomed by the dramatists; it is welcomed by the actors; it is welcomed by the stage hands; and it is welcomed by the commercial production managements and the non-profit-making companies. The plain fact is—we want more theatres. They are the markets where we must sell our wares, and the more markets there are the more of our wares we shall sell. This, of course, is private enterprise in all the beauty of its pure and elemental simplicity.
  Objections will be levelled at the Clause, of course, by the theatre landlords—the bricks and mortar men, as they are called—in those areas which may come within the orbit of the Clause. Naturally they object. After all, for the moment they are monopolists, and I would remind the Committee how greatly the theatre has suffered in the past from monopolies, such as the ancient Royal Patents, which have now happily been abolished, and the dramatic censorship, existing down to this day, which we hope will soon similarly disappear. There is no doubt whatever that this Clause will impinge upon these monopolies but, after all, it is only healthy competition, which I hope will be very much on the same terms as that offered by the existing theatres. None of us wishes to see unfair competition by means of a gross subsidy financed out of the rates.

  1367
  Wartime experience of theatrical entertainment, though in many respects it was deficient, has undoubtedly whetted the appetites of hundreds of thousands of men and women for the product of the living theatre, as opposed to the unsatisfying shadows of the silver screen; and yet, for years to come, it will not be economically possible to build theatres privately which can be let at economic rents to resident or to visiting companies. This new Clause is, therefore, a necessary and imperative part of this Bill, and I am only amazed that the Minister of Health, whom I have hitherto regarded as a moderately intelligent individual, should have had to move a new Clause to give effect to these things. If I had been Minister of Health I should have built my whole Rill around this Clause. It would have been the fons et origo of my measure. Since the Minister comes from Wales, I can only surmise that he suffers from the inhibitions of an inherited Nonconformist conscience, and I congratulate him on having shaken himself free from those ancestral and possibly Druidical tendencies.
  Mr. Bevan: It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to confuse the Druids with a Nonconformist.
  Mr. Smith: The Druids were not a conforming sect. What does this Clause do? It gives the local authority power to build a theatre, power to put on a play at its own risk, power to let that theatre to a company for a similar purpose and power to effect the same ends in regard to music, concerts and the drama. I am also very glad to see it gives the local authority power to run a bar for the sale of alcoholic refreshment, because that will ensure the financial solvency and profit of any venture, and so it will raise the level of entertainment, please the patrons, and also enrich the Chancellor of the Exchequer—poor fellow. In commending this new Clause t the Committee, I would ask hon. Members to turn to lines 65 to 80, because here is enshrined the whole pitiful tragedy of the art of entertainment in its relations to politics, and that will perhaps excuse the fervour with which I have spoken. It says that:
  "Nothing in this Section shall have effect so as to extend the powers of the council of a county or of a parish under Section seventy
  1368
  of the Public Health Act, 1925 (which relates to the use of the offices of an authority for entertainments) as applied to those councils by Section four of the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, and accordingly the following proviso shall be inserted at the end of Subsection (2) of the said Section four, that is to say—
  Provided that the following restrictions shall have effect with respect to any concert or other entertainment provided by the council of a county or of a parish by virtue of this Section, that is to say—
  (i) No stage play shall be performed."
  Not even a half hour one-act play; not even a 15-minute sketch. Then it says:
  "(ii) the concert or other entertainment shall not include any performance in tin, nature of a variety entertainment."
  I do not quite know what the definition of variety entertainment is, but I do not think the entertainment envisaged under these provisions could even possibly be called variety entertainment. It goes on to say:
  "(iii) no cinematograph film other than a film illustrative of questions relating to health or disease shall be shown; and
  "(iv) no scenery, theatrical costumes of scenic or theatrical accessories shall be used."
  5.0 p.m.
  In such event one can imagine that the wife of the chairman of a county council—or, in the case of an entertainment given by a parish council, shall we say the local vicar's wife?—getting up to sing a song would have to remove her ordinary make-up before mounting the platform, that is, if she had a platform and if she had a song. I am really rather amazed that the Minister of Health should have incorporated these odiously restrictive words in what is plainly a liberating Clause.
  Mr. Bevan: I am sure—at least, I hope—that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood it. The purpose of the provision is merely to prevent duplication between the functions of county councils and urban districts and between those of county councils, rural districts and parish councils. In the latter case all these functions can be discharged by rural district councils.
  Mr. Smith: I appreciate that perfectly. I am merely drawing the attention of the Committee to the conditions, which would seem to me rather horrifying. Nevertheless, the art of entertainment—

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Whereupon, The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and, having returned—
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Act, 1948.

  2. Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1948.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
  Again considered in Committee (on recommittal).
  [Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair]

  POSTPONED CLAUSE.—(Provision of Entertainment.)
  Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: At the time when we turned from being a Committee to being the House of Commons, I was talking to the Minister of Health about lines 65 to 80. I quite understand that no powers are being given to the council of a county or to a parish council such as are proposed to be given to other councils, but that makes no difference to the extreme objection which one has to the provisions of Subsection (7).
  I ask for enlightenment on this subject from the right hon. Gentleman, who is not in the Committee—oh, he is just returning. No doubt he has been looking the matter up. The point is that these entertainments are to be provided by the council of a county or a parish council, in the offices of the county council or of the parish council. I see no earthly reason why these provisions should be so fantastically restrictive. If a county or parish council are giving a concert, why should they not be able to perform a one-act stage play, a very definite art form which has very little encouragement in the country today? Why should that be excepted? Subsection (7, ii) says:
  1370
  "The concert or other entertainment shall not include any performance in the nature of a variety entertainment."
  I could very easily argue that any turn in an ordinary concert can be regarded as part of a variety entertainment. The Subsection goes on:
  "(iii) no cinematograph film other than a film illustrative of questions relating to health or disease shall he shown."
  I can quite imagine that that would come under the heading of what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) would regard as a cultural film. But I am not very interested personally in the pictorial representation of either health or disease. The Subsection then says:
  "(iv) no scenery, theatrical costumes or scenic or theatrical accessories shall be used."
  The Subsection obviously needs alteration. If it cannot be altered, the Minister should give us a very clear and and lucid explanation why these restrictive provisions should be retained in the new Clause. In spite of all the struggles which it has had for hundreds of years with statesmen, priests and kings, the art of entertainment in England goes gallantly on. Its claims are being advocated today between Welshmen and Scotsmen. It is, therefore, not entirely unfitting that one who is of Irish blood should say a word in its defence.
  Mr. Mitchison: Much of what the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) said finds agreement on this side of the Committee. I should like to take a little further some of the points he was making about Subsection (7). The Parliamentary Secretary, in commending the proposed Clause to the Committee, rightly stressed the importance of the provision of entertainment in rural districts where there are many places a long way from a cinema. Members on this side of the Committee have continually stood for the extension to the countryside of opportunities of cultural and entertainment such as are at present more readily available in the towns. There are two large rural districts in my constituency containing many villages from which it is not possible for the ordinary working man to travel to and from neighbouring towns to see whatever entertainment is available.
  I regard it as of the highest national importance that places like those should

  1371
  get an opportunity as soon as possible for the kind of entertainment that the Clause is intended to promote. The Clause enables the local authority either to do the job itself or to contribute to its being done by others. It is no doubt a matter for local wishes, conditions and requirements how far the local authority adopts one or other of the alternatives. A local authority is defined as a district council or a county council, but does not include a parish. When we come to the proviso to which the hon. Member has just referred, we find restrictions upon the powers of county and parish councils. I recognise that these provisions have not originated in this Subsection, but go back to the Public Health Act, 1925, in which there was a section dealing with the use of council premises for entertainment.
  I regard this recital of the effect of these Sections as a little misleading, because the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, not only applied those provisions to parishes, as suggested in this Subsection, but also extended them in a very much more important way, which is not mentioned in this Clause at all. Under Section 4 of the Physical Training Act, 1937, there is power for a local authority to organise holiday camps, to organise centres for the use of clubs, societies or organisations having athletic, social or educational objects. Those activities under Section 4 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act ought to be encouraged. If such camps are provided by, for instance, a county council, then the entertainment in those camps ought not to be limited in the fashion contemplated by this Clause, which, I repeat, is not a Clause first introduced in the legislation we are now considering, but one which dates from earlier legislation.
  In my view, to discover the most backward legislation and the maximum of anomalies, the secret is simple: go to the places where the functions of different Government Departments interlap, and they will be found. In this case we have an interlapping between, first, the functions of the Ministry of Health, which is in charge of this Measure; secondly, the functions of the Ministry of Education, which is engaged in this matter in connection with village halls; and lastly, the
  1372
  functions of the Home Office, which is concerned with the licensing of theatres.
  A great deal of the effect intended in this Clause will be frustrated in rural areas, for the very simple reason that there will be no theatres available. Although it may be intended that the rural district council—in my view perhaps not quite the best local authority for the purpose—should provide entertainments, which would include stage plays, they will be unable to find a licensed theatre in which to do it. The reason for that goes back to the Theatres Act, 1843, which dates from a time when those connected with theatres—which would include the hon., and, indeed, distinguished Member for Ashford—were regarded as rather strange and wild people who could be tolerated only on sufferance, and who certainly would not have obtained the general recognition and respect to which the hon. Member and others of his calling are fully entitled. I am glad to see the Home Secretary on the Front Bench, and I take this opportunity of suggesting that this is a matter which needs careful consideration if the intended effect of this Clause is to be obtained to the full in rural areas, on which the Parliamentary Secretary quite rightly laid stress when commending the Clause to the Committee.
  I must make a short confession, which illustrates the difficulty of the position. In the course of examining this matter I discovered that I had been guilty of a number of offences under the Theatres Act, 1843. My offence was to take part in promoting in the local village hall a play written by a local author, or authoress—I hope. of some distinction—which was performed by the fishermen who are the main inhabitants of that village, with the assistance of the village schoolmaster, who proved to be an actor of first-rate ability. I believe it to have been an exceedingly good play, and exceedingly well performed. At any rate, it was a great success, and went round a number of other village halls in the area where again, I understand, it had great success. I have now discovered to my horror that each and every one of those performances was a breach of the Theatres Act, 1843. I would not have had the courage to confess it to the Committee—especially in the presence of the Home Secretary—had I not also found in that Act a stipulation limiting the time

  1373
  within which prosecutions may be brought. Protected as I am by that stipulation, I can now confess my misdoings.
  I ask the Committee to look at the result which is intended, that, whether by means of the rural district council or the parish council, performances shall be given, in some way or another, within the rural districts. Where are they to take place? It cannot be in the village hall—although in many villages that Is a very suitable place for a performance—unless an application is made to have that hall licensed as a theatre. Surely, some less cumbersome machinery could be found? I believe there has been a case recently in one large borough where performances had been given for a long time in a place which was later discovered to be unlicensed; and it was also discovered to be open to a common informer to recover his Shylock's portion of the penalties under the Theatres Act. Therefore, I take this opportunity of suggesting—
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The hon. and learned Member is quite wrong. There is no power open to the common Informer, either to institute a prosecution or to collect any proceeds.
  Mr. Mitchison: I am exceedingly glad to hear that. The activities of the common informer commend themselves to but very few people. I am glad that that rumour was unfounded. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for denying it, for it will relieve a great many people of some anxiety.
  To carry the matter one stage further, I wish to point out one other absurdity. Certain powers are here given as regards rural district councils, but the powers are limited as regards a parish. Let me take one very small form of entertainment which is frequently given in parish offices, and other such places: a Christmas tree for the local young. If a Christmas tree is put in the offices of the rural district council the chairman of the council is entitled to come in the costume of Santa Claus. If, however, it is a parish, the chairman is not entitled to come in the costume of Santa Clause because there is a proviso that
  "No scenery, theatrical costumes or scenic or theatrical accessories shall be used."
  1374
  This matter surely ought to be reconsidered, and something done to meet the realities of the situation in rural districts, as regards both the respective functions of the rural district council and the parish council, and the question of what halls can be used for the type of entertainment which is contemplated.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will not attempt to follow the line taken by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) because, with great deference, I cannot help wondering whether he was talking about this Bill or about some other Measure which should have been introduced by the Home Office. I think I should be out of Order were I to discuss a Bill which should have been introduced by the Home Office, and I prefer to discuss this proposed Clause in the Local Government Bill.
  I speak as a much more interested party in this matter than the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith), who spoke as a dramatist, for I speak as one who enjoys the theatre and the drama. After all, it is the consumers of the drama who dictate, very largely, what shall be presented to us. For that reason I must join issue with the Parliamentary Secretary who introduced this Cause. I cannot accept his arguments, based on the assumption that the choice of drama to be presented would be much better made by the local authority than by those who are trying to make a living out of the job. Of course, a local authority is quite entitled to express its views on what should and what should not be performed, just as much as anybody else, but it is very unlikely that they would be equal runners with the professional who has to make a livelihood out of the job.
  5.30 p.m.
  The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) raised a bigger issue. He claimed that we should entirely revolutionise the type of individual who would stand for election for the local authorities. I think that over-statements of that nature do this Clause no good. In practice, we shall find nothing of the sort will happen. I do not think it likely that the Mayor of Cheltenham, or the Lord Mayor of somewhere else, is likely to be chosen because he took a great interest in the performance last year of

  1375
  "Faust," or because he did a great deal to ensure that the right film was shown, for instance, in the Leeds City Hall or theatre. This Clause will not encourage a man of that type to go on the local council. This is not a matter which should rank as of the highest possible importance within the general powers of local authorities. If local councillors are to be elected in the future largely because they are the type of people who will take a practical interest in dramatic entertainment for the local residents, then Heaven help local government.
  As a Member representing a seaside holiday resort, I am strongly in favour of the purpose behind this Clause. I agree with a great deal of what has been said about the provision of entertainment for those in the countryside, but, after all, we shall not always be without basic petrol or road transport. I agree that we must have a greater diffusion of dramatic enterprise throughout the country so that drama is available to a wider public. When we come to the seaside and holiday resorts we find a very particular situation arises. In a town such as I represent, and in many other parts of Somerset, where the static population is small in comparison with the temporary holiday population which streams in during the summer months, we have an extraordinarily difficult problem. It raises all sorts of economic difficulties for those who finance and run any form of entertainments. I am not at all sure that the powers asked for in this Clause should not be granted; in fact, I would go so far as to say that in this particular type of case such powers should be granted.
  I make one important stipulation, however, and that is that the local electors should have an opportunity to decide this matter by public poll. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) to say that the local authorities risk their money in these enterprises. They do nothing of the sort. The local authority risk the money of their constituents, which is a very different thing.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not mean to misrepresent me. What I had in mind was that the local authority risk under this Clause the money entrusted to them by the electors, paid in the form of rates, in the
  1376
  same way as anything else they finance. I do not for one moment suggest that the local councillors are risking their own money. That never entered my head.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am certain that my hon. Friend, who is probably a local councillor, would not suggest for one moment that local councillors would risk their own money in these enterprises. In all common sense, is a council going to be elected for the purpose of running these entertainments? We all know that this will not be so. They will be elected on many other issues, and this is not likely to be the main issue at an election, unless a council has made a most awful mess of some similar type of enterprise, but even then, this will not be the main issue. It may well be said that the electors have an opportunity to dismiss the council at the next election. Of course they have. But the point is that the council can, in the meantime, use up money to the extent of a 6d. rate in launching out on considerable enterprises, and by the time the next election comes along the commitment has been made, and the capital expenditure has been incurred. The argument in such cases is always that it will cost more to get out than it would to carry on. That argument is used over and over again in the case of local authorities who undertake enterprises and do not make a success of them.
  If we are to have this type of Clause—and I want something like it in this Bill—the only fair way is to give the local electors an opportunity, by a public poll, to voice their opinions on whether the council should or should not risk their money. I cannot see any great novelty in this suggestion. The Minister knows very well that under existing legislation there are certain functions which cannot be undertaken by local authorities without a declaration of opinion by the electors at a poll. In a matter such as this, where the Minister seeks to give power to a local authority to expend and risk considerable sums of the ratepayers' money, surely it would be wise to modify this proposal to that degree, and to give the local electors a fair chance of expressing their views.
  Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I was very interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) and a little puzzled, because he

  1377
  seemed to think that for the Clause to work effectively those elected to a local authority should be chosen because of their interest in this special scheme.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Surely the hon. Lady does not wish to misrepresent me? I said exactly the reverse. I said that we all know that in electing a local government body this Clause would not be the main issue.
  Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I did not intend to misrepresent the hon. Member, but it would be a tremendous advantage to any local authority if a certain number of their members had a greater interest in entertainment and in the cultural activities of their citizens. The hon. Member alleged that the Parliamentary Secretary had suggested that the choice of drama would be better left to members of the local authorities. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary said anything of the kind. The hon. Member went on to say that he did not think local authorities would be equal runners with those who have to make their living out of the job. This is a fundamental question. Those making their living—and a very fat living—out of all kinds of entertainment have done it in such a way that it has prevented many people from taking advantage of that entertainment.
  I want to congratulate the Minister on introducing this Clause which, I believe, will be a great step forward towards providing the culture that we on this side, and some Members opposite, have for so long been anxious to provide for our people. We want to make every kind of culture and entertainment available, and ensure that all who wish to take advantage of it will be able to do so. This Clause will enable people in sparsely populated areas—where the nearest theatre is perhaps 10 miles away—to taste joys of drama and music which have hitherto been denied to them.
  During the war much good work was done by the Arts Council in taking music, drama and the visual arts to all sorts of places in the-country. Now, many people have an appetite for these things which they did not have before. Because that appetite has been aroused the Arts Council, of which I have the honour to be a member, find that they are unable, in many cases, to help to provide drama, music and the visual arts, because there
  1378
  are no halls or theatres in which they can be staged. I suggest that to this Clause there should be added the power to buy theatres and halls at a fair compensation. I do not know whether that provision is already in the Clause—
  Mr. Bevan indicated assent.
  Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I am extremely glad to know that. Can local authorities requisition halls?
  Mr. Bevan: No.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I wish they could. I want as many halls and theatres as possible to be acquired wherever they are needed for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of this country. Members opposite seem to be confused on this point. They do not want it to be possible for local authorities to spend a 6d. rate under the provisions of this Clause. Some have taken it for granted that the whole of the £8 million which is brought in by a 6d. rate over the whole country w ill immediately be absorbed in providing entertainment. My own fears are the other way, that many local authorities will not take the advantage that they might of this Clause, and will not use the money that could be used to provide this entertainment. An hon. Member opposite asked whether it would be right to pander to the desires of people by providing dances which would pay for symphony orchestra concerts. I cannot think why anybody should object to that.
  I hope that a large amount of money in rates will not have to be spent by local authorities, that they will not find it necessary to spend much, apart from acquiring the buildings, because they will be able to provide successful entertainment at no great cost. That would be an excellent thing. Everybody knows that a symphony concert, which, to many of us, provides the highest form of music, is difficult to produce with any financial success because unless there is a large audience such high prices have to be charged, that the concert is put out of the reach of many people. The local authority should provide symphony concerts for all those who would take great pleasure in them and help to meet their cost by organising weekly dances.
  Members opposite, although they have not exactly said so, are not in favour of

  1379
  this Clause because they are interested in the vested interests that have always gone with provision of entertainment, drama and music. To put on plays at theatres it has been necessary to pay huge rents to the theatre owners. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith), who is a dramatist himself, said that he was only too anxious that the Clause should be adopted because it would increase his livelihood and that of his children if more theatres came into being. We on this side certainly want to make available for the large mass of our population all the culture and entertainment of which they can take advantage. We do not want to see this entertainment provided by private enterprise and vested interests, which will make huge profits out of it. I welcome this Clause as a great and imaginative scheme for bringing joy and happiness to the people of Great Britain.
  Mr. Bevan: It is my experience in this House that the only issue which takes more time than an opposed issue is an unopposed issue. We have spent a little over two hours on this Clause, which has met with almost universal acclamation.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No.
  Mr. Bevan: Having spent so much time on it, I should hope that when we come to the Amendments to the Clause we might be exempted from the necessity of having a repetition of the general arguments which have so far been adduced. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee by repeating those arguments, which were so charmingly and adequately put by the Parliamentary Secretary when he moved the Clause. I want to deal with the question of machinery. I would point out to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), that enthusiasm for the functions of a parish council, if carried too far, would defeat itself. We have in the last few years added considerably to the powers of parish councils, and he must remember that they have limited financial resources. If they tried to carry too heavy burdens, the result would be not an increase in parish council activity, but a sharp reaction on the part of ratepayers in parishes, so that the result would be worse in the end than at the beginning.
  1380
  The reason why the county councils and parishes are not being armed with these powers is because, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, they should be exercised by communal units and not by wide local government units. The county council is not the appropriate body to provide this kind of facility. In fact it cannot often do so. We would merely have contention between that part of the county not provided with the facilities and that part of the county which was provided with them. The proper body to do this work is the local authority unit that lies closest to the citizen—the borough and county district. The county district can do on behalf of the parish areas all that has been claimed for the parishes, and do it more adequately.
  I admit that a problem can arise in the rural areas through borough or county districts being too small to provide the facilities necessary to service a wide area of rural country. Under Clause 121, the county council is able to make a contribution towards the expenses of a county district providing the facilities. Therefore, we have the financial resources of the county council available to help the county district, without the duplication that might arise by arming the county council itself with the powers to provide the facilities.
  Mr. Benn Levy: It seems to me that the case which my right hon. Friend is making out is for not obliging parish councils or county councils to operate in this fashion. The point that has been made is why they should be prohibited from doing so.
  Mr. Bevan: I am making out that case. They are prohibited from doing so, because if the county council and the county district can both discharge these powers, there will be hopeless overlapping and duplication, as well as an enormous amount of friction and jealousy. One can imagine the sort of situation that might arise. A county council might want to build a theatre or a cinema in a county district and the county district itself might want to do so.
  Mr. Mitchison: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the difficulty about Santa Claus?
  Mr. Bevan: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Member is trying to import difficulties of degree into what are diffi-

  1381
  culties of nomenclature. We have to define certain things and use words to define them on which lawyers can spend a great deal of time.
  Mr. James Hudson: Is the Minister dealing with the activities already carried out by the London County Council?
  Mr. Bevan: No, I am dealing with the distinction of function between the county council and the borough, and I am asserting, what I think will meet with universal approvel, that the appropriate local government body to do this is the county district or borough and not the county council. Where the financial resources of the county are necessary in order to assist a borough or county district to carry out these functions for populations lying outside their areas, Clause 121 provides that the county council can make a grant towards the cost.
  Squadron-Leader Fleming: Can the county councils contribute towards the cost of theatres?
  Mr. Bevan: Yes, under Clause 121 there is no limitation on the kind of object to which a county council cart make a contribution to the expenses of the county district. This is a new power. It is very important indeed in certain instances because it enables the county council to help the poorer county districts. The hon. Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) talked about providing these facilities for a wider conurbation. There is nothing in the Act to prevent local authorities forming joint boards for the purpose of carrying out any of these activities. That meets the point raised about services for a wider area. I have in mind the situation in Wales, where we need sometimes a hall which would be too large for any normal purpose in a county district to house an Eisteddfod. The same might apply in Scotland, because in those two places intellectual activity is very avid. Therefore, several bodies can join together to build a large hall where wider areas of population can assemble for the larger spectacles which are a feature of Eisteddfods. All these things are being met in the proposal now before the Committee.
  I would point out one reason why this power is so necessary. I say this not for the purpose of repetition, but to call the
  1382
  attention of the local authorities to it. During the last 30 or 40 years which has seen the rise of the cinema, we have seen the creation of a building which is useful for one function only and for no other purpose. All of us, I am certain, have spent many dreary hours addressing meetings in cinemas. [An HON. MEMBER: "Dreary for whom?"] Dreary for us and for the audience. The acoustics are all wrong because these places were never intended for public speaking. They are ill lit, miserable and dismal and even our speeches fail to illuminate the gathering. We need halls where it is possible to show a film as well as put on a play, where the acoustics are adapted to the living theatre as well as to the silver screen; but there are wide areas in this country where there is nothing at all except the dismal cinema in which it is quite impossible to carry on any cultural activity.
  Therefore, we want the local authorities to be armed with general powers to put up theatres of a kind that can also be used as cinemas. It is true that there is in this country to a very remarkable extent an intellectual and artistic renaissance.
  Mr. K. Lindsay: And musical.
  Mr. Bevan: I have seen it myself in some of the areas with which I am most familiar. I know of a cinema which is being run by workpeople very profitably, because there is no art in the running of a cinema. All one wants is a building. One hires the films and then stands between the films and those who want to see the film and charges a toll. That is all a cinema is. This workpeople's committee made very large profits—[Interruption.] All unpaid, run by a group of miners. They made large profits which they ploughed back into the institute to buy books for a library—not to pay dividends to anybody. Some years ago, before this Parliament met, the committee were very angry because they were called upon to pay Entertainments Tax. They asked me to intervene to see whether this tax could not be removed. I said that if they had made a profit they had to pay the tax. They said, "How are we to avoid the tax?" I said, "Fail to make a profit," and they said, "How do we do that?" I said, "Devote every fourth week to providing a celebrity concert, or

  1383
  what might be called an unprofitable high-brow entertainment to raise the general standards of education." They put on "Medea" and several other Greek plays. In three weeks time I had another letter calling my attention to the fact that it was no good because they had made more profit than ever.
  6.0 p.m.
  Sir W. Darling: Entertainments Tax is not paid on profits; it is paid on the tickets. I am sorry to spoil the Minister's story.
  Mr. Bevan: It is the same thing. In many parts of the country there are to be found people who are hungry for the things that lie beyond the mere repetition of feature films day after day, week after week and month after month. It will, of course, be some time before full advantage can be taken of these powers, because we are up against the limitation of our physical resources. Nevertheless, I hope the local authorities will look upon these permissive powers not as something to lie idle, but as something of which to take every advantage, because I am quite sure that this Clause opens wide a fertile field of local government activity.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: Would the Minister say one word on the question of a poll on these matters?
  Mr. Bevan: No, because that is a detailed point which we can go into later. I do not accept that position because it is a limitation. It is for the local electorate to say what they want and if the council give them what they do not want, or do not give them what they want, the electors can exercise their democratic powers and remove the council.
  Mr. Gibson: Will the Minister say a word about the special point I raised in connection with the London County Council.
  Mr. Bevan: The London County Council has powers which are not affected by any powers which a local authority is given here. Any powers a local authority has are unaffected by this Bill, which merely adds to those powers.
  Mr. Somerville-Hastings: Does this add to the powers of the London County Council?
  Mr. Bevan: No.
  Mr. Hastings: If the London County Council is not given any powers by this Clause it will not increase the powers it has.
  Mr. Bevan: The boroughs will have their powers increased. In our view the Metropolitan Boroughs are the proper authorities to discharge these duties. I hope that we will now get on with the Clause.
  Mr. Roland Robinson: I do not feel I need apologise for keeping the Minister just two or three minutes longer, because he himself last night said that this was a subject worthy of special discussion. Therefore, it was held over until this afternoon when we had plenty of time. I promise I will not be more than a few minutes, but I feel that exception should be taken to one thing. The Minister said that the Committee was taking a lot of time over a measure which was agreed to by all sides of the Committee. Watching him during the course of the Debate, I thought he was listening intently. That must not have been so, because on our side of the Committee there has been a certain measure of disquiet on this matter.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, when he opened the discussion, told the truth when he said that this Clause does give very wide powers indeed. I had hoped that we would have some examination of those powers and a justification for their use. Instead of that, the Parliamentary Secretary gave us a very interesting talk on the need for culture and for the development of art and music. Quite frankly, that is something with which all of us, not only on this side but throughout the Committee, fine ourselves in very full agreement. So far as the Minister went in regard to the development of arts and culture, we are entirely with him. But if that was the real reason for this Clause, then why not have a special Bill to develop the arts and culture on a national scale? I have in mind the idea of a national theatre or something like that, which could be done well instead of acting through the medium of local authorities. We have in the country areas where the people are interested in culture—
  Mr. K. Lindsay: We are spending a quarter of a million of national money on the very thing the hon. Member for South Blackpool (Mr. Robinson) is talking about.
  Mr. Robinson: I did not say we were not spending national money. What I was arguing was that we should have power to do what is proposed here on a national scale. The point I was making when I was interrupted was that there are in parts of the country people who are interested in arts, culture and music and they enjoy those things, because they are created through their local societies and not through the local authorities. Where they are not interested in those things they get nothing and giving power to the local authority only means that where the interest in the arts and culture is already there, it will be increased, but where no interest exists at the present time the local people will not get anything at all. We would probably have done better to spread this thing over the whole of the country.
  What worries me about this is that it is not a matter of art and culture, but that the Government are trying to make a direct excursion into the entertainment industry. As I see it, they are not taking a return ticket but a one-way ticket, and they mean to stay there and play a great part in it. That is a matter which is open to very strong criticism indeed. It has to he proved first, before the Government go into this entertainment industry, that the industry has not done its job in that it has not met the entertainment needs of the country. Personally, I think it has done so.
  I come from a constituency—Blackpool—where the job is done well. Where there is free enterprise and an energetic people, the best entertainment is to be found from the point of view of amusement, and of culture as well. I think the cat was let out of the bag by the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann), who told us about her experiences in Sweden and of the great desire there was to get the local authorities into the industry, because they wish to have an opportunity to make a little bit of money. On the other side of the Committee they got the idea that here is an industry which can make a profit, so the Government should get into It and use that profit entirely for purposes their own. As I have said, the hon.
  1386
  Lady let the cat out of the bag, and I can well imagine the Parliamentary Secretary turning to the Minister and saying, "It's that Mann again."
  I do not think the entertainments industry fears competition at all. It only objects to unfair competition which will come from the subsidisation of a 6d. rate. That would be a dangerous principle to adopt. Take the town I represent. It is engaged principally in the entertainments industry, and the biggest ratepayers in the town are entertainment people themselves. It is they who will have to pay the subvention to keep their municipal competitors in business. That does not seem to me to be fair trading. It is nearer to the policy of the loaded dice.
  The suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) that we should use the procedure of a Private Bill if this kind of entertainment was required, so that the local people would be given an opportunity to say by a poll whether or not they wanted it, was a very good idea. I believe we are all out to improve the general culture of our country, but I am uneasy about this idea, because this is an extension of the Government policy which we have seen throughout the last two years—the nationalisation of industry and the municipalisation of trade. The Government here are taking an entirely wrong view of the functions of local government. Local government is there to help its citizens to create conditions in which those citizens can give of their best, not only in their own interests but in the interests of a community as a whole and not to compete with them. I hope the Amendments which are to be proposed will be given careful consideration by the Minister, because so far as he wants to develop culture we shall help him, but insofar as he wants to extend the municipalisation of industry he will find himself up against us.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Young): I think the following Amendments to the New Clause might be discussed together. Those in the names of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), in liner to leave out

  1387
  "do, or"; of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), to leave out line 4; and of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Challen), in line 11, at end, to insert:
  "Provided that a local authority shall not—

  (a) provide for or arrange for the presentation of a stage play or for the exhibition of any cinematograph film except for or in connection with the advancement of art, education, drama, science, music or literature;

  (b) exhibit within a period of twelve months after it is first generally released in Great Britain any cinematograph film which commonly forms the main item of a cinematograph entertainment."

  and of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh, to leave out lines 29 to 31, might be discussed together.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: These bring up quite separate points. I should think it would be difficult to discuss them together. The distinction is very marked. I do not see how we could discuss together the proposal that local authorities should only work through delegated power and the proposal I have down.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I am in the hands of the Committee. As there is some understanding between the two sides of the House, I thought that would be the best way to do it. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman desires that they should be taken separately, that can be done.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: These Amendments can be taken together, but it will not add to the expedition of Business if we have a discussion on separate things at the same time. I think we should do better to take them separately.
  Mr. Bevan: I have no objection to the Amendments being taken separately. As we have had a long discussion, I hope we shall be able to take them sharply.
  Sir W. Darling: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out "do, or."
  You will agree, Sir Robert, that this is a very neat Amendment. It calls for the elimination of two very short words—the word "do" and the word "or"—and a comma. It has the effect of preserving local government as I understand it. My experience is that when local authorities
  1388
  try to do things they often do them very indifferently. They have tried to run electricity and gas, and they have apparently done it so badly that His Majesty's Government are taking it out of their hands. The object of this Amendment is to recognise the limitations of local authorities—they are no small limitations—and not to throw on them burdens which the Government, notably, do not believe they can effectively carry.
  The effect of my Amendment is that:
  "a local authority may arrange for the doing of"—
  etc. The Clause reads:
  "a local authority may do, or arrange—
  With my Amendment, we give these powers to local authorities to arrange but not to do. My reason for saying that is that local authorities, as I have seen them in action, are administrative authorities—the Minister and his supporters would not deny that—and not creative authorities. This Clause throws upon the local authority the responsibility for doing works of great creation, of building theatres, organising and running theatrical entertainments, engaging bands and orchestras, and conducting dance halls. This is a misunderstanding of the function of local authorities. I can quite understand omnibus minded men and women who think that local authorities can do everything. An opposite view is often taken and it is held that the powers of local authorities must be cribbed, cabined, confined and reduced.
  However, I do not follow the reason which places on the statute book the view and conviction that local authorities cannot conduct, gas, electricity and transport but can conduct theatres and dance halls. In order to make this embarrassment less apparent, I offer what I think is one of the simplest, shortest, most concise and clearest Amendments I have ever seen on the Order Paper. You will agree, Sir Robert, that it is a first-class maxim in local authority rating affairs never to kill a ratepayer. The ratepayer is the fountain of one's wealth and strength and authority in Parliament. The Clause as it stands will kill ratepayers. They are the financial source from which this power is drawn. If the Clause is amended it prevents the death of a ratepayer, because the local authorities may not "do" the death but only "arrange" it.
  Amendment negatived.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, to leave out line 4.
  I trust that the Minister will agree that these matters have been expeditiously dealt with. We consider that the words:
  "The provision of an entertainment of any nature …
  go far beyond what the House should sanction in general powers of this kind. If some of our later Amendments were to be accepted we should be more willing to leave these words in the Bill, but I see no sign from the Minister that he will be willing to accept any of those Amendments, even at a later stage. We consider that giving to all authorities here and now the power to provide any entertainment of any nature goes far beyond what is called for by the circumstances of the case.
  Mr. Bevan: These words are unduly restrictive and it is not possible to accept them. For example, it would be possible under the restricted words for a local authority to have a theatre in a building adequate for dancing and yet be prohibited from providing dancing in the building.
  Mr. Butcher: I hope we shall have a longer reply from the Minister. The
  "provision of an entertainment of any nature …
  is asking for powers far wider than ought to be conferred on any local authority. Imagine the position of a local authority which finds itself incurring a deficit. Instead of providing cultural entertainment, it might decide, in order to make its books balance in some way, to go in for a kind of entertainment which would not be approved by any hon. Member. Financial necessity might drive them to do that—
  Mr. Bevan: Would the hon. Gentleman give an example of such obscenity?
  Mr. Butcher: Certainly. After a most regrettable loss on some plays by Mr. Bernard Shaw the council might decide to recoup its losses by exhibitions of striptease. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman is moved to mirth, but he has given us an illustration of what was done by some energetic and patriotic miners under his guidance and the resource which they had to develop in order to avoid the payment of tax to the national revenue. If miners will do that
  1390
  sort of thing, I am frightened that local authorities may display similar initiative to bring the accounts into balance.
  Mr. Bevan: I think we need not be afraid of revered and pompous aldermen putting on striptease acts.
  Mr. Butcher: The right hon. Gentleman has more experience of what aldermen do than I have. Look at the Labour Party junketings at Margate. I have seen some most attractive pictures of the right hon. Gentleman on the front at Margate, not at a striptease certainly, but in very different surroundings.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): A photograph of the right hon. Gentleman at Margate has nothing to do with this Amendment.
  Mr. Butcher: I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Bowles. However I feel that we should prevent a local authority from providing injurious entertainment which might have an adverse effect on a delegation visiting Margate or elsewhere. I think the Amendment goes too far, although facilities for dancing should be given, and I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree to strike out the words "the provision of an entertainment of any nature or" and leave the facilities for dancing as they are at present.
  Mr. Gallacher: I am quite certain that if the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) were asked to suggest to the Glasgow authority or the Paisley authority what entertainment they should be prohibited from presenting, he would be in the same position as his party was in during the by-election—incapable of offering any policy on any subject. The fact remains that the Glasgow authority has conducted a number of valuable entertainments for the benefit and culture of the people. My own Paisley authority has made extensive use of it on different occasions, and there is no reason why a local authority should not be given the utmost power for all entertainments. I am quite certain that no local authority will trouble itself with the performances referred to by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher). The practice he suggested has been pursued by the National Liberals—they have pursued a policy of strip-tease until they, are

  1391
  sitting there naked and devoid of any policy other than the leavings of the fellows above the Gangway.
  Mr. Butcher: On a point of Order, Mr. Bowles. In view of the proper correction you gave me just now, may I venture to suggest that we are now ranging rather wide of the Amendment?
  The Temporary Chairman: Yes, I was about to stop the hon. Member.
  Mr. Gallacher: I am sure that no justification of that Amendment can be given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents for the time being, and only for the time being, a university constituency. I would say to the Minister that there are several hon. Members on this side who will support him on this Amendment, and on all the other Amendments, if he will only be good enough to accept the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) and other hon. Members, in line 10, after "refreshments," insert "excluding intoxicating liquor."
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is supporting the Government or not, but I support this Amendment because I think the Clause is much too wide. The Minister has not dealt sufficiently with the matter. The suggestion he made, that it would be impossible for a local authority to provide dancing in an empty basement over which it had control is not the case at all, because they would have ample provision to enable them to do that under the subsequent Subsections of this Clause. They have power already to provide dance halls or other premises suitable for the holding of dances, and for any purpose incidental to holding a dance. So the suggestion upon which the right hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to turn down this Amendment is not in accordance with the facts. I submit that the limitation of deleting this completely vague provision for "entertainment of any nature" is sensible. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee whether or not it would give statutory power to the Bognor Regis Urban District Council, for instance, to run a television business in competition with the B.B.C.
  Mr. Bevan: It might.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I think we are entitled to have an answer to the proposition put up by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). He suggested that as far as this Amendment is concerned he would go the whole hog and as I notice that he has not his usual support on those benches, we might ask the Minister how far is the bargain going. I have been drawn to my feet most reluctantly to say, first, that I was surprised by the hon. Member for West Fife, and still more by the method of the Minister, who seemed to be trying to bullyrag us into doing this at his pace and not that of the Committee. I am in agreement with this Amendment, although I think it goes rather too far. It is a pity to cut out the dancing part. It would have been better to have had an Amendment which cut out the words "of an entertainment of any nature or."
  Mr. G. Porter: On a point of Order, Mr. Bowles. Is it in Order to discuss the possibility of taking out this, that or the other from the Amendment?
  The Temporary Chairman: No, the hon. Member is quite right, and I was just about to call the attention of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) to the fact.
  Mr. C. Williams: I was only discussing the Amendment from the point of view that I thought part of it was good and part was not. If we could have all the good parts and cut out the rest, I should be inclined to support my right hon. and gallant Friend. I hoped I was in Order on that matter. Having arrived at that point, I wonder if, before we come to any definite decision on this question, we could not have some further advice from the Minister, because he might be able to help a considerable number of us in what is, I feel sure, a fairly widespread difficulty. I am sure that even if we have to take this as a whole, it would be better than no Amendment at all.
  Mr. Medland: May I ask the Minister what would be the effect, if this Amendment were passed, on, say, the Corporation of Torquay which habitually lets to entertainment companies its pavilion? Would it not mean that what the hon. Member is now

  1393
  asking is to limit the right of his local authority to giving an entertainment in its own home? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If that is so, I shall be glad.
  Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. and almost friendly Member opposite that, as far as Torquay is concerned we have, with other authorities, legitimate means for dealing with these entertainments. I am not entirely certain that the high standard we have always set in Torquay might not run the risk of being lowered to the standard of other parts of the country, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his
  kindness in having enabled me to enlarge upon this matter, and I feel sure that the Minister will be deeply indebted to him for his help. I always welcome any help from any part of Devon and if it were a matter of helping Plymouth, I would do everything possible to help, as I often have to do when the hon. Member is absent.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes. 279; Noes, 100.

  Division No. 84.]

  AYES

  [6.31 p.m.

  Acland, Sir R.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Irvine, A. J (Liverpool)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Irving, W J. (Tottenham, N.)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Isaacs, Rt Hon. G A

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Deer, G.

  Janner, B

  Attewell, H. C.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Jeger, G (Winchester)

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Dobbie W.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St Pancras, S.E.)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Jones, D T (Hartlepools)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Donovan, T

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Driberg, T. E. N

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Barnes, Rt Hon. A. J.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Keenan, W

  Barstow, P. G.

  Dumpleton, C W

  Kenyon, C

  Barton, C.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

  Key, C W

  Battley, J. R.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Kinley, J.

  Becheivaise, A. E.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Kirkwood, Rt Hon. D

  Benson, G

  Edwards, W J (Whitechapel)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Berry, H

  Evans, A (Islington, W.)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Beswick, F.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Leonard, W.

  Bevan, Rt Hon A (Ebbw Vale)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Levy, B. W.

  Binns, J.

  Ewart, R.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Blackburn, A. R

  Fairhurst, F.

  Lindsay, K. M. (Camb'd Eng. Univ.)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Farthing, W J.

  Lipson, D L.

  Boardman, H.

  Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington, E.)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Foot, M. M

  Longden, F.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Forman, J. C.

  Lyne, A W

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Fraser, T (Hamilton)

  McAdam, W.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Gallacher, W.

  McEntee, V La T

  Brook, D (Halifax)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  McGhee, H G

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)

  McGovern, J.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Gibbins, J

  Mack, J. D.

  Brown, T J (Ince)

  Gibson, C. W

  McKay, J (Wallsend)

  Bruce, Maj D. W. T.

  Glanville, J E. (Consett)

  Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.

  Granville, E (Eye)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Burke, W A.

  Grey, C F.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Butler, H W (Hackney, S.)

  Grierson, E.

  McLeavy, F.

  Byers, Frank

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Wastern Isles)

  Callaghan, James

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon J. (Llanelly)

  Mann, Mrs. J

  Castle, Mrs. B. A

  Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Chamberlain, R A

  Guest, Dr L Haden

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Champion, A. J

  Gunter, R. J

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. G

  Chater, D.

  Guy, W. H.

  Medland, H. M.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Hale, Leslie

  Mellish, R. J

  Cluse, W S

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Cocks, F. S

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Cot. R.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Collick, P.

  Hardman, D. R

  Mitchison, G. R

  Collindridge, F

  Hardy, E. A.

  Monslow, W.

  Collins, V J.

  Harrison, J.

  Moody, A. S.

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Morgan, Dr H. B.

  Comyns, Dr. L

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Morley, R.

  Cook, T. F.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Hobson, C R.

  Mort, D. L.

  Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Camb'well, N. W.)

  Holman, P

  Moyle, A

  Corlett, Dr J

  Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)

  Nally, W

  Cove, W G

  House, G

  Naylor, T E.

  Crawley, A

  Hoy, J

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F E (Brentford)

  Crossman, R. H S

  Hudson J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Oldfield, W H.

  Cunningham, P

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Oliver, G. H

  Daines, P.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orbach, M.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Hughes, H. D (W'lverh'pton, W)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Pargiter, G. A

  Skeffington-Lodge, T.C

  Viant, S P.

  Parkin, B T

  Skinnard, F. W

  Wadsworth, G

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Walkden, E.

  Paton, J.(Norwich)

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Walker, G H.

  Pearson, A

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)

  Perrins, W

  Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Watson, W. M

  Piratin, P.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Webb, M (Bradford, C.)

  Popplewell, E.

  Snow, J. W.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Porter, E (Warrington)

  Solley, L J.

  Wells, W T.(Walsall)

  Porter, G (Leeds)

  Sorensen, R. W

  West, D G

  Proctor, W T

  Soskice, Sir Frank

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J

  Pryde, D. J

  Sparks, J A.

  Wheatley, J T (Edinburgh E)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Stamford, W.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Randall, H. E

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Wigg George

  Ranger, J.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Wilkes, L.

  Rankin, J.

  Swingler, S.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Reaves, J.

  Sylvester, G. O

  Willey, F T. (Sunderland)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Symonds, A. L.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Richards, R.

  Taylor, H B (Mansfield)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Williams, Rt Hon. T (Don Valley)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonsh e)

  Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)

  Williamson, T

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)

  Willis, E

  Robertson, J J. (Berwick)

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Woodburn, A

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Wyatt, W.

  Royle, C.

  Tiffany S.

  Yates, V F

  Scollan, T.

  Timmons, J

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Titterington, M. F

  Zilliacus, K.

  Sharp, Granville

  Tolley, L

  Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Mr. Simmons and

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Mr. Richard Adams.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Vernon, Maj. W F

  NOES.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Hollis, M. C

  Peto, Brig C. H M.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Pitman, I J

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Poole, O B S. (Oswestry)

  Birch, Nigel

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  Bower, N.

  Keeling, E H.

  Raikes, H V

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

  Ramsay, Maj. S

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Lambert, Hon G

  Renton, D.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Langford-Holt J.

  Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)

  Butcher, H. W

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Challen, C.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Robinson, Roland

  Channon, H.

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Ropner, Col. L

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

  Low, A R W

  Savory, Prof. D. L

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Scott, Lord W.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Darling, Sir W Y.

  Macdonald, Sir P (I of Wight)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Mackeson, Brig H. R.

  Studholme, H G.

  Digby, S. W

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Sutcliffe, H

  Donner, P. W

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Drewe, C.

  Maclean, F H. R.

  Teeling, William

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Macpherson, N (Dumfries)

  Thorneycroft, G E. P. (Monmouth)

  Elliot, Lieut.-Col., Rt. Hon. W.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Marshall, S. H (Sutton)

  Touche, G C.

  Fox, Sir G.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Turton, R H

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Molson, A. H E.

  Walker-Smith, D

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  White, J B. (Canterbury)

  George, Maj Rt. Hn G Lloyd (P'ke)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Grimston, R. V

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Noble, Comdr A H. P.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V.

  Odey, G. W

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  O'Neill, Rt Hon. Sir H.

  Commander Agnew and

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C

  Orr-Ewing, I. L

  Major Conant.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Osborne, C

  Mr. J. Hudson: I beg to move, in line 10, after "refreshments," to insert "excluding intoxicating liquor."
  The new Clause, and that part of it which affects my Amendment really covers a large field, and while I promise to be brief, I certainly think that there
  1396
  is an opportunity, if I care to take it for a considerable and lengthy protest against what the Government are doing in this matter. After all, to give opportunities for the provision of theatres, concerts, film shows, dances, dance halls and halls that would be suitable for dances, is to cover

  1397
  a pretty wide field, when there is attached to it the incidental that in all these cases, if the local authorities think fit, there shall be refreshments and intoxicating beverages. In addition to that very large field, there is the further aspect that intoxicating beverages may be supplied in a park or part of a public park to the extent of a considerable area. For example, one-tenth of Heaton Park in Manchester might be taken for the purpose of producing some entertainment, and, associated with the production, the provision of refreshments, including intoxicating beverages.
  Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends to consider this wide proposal. I feel that when the Government come forward with a proposal which includes this further point—and about this I make my most serious complaint—that part of a public park may be taken and then let out to some private firm for the purpose of producing any of the things referred to in the Clause, including, incidentally, the supplying of alcoholic beverages, they are embarking on a proposal which has not much to do with Socialist planning. If we make this concession, the brewing Interests will not be unaware of the provision which gives them the right, when a park can be used in this way, of pushing forward licensing facilities associated with the sort of thing which they are now doing in their own public houses—conducting various types of entertainments or what they describe as entertainments. It is because I realise that the proposal s of such a wide character that I make my protest and ask for this provision concerning intoxicating beverages to be withdrawn.
  I would submit to the Minister that he might have done at least part of what he wants to do without risking all that which I have described, particularly in relation to my last point about parks and dance halls and provisions that give private individuals the right to come in and sell intoxicants. I believe that the Minister could have done it in regard to theatres, for I understand that when a licence for the conduct of a theatre is granted, such licence, unless the magistrates make a provision to the contrary, includes permission for the provision or intoxicants, and that theatres already work on some such basis as that in relation to the provision of intoxicants. Of
  1398
  course, I would like to separate the theatre and the intoxicants.
  I do not think that the real role of a theatre is helped by the process, though this afternoon I heard an hon. Member on the benches opposite, who has distinguished connections with the theatre, speak about the fact that he intended to stand for the bar, apparently in order to help the people to face the second part of the programme. They might face it with minds a great deal clearer if they let the bar alone, thereby getting a great deal more enjoyment out of the theatre. I repeat that the Minister could have done what apparently he wants to do about the theatres without bringing forward this very wide provision.
  6.45 p.m.
  I cannot understand the Minister's proposal in reference to cinemas. Practically all the cinemas in the country today are without a licence for refreshments or a licence for intoxicants. If they have one it is usually in association with their special restaurants. The Government have taken provision to provide British Restaurants, and already, under the powers they have unfortunately taken—I agree I voted against those powers—they could, if they wished, run a theatre with a restaurant attached, and could do what they want in reference to restaurants in cinemas.
  Therefore, there is really left only this problem of the dance hall and the park and the provision of intoxicants in those places. I submit, on the question of the dance hall, that magistrates know how dangerous is the association of dancing and drinking. There is a special matter to be watched in that regard. I agree that young people themselves learn in time what the danger is, sometimes after their own unfortunate humiliation, and that they endeavour to provide against the danger themselves by avoiding such places. I do not see a Socialist Government adding to their laurels by giving powers to local authorities, and thereby encouraging them to provide these entertainments and to press magistrates to give them facilities in order to make such entertainments possible. I certainly object to the power of the publican or of the brewer to come in and utilise, in connection with this Clause, the public park for the purposes I have described. It is with those points in mind that I ask my

  1399
  hon. Friends to give consideration to this matter.
  I see there is a later Amendment to which I will not refer, and, indeed, when it is being discussed I do not intend to take part in the discussion, because it you should call that Amendment, Mr. Bowles, it is a matter for the Scottish Members to deal with. But I have at least the right as an English Member to say that one important Measure has been passed by this House in which at the last minute the Government had to agree to the exclusion of Scotland. By excluding Scotland they proved that all they wanted to do in Scotland could be done without the association of intoxicants, while in the case of England the provision was retained under the pretence that what they wished to do could not be done here unless intoxicants were provided. As an English Member I object to that, and while I cannot say more until I see what happens to the Amendment concerning Scotland, I put this point to the Government very earnestly: If they can in any part of the country successfully run the projects that are provided for in this proposal they ought to be prepared to let those of us south of the Border do the same sort of thing that they permit the people in Scotland to do.
  This is no time for the introduction of this proposal regarding intoxicants. In view of the trying times of care and even of austerity through which we are passing, some of us on these benches went to the Lord President of the Council and suggested that something might be said about the unnecessary waste of the food of the country, and the spoiling of the work of the country—
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Member will allow me to point out that, up to now, he has been quite careful to relate his arguments, regarding the provision of intoxicating liquor, to the Amendment under discussion. I think he must continue to do that, rather than to go wider.
  Mr. Hudson: I wish to say this, Mr. Bowles, and I beg that you will allow me to say it. I assure you it is in Order. A provision which gives this large opportunity for distributing intoxicants is surely inoperative on the part of a Government who have such problems to face.
  1400
  I cannot say much on this, Mr. Bowles, because you may rule against me again, but I beg that the Minister, when he replies, will not say that I have left untouched all the evils associated with drink that are found in other places. When the opportunity comes for me to deal with those evils, I will not be behind hand in submitting proposals, but the Government ought to have dealt with them before now, and they have not done so—
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.
  Mr. Hudson: I beg the Government to face this issue on its merits. They are making provision for a large additional supply of intoxicants in the life of the country when it is particularly appropriate that we should hold the position as it is, and refrain from any further advances in this matter.
  Mr. Norman Smith: I shall oppose the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson). I give him great credit for being sincere, but I do not give him credit for knowing anything at all of what he has been talking about. Behind all his remarks lies an assumption, which is demonstrably false, that what this Amendment calls "intoxicating liquor" is necessarily and inherently evil in itself, or likely to produce evils. That might have been true 40 years ago when I first started being a non-teetotaller. It is not true now. I submit that the hon. Member for West Ealing, and my other hon. Friends on this side of the Committee who have put their names to an Amendment of this kind, are simply out of touch with the feelings, habits, and ways of life of the majority of the working-class people who have put them where they are.
  The carrying of such an Amendment would defeat the purpose which, I have no doubt, the hon. Member for West Ealing has in view. If people really want to drink, and regard a glass of beer, or wine, as a necessary incidental to their evening's amusement, and if they know they will not get it at the dance hall, there is always the possibility that they will stay away, and spend the whole evening in the very public house from which the hon. Member is anxious to rescue them. I know what I am talking about, because

  1401
  I go to dance halls where beer and other liquors are sold. I frequent the bar and I observe the people. I go to a working-class club in my constituency where concerts are held.
  Let us suppose that young couples go to a dance and find there are no facilities available for a drink. One of two things is going to happen—and I speak of what I know. Either the fellow will go out to the "pub" alone to get a drink, and come back; or else he will go out to the "pub" to get a drink accompanied by his girl, and then come back again. In the former case, the effect that the Amendment would have would be to cause trouble between the fellow and the girl; alternatively it would get that girl out to a public house, when it would have been far better that she should have had a drink in the bar in the dance hall, where the Clause proposes that she should have it.
  It is not true that "intoxicating liquor," as it is called, is necessarily an evil. When I was a boy, 40 or 50 years ago, it was common to see men about my native town—and most other towns—in a state of insobriety. One very rarely sees that today. There has been a tremendous change in the habits of people in that respect. I do not want the Labour Party to get itself tied up with fanatical ideologies which would alienate the vast majority of our supporters. I will tell the Committee of what happens in at least one working-class club in my constituency, of a character similar to that of dance halls and entertainment halls covered by the Clause. In this club it is the common practice to have a concert on Saturday evenings. Members and their wives are in the club. They have their drinks in front of them, and it is quite a usual thing for that concert to be interrupted for 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour in order that the club chaplain, who is a nonconformist minister, may hold a brief service. The drinks are still there—
  The Temporary Chairman: I must remind the hon. Member that he must keep to the Amendment.
  Mr. Smith: I accept your correction, Mr. Bowles. I hope the Committee will reject this Amendment. It is the business of Labour Members particularly to let people have what they want, and not
  1402
  what a minority of fanatics think that people ought to have.
  Mr. Gallacher: I wish to ask the Minister whether he will try to resolve the problem, which we had on an earlier Bill which brought in the question of excisable liquor, as to how this applies in Scotland when the magistrates are all members of the council?
  Mr. Bevan: In answer to the question of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), I do not propose to intervene in Scottish affairs. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will reply on Scottish matters, if it is necessary. I have troubles enough of my own without undertaking those north of the Tweed.
  This Amendment would have the effect of imposing upon theatres in England and Wales a very great disability. The municipal theatre would be denied the facilities which private theatres enjoy. There is no justification whatever for an inhibition of that sort. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith) has pointed out, it does not necessarily follow that if we allow intoxicating drink on certain premises it always has undesirable consequences. I am convinced that the growth of temperance is not so much due to any advocacy from this sect or that sect, but to the fact that there are all kinds of competing recreations available to the modern generation. In my young days—although I am not an old man now—long before the cinemas, there was nowhere at all to go in our district, except to the chapel or to the "pub." Later on, when the cinemas arrived, and when all kinds of other facilities were created—libraries, general education and literacy—people did not spend so many hours in miserable "pubs," but in many other places. Although there may be more people drinking, there is less drunkenness, because there are superior education and additional facilities. I believe, for example, that it would have a very good effect upon domestic relations, upon sobriety and upon the general standards of the community, if a man were able to go with his wife into a proper place where, if he wanted to have a glass of beer or a glass of lager, he could have it and his wife could have a cup of tea—
  Dr. Morgan: Or an injection of cocaine.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend is a doctor. I did not know cocaine was distributed as freely as that. The fact is that I am convinced that it is the experience of most people that domestic felicity would easily be advanced by it. Many of these public houses would be compelled to change their character and become reasonable places if it were possible to have alcoholic refreshment in places with greater amenities. I confess also that I am temperamentally hostile to unnecessary interference with the liberty of individuals. [Interruption.] I could probably show, over 17 or 18 years of Parliamentary life, a far better record of defending the rights of individuals than many hon. Members opposite—far better. When most of them were howling and yelping in the pack during the war, some of us had to defend the liberty of the subject against their extreme views.
  Mr. A. R. W. Low: Some of us were doing something else.
  Mr. Bevan: I know that some of them were in the Forces, and I know where some others were. Do not press that point too far.
  As far as this is concerned, why should we put this inhibition upon our people? If a man does not want to take a drink, he need not take it. Why should he be prevented from taking it because somebody else does not like it? This is entirely a matter for the people in the locality to decide for themselves.
  Mr. J. Hudson: Would the right hon. Gentleman insist that there should be no liquor restriction laws at all?
  Mr. Bevan: No, because they have other purposes as well, as the hon. Member well knows. In this case we say that, as a House of Commons, we should leave this matter to be decided by the people in their own localities. If the people in a county district or county borough do not want their local authority to provide alcoholic refreshment on these premises, they can prevent it. Why should we lay this inhibition upon local authorities? It is entirely indefensible. In this matter, I have always stood for local option; in other words, I have stood for this matter being decided by the smallest communal unit which one can get. There we get the least amount of tyranny. But
  1404
  if we had in Great Britain a comparatively small number of people who were able to bring pressure to bear upon the House of Commons to impose inhibitions upon vast numbers of the population, that would be tyrannous. I think, therefore, that the only safe thing for the House of Commons to do is to leave this to the mature and adult judgment of the local authorities and the citizens in their own areas.
  Mr. Walker: I wish to support the Amendment. I do so not because I am a teetotal fanatic, a super-moralist, a kill-joy or a spoil-sport, or any of those things. I do it because I feel that the dance hall especially is not the right place for the sale of intoxicating liquor. In my opinion, the right place for the sale of intoxicating liquor is the public house. I do not mind people going to the public house. I do not mind them drinking there, if they want to do so. The place has been provided for that purpose. It is licensed by law, and no one can legitimately interfere or make complaints about the people who frequent such institutions. The public house fraternity claim today that the public house has become a centre of social intercourse. I know nothing at all about that. I do not go to public houses. Moreover, I am a life teetotaller. I do not even know the taste of strong drink, and I do not think I am any the worse for that. I can compare my complexion, stamina and age with those of any other Member of the Committee. I believe that I am a fairly good advertisement for life teetotalism.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is advocating drinking only in public houses. He is really not speaking to the Amendment.
  Mr. Walker: I am sorry I strayed from the correct pathway; but so many previous speakers have done so, including the right hon. Gentleman, that I thought perhaps I might have a little bit of licence. However, with all respect to your Ruling, I will try to stick to the Amendment. I have already submitted that the right place in which to drink is the public house. I object to this facility for drinking being given to the dance hall. I know something about running dance halls. For one winter I was chairman of a committee which ran dances practically

  1405
  every Saturday night in our town hall. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee may be interested to know that we ran those dances in order to raise funds to purchase a Labour hall in the town. We made so much money that we went a long way towards paying for the Labour hall which is today a very useful institution for the party. The chief constable looked to me as a respectable citizen, a teetotaller, and a man known never to have been in a police court, as the right type of man to see that our dances were conducted in a proper manner without being hurtful or injurious to the young people. Unhappily for us, next door to the town hall was a public house. It was very convenient for many of the young people to run out from the dance into the public house. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith) has the cheek to tell the Committee that we teetotallers know nothing about the feelings of men and women and working-class people. I know quite as much about working-class people as he does. I was brought up in the working-class movement. I was one of them and, because I was one of them, I had the responsibility of running these dances.
  The point I wish to make is that these young people went out to the public house nearby for their "refresher" or "gargle," or whatever it may be called, and when they came back they were not the quiet, orderly, well-conducted people they were when they went out. That was where our bother started. It was when the drink was in that we had trouble with those who were patronising our dance. We were not all teetotallers on that committee, but we came to the decision not to admit anyone to the dance if there was the faintest suspicion that they had been imbibing strong drink. I will tell the Committee why. On one occasion two young fellows came to the dance under the influence of drink. In their hilarity they switched off the electric light in the town hall—
  The Temporary Chairman: This Clause gives power to local authorities to grant licences to dance halls, theatres and so on, and also to provide refreshments. The Amendment is designed purely and simply to prevent the local authority from having the liberty to grant a licence for the supply of intoxicating liquor. The hon. Member
  1406
  appears to have been talking about a privately run dance. He ought to keep to the point of the Amendment.
  Mr. J. Hudson: On a point of Order, Mr. Bowles. This Clause refers to town halls; it is proposed that town halls shall be licensed. Associated with the provision of dances, these town halls may be licensed, and I submit to you, Mr. Bowles, that my hon. Friend's argument illustrates the dangers that may arise in town halls when licensed facilities are available.
  The Temporary Chairman: Surely it appears to the hon. Gentleman that his hon. Friend would not be entitled to use the argument about a town hall, as that is not related to the Amendment, which is concerned with refreshments supplied at a dance.
  Mr. Walker: This Amendment has been put down specifically for the purpose of trying to avoid the situation in which a local authority would be able to provide refreshments at a dance which they had instituted and organised, and of preventing the further facility which they would have under this provision of applying for a licence for the sale of strong drink at a dance. I make an appeal to every Member of the Committee, and especially to those hon. Members who have young people in their families, sons and daughters starting on their careers. I do not mind young people dancing; I want to see them happy, and I have always urged a full quota of happiness for our young folk. A dance is all right and is a splendid opportunity for young people to meet, but if we provide at dances opportunities for the sale of intoxicating liquor, those dance halls become places of positive danger to the moral welfare of those young people. Therefore, I ask every hon. Member whether he is a teetotaller or likes a drink himself, to support this Amendment, in the interests of purifying and safeguarding the lives of our young folk, so that they shall not be led away through licences being granted to dance halls.
  I know of scores of young people who would scorn to enter a public house for something to drink, and yet these selfsame people in a dance hall might be tempted, in that environment and in those circumstances, to partake of that which they would not otherwise have. I have great pleasure, as a lifelong teetotaller,

  1407
  and as one who, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, would allow freedom and liberty to the individual, in asking the Committee to support the Amendment and to safeguard the young people of our country from a danger that might blight their whole careers.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I ask the Minister a question? The particular Subsection to which the Amendment refers is very wide indeed, in that it refers to the provision of any kind of entertainment; therefore, the provision of drink is associated with the provision of any sort of entertainment. This is a far wider field than is the case under the powers granted to British Restaurants. This Clause covers any form of entertainment provided directly or indirectly by the local authority. I think that goes far beyond anything we have had before us recently, and it may be right or wrong. While endorsing what the Minister has said about the local people having the free choice and discretion whether this power should be exercised or not, does he not think that the best way in which to discover that free choice would be to take a local poll? Will he give way on that point?
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman is merely repeating a question which he asked before. A local poll is taken every time a councillor is elected, and that is exactly what happens. If local citizens disagree with the conduct of a councillor, they reject him at the poll. The answer to the first part of the question is that the local authority would have to have a licence in exactly the same way as any other person for the provision of alcoholic liquor on any other premises.
  Mr. Gallacher: I want to associate myself with the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), and also with the very fine speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Walker). The Minister and those responsible for this Bill should not make, or give any opportunity for making, municipal dance halls into a sort of pool of supply to be used by the brewers for the "pubs" outside. I think the Minister should take note of some of the remarks that are made by magistrates in connection with drinking and dancing, and he would get a very good lesson on the undesirability of these things.
  Mr. Piratin: I must intervene in this Debate, in view of the fact that the Committee may have the impression that my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife was speaking for the Communist Party. Normally, I agree with my hon. Friend, for whose views I have deep respect, as I have for the views of the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. Hudson) and others—
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman may not go into the question of whether he or his hon. Friend adequately represent the views of the Communist Party. This is a question of detail in this Bill, and merely concerns the point whether local authorities should have the right to supply refreshments with or without intoxicating liquor, and that is all.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Piratin: With all respect, Mr. Bowles, I was coming to that. I was about to say that, for myself, I agree with the purpose of the Clause in this respect, and I do not associate myself with my hon. Friend. I agree absolutely with the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith) as to the effect—and I have seen it myself quite recently—of the non-provision of liquor at dance halls. If there is no liquor provided, the young people will go to the "pub" across the road or elsewhere; in some way or other, they will get it. I am absolutely in agreement with the Minister, who said that it is far better to provide these facilities in circumstances of amenity where people are much more likely to behave themselves than otherwise.
  Amendment negatived.
  The Temporary Chairman: I suggest that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Challen) should move the Amendment in line 11, and, at the same time, speak to the Amendment in line 31.
  Mr. Challen: I beg to move, in line II, at the end, to insert:
  "Provided that a local authority shall not—

  (a) provide for or arrange for the presentation of a stage play or for the exhibition of any cinematograph film except for or in connection with the advancement of art, education, drama, science, music or literature:

  (b) exhibit within a period of twelve months after it is first generally released in Great Britain any cinematograph film which

  1409
  commonly forms the main item of a cinematograph entertainment."

  I do not wish to say a great deal about this Amendment, or that in line 31—at end to insert:
  "Provided that a local authority shall not charge for admission to any stage play or exhibition of a cinematograph film which commonly forms the main item of a cinematograph entertainment a price less than the lowest price then current for admission to theatres in the district for similar entertainments."
  —because they speak for themselves, and I want to adopt the Minister's suggestion that one should not go over the ground which has already been covered in the Debate. I only wish to make an observation or two on the very wide powers being given to local authorities, and the need for having some kind of limitation. Anybody listening to the Second Reading Debate on this Clause would have thought that the English people had, hitherto, been largely uncultured and boorish people awaiting—
  Squadron-Leader Fleming: On a point of Order. Could the House be told, Mr. Bowles, with which Amendment we are dealing.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member for Hampstead has moved the Amendment in line 11, and is also referring to the first Amendment in line 31.
  Mr. G. Porter: I would like your guidance, Mr. Bowles. In view of the decision on a previous Amendment about the "provision of entertainment of any nature," is this Amendment in Order?
  The Temporary Chairman: I have ruled that it is in Order.
  Mr. Challen: I was saying that anyone listening to the Second Reading Debate on this Clause would have imagined that the English people had, hitherto, been an uncultured and boorish people, awaiting the day when a Socialist Government would enable local authorities to embark upon cultural activities. That is just not true. I am not going to argue about what we mean by "culture," although it occurs to me that some hon. Members would give different definitions from those given by others. It was accepted on all hands that, whether we are an uncultured people or not, if local authorities are to have these powers, they should be for the advancement of culture,
  1410
  education, art, music, and so forth. Therefore, my Amendment seeks to ensure that that shall be so.
  There is a good deal to be said for the argument that local authorities are not necessarily the best organisations to undertake the advancement of culture, art, music, science, literature, and so forth. Many arguments could be used against such a proposition but if, in fact, we are to have this Clause there must be some limitation upon its exercise. We agree that it is desirable that local authorities should have powers for these purposes; there is no dispute about that, so far as I am concerned, and it is very desirable that some power should be given to local authorities beyond what they already possess, some power simpler than that of the usual method by way of a private Bill.
  Do not let this Clause be acted upon in one way in one locality, and in another way in another locality, and thus create a hopelessly chaotic condition in the exercise of powers throughout the country. Let us have it laid down in the Bill that the local authorities' powers shall be used for these purposes, and let us set a high standard. I do not agree with the suggestion that the exhibitions, or the stage plays, may be highbrow, lowbrow, middlebrow, or any other brow. I suggest they should be part of the standard here indicated.
  I come to the second part of my first Amendment, namely, that local authorities shall not
  "exhibit within a period of 12 months alter it is first generally released in Great Britain any cinematograph film which commonly forms the main item of a cinematograph entertainment."
  That, again, largely explains itself. We should certainly not allow local authorities, at the cost of a 6d. rate, or any rate at all, to compete unnecessarily with the adequate provision of cinematograph entertainment in this country.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now repeating the general discussion.
  Mr. Challen: I do not want to do that; I merely wish to explain what my Amendment sets out to do, and to make the point perfectly clear.
  In conclusion, I wish to say that I have no kind of connection, either financial or

  1411
  otherwise, with cinematograph films, the stage industry, or any entertainment industry of any kind. I do not represent a seaside or holiday resort, and I do not think that my local authority has any particular desire to exercise these powers. I approach the matter simply from the point of view of one's ordinary judgment as to what should be the limits of these powers which we propose to give to the local authorities.
  Mr. Bevan: This is another Amendment seeking to limit the powers to be conferred upon local authorities. As this Clause was drawn up specifically with a view to providing wide powers, I cannot accept the limitation. I must resist any Amendment which seeks to limit these powers. There would be no point at all in framing the Clause as it is if we were to start curtailing the powers and making it more and more difficult to exercise them.
  Amendment negatived.
  The Temporary Chairman: I suggest that it would be convenient to the Committee if the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) were to deal with the first four Amendments standing in his name and the names of his hon. Friends.
  Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in line 37, after "exceed," to insert:
  "a sum to be prescribed by the Minister which shall not in any case exceed."
  As you suggest, Mr. Bowles, I will deal with this Amendment, together with the one in line 38, to leave out "sixpence" and to insert "threepence"; the one in line 38, to leave out "plus," and to insert "or"; and the one in line 39, at the end, to insert, "whichever is the greater"—although I do not know that the second Amendment in line 38 would really come in on the same argument. However, if you rule that it does, I am quite willing to speak to it.
  7.30 p.m.
  We feel that to give this general grant of a rate of 6d. is rather too high. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), when speaking on the Clause, pointed out that it would mean an expenditure of some £8 million a
  1412
  year if the whole of the sum were required, and that, in the present circumstances, it was altogether unjustified. Therefore, instead of 6d., we consider 3d. would be adequate for the purpose. In a number of speeches attention has been drawn to the large profits which can be made by these municipal enterprises, and, therefore, we do not think that a rate of 6d. can be in any way justified.
  I now come to another point in connection with the Amendment which seeks to leave out "plus" and to insert "or." It is one thing to say that any local authority which has these powers shall be allowed to meet a deficit by levying a rate of 3d. or 6d.; but to say that, in addition, it shall be able to spend any profit—I think that is what the words must mean—might lead the local authority, in estimating its expenditure, to the conclusion that it could make a large profit on certain things and then go to the whole extent of a 6d. rate on something which merely a few faddists wanted, and lose a great deal of money in the process. We have no objection to the rate being called upon, to a limited extent, to meet a deficit, although of course we hope that these enterprises will be run at a profit. We do not want the rates to be encroached upon at all, but, in any case, we do not want a 6d. rate to be regarded as the minimum to be spent. The fourth Amendment, to insert "whichever is the greater" is consequential upon the Amendment to which I have just referred.
  Mr. Bevan: I suppose, Mr. Bowles, it would be in Order for me to make my reply to the four Amendments in the same statement?
  The Temporary Chairman: Yes.
  Mr. Bevan: I am sure the answer to the first Amendment will make itself easily apparent to the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). It would put an intolerable burden upon a Minister to expect him to prescribe the amount to be spent year by year, and it would be entirely opposed to the spirit of the Clause, which is intended to leave these matters within the circumscription of the Clause to the initiative of the local authority itself.
  With regard to the Amendment to leave out "sixpence" and to insert "three-

  1413
  pence," although it may appear that in some large cities the product of a 6d. rate would be very large, it would be quite small in some small county districts. Therefore, although a reduction from 6d. to 3d. might not be entirely crippling in the large aggregations of population, it would be inhibiting in the smaller ones, and it is not desirable to make the reduction. I should think that that point of view would appeal to hon. Members opposite.
  As to the Amendment to leave out "plus" and to insert "or," and the consequential Amendment, there again it is very difficult. It is perfectly true that the local authority would be able to use the 6d. rate in addition to any profits it made on any undertaking, but under these Amendments the profits from the undertaking would eat into the 6d., and a situation would be reached whereby year by year the local authority would have at its disposal no funds out of which to initiate any new undertaking except the accumulated profits from the previous undertaking.
  Squadron-Leader Fleming: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain whether the net amount of receipts referred to in the Clause relates to the whole period of a year?
  Mr. Bevan: Yes, it would be over the whole year. Obviously, if the local authority made any profits, it would have to add all the profits together, and if they amounted to the product of a 6d. rate the local authority could levy no rate at all but merely use those profits. The effect, therefore, would be that in any particular year if the profits were greater than the product of a 6d. rate the local authority could undertake no work at all during that year except out of the profits made that year. As the effect of this Amendment would be extremely limiting, I am bound to resist it.
  Squadron-Leader Fleming: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the effect of a 6d. rate in a place like the City of Manchester?
  Mr. Bevan: Yes, but it must also be borne in mind that a very large proportion of the population would benefit from the expenditure of a 6d. rate. The expenditure of this rate would not necessarily mean a loss. One cannot regard
  1414
  the expenditure of money on providing bands in parks and that kind of thing as a loss, any more than we can regard the expenditure of money on education as a loss. A local authority might decide to run an orchestra for several years, probably for the purpose of improving the playing of instrumental music and encouraging young people to learn to play instruments; this would be a worthy object and should be encouraged in this country, because we have become accustomed to listening to other people, and fewer people are learning to play instruments themselves. The expenditure of a 6d. rate might be regarded as a loss, but it need not be regarded as such, any more than the expenditure of money on other services provided by local authorities.
  Colonel Wheatley: Concerning the Amendment to substitute "threepence" for "sixpence," we have been told that a large authority can spend a large sum of money and that the effect of this Amendment would be to hit the small authority, because a 3d. rate would not produce enough income to enable the authority to do anything worth while. The Minister told us earlier today that a small authority can go to the county council if necessary. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that a 6d. rate is felt very much more by a small authority than by a large authority, because in a small authority there are fewer people paying it. It may be psychological, but they do feel it more than in a big town.
  Mr. Bevan: They can go to the county council, but the county council need not give them anything. There is the power to do this, but it is not an obligation. Therefore, a small county district may not be able to persuade a county council to make a contribution. On the other hand, the small county district need not spend the 6d. It might be that the expenditure of 2d. or 3d. would be as much as it could reasonably be asked to bear, and the county council could be asked to pay the rest. They are not obliged to spend 6d.; this is a permissive, and not an obligatory power.
  Amendment negatived.
  The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not propose to divide the Committee on the next Amendment, does he think there is any point in moving it?
  Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in line 38, to leave out "sixpence," and to insert "threepence." I think it is as well that I should move the Amendment formally.
  Amendment negatived.
  Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in line 38, to leave out "plus," and to insert "or."
  Here, I am afraid, I have to insist. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to meet me, I am afraid I must divide the Committee on the Amendment, because it seems to me—I should like to be corrected if I am wrong—that we are departing from the spirit of the words in the Public Health Act, 1925. I can well understand that where a loss is incurred a local authority should have power to rate, as is now being decided, up to 6d. to meet the loss, but where large profits are being made, I think those profits should be used for the purpose we have in view in this Clause. I think it is quite wrong that large profits should be accumulated and that ratepayers should still be subject to a charge if the local authority so decides. I do not know where that may lead us at the end of the day and, therefore, I am afraid I must divide the Committee on this Amendment.
  Mr. Bevan: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate how crippling the word he proposes would be to local authorities? I cannot imagine a local authority, which was making a substantial profit on the undertakings described in this Clause, adding to their revenues by imposing a rate charge on the ratepayers. Personally, I should have thought that most local authorities, having accumulated their profits, would use them for extending their activities and would not impose a rate charge in addition. The difficulty is that, if this wording were accepted, the authorities would in any particular year—each year—be limited to the profits or to the sixpenny rate, whichever is the greater. That would be a very important crippling provision which, I think, would be almost impossible to operate. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate the difficulty.
  Commander Galbraith: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not convince me. I am sorry, but it seems to me that my argument is quite sound, and that I must divide the Committee.
  Question put, "That 'plus' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 84.

  Division No. 85.]

  AYES.

  [7.43 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Byers, Frank

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  Callaghan, James

  Evans, A. (Islington, W.)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Champion, A. J.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Chater, D.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Attawell, H. C.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Fairhurst, F

  Austin, H Lewis

  Cluse, W. S.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Cocks, F. S

  Forman, J. D.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Collins, V. J.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Baird, J.

  Colman, Miss. G. M

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H T N

  Barstow, P. G.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Barton, C.

  Cook, T. F.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Battley, J. R.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Gibbins, J.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  Gibson, C W.

  Beswick, F.

  Corlett, Dr J.

  Glanville, J. E (Consett)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Cove, W. G.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Bing, G. H. C

  Daines, P.

  Granville, E. (Eye)

  Binns, J

  Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

  Grey, C F.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Grierson, E.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Boardman, H.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Mess Side)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Davits, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Gunter, R. J.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hale, Leslie

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Deer, G.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R.

  Bramall, E. A.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hardman, D. R

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Dobbie, W.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Dodds, N N

  Harrison, J.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Donovan, T.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Dumpleton, C W

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Burke, W. A.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Hobson, C R.

  Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Holman, P

  Holmes, H E.(Hemsworth)

  Moody, A S

  Sorensen, R. W

  House, G

  Morley, R.

  Soskice, Sir Frank

  Hoy, J.

  Morgan, Dr H B.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W)

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Stamford, W.

  Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)

  Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Strauss, Rt Hon. G. (Lambeth, N.)

  Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W)

  Mort, D. L.

  Swingler, S.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Moyle, A.

  Sylvester, G O

  Irvine, A. J (Liverpool)

  Nally, W

  Symonds, A. L

  Irvine, W J (Tottenham, N.)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Taylor, H B (Mansfield)

  Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A

  Oldfield, W. H

  Taylor, R. J (Merpeth)

  Janner, B

  Oliver, G. H.

  Tayler, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Jay, D P. T.

  Orbach, M.

  Thomas, D. E (Aberdare)

  Jeger, G (Winchester)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Jeger, Dr S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Paton, Mrs F. (Rushcliffe)

  Tiffany S.

  Keenan, W.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Timmons, J.

  Kenyon, C.

  Pearson, A

  Titterington, M F

  Key, C. W

  Perrins, W

  Tolley, L

  King, E. M

  Piratin, P.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

  Popplewell, E.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Kinley, J.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Vernon, Maj. W F

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Proctor, W T

  Viant, S. P

  Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

  Pryde, D J

  Wadsworth, G

  Leonard, W.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Walkden, E.

  Leslie, J. R

  Randall, H. E

  Walker G H

  Levy, B. W.

  Ranger, J

  Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)

  Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)

  Reeves, J.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Watson, W. M.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Richards, R.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Longden, F

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  West, D. G.

  Lyne, A W

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

  McAdam, W.

  Robertson, J. J (Berwick)

  Wheatley, J T. (Edinburgh. E.)

  McEntee, V La T

  Rogers, G. H R.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

  McGhee, H G.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Wigg, George

  McKay, J (Wallsend)

  Royle, C

  Wilkes, L.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Sargood, R

  Willey, O G. (Cleveland)

  McKinlay, A. S

  Scollan, T

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  McLeavy, F.

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Macpherson, T. (Remford)

  Sharp, Granvilla

  Williamson, T

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Willis, E.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Willis, Mrs. E. A

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Woodburn, A.

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Yates, V F

  Medland, H M.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Mellish, R. J

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Monslow, W.

  Snow, J. W

  Mr. Collindridge and Mr Wilkins.

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P G

  Grimston, R. V.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sullen)

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Hannon, Sir P. (Meseley)

  Maude, J. C.

  Beamish, Maj T V H.

  Harvey, Air-Comdrs. A. V.

  Medlicott, F.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C

  Mellor, Sir J

  Bower, N.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  Butcher, H. W.

  Hollis, M. C

  Odey, G W

  Challen, C.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Orr-Ewing, I L

  Channen, H.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Osborne, C. H. M.

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Pete, Brig. C. H. M.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col W. H

  Pitman, I. J

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Langford-Holt. J.

  Poole, O B. S. (Oswestry)

  Darling, Sir W. Y

  Law, Rt. Hon R K

  Prior-Palmer, Brig O

  Donner, P. W

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Raikes, H V

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Ramsay, Maj. S

  Drewe, C

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Low, A. R. W

  Robinson, Roland

  Elliot, Lieut.-Col., Rt. Hon. W.

  Lucas, Major Sir J

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)

  Savory, Prof. D. L

  Fox, Sir G.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R

  Scott, Lord W.

  Fraser, H C P. (Stone)

  Maclay, Hon. J. S

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Gage, C

  Maclean, F H R.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

  George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

  Marshall, D. (Bedmin)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)

  1418

  1419

  Touche, G C.

  Wheatley, Col M J (Dorset, E)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Turton, R H

  White, J B (Canterbury)

  Mr. Studholme and

  Walker-Smith, D

  Williams, C (Torquay)

  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

  Mr. Challen: I beg to move, in line 52, to leave out "metropolitan borough."
  In London we are amply provided with entertainment facilities—music halls, concerts, theatres, cinematographs — entertainments of every kind and description. I should think that there really is no metropolitan borough that would seek these entertainments, and that it would not be desirable that the ratepayers' money should be spent in a place like London upon setting up rival entertainments in competition with existing entertainments.
  Mr. J. Edwards: It is quite impossible for us to accept this Amendment. The grounds which the hon. Gentleman has advanced do not appeal to us on this side of the Committee. I can remember, and other hon. Members will, too, no doubt, that there was a time when we had quite a number of small theatres in the areas of the Metropolitan Boroughs. Some of them were blitzed, and others of them have been shut up. The notion that London can be adequately provided for in the matter of theatres alone merely in the area—the very small area—of theatre-land in the West End is quite erroneous. In our view, Metropolitan Boroughs are quite right and proper bodies to exercise the powers of this Clause. It is up to the ratepayers to make up their minds whether they want their councils to spend, and to what extent they want their councils to spend. It would be quite wrong to deprive the Metropolitan Boroughs of these powers.
  Amendment negatived.
  Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in line 70, at the end, to insert:
  "(8) No power conferred by this Section shall be exercisable by any local authority except in pursuance of an order made by the Minister and approved by both Houses of Parliament."
  It will be obvious, from the Debate which we had earlier, that on both sides of the Committee there is very general agreement with the purposes of this Clause. Where some of us differ from the Clause is in this: that it makes it permissive straight away for a local authority
  1420
  to go ahead. We much prefer the system under which a local authority came to the House of Commons with a private Bill to obtain powers. The reason why we do is quite simple: it gave the ratepayers in the area of the local authority an opportunity of making up their minds, and of taking action to stop their local authority going ahead if they felt inclined. Now the local authority will have permission to put these things into operation without really consulting the ratepayers at all. That, we think, is one of the blemishes in this proposal. We do not think that the new procedure really gives an opportunity to the ratepayers to know what is going on. Instead, they will suddenly, as was said earlier, wake up to find themselves being saddled with enormous expenditure of which they do not altogether approve.
  It is for that reason that we have put down this Amendment, that none of these powers shall be exercisable except in pursuance of an order made by the Minister. That procedure would give the ratepayers an opportunity of understanding what was going on. While the order was being prepared, and being debated, no doubt, in the local council, they would have time to make representations which would affect, the council's deliberations and decisions. I do not at all agree with the Minister when he says, "Well, of course, they will be able to exercise pressure by dismissing the members of the council who agreed to the expenditure." I do not think that that really cuts much ice. The damage will have been done; and once large expenditure has been incurred and arrangements have been made it may be less costly to let the arrangements proceed than to try to get out of them at the last moment. In any case, I am quite certain that no local election will ever be decided on such an issue as this, compared with the great weight of matters which will come before the electors. I think this is a reasonable Amendment, and I hope the Minister may see his way to accept it. The next Amendment on the Order Paper is consequential. It is in line 70, at the end, to insert:
  "(8) This Section shall have effect as from such date as the Minister may by Order appoint."
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. J. Edwards: There is clearly a difference of opinion between the hon. and gallant Gentleman and ourselves on this point. I am sure that he would not wish me to argue about it at great length, because that difference of opinion is clear. I do not suppose that it can be resolved. The hon. and gallant Member complained that under the Clause as drafted, local authorities can go ahead. That is precisely our intention. It would be ridiculous for me to imply anything else. We want local authorities to do what they can. We know that a lot of activities will not be open to them because of physical limitations of which we are all aware. We do not want to have the kind of procedure which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested.
  He said he thought that the Amendment was reasonable. It may be, but it would have the effect of completely destroying what the new Clause seeks to do. It is hopeless to give powers of this kind to local authorities and then fasten upon them a procedure which would be completely unworkable. If we are serious in our desire to give these powers to local authorities we must give them in such a way that the local authorities can exercise them without undue interference. I therefore hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment, as well as the Amendment which follows it and which, although not upon quite the same topic, is not unrelated to it.
  Mr. Challen: The Minister is again being much too pedantic. There is nothing to prevent local authorities from obtaining powers of this kind by means of a private Bill. Many local authorities exercise functions of this nature in that way. There is a very great deal to be said for the private Bill procedure, because it enables Parliament to exercise control over the activities of local authorities. We are not seeking to set up some expensive and cumbersome routine. Why cannot some control be allowed to the Minister to say to a local authority that, in present circumstances they ought not to have powers for which they were asking because there was no demand for them.
  There might be many instances in which the Minister would hesitate for a long time before making an order giving powers to a local authority. If the
  1422
  Minister came to the conclusion that the powers were reasonable and that the local authority ought to have them, he would lay upon the Table a draft of the order, which could then become a matter for Debate. I urge the Minister to consider this matter further and to see whether he can introduce the principle in another place. It is a very convenient principle, particularly to be employed in cases of this nature.
  Commander Galbraith: I am somewhat disappointed with the reply of the Minister. There obviously is some difference of opinion between us. His argument was a little far-fetched when he suggested that what we are proposing would destroy the intention of the Clause. I do not think it would do so at all. After all, authorities who have already come to the House and obtained private Bills have done great work in this field in the past.
  Mr. J. Edwards: I would emphasise that there is all the difference in the world between giving a local authority general powers and giving the Minister power to make an order in the case of a particular local authority. If the Amendment were accepted, it would, in that sense, destroy our intention of giving general powers to all the authorities.
  Commander Galbraith: That may be. I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance that the Amendment would destroy the intention, but it would make the whole proposal much more palatable to hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I cannot see any objection, or that there would be any real difficulty. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted local authorities to go ahead at once. How much delay would be involved in this procedure? It would enable ratepayers of localities to say whether they wanted something or not. That is a point which has been stressed time and time again in the course of the Debate by hon. Gentlemen on the Government side. If one looks at the enormous number of things which can now be done without any necessity of consulting the ratepayers at all it is obvious that there should be some check. We have suggested in the Amendment what the check might be. If the hon. Gentleman is not willing to accept the Amendment, I regret to say that I shall have to divide the Committee.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 84; Noes, 257.

  Division No. 86.

  AYES.

  [8.8 p.m.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Osborne, C.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir C.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Beechman, N. A

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Bower, N.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)

  Raikas, H. V.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Ramsay, Major S.

  Challen, C.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)

  Channon, H.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Robinson, Roland

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Savory, Prot. D. L.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Lindsay, M (Solihull)

  Scott, Lord W.

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Lleyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Low, A. R. W.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Donner, P. W.

  Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)

  Sutcliffe, H

  Drayson, G. B.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Drewe, C.

  Maclean, F H R

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A F

  Elliot, Lieut.-Col., Rt. Hon. W.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Touche, G. C

  Fleming, Sqn-Ldr. E. L.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Turton, R. H.

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Maude, J. C.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Fox, Sir G.

  Medlicott, F.

  Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Gage, C.

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Morrison, Maj J. G. (Salisbury)

  George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  TELLERS FOR THE ATES:

  Grimston, R. V.

  Odey, G. W.

  Mr. Studholme and

  Brigadier Mackeson.

  NOES.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Collins, V. J.

  Gunter, R. J

  Alexander, Rt Hon A. V.

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Hale, Leslie

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

  Anderson, A (Motherwell)

  Cook, T. F.

  Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N.W.)

  Hardman, D. R.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Corlett, Dr. J

  Hardy, E. A.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Cove, W. G.

  Harrison, J.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Crawley, A.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn A (Kingswinford)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Daines, P.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Baird, J.

  Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Barstow, P. G

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Hewitson, Captain M.

  Barton, C.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Battley, J. R.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Holman, P.

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Benson, G.

  Deer, G.

  House, G

  Beswick, F.

  Dobbie, W.

  Hoy, J.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Dodds, N. N

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Donovan, T.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Binns, J.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Ede, Rt. Hon J. C

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W)

  Blyton, W R.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Boardman, H.

  Edwards, N (Caerphilly)

  Irvine, A. J (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Evans, A. (Islington, W.)

  Janner, B

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Bramall, E A

  Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Fairhurst, F.

  Jones, D T. (Hartlepools)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Brown, T J (Ince)

  Forman J. C.

  Keenan, W.

  Bruce, Major D. W. T.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Kenyon, C.

  Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

  Key, C. W.

  Burke, W. A.

  King, E. M.

  Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

  Byers, Frank

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Kinley, J.

  Callaghan, James

  Gibbins, J.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Champion, A. J.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Chater, D.

  Gooch, E. G

  Leonard, W.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Granville, E. (Eye)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Grey, C. F

  Lever, N. H

  Cobb, F. A.

  Grierson, E.

  Levy, B. W.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Collick, P.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Lipson, D. L.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Popplewell, E.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  McAdam, W.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Randall, H. E.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Ranger, J.

  Tiffany, S.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Reeves, J.

  Timmons, J

  McLeavy, F.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Titterington, M. F

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Richards, R.

  Tolley, L.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

  Mann, Mrs. J

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Roberson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Vernon, Major W. F

  Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Viant, S. P.

  Medland, H. M.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Walkdan, E.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Royle, C

  Walker, G. H.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Sargood, R.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chisleburst)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Scollan, T.

  Warbey, W. N

  Monslow, W.

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Watson, W M

  Moody, A. S.

  Sagal, Dr. S.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Morley, R

  Sharp, Granville

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  West, D. G

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Wheatley, J. T. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Mort, D L.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Moyle, A.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Wigg, George

  Nally, W.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Wilkes, L.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Williams, D J. (Neath)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Snow, J. W

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Sorenson, R. W.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Orbach, M.

  Soskice, Sir Frank

  Williamson, T.

  Paget, R. T.

  Sparks, J. A

  Willis, E.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Stamford, W.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Woodburn, A.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. (Lambeth, N.)

  Yates, V. F.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Swingler, S.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Symonds, A. L.

  Pearson, A.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Perrins, W.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Wilkins.

  Mr. McKinley: I beg to move, in line 86, to leave out paragraph (b).
  With the leave of the Committee, I should like also to discuss the Amendment in line 93, at the end, to add:
  "(9) No certificate shall be granted under the Licensing (Scotland) Acts, 1903 to 1934 for the sale of excisable liquor in any premises provided under this section in Scotland, hut nothing in this Subsection shall render it unlawful to grant under Section forty of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, a special permission for an entertainment in any such premises."
  Great as is the temptation offered, I do not desire to start an argument on the relative merits of beer drinking in England and whisky drinking in Scotland. Nor shall I dispute what I heard previously, that there is less drunkenness in one country or the other. Nowadays, most people are loaded to the Plimsoll line with water mainly: they are not drunk but waterlogged. Nor shall I cover the whole field of the virtue or otherwise of teetotallers as opposed to those who imbibe stronger drink. As may have been obvious to many hon. Members, I do not take strong drink myself.
  1426
  In Scotland, the difficulty with which we are confronted is different from that prevailing in England. I am doing my best to rescue the working-class in Scotland from falling into the prevalent bad habits in England. It brings a blush to my face when I hear men—I am not saying this in an offensive way—talking about taking their wives along to the "pub" to have a drink. We have a funny name in Scotland for women who go into "pubs" to drink, which I will not repeat here. The main difficulty in applying this otherwise good Measure to Scotland is that Scottish law is somewhat different and Scottish habits and customs are very different from those of England, and if the Clause were accepted without this Amendment, we should have the anomalous position that the owners of the theatre, the cinema or the dance hall would be the licensing authority for the theatre, the cinema and the dance hall for theatrical, cinema and dance purposes and also the authority for granting licences for the sale of alcoholic liquors. Most men in public life in Scotland are men of very high principles, but to ask them to separate their identities

  1427
  for the purposes of the impartial administration of a thing like this is utterly impossible
  As I said on a previous occasion we could not get the benefit of this Measure with this thing tacked on to it unless we made a very substantial alteration in the licensing laws of Scotland. Whether that alteration is desirable or undesirable is not in dispute at the moment. I think I should ask the Secretary of State for Scotland outright to accept this Amendment. It will save the Scottish Office a great deal of difficulty. It will preserve the political reputation even of the Secretary of State himself. There are an awful lot of busy bees fluttering around his constituency depositing the honey of temperance in many of the homes, and if he wants to avert a political tragedy, he should accept this Amendment. Scottish Members are all for developing the purposes contained in the Bill, but for the reasons which I have given, and without elaborating them, I ask the Secretary of State to accept this very sensible Amendment.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): We have considered this point. It is true the Clause as drawn would not fit in with the present practice and the legislation passed recently in the House concerning the duties of municipalities and local authorities in this connection. The Amendment will bring the Clause into conformity with the previous legislation, and therefore I propose to accept it. It is very kind of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) to make references to my constituency, which has great impartiality in this matter. It is one of the greatest temperance constituencies in Scotland and, at the same time, the biggest exporter of beer in the whole of Britain—just as my native city has a wonderful record for being one of the most famous places for breweries, and also the world's record place for the printing of Bibles. We manage to stay together with these apparently mutually contradictory habits. I have no doubt that once this Clause is amended, it will fit in very harmoniously with the general legislation of Scotland.
  Mr. G. Porter: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why this should now come up an this Bill, in view of the fact
  1428
  that we met this position in the Civic Restaurants Act.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The well-meant efforts of the Secretary of State to reconcile contradictions have been taxed to their fullest in accepting this Amendment. Only a little while ago the Minister of Health, who is fortunately not in his place and is not therefore put to any blush by these roundings of hairpin bends, was explaining that if this Amendment were carried in the case of England it would destroy the purpose of the Bill. Two hon. Members who delivered speeches of great strength were so struck by the Minister's argument that they did not divide the House on an Amendment which, from the vehemence they put into moving it, we thought they would certainly be forced to justify by a Division.
  Mr. J. Hudson: We had no support at all from the party opposite.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is a fainthearted doctrine from hon. Members in a party which is supposed to be independent. The attitude that the party cannot be resisted unless the support of the Opposition is secured is not one which led the present Minister of Health to the high position which he now occupies. The Government are in so much of a tangle about this matter that this is a starred Amendment. In spite of the fact that this matter has been gestating for a very long time, the necessity for reconciling the laws of England and Scotland did not occur to anybody until last night. The reasons for accepting it might well be put in two words, force majeure. The reconciliation must be left to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who were unsuccessful in screwing up their courage sufficiently to divide the Committee. As the Government have accepted this Amendment, we do not propose to protest against it. We are glad to see it added to the Bill.
  Mr. C. Williams: As an Englishman, I feel I should congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite on having done something to improve what is otherwise a thoroughly bad Clause. I would certainly have voted in favour of this Amendment if the Government had not accepted it. They have accepted it, and there is no need for me to take any time on the matter except to point out that it is gross

  1429
  unfairness to England that this should be so very much more beneficial to Scotland and that when we come to deal with England, we are left with only the rotten part of the Clause. I congratulate the Scottish hon. Members on both Front Benches on the unanimity which they have found on this matter. I wish that the English and Welsh hon. Members could have joined together to get similar good terms out of a Minister of Health who does nothing to help this country or Wales.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. McKinlay: I want to thank my right hon. Friend for doing what was the eminently sensible thing. I am surprised to know that a short period of gestation, even in the opinion of a doctor, led to such a happy offspring. A number of accidents have happened before, but I can say, "Thank you" to the Minister with joy in my heart not only because of what has happened here tonight, but because of what happened in Paisley earlier in the day.
  Mr. J. Hudson: I would add a word of congratulation to my hon. Friends in Scotland for the victory they have secured. I am prepared to stand the jeers of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the same fortune did not come to me. However, the Minister himself must now face the fact, as indeed must the Government generally, that on two large vital Bills they have come to this House with proposals which they ought to have known at the time could not be made to fit in with Scottish law, and because of the pressure of the temperance and the church influences in Scotland on both occasions they have taken the wise course that they are now taking on this occasion. I am glad that it is so, but I assure them that although we could not tonight get any great sign of support for the proposals that we made as Members for English constituencies, I hope that will be taken to heart and brought home with regard to the administration in England. It will be a great mistake on the part of English local authorities to accept the facilities that have now been offered to them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In line 93, at end, add:
  "(9) No certificate shall be granted under the Licensing (Scotland) Acts, 1903 to 1934, for the sale of excisable liquor in any pre-
  1430
  mises provided under this Section in Scotland, but nothing in this Subsection shall render it unlawful to grant under Section forty of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, a special permission for an entertainment in any such premises."—[Mr. McKinlay.]
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN proceeded to put the Question.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is challenged, Sir.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Young): I was putting it from the Chair. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wish to speak?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, Sir Robert.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I did not hear a challenge.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: You asked me, Sir Robert, if I wished to speak. I replied in the affirmative. This is the point at which we dispose of the Clause. The procedure is a little difficult to follow, but I understand that first the Amendments are made, and then finally the Clause is added to the Bill. It is at that point the Committee parts with the Clause, and it is at that point that I wish to offer a few observations to the Committee on the matter, because my hon. Friends and myself have to justify the action we are about to take. The fact is that we, as the Minister remembers, did not divide against the Second Reading of the Clause because—
  Mr. Bevan: I think there is a slight confusion. I do not think anybody is protesting. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to divide the Committee, we are ready.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, but as I say, we are unwilling to give a silent vote on the matter. On the Second Reading, as the Minister will remember, I said that we would not divide then because we were in sympathy with many of the purposes underlying the Bill, but that we hoped to bring to the attention of the Committee certain Amendments which we trusted would be accepted because we would find it impossible to accept the Clause as a whole. Unfortunately, for reasons of which we do not complain, the Minister was unable to accept any of our Amendments. Our view is, shortly—
  Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order, Sir Robert. The vote is being taken. All that is before the Committee at the moment is whether or not, Sir Robert, you are collecting the voices. All we say is that if the Chairman did not hear the "Noes" opposite, let us have a Division but this is not the point at which to have an argument.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I feel that the Minister—
  Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. The votes were being collected. This is not the moment for argument. It is for you, Sir Robert, to rule whether there should be a Division or not.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I fully agree.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I had not completed putting the Question.
  Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order, Sir Robert. I did not say that the issue had been determined; I said that the Chairman was putting it to the Committee and that, therefore, it is not the occasion for argument but merely for collecting voices.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The explanation is that as I had not fully collected the voices, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could proceed, and that is why I allowed him to speak.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not think the time of the Committee has been at all unduly wasted at this stage and I think that a matter of great importance has been discussed with commendable succinctness. From time to time argument has arisen on the Minister's side of the Committee which has been pressed, but I do not think it has unduly delayed progress. I simply wish to say, on the Clause as amended, that we on this side feel that the two small Amendments which have been accepted from the Government side of the Committee do not go to the root of the matter as we see it. We felt very definitely, first, on reading the Clause and, secondly, as the discussion proceeded, that there was a growing air of unreality about the whole presentation
  of the matter to the Committee; that, in fact, pictures were being drawn of far-reaching and great reforms which are about to take place and of the buildings which are about to be erected, when we all know that the famine in building material is so great that it is difficult even to carry out a programme of house building.
  We feel that these hopes being held out were typical of the unreality in which so many of our discussions are being conducted, and that to add to that unreality by permitting, without a Division, this Clause to be added to the Bill is a course which we do not feel able to take. For that reason we desire to divide the Committee against the Clause, and register our objection, not to the many excellent principles contained in the Clause, but to the adding of it to legislation at this time when it must be clear to all observers that it has no chance whatever of coming into force for a very long time, and that it will encourage the feeling that all is well in the country which other more responsible Ministers are doing their best to damp down in every direction.
  Mr. C. Williams: I only wish to take two minutes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I came down here today hoping and expecting that I might be able to vote for this Clause, which has a good deal in its favour. I have watched it fairly carefully, and I have not taken much part in the proceedings, but when I see no concession and no attempt made to help either the English or the Welsh sections of the community, and when I see the Scots getting their way every time, I have been forced to the conclusion that this is grossly unfair treatment. This Clause could easily have been amended into a decent Clause if the Minister had been kindly and helpful, and I say that the one person who on this occasion has turned me absolutely dead against the Clause is the Minister himself.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 76.

  Division No. 87.]

  AYES.

  [8.40 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Baird, J.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Bartlow, P. G.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Austin, H Lewis

  Barton, C.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Battley, J. R.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Benson, G.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)

  Holman, P

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Randall, H. E.

  Binns, J.

  House, G

  Ranger, J

  Blackburn, A. R

  Hoy, J.

  Reeves, J.

  Blyton, W R

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Reid, T (Swindon)

  Boardman, H.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Richards, R.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, H.)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Hughes, H. D (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Bramall, E A

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Rogers, G H. R.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Janner, B

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Royle, C

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Sargood, R.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Scollan, T.

  Bruce, Major D. W. T.

  Jones, D T (Hartlepools)

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Segal, Dr. S

  Burke, W. A.

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Sharp, Granville

  Butler, H W (Hackney, S.)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Byers, Frank

  Keenan, W.

  Silkin, Rt. Hon L

  Callaghan, James

  Kenyon, C

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Champion, A J.

  Key, C. W.

  Simmons, C. J

  Chater, D

  King, E. M.

  Skinnard, F. W

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kinley, J

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Cobb, F A

  Lawson, Rt. Hon, J. J

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Cocks, F.S.

  Lee F. (Hulme)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Collick, P

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Collindridge, F

  Leonard, W

  Soskice, Sir Frank

  Collins, V. J.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Lever, N. H.

  Stamford, W

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Levy, B. W.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Cook, T. F.

  Lewis, A W. J. (Upton)

  Swingler, S.

  Corbet, Mrs. F K (Camb?well, N.W)

  Lipson, D. L.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Corlett, Dr. J

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Symonds, A. L.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Crawley, A.

  McAdam, W.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Davies, Rt Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

  McEntes, V La T.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hall, N.W.)

  Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  McKinlay, A S

  Thomas, John R, (Dover)

  Davies, S O. (Merthyr)

  McLeavy, F.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Deer, G

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Dobbie, W.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Tiffany, S.

  Dodds, N. N

  Mann, Mrs. J

  Timmons, J.

  Donovan, T.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Titterington, M. F.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Tolley, L.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Mathers, Rt Hon. G

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Medland, H M.

  Turner-Samuels, M

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Vernon, Major W. F.

  Evans, A (Islington, W.)

  Monslow, W.

  Viant, S P.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Moody, A. S

  Walkden, E.

  Evans, S N (Wednesbury)

  Morley, R.

  Walker, G H.

  Fairhurst, F

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Morris, Lt-Col H (Sheffield, C.)

  Watson, W M

  Fletcher, E G. M (Islington, E.)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C)

  Forman, J C

  Mort, D L.

  Wells, P L. (Faversham)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Moyle, A

  Wells, W T (Walsall)

  Ganley, Mrs. C S.

  Nally, W.

  West, D. G

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wheatley, J. T. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Gibbins, J

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brantford)

  Wigg, George

  Granville, J. E. (Consett)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J (Derby)

  Wilkes, L.

  Gooch, E. G

  Oldfield, W. H

  Wilkins, W A.

  Granville, E. (Eye)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Willey, O. G (Cleveland)

  Grey, C. F

  Orbach, M.

  Williams, D J (Neath)

  Grierson, E.

  Paget, R T.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Griffiths, Rt Hon. J (Llanelly)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Williamson, T.

  Gunter, R J

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Willis, E.

  Hale, Leslie

  Parkin, B T

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H

  Hamilton, Lt.-Col R.

  Paton, J (Norwich)

  Woodburn, A.

  Hardman, D. R

  Pearson, A

  Yates, V. F.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Perrins, W

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Henderson, Rt. Hn A. (Kingswinford)

  Popplewell, E

  Zilliacus, K.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Porter, G. (Leads)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hewitson, Captain M

  Proctor, W. T.

  Mr. Snow and Mr. G. Wallace.

  1434

  1435

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Hollis, M. C.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig O.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bower, N.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Ramsay, Major S.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Robinson, Roland

  Butcher, H. W.

  Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Challen, C.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Channon, H.

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)

  Clarke Col R S.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Low, A. R. W

  Strauss, H G (English Universities)

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wright)

  Sutcliffe, H

  Dodds-Parker, A D.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Maclean, F H. R.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Drewe, C.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col R A F.

  Elliot, Lieut.-Col., Rt Hon. W.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Touche, G. C

  Fox, Sir G.

  Maude, J. C.

  Turton, R. H.

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Medlicott, F

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P. M

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E)

  Gage, C.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  White, J B. (Canterbury)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Williams, C (Torguay)

  George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Grimston, R. V.

  Odey, G. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Major Conantand

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Osborne, C.

  Brigadier Mackeson.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C

  Pete, Brig. C. H. M.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendments.
  As amended (in Standing Committee B and in the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, and on re-committal) considered.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Appeals as to water rates.)
  So much of any statutory provision as authorises or requires any dispute arising in relation to water rates to be determined by a court of summary jurisdiction shall have effect as if it authorised or required that dispute to be determined by the county court for the county court district in which the property in question is situated.
  (2) The power to make orders conferred by Subsection (2) of Section forty-nine of this Act (which enables the Lord Chancellor to combine county court districts or direct that one county court district shall be included in another county court district for the purposes of that Section) shall include power to make orders in relation to the purposes of this Subsection, and the said Subsection (2) shall have effect accordingly.—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Clause meets an undertaking given during the Committee stage. Together with the Amendment which is to be moved in page 51, line 39, it brings all these properties of the same kind into line with the appeals on rating valuation laid down for the future in Part III of the Bill. The
  1436
  later Amendment does this in the case of premises covered by Clause 83. This new Clause brings all similar provisions in general and local Acts into line.
  Mr. Turton: I wish to say how pleased I and many of my hon. Friends are with this new Clause. It fulfils the undertaking given by the Government in Committee. It has always been quite wrong that matters relating to civil debts between the local authority and the ratepayer should be decided by local magistrates in a court of summary jurisdiction and not in a county court. This Clause gives an opportunity for this to be remedied in the case of water rates. It is only one of the defects which require to be remedied. I am glad that the Home Secretary is listening, and I hope he will consider, at some future time, the question of whether rate recovery generally by the local authority against the ratepayer who is in arrears shall also be transferred to the county court. He will do well to follow the example which the Minister of Health is setting in this Bill.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Approval of rate.)
  Every rate made by a rating authority shall be approved by the authority not less than fourteen days before the commencement of the period in respect of which it is made.—[Mr. O. Poole.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Oliver Poole: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This is quite a simple Clause, the point of which is to remedy the difficulty in which landlords of rent-restricted properties now find themselves, inasmuch as they do not get sufficient notice of an increase in the rate, and so are unable to pass it on to their tenants in time. I agree that in many cases it is not a matter of great importance, but nowadays, when large blocks of property are held by charitable institutions and friendly societies, apart altogether from other business organisations, it has a serious adverse effect.
  When this matter was discussed in Committee the Minister saw the point, and said that he would look into it. He then said, and I was prepared to accept the point he made, that he objected to the matter being brought into this Bill as it was, he said, getting into the field of rating as distinct from the field of valuation. Although that may be so, we have in this Bill moved a good deal away from the mere field of valuation. We have this afternoon talked about entertainments and goodness knows what else, and I should have thought we might as well talk about rating as some of the other things which we have discussed. There has been the question, of members of co-operative societies voting on committees, and other matters have been introduced. As in this matter there is an injustice, or rather an anomaly, if the Minister could have seen his way to put it right, this would have been a simple and acceptable way of doing it.
  Mr. Turton: I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. Bevan: As I explained in Committee, it is not possible for me to accept this proposition. This is the situation at the moment, and no great hardship has been caused by it. As I explained then, it would cause real difficulty at the quinquennial period, because the local authority will actually be levying rates upon a rating list that would be passing out. In those circumstances I cannot accept the new Clause.
  Mr. Poole: I find myself in some difficulty over this matter, because I think that the right hon. Gentleman sees my point and I entirely see his. I do not wish to waste any time discussing this matter. There is a point at issue and
  1438
  we could discuss it for hours, so I will with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the permission of the House, ask leave to withdraw the Motion I hope the right hon. Gentleman, and the Government, will bear that important matter in mind.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 10.—(Payments to Metropolitan Boroughs.)
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 7, line 12, to leave out from the first "by," to the end of line 30, and to insert:
  "any Act of the present Session."
  This Amendment refers to the payments to be made to the Metropolitan Boroughs by the London County Council. As the House is aware, and can see from the provisions of the Bill, there is a different procedure under this Bill for London from that which exists for the rest of the country. Under Clause 10 of the Bill, to which this Amendment relates, payments made by the London County Council to the Metropolitan Boroughs are dependent on a scheme to be made by the Minister, after consultation with the various parties prescribed in the terms of the Clause. This, as the House can see by comparing Clause 10 with Clause 9, is in striking contrast to the provisions made for the payments to county districts by county councils in the rest of the country. Those payments, in contradistinction to the Metropolitan payments, are based on the method prescribed in detail in Clause 9, and endorsed, of course, by the will of Parliament.
  Therefore, we get the contrast that in the one case, Parliament decides, after open discussion, what shall operate for the country as a whole, whereas in regard to London, the Minister decides after what are really secret conclaves. I think the House should ask itself, as the Committee did, why this difference should exist. No valid consideration of principle has been advanced as to why there should be this striking difference in the method applied to London and the method applied to the rest of the country. In the absence of this argument on principle, the Minister falls back on a narrow precedent to justify what is a very wide difference of treatment. The narrow precedent which he prayed in aid is contained

  1439
  in Section 7 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1937. This Section of the 1937 Act prescribed a scheme only for the further adjustment of the amounts required to be levied by rate for general county purposes, as governed by Section 100 and the Fifth Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1929. That is done because of variations in the poundage of rates due to the operation of Part V of the 1929 Act.
  I do not want to go into these matters in detail, but I think it will be apparent from what I have said that the adjustment contained in the 1937 Act, on which the Minister relies for his precedent, is a much narrower thing than the determination of payments to be made in the new circumstances of the radical alteration made in the Exchequer grants by Part I of this Bill. I submit that the precedent on which the Minister relies is as bad as the principle. The right principle is that a matter of this importance should be embodied in an Act of Parliament. This Amendment does not specify that it should be embodied in the Bill, but that it should be incorporated under:
  "any Act of the present Session."
  I submit that there is no justification for this hole-and-corner treatment of London in regard to these matters. The Minister should embody his scheme in a Bill and submit it to the judgment of Parliament so that it cannot be said that the scheme in regard to London, in contradistinction to the treatment of the rest of the country, is arrived at in consultation behind closed doors, and is not submitted to the will and judgment of Parliament.
  Mr. Oliver Poole: I beg to second the Amendment.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Bevan: As the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) has said, I have relied upon a precedent which has proved to be convenient. I have not received any protests from London authorities in the matter. In fact, there is perfect agreement about this procedure. It does not deny to the House of Commons an opportunity of considering the matter later on, and, furthermore, when the order is made it must conform with the principles of Part I of this Bill. The authority of the House of Commons in
  1440
  determining those principles has been preserved. London has always been recognised to be in a unique situation. All we have done is to follow the procedure followed in the past.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 15.—(Supplemental provisions as to Part 1.)
  Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 10, line 37, to leave out:
  "in relation to any authority."
  Subsection (1, d) of the Clause gives the Minister power to modify this part of the Bill as a result of a boundary revision. On the Committee stage some hon. Members and myself referred to the doubts of the associations of local authorities whether these words which I propose to omit did not unduly restrict the Minister's powers. The Minister told us that he would look at the matter and make an alteration if necessary. Presumably, as he has not put an Amendment down, he is satisfied with the position. We have tabled this Amendment so that the right hon. Gentleman can give the assurance to the House that these words do not limit his power in any way.
  Mr. O. Poole: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Bevan: In accordance with the promise I made on the Committee stage, I have examined these words, and I am informed that they are not restrictive.
  Mr. Turton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 30.—(Investigation into working of provisions as to amount of payments to local authorities under Part 11.)
  Mr. Forman: I beg to move, in page 18, line 31, to leave out from "with," to the end of line 32, and to insert, "each local authority."
  This Amendment would strengthen the Clause. It would give to each local authority a right to have any case examined. I suggest that it would be more satisfactory than the present method. In the case of Scottish authorities, the method is that the Convention of Royal Burghs, the Counties of Cities Association or the County Councils Association are

  1441
  called in separately or jointly. Quite a number of legitimate claims by separate local authorities are lost by this method, and we believe that the words of the Amendment would give more assurance to each local authority During the discussions on Part 11 of the Bill, the Secretary of State for Scotland gave an assurance that he would meet the local authorities on certain financial provisions. I understand that the negotiations have taken place, and after those negotiations, some of the local authorities are dissatisfied with the conclusions reached. They feel that if they had the opportunity to go forward as separate local authorities, they would get more satisfaction. It is for this reason that I move this Amendment. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to give us an assurance on the points that I have raised.
  Mr. Walker: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): My hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Forman) asked me a moment ago if the Secretary of State could give some assurance to the local authorities that they would, in fact, be consulted individually and that also the associations of local authorities would be consulted. I have no hesitation in giving that assurance. My hon. Friend will be aware that we could not accept his Amendment, since we have over 200 local authorities, and would be required to consult each of them and that would make the whole position quite impossible. We will have our consultations with the local authorities associations as representing the local authorities. On top of that, I can give the assurance that we will consult any individual local authority which expresses a desire to be consulted in these matters. I hope that with that assurance my hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Forman: In view of the statement by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 33.—(Valuations to be made by Inland Revenue officers.)
  Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 20, line 24, to leave out from" as," to the second "any," and to insert:
  "a person who is aggrieved by anything done or omitted to be done by the valuation officer in a valuation list or draft valuation list in relation to."
  This is the first of a series of Amendments to meet an undertaking given in Committee. It confers the right of appeal so as to allow third parties, including local authorities, to intervene by way of objection or proposal to any assessment of the valuation officers. This Amendment makes the necessary widening in the powers of the rating authorities which, as the Bill stands, are limited to the intervention of the owner or occupier of any particular property.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I understand that all these Amendments are being taken together. They are very important additions to the Bill and bring in the right of third party appeal. We pressed for this on the Committee stage, and I am glad that the Minister has seen his way to insert this provision in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 34.—(New Valuation lists to be made in 1952, etc.)
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 21, line 1, after "that," to insert "where."
  This Amendment goes together with three consequential Amendments. They are intended to ask for an implementation of the statement made by the Minister that the postponement of the lists would only take place in very exceptional cases. These words are so drafted as to make it clear that it could only take place in very exceptional circumstances, and the omission of Subsection (3) is intended to go along with that. We might, perhaps, take the two points together if it suits the convenience of the House.
  Mr. Bevan: I did give an assurance in Committee, and I am prepared to repeat it here, that it is not intended to use these powers except in very exceptional circumstances. I hope that assurance will be sufficient.
  Amendment negatived.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to move, in page 21, line 5, to leave out from "to," to "as," in line 6, and to insert "that area."
  This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which has already been moved, and the assurance of the Minister is, I think, relative to this also. As regards the next Amendment, in page 21, line 15, to leave out Subsection (3), if, as he has suggested, it will only be in special circumstances that an extension to one year will be regarded as necessary, then Subsection (3) should not be in the Bill.
  Mr. O. Poole: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Bevan: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this Amendment is consequential on the previous ones, and that the hon. and gallant Gentleman now proposes to withdraw it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think, perhaps, I rather hastily included Subsection (3) in the remarks I made, and that my hon. and gallant Friend would desire to make sure that the Minister's assurance which he has just given applies in relation to Subsection (3) as well.
  Mr. Bevan: Certainly.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 36.—(Objections to draft lists.)
  Amendment made: In page 22, line 11, leave out from "person" to "who," in line 13.—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
  Mr. O. Poole: I beg to move, in page 22, line 13, at the end, to insert, "in relation to any hereditament."
  If I quite briefly make the point which I wish to make on this Amendment, and three consequential Amendments, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend could give me an answer. This is a point which has not been given very much attention in our deliberations up to date. If an objection or an appeal against assessment cannot be made on the ground that comparable hereditaments are assessed lower, then the aggrieved person can only make a proposal to increase the assessment on those other hereditaments. It is obvious that many ratepayers would be very unwilling to make that point. They would desire to get their own rates lowered, and not to get their friends' assessments increased. Therefore, many
  1444
  ratepayers, rather than incur local obloquy and unpopularity by attempting to get their neighbours' assessments raised, would prefer to remain quiet.
  Mr. Turton: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Bevan: A very considerable number of Amendments have been moved in Committee which have been accepted, and there are on the Order Paper many Amendments on Report which are in pursuance of promises made in Committee. Therefore, it is inevitable that there might arise at any time a certain amount of confusion. The Amendment which my hon. Friend has just moved and which was accepted, in page 22, line 11, actually meets the point which the hon. Member has in mind—namely, that any aggrieved person can lodge an objection.
  Mr. O. Poole: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I would like to say that I am satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's reply. It was only the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary referred to an Amendment as being consequential that brought a doubt into my mind.
  Mr. J. Edwards: Having made a statement on the third party point, I was referring to other Amendments on the third party point as being consequential. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not understand that.
  Mr. O. Poole: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: In page 22, line 14, leave out second "the," and insert any.
  In line 15, leave out second "the," and insert "a."
  In line 17, leave out second "the," and insert "a."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. O. Poole: I beg to move, in page 22, line 20, at the end to insert:
  "(d) in the case of a building or portion of a building occupied as a whole by the valuation in the list of that building or portion of a building as two or more hereditaments."
  Perhaps I may also refer to two other Amendments which cover the same point, in Clause 40, page 25, and in Clause 42, page 27, line 26. This is rather a narrow

  1445
  point, but when it was discussed before it was agreed to be of some importance. Briefly, the point of the Amendment is that if a hereditament has been divided into two, it can be valued as two separate parts, but if circumstances should subsequently arise by which that hereditament is occupied as one whole place, there is no provision in the Bill by which it can be re-assessed as a single hereditament. The object of this group of Amendments is to endeavour to put that position right, and we feel that if these Amendments are accepted, the point will be covered.
  Mr. Turton: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Bevan: It is certainly true that in Committee I promised to have a look at this and I have since examined it. The hon. Member will remember that in Committee a considerable number of Amendments were moved which to some extent fell by the wayside when the third party right was, in fact, established. This is one of them, and third party right, along with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Subsection, provides sufficient authority to raise objection on the ground mentioned in the Amendment.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: In that case it would seem to be redundant that paragraph (c) should be in the Bill, because the two things are the obverse and the reverse of the same case, and if the right of third party appeal covers one it would appear redundant that the one already in paragraph (c) should remain in the Bill.
  Mr. Bevan: The answer is that Section 23 of the 1925 Act, as amended, now to be repeated in the new Clause, gives power to the valuation officer to treat as a single hereditament one which is occupied in parts. If paragraph (c) were not in the Bill, it might be held that the valuation officer could not be challenged.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 37.—(Revision of draft lists.)
  Amendments made: In page 23, line 5, at end, insert:
  "and on the rating authority for the area in which the hereditament is situated."
  In line 6, after "served," insert:
  "on the occupier (not being the rating authority)."
  In line 23, after "Subsection," insert:
  "the rating authority for the area within which the hereditament is situated."
  In line 23, after "served," insert:
  "on the occupier."
  In line 32, at end, insert:
  "(b) in the case of the rating authority, where they do not receive notice under Subsection (3) of this Section, before the expiration of the twenty-one days following that of the service on the authority of the notice specified in Subsection (2) of this Section."—[Mr. Bevan.]
  Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 23, line 37, at the end to insert:
  "(6) The valuation officer shall, within seven days after the date on which a notice of appeal is served upon him under this Section, transmit a copy thereof to each of the following persons, not being the appellant, that is to say—

  (a) to the occupier of the hereditament in question; and

  (b) to the rating authority for the area in which the hereditament in question is situated."

  This relates to the third party right, as it requires the valuation officer to transmit a copy of the appeal to the rating authority who will be able, if they wish, to appear at the hearing.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 40.—(Proposals for alteration of lists.)
  Amendments made: In page 25, line 2, leave out from "person," to "who," in line 3.
  In line 5, leave out second "the," and insert "any."
  In line 6, leave out second "the," and insert "a."
  In line 8, leave out second "the," and insert "a."
  In line 29, to leave out from "thereof," to "together," in line 30.—[Mr. Bevan.]

  CLAUSE 41.—(Proceedings on proposals.)
  Amendment made: In page 25, line 31 at end, insert:
  "to each of the following persons, not being the maker of the proposal, that is to say—

  (a) the occupier of the hereditament to which the proposal relates; and

  (b) the rating authority for the area in which the hereditament in question is situated."—[Mr. Bevan.]

  Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 25, line 32, to leave out from "that" to "where," in line 33, and to insert:

  1447
  "a copy of the proposal need not be transmitted under this Subsection to the occupier of the hereditament (not being the rating authority)."
  This follows the Amendment to line 31. The proviso to Subsection (2) of the Clause relieves the valuation officer of the duty to send a copy of a proposal to the occupier where the proposal merely requires a reduction in value, and the Amendment varies this to the extent of requiring the valuation officer to send notice in such circumstances where the occupier is the rating authority.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In line 37, at the beginning, insert:
  "Any of the following persons, that is to say."
  In line 38, after "relates," insert:
  "or the rating authority for the area in which the hereditament is situated."
  In line 40, after "section," insert:
  "in the case of such an owner (not being the rating authority) or such an occupier as aforesaid, on the occupier or, in the case of the rating authority (not being such an occupier) on the rating authority."
  In line 41, at end, insert:
  "and the valuation officer shall, within seven days of the date on which a notice of objection is served on him, transmit a copy thereof to the maker of the proposal."
  In page 26, line 22, after the first "the," insert:
  "date when a copy of the notice of objection is received by the appellant or, as the case may be, from the."
  In line 24, at end, insert:
  "(b) where the rating authority for the area in which the hereditament in question is situated have neither made the objection nor are themselves the appellant, on that authority; and."—[Mr. Edwards.]

  CLAUSE 42.—(Effect of alterations made in pursuance of proposals.)
  Amendment made: In page 27, line 19, leave out from "for," to "or," in line 23, and insert:
  "non-rateable purposes, as so defined."—[Mr. Bevan.]
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in line 26, at the end, to insert:
  "(g) is made by reason of any property previously rated in parts becoming liable to be rated as a single hereditament."
  I should like to know whether this matter is covered by the previous Amendments moved by the Minister.
  Mr. Bevan: I am prepared to accept this Amendment if it is prefaced by the word "or." If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will move the Amendment in those terms I will accept it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If I may submit a manuscript Amendment to that effect, Mr. Speaker, I should be very glad to move the Amendment in those terms.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not quite certain which word has to be put in.
  Mr. Bevan: The word "or," in front of the Amendment as it stands on the Order Paper, so that it reads,
  "(g) or is made by reason of any property previously rated in parts becoming liable to be rated as a single hereditament."
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I accept that addition, and beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made:
  "(g) of is made by reason of any property previously rated in parts becoming liable to be rated as a single hereditament"—[Lieut.-Colonel Elliot.]

  CLAUSE 43.—(Clerical and arithmetical errors.)
  Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 27, line 44, to leave out "seven," and to insert "fourteen.'
  This Amendment is in response to a promise we gave in Committee to look at this matter again, and we have come to the conclusion that it is not unreasonable to have a period of 14 days.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 44.—(Local valuation courts.)
  Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 28, to leave out lines 23 and 24, and to insert:
  "(a) either the chairman of the local valuation panel or the deputy chairman (or, if more than one, one of the deputy chairmen) thereof."
  There are several Amendments following which are closely related to this.
  Taken as a whole these Amendments are devised to meet the discussion in Committee on the point that as the Bill was drafted too much power was given to the chairmen of the panel in the selection of other members of valuation courts. This would incidentally introduce the possibility of appointment of more than one

  1449
  deputy chairman which might be necessary, in large areas where the work might be heavy. In order to secure some consistency in the decisions of the courts in the area of the panel it is provided that each court should include either the chairman or the deputy chairman, or, as a result of the Amendment, one of the deputy chairmen, when it sits. The later Amendment in page 29, line 41, provides that not more than two deputy chairmen should be appointed. The final two Amendments provide that selection of the courts shall be on a system to be laid down under the Clause, under which the panel will be constituted generally, on some system of rotation, but according to the needs of the area which might, for example, depend on the areas in which the courts are to sit in relation to places in which the members live. Taken as a whole, these Amendments should provide greater flexibility in the setting up and working of the courts.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In line 25, leave out "by the chairman of the panel," and insert:
  "in accordance with the scheme under which the panel is constituted."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

  CLAUSE 45.—(Submission and approval of schemes.)
  Amendment made: In page 28, line 43, at end, insert:
  "and, where the said area or areas or either of them are counties, the council or councils submitting the scheme shall, at the same time as they submit it, send a copy thereof to each of the rating authorities within that county or, as the case may be, those counties."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 29, line 7, to leave out "six" and to Insert "nine."
  Subsection (4) enables the Minister to make a scheme for an area if the responsible authorities—that is to say, the county and/or county borough council—have not submitted an acceptable scheme within six months of the date when this Clause comes into force, which will probably be fairly soon after the passing of the Bill. It has been argued that this period is too short. We have accepted that view, and here alter "six" to "nine."
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 46.—(Membership of panels.)
  Amendments made: In page 29, line 41 leave out from "and" to "thereof," in line 42, and insert:
  "not more than two of the other members as deputy chairmen."
  In line 42 at end, insert:
  "(e) subject to the provisions of the last but one preceding section, for the manner in which members of local valuation courts are to be selected from members of the panel."
  In line 43 leave out Subsection (2).—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

  CLAUSE 48.—(Sittings, procedure and powers of local valuation courts.)
  Amendments made: In page 32, line 5, at end, insert:
  "(d) the rating authority for the area in which the hereditament in question is situated when that authority is not the appellant; and."
  In line 7 leave out from "is," to end of line 8, and insert:
  "not one of the persons aforesaid."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

  CLAUSE 49.—(Appeal to county court.)
  Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 33, line 9, at the end, to insert:
  "(4) In any proceedings under this section, the power of a judge under subsection (1) of section eighty-eight of the County Courts Act, 1934, to summon one or more persons to act as assessors may be exercised notwithstanding that no application is made in that behalf by any party to the proceedings."
  This meets an undertaking given in Committee to amend the County Courts Act, 1934, so as to enable a judge hearing a valuation appeal to summon one or more assessors to sit with him at his own discretion. Under that Act he may do so only if either of the parties asks for it.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 55.—(Returns.)
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to move, in page 35, line ii, to leave out from "be," to the end of line 12, and to insert "prescribed."
  This Amendment is designed to embody in the Bill an undertaking given by the Minister in Committee, that information called for by valuation officers should be prescribed in detail by regulation by the Minister. I think this is in accordance with feelings expressed on both sides of the Committee, and I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Turton: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Bevan: When this matter was raised in Committee I pointed out that the instructions to be given would result in a reasonable amount of uniformity throughout the country; but I pointed out also that an obligation to do so in the Statute would be unduly restrictive, that it was an administrative act, and that we proposed to do it by administrative action.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: We had a long discussion on this point, at the end of which, after being pressed from both sides of the Committee, the Minister said:
  "As I have said, there will be the regulation prescribing.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 22nd January, 1948; c. 266.]
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I should like to press the Minister a little further. The difficulties were perhaps a little exaggerated in Committee, but they were real difficulties, and the Minister did not see any difficulty in our contention. He merely did not wish the regulations to be too rigid, and wanted a certain amount of flexibility in the proposals which he was to make to the officers concerned. We thought that we had met this point by saying that they should be prescribed, and I am not yet very certain whether the Minister is rigidly setting his face against our proposal. I hope I misunderstood him, that he was merely explaining that, but saw his way to do what we were asking, and that we on this side had been a little obtuse in not grasping that he was really conceding our request.
  Mr. Bevan: I can speak again only with the permission of the House. What I had in mind was that, normally speaking, instructions would be laid down for the valuation officers, but these instructions would have to have some degree of resilience because it might be necessary for the valuation officer to have additional information with regard to a property in order to enable him to arrive at a proper valuation of it, whereas if in the general instructions given to him no such authority were given, he would be frustrated in his task. As I said in Committee, this seems to be a matter for intelligent administrative action rather than words in the statute.
  Colonel Dower: The whole object was to prevent an officer from making a unreasonable request. What security is there against that?
  Mr. Bevan: Again, I can speak only with the permission of the House. Any ratepayer can refuse information if he considers that the request is unreasonable, and the valuation officer then has to take action. There is adequate protection in every case.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 58.—(Evidence and inspection of valuation lists, rates, etc.)
  Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 36, to leave out lines 31 to 38.
  This fulfils an undertaking given in Committee. We now propose to omit this Subsection and to make departmental arrangements for supplying valuation lists to surveyors of taxes.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 59.—(Service of notices, etc.)
  Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 37, line 8, at the end, to insert "shall extend to London and."
  This extends Section 59 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, to properties in London. The three following Amendments are consequential.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 37, line 9, after "to," insert:
  "any notice, demand note, order or other document required or otherwise to be sent or served under or for the purposes of any Act relating to the making, levying, collection and recovery of rates in London, and, both inside and outside London, in relation to."
  In line 11, after "notices," insert: "demand notes, orders."
  In line 13, leave out from "of," to end of line, and insert: "the first-mentioned Act."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

  CLAUSE 68.—(Commencement of Part 111 and transitory provisions)
  Amendment made: In page 40, line 30, after "of," insert "the passing of."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

  CLAUSE 72.—(Meaning of "hypothetical 1938 cost of construction.")
  Amendments made: In page 43, line 7, leave out "a statement," and insert "determines."
  In line 7, leave out "of."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
  Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 43, line 24, to leave out "comparable houses and buildings," and to insert:
  "houses and building affording comparable accommodation."
  The point of this Amendment and of this part of the Clause is that in compiling the 1938 erection costs, the Minister has to make allowance for those areas where erection costs are unduly high as a result of the circumstances of the country. In Committee we argued that in the hills where we build in stone the local authorities have to pay an extra £100 a house for building. It would be desirable to insert the words of the Amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept them because it will enable that due allowance to be made which I am sure the House wants to see.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Bevan: I think I indicated in Committee that I was ready to accept words which would convey this meaning, and I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in line 29, at the end, to insert:
  "(4) Any person or local authority who is or are aggrieved by any statement prepared by the Minister as aforesaid may, within twenty-one days from the date of the making of the said statement, appeal to the tribunal by which disputes fall to be determined under Section one of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and the tribunal may direct that the statement be amended as appears to them to be necessary to give effect to the contention of the appellant."
  This Amendment is concerned with the statement which the Minister is under obligation to prepare in accordance with the provisions of Subsection (2) of this Clause. It relates to the important question of the hypothetical 1938 cost of construction. As the House knows, this is the level of valuation of post-1918 local authority houses and small post-1918 dwellinghouses which are not local authority houses or flats or maisonettes. It is, therefore, of considerable importance that these statements should be as precisely compiled as possible, and should be subjected to any impartial or objective test possible, because these state-
  1454
  ments become under Subsection (4) of this Clause the basis whereby the valuation officer values the particular house.
  As the Clause stands at present, the Minister prepares the statement embodying the specification, and the statement in relation to the specification, of the sum which is to be taken for the purpose of the Clause as the 1938 cost of constructing the house. This Amendment would provide an appeal against the statement thereby arrived at, and it is the purpose of this Amendment to provide an appeal to an expert and technical tribunal which would be able to adjudicate upon the technical question of the formulating of these important specifications. It is a safeguard against error or discrimination which I think will commend itself to the good sense of the House, and the feeling of hon. Members for equity and precision in these important matters.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Bevan: I am afraid I must resist this Amendment. Hon. Members who were Members of the Committee will recollect that we had some discussion about this point, and in order to meet some of the anxieties expressed then, I have now made it quite clear by Amendment that the local rating authority is first to be consulted as to what sites have been identified and as to what specifications have been made. In addition to that, I have also made provision that these specifications and the sites identified are to be open for local inspection. It would be entirely inconsistent with the whole scheme if a tribunal were imported into the machinery at this stage, because it would quarrel with the whole principle of direct responsibility to the House of Commons. We could not farm that out to any tribunal. These matters are purely factual, and if any information were needed it would be found.
  9.45 P.m.
  Mr. Turton: Surely, the Minister is exercising a quasi-judicial function in this matter. There should be an appeal where a local authority or a person is aggrieved. That does not seem to be a big thing for which to ask. The Minister has said that consultation has already been provided for, but there is a great deal of difference between consultation and getting agreement. He may say that there has been consultation with the doctors, but he has

  1455
  not got agreement. In view of that parallel, I hope he will think about it again.
  Mr. Bevan: I hope that the hon. Member will not import any feeling into the matter at this stage. We are getting on very amiably and if he will exercise a little restraint at this stage, we shall be able to finish our discussions as amiably as they have continued so far. If the Minister is exercising quasi-judicial functions, as he will in this matter, it is entirely inconsistent that the Minister should be appealed against to an outside body It is an extraordinary doctrine to lay down. One can have a tribunal when dealing merely with administration, but in a quasi-judicial matter to provide for appeal to an outside body is entirely wrong.
  Mr. Turton: There is the parallel of the Pensions Appeal Act, where the appeal is to an outside body and there are many precedents.
  Mr. Bevan: That is an appeal tribunal within the scheme. Here we have something entirely different.
  Hr. Turton: No.
  Mr. Bevan: It would not be incorporated as an integral part of the machinery. If we were going to have a tribunal of this sort there are other forms of appeal which it could exercise. To have a tribunal at this stage in the Bill would be a complete abnormality. In any case, protection has been given by the concessions which have been made, and I think hon. Members should be satisfied with them.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not think the Minister fully appreciates the difficulty of the subject. He has fully interpreted the responsibility of the judge, of the Minister, but, after all, the Executive is continually gaining a position of greater and greater power and authority over the individual. Here the unhappy individual Is to be referred to one of the most hypothetical and tenuous things of which we could possibly conceive—the cost of a house in the year 1938, from which we are receding year after year. It becomes a matter of archaeological research as to what the cost of constructing such a house would be.
  Mr. Bevan: If a particular house is identified, how can that be archaeological research? It is a matter of continuous record.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The whole purpose of archaeological research is the preservation of continuous record—
  Mr. Bevan: No.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is, to establish and preserve a continuous record. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman really appreciates the difficulty in which the subject will be placed. He will wish to check it and refer it to some form of arbiter. Even a judge is allowed arbiters when he sits in deliberation on difficult matters. This is a key Clause and deals with one of the main difficulties of this Bill. The Clause has for its rubric:
  "Meaning of hypothetical 1938 cost of construction,"
  and any of us who have to refer back to accounts of our own relating to constructions with which we are well acquainted are often taken aback by finding how widely they vary from those which are ruling at the time, and we find it necessary to check and recheck before we admit that those costs were expended. How much more unhappy will be the subject who has to check and recheck costs which the local authority expended on what the Minister said was an actual house but which has been laid down as: "comparable houses and buildings," or now, "houses and buildings of comparable accommodation."
  I suggest to the Minister that he has not completely met the point here. It may be that the words of the Amendment are inappropriate, but there still remains the difficulty in which the subject will be in trying to establish his position against the powerful and inexorable machinery of the Executive. The House, in framing this statute, should always lean towards the position of the subject in every way and weight it against the Executive, even though it appears to the Executive to be an unreasonable demand which is being made. The Executive should yield to the desire of hon. Members certainly on this side of the House, and I believe in other parts of the House also, to make easier the position in which the ordinary man—and this affects all the ordinary men in the whole Kingdom—will be in dealing with this absolutely novel procedure. We are

  1457
  faced with a new valuation, sweeping away all the old valuations since the beginning of time, and we have this new proposal, the hypothetical cost of construction. There should be some form of additional safeguard here. The Minister would be well advised to give this matter a little further consideration.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: In page 44, line 9, at end, insert:
  "(6) A copy of the statement prepared by the Minister under Subsection (2) of this Section for any rating area shall be deposited at the offices of the rating authority for that area and shall be open to inspection during ordinary business hours."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

  CLAUSE 73.—(Meaning of "hypothetical 1938 site cost.")
  Amendments made: In page 44, line 17, leave out "specifying," and insert "determining."
  In line 26, leave out "states," and insert "determines."
  In line 41, leave out second "specified," and insert "determined."
  In page 45, line 27, at end, insert:
  "(6) A copy of the statement prepared by the Minister under Subsection (2) of this Section for any rating area shall be deposited at the offices of the rating authority for that area and shall be open to inspection during ordinary business hours."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

  CLAUSE 77.—(Adjustment for adaptation for business purposes.)
  Amendment made: In page 47, line 16, after "dwellinghouse," insert:
  "being a dwellinghouse to which one of the three last preceding Sections applies."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

  CLAUSE 81.—(Railway or canal hereditaments and electricity hereditaments not to be rated.)
  Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 49, line 41, at the end, to insert:
  "in lieu of the rates which would, apart from the provisions of this Part of this Act, be payable to rating authorities in respect of those hereditaments."
  In the Committee stage hon. Members were worried about the phrase, "for the benefit of local authorities." I hope that they will now feel that we have met the position by the proposal to insert explanatory words at the end of the Clause.
  Colonel Wheatley: As this is the result of an Amendment which I put down in the Committee stage, I should like to
  1458
  express my gratitude, and I am sure that local authorities will be with me in being grateful to the Minister for accepting this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 83.—(Railway or canal hereditaments partly used for other purposes.)
  Amendment made: In page 51, line 39, leave out from "by," to end of line 44, and insert:
  "the county court for the county court district in which the property in question is situated.
  (2) The power to make orders conferred by Subsection (2) of Section forty-nine of this Act (which enables the Lord Chancellor to combine county court districts or direct that one county court district shall be included in another county court district for the purposes of that Section) shall include power to make orders in relation to the purposes of this Subsection, and the said Subsection (2) shall have effect accordingly."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

  CLAUSE 84.—(Repeal of Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930.)
  Amendments made: In page 52, line 1, after "the," insert "provisions of the."
  In line 1, after "1930," insert:
  "specified in Part III of the Second Schedule to this Act."—[Mr. Bevan.]

  CLAUSE 85.—(Commencement of provisions as to railway or canal hereditaments and transitional provisions.)
  Amendments made: In page 52, line 30, leave out "repeal of," and insert "repeals in."
  In line 31, leave out "and other enactments," and insert:
  "the repeal of the enactments amending or applying that Act."
  In page 53, line 14, after "paid" insert "shall be paid and."—[Mr. Bevan.]

  CLAUSE 99.—(Adjustments for changes In the circumstances of British Transport Commission.)
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 58, line 43, at the end, to insert:
  "and having regard to such considerations as may be specified in the said order."
  I do not think that this Amendment requires any detailed words of mine to commend itself to the House.
  Colonel Ropner: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Bevan: I think it is quite clear what the hon. Member has in mind in moving the Amendment, but I can assure him that his fears are unfounded. Obviously the considerations that led to the making of an order belong to the speech of the Minister proposing the order, and not to the content of the order itself. I do not desire to be perfunctory, but obviously there would be circumstances leading to the making of that order, but it is not usual to insert in the order the description of the circumstances that led to the origin of the order. It is for the Minister to state his reasons to the House. The order itself is the vehicle of the action, and not the vehicle of the reasons.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think it is a little hard to expect the House to entrust all its considerations to the speech of the Minister making the order, or laying the order. We have known perfunctory speeches in the House by Ministers, and a perfunctory speech might be made on that occasion also. Here great power is given to the Minister and the Secretary of State. The adjustment to be made is made for the changes in the circumstances of the British Transport Commission. It states that it:
  "shall be such adjustment as may be prescribed by order of the Minister and the Secretary of State, acting jointly."
  There was, in fact, a slight clash, even on Second Reading, over this point. I thought it was a clever piece of administration, and congratulated the Government on the fact that they would be able to settle their burdens in the future by consultations in the recesses in the Cabinet Room, instead of the more complicated business of bringing these matters into open discussion. The Parliamentary Secretary took me rather sharply to task, and said it was a handful of mud. I had thought that it was a bouquet of flowers, which just goes to show how great a transformation there may be between the primary substance and the final product thereof, and how unwise we are to anticipate any intermediate stages. We should like the intermediate stages not to be cut out here, and we look to the Minister to give us in the order, and also to see in the statute that the Minister should give the House, some account of the circumstances in the order, and not merely to leave it to the speech of the Minister. It
  1460
  is all very well to say that the House can demand explanations from the Minister, but, in fact, the Minister, backed by a powerful majority, may dismiss, in rather airy fashion, requests made by the House. When we are faced with this enormous extension of Crown property, I think it is well for the House to guard the resources of the local authorities—because, after all, it is the local authorities who are concerned here—by some more explicit procedure than that which is provided in the words of the Clause, or even in the speech of the Minister.
  Mr. O. Poole: This is an important point and I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I elaborate it a little further, We go so quickly through the Amendments on the Paper that it is sometimes difficult to follow exactly where we are. The point we raised when this matter was discussed earlier was whether the Minister would lay down criteria of what the changes in the circumstances of the railway would be. The Minister replied, in effect, that we could not tell until the nationalised railways had been run for two or three years. We accepted that, but this Amendment takes account of that argument, and we would like a further explanation of what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. I do not wish to engender any heat, but I must say frankly that we have in mind that it may be possible in certain circumstances that the Transport Commission will operate at a considerable loss for a period of years in circumstances which may or may not be their fault. It may be that the Government in power at that time may try to hide away those losses by making reductions in the rate contribution by using the words "changes in the circumstances." It is for that reason that we feel that we must stress this point rather strongly.
  10 p.m.
  Mr. Bevan: I can speak again only with the permission of the House. There are two forms of adjustment necessary in order to determine what contribution the Transport Commission should make to the central pool for distribution to local authorities. The first is a very simple one. It is the actual rate levied by the local authorities upon which the contribution would be based. Obviously, if the railways were still rated and on the local rating roll, an increase of the rates by the

  1461
  local authorities would automatically carry an increase in contribution by the railways. Therefore, the first adjustment must always be subject to the actual level of rate levied by the local authorities at any time. That is common ground. Provision is made for that in the statute.
  Further, there is always a possibility of the rateable value being appreciated or depreciated by trading. It is true that, as it is a nationalised undertaking, considerations of public policy might even lead to the railways being run at a loss or being run at a profit. No one knows. The argument has been advanced on some occasions that the railways might in certain circumstances act in subvention of commerce generally, in which case the earnings of the railways would be artificially depreciated by action of the Government. If, therefore, their valuation for the purpose of making this contribution to local rates were affected by this artificial depreciation, it would be unjust and unfair to local authorities. They would then be receiving from the railways a smaller sum of money, not on account of the ordinary trading transactions of the railway companies, but on account of an act of public policy by the Government. That is a patently unjust provision.
  It is because these considerations are so substantial that there can hardly be any possibility of any Minister making an order under this Clause being allowed to get away with a perfunctory speech. He will be compelled to explain the circumstances and all the considerations leading to the order. Obviously we have to take power to make an order, because at the moment we do not know what adjustments ought to be made. Actually we are protecting the local authority by laying an obligation upon the Minister to make an order when sufficient time has elapsed for the circumstances to fructify.
  Again it is rather silly to provide in a statute that the Minister shall put in the order all the arguments he is going to use for making the order. Speeches are not put in orders. An order is not a vehicle of persuasion; it is an instrument of action. Therefore, it is unreasonable at this moment to suggest that the Minister should put in the statute the arguments leading to the need for the order, firstly, because there is a paper shortage and, secondly, the lawyers would have a good time, for the courts would not only have
  1462
  to construe the contents of the order, but the arguments of the Minister making the order as well. I suggest that the main points of the Opposition have been met, and I hope the Debate will now draw to a peaceful close.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I can only speak by leave of the House, but I trust that the leave extended to the Minister will not be withheld from myself.
  Mr. Speaker: No leave is required for the Minister in charge of a Bill in Committee, for he has the right to speak as often as he likes. On Report only the Mover of the Amendment has that right.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I cast myself unreservedly on the mercy and discretion of the Committee which I trust will not be withheld on this occasion. The Minister has used the very seductive argument that this is really a protection against the Minister deciding to overwrite the railways. In other words, he is trying to say that the Minister, on the grounds of public policy, might bring out the commercial results of the railways at a low figure, and it would be greatly to the advantage of the local authorities if the Minister decided, in spite of the low figure, to bring out an order giving the local authorities the larger sum of money. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That I gather was the burden of his argument.
  Mr. Bevan: I was not saying any such thing. I was merely taking up the points made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's friends behind him. The points were perfectly sound—that there is no accounting the change in circumstances. We do not know what the circumstances are going to be, and all we do here is to take a protective power for the local authority, laying upon the Minister the obligation to make an order and, when making the order, to give an extended explanation why he is making it. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is making heavy weather on a protection which he should welcome rather than frown upon.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am not frowning upon this protection, but am asking that, in addition to the slip of mackintosh that the Minister has held out, I should be given a set of oilskins as well. Those of us who have to bear up against the

  1463
  powerful jets of argument which the Minister unleashes at any moment require as much protection as we can get. Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that in so far as information is vouchsafed to the House of Commons in definition, to that extent the House of Commons is fortified. The more the House of Commons is fortified in the way of information, the more powerful and informative do its Debates become.
  We are merely asking that the order made should be as full as possible, so that the House of Commons can advance on the task laid upon it, fortified with the full knowledge of what is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. We still find ourselves dissatisfied with the fact that the right hon. Gentleman desires to make the order in skeleton form and then elaborate it in a speech. We would prefer that the order were brought before the House fully clothed—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are not accelerating the Debate by their interruptions. These are not fantastic considerations. Hon. Members opposite who have been in opposition, and who will be in opposition again, will certainly be eager, as we are on this occasion, to have as full information as possible. We who are in opposition certainly realise the advantage of getting all the information we can extract from Ministers. We desire to have that information as fully as possible, not simply for party purposes of the Opposition, but to enable the House to fulfil its task.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 92.—(Adjustments of British Electricity Authority's payments for changes in the average rates.)
  Amendment made: In page 60, line 8, leave out "subsection," and insert "provisions."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]
  CLAUSE III.—(Allowance to chairman of district council for expenses of office.)
  Amendment made: In page 75, line 7, after first "council," insert "in England and Wales."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

  CLAUSE 123.—(Subscriptions to local government associations.)
  Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 84, line 26, to leave out "or their officers."
  1464
  This Amendment should be read in conjunction with the Amendment in page 84, line 29, at the end, to insert:
  "or
  (b) of such associations of officers of local authorities being associations formed for the purposes aforesaid, as may be approved by the Minister."
  The purpose of these two Amendments is to meet the criticism brought forward in Committee by providing that subscriptions shall be payable only to such associations of officers as have been approved by the Minister as having been formed for the purpose of consultation on the common interests of these authorities and discussion of matters relating to local government.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 84, line 29, at end, insert:
  "or
  (b) of such associations of officers of local authorities, being associations formed for the purposes aforesaid, as may be approved by the Minister."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

  CLAUSE 125.—(Disability of members of local authorities for voting on account of interest in contracts, etc.)
  Mr. Pargiter: I beg to move, in page 85, line 32, at the end, to insert:
  "(4) In the said Section seventy-six and in Section one hundred and twenty-three of the said Act of 1933 (which relates to the disclosure by officers of local authorities of interest in contracts), references to a local authority shall be construed as including references to a divisional executive constituted under the Education Acts, 1944 and 1946, or the National Health Service Acts, 1946, and, for the purposes of the said Section one hundred and twenty-three, an officer of a local authority who carries out any duties under the control of such an executive shall be deemed, in relation to those duties, to be an officer of that executive."
  This Amendment is designed purely for the purpose of clarity. There is some doubt, as far as the local Government Act is concerned, whether or not officers under the direction of a body not actually the local authority, such as a divisional executive, or a body of that kind, are obliged, under the terms of the Local Government Act, to declare their interest. I understand that the form of words is acceptable to the Minister.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Bevan: This Amendment is intended to remove any doubt that may exist, and I am prepared to accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 126.—(Information centres.)
  Colonel Wheatley: I beg to move, in page 86, line 3, after "authorities," to insert: "or organisations."
  I understood, when in Committee, that the Minister said he would look at this particular Clause again with a view to seeing if he could not meet the point which was raised in Committee. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I feel that the Clause is drawn too narrowly. I draw attention to the fact that it says not only that an authority "may make," but also
  "assist in the making of arrangements."
  It seems to us that if we put in the words "or organisations," it, gives a local authority a chance to make use of various societies and organisations which may be in the area, and which may be found to be most useful, such as the Women's Voluntary Service, an archaeological society, or some such society as that, which would help in making these arrangements. I draw the attention of the House to the point that this is a purely permissive Clause. We can see no reason why the Minister should want to circumscribe the arrangements of the local authorities in this way. In fact, he has told us many times this afternoon that he wants to leave local authorities as free as possible. If he will accept this Amendment he will only be carrying out his own wishes in this matter.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. O. Poole: I beg to second the Amendment.
  If the right hon. Gentleman will glance at column 565 of our deliberations in Committee he will see that when we discussed this point on that occasion he availed himself of the opportunity to give us some of the best and most amusing of his rhetoric that we have had so far. I must say that on that occasion it seemed that we were swept away by it, and it is only on maturer and calmer deliberation since that we have thought it necessary to put down this Amendment again. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would look at the matter again, and it is with that in view that I am seconding the Amendment.
  Mr. Bevan: I have looked at this point again, and I find that my spontaneous inspiration is confirmed by sober reflection. The fact of the matter is that the term "organisation" is much too wide. It can cover almost anything. I am informed that the term "authorities" is perfectly adequate for the purpose, and will really meet all the requirements of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 127.—(Instruction, lectures, etc., on questions relating to local government.)
  Amendments made: In page 86, line 12, leave out "or."
  In line 13, leave out from "films," to "relating," in line 14, and insert:
  "or models or the holding of exhibitions."
  In line 16, leave out "exhibitions and models for such display," and insert:
  "models or exhibitions to be displayed or held."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Thetford, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th February, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Tewkesbury, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th February, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Tavistock, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th February, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Litherland, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th February, be approved."—[Mr. Younger.]

  HOUSING PROGRAMME, SCOTLAND
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
  10.18 p. m.
  Mr. Willis: I wish to raise one or two aspects of the nontraditional housing programme in Scotland which are causing my colleagues and myself some concern. The importance of this non-traditional programme is evident when we examine the figures given in the monthly returns and when we notice that out of 82,000 permanent houses for which tenders have been approved since the end of the war, over 29,000 of them were houses of the non-traditional type. That means that more than one-third of our present permanent housing programme in Scotland is for houses of the non-traditional type.
  This fact signifies that in Scotland we are undertaking an experiment of a very large and almost unique character. Because of that, it is imperative that we should be interested in its progress. We are bound, therefore, to examine fairly carefully the progress which this experiment is making. When we do, we find a number of important questions gradually revealed. The first which I wish to mention tonight is one which I have raised previously in the House at Question time. It concerns the rate at which these houses are being completed. The latest Monthly Returns, which I am afraid only go to 31st December, 1947, show that of 114 Wimpey houses which were under construction at the end of 1946, only two had been completed at the end of 1947; of 120 Whatling concrete houses, only eight had been completed; of 460 Orlit houses, only 134 had been completed; of 124 Miller houses, only 14 had been completed; of 250 Lindsay houses, only 36 had been completed; and of 416 Foamslag houses, only 178 had been completed.
  This is not typical of all the types which are being built in this programme because, by comparison with these very poor figures, we have the case of the Cruden house, in the same programme, of which, although only 338 were under construction by the end of 1946, 712 had, nevertheless, been completed by the end of 1947. We also have the comparatively good records of the Weir (Quality) house and the Athol] and B.I.S.F. houses. One must ask what is the reason for
  1468
  this very uneven rate of progress and for the very slow rate of completion in the cases I have mentioned? It is not good enough to say, as the Secretary of State said in reply to me on 10th February:
  "These houses are of pretty solid construction and not so easily finished as what are called temporary houses. We are going on as quickly as we can."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th Feb., 1948; Vol. 447, c. 192.]
  That answer displays an attitude of complacency which we cannot possibly accept. The Scottish Department must give evidence of a much greater sense of urgency about this matter than is displayed by that answer.
  I want, for a moment or two, to look in particular at the Orlit house, because I am especially interested in that house as one of the Members representing Edinburgh. The first contract for the Orlit house—one for 410 houses—was placed with the company in August, 1945. At the beginning of 1946, 128 of these houses were actually under construction. Two years later—that is, at the end of last month—only 126 had been completed. At this rate of progress, we shall not have these Orlit houses in Edinburgh completed until the middle of 1950. I want to ask whether my right hon. Friend is really satisfied with this progress. We would like some information tonight of the steps being taken to speed up the delivery of these houses, and we want to be assured that the rate of completion will be very much faster during the next few months than it has been during the past year. In this particular case I am informed on very good authority that had these houses been of the traditional type they would, in spite of all the difficulties and shortages of the past two years, have been completed by this time—the whole 410.
  This brings me to the second point I wish to raise. I understood that the intention of the non-traditional housing programme was, that it would supplement the traditional permanent housing programme and would enlist into the Government's housing drive men, materials, equipment, and methods additional to those available within the building industry. However, as far as I have been able to discover, all the men engaged in the production and construction of the Orlit house are building trade workers.

  1469
  The question naturally arises, therefore—and I suggest it is an important one, which my hon. Friend really has to consider—whether we are really getting the best from our building trade workers by allowing them to be absorbed in the production of this particular type of house. The evidence certainly seems to suggest to me that we are not.
  If that is the case, I think we might be told whether it is intended to continue placing contracts for these houses. That raises this question—the much wider one, of course—whether or not the original intentions behind the non-traditional housing programme have, in fact, been justified. In certain cases, as far as I have been able to judge from the figures given in this report, the answer would appear to be "Yes"; but in others I certainly cannot see that it is. We are entitled to be given some indication of what the Scottish Office think about this matter, and what they intend to do in future. Are we to get more contracts placed for these types I mentioned earlier? What is to happen to the factory which my hon. Friend opened at Bellshill a week or two ago, where, I understand, some 800 men are waiting for employment? These are questions which are of concern to us, and to which we are entitled to some answer.
  We are reaching a stage in this nontraditional housing experiment—for I think we must look upon it as an experiment—to be able to judge what achievements are really possible by these methods, and what are the factors that have to be balanced against the advantages. There is a number of factors arising out of the present economic situation which will probably influence this particular programme. The first of these factors is the result of the cuts in the housing programme. It is obvious that fewer men will be required, and it will be dependent upon what part of the programme is cut, which men will become redundant, and whether or not they will, in fact, be building trade workers or workers in other industries. If the cut falls in such a manner as to force the building trade workers out of the industry then the results may prove disastrous to the future, when it becomes possible once again to expand our building programme. I wonder what my hon. Friend has to say about that particular aspect?
  1470
  Another point is that one of the features of the non-traditional programme is that it requires much more steel than does a similar programme of traditional houses. I am informed that in building operations a ton of timber does the work of one and a half tons of steel. But we can import a ton of timber for £16, whereas we can export a ton and a half of steel for £60. That seems to me, in the present condition of things, to be a factor of some considerable importance and I expect and hope that the Government have borne this in mind in deciding what their future policy will be and what will be their policy in regard to the non-traditional house. If they have, then I think we are entitled to have some indication of what the effects will be.
  There is another consideration. During the past few months the building industry have accepted the principle of bonus incentive payments with the possibilities—in fact I should think they are rather more than possibilities—that the output of the industry will accordingly be much greater than it has been in the past. All these factors taken together seem to raise the question of the Government's policy in the future in regard to this type of programme. Is it to be continued at the expense of the traditional type? If it is not, what is to happen to the various factories that have been built to carry it out. We would like some information on these lines. In conclusion, I come back to my first point, which led me to raise this matter on the Adjournment, namely, what is my right hon. Friend doing to speed up the completion of the types of houses I mentioned at the beginning of these remarks?
  10.33 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: I do not think I need apologise for following my hon. Friend, who has selected a subject of very considerable importance to many people in Scotland. It is important not merely to the local authorities, who have been seeking since the war ended for every conceivable means of getting houses, and for the people who wait forlornly for a house, but also to people in Scotland who would be very glad to see a new industry arising—this new non-traditional house construction industry. But I must confess that the figures that we Have had presented to us up to now of the achievements of this industry, give us little

  1471
  to inspire us with confidence in its future. They are very disheartening to those of us who consider that the non-traditional house can play a big part in solving Scotland's housing problem.
  Some local authorities have supported the non-traditional house. Only last week Darvel Town Council asked me to see what I could do to get some non-traditional permanent houses, but honestly I must confess I could not give them very much support, because figures show that these new houses have taken much longer to construct than any other type of house. Ayr County Council have supported them from the start and so have Kilmarnock, but the position is that unless there is improvement—and it is for that improvement and speed-up we are speaking tonight—these local authorities will turn away altogether from the non-traditional type of house and this valuable new industry in Scotland will die. I believe in the non-traditional type of house.
  Let us look at the figures. Of 20,981 houses begun, 5,525 have been completed. The position is very much worse than that, because of the 5,525 completed, 2,224 were Swedish timber houses. Much as we are anxious to gather bouquets in Scotland, the Swedish timber house was made in Sweden, and Scottish industry cannot claim any great share in that. So that leaves us with only 3,301 completed non-traditional houses. The smallness of these figures, and the slowness of the progress, are such as to demand an immediate inquiry by the Scottish Office and the reaching of decisions regarding two things—how to speed-up the progress of those houses for which tenders have been approved or of which construction has already begun; and secondly, to reconsider, on lines which my hon. Friend has already suggested, the whole future of this type of construction, because these 3,301 houses are spread over 20 different types of house. To my mind, there are far too many types. What is needed is more concentration of effort, and a reduction of the number of types. One can only look at the figures to see which are the most successful types, and I suggest that honour should be given to them.
  As to the factories, about which my hon. Friend is worried, they can be used for the development of the selected types, as also can the labour employed at those
  1472
  factories. I would like also to ask about the Lindsay House, of which 550 are being constructed in Ayrshire. It is a good type of house, and the Ayrshire County Council insisted upon it, although I believe the Scottish Office rather advised against it. The County Council insisted upon it because it thought the Lindsay House was a good type of house. But of the 550, by December only 36 had been completed, and I think the number just now is 58. That means that 22 were finished in January. This is altogether ridiculous, compared with the time which has been spent upon this matter. The Secretary of State for Scotland told me last week, in answer to a question, that the average period of construction was 16 months. When it is realised that 50 of these were under construction in July, 1946, there is something far wrong with that figure.
  What is wrong with the Lindsay House? Is it shortage of materials, is it shortage of labour, is it a matter of the contractors? I would ask the Scottish Secretary to look into the figures already given by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) regarding the success of direct labour schemes in Ayrshire. We have, in Ayrshire, with these schemes got on rather more quickly with the Lindsay House. Along with that principal point and the general question of this type of house, I would like to stress the point that there should be a general inquiry and a re-statement of Government policy regarding it in Scotland.
  10.39 P.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. J. Robertson): I would like to say that I, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, share the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) regarding the necessity for speeding up the completion of these prefabricated permanent houses. We are not satisfied, and have never expressed satisfaction, with the slow rate at which houses in Scotland are being completed. That applies not only to the permanent types of prefabricated house, but also to the traditional housing programme.
  I would like to deal, as briefly as I can, with some of the points which have been brought out by the hon. Member for

  1473
  North Edinburgh and also by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. First, the policy of the Government, and certainly the policy at the Scottish Office, is to encourage all agencies that can make a contribution to this tremendous problem which we have been facing since the war ended of helping to house the people of Scotland as rapidly as possible. Therefore, the prefabricated type of house has a place and a part to play in the solution of that great problem. There is a difficult situation with regard to this particular type of house, for it is something new in the postwar period. It has been developed since the war, and as in most other new ventures a little time has to be spent in finding out the best methods by which the houses can be easily and rapidly erected.
  For example, let us look at the case to which the hon. Member for North Edinburgh referred—the Orlit House. The firm in question was one of the first to he encouraged to build houses in Scotland, and they had a fairly long period of intense difficulty in obtaining the necessary labour force. They had, in addition, to improvise the moulds and machinery which were necessary for the production of the components which went to make the houses and, therefore, there was a considerable period after they were brought in to build the first 410 houses for the Edinburgh Corporation before they actually got into operation. I think it says much for the enterprise of that firm that they were able to start as early as they did—that was towards the end of 1946.
  Having said that, I would like to say something further about the difficulties which this particular firm experienced, because it was symptomatic of that which was experienced by many other firms. They had the shortage of labour consequent upon the delay in getting building trade operatives out of the Services. There was also delay in the production of the component parts of the houses due to delay in the building of the factory, and it was very largely due to the efforts of my right hon. Friend, my predecessor at the Scottish Office, that that firm was set going in the early part of 1947.
  The permanent housing programme in Scotland can, I believe, make a very great contribution to the solution of this problem and the policy of the Govern-
  1474
  ment is to encourage all agencies, including permanent prefabrication firms as well as the traditional type of building to make that contribution.
  Mr. Ross rose—
  Mr. Robertson: My time is limited, and it is quite impossible in the short time at my disposal to give answers to all the questions that have arisen, but I want, finally, to say that efforts have been and are now being made to organise supplies to the finishing trades, because it is there where we find difficulty; it is not in the actual construction of the shell or hull of the houses. Recent months have shown that by a greater degree of continuity in supplies to the finishing trades, such as, for example, baths, plastering, and glass, which has been causing some considerable difficulty recently—where there is a smooth and steady supply reaching the sites, then the houses can be easily and quickly erected.
  There are signs now that there is a speeding-up. For example, the firm to which the hon. Member for North Edinburgh referred was able to produce during last year from five to ten houses per month. I can give him this assurance that if we have the supply of materials which we expect during this year that particular scheme in Southfield ought to be finished.
  Mr. Willis: Will we get the balance of 410 this year?
  Mr. Robertson: Yes, I think that is possible providing we have a supply of the necessary materials, which are plasterboard, glass and timber. There is one other point I wish to mention about the necessity of encouraging the prefabricated permanent house. We have experienced a great economy in the use of timber in these houses. These houses can be built with an expenditure of something like 0.9 standards of timber as against two standards of timber in the traditional type of house. For all these reasons, we are satisfied that we ought to encourage and develop this type of house in Scotland, particularly for the rural areas, where there is a scarcity of building trade operatives for the traditional type of house.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point of the Lindsay house?
  Mr. Robertson: Yes, I was trying to reach that point, if possible. The Ayrshire County Council placed a tender for 550 Lindsay houses and the first houses were to be completed in November, 1947. Here again the delay in erection was due largely to the shortage of timber, plaster board and iron goods. There is likely to be a better supply of these parts which are necessary to finish that particular type of house. We have been relying on a speeding up of these houses in the scheme to which the hon. Member for North Edinburgh drew attention. It is not correct to assume that all the non-traditional
  1476
  houses have been slower in completion than the permanent type of house. In Edinburgh alone we have one scheme where there are 390 traditional houses on the site not so very far away—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twelve Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

HOUSING
  Electrical Work
  Electrical Work
  Repair Licences
  Repair Licences
  Licences, Rural Areas
  Licences, Rural Areas
  Timber
  Timber
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Free Medical Treatment (Foreigners)
  Free Medical Treatment (Foreigners)
  Hospitals (Grants)
  Hospitals (Grants)
  POPULATION (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT)
  POPULATION (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT)
EDUCATION
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Training Grants
  Training Grants
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  American Investments, Scotland
  American Investments, Scotland
  Footwear Repairs (Overcharging)
  Footwear Repairs (Overcharging)
  Large Classes
  Large Classes
  Advertisements (Committee's Scheme)
  Advertisements (Committee's Scheme)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  University Grants
  University Grants
  Officers' Pensions (Canada)
  Officers' Pensions (Canada)
  Ministers and Civil Servants (Air Travel)
  Ministers and Civil Servants (Air Travel)
  Universities (Expansion)
  Universities (Expansion)
  ECONOMIC PLANNING
  ECONOMIC PLANNING
CIVIL SERVICE
  Economic Information Unit
  Economic Information Unit
  Commission
  Commission
FUEL AND POWER
  Basic Petrol
  Basic Petrol
  Hire Cars
  Hire Cars
  Petrol (Black Market)
  Petrol (Black Market)
  Gas Oil Imports
  Gas Oil Imports
  Supplementary Petrol Allowances
  Supplementary Petrol Allowances
  Petrol Economy
  Petrol Economy
  Anglo-Iranian Oil (Tankers)
  Anglo-Iranian Oil (Tankers)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Domestic Supplies
  Domestic Supplies
  Mining Subsidence, Hetton-le-Hole
  Mining Subsidence, Hetton-le-Hole
  Average Weekly Earnings
  Average Weekly Earnings
  National Coal Board (Member's Resignation)
  National Coal Board (Member's Resignation)
  Trainees
  Trainees
  STRIKE, PARK ROYAL (POLICE PATROL)
  STRIKE, PARK ROYAL (POLICE PATROL)
  MID-WEEK SPORT (RESTRICTIONS)
  MID-WEEK SPORT (RESTRICTIONS)
  JAPANESE (UNITED KINGDOM)
  JAPANESE (UNITED KINGDOM)
  FOOTBALL MATCH, TOTTENHAM (POLICE)
  FOOTBALL MATCH, TOTTENHAM (POLICE)
POLICE
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  GREYHOUND RACING, GOSFORTH
  GREYHOUND RACING, GOSFORTH
  PRISON SERVICE (HIGHER POSTS)
  PRISON SERVICE (HIGHER POSTS)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (CIVILIAN WORKERS)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (CIVILIAN WORKERS)
  ESCAPED PRISONERS (PRESS INFORMATION)
  ESCAPED PRISONERS (PRESS INFORMATION)
GERMANY
  Treaties (Publication)
  Treaties (Publication)
  Berlin-Rome Axis
  Berlin-Rome Axis
  FAR EASTERN BROADCASTING SERVICE
  FAR EASTERN BROADCASTING SERVICE
  CANAL CRAFT
  CANAL CRAFT
  PENZANCE TRUNK ROAD (PETITION)
  PENZANCE TRUNK ROAD (PETITION)
EMPLOYMENT
  Foreign Domestic Workers
  Foreign Domestic Workers
  Caernarvonshire
  Caernarvonshire
  Portsmouth
  Portsmouth
  Rhondda
  Rhondda
  Grenfell Factories, South Wales
  Grenfell Factories, South Wales
  Wales
  Wales
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Further Education and Training Scheme
  Further Education and Training Scheme
  BRITISH ARMY (OVER-PAYMENT DEDUCTIONS)
  BRITISH ARMY (OVER-PAYMENT DEDUCTIONS)
  LOST RATION DOCUMENTS (REPLACEMENT FEE)
  LOST RATION DOCUMENTS (REPLACEMENT FEE)
MINISTRY OF WORKS.
  Licensed Building, Scotland (Workers)
  Licensed Building, Scotland (Workers)
  Electrical Components
  Electrical Components
  LEEWARD ISLANDS (TRADE UNION LAW)
  LEEWARD ISLANDS (TRADE UNION LAW)
AFRICAN COLONIES
  Exports to Belgian Congo
  Exports to Belgian Congo
  Sisal, Tanga (Shipment)
  Sisal, Tanga (Shipment)
  Tobacco Production, Central Africa
  Tobacco Production, Central Africa
  AGRICULTURE (FEEDINGSTUFFS)
  AGRICULTURE (FEEDINGSTUFFS)
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  ROYAL MARINES BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.
  4.5 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, the main purpose of this Bill is to amend and continue the provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938. That Act, as your Lordships are aware, succeeded the first Film Quota Act of 1927. This Bill is designed chiefly to continue the system of exhibitors' quota, to encourage and protect the production of British films, and to restrain any growing tendency of monopoly in the industry. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, with his usual conspicuous skill, piloted the 1927 Act through another place when it was felt that the application of the system of quota had become necessary, for at that period American distributors supplied no less than 95 per cent. of the films exhibited in this country. Even now, the showing of British films occupies only about one-fifth of our screen time in some 4,500 theatres in this country. It is not a good thing for a country such as ours to have almost all the films shown made in another country for, as the Films Council have often pointed out, the cinema industry cannot be regarded as just one business among others. Its possibilities are vast as a vehicle of expression of national life, ideals, tradition and instruction.
  This industry touches our national life at many points, and while the scope of producing films is limited at the present time, the public demand for seeing them
  1236
  is immense. I saw a statement a short time ago that in 1937 the number Of seats bought weekly was about 15,000,000. According to estimate, the present weekly rate is nearer 30,000,000. Some 30,000,000 persons per week use the cinema as a means of relaxation and amusement, while tens of thousands of workpeople in various sections of the industry—production, distribution and exhibiting—are dependent upon it for their livelihood. This industry is confronted with many problems at the present time, and while this Bill will be of some assistance it cannot alone solve either the short-term or the long-term problems. We must look at this Bill against a background of the present difficulties which the industry is experiencing, not only on its productive side but as the result of the cessation of the import of films from the United States of America. It is true that if this embargo on the supply of further films continues indefinitely, the effect on the choice of films open to the public, and therefore on employment and box office earnings, will be considerable.
  While this is not the occasion to debate the attitude of His Majesty's Government in relation to the embargo and to the import duty on American films, I think your Lordships would like to know the attitude of His Majesty's Government in relation to this matter and I can do no better than refer to the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in another place on the Second Reading of this Bill. He said:
  "We ourselves stand by the import duty and I do not think I need labour the point that we cannot continue finding dollars to meet the payments due on American film earnings here. We are prepared to make any reasonable arrangement, and we have stated that we are prepared to work out a scheme which would allow extra earnings for foreign films to be taken out of this country to the extent that our British films earn more money overseas. We are not interested merely that British films be ' taken ' by overseas distributors; we want to see them really effectively shown and actually earning dollars."
  So long as we secure the required dollar saving, we are prepared to agree to some modification of the duty. This, I think, is the attitude shared by the Opposition, for Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, after making suggestions for the removal of the deadlock said on the Second Reading in another place:
  "I do not suggest—I want to make this very clear—that in our opinion, His Majesty's

  1237
  Government should retire from the main position they have taken up. I express the hope that with certain good will and flexibility the present problem can be satisfactorily solved."
  That is the attitude of His Majesty's Government at the present time.
  I have no doubt, my Lords, that many people have asked why, after twenty years of protection, the industry needs a continuance of such assistance. The answer must be that, mainly because the war intervened, the 1938 Act never had a fair run. The extension of the industry for which the Act provided has been seriously impeded, not only by the late war but also by the dislocation which followed it. It may be said that during this period there has been a striking advance in the quality of British films and achievement: which reflects the greatest credit on all concerned with their production. This progress was made in circumstances of great difficulty, partly through shortages of studio space and skilled personnel. Nevertheless, the volume of output has fallen short of expectations; and, as I have already pointed out, British films are still filling only a small space of our screen time. Moreover, the market here is only about one-quarter as large as that for the product of Hollywood. It is clear that a continuation of some form of protection is required. That is the view of all sections of the industry on the need for the continuance of this Act.
  The industry, and the Cinematograph Films Council, in their valuable report published last July, agreed that the general framework of the 1938 Act was soundly conceived and should be retained, with amendments to meet present-day conditions. The Council include representatives of both sides of the trade, together with a number of independent members, and have been fortunate for the last three years to have as their Chairman the Earl of Drogheda, who has deserved no small share of the credit for the Council's businesslike discharge of their functions. In that space of time the noble Earl has acquired an extensive acquaintance with the industry's problems and leading personalities and has the esteem of all those associated with the industry.
  I turn now to the Bill itself. Its clauses are only ten in number, and the rest of the print—from page 9 onwards, consists of two Schedules. The clauses
  1238
  replace and amplify certain provisions of the existing Act of 1938, and entail some consequential amendments to various other provisions of that Act. These and some other amendments are effected by the First Schedule, which amends or repeals various provisions of the Act of 1938. Part I of this Schedule deals with amendments and Part II with repeals. The latter includes the repeal of the renters' quota provisions, enacted in 1938, and also the formal repeal of the now obsolete Act of 1927. The Second Schedule sets out the revised text of the 1938 Act as it will read when amended accordingly. The new quota regime prescribed for the exhibitors in this Bill will differ in three main respects from the 1938 arrangements under the present Act. As these provisions are the kernel of the Bill, I will, with your Lordships' permission, dwell briefly on each of them.
  In the first place, there is the provision in Clause 1, subsections (2) and (3), for separate calculation of the quotas in respect of "first feature" films and the films which go to make up what the trade call the "supporting programme." The 1938 Act draws a distinction, for quota purposes, between "long" and "short" films—films respectively over and under 3,000 feet in length. First and second features are not, however distinguished. This created the anomalous position whereby films of one class could be offset, foot for foot, against films of the other, although in the normal double-feature programme there is generally a wide difference in price and quality between first and second feature films. Clause 1 of the Bill proposes to correct this anomaly by abolishing the "long" and "short" film quotas, and substituting separate quotas for the "first feature" and the "supporting programme." This latter—the supporting programme—will cover the items other than the first feature, except for news-reels and advertisement films., which are outside the scope of this Bill.
  By Clause 2 it will be possible under the Bill to appoint different quota percentages for different classes of cinemas. Some cinemas are much better placed than others for booking a satisfactory proportion of good British films—sometimes because of their geographical position and sometimes because they are units in powerful cinema "chains" or

  1239
  circuits. Any exhibitors' quota with a uniform incidence on all cinemas is likely to bear too hardly on some and too lightly on others. The Bill therefore includes provisions which in future will enable the obligation to be varied between three main categories. The first class includes the circuits comprising more than 200 cinemas and the pre-release cinemas—often called "shop-window" theatres—in the West End of London. The second comprises the general body of the cinemas—that is to say, all the cinemas without the special advantages of the first class and without the disabilities of the third. This third group will consist of any cinemas where the exhibitors concerned have satisfied the Board of Trade that their local competitive situation justifies some measure of relaxation of the normal obligation. Within this group the Bill also gives effect to what was substantially the Films Council's suggestion, that cinemas in competitive situations with average takings of less than £100 a week should enjoy total exemption from the ' operation of the quotas. Their importance in this respect is not considered sufficient to justify the amount of work which enforcement of quotas for them would involve.
  The third significant new feature of the exhibitors' quota provisions of the Bill lies in the new and flexible provisions for determination of the quota percentages. In accordance with the expressed wishes of all sections of the industry, the quotas will be fixed in future by Board of Trade Orders, made after consulting the Cinematograph Films Council and requiring affirmative Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. The Orders will aim, on the one hand, at assuring for every worthwhile British film the widest possible exploitation in this country's own cinemas, and at the same time will avoid imposing an excessive burden on any exhibitor. No statutory minimum percentages are laid down in the Bill, but my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has given assurances in another place that it is, in fact, his firm intention never to let the quotas fall below the levels prescribed next summer.
  I should like to touch briefly on the quota provisions of the Bill as they affect the British producers of so-called "specialized" films—that is, films not primarily
  1240
  intended for exhibition as first features. The Government are particularly anxious to support this section of the industry, and there are two respects in which I believe this Bill will prove to be helpful. In the first place, I am hopeful that the separate quota for the "supporting programme," taken as a whole, will bring about some improvement in the demand from exhibitors for these types of film, since it will enable exhibitors to use British short films to offset not only foreign "shorts," as they can under the present Act, but also to offset foreign second features. In the second place, Clause 3 (6) of the Bill, by the imposition of a cost test, accepts the view that it is now desirable to protect the producers of "specialized" films from the very cheap competition to which they are at present exposed. It is now considered reasonable to prescribe a minimum production expenditure on labour costs of 10s. per foot—the figure which was recommended for short films by the Films Council. For exhibitors' quota purposes, therefore, any film which fails to comply with this test will fall into a neutral class, and will be ignored in the 'quota calculations.
  With regard to the major cinema circuits—the groups of 200 cinemas or more—Clause 5 (7) of this Bill will now provide a statutory basis for the implementation of the Government's policy of preventing any further expansion of these powerful groups, subject only to the qualification that it is not the Government's intention to give one group a permanent advantage over another. This places on a statutory footing the position established since 1943 by undertakings given by the chief representatives of the circuits. Clause 5 (2) of the Bill will also make statutory the existing arrangement whereby each major circuit can be called upon by the Board of Trade to book up to six British films a year for exhibition as first features on the recommendation of the special Selection Committee. This will ensure that a circuit booking is available to the independent British producer for all his pictures of the requisite standard, up to a total of eighteen pictures a year (plus, of course, whatever pictures the circuits book on their own accord). The Selection Committee, which were set up in 1946, have as their Chairman the noble Earl to whom I have already referred, and, besides one representative of each of the

  1241
  three circuits, the Committee, include a preponderance of independent members of widely representative character.
  Clause 8 of the Bill alters the composition of the Cinematograph Films Council—the body set up under the Act of 1938 to discharge certain advisory functions. Persons who are not members of the Council may also now be co-opted as additional members of any committee of the Council. The Council's responsibilities are enlarged under previous clauses. The Government are most anxious that the Council should now become an even stronger and more effective body. The altered composition originally proposed in the Bill has been significantly modified as the outcome of discussion of this Clause 1n another place. The Government confidently recommend it to your Lordships as striking a fair balance between the claims of the various interests—including, not least, the claims of the general public. Although the independent members will no longer preponderate in numbers, I would like to assure your Lordships that there is No 1ntention of diminishing their influence. The Council remain an advisory body, not taking executive decisions on the basis of counting heads, but presenting reasoned recommendations to the President of the Board of Trade.
  I should like, finally, to say a word about the prospects of British film production. There is a danger that the un-settlement in the industry as a result of the American film embargo will lead to some slackening of the tempo of film production. There are, indeed, already signs of that. The principal British producers, however, have stated that they have every confidence in their ability to maintain full production in the studios which they control, and the Government have done their best to see that the maximum amount of studio space is available. It is now more than ever necessary that this space, and the man-power which it employs, should be used to the best advantage and with the maximum efficiency. I would remind your Lordships that, in order to keep under review the measures taken to promote all aspects of production efficiency, and to enable the Government to take steps to remove any avoidable obstacles, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is inviting the interested parties to nominate representatives to serve on a
  1242
  National Joint Production Council of which he will be the Chairman.
  It can be said that this Bill was discussed in another place in an atmosphere of good will, the Minister making and conceding many Amendments. What is remarkable for a Bill of this kind is that it was carried through all its stages without a Division, and it can now be accepted by your Lordships' House as representing the collective opinion of all Parties in another place.
  In conclusion, I am sure that your Lordships will join me in paying a tribute to those who stood by the industry during the very difficult war years, and who spent much time and money in bravely attempting not only to re-develop the film industry on the productive side but in raising considerably the general standard of the product. The enhanced reputation of the quality, character and educational value of British films is an excellent testimony to the success of their efforts. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hall.)
  4.28 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I seem always to be lending my cordial support to every Bill introduced by the First Lord of the Admiralty. If we go on at this rate of mutual disarmament, we shall tooth be getting sadly out of practice. However, on this occasion I feel that I must lend my support to the Bill, not only because I think that this is, on the whole, a very good Bill, but also because I take a grandfatherly interest in it. This Bill is the direct descendant of, and is in many respects like, the Bill which I introduced more than twenty years ago. Therefore it may not be irrelevant to a consideration of this Bill to recall briefly the circumstances in which the original Act came to be, produced and passed.
  Before the First World War, the young' British film industry was fairly successful; during that war it suffered, and after that war it had almost faded out. As the First Lord of the Admiralty has said, by 1925 5 per cent. or less of the films shown in this country were British films. I felt that that was an intolerable situation. If we had been entirely dependent upon foreign books for what we read everybody would have agreed that

  1243
  socially and educationally, it would be an impossible position. Yet almost as many people see films as read books. Indeed, I am not at all sure that if one applied a test it would not result in films coming out on top. Economically the situation was equally serious. I remember being greatly impressed at that time by a statement by Mr. Julius Klein, who was the Secretary for Commerce in the United States. He said that in his considered opinion the value to American export trade of American films which dominated the screens of the world was worth all other direct advertisement put together. I was then President of the Board of Trade, and reports which were coming from commercial counsellors and consuls from all over the world were very much to the same effect; and yet the position had been tacitly accepted.
  It was superficially supposed that here was an industry or craft in which we had not either the talent or the capacity to compete. Yet in the United States some of the best actors and producers were British. We certainly had the authors—past, present and future. There could not be any doubt about that. Then it was said that we could not make films in England because it is full of fog, and what is required in order to make a satisfactory film is the clear, pure air of Hollywood. The question then arose: Why is it that in Germany, which is at least as foggy as England, admirable films are being produced with beautiful photography? The answer was simple. These films were not produced in the open air at all; 90 per cent. or more of them were produced in air-conditioned studios under artificial light. It also appeared to me that this question was of just as much—or almost as much—interest to the Dominions as to ourselves; therefore I brought the subject before the Imperial Conference.
  All the Dominions and all the Commonwealth countries warmly endorsed the proposition. I would like to read to the House the resolution passed by the Imperial Conference in 1926. It was this:
  "The Imperial Conference, recognizing that it is of the greatest importance that a larger and increasing proportion of films exhibited throughout the Empire should be of Empire production, commends the matter and the remedial measures proposed to the consideration of the Governments of the Empire, with
  1244
  a view to such early and effective action to deal with the serious situation now existing as they may severally find possible. Any action it might be possible to take in Great Britain would undoubtedly be of the greatest assistance to the other parts of the Empire in dealing with the problem."
  Fortified by that we went ahead. I tried, in the first instance, to secure a voluntary agreement between the "three estates of the realm" in this industry—the producers, the renters, and the exhibitors. There was plenty of good will, but they said at an early stage "We cannot possibly agree." Nevertheless they all gave me the greatest possible help in drafting the Bill.
  The main features of that Act—and they are virtually reproduced here—were these. We went out for a progressive quota. The films to be treated as British were not only films produced in this country but, provided they were British in character, films produced anywhere in the British Empire. We introduced a separate and higher renters' quota. Perhaps for good reasons that quota has now been eliminated, but at that time the exhibitors were extremely anxious to have it, because they said, "The renter or distributor will always have to have more films than we must take." We abolished blind booking—a system whereby exhibitors had to book up films that nobody had ever seen. We said that in future the film must be "trade" shown before it could be booked, and we restricted what was called "block booking." Finally, as all sections of the trade wished, the administration of the Act was vested in the Board of Trade, with the assistance of an advisory council, to-day the Films Council, to which such a deserved tribute has been paid. I would like to remember a noble Lord who, alas, is no longer with us, namely, the late Leader of the House, Lord Moyne. He also contributed a great deal to the administration of the Act.
  In those early days there was a great deal of Parliamentary opposition, and the atmosphere was very different from the placid atmosphere which now prevails. The Socialists opposed the Bill, not, I think, because they really objected to it. I believe that in their hearts they really liked it, but it was a principal Government Bill; and so, as a right thinking or right acting Opposition, they had to oppose it. The Liberals opposed it hotly. They said that it was contrary

  1245
  to all the dogmas of Free Trade, and we shall perhaps see to-day what is their attitude now. Perhaps it will be characteristic. However, the Bill went through and once through it worked well. In a few years the exhibitors were showing more than three times as many films as the compulsory quota laid down, and then, ten years later, as the First Lord has said, Parliament had to approve or reject my Act. And, as experience showed to be desirable, it was renewed by general consent, with certain amendments.
  There was one question which did not figure in our Bill, and which does not, I think, figure in this—although I am not quite sure about one Clause 1n which the wording is a little doubtful. I was greatly pressed from some quarters to set up a film censorship in the Board of Trade. Some worthy people, although perhaps not well acquainted with the film industry, wanted the Board of Trade to be a judge of quality and æsthetics. Some others even went so far as to say that we were also to be a judge of morals. I should have been very good at that; but even so I set my face against that idea. I thought there ought to be one arbiter of taste or of morals and that was the British public, and a very good arbiter they proved to be, too. That matter came up again when certain ingenious people, largely foreign, thought they had found a way round the Act by an unpleasant thing called the "quota quickie," which is well-known to those of your Lordships who are acquainted with the industry—something which is cheap and nasty.
  We had to consider then how we were to meet that, and again we met people who said "Let the Board of Trade be the test of what is a good film and what is not." The only real test of what is a good film and what is not is the box office—whether people will go and see it. We decided against a kind of aesthetic quality test by the Board of Trade, and came down in favour of what I may call a means test, which was not always popular but was certainly a sound test in this case—that in order for a film to qualify a certain amount of money had to be spent on it. I think in those days it was £1 a foot. I am not quite sure why it has gone down to ten shillings, when every other price has risen. The minimum labour cost was set at £7,500. An excep-
  1246
  tional case, of course, could be specially met. If somebody produced quite cheaply a good film which the public, would like to see, there was no difficulty in admitting it.
  From what I have said, your Lordships will see how closely this Bill, the third of its kind, follows the original Act, and I naturally welcome the present Bill as a lineal descendant. In this case I join with the Government in support of the hereditary principle. We shall have to consider in Committee the provisions of the Bill. I agree with the noble Viscount, the First Lord, that they raise no Party issues, and we shall find, I am sure, as we have so often found in this House, that in both the general and special experience of members of this House we have just what we want for the rapid and effective consideration of the Bill. I would only direct attention on Second Reading to some questions of principle to which we shall have to revert in more detail during the Committee stage. We are legislating not or a temporary emergency, but for a more normal future. But we are in a temporary emergency with regard to films—at least, I hope it is only temporary; I trust that this American impasse will be satisfactorily resolved. But let me make it quite plain now that we on this side of the House stand solidly behind the Government in the general position which they have taken up in this matter. If that is clearly understood, I am sure that it will be much easier to reach a solution advantageous to both countries. British films are getting better and better, and it is not only we who are suffering in this matter; it is the Americans who are suffering too. I am sure that if they take account of our difficulties and fairly meet the situation it will be to the 'benefit of both sides. But let us remember that we are legislating how for a permanent condition.
  May I advert, briefly, to what I think are the general principles which experience has shown to be necessary, and which were present in the original Act? First I would say there must be certainty—certainty for all. Secondly, the Bill should be fair both to the producers and to the exhibitors. Thirdly, it should be fair as between the different classes of exhibitors. Fourthly, it should stimulate production of good films—and by good

  1247
  films I mean films that the general public will want to see. Finally, administration should be simple and elastic—the Board of Trade working with the different sections of the trade, producers and exhibitors, and the invaluable independents on this Council. I hope the. noble Viscount, who will not, I realize, be answering in Committee at first hand, will not be put off or misled by the bogy of complicated administration. It is not at all complicated to administer an Act of this kind. I venture to be a little dogmatic about that, because I wrote every word of the earlier Act myself, and I administered it for a year or two. I administered it practically with two men and a boy, and the good will of all sections of the industry. Vast returns of the most complicated kind are not required. We administered the Act quite simply with test checks, and if a thing is right and reasonable (as I suggest this is) I beg the Government not to be bamboozled by an idea that an enormous staff is called for to make the thing work efficiently. It is not. Indeed, I go so far as to say that the smaller the staff the better this measure will work.
  If those principles are sound, we should apply them all through, and in particular to the following points. First, I would ask: Ought there to be a minimum quota? Without that certainty it is difficult to plan ahead and to finance. I know that the Government say: "What we fix as the first quota will, in fact, be the minimum." I would have been inclined to put that into the Bill. I believe that it is to the interest of exhibitors, as well as producers, to have this certainty. I am sure we need not be afraid that in practice the minimum will become a maximum. As I say, within a year or two of the old Act coming into operation, although the quota was relatively low, exhibitors were showing three times the amount of the compulsory quota. Then there is the question of the progressive quota. That is entirely sound, and perhaps it is better to have it fixed by the Board of Trade in an affirmative Resolution, in the light of knowledge gained from year to year. But give as long notice as possible, and make the quota period for as long a time as possible. That is in the interests of both the producer and the exhibitor.
  The noble Viscount has explained to us the rather complicated provisions
  1248
  about separate treatment of the smaller theatres which have takings of £100 a week or less. I thought the original provision in the Bill was very bad: they were all excluded. That would have meant something like 1,000 of them in the aggregate and it would have represented a good deal of money to the producer. And the Board of Trade can always relax or exempt. We had that power under the old Act, and we exercised it quite frequently if for some reason or other a man could not get films. I am told by all sections of the trade that that worked smoothly and well. Clause 3 has been amended, as I understand, so that it exempts only those small cinemas which meet with competition and which have real difficulty in getting British films. That is probably right. But what about the converse of this—as I may call it? The converse I find in the provision in Clause 5 about the extra quota for the big circuits, the circuits which own 200 theatres or more.
  I am not quite sure that I understand the principle on which that provision is based. It seems to me that it is based on the principle that a large company must bear a heavier burden than the smaller ones. That may be all right. If it is, I would only say in passing—I hope that I am not bringing a slightly controversial element into the discussion—that it would be a more appropriate application of that principle if the great nationalized monopolies accepted heavier burdens themselves and put rather lighter burdens upon us. But perhaps that suggestion would be more relevant to another debate. Still, I must send that down to the noble Viscount; I cannot bowl in half-volleys all the time. I am all in favour of these big circuits showing the maximum number of British films, but why is the obligation confined to this arbitrary number of theatres?—I know, of course, that there are the "big three." Surely the purpose of the Bill is to have as many good British films shown in as many cinemas as possible. It seems to me that different quotas are justified only if some theatres would have genuine difficulty in obtaining the requisite number of British films. But if a circuit with under 200 houses has not that difficulty, I do not see why it should have a smaller obligation. I have mentioned the matter on Second Reading as I do not want to take the Minister by surprise at a later stage. I

  1249
  think he will agree that it is a new point which was not considered before, and I think we ought to discuss it in Committee.
  Another provision which I do not think is satisfactory is that under which British films can be shown only in the first half of the week. Again I beg the noble Viscount not to ride off on the administrative bogey. I am perfectly satisfied that it is not in the least difficult to administer this Bill on the basis of giving all films a fair chance throughout the week. We all have more leisure time at the end of the week—even noble Lords have, though I do not know about Cabinet Ministers—and anybody who knows about films knows that many more people go to the cinema on Friday night, Saturday and Sunday than during the first half of the week. If films are to be given a fair showing, they ought to be shown then. This is important from a takings point of view because I understand that films are generally paid for on a percentage of takings. If that is so, obviously what is wanted is a percentage when the house is full and not when it is half empty. Even I can appreciate that mathematical proposition!
  This matter also has a bearing on exports. In the keen competition to show films abroad people in this industry are very quick not only to boost their own wares but somewhat to decry the wares of other people. Nothing could be worse for those who are trying to sell British films in the export market, where they will earn dollars and hard currency, than that the statement should go out that "This was a Monday-to-Wednesday film and not a Friday-to-Sunday film." I am sure that if this provision is not amended, that is the kind of thing which will be said. We shall consider that point in Committee in a quite unprejudiced way and see what is the right thing to do.
  I would add one other word on finance. There is nothing in the Bill about it, but a good deal was said in debate in another place regarding the importance of this industry obtaining finance. A suggestion was made that some new finance corporation might be set up, or some new method of financing the film industry found. I am very doubtful about that. I do not like new bodies. If this industry is what I believe it can be and will be—a really sound proposition, an efficient industry—it ought
  1250
  not to have difficulty in getting its finance. There are already the great financial corporations which we set up, one for major finance and the other for small finance—which is very important; I always feel there is a great place for it—to help the fellow who wants £25,000 or £50,000. It is not the business of the banks; their business is to lend largely at call or on short notice, and this money may be locked up for two or three years. The amount required may not be big enough to justify making an issue, but the proposition might be a very sound thing. That is the kind of thing this existing corporation, which I may call the junior corporation, exists to handle. I certainly should have thought that the right channel of finance for this industry was through these existing and established corporations.
  I repeat the general welcome which I have given to the Bill. I think it was greatly improved in another place, but that does not mean that we cannot make it still better here. I am sure that we shall go into Committee with the greatest good will possible and with the genuine desire on all sides to see if we cannot make this an even better Bill.
  4.57 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I shall speak for only one moment; therefore I am sure that I shall not be intervening at the wrong time. The noble Viscount who introduced the Bill, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, have both traversed the Bill fully, and I do not want to say anything about it beyond welcoming it and mentioning one or two points from the point of view of Scotland. We hoped we would have a Scottish Committee, but now, I am afraid, although we still think we ought to have a Scottish Committee, we shall not have one, though provision has been made for a Scottish sub-committee. There are twenty-two members of the Committee, but there are only two Scots on it, and even on the Goschen quota we are entitled to another member. Therefore I sincerely hope the noble Viscount will be backed by my noble friend, Lord Morrison, in obtaining for us another member.
  A NOBLE LORD: Sometimes you get more than the quota.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: We get all we can. We never want to get less than our quota. I should like to make a

  1251
  point about the English quota for Scottish cinemas. I am not going to say anything about Scottish humour being better or worse than English humour, but there is no question about it that a certain number of English films are quite unsuitable for Scotland. Take a broad Lancashire film: people in Scotland hardly understand what the actors are talking about. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, said, we must consult the audience as much as the people who produce films. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has pointed out, rather to my horror, that many more people go to films than read books; therefore I think the people who go to films should be consulted. Some of the films unsuitable for Scotland should be allowed to be expunged from the quota and thereby the quota for Scotland be lowered. I have spoken in a hurry for obvious reasons, but I hope I have put these two points clearly to the noble Viscount. I say again that I hope very much that he will be supported by my noble friend, Lord Morrison, on the extreme right of his Bench.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, I think this would be a convenient moment to break off for the Royal Commission.
  House adjourned during pleasure. House resumed.

  ROYAL COMMISSION.'
  5.0 p.m.
  The following Bills received the Royal Assent:
  Post Office and Telegraph (Money), Requisitioned Land and War Works.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.
  5.12 p.m.
  Debate resumed.
  THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, it is traditional that the Chairman of Committees should speak in this House only if the subject matter of the debate
  1252
  is entirely non-Party and if he has, or at any rate is supposed to have, some special knowledge of the subject. I hope that your Lordships will think that this is one of those occasions. I am most grateful to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty for the kind words he used about the small amount of work I have been able to do on the Films Council. No one who has been a member of that Council could fail to learn something about this most fascinating and complex industry, but I am very conscious how superficial and incomplete is my knowledge of it. May I add that anything I have to say this afternoon is merely the expression of my own personal views; I make no claim to speak for the Films Council as a whole, or even for the non-trade members of it. As is only right, many schools of thought and different interests are represented on the Council, and few indeed are the subjects upon which the Council are unanimous. I think, however, that all my colleagues would wish to join me in expressing their appreciation of the efficiency and the helpfulness of all the members of the Films Section of the Board of Trade.
  In a sense, the present Bill is quite overshadowed by two events of major importance to the industry. The first of these, of course, is the Customs Duty and the subsequent embargo on the shipment of films to this country from the United States which has created a situation of very great difficulty for many exhibitors. The second event is the announcement by the President of the Board of Trade of his intention to set up a Committee to inquire into the whole question of the distribution and exhibition of films, and also a Production Council, under his own chairmanship, to keep under review every aspect of production efficiency. The subject matters with which those two bodies will have to deal are of the utmost importance to the industry—they go to its very roots—and the outcome of their deliberations, when the international situation has permitted the Committee to be set up, will be watched with the deepest interest. In comparison with some which have come before your Lordships, this Bill is a very modest affair. All it does is to maintain in force for a further ten years the quota protection afforded by the previous Act, and to amend and modernize in some way the provisions of

  1253
  the 1938 Act. Nevertheless, the maintenance of the quota protection is by no means unimportant. It is quite unthinkable that we should risk losing the ground which has been gained with so much effort during these difficult years. I am sure that one day the British film industry will be so well established, and British films will be so much in demand, that they will need no artificial help; but until that day comes we must have the quota protection and I do not think that any one seriously contends that that is not the case. For my part, I am extremely glad that the Government did not fix any quota percentages in the Bill. I know that it is argued—and, indeed, I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said to-day—that: it might not matter if the percentages were fixed too high and subsequently there turned out to be a shortage of British films, because that fact could always be taken into account in considering quota defaulters. That is perfectly true. But surely, on general principles, it cannot be right to create large numbers of offenders whose offences have to be overlooked because the law that they have broken cannot be carried into effect.
  I have been for three years a member of the Defaults Committee of the Council, which considers these defaults in the first instance. Owing, no doubt, mainly to the war, and also to the rigidity of the 1938 Act, we have been faced year by year with something like 1,000 defaults. We have gone through them carefully, and we have been satisfied that the vast majority of cases have arisen simply because the exhibitors have not been able to procure sufficient British films. I submit that a total of something like 1,000 offenders, and perhaps ten prosecutions by the Board as a result of our saying that some of the cases are particularly bad, simply brings the law into disrepute. I do not think that it does any good to anyone, not even the independent producer, to assist whom is one of the main objects of the Bill.
  If any of your Lordships who have not yet made a film were to wish to produce, not a very expensive film, but an important film—shall we say a film costing £200,000—and supposing again that it was not quite convenient for you to find most of that money, it would not be any help, I think, when you went to. look for finance, to say: "Oh, it is quite
  1254
  all right, the quota percentage is 35 per cent." I think that your bank would very likely reply: "That may be so, but what we want to know is that the film you are going to make will have a quota booking; until then there is nothing doing." I am quite certain that it is a fallacy to think that, by making high percentages, we can thereby stimulate production. What the producer must know is that his films are going to have a large showing. The quota percentages should, in my opinion, be substantial, but they should not be unrealistic. To fix the percentages too high is to inflict considerable hardship upon exhibitors, particularly the more conscientious exhibitors, and it does no good to anyone at all. I am sure that the quota percentages must be most carefully considered and related to British films that look likely to be coming forward in the next quota period; and that is one of the reasons why it is difficult to fix the period too far ahead. The Films Council, or whoever advises the Board of Trade, must be able to see what is in view before they can advise reasonably as to percentages.
  May I turn for a moment to the position as regards Scotland? During the passage of the Bill through another place apprehensions were expressed lest the Scottish defaulters might be treated with undue harshness, because there was such a small number of Scottish representatives on the Council compared with the numbers of their English colleagues. I know the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, made that point, but I do not think those fears have any foundation. The procedure of the Films Council in advising the Board of Trade, certainly during the past three years and I think since the establishment of the Council, has been as follows. The Films Council appoint a Committee consisting of eight members. Two Scottish representatives are members of the Committee—and I an assure your Lordships that they have in full measure the eloquence and the zeal for Scottish interests which we have come to associate with the representatives of Scotland in your Lordships' House.
  On every Scottish default the Committee is guided by the advice given by the Scottish representatives, and I do not recall a single case—I am sure there is not one—in which their advice has not

  1255
  been accepted. Indeed, I may say that if for some reason or other neither of the Scottish representatives had been able to be present at a particular meeting, the whole consideration of the Scottish default would have been postponed until one or both had been able to be present. Then the Defaults Committee report to the Council; the Council consider these cases and give their advice to the Board of Trade, and if the Films Council have shown any disposition to be unduly severe on Scottish defaulters, again the two Scottish representatives are there to argue their case. But there has never been the slightest necessity for them to do so. Therefore I think that so far as Scottish defaulters are concerned, Scotland has not had at all a raw deal in the past, and I cannot imagine that in future the Films Council would treat the defaulters in any different way.
  The Selection Committee, which is mentioned in Clause 5 (2), have so far not been overburdened with work, as not a single film has yet been submitted to them. I do not think that any of us really expected that any films would be submitted to them yet. The position now is that if a good British film is made it is absolutely certain of a circuit booking and a very wide showing in Great Britain. Indeed, I think there is far less chance of a good British film not being shown than there is of an indifferent British film having to be shown. I myself should be delighted if I could think that many films were likely to come before the Selection Committee, but I fear that for some time to come the Selection Committee will not be overburdened with work, because there are not and cannot be for some time enough British films coming forward. In this connexion, may I say how delighted I was to see that the President of the Board of Trade said in another place that films are to be recommended by the Committee eventually, when some come forward, as being suitable for exhibition by reason of their entertainment value? There is a vast potential field for educational films that has not yet been touched, but in general I feel sure that the man in the street, who is after all the customer upon whom the whole industry depends, looks for entertainment rather than instruction.
  The British film industry has made great strides in the last few years, but
  1256
  this is certainly no time for complacency. Receipts are falling, expenses are mounting, and the immediate outlook is, to say the least of it, very obscure. Nevertheless, I think that the British film industry can view with pride what it has achieved and can look forward with hope and confidence to the future. It is most fortunate that the leaders of this industry, of whom Mr. Rank is such an outstanding figure, are men of such high ideals and tenacity of purpose in the midst of great difficulties. There is only one other point upon which I should like to touch, and that is the question of finance, with which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, dealt. I noticed that in the debate in another place a very interesting suggestion was put forward for the first time—I think it was by the honourable Member for West Nottingham—that films which might be difficult to finance should be subsidized out of the entertainments tax. I do not ask for an answer about that to-day, but I hope that it is one of the things that will be borne in mind by the Government as a very interesting possibility. I think this Bill is a good Bill, a necessary Bill, and I hope it will receive the favourable consideration of your Lordships' House.
  5.28 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, we hear too seldom the voice of the noble Earl who has just sat down, addressing your Lordships, so to speak, on his own ground. I am sure we have been most interested in the informative address to which we have listened. We have enjoyed the benefit of his experience; and he holds a unique position because of his special office. Before making a few remarks on this Bill—remarks which will be of the most friendly nature, let me reassure my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty—I think it right to say that for some years I have had an interest in the business, in an old but small firm producing British films. I am therefore trying to do my part to help the production of British films.
  The Bill has been received, I gather, in all parts of your Lordships' House and by all Parties in another place with general satisfaction. According to the noble Earl who has just addressed us, that view is shared by those who have the interests of the great industry at heart and who work for it in the various

  1257
  branches of production, distribution and so on. It certainly has the support of the organized workers in the film industry, and perhaps I might be allowed to quote here the words of the General Secretary of the Association of Cine-Technicians, Mr. George Elvin. The noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I have known Mr. Elvin for many years, and we know that he certainly speaks with authority from the point of view of the more highly-skilled workmen in the industry. This is the letter he personally wrote to me at my request:
  "On the Bill generally, we think it excellent. Certainly the best of the three Quota Bills we have had. A lot, of course, depends on the results of the Committee of Inquiry which the President of the Board of Trade proposes to set up and the result of his promised discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the question of a Films Bank.''
  That is a weighty opinion and, in my small way, I would like to endorse it. It is a good Bill and I should like to congratulate my noble friend on the clear and concise way in which he has explained it. Apart from the complaints made by the noble Earl opposite on behalf of Scotland, the only solid criticism which I have heard is in regard to the 10s. a foot minimum labour costs. My noble friend knows the arguments very well. I hope that in Committee, even now, that matter can be re-considered. I gather from all informed persons that the general view is that 10s. a foot labour costs is really too low—that with all economies and eiffciency a worth-while film cannot be made for that money. If you are to have that sort of cost test at all, make it really effective. I refer to Clause 3 (6).
  I have given my noble friend notice of a certain matter which I intended to raise. This was not referred to by the noble Viscount who spoke from the Opposition Benches, or by the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda. I refer to the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves to-day in respect of the boycott in Hollywood on films for this country. The Americans have taken this unfortunate decision, which was dealt with by my noble friend and also by the President of the Board of Trade in another place. One would suppose that that decision would have given a tremendous impetus and stimulus to the production of British films in British studios; and yet about one-third of the
  1258
  available studio space is lying idle. My noble friend said something about labour and materials. The position is that employees are being sacked right and left, and there is great unemployment amongst highly skilled technicians because of the idle studios.
  Let me quote from an article by the Films Correspondent of the Daily Express which appeared on February 11, 1948. Mr. David Lewin is very well known—I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, knows him too. Mr. David Lewin knows what he is talking about, and he says:
  Seven of our smaller studios capable of making twenty films a year are closed. Denham and Pinewood, the largest studios, which can make between them six or seven films at a time, are only working on four. Three hundred to four hundred film technicians—30 per cent. of the total number on feature films—are out of work"—
  that is one-third of the total number of film technicians. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. I wrote to Mr. Elvin for confirmation of this. I wonder if your Lordships would permit me to read now what he says about it. Subsequent to the statement in the Daily Express which I have quoted, Mr. Elvin said:
  "Herbert Wilcox's next film will not be made at Metro-Goldwyn Mayer's studio, but at Shepperton. Over 700 workers have a? a consequence been dismissed from M.G.M. studios, and when the present production finishes there is No 1ndication of any further films being made there. No films have been made by M.G.M. since the end of the war"—
  and this is one of the largest studios.
  "The only films made there—four in all—have been made by independent companies who have hired their space. Of the other American-controlled studio space, the A.B.C. studios at Elstree (controlled by Warner Bros.) have not yet re-opened since the end of the war."
  Then he goes on to talk about structural alterations, but I will omit that part for the sake of brevity. He continues:
  "Welwyn studios, controlled by the same company, have been intermittent in production. Warner Bros. own studio at Teddington is just making its first film since re-opening. Twentieth Century Fox, who own the studio at Wembley, have not yet re-started to make films in it. Their record is only one film made at Denham. M.G.M. studios are the second largest studio in the country, Denham alone being larger."
  So he goes on to give more details with which I will not trouble your Lordships. I shall be glad to send the detailed in-

  1259
  formation to my noble friend, but the net result is—and here I am quoting from this letter:
  "… that the American owned or controlled space is about one-third of our existing studio space. None of this is fully occupied. Most of it is threatened with complete idleness resulting in a quarter of A.C.T.'s members"—
  that is the trade union of the skilled workers—
  "engaged in feature production being to-day unemployed."
  He then goes on to speak of the remedy proposed by the union.
  "The remedy proposed by the union is that if the Americans are not going to use space themselves then others should not be deprived of using it. It should be requisitioned by the State and made available to independent producers. This, of course, must tie up with our plea for a Films Bank, financing independent production."
  That is the writer's proposal which I do not necessarily endorse because I quite understand that there might be difficulties and complications. However, I put it forward as coming from the responsible officials concerned.
  My noble friend and other noble Lords are well aware that the Americans, in order to meet the quota, have been making films in this country—which was one of the objects of the original legislation—and they have used their money for that purpose. It was a suitable arrangement until the "quota quickies" were invented. Then we had the 1938 Act, which has been referred to by my noble friend and its parent, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. That ended the "quota quickie" and we had real production with American finance. This is what the President of the Board of Trade said on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is reported in Column 224 of Hansard of January 21, 1948.
  "The Motion Picture Association of the United States has given us an undertaking that, subject only to the qualification that no company will be pledged to make films here if and when it is not sending American films to the British market"—
  that, of course, is the loophole—
  "the American companies who are its members will maintain film production in the United Kingdom at the rate contemplated by their original plans for production which were formulated early last year. This should result in a volume of production from this source at least as great as we could have expected from it if we had maintained the renters' quota."
  1260
  My right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Trade, was explaining the dropping of the renters' quota, and there is the explanation. Later on, Mr. Wilson said that
  … studio space is a very scarce asset, and we cannot afford not to see all of it used."
  Here we have one-third of this studio space unoccupied and unused, apparently in retaliation, as it seems to me, for the duty imposed on American films which has been referred to in this debate by my noble friend and by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. That is a very serious situation.
  The cutting off of the supply of American films by reason of this boycott from Hollywood will cause a lot of inconvenience and disappointment to the British public, thousands and millions of whom look upon their weekly visit to the cinema as one of their great relaxations and pleasures, unless the loss can be made good by British films. There will be a considerable loss to the owners of theatres and there will be unemployment amongst the people they employ, all of which is very serious. If, in addition to that, we are not to have a real effort to fill the gap with British films—and, after all, the same ad valorem duty prevents other foreign films coming in, though the public for such films, non-English-speaking films, is not very great—then the situation will be more serious still. What is to be done about it? The lying idle for long or prolonged periods of these great studios cannot be tolerated. I think something will have to be done about that.
  With regard to the question of finance, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, spoke about some new-fangled idea. I suppose he meant this proposed film bank, which was referred to in the Second Reading debate by the President of the Board of Trade; he then said that he has an open mind on the matter. That proposal has been debated and discussed and examined for twenty-five years, to my knowledge, and the need for some strong corporation to provide finance for the competent independent producer has been known for a long time. Lord Swinton made an interesting suggestion that the Government corporations, especially those for assisting industry, might be approached. I have never heard of their

  1261
  being approached. I only hope that he made that suggestion with some authority behind it. If they can, and if the so-called junior corporation can provide some of the finance for reputable producers, under some sort of safeguard, that might help; but there would still be this shortage of studio space and this artificial idleness created by the American controllers. Mr. Rank's organization has been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, and I agree entirely with what he said. I think Mr. Rank and his co-operator; have done a splendid service to the country and, incidentally, to the British film industry. Mr. Rank has brought business methods and also a great deal of money to the industry. He has produced some remarkably fine films which have helped our prestige abroad and helped the whole industry; but I presume that Mr. Rank's organization itself must be pretty fully stretched for finance, and I do not see how it can be expected to fill the whole of this gap.
  The independent producers, also, apparently cannot obtain sufficient finance to make enough films and they are, above all, faced with these idle studios. I suggest to my noble friend that the Government will have to look at this matter very seriously indeed. A Committee of Inquiry into the whole industry has been proposed. I do not know when that is to be set up. These Committees of Inquiry cannot be hurried, and this is an extremely complicated industry. The Committee may take a long time to report, and there is sometimes quite a long time between the Report of a Committee and actual action by the Government. My noble friend Lord Lucas can tell us something about that. With great respect to my noble friend and his advisers, I suggest that we cannot afford to wait for this Committee of Inquiry before we deal with this very real emergency of artificial idleness in the studios of this country, artificial unemployment amongst the skilled technicians—the very heart of the industry, of course—and the lack of films to keep our studios supplied and the public entertained. Something must be done about it.
  I want to say only one thing with reference to the dispute with the Hollywood industry. I regret it deeply, and I am sure that we all regret it. During the Second World War, and especially during the period before Pearl Harbour
  1262
  and American intervention, the leaders of the film industry in the United States were among our best friends; and the influence (which is not an inconsiderable influence) of the Hollywood industry was very much in favour of the Allied cause. That should not be forgotten. We are their second best market after their own great home market, and surely some compromise can be reached. I entirely agree with what was said in another place by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, by the First Lord to-day and, indeed, by Lord Swinton, that we cannot afford the amount of dollars which were going out. There; must therefore be a compromise which will save the dollars, perhaps by some reciprocal arrangement—as has already been suggested—whereby the undoubtedly good British films of to-day can be allowed to earn dollars as a quid pro quo to balance up. I hope that some sort of arrangement as that will be made. Both parties are losing at present, and it is both sad and disturbing to find our very good friends there with a grievance, perhaps because they do not really understand our need to save dollars. There is, nevertheless, an undoubted grievance which I hope will be resolved.
  I do not want to detain the House longer in this matter. I have ventured particularly to bring forward this matter of the idle studio space, and of unemployment in the industry at the present time, because I do suggest that it is of considerable importance. I hope that earnest consideration will be given to this problem by the Board of Trade and by the Government, despite the many distractions and responsibilities and anxieties which they have in other directions. I very much welcome the Bill itself, and I again congratulate my noble friend on introducing it.
  5.47 p.m.
  LORD GRANTLEY: My Lords, I will venture to trespass for only a few moments upon your Lordships' patience. There are noble Lords in this House who know that for twenty years I have had close connexion with the film industry, especially with Mr. Rank's organization. I hope that your Lordships will not assume that that necessarily means a glamorous life; it does not; it means facts and figures. I would like; to comment particularly on two aspects of the speech

  1263
  of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. In the first place, I think that we should look at this Bill from other aspects than the question of the complexities and problems raised by ad valorem duties. It is a Bill that is to last for ten years and is to protect (and solely to protect) the interests of British film makers in this country. Secondly, I would add that I think Lord Strabolgi has painted a rather blacker picture than should be painted in regard to the present closing of the studios. It is, of course, perhaps an indirect result of the ad valorem duty, but it cannot be cured with extreme speed. Motion pictures cannot suddenly be flung on to studio floors. A great deal of preparatory work has to be done in order to fill studios with pictures actually being shot.
  We who are concerned with the making of motion pictures in this country consider this Bill a very good one. The 1927 Bill, of which my noble friend Lord Swinton rightly claims to have been the author, did a great deal for the film industry, even though it was heavily criticized from time to time. The excellent work done by the Chairman of the Committee appointed in 1938, the late Lord Moyne, led to an even better Bill in 1938. Notable in the improvements in the 1938 Act was the minimum labour cost clause, which entirely and effectively remedied the making of what used to be known as "quota quickies." The improvements—and they are notable improvements—in the present Bill, designed to meet present conditions and alterations and war effects, are the four categories of separate quota, by which provisions the theatres that are able more easily to get bookings of British films are allotted higher quotas than theatres in a more difficult position in that respect. It must result in giving more screen time to British pictures; and that, after all, is the final object of this Bill.
  I would like, if I may, to make a brief comment with regard to the Films Council, the work of which has already been touched upon by the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda. I was a member of the Films Council during its early years, approximately from 1938 to 1941, and I gained valuable experience by reason of my connexion with it. Naturally, I learned something about the attendance of members at meetings of the Council. Conditions
  1264
  may have altered now, of course—I have not had an opportunity of asking my noble friend Lord Drogheda about that—but I would urge the President of the Board of Trade, when he comes to select the seven independent members of this Council which is to be formed, to bear this in mind. When the appointments were made under the 1938 Act, those appointed were men of immense position, prestige and reputation. That carries the obvious corollary that they were also tremendously busy men, and I am bound to say that the attendance of the independent members in the last years of the last decade was poor. I hope, therefore, that when he makes his selection the President of the Board of Trade will have special regard to the ability of those selected to attend with frequency at meetings of the Council.
  LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble Lord whether it would be possible to have deputies for these members; substitutes as well perhaps?
  LORD GRANTLEY: I would hardly like to answer that myself. I feel that, while it may be a valuable suggestion, it is a matter for His Majesty's Government. I would like to add that, in my opinion, one of the reasons why this Bill is, as I believe, a splendid one, lies in the assiduity and the enthusiasm with which the President of the Board of Trade and his officials have consulted with all branches of the industry. They have, to my knowledge, been in continuous consultation with all branches of the industry for nearly a year. That consultation has gone a long way to the successful making of a Bill which I think should be welcomed by your Lordships. There are three or four matters—some of them have been touched upon by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—which your Lordships will no doubt wish to deal with during the Committee stage. For the present, as a practical film maker myself, I would like to pass on a message from my fellow film makers—namely, that we welcome this Bill.
  5.53 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I intervene for a few moments only in order to express what experience has taught me to believe are likely to be the views of the British populations overseas with regard to this Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said that the Americans attribute enormous power to their film industry as a

  1265
  means of advertising their goods. I am afraid that it is not only their goods but also the American way of life which is publicized by American films. Your Lordships may well think that, judging by what you have seen on the screen, the American way of life is not always good. Of course, what is shown in the films may possibly not be the American way of life. British films, however, rarely distort the British way of life, and those who have lived abroad, as I have done, have always, eagerly awaited the arrival of a new British film.
  Another point I wish to make is this. I hope that the British film industry will never stoop to make films which pander to the tastes of the more illiterate coloured populations, or films which will depreciate in any way the "White" way of life, as has so often been done by Hollywood. I hope that this Bill will lead to a great increase in the number of good British films available for showing to audiences overseas, but I respectfully suggest that if British actors and actresses wish to be understood by foreigners, they must learn to speak more clearly, and particularly not to drop their voices on the last syllables of their words.
  5.55 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate this afternoon. I should like to add a few words of appreciation of the Bill as a whole and of the very clear way in which it has been presented by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. Having said that, I should add that I think there are certain aspects of matters contained in the Bill which seem to me to require a little more elucidation and explanation. It was mentioned in another place that, in addition to the passing of this Bill a series of boards of inquiry are to be set up to examine sections of the film industry. I should like to ask, are these to be working parties, or boards of inquiry, or what? How are they to proceed, and what are their terms of reference? Surely these inquiries (I believe there are to be three) are interdependent. Why not have one inquiry? I hope that these inquiries will not mark the beginning of the appearance of the dead hand of nationalization in the film industry.
  We have heard mentioned the possibility of State finance and State studios. There
  1266
  may he something to be said for State finance, but certainly not for State studios, for which the taxpayer would undoubtedly have to foot the bill—as he is beginning to now in the case of other nationalized industries. I can conceive a form of financial credit somewhat similar to the assistance given to farmers by the Agricultural Finance Corporation, which would assist independent producers who are outside the big combines and who may have difficulty in raising funds unless they have a guarantee of distribution by the large groups. But I am sure that it would be a great mistake to have the State actively engaged as a partner in the British film industry. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, put forward an interesting suggestion, that a subsidy might be given out of entertainment tax. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, will look into that point. In any case, there are finance corporations in existence, as was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, which should be able to take care of the small producer, provided, of course, that he has something good to offer.
  In some quarters there is a tendency to oppose and belittle the major organization in the film industry which has grown up in recent years. I was much interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, put forward a good word for this organization. I feel that it has helped greatly to put our film industry on its feet in this country. And I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is absolutely necessary to have at least one organization which, in size and efficiency, can compete with the big concerns in Hollywood and thereby put the British film in the world's markets. In my view the country owes a great debt of gratitude to this major organization. The Bill which is before us to-day lays down a provision for special quota theatres, but relates this quota only to circuits of 200 cinemas and over. I would suggest that it is rather unfair that the small circuits, which are frequently very profitable and often have little or no competition, should be omitted from the provisions of the special quota. Surely it is only fair that they should pull their weight in the special quota scheme. I think this was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton.
  As the Bill is drawn, I think it can be said that for the purposes of the quota

  1267
  cinemas in this country fall into four classes. In the first class there is the large category which under the Bill will have to show, in addition to a special quota, some six films selected by a Selection Committee to be appointed by the Board of Trade. Then there are the second class which are to be called special quota theatres and which will have to show a larger quota than that borne by the general class. The third, or general, class are to be theatres which can apply for a reduced quota if they can bring evidence to show that they have more powerful rivals in their locality and that they have difficulty in getting regular supplies of up-to-date British films. Finally, there are the fourth class, which are theatres free of all quota restrictions and which will qualify for exemption if they can show that they have competition from powerful rivals and their net takings are less than £100 per week.
  I have taken the House rather carefully through these classes, because I think it is clear that the Bill provides machinery by which owners of theatres in the general class can drop into a lower quota class. It appears, however, that the Bill provides no means by which a cinema in the general class can be up-graded—that is the best way to put it—into the class of special quota theatres. The point was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I think it should not be forgotten that there are many cinemas, perhaps owned by a man who owns not 200, but fifty or five or even one cinema only, which, because of their geographical position, have certain advantages and are quite able to comply with the special quota allotted to theatres in the second class. For example, there is the case of a theatre in a solus position—that is to say, a theatre which is the only one in the locality—which may be in a stronger position than a theatre which is one of a circuit of 200 and has two or three rivals in close proximity. In some towns one man or one company owns all the theatres and in this position of monopoly the theatres are well able to accept the special quota. There are something in the nature of 700 to 800 theatres in this position which could be promoted to the special quota theatre category.
  It appears that no provision has been made in the Bill for a Sunday quota. I
  1268
  would suggest that there is no reason why the public should not have the opportunity of seeing the best British pictures on this day as well as any other. If this provision is not made, there is a danger that the tendency may arise for an exhibitor to show any bad or cheap film on that day. Again there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an exhibitor from showing his quota in the first half of the week and other films in the second half, which would have the effect of preventing British films from being shown in the best half of the week. I think it is true to say that box office takings in the second half of the week are usually 50 per cent. higher than in the first half of the week. I hope the noble Viscount will take note of that point. We all want to see more British films, more studios, and good working conditions, but what perhaps is more essential than anything else at the present time is a reduction in the costs of production. No doubt more care than hitherto could be taken by the producing organizations to cut down delays and speed up the efficient production time of a film. But I suggest that there are certain restrictive practices which have grown up on the set, due to trade union regulations which I feel could well be relaxed during these rather difficult times for the benefit of the industry as a whole.
  I fully support His Majesty's Government in their efforts to reduce the dollar expenditure on films, and I hope the American film industry will realize that we mean business in this country, and that we intend to stand by the restrictions which have been imposed on American films until such time as our dollar position is on a more favourable basis. On the other hand, we shall welcome any arrangement that may be made whereby the dollar receipts from the showing of British films in America can be set against the showing of American films in this country. I think the Bill on the whole will be of great benefit to the film industry. The noble Lord, Lord Grantley, who knows a great deal about this industry, welcomed it cordially. I suggest that it should not be forgotten that the Bill is all in favour of the producer, who is not under any obligation to make films, whereas the exhibitors are controlled, and rightly so, by a quota system which the exhibitors accept in good heart as beneficial to the film in-

  1269
  dustry generally. The Bill is, of course, academic and meaningless until normal relations are again established with the American film industry, which I am sure all your Lordships hope will occur in a very short time.
  6.7 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for the kind way in which they have received this Bill. I fully expected the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, to have some paternal feeling towards this measure. I well remember the introduction of the first Bill in 1927, just twenty-one years ago, and this Bill represents the mature legislation. It is a very much improved Bill and one which I think everyone will welcome. The first Act was a try-out in very difficult circumstances, but so good was that Act that it laid the foundation for the legislation which followed.
  I can quite understand the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, intimating that there are certain points which they propose to raise on Committee stage. Indeed, I think most of the points which have been raised, with one or two exceptions, are points which we well might deal with at that stage of the Bill. The noble Viscount referred specially to the question of administration, which he hoped would be kept as small as possible. He can be assured that the Board of Trade are doing their utmost to keep down to a minimum the numbers employed in this department, and they fully appreciate how necessary it is to have the administration as small as possible. He also raised the question of the minimum period for the quota. Provision is made in the Bill for a minimum period of twelve months, with six months' notice to be given of any change that is likely to take place. I think that will meet any criticism which may be levelled against the continuance of the quota and of the giving of notice.
  The noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, raised the question of the difficulties with which the Scottish people are faced because they have not a special Scottish Committee. I must say that I have a good deal of sympathy with him. I come, as he does, from a small country—but still an important country. I think he and I can
  1270
  almost join in a united front on this matter. The only thing I can say is that under this Bill, and in almost all other legislation which is being passed, Scotland comes out of it very much better than my little country of Wales. I am not complaining, but there it is. Much time was spent on this question in another place, and, as he said, a special subcommittee is being appointed to deal with one branch of the work provided for by the Bill, and two special representatives of Scotland are to sit on the Cinematograph Films Council. That does not prevent the President of the Board of Trade appointing another Scottish representative, if it is deemed necessary, but there are these special representatives.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: One is independent; he is not an expert.
  VISCOUNT HALL: He might not be an expert but he is a Scotsman which is more important. The noble Earl mentioned something about a special Scottish quota. I hope that he will not think that foreign films are more acceptable to Scotland than the good old British films—I will not call them English films. After all, the actors and actresses are from the three countries. They generally find their way to London and: hey put their best into the production of what I consider to be jolly good British films.
  LORD TEYNHAM: You might have a Scottish report committee, which may meet the case.
  VISCOUNT HALL: It might. I can assure the noble Earl that a considerable amount of attention was given to this matter in another place, although I do not for a moment suggest that he was not quite justified in raising it here. I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade will take note of what has been said. I am sure that all noble Lords join in welcoming the intervention in this debate of the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda. He brought to the debate a great knowledge, based upon a long and valuable experience with the Films Council. It was pleasing to have the tributes paid to him by colleagues of his who are members of another place; and from outside sources we have also heard of the excellent work which he has done. I, too, took note of the suggestion which was made by one of the honourable members in another place regarding the financial

  1271
  assistance which might be obtained from the entertainments tax. That, of course, is a matter upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to be consulted, and which he will have to examine very carefully.
  My noble friend Lord Strabolgi raised the important question of studio space and finance, and also the difficulties which have arisen as a result of the American space in this country not being used. The noble Lord will know that my right honourable friend announced in another place that a Production Committee was to be set up. I think he went so far as to say that he had already issued invitations for the setting up of this Committee. I have no doubt that he will give attention to this question of the proper utilization of space, and to any other difficulty which hinders the production of the films which we hope to see from the full use of these studios. The noble Lord also raised the question of the labour costs for the films, which is based upon a minimum of 10s. per foot. There is some slight difference between the cost of 10s. per foot provided for under this Bill, and the £1 per foot referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. The £1 per foot was based upon a renters' quota, whereas this is based upon an exhibitors' quota. It makes a considerable difference which basis is used. I have no doubt that this matter will be raised in Committee, when greater attention can be given to it. I would like to say here that the Government have not been unmindful of the difficulties of studio space. I was informed only to-day that no less a sum than £1,000,000 has been spent upon the repair and building of studios in this country, and licences have been granted for an expenditure amounting to something like another £500,000. So the Government are seized of the importance of this matter.
  The noble Lord, Lord Grantley, in his pleasing contribution to our debate, also brought to bear a practical experience on this matter. He mentioned one point about the selection of the seven independent members. I agree with him that there is a danger that the people of great ability may not have the necessary time
  1272
  to give to the work of a Council of this kind. I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade will take note of the valuable suggestion which the noble Lord made.
  The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, made several points, and he will pardon me if I do not deal with them fully. He raised the question of a change in quotas. I have no doubt that we will be able to deal more fully in Committee with what, after all, is a rather intricate matter, and the points can then be brought out. He also dealt with quota theatres, and the same thing applies to that point. On the question of State studios, the noble Lord will have read what was said by the President of the Board of Trade in another place. He stated, quite frankly, that he had an open mind; that he was going to appoint a Committee to deal with it, and that after the Committee had reported their report would be published. I think he even went so far as to say that it would be presented to both Houses of Parliament. He wants to be quite fair in relation to this matter, and I hope noble Lords do not think that he will in any way attempt to take an unfair advantage. With regard to the setting up of Committees and the Report, the Government are fully seized of the difficulties with which the producers of British films are confronted at the present time. I assure your Lordships that anything which can be done to bring about an improvement in the situation will be done. Again, may I express my thanks to noble Lords for the helpful and kind way in which they have received this measure?
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, before we adjourn, may I draw attention to the fact that on Wednesday next there are to be three introductions? It is therefore proposed that we meet at 2.15 instead of at 2.30.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.