Sitting of 24 October 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For Chester, in the room of Basil Edward Nield, esquire, C.B.E., G.C. (Recorder of Manchester).—[Mr. Heath.]
PETITION

  Copyright Bill [Lords]
  Captain Henry Kerby: I beg leave to present a humble petition signed by 594 British composers and authors, including Sir Arthur Bliss, Sir. Alan Herbert, Sir Compton Mackenzie, Mr. Benjamin Britten and Mr. Henry Hall.
  By this petition, your petitioners,
  "pray and beseech that the Copyright Bill, 1955, as reprinted on 31st July, 1956, be amended by the deletion from Clause 8 of the record manufacturers' licence-of-right and by the simplification of the procedure for the revision of the rate of royalty prescribed in subsection (3).
  Secondly, that Clause 6 (7) be withdrawn as being inequitable in itself and in its consequences."
  And finally,
  "that as the foundation and the fortress of copyright are to establish and secure composers and authors against abuse and exploitation by vested interests … your petitioners look with faith and hope to Parliament itself for protection of liberties hardly won and vigilantly cherished.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ISRAEL

    Supply of Arms
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will place in the Library particulars of those items in the list of arms and equipment which Israel has applied for and which Hear Majesty's Government have refused to supply.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): No, Sir.
    Sir L. Plummer: Does not the Foreign Secretary realise that it is difficult for us to evaluate the Government's constant statements that they are trying to maintain a balance of arms as between Israel and the Arab countries unless we have this information? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot give this information, can he place in the Library a list of the articles for which the Arab countries have asked and which they have been granted?
    Mr. Lloyd: I understand the hon. Member's difficulty, but in this matter the Government have to have regard both to the public interest and to peace in the Middle East.

    Arab League Boycott
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what authority a spokesman of the British Embassy in Damascus told newspaper correspondents in July, 1956, that the Foreign Office has empowered him to deny information to the effect that the Western Powers would start a campaign against the Arab States with a view to combating the Arab economic boycott against Israel.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): In July certain Syrian newspapers reported allegations of a Western campaign to paralyse the Arab boycott of Israel and of the opening in London of an Israeli office which was supported by Foreign Office officials.
    Since both these allegations were untrue, Her Majesty's Ambassador in Damascus was authorised to deny them.
    Sir L. Plummer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the terms in which the

    613
    official issued the denial were regarded by the Arab peoples as being in condonation of the attitude of the Arab countries towards Israel and were in fact encouraging them in their boycott? Would he not, therefore, ask his right hon. and learned Friend to give instructions that when embassy representatives make statements of this kind they should do so with the utmost tact and caution?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I shall, of course, look at the point. As he well knows, the Government neither accept nor condone the Arab League boycott, and protests, on one occasion at his instance, have been made to the Arab States concerned when the rights of British subjects have been affected.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman doing anything more than protesting? Has he considered, for example, having some kind of boycott against the Arab States which are in fact boycotting us?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: I do not think two wrongs would make a right in that case.

  HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of the discussions on the limitation of hydrogen bomb tests.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I stated on 24th July that we were working on possible ways in which a limitation of nuclear tests might be achieved. This study of complex technical questions is continuing.
  While Her Majesty's Government would prefer to treat this subject in the context of a disarmament convention, they remain ready to discuss it separately if that meets with the approval of the other Powers concerned and appears to offer better prospects of agreement.
  Mr. Henderson: While realising that the limitation of these tests may be a step in the right direction, may I ask the Foreign Secretary if he would give an assurance that the Government would participate with the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union in any agreement which might be reached on the total ban of hydrogen tests even though a comprehensive disarmament agreement has not been achieved?
  Mr. Lloyd: Of course, the question of a total ban is quite different from that of limitation. I do not see how a total ban could be accepted unless one were satisfied that there were adequate means of enforcing such a ban. That is the difficulty over that.
  Mr. Stokes: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that, while at the moment, so far as I know, there are only three nations who are concerned, in a very few years' time there will be five or six other nations in Europe capable of making these beastly things? Does that not make it all the more urgent that some agreement should be arrived at?
  Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Warbey: Do the Government's technical researches confirm the view expressed by Marshal Bulganin that the banning of tests of atomic weapons would be self-policing in that any explosions could be detected in any part of the world?
  Mr. Lloyd: The answer to that is quite simply "No".
  Mr. Younger: Are we to understand from what the Foreign Secretary has said that, although this matter is under study, no international initiative of any kind has been taken for any further international discussions on this subject since our last discussion of the matter? If that is true, can he tell us whether he hopes to take such initiative in the near future?
  Mr. Lloyd: It is quite true that no open, public initiative has been taken in regard to this matter, because there are certain technical matters which have to be cleared up, and also, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises, there are certain other hurdles.

  UNITED STATES (IMPORTED POLITICAL LITERATURE)
  Sir L. Plummerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the proposals of the Government of the United States of America to exercise censorship on all political literature entering the United States of America will result in discrimination against British writers and publishers; and if he will take steps to avoid the loss of dollar exports this will entail.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Two Bills were introduced into the United States Congress this year to empower the United States postal and Customs authorities to censor political publications entering the United States. Neither Bill however was adopted. There was no suggestion of discrimination against British publications, and I see no reason to suppose that a similar Bill, if it became law in the future, would materially affect our dollar exports.

  UNITED NATIONS

    Slavery (Supplementary Convention)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Conference on the proposed United Nations Anti-Slavery Convention.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, at the Conference of Plenipotentiaries held at Geneva to draw up a Supplementary Convention on Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices similar to Slavery, the United Kingdom delegate eventually voted for a compromise clause preventing the search of ships suspected of carrying slaves.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: A copy of the Supplementary Convention, which has been adopted by 33 members of the Conference, was published as a White Paper yesterday (Cmd. 9870). While the Convention is not in every respect in the form we should have desired, Her Majesty's Government regard it as generally satisfactory. It will be seen from the text that no Article was adopted which prevents the search of ships suspected of carrying slaves.
    Mr. Janner: Is it not a fact that the British delegate did withdraw a clause or an article which insisted upon the possibility of searching ships which had slaves in them, and is it not a fact that the Convention as it now stands without that article is worse than the Convention of 1926? Should we not expose those peoples who are still dealing in slaves and who are refusing any investigation?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, certain changes were made, of course, when the Convention was negotiated, but Article 3 does not, in our view, affect the existing rights of the Government, as a party to the Brussels Pact of 1890, to take measures for the prevention of the slave trade, including visit and search on the high seas.
    Mr. Janner: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the earliest possible occasion.

    Palestine Refugees (Relief Disbursements)
    Mr. J. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total amount disbursed by the United Nations Relief Agencies for the relief of Palestinian refugees from 1948 to the latest available date ; and the contribution to this aid from Britain.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: The total disbursements by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees from 1948 until 30th June. 1956, amounted to 207,257,000 dollars.
    During this period the Agency received 232,262,000 dollars, of which the United Kingdom contributed 43,235,000 dollars.
    Mr. Hynd: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the United Kingdom contribution compares favourably with those, for example, of the United States and the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: The United States, of course, contributed over 157 million dollars and was the major contributor, but compared with Russia, which contributed nothing, I think that we have done rather well.

  "ATOMIC ACHIEVEMENT" FILM (FOREIGN LANGUAGE DUBBING)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the film about Calder Hall, entitled "Atomic Achievement," made by the Central Office of Information and sponsored by the Foreign, Colonial, and Commonwealth Relations Departments, has been dubbed in only 12 languages, not including Russian, Chinese, or Japanese; and if, in view of the high proportion of the

  617
  world's population who speak Russian, Chinese, and Japanese and whom Her Majesty's Government should seek to interest in British achievements, he will take steps to have the film dubbed in these languages.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: This film has not yet been dubbed into any foreign language. It is, however, our intention to dub it into at least 11 languages of countries where the Foreign Office Information Service has facilities, including Japanese, but not Russian or Chinese as we have no facilities in the Soviet Union or in China for distributing films of this nature.
  Mr. Swingler: Why prevent 800 million people from seeing this record of British initiative in the peaceful uses of atomic energy? Surely the Government should be keen to sell this film, which is an exceptional record, to the Soviet Union and China? That cannot, obviously, be done unless it is in a language which the peoples of those countries understand. Would it not, therefore, be a good idea to make the film suitable, at very small cost, for those people and to try to get it shown in countries where it might have a significant effect?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: There is no reason to believe that, under existing agreements, the Soviet Union or China would distribute the film as widely as the hon. Member implies it should be.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: In view of the confusion which exists in the mind of a distinguished American, would my hon. Friend make certain that at least one of these films is dubbed in the American language?
  Mr. Younger: Can the Joint Under-Secretary of State tell us whether there has recently been any attempt to get the facilities that would be necessary for the distribution of this film or films of any kind in the Soviet Union and China?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: We are looking at that constantly.

  ISRAEL—JORDAN BORDER (SITUATION)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the present
  618
  situation on the border of Israel and Jordan.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I should prefer to make no statement on the situation until the Security Council has completed its present consideration of the matter.
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the recent statement by the Commander-in-Chief of the Jordan Army that British forces were on call at an hour's notice, would he give an assurance that this country will not be involved in any military action under the Anglo-Jordan Treaty unless a clear case of major aggression has been established, based upon a report of the United Nations Observation Commission at present stationed in that area?
  Mr. Lloyd: The provisions of the Anglo-Jordan Treaty would certainly not come into effect unless there had been a clear case of aggression.

  ETHIOPIA (KILLED SOMALI TRIBESMEN)
  Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the allegations regarding the killing of certain members of the Esa tribe of Somalis by Ethiopian police in February of this year are now in dispute between the Ethiopian and British Governments; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of his intervention with the Ethiopian Government.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Her Majesty's Ambassador delivered a protest to the Ethiopian Government on 20th July reserving the right to claim compensation on behalf of relatives of those members of the Esa tribe who were killed in the incident and who enjoyed British protection. In their reply the Ethiopians denied that any British-protected Esa were involved in the incident.
  Mr. Awbery: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us why a protest was made to the Ethiopian Government when the two tribes involved were Ethiopian ones, living in Ethiopia and governed by its laws? Will he now, in view of that fact, withdraw the protest which he has made to Ethiopia?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: No. The information that we had was that this party contained a number of Essa tribesmen from the British Protectorate.
  Mr. Awbery: If the Somalis who were attacked were British subjects, why were they so far in Ethiopian territory?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Because they have certain rights to go backwards and forwards over the boundary, by treaty, as they are nomadic.

  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that the decision for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces to use atomic weapons remains under political control.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 22nd December, 1954, after the Ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council in which he made it clear that the decision rests with Governments. There has been no change in that position.
  Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that on 11th October The Times reported Field Marshal Lord Montgomery as saying :
  "Personally I would use them first and ask afterwards"
  and does he not agree that, whether this was a serious threat of insubordination or simply a piece of self-advertising buffoonery, it shows the Field Marshal to be quite unfit for the responsible post of Deputy Supreme Allied Commander?
  Mr. Lloyd: As I have pointed out before, I have no responsibility for what the Field Marshal says. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easing-on (Mr. Shinwell) also pointed out in his day, so far as the decision is concerned, the position is unaltered.
  Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman point out to the gallant Field Marshal that if he goes on saying this sort of thing he will be encouraging the five or six nations to which I have already made reference this afternoon who will, in a very short time, be making these horrible weapons, to act independently of any agreed policy anywhere and throw bombs all over the
  620
  place? Surely it is the height of irresponsibility that he should make such remarks?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think I had better stick to the realities of the situation. It is a political decision and it rests with Governments.

  WORLD YOUTH FESTIVAL, MOSCOW
  Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what advice he is offering to British organisations invited to the Sixth World Youth Festival in Moscow next year.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This Festival is being held under the auspices of two international Communist-controlled organisations, the International Union of Students and the World Federation of Democratic Youth. Like the five preceding World Youth Festivals, it is intended to exploit young people for the purposes of international Communist propaganda.
  When the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was questioned about a preceding festival in 1951, he said that the young people of this country are not easily duped and that we could rely on their good sense. I share that opinion.
  Mr. Mayhew: While agreeing that festivals run by these Communist organisations are worse than useless, may I ask the Government whether they cannot take some positive steps to provide festivals and meetings between the youth of Communist and non-Communist countries on equal terms, perhaps through the United Nations?
  Mr. Lloyd: That is perhaps a rather different matter and I should be very glad to look into it, but the hon. Member asked me what advice we were giving about this particular conference.

  RIOTS, JORDAN (COMPENSATION)
  Lieut-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether compensation has now been paid by the Jordanian Government for damage to British property during the riots in December and January last.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is there not a great deal of delay in settling this claim? Could Her Majesty's Government not consider taking the amount of this claim from the next instalment of the £12 million subsidy that they are still paying to this rather unfriendly Government?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: There can be no question of taking the compensation, which is still under negotiation, from the subsidy which we pay in accordance with our obligation under the Anglo-Jordanian Treaty to the Jordan Arab Army. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that it would be very much better if a small sum like this, £520, could be paid.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Experiments on Animals (Regulations)
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in those Colonial Territories in which at present there are no specific regulations limiting the practice of experiments on living animals to persons licensed to perform them, he will take steps to secure the introduction of such regulations at an early date.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): In all the territories referred to there is legislation designed to prevent unnecessary cruelty to animals, and in all the territories where experiments are performed regularly they are subject to official control. Nevertheless, where specific regulations on this matter do not already exist, I propose to invite colonial Governments to give further consideration to introducing such regulations.

  HONG KONG

    Cotton Industry (Wages)
    Mr. Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how the average wage for cotton operatives in Hong Kong compares with that of cotton operatives in Britain : and if he will consider introducing a legal minimum wage in the Hong Kong cotton industry.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Average weekly cash earnings of cotton operatives in Hong Kong are between £2 13s. and £3
    622
    compared with £7 5s. in the United Kingdom. In addition, the majority of Hong Kong workers are provided with free accommodation estimated to be worth 10s. per week plus a subsidy on meals worth another 4s. 5d. Many workers also enjoy other welfare facilities on which a cash value cannot be placed. Wages and working conditions compare favourably with those in other Hong Kong industries, and it is not proposed to introduce a legal minimum wage.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that if Hong Kong cotton imports into Britain, made with underpaid labour, continue to grow at the present rate from 5 million square yards a year to 60 million square yards a year in five years, there will soon be even fewer mills left in Lancashire? Would it not be possible, as in Kenya, to introduce a minimum wage and thus help Hong Kong and Lancashire cotton workers?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I explained about the minimum wages, but if goods from Hong Kong were to be kept out of the United Kingdom on the ground that people are paid less in Hong Kong than in Lancashire, then some of our manufacturers exporting to America would have some difficulties to face.

    Immigration
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies approximately how many refugees from the Chinese mainland are at present living in Hong Kong ; how many Hong Kong residents went to the Chinese mainland and did not return during the last six months ; how many Chinese from the mainland entered Hong Kong and remained there during the same period ; and if he will give an explanation of the necessity for the new frontier regulations recently introduced to control this problem.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not possible statistically to distinguish refugees from the rest of the population. From mid-February to the end of August, while restrictions on entry from China were lifted, 14,000 or 4 per cent. of the Hong Kong residents who crossed into China remained there ; 66,000 or 81 per cent. of the Chinese entering the Colony with Chinese Government re-entry permits chose to stay in Hong Kong. With an

    623
    estimated population of 2½ million and a natural annual increase of 75,000, Hong Kong's resources of water, housing, employment, education and health services are already taxed to the utmost. Unrestricted immigration cannot therefore be accepted, and frontier restrictions have had to be reimposed.

    Disturbances
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make a statement on the recent riots at Kowloon.
    Sir D. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make a statement on the recent disturbances in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There was serious rioting in Kowloon on 10th and 11th October and minor incidents on 12th October. Troops had to be called in to assist the police in restoring order. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a fuller account of the course of the disorders. I shall not, however, be in a position to make an authoritative statement on their origins and significance until the rigorous investigations now being undertaken by the Government of Hong Kong are complete.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend say when he expects the report from the Governor of Hong Kong will be received? Is he aware, in the meantime, of the disquiet at the slowness with which the authorities acted in suppressing the riots?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In answer to the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, I think he would share with me the view that it is easy from the security of the United Kingdom to say that troops should in fact be invoked at an earlier stage in any local disturbances outside. I do not believe that that charge is justified in this case in Hong Kong. I am awaiting the full report, and, knowing the speed with which the Governor of Hong Kong operates, I am sure that it will not be long delayed.
    Mr. Bevan: In the inquiries which are being made and the report which is expected, will the right hon. Gentleman
    624
    consider the identification of the population of Hong Kong more democratically with the Administration?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have a Question to answer on that matter later today.
    Following is the statement :
    On the morning of 10th October, a non-Communist Chinese national festival, a dispute developed on a Government resettlement estate in Kowloon. The settlement supervisor tried to stop tenants sticking Nationalist paper flags on the walls. Flags may be flown in Hong Kong, but may not be stuck on the walls of Government buildings. A crowd assembled, the resettlement staff were assaulted and their offices wrecked. The police successfully dispersed the crowd.
    The same evening, however, fresh crowds assembled and began assaulting both Asians and Europeans and attacking property, apparently incited by criminal elements. By early morning next day order appeared to have been fully restored and bus services were resumed. But later in the morning fresh disturbances were begun at a number of points in Kowloon by mobs who started fires and attacked vehicles, buildings and police patrols. The mobs rapidly dispersed in face of police attacks but quickly reassembled elsewhere to renew the rioting.
    Troops were therefore called in to cordon off the affected areas and isolate the mobs. They deployed during the afternoon of the 11th and in the evening a curfew was imposed on Kowloon and both public transport and the ferries between Kowloon and Hong Kong Island were stopped. There were also serious clashes between opposing Chinese factions in a textile factory area, to which police and troops had to be despatched. The major disorders were all suppressed by midnight on 11th October. There were minor incidents the next day—chiefly cases of looting—and on 13th October administrative services were resumed in the affected area. On 16th October the curfew was entirely lifted and all troops were withdrawn.
    In the course of these disturbances 60 lives were lost and about 400 people were given hospital treatment. Damaged buildings included police posts, resettlement offices, factories, stores and schools. Over 5,000 arrests were made and nearly a quarter of those arrested were found to have previous criminal records.
    The Government of Hong Kong have begun a rigorous investigation into the origins and course of the riots.
    I should like, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to say how deeply we regret these disturbances and to extend our sympathy to all who suffered in them.

    Elections
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that 16,000 persons in Hong Kong out of a total population of 3 million are entitled

    625
    to vote in the urban council elections; and if he will consider extending the franchise in these elections.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on 14th December, 1955.
    Mr. Rankin: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is making such slow progress. Is he not aware that if the franchise in Hong Kong is not more widely based, there is going to be more serious trouble in the future than there has been in the past? Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter, and try to give more people the right to vote?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I went most carefully into this matter when I was in Hong Kong last year. Surprising as the conclusion may be to the hon. Member, I am satisfied that there is not the same passionate desire to exercise the franchise there as there is naturally in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bevan: In view of the fact that democratisation is taking place on the borders of totalitarian régimes in so many parts of the world, will not the Government set an example in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If by that term "democratisation" the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Government of China, I must point out to him that 80,000 people preferred to leave China and come recently to Hong Kong.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the view that is expressed in this Question was stated to me in Hong Kong last month, and not last year, as in his case?

    Housing
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take to provide housing accommodation for the 40,000 persons who are presently squatting on the roof tops of other people's houses in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Hong Kong Government expects to spend nearly £1 million in the current financial year on housing roof-top dwellers, street-sleepers, and squatters. That should provide for about 40,000 people in those groups.
    Mr. Rankin: While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on showing some evidence of progress, may I ask him if he is aware of the urgency of this matter? Does he not realise that poverty, low wages and evil housing conditions in Hong Kong are the root causes of the trouble now taking place there?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. The trouble that arose recently arose among people who have in fact been resettled, not among those waiting to be resettled. While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his praise offered to me, may I also say that it ought more appropriately to go to the people in Hong Kong who have carried out a miracle in house and flat construction in the last few years?
    Mr. Bevan: Everybody who knows Hong Kong is aware that it is a most peculiar problem and one of the most remarkable administrative difficulty. A very wonderful job has been done on the spot by the authorities, and I think everybody recognises that. Nevertheless, if we are to remain there, and we are to make it a good show-piece for our position in that part of the world, ought we not now to consider more positive remedies to enable the people of Hong Kong to identify themselves much more broadly with the administration?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I said in answer to an earlier Question that I am satisfied that the 2½ million people of Hong Kong as a whole are generally satisfied with the constitutional position of the Colony. The vast majority do not wish to see at this stage any dramatic change in the constitutional set-up.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies to both of my Questions, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment as soon as possible.

  BRITISH GUIANA

    Sugar Cane Production
    Mr. Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the percentage of sugar cane harvested by peasant farmers and by sugar companies, respectively, in 1955 in British Guiana ; whether he will encourage cane farming by peasants there ; and what steps he is taking to do so.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of the sugar manufactured during 1955, 1½ per cent. was produced from cane grown by peasant farmers, the remainder being produced by the companies. Peasant farming with improved techniques is being encouraged through a pilot scheme run with the cooperation of farmers under private enterprise.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that the 1½ per cent. of sugar harvested by peasant farmers contrasts with 100 per cent. in Puerto Rico, 97 per cent. in Fiji and 33 per cent. throughout the West Indies? Is he further aware that the farmers believe that neither the Government nor Booker Bros, want the scheme to succeed?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Without necessarily accepting the hon. Member's figures, I am in favour of extension of peasant cultivation, if the pilot scheme justifies it, but the growing of sugar cane involves all sorts of difficulties, including elaborate water control, and I would rather proceed slowly and surely than rush into something that might be doomed to failure.

  MALTA

    Broadcasting Service (Interruption)
    Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to state the total length of time during which the people of Malta were deprived of their broadcasting service recently ; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Rediffusion Service was interrupted for 24 days, between 12th August and 4th September. During that period the service was cut off from all but 6,256 subscribers in Malta and Gozo. The interruption was due to a misunderstanding with Government in Malta—for which the Rediffusion Company was not responsible—over the issue of an official notice. Agreement has been reached between the Maltese Government and the Maltese Imperial Government on practical arrangements for the broadcasting of official notices in future.

    Constitution
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far the discussions on a future constitution for
    628
    Malta have progressed; what parties have been consulted on this subject in Malta, and if a decision has yet been reached; and whether proportional representation will be used in voting for the proposed constitution in Malta.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Work is continuing on the drafting of the new constitution but the stage has not yet been reached when consultations could usefully be begun. On the last part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 25th July.

  SEYCHELLES

    Accounts (Auditor's Report)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has now been taken on the Report of the principal auditor on the accounts of the Seychelles Islands for 1954.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Governor has taken action on a large number of points raised in the Report, and a detailed statement is being placed in the Library.
    Mr. Swingler: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman in anticipation for that statement, may I ask whether we are now to be assured that the Government Departments in the Seychelles are keeping proper accounts and that the laws and taxation approved by the Government will now be observed and levied in a proper way?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the hon. Member will read the statement first and ask me any questions afterwards.
    Mr. Hobson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the authorities in the Seychelles have been able to import a hydrometer to measure the density of spirits, which caused the trouble originally?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that all is well on that front.

  GOLD COAST

    Independence
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement regarding the recognition of the independence of the Gold Coast.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would refer the hon. Member to the dispatches between the Governor of the Gold Coast and myself which were published on 18th September. I have had copies placed in the Library.
    Mr. Brockway: Whilst congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion and, still more, the people of the Gold Coast, may I ask whether it would not be proper that a great constitutional change of this kind should be reported to the House, and there should not merely be dispatches in the Library on a historic occasion when the first African Colony moves towards independence in the Gold Coast? May I also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence in the Gold Coast to get the Opposition to accept the Government's proposal for a fifty-fifty conference to smooth out their differences, in order that the Gold Coast may begin independence with agreement?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Whilst thanking the hon. Member for his pleasant references to myself, I must add that I think he has forgotten the statement which I made in the House on 11th May this year envisaging what has in fact developed. As to discussions between the Government and the Opposition, I am glad to say that they have been opened already in the Gold Coast and I hope that they are likely to be conducted well.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    State of Emergency
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement regarding the circumstances in which a state of emergency was declared in Northern Rhodesia during the strike of members of the African Mineworkers' Union.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. The Acting Governor of Northern Rhodesia proclaimed a State of Emergency in the Western Province, which includes the Copperbelt, because he was satisfied that this action was necessary to secure the peace, and prevent outbreaks of violence, loss of life and damage to property.
    The threatening situation with which he was faced had its origins in a dispute involving the African Mineworkers' Trade Union and the mining companies
    630
    over the right of the mines African Staff Association to represent Africans in supervisory and staff grades. The dispute, which had resulted in a planned series of strikes, had engendered bitter feelings between the two groups of workers, and there had been violence and intimidation in the miners' compounds.
    The announcement on 11th August that a Commission would be appointed to inquire into the causes of unrest in the Copperbelt did not effectively relieve the tension. The leaders of the mine-workers announced that they would not give evidence to the Commission. They were prepared neither for conciliation nor for negotiated settlement, and were evidently determined to keep the unrest alive.
    Events came to a head when the Union called on the men at all the mines to present themselves for work without protective leggings or check discs, safety precautions without which it was known the management could not let the men go underground. By 11th September the atmosphere was such that a small incident among the crowds of miners congregating daily at the shaft heads would have created the risk of major riots and general violence. Great alarm was felt by all law-abiding persons throughout the area.
    I fully support the action of the Acting Governor, which was taken neither before it was necessary nor too late to prevent serious and long lasting disorders. No life has been lost. The Acting Governor and many officers in the Service, and others, who have supported him deserve the gratitude of Northern Rhodesia and of this House.
    Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in a situation in which the African Mineworkers' Union is now threatened with complete destruction, he will take action, in view of the fact that the Union has contributed so largely to the organisation of the African workers, to the lifting of their standards, to the opening of doors by which they can obtain higher posts in that industry, and whether he will exert his influence for immediate steps so that there may be a restoration of this organisation?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I could not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. Mr. Katilungu, the African General President of the Union, has declared his opposition

    631
    to the unconstitutional methods of the leaders who have been detained, and he has successfully made efforts to get the men to go back to work. With regard to the latter part of the Question, the justification, so-called, of the troubles that have arisen was African advancement, and I am in favour of African advancement in giving to Africans in the Copperbelt opportunities to fill jobs that have hitherto been reserved for Europeans.

  MAURITIUS

    Executive Council (Ministerial System)
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement regarding the introduction of a Ministerial system for the Executive Council of Mauritius.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that this is another long Answer.
    I had hoped that development of the present liaison officer system in Mauritius into a Ministerial system could be carried through this autumn when the three-year tenure of office of existing Unofficial Members of Executive Council came to an end. A Ministerial system would give Unofficial Members of Executive Council an opportunity of demonstrating their ability to co-operate with their fellow Mauritians in shouldering the greater responsibilities which are now before them and would, at the same time, provide Mauritius with the administrative machinery necessary if the territory is to make a success of internal self-government, a most important practical consideration.
    The Mauritius Labour Party, however, refused to take part in the election of new members of Executive Council on 25th September, and informed the Governor that they were not prepared to co-operate in the introduction of a Ministerial system on the basis proposed. The Governor has informed me of the views expressed by the leaders of the Labour Party and has communicated my views to them, but I have not yet received a report on the outcome of these talks.
    Mr. Brockway: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to inform the House of his views on this matter? Is it not extraordinary that a proposal should be made that the Executive of a
    632
    Parliament should be elected on the basis of proportional representation of its members? What would Her Majesty's Government be like if it were appointed on a proportional representation basis?
    Hon. Members: Much better.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, with one or two exceptions, we all come from the same racial stock in the United Kingdom, which is slightly different from the situation in Mauritius.
    Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of what views he expressed about this?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think it would be much more profitable if I waited until I have received a report on the outcome of the talks. [HON. MEMBERS : "Why?"] If the right hon. Gentleman will read my answer, he will see that the Governor has informed me of the views that have been expressed by the leaders of the Labour Party. However, I have not yet received a report on the outcome of the talks that have taken place. I am anxious to see a settlement arrived at, and it is much more likely to be brought about if I wait until I have that information.
    Mr. Bevan: But the right hon. Gentleman has just intimated that he has informed them of his views. Cannot we learn what they are?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Despite that rather winning smile, I think the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am myself in favour of a proportional representation system in Mauritius. I believe it best suited to the circumstances there, but as I want to see a happy solution reached, I think I had better wait until I have received those further comments.

  KENYA

    Africans (Hospital Fees)
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his approval was invited before the decision was made to charge fees for Africans receiving treatment at the King George VI Hospital in Nairobi; and to what extent it is intended that, contrary to the practice in the United Kingdom, fees shall in future be charged in all African hospitals.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. It has been decided to introduce token fees for Africans in all Government hospitals to help meet the rising costs of health services and the King George VI Hospital is the first to introduce the system. It has long been the practice for Africans to be charged fees in mission hospitals and medical institutions run by African district councils.
    Mr. Dugdale: Does this mean that Her Majesty's Government, who have always been opposed to the introduction of a free hospital service in this country, are determined, as they dare not do anything about that, to prevent Africans from getting one?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir, I want to see the African social services develop on sensible lines and not become bankrupt from the start.
    Mr. Bevan: What is the basis of the fees?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Whilst I shall be happy to give the right hon. Gentleman the details, if he likes, I can say straightaway to the House that the fees for adult in-patients will be 10s. for the first week and 5s. for each of the second, third and fourth weeks. The maximum charge for any length of stay will be 25s. Out-patients fees are to be 2s. a week, with fees halved for children under 16, and there is provision for indigent persons to receive medical attention free.
    Mr. Bevan: What proportion will the fees bear to the wages of the Africans?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall be ready to answer a Question on that point and to give the right hon. Gentleman as much information as I can upon it.
    Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that he has acquainted himself with the fees but is unable to tell the House what proportion they bear to the wages of Africans today?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: From my conversations and communications from the Governor, I am fully satisfied that the charges are proper under the circumstances, but I am ready to reply in detail to the right hon. Gentleman, if he will put down a Question.

  GIBRALTAR

    Table of Precedence
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Service representatives have precedence over the Mayor of Gibraltar at Government functions in Gibraltar ; and, in view of the annoyance that this causes to the inhabitants, if he will take action to ensure that the Mayor is accorded the respect which his office warrants.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This matter was considered when the title of Chairman of the City Council was changed to that of Mayor in 1955, but it was decided not to alter the Table of Precedence for Gibraltar as fixed in the previous year. I have not received any representations to support the suggestion that existing arrangements are causing annoyance.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, be prepared to receive representations on this point? As Secretary of State for the Colonies, is he not aware that this precedence of Service chiefs is a matter of some humiliation to the intensely loyal people of Gibraltar?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I repeat that I have not received representations I am always ready to listen to what is said to me, and whatever the position of the Mayor in the Table of Precedence, I have the highest respect for my friend, Mr. Hassan, the Mayor of Gibraltar.

  CYPRUS

    British Civil Servants (Finger Prints)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the resentment that has been aroused as a result of British civil servants in Cyprus having been compelled to give their finger prints ; and what consideration has been given to the representations made and with what result.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have received representations about this on behalf of certain civil employees in Cyprus. After consulting the Governor, I have concluded that there are no grounds for exempting these civil servants from the Cyprus Emergency Regulations concerning identity cards, under which finger prints are required.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why civil servants and their families, who have gone there to help in the work of the defence forces, are required to have their finger prints taken when the defence forces do not, and was there any consultation with them, because people do not like finger prints taken ; and what is to happen to the finger prints when these people leave Cyprus and return here?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand that the duplicate finger prints will be kept for one year and then destroyed, except where the person concerned is banished, repatriated or deported. I must say generally about finger prints that I have very rarely had much sympathy with British subjects serving overseas who object to giving them when we are forced by local circumstances to take them from the people who live in the territories concerned.

    Maronite Community (Memorandum)
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the Maronite community have been consulted, before a final decision has been reached, on Lord Radcliffe's suggestions for a constitution for Cyprus.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A memorandum was presented to Lord Radcliffe by a leading Maronite and discussed with him.
    Mr. Teeling: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Maronites are feeling very worried about the present situation, because they have always been considerably oppressed by the Turks, that they are certainly not Greeks and do not want to be linked up with Greece, that they are closely linked with the Roman Church and feel very strongly that in some way in the new constitution they would like to have some representation of their own?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very conscious of that, of their connection with the Roman Catholic Church, and of their continued and never ceasing loyalty to the British Crown.

    Constitution
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to announce Her Majesty's Gov-
    636
    ernment's constitutional proposals for Cyprus.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Lord Radcliffe's Report has not yet been completed. I shall, of course, make a statement as soon as I can, but we shall need time to study the report.
    Mr. Robinson: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the remarkable statement of Mr. Averoff, the Greek Foreign Minister, reported in The Times yesterday, which marked a distinct move forward? Does he not agree that a similar move forward in the British Government's position might at least give some hope of a negotiated settlement of this tragic problem?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I saw with interest the statement reported yesterday, but I do not think it is suitable to deal with it by Question and Answer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also draw from it the conclusion that Her Majesty's Government have not been altogether wrong in their policy in recent years.
    Mr. Wade: As some doubts have unfortunately been expressed on the genuineness of Her Majesty's Government's expressed intention to grant self-government, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of making it quite clear that the desire and intention of Her Majesty's Government is to grant self-government, and in due course to agree that the people should have self-determination?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In regard to self-determination, I have made the position of Her Majesty's Government clear in a number of statements in recent months. In regard to self-government, it is our intention, as the terms of reference of Lord Radcliffe made clear, that the machinery of government in Cyprus should be transferred to Cypriot elected Ministers save for foreign affairs, internal security and external defence.

    Situation
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make a statement on the situation in Cyprus.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Recent operations in the Kyrenia hills resulted in the capture of six "hard-core" terrorists, as well as quantities of arms, ammunition

    637
    and explosives and caused serious disruption to the E.O.K.A. organisation. Murders by E.O.K.A. have however continued ; the terrorists, recognising that they can no longer hope to achieve their object of overthrowing the Government, have been forced back on attempting to influence the course of events by individual acts of violence In this too they will fail. Her Majesty's Government are determined to re-establish the rule of law in Cyprus as a necessary preliminary to constitutional advance.
    Mr. Robinson: Does not everything that has happened in the last two months suggest that the Governor's reaction to the E.O.K.A. truce offer in August was wholly misconceived and ill-advised? Was it not ridiculous to suggest that it was a sign that E.O.K.A. was on its last legs? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that there is no repetition of such barbarous action as the eight-day continuous curfew in Nicosia, which resulted in the capture of not one single terrorist?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept either of the hon. Member's conclusions.
    Mr. Bevan: Why does the right hon. Gentleman continue to say that every evidence of moderation by the other side is a tribute to his own coercive measures? Why does he not realise that there is a genuine desire on the part of the people of Cyprus, and now evidence by the Greek Government, to have a settlement of this hideous problem? Why does the right hon. Gentleman make every reply in this House appear to be a boast about his own behaviour?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that is an altogether fair observation by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Bevan: Of course it is.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I welcome any sign, anywhere, of the acceptance of some of the geographical and other facts of life of Cyprus in the present situation, but I must add that our task would have been made easier if from time to time the right hon. Gentleman and others had shown the same understanding of the problems when in Opposition as when in Government.
    Mr. Bevan: How can the right hon. Gentleman say that, in view of the fact
    638
    that some months ago I myself stated on behalf of the Opposition that I thought there should be a termination of violence and intimidation in the island and a very short time afterwards there was, in fact. a truce? The right hon. Gentleman, instead of taking advantage—
    Mr. F. Harris: Who is boasting now?
    Mr. Bevan: —I said there was a truce. I did not connect them. In any case, it is of no importance. There was a truce and the right hon. Gentleman, instead of taking advantage of it, boasted in this House that the truce was a result of his own policy, when, in fact, his policy is in ruins around his ears at the present time.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must once more remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that it has been the belief, however erroneous, that in the event of a future Labour Government being elected, however unlikely, their policy would not differ from their attitude in Opposition, that has added to our problems in Cyprus.

  SARAWAK

    New Constitution
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to make a statement on the new Constitution for Sarawak.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A new Constitution on the lines proposed in the Council Negri's resolution of September, 1955, was provided by the Sarawak (Constitution) Order in Council, 1956, of 3rd August, which was published in Sarawak on 14th August and is to come into operation on a date to be appointed by the Governor.
    The Council Negri have welcomed the new Constitution as
    "a real advance towards the goal of self-government".
    Proposals they have made to amend the Order in Council in respect of the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of the Council Negri are now being considered here.
    Mr. Teeling: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that, in view of the publicity and discussion given to the constitutions of other Colonies, such as Cyprus. Malta and so on, the people of Sarawak would feel happier if in some way this

    639
    Parliament could discuss their Constitution, although I am fully aware that it is a very considerable advance. Could he not think out some way in which we could make the people feel that we are interested in them?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I share my hon. Friend's desire that the people of Sarawak should know how deeply concerned we are about their affairs. I am ready to discuss with him how that fact can be made more clear to them, if that is needed.

  SOMALILAND

    Habr Awal and Eidagalla Tribes
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the declaration of the Ethiopian Haber Awal and Aidegalle tribes from the Ogaden which they made in Addis Ababa concerning their grazing rights, he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will maintain the provisions of the Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement, 1954, concerning the former reserved area.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to certain statements reported by the Press in Ethiopia to have been made last July by a few individual members of the Habr Awal and Eidagalla tribes. These individuals are not representative and had no authority to speak for the two tribes, which are not Ethiopian tribes but are tribes from the Somaliland Protectorate which have grazing rights in the Haud and the former Reserved Area of Ethiopia in terms of the 1897 Treaty as confirmed by the 1954 Agreement, between Great Britain and Ethiopia.
    I readily give the assurance that Her Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to maintain the provisions of the Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement of 1954, not only in respect of the Reserved Area but also of the Haud. It is their hope that the Imperial Ethiopia Government will do the same.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the statement which he has made will give general satisfaction to the tribes concerned, because they depend so much upon their grazing rights? They have already sent a deputation to the Emperor, asking him to use his influence with this
    640
    Government to see that the Agreement is not interfered with.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful, as I am sure the tribes will be, to the hon. Gentleman

  ROYAL NAVY

    Science and Engineering Graduates
    Mr. Mikardoasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many science or engineering graduates, or holders of equivalent qualifications, are enrolled in the Royal Navy ; and how many of them are engaged in duties which require the use of their specialised knowledge.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby): On 30th June, there were 212 National Service officers with science or engineering degrees, or equivalent qualifications, serving full time in the engineering and electrical branches. Very few science or engineering graduates enter the Royal Navy by other means, since we normally aim to commission such men and employ them in posts which make good use of their specialised knowledge.

    H.M.S. "Girdleness"
    Commander Maitlandasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will make a statement about the recent activities of H.M.S. "Girdleness", the Royal Navy's guided weapon ship.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Her Majesty's Ship "Girdleness" commissioned on 24th July last, and has since carried out a number of trials. On 10th September, a test missile, from which a sea-to-air guided missile is being developed, was successfully fired. Other successful firings have followed. A photograph is being released to the Press today.

  SHIPBUILDING

    Steel Supplies
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what further action is being taken to improve supplies of steel to British shipyards.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: My noble Friend and the President of the Board of Trade are aware of the difficulties

    641
    caused to the industry by the shortage of steel. My noble Friend is in close touch with the industry on the question of steel deliveries.
    Mr. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that a lot of people are aware of these difficulties, but that awareness is not quite enough and what is needed is steel for the shipyards? Can we have some action?
    Mr. Digby: My noble Friend is in touch with the President of the Board of Trade on this matter. The shipbuilding industry is not the only industry affected by the shortage of steel but in the circumstances we are doing the best we can to ensure a fair distribution among the shipbuilders.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Has the Minister given consideration to the need for effective planning in this industry to ensure proper distribution of steel supplies?
    Mr. Digby: I am satisfied that the available supplies are being distributed pretty fairly.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that this shortage of steel has been going on for a very long time and that merely because we have had a change of First Lord of the Admiralty in another place does not alter the fact that we have been waiting for a very long time for action? What action is being taken?
    Mr. Digby: I am aware that the problem has become more acute again in recent months. It did, however, ease considerably a year or two ago and I hope that before long we shall be able to solve the difficulties. In point of fact, the deliveries are considerably greater than they were last year.

  ATOMIC ENERGY

    Sodium Graphite Reactors
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Lord Privy Seal if sufficient conclusions have yet been reached about the use of sodium graphite reactors for the production of atomic energy, to enable work to start on a prototype station.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): No, Sir. It will not be possible for some months to decide whether to build a prototype reactor of this type.

  POST OFFICE

    B.B.C. (Television Films)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Postmaster-General what control he now exercises over the type of film shown by the British Broadcasting Corporation on television programmes.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): None, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that in a film shown on television at the beginning of the summer, dealing with life in the Kalahari Desert, a close-up was shown of a spear being inserted into the heart of a hunted animal, of the spear being twisted and then withdrawn, and the dying agonies of the animal were shown very vividly indeed? Does the Minister—
    Mr. Speaker: There is nothing about that in the Question. The hon. Member has not given any notice of that.
    Mr. Rankin: I could not get the supplementary question in as a Question, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: If it was out of order as a Question, it is equally out of order as a supplementary question.
    Mr. Rankin: It seemed to me that the supplementary question arose from the type of control that the Minister might have over the showing of these films.
    Mr. Speaker: If he has no control, nothing can arise from it.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the Minister's unsatisfactory answer to the Question which I have put, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Telephone Directories
    Mr. Freethasked the Postmaster-General why post offices in the country no longer have available copies of all the telephone directories for England and Wales so that these may be consulted upon request by members of the public.
    Mr. Alport: There has been no change in our policy, which is to provide at post offices copies of those telephone directories for which there is a public

    643
    need. We could not justify the expense of providing copies of all the directories, especially as telephone numbers can be obtained from directory inquiries without charge.
    Mr. Freeth: While congratulating my hon. Friend upon this attitude of economy, may I ask him to see that within the Home Counties, at least, copies of the London telephone directories are available in all main post offices?
    Mr. Alport: Copies of the London directories are provided at all Head Post Offices and at all principal post offices in other towns in the Home Counties. I shall be happy to make any inquiry about providing them in any individual office in the Home Counties at which they may not at present be available if my hon. Friend draws my attention to it, or, indeed, if any other hon. Member interested in the subject would care to do the same.

    Unpaid Telephone Charges
    Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Postmaster General how many cases of telephones being cut off due to non-payment of charge have occurred in the last three years; in how many cases this has been due to the absence from home of the subscriber when the bills have been received; and whether he will instruct his officials either to allow greater time for paying the charge or ensure that the non-payment is unavoidable.
    Mr. Alport: The numbers of cases of telephones having been cut off due to non-payment of charges in the last three years are about 400,000, representing approximately 2 per cent. of the accounts sent out. We have no information about how many of these cases arise from the absence from home of the subscriber.
    We rely on subscribers to help us to safeguard the telephone revenue by prompt payment of their accounts, but my right hon. Friend has arranged for an extension of the normal time at present allowed for payment, and I believe that this will meet the point my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, as well as securing a substantial reduction in the numbers cut off, which the House will agree would be most desirable.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make about business?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. We hope to make good progress with the Report stage of the Copyright Bill today, without sitting unduly late.
After the Double Taxation Relief Order we shall ask the House to take the Second Reading of the Medical Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Norman Pentland, esquire, for Chester-le-Street.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

GAS ACT (1948) AMENDMENT
Dame Irene Ward: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend subsection (7) of section fifty-three of the Gas Act, 1948, in order to permit discrimination in treatment of certain classes of persons designated from time to time by the Minister of Fuel and Power.
The House may wonder why, at this late stage in the Session, I am seeking permission to introduce this small Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule. Quite apart from what I consider to be the merits of the Bill, this seemed to me the only possible way of drawing the attention of Parliament to a rather unprecedented action by the Northern Gas Board. The rules of the House make it impossible to question a Minister on the Board's action and I have, therefore, been forced to produce a Bill in order to question the position. In passing, I must say that unless there is a means of associating Parliament with the nationalised industries, it is only right to introduce a Bill of this kind to protect consumer interests ; and I can foresee a vista of Bills.
I want to give the House the background for my reasons for seeking to introduce the Bill. Earlier this year the Northern Gas Board, in a commendable search for economy, decided to impose a minimum charge, the minimum charge being related to the consumer having used five therms of gas per quarter. The Gas Consultative Council, which was made aware of this decision, decided to draw the attention of the Northern Gas Board to the fact that the Board's decision would impose hardship on old-age pensioners and people living on small fixed incomes who might not in the course of their ordinary household commitments use the appropriate number of therms.
Before any action could be taken and before the matter could be discussed by the Northern Gas Board with the Gas Consultative Council, the Minister of Fuel and Power informed the Board that under Section 53 (7) of the Gas Act, 1948, it would not be possible for the Board to take any steps to relieve old-age pensioners of the general charge. The Board decided, therefore, to proceed with the adoption of the minimum charge.
646
This has aroused tremendous opposition throughout the North of England from local authorities, etc. For instance, the chairman of the local welfare committee of the County Borough of Tynemouth, my local authority, expressed himself in very vehement terms against the Board's decision. The Press, Members of Parliament and the general public felt that it was an imposition on old-age pensioners and those living on small fixed incomes to ask them to pay for gas which they had not consumed.
We are always told that gas boards have complete autonomy in decisions about charges, but this difficulty arose from the intervention by the Ministry, that the Board could not take steps to cushion old-age pensioners from the imposition of the charge. When that position was made known, a large number of people who did not consume five therms of gas per quarter failed to pay their bills and a large number of other persons affected decided to ask the Board to remove their gas equipment.
That was done, although I must say that the Board took no arbitrary action when the bills were not paid. The matter was then taken to the area gas consumers' council, which also vehemently opposed the decision of the Board. After one or two meetings the Northern Gas Board decided to reduce the amount of the minimum charge from five to three therms and the matter is to be even further reconsidered.
That is the point which has now been reached. I have no means of knowing what is happening with gas boards in other areas, but if it is intended to seek economies—and everybody supports that—it is important that there should be power somewhere to ensure that the people on whom the economies are exercised are not those in the lowest income groups. After studying it, I came to the conclusion that there was a weakness in the Gas Act, 1948. The purpose of my Bill is to remedy that weakness.
That is the reason why the Northern Gas Board can take no action to protect the old-age pensioners and, as I say, the public in the North of England are seriously perturbed that we should ask old-age pensioners and people living on small fixed incomes to pay for gas which they have not consumed. I am sure that that

647
must seem to the House a very peculiar way of helping those old people to economise.
I came to the conclusion that the only remedy was to seek to amend the Gas Act to give power to the Minister, if he approved of any scheme put up by a gas board, to allow that board to eliminate from the operation of its charges any body of people, if they so desired, and particularly of course on the recommendation of the area consumers' councils. In my opinion, if we are to have any protection given to the public, it is important that recommendations made by the consumers' council in the various areas should be accepted and acted on by the industry concerned. Otherwise, there is no sense in having that machinery in operation at all.
I have examined the Gas Act, 1948, very closely to find how the procedure which I have outlined may be carried out. I found that Section 53 (7) reads as follows:
"An Area Board, in fixing tariffs and making agreements under this section, shall not show undue preference to any person or class of persons and shall not exercise any undue discrimination against any person or class of persons."
In my Bill I seek to add the words:
"Except with the authority of the Minister."
That, of course, would make it very much easier for the area gas boards to deal with their tariff problems; because it is fair to point out that so far as the boards are concerned there are a large number of industrial establishments who do not use the minimum number of therms and which could quite well help to pay the administrative charges incurred in the collection of accounts and the examination of meters. That would be a help to the general economical running of the gas industry.
Because I realise that this is perhaps rather a revolutionary proposal I sought to find whether, since the nationalisation Acts were put into operation, this House had agreed to any differentiation in the treatment of certain classes of persons under any of the nationalisation Acts. I felt that that would be an important point in making my case to the House this afternoon for permission to introduce this Bill.
648
I found that in 1955 the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) was able to pass through this House, and, finally, to place on the Statute Book after the Royal Assent had been given, a Bill to enable local authorities—who are very much in the same position as area boards—to allow certain classes of persons to travel at reduced rates on municipal transport.
I found, therefore, that a precedent had been created in this House and so I do not find myself in any difficulty in suggesting that this Bill, which will protect old-age pensioners and, no doubt, the area gas boards, should be given permission to go through the normal machinery relevant to the introduction of a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule.
In commending the Bill and asking permission to introduce it I wish to say, finally, that, of course, all Ministers of the Crown keep on saying how difficult it is to find ways and means to help those living on small fixed incomes. I feel that not only is this a practical Bill, in the sense that it will help the gas industry and old-age pensioners, but, also, that it is a way of helping those whom the Government themselves find it so very difficult to assist. It may well be that if this Bill is allowed to proceed and reaches the Statute Book, we shall be able, by putting our heads together and considering the matter wisely and without heat, to arrive at a further way of helping those whom the Government and hon. Members of this House would wish to help.
In passing, I would add that old-age pensioners already have to pay more for their coal delivered in bags than those who buy by the ton. I think that this is a very humane and sound Bill and I ask the permission of the House to introduce it today.
Sir Ian Fraser: We must all have every sympathy for old-age pensioners and other poor people, but I cannot imagine a more untidy or administratively less advantageous way of dealing with their plight than to pass special "titbit" Acts of Parliament to regulate the behaviour of the nationalised industries. How we should work our nationalised industries is a very grave problem, but I am sure that

649
this cannot be the way. The hon. Lady, for whom I have great regard, says, with her tongue in her cheek—
Dame Irene Ward: No, my tongue is in its normal place.
Sir I. Fraser: My hon. Friend always has the last word, Mr. Speaker, or very nearly always.
The hon. Lady says that if this Bill can take its normal course—but no one knows better than she does that it cannot possibly take its normal course. We are within two or three Parliamentary days of the end of the Session. So, because she is unable to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and make her point in some debate, or by way of Question and Answer, my hon. Friend makes use of this special machinery, which should be the cherished privilege of private Members and not a method of getting behind the Chair and the Clerks at the Table. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I suggest that is exactly what the hon. Lady is doing, and that no one knows it better than she does. I suggest that she has had her say, no doubt she will have pleased her constituents, and that we should determine not to give her Bill a Second Reading.
Mr. George Chetwynd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether, on this occasion, it is not right that there should be a representative of the Ministry concerned present to hear the arguments? I think it a
650
shocking thing that on this occasion there is not a Minister present.
Mr. Speaker: It is a question of procedure and for Ministers to be present if they think fit.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Who is prepared to bring in the Bill?
Dame Irene Ward: I am myself, Sir, I hope with the whole of the House.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dame Irene Ward.
Mr. Speaker: Second Reading, what day?
Dame Irene Ward: Next Session, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot name a day next Session. She must name a day in this Session, or what remains of it.
Sir I. Fraser: Sunday.
Dame Irene Ward: Friday.

GAS ACT (1948) AMENDMENT
  GAS ACT (1948) AMENDMENT
  Bill to amend subsection (7) of section fifty-three of the Gas Act, 1948, in order to permit discrimination in treatment of certain classes of persons designated from time to time by the Minister of Fuel and Power, presented accordingly and read the First time ; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 174.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  COPYRIGHT BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  COPYRIGHT BILL [Lords]

    Clause 2.—(COPYRIGHT IN LITERARY DRAMATIC AND MUSICAL WORKS.)
    3.50 p.m.
    Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, at the end to insert :
    "then, subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of this section."
    Mr. Speaker: This Amendment, which is the first on the Notice Paper to be selected, seems to be a paving Amendment to that which succeeds it, in page 3, line 17, at the end, to insert a new subsection (5). Perhaps the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) can deal with them both together.
    Mr. Robinson: These Amendments are similar to an Amendment which I moved in Committee, except that that Amendment went a good deal further. It was supported on all sides of the Committee and I agreed to withdraw it with some reluctance only because of an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. The assurance was rather more than the conventional promise that the Government would look into the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
    "I am hopeful of being able to evolve a suitable Amendment which will help the purpose which hon. Members have in mind and, at the same time, safeguard the other consideration which I think the Committee feels also to be of some importance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee B, 19th June. 1956 ; c. 41.]
    I was rather surprised and somewhat disappointed to find nothing in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary on the Notice Paper for this stage of the Bill to deal with this point.
    I do not want to go at any length over the arguments I used in the Committee and I will summarise as briefly as I can what I then said. The first point is that few people outside the legal profession appreciate that a letter, even a business letter, is in law a literary work and that, as the law stands, copyright in a letter subsists indefinitely so long as that letter remains unpublished. Few
    652
    people appreciate that the copyright belongs to the person who wrote the letter and not to the person who owns and has physical possession of it.
    These facts make matters extremely difficult for people who try to write biographies. It becomes almost impossible for them to do what they would wish to do and to observe the letter of the law. If they wish to reproduce letters written by or to the subject of their biographies they have to trace not only the owners of the letters, which is usually easy enough, but the heirs and assigns of the writers, which is usually difficult and often impossible.
    A biographer is, therefore, faced with two alternatives. One is to comply with the law and so to produce a less interesting and attractive book than he might otherwise do, and the other is to do what he wants to do and to take a chance with the law. I think I am right in saying that, normally, a biographer does the latter and takes a chance, if he knows what the law is. Usually, he is quite ignorant of the provisions of the law, and goes to the owners of the letters and asks for permission to reproduce them. That permission is almost always generously given by the owners, who believe that they are in a position to give that permission. This law is completely misunderstood over a wide field by people most closely affected by it; it is a law which is broken every day of the week with impunity without any injury being done to anybody. That alone is a strong argument for amending the law.
    I go further and say that there is very little logic behind the law as it stands. The purpose of copyright is to create and to protect a property right in a work of art or a literary work. People do not normally write letters to sell in the way that they write books, paint pictures or compose symphonies. By removing letters from the provisions of copyright we would deprive hardly anybody of a property right. My Amendment does not go nearly as far as that, because I am merely seeking to put a term to copyright in unpublished letters. My suggestion is that copyright should subsist for fifty years after the death of the writer of the letter. or for a hundred years after the writing of the letter, whichever is later.
    In Committee, only one argument against my proposal was produced by the Parliamentary Secretary. It was that if we

    653
    freed letters from copyright fifty years after the death of the writers there was a serious risk of offending the susceptibilities of relatives of the writers or of third parties who might be mentioned in the letters. I can only repeat what I said then, that I do not think the susceptibilities of the third parties are a proper subject of copyright and that the law of copyright ought not to concern itself with such matters. In that view I was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and other members of the Committee.
    Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept the argument. I think the President of the Board of Trade will agree that I have gone as far as I can to meet it in the change I have made in the Amendments on the Paper. I have put in the second period of a hundred years from the writing of the letter. Except in the case of persons of extreme longevity, that should obviate the risk of any susceptibilities of living persons being touched when letters go out of copyright. The other advantage of the two alternative periods is that they bring the Amendments into line with Clause 7 (6), which does much the same with unpublished literary works in library and public archives.
    By preserving the bare principle of the Amendment I moved in Committee I have done my very best to meet the objections that have been brought forward. I hope that on this occasion the Government, although they did not see fit to put their own Amendment on the Paper, will have no difficulty in supporting my Amendments.
    Sir Leslie Plummer: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Montgomery Hyde: I must declare a small interest in these Amendments. I have already declared it when the Bill was in Committee. It is the interest of a person who, from time to time, produces biographies about the famous and not so famous figures of the past. Like the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), I was disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary had been unable to evolve a Government Amendment to satisfy the views which had been put forward by the hon. Member and which were held by those who supported him in Committee.
    654
    4.0 p.m.
    I am sure my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary sympathises with this Amendment, even though he has not been able to put forward an Amendment in the name of either the President of the Board of Trade or himself, because, if I may say so with respect, he is a distinguished biographer. I am sure the House will share with me regret that his present arduous duties prevent him from continuing to produce the biographies which have delighted us in the past.
    The position of the biographer and research worker is difficult in the sense in which the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North indicated. The fact that copyright continues indefinitely in an unpublished letter as time goes on makes the position difficult, particularly where the letters, under the custom which is increasing today, have been deposited in libraries and other public institutions. The position is not satisfactory because the research worker may take a chance and the law is then broken. He may take a chance and decide to publish a letter after having failed to trace the owner of the copyright, or he may decide that the risk is too great and leave out of his book what might be quite an interesting document.
    On the question of susceptibilities of third parties, there is something to be said for the fact that it is undesirable to give pain to living persons, but of course, the copyright extends only to the words in the letter. It does not extend to the information contained in the letter. Anyone into whose possession the letter may have come is quite at liberty to make use of the information it contains, provided that in his biography he does not embody the actual words which have been used by the writer of the letter.
    In the evidence which was given before the Board of Trade committee which considered the whole question of copyright, such learned and important institutions as the British Museum, the Libraries' Association and the Bodleian Library at Oxford all expressed the view that there should be some limitation set upon the term of copyright in unpublished writing. It seems to me that the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North is a reasonable one. It is not so drastic as the proposal he put forward

    655
    in Committee. I hope it will commend itself to my hon. and learned Friend and to the House.
    Mrs. Eirene White: I hope very much indeed that the Government will accept this Amendment. I, too, was disappointed that after his kind words in Committee—which were very helpful—the Parliamentary Secretary did not put forward an Amendment in his name or the name of his right hon. Friend. I suppose that that was through inadvertence or pressure of work.
    There can be very little objection to this proposal. I can see that in its original form there was a difficulty, but now that a hundred years is included as the shortest period between the writing of the letter and the publication thereof, I cannot see how susceptibilities are going to be affected to any degree which could be balanced in the scales against the value of an historical record. There is surely an obligation towards historic truth as well as towards susceptibilities of persons who could not have been living at the time when the letter was written. The argument on that side seems very slight.
    I am in the position, with my brother, of being the owner of copyright in certain letters. Our great difficulty is that some of those letters have been destroyed without the consent of the copyright owner, because they have been in other hands. Letters written by my father to the late Marquess of Lothian have been destroyed. One is put into great difficulty over this whole matter of letters because of divided interests. The point with which we are dealing, which is strictly that of copyright, is, I should have thought, very adequately met by the Amendment.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said, this Amendment would bring the Bill into line with provisions made, for which we are very grateful, about letters deposited in libraries and archives. This would bring into a similar position letters which, possibly quite fortuitously, remain in private hands. I cannot see that we would be doing injury to anybody by agreeing to this Amendment. On the contrary, I think that we should be taking a step towards the establishment of truth in historic writing. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): This Amendment has been moved moderately and attractively by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), as a similar Amendment was moved in Committee. It has been supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) and the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). The common theme in their speeches was that of disappointment that there is no Government Amendment on the Notice Paper to meet this point. I certainly do not deviate from that common theme, as I share the disappointment that it has not been possible to put down an Amendment on behalf of the Government to meet this position.
    This is a difficult problem and I regret that it has been found to be an intractable problem in seeking to achieve the balance which, as I indicated in Committee, is the governing consideration in this Bill. It is, of course, true, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said, that I gave a very sympathetic undertaking to do what I could in this matter. That I have done, although, unhappily, unsuccessfully, but not from any lack of good will. As I said then, I was attracted to the idea.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North has been kind enough to refer to my excursions into the biographical field—necessarily less distinguished than his own—which I think would acquit me of any prejudice against the subject matter of this Amendment. I am the more disappointed because the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North has shown good will by modifying the effect of his previous Amendment so as to lengthen the period by making it the later of two dates—fifty years from the death of the author, or a hundred years from the date of the writing of the letter.
    On the issue of pain and susceptibility to third parties and descendants, I do not think that I can add more to what was said at an earlier stage, except that, in my view, although the extension of the period does, of course, limit the danger, it does not altogether remove it.
    I should like to refer to one or two other very practical difficulties which have occurred to us in the course of our sympathetic examination of this problem in the light of the undertaking I gave. In the first place, there are, of course, very

    657
    material difficulties of definition. For example, this Amendment deals with letters. Is a memorandum written by one person to another a letter for these purposes or not? I do not know. Again, is something enclosed in a letter part of that letter? Again, I do not know.
    Take the case of someone who encloses the manuscript of a short play. Is that covered by the terms of this Amendment or not? Perhaps a better case would be if someone wrote to a friend and, within the text of the letter, embodied a poem, maybe a sonnet of 14 lines. That, clearly, would come within the definition of a letter within this Amendment, but I should think that, equally clearly, it could be regarded as a work in which copyright ought to exist.
    In addition to these practical difficulties of definition, there is another consideration which is important and which has not been mentioned today, although I believe that it was in the mind of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) when we previously discussed the matter It is the position of publishers. I think the House will agree that it is in the public interest that publishers should be able to arrange for appropriate publication of hitherto unpublished copyright material free from the risk that competitors could, under the provisions of an Amendment such as this, immediately copy the results of their work, publish cheap editions and thereby prevent them from getting the reasonable rewards of their labours.
    Let me take a practical example to illustrate that. Let us take the example, to which reference was made in the earlier stage, of the Boswell Papers and the publications ensuing therefrom. Take the case of Boswell's London Journal. Had that been written not in the form of a journal but in the form, for example, of letters to Boswell's Edinburgh friends, Johnston and Temple, as it very well might have been, under the Amendment there would have been no copyright in those letters at the time when they were published, and the admirable edition which has given pleasure to so many might very well not have seen the light of day at all, because without that measure of protection it would not have been a commercial proposition.
    658
    Perhaps an even stronger example from the same field, which was not mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, was the case of the publication known as "Boswell in Holland." The House may record that the journal for Boswell's stay in Holland in the years 1763 to 1764 was lost. He-entrusted it to an army officer to take back to England, but it was never seen again. Therefore, the actual publication, instead of incorporating the missing journal, is made up of a most ingenious amalgamation of Boswell's daily memoranda, written as exhortations to himself for his conduct the following day, with all the letters which have been discovered.
    Perhaps I might refer to what is said in the introduction to that admirable work by Professor Pottle:
    "The volume that follows is for the greater part a substitute for the lost journal, made by fitting together in chronological sequence selections from these miscellaneous papers. As a sequel the reader is then given the entire correspondence between Boswell and the most remarkable person he met in Holland: Isabella van Tuyll. … This correspondence, which began just as he was leaving Holland and continued intermittently for the next four years, may safely be called one of the oddest series of love letters ever written."
    On that point, it is quite impossible, the interweaving of the letters with the other material being such, to have two different laws of copyright in regard to them. The House must face the position that all such works as that would be in jeopardy from the point of view of commercial publication in the admirable form that they have, in fact, taken if there was no copyright protection. I cannot resist the conclusion that the practical effects of the Amendment might be to introduce confusion detrimental to publication of works of literary and historic interest.
    We have, I think the House will acknowledge, done our best in the Bill to help this problem within the limits of what we conceive to be practicable. People in possession of ancient letters of interest can, if they think the contents unobjectionable and proper to be made public without giving offence, deposit them in public archives, and, in those circumstances, Clause 7, subsections (6) to (9), of the Bill would apply and those letters could be suitably copied and published.
    4.15 p.m.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East referred to the destruction of certain

    659
    letters written by her eminent father. I would ask her, however, to take account of the point that one would run the risk of much greater destruction of letters if one amended the law so as to withdraw the copyright protection altogether from them after a given period. We should, in fact, have less chance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is for the obvious reason that if people think that letters, if preserved, will fall into the public domain willy-nilly after a certain specified period, they will in many cases take the advice that was given by Admiral Fisher in all his letters, and burn them on receipt.
    Mrs. Lena Jeger: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how people are helped by the fact that, as the law now stands, they can freely publish a paraphrase or the actual contents of a letter?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Lady must bear in mind the fact that it is not the same to publish a paraphrase as to publish the document. A cynical reading public will never take the same account of an admitted paraphrase as it will of an authenticated original.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the main protection for non-publication of letters lies in the physical ownership of them? If the person who has physical possession of them does not let anybody else see them, they will not be published. That situation is not changed in any way by the Amendment. If somebody has a mind to destroy letters because he thinks they will be going to the public domain, equally he does not know into what hands they will get with the copyright law as it is at the moment, and he has no protection against their publication in the future even with the existing copyright law.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: It is a matter of degree. Such a person is under some temptation to destroy them as it is. He would be under a greater temptation to destroy them in the circumstances of the Amendment.
    Where there is a difficult and intracttable problem such as this in which there is such a pull of interest and sentiment in both directions, I think we must consider as our guiding light, the general
    660
    principle in the matter of copyright, which is, after all, that it is the copyright owner who should always have the right to decide if and at what time any work should be published. Many of the letters which are the subject-matter of the Amendment are documents which are, of their very nature, probably the least likely to have been intended by the author for publication.
    In view of the very many and practical difficulties involved, it is not possible to recommend the House to deviate from that general principle and accept the Amendment. I say that with great and genuine regret—I hope the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North will believe me—because I started from a position of real sympathy with what he sought to do, and I tried very hard to ascertain whether it was possible to overcome the difficulties to which I have referred.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I hope that the House will forgive me for a few moments if I break into this magic circle of biographers and copyright owners to add my expression of disappointment to the expressions which have been voiced from both sides of the House.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said he hoped we would acquit him of prejudice because he himself was a biographer. We gladly acquit him of prejudice. On the other hand, it may be that his own Ministerial future is so rosy that he is not likely to have very much time for biography writing in the future, in which case we shall all congratulate him; but, at the same time, it might make him a little less sensitive to the claims of biographers than would otherwise be the case.
    We discussed the matter in Standing Committee for a considerable time. I should have thought that the change made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) in the present Amendment really went as far as one ought to go. My hon. Friend now proposes that copyright shall last for fifty years after the death of the writer or a hundred years after the end of the year in which the letter was written. That is a very considerable concession which my hon. Friend has made in the meantime, and I would have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would have been able to accept it.

    661
    When we discussed this matter in Committee we were all impressed by the point—and this was the main point that the Parliamentary Secretary made at that time—that the publication of letters at an earlier date might cause a great deal of embarrassment and possibly pain to the relatives of the person who had written the letters or even the person who had received them. That is perhaps the main objection that still exists, but surely the greater part of that objection was removed by what the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde) said a few minutes ago, namely, that anybody is entitled, if he has access to those letters, to make use of the information that is contained in them but is precluded from publishing them in the form in which they were written.
    I do not think we ought to exaggerate the difficulties or the embarrassments which would be caused if this Amendment were accepted, as I hope it will be. After all, we are trying in this Bill to protect the rights of the public. The public has the right of access to knowledge of these documents, and I think that biographers have the right of access to letters and other documents of this kind.
    The Parliamentary Secretary now tells us about the difficulties of definition. He is not sure whether a memorandum constitutes a letter or whether an enclosure does. He raised the point about cheap editions, which was touched on in Committee, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary has failed in his duty to the House, and, indeed, in the undertaking that he gave to the Standing Committee.
    It was on 19th June that we discussed this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North has reminded us of the words of the Parliamentary Secretary on that occasion, and I would have thought that it was not beyond the ingenuity of the Board of Trade and of Parliamentary draftsmen in the intervening four months to have been able to find a form of words which would have removed the objections which are apparent today in the Parliamentary Secretary's mind.
    I feel under some sense of responsibility to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North because, having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, I suggested to my hon. Friend that it would be right for him to withdraw his Amendment at that stage because of the assurance that the Parliamentary Secretary had given. I am extremely disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary has not been more ingenious in the meantime and that he does not feel able to go rather further towards meeting us, especially in view of the very conciliatory proposal which my hon. Friend has made.
    I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will feel that he must persist in his Amendment and that we shall have the support in the Division Lobby of the hon. Member for Belfast, North and other conscientious and public-spirited Members on the other side of the House.
    Question put, That these words be there inserted in the Bill :—
    The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 220.

    Division No. 282.]

    AYES

    [4.24 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Burke, W. A.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Anderson, Frank

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Deer, G.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Balfour, A.

    Carmichael, J.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    Benson, G.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Beswick, F.

    Clunie, J.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

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

    Coldrick, W.

    Edwards, W, J. (Stepney)

    Blackburn, F.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Boardman, H.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Fernyhough, E.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Cove, W. G.

    Finch, H. J.

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Bowles, F. G.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Forman, J. C.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mahon, Simon

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mason, Roy

    Snow, J. W.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Steele, T.

    Hannan, W.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Hastings, S.

    Monslow, W.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Healey, Denis

    Moody, A. S.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Mort, D. L.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Moss, R.

    Sylvester, G, O.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Moyle, A.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Holman, P.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Thornton, E.

    Holmes, Horace

    Oliver, G. H.

    Timmons, J.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Oram, A. E.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Oswald, T.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Owen, W. J.

    Usborne, H. C.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Padley, W. E.

    Viant, S. P.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Wade, D. W.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Parker, J.

    Weitzman, D.

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Pearson, A.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Janner, B.

    Pentland, N.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Probert, A. R.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Randall, H. E.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Rankin, John

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

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Reeves, J.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Reid, William

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Logan, D. G.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Woof, R. E.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Ross, William

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Royle, C.

    McInnes, J.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Cole, Norman

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Gurden, Harold

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Ashton, H.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Barber, Anthony

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Barter, John

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Eden, Rt. Hn. SirA. (Warwick&L'm'tn)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Hornby, R. P.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Body, R. F.

    Fell, A.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Fisher, Nigel

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Braine, B. R.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Freeth, D. K.

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

    Bryan, P.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Carr, Robert

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Channon, H.

    Green, A.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    664

    665

    Keegan, D.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Speir, R. M.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Kimball, M.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Lagden, G. W.

    Neave, Airey

    Storey, S.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Lambten, Viscount

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Leavey, J. A.

    Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Leburn, W. G.

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Legge-Bcurke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Teeling, W.

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Osborne, C.

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Page, R. G.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Partridge, E.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Lloyd-George, Maj, Rt. Hon. G.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Pitman, I. J.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    McCallum, Major Sir Duncan

    Pott, H. P.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Redmayne, M.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. HaroId (Bromley)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Maitland, Cdr. J. P. W. (Horncastle)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R

    Russell, R. S.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Marples, A. E.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Maude, Angus

    Sharples, R. C.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Legh and Mr. Hughes-Young.

    Clause 4.—(OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHT IN LITERARY, DRAMATIC, MUSICAL AND ARTISTIC WORKS.)
    4.30 p.m.
    Sir L. Plummer: I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, after "periodical", to insert:
    "owned or controlled by the said proprietor".
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps discussion on this Amendment could be taken together with discussion of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). They seem to me to be about the same point.
    Sir L. Plummer: Yes, Sir; I think that my hon. Friend accepts that view.
    The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that when this Bill was going through a previous stage, there was upon the Notice Paper an Amendment in my name which tended in this direction, and I was, owing to circumstances over which I had absolutely no control whatever, unable to move it. It was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) with great lucidity, if I may say so, although I will not comment on the results of his moving it.
    666
    Certainly, we did have a considerable discussion upstairs on the Amendment as it was then drafted.
    I remember reading the OFFICIAL REPORT and finding therein that the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) made a contribution to that discussion. Although he opened with those rather cold words, "Although we have great sympathy with journalists, nevertheless I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not go too far", he did make a very important contribution to the discussion in that he pointed out that, to take The Times newspaper, for example, the number of publications which The Times Printing and Publishing Company issued were of such a nature that the Amendment in its original form would result in producing a really unwieldy and unworkable organisation.
    We were extremely reasonable about this, as we have been all the way through the progress of this Bill, and we decided that a revised Amendment should be introduced which accepts the argument of the hon. Member for Harrow, Central and, I think, goes far to allay the fears of the Parliamentary Secretary, in that we are now recognising the trustification and

    667
    wide ramifications and interests of the newspaper business of this country. We now say that the copyright in work produced by a staff writer, a staff journalist, shall be vested in the proprietor to publish in any other paper, periodical or journal owned or controlled by that proprietor.
    To take the Kemsley Group as an example, that means to say that if a staff journalist were writing for one paper within the chain, the Kemsley management would be quite entitled to reprint that writer's articles in any other paper within the chain. As I have said, this meets to a very considerable extent the opposition which sprang from depth of the experience of the hon. Member for Harrow, Central and the fears of the Parliamentary Secretary.
    The Parliamentary Secretary had, I believe, another fear. The grounds of that fear also have now been dispelled. He probably had a feeling that the Government was in a rather dangerous position and he could not afford to antagonise the few remaining newspapers in the country loyal to the Government and supporting it. That ground has now been cut from under his feet. The Beaverbrook Press has made it quite clear, if I may use a naval simile, that it is going to part brass rags with the Prime Minister over the question of a European free market ; so the Parliamentary Secretary need not fear he will be attacked on this particular score, for the big Beaverbrook guns are now to be trained on—I hope he will not think I say this in any derogatory sense—a bigger target than even the Parliamentary Secretary himself presents.
    Journalists are the men who produce the newspapers of this country. Let us not have in this House any desire for revenge against those gentlemen. The fact that all of us bear on our backs the scars of the lashes inflicted by newspapermen of all political parties is no reason why we should deny them elementary justice, and elementary justice for newspapermen is what I am asking for.
    Journalists are united in asking that this Amendment should be accepted by the Government. They know only too well what will be the effect of the Bill going through unamended in its present form. For a reason which is obscure,
    668
    because he has never yet made it clear, the Parliamentary Secretary has distinguished between what he calls the commission journalist, known in Fleet Street, I think, more familiarly as the free-lance journalist, and the staff journalist. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), in Committee, gave a very lucid explanation of the advantages which are enjoyed by both, the free-lance journalist enjoying freedom of movement and action, the staff journalist enjoying a regular salary and a reasonable degree of security.
    These things cannot be weighed in the balance and a result produced to show that there should now be a discrimination against one section of newspapermen in favour of the other. But this is exactly what the Government have done. The Government have said they will now make the position of the free-lance journalist much better than it ever has been before, but they will not extend the same measure of protection to the ordinary staff man who is employed by a newspaper, periodical or journal.
    The Government recognise that both have property rights in their work. In fact, only a little while ago, we heard the Parliamentary Secretary say that this Bill has been based on the principle that the copyright owner should have the right to say where and how his work should be published. Here, however, a section of copyright owners is being denied this particular protection.
    The Parliamentary Secretary will answer that the staff man will have a great deal of additional privilege in that he is to have the book rights of his work. Why should not he have more than that? I think that it is because the Parliamentary Secretary has not appreciated what goes on in syndication today. Syndication is a big business. It is a not unimportant part of newspaper development and enterprise. The Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that not many journalists have their work syndicated abroad. The words which the hon. and learned Gentleman used were these:
    "There is the question of syndication overseas. I do not know how many working staff journalists normally get their work syndicated in papers overseas. Some do, as one knows, and there are such arrangements as with the Mombassa Times, which I mentioned. Those newspapers pick up material from newspapers

    669
    over here, but journalists who have their work syndicated, are, I should think, relatively few …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1956 ; Standing Committee B, c. 127.]
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman will find, if he will look back to the preceding paragraph, that it is relative to the numbers who have syndication in newspapers at home.
    Sir L. Plummer: This is an illustration, if I may say so, of the lack of knowledge by the Parliamentary Secretary of what is going on. What is happening today is that the whole content of newspapers is being sold as a kind of package deal abroad; that is to say, a newspaper in this country sells the whole of its services to a newspaper abroad, literally from the first page to the imprint.
    The work of every single one of the reporters, artists, sketch writers and feature writers—the whole thing en bloc—is a package deal, as I have said, to newspapers, periodicals, magazines and the like abroad. So a relatively large number of journalists have their work syndicated, but without their knowledge, without their consent and without their knowing where the stuff is going to appear. That may be good newspaper enterprise; it may be good commercial enterprise; it is certainly a very profitable enterprise for the publisher. All that we are asking is that there should be some discussion and agreement with the staff journalist as to the share he is to get out of this enterprise.
    I happen to be a director of a newspaper which indulges in syndication and gives 80 per cent. of its receipts to its staff. That is because it is a well-run, liberal and progressive newspaper. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which newspaper?"] I do not think that it is proper for me here to give publicity to the New Statesman and Nation. Therefore, a progressive, well-run newspaper sees to it that it does not take advantage of the law in its present form, and safeguards the commercial and, as it were, the ethical interests of the outstanding people who write for it. I am suggesting that that is a practice which, if my Amendment is accepted, could be followed generally in Fleet Street.
    There is another problem which, I think, faces the Parliamentary Secretary, but he does not appreciate it. He tries to
    670
    Draw a distinction between the free-lance or commissioned man and the ordinary staff reporter or artist. What happens if they are both employed side by side to report the same incident—the Coronation, for example? What happens on a newspaper when a great event of that kind takes place is that every one of the executive staff, from the editor down to the news editor, gets into a panic and is convinced that the regular staff are not capable of doing the job.
    So a number of people with names and some sort of reputation are employed to go in and work, sitting, perhaps, side by side in the same pew with the ordinary reporters. The proprietor, if the Bill goes through in its present form, can do nothing about syndicating the work of the commissioned man, but he can do what he likes in the syndication of the work of the reporters. This is unjust and is not in the proper interest of the staff man.
    When the Institute of Journalists, which represents, on the whole, the editors and the higher editorial executives of the newspapers, bands together with the National Union of Journalists, which represents almost the whole of what I call the working newspapermen of this country, to say that in its present form the Bill is wrong—unjust, as I suggest, to those people—I think that the Parliamentary Secretary ought to deal with them with greater sympathy than he did in June.
    In every newspaper that we pick up we see the phrase, "Copyright is reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part is forbidden." That, of course, is true. It means that reproduction in whole or in part of a single section of the work is prohibited. I say that, if we are to do justice to a body of men who, despite all their proprietors' influences, try to do a good job by British journalism, the House and the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to second the Amendment.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) indicated, this was an Amendment which was put down in his name during the Committee stage and which, as he said, I moved in his unfortunate absence, but, I regret to say, with the result that it was defeated. Now

    671
    that we have had the advantage of hearing my hon. Friend so lucidly explain the Amendment, I hope that it will receive, as it deserves, a better fate on the Report stage.
    We have had the advantage, since the Committee stage, of examining the arguments addressed to the Committee by the Parliamentary Secretary against the Amendment. I am sure that on any fair reading of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, the House will come to the conclusion that those arguments were very inadequate and unsubstantial. In the first place, the Parliamentary Secretary objected to the Amendment on the ground that it was ambiguous. I think that any possible ambiguity in the Amendment as presented to the Committee has now been removed. Incidentally, the ambiguity arose because the hon. and learned Member himself had previously proposed an earlier Amendment which complicated the whole text of the Clause. It is now abundantly clear what my hon. Friends and I are seeking to achieve by this Amendment. There is no question of ambiguity.
    The Amendment seeks to provide that, if a staff journalist in the employment of a particular group of newspapers writes an article for a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, then the copyright in such article belongs to the proprietor of the newspaper, magazine or similiar periodical, but, apart from that, the copyright belongs to the author of the article. Surely the House will agree that a provision of that kind corresponds both with equity and good sense and is essential for the protection of working journalists about whom my hon. Friend speaks with such expert knowledge.
    Moreover, if there were any particular case in which any element of injustice would result, the whole subject matter of this Clause would be subject to the provision of subsection (5) and it would always be open to the parties to make any different agreement if they so desired. If there is any doubt whether the person writing the article for a particular group of newspapers should have, or has by implication, authorised the proprietor to grant syndication rights elsewhere—if that is the intention of the parties—then they can write that into a contract. There is complete freedom of contract in that respect.
    672
    What we want to achieve is, in the absence of any provision to the contrary, what seems to me to accord with common sense, namely, that the author, the writer of the article, writes it for the particular group by whom he is engaged. They have the full rights in the journals in the group. If, after that, some other newspaper, periodical or magazine, or any other literary work wants to reproduce the creative work of that author for their own purpose they should pay a copyright fee to that author and not to the proprietor.
    My hon. Friend has explained how this practice of syndicating the works of journalists, package deals of newspapers, interchange arrangements between one group in this country and another group in another country, is growing—and growing to the prejudice of journalists. It is that situation that we are seeking to correct. I believe that there can be no possible objection to this Amendment, that it is free from all ambiguity, that it is required in the interests of justice to journalists as a whole, and I hope that it will be accepted.
    Mr. F. P. Bishop: As the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) was kind enough to refer to my small contribution on a similar Amendment that was moved in Committee, perhaps I might just say a word on the subject.
    The hon. Member referred to one or two of the difficulties that I suggested an Amendment of this kind would create. He did not refer to all of them. For example, I pointed out that when a journalist is employed to do a particular job he does it in circumstances which make it very far from being his own individual creation. In other words, it is very often impossible to decide who is the author of a piece of work appearing in a newspaper.
    As we were then sitting while a Test match was going on at Lords, I instanced the example of Press reporters who were then sitting at the Lords ground reporting the match. I said that they were not (here on their own account, but had tickets which had been provided by their employers and were there as representatives of the newspaper that had sent them. They could not have been in that position and have had those privileges otherwise.

    673
    The hon. Member mentioned the case of the reporting of such an event as a Coronation. I am sure that, from his practical experience, he knows as well as I do just what happens on such occasions. A number of staff reporters are sent out and posted at particular vantage points on the route of the procession, or in the Abbey or wherever the great event may be. They each contribute their portion to a long and probably vivid report which is, in fact, a composite production—in part the work of all of them. It would be quite impossible in such cases, and in many other cases, to say who was the author of that particular work.
    However, there is more in it than that. I understand about this business of syndication, but it surely is very desirable, from the national point of view, that articles written by journalists employed by newspapers in this country should be quoted—quoted largely, and even reproduced in full in many cases—in other newspapers all over the world.
    That situation which exists today—and I am thinking of such newspapers as The Times, the Manchester Guardian and others of the highest character—that possibility of what they write being fully quoted in other newspapers all over the world, would be very seriously hampered if the proprietors of newspapers were not, in fact, the owners of the copyright and in a position to give the necessary direction for that to be done.
    The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) suggested that the difficulty could be overcome by special contracts in each case. I see that I said something on that also during the Committee stage. I said:
    "It would be most unreasonable and unsuitable to put a provision into an Act of Parliament which, for practical reasons, everybody concerned had to avoid by a specific term of contract."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B ; 26th June, 1956, c. 118.]
    The contract could work the other way, too, but it would really be impossible and impracticable to expect that an individual contract should be made in the case of every journalist employed by a newspaper in order to get out of the effects of this provision.
    Sir L. Plummer: Surely the hon. Member knows from his experience that an
    674
    individual contract is provided for every member of the editorial staff as it is. He never employed a journalist on The Times without an individual contract. What is to prevent a clause being inserted into that contract to recompense the journalist if he signs away his rights in an article?
    Mr. Bishop: Where contracts are made I think they usually do make such a provision. I only say that it would be undesirable to throw the burden on an industry to evade the effect of an Act of Parliament by having to have a contract for each individual case. Again, I must say that I have every sympathy with the staff journalist. The staff journalist very often writes anonymously for a newspaper, and is proud to write anonymously and to be the voice of that newspaper on his own particular subject. He is paid, or ought to be paid, for the value of the work he does, taking into account the fact that it may be reproduced elsewhere. I think that it would be impracticable to do otherwise, and I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend will still not be prepared to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) started by saying that I had never made clear what was the difference between the staff journalists and the commissioned journalists—or free-lance journalists, as he calls them—and why we have found it appropriate to make any differentiation between the way in which they are treated in copyright law.
    If I did not make it clear during the Committee stage it was, of course, because the point was made with admirable clarity by the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. He then said:
    "As for the other class brought within the Clause—the man who normally writes articles in the course of his employment, who has as part of the resources on which he draws to find his material all the advantages in obtaining from his employers information and in securing payment of his expenses in himself obtaining information, I feel that we are on very much less strong ground. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June. 1956 ; Vol. 553 ; col. 794.]
    Sir L. Plummer: Perhaps I might remind the Parliamentary Secretary that Saint Paul probably travelled a great way

    675
    down the road to Damascus before he saw the light, and my hon. and learned Friend said that a long time ago.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: But the precedent of Saint Paul moving from darkness into light should not be prayed in aid to justify an exactly contrary procedure from light into darkness, which is what the hon. and learned Gentleman achieved on this subject.
    Mr. William Wells: It is not so much that I have travelled from light into darkness or from darkness into light, but that I was then saying that I thought this was a less strong case than some of the others we were putting—but I kept an entirely open mind as to its merits. I wanted to hear the arguments, and by the arguments I was convinced that the case was even stronger than I then thought it was.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not know that that really precisely indicates the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman who said earlier:
    "Speaking for myself, I feel that a sharp distinction exists between (a) and (b); that is to say, between the man who writes an article in the course of his employment and the man who writes an article because he is commissioned to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th June. 1956 ; Vol. 553, c. 793.]
    It is quite true that after the hon. and learned Gentleman had given expression to what I would call that unequivocal statement of view his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) came to his rescue, saying:
    "The Parliamentary Secretary referred to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) … but, of course, my hon. and learned Friend was expressing that point of view in the light of the situation as he saw it at that time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 26th June, 1956 ; c. 128.]
    That was, no doubt, the pattern for words that became famous in a rather larger context about a month later. I do not want to dwell on that, save only perhaps to say this, that it shows that the unifying influences of a Balliol education are stronger even than the fissiparous tendencies of the Opposition Front Bench.
    Anybody listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Deptford when moving this Amendment might have been pardoned for thinking we were actually
    676
    making the position of the journalist worse in copyright law by this Bill, whereas, of course, as he well knows, this Bill is, in fact, making the position of both the commissioned and staff journalist better.
    I think the House must, in order to get this in perspective, bear in mind the background of this matter, that is, the law as it was before the Bill was introduced. Under the 1911 Act, it is true, the commissioned journalist—because this differentiation dates right back over the forty-five years since the last Copyright Act—had all the copyright in his work, including newspaper and periodical rights, but the staff journalist, with whom we are concerned in this Amendment, had only the negative right to restrain the employer from publishing his work in non-periodical publications, and, of course, the newspaper proprietor had unqualified right in regard to syndication. That is the position from which we start in the 1911 Act.
    Under this Bill the staff journalist, instead of getting the somewhat negative right of veto in the use of his work in books and symposia and the like, is given full copyright in those publications, and this, I am sure the hon. Gentleman, at any rate in his fairer moments, will admit, is a very notable advance forward for the staff journalist.
    The present Amendments are, it is true, less wide than the one moved in Committee upstairs, because by this Amendment the right to syndicate within the group at home would be reserved—at least, I understand that is the intention—to the newspaper proprietor ; but he would still not have the right, of course, to supply overseas newspapers with which he may have an agreement of the sort referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) said all ambiguity had now been removed and it was quite clear what was the intention. I was just a little surprised to hear him say that because, of course, his Amendment now on the Notice Paper, in page 5, line 18, after "periodical" insert "belonging to the said proprietor", is in different terms from that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walsall, North.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I was not talking about my Amendment. I was seconding my hon. Friend's Amendment.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I presume the hon. Gentleman had some intention in mind when he formulated his own Amendment and tabled it.
    Mr. Fletcher: When I said there was no ambiguity I was referring to the Amendment which I was seconding.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I appreciate that. What I am seeking to show is that the hon. Gentleman himself selected a different form of words which would have a different effect from that of the Amendment which he has seconded. So like the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walsall, North he has deviated from his path.
    Why I make that point is this. If it is to be any newspaper owned or controlled by a newspaper proprietor, which is what I understand to be the present thinking of the hon. Gentleman, then these words, in my submission, are defective unless there is some definition of what is understood by control in these circumstances. It may be that the hon. Gentleman has in mind Section 154 of the Companies Act. He nods assent, but he will appreciate, as well as or better than I, that it does not expressly define what is meant by control. It defines merely the relationship between holding and subsidiary companies, and I am bound to tell the House that, in my view, if this Amendment were made in these terms it would be defective in that particular.
    On the principle of the matter, though this Amendment is an improvement on the Amendment moved in Committee it still does not seem to me to be either a necessary or desirable change in the law, broadly for the reasons so admirably summarised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop). In Committee, we had two cases put to us, the home and overseas; the home case about the small journalist on the local newspaper who suddenly found his work published in a national newspaper solely to the advantage of his employer. I pointed out then that if he was as good as all that at his work he would either get more remuneraion or another job. That seems to have been effective, because the matter has been put today
    678
    solely on the overseas case. I will address myself to the hon. Gentleman's arguments on that.
    Sir L. Plummer: It often happens that a local journalist, the young, struggling lad whom the Parliamentary Secretary has described, is the only man available in a place to get the story. Perhaps it is the report of a murder. He writes that story. He gives it to his news editor. It appears in the paper. It is then sent by that paper to a London paper, which accepts it. Over and over again the young journalist who has got his way to make in the world finds his stuff being lifted or sold without any discussion with him.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was not really on that matter. What we discussed in Committee was, as it were, the original work, what, I think, would be known in Fleet Street as feature work, and not the reporting side. What the hon. Gentleman now refers to is what is called, I believe, "milking the copy." As to that I have nothing to add to what I said in Committee upstairs. If that is an unsatisfactory practice it must be one which ought to be sorted out among the newspapers and journalists themselves, because it does not fall within the ambit of the Copyright Act.
    As to the overseas question, the hon. Gentleman has referred to these package deals, and if they are made in that way it seems to add reinforcement to what was my main contention before, that these matters fall to be dealt with better by contract than by any general presumption of the copyright law.
    All these matters can be spelled out in contract. Every journalist who is working today is working under the system which has operated for forty-five years, that is to say in the absence of specific agreement the presumption is that the copyright for syndication belongs to the newspaper proprietor. I think that the hon. Member gave his case away in his intervention to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central because he then put to him the point that there was, in fact, an express contract in most of these cases.
    It will be seen that Clause 4 (5), with which we are now dealing, has effect
    "subject, in any particular case, to any agreement excluding the operation thereof in that case."

    679
    If, as the hon. Member said, there is nearly always an express agreement, it is open to the journalist to have a clause added to his agreement to deal with the question of the copyright in syndication overseas. Conversely, supposing the Amendment were passed and added to the Bill in spite of the drafting defects to which I have referred, we should have the position that the newspaper proprietors in their turn would be able to take advantage of subsection (5) and make agreements varying the general presumption. There is no doubt that in a large number of cases they would do so if they enjoyed the present copyright.
    The net result of the whole operation would be that there would be no change in the practice, but there would be a general presumption written into the law which might not reflect the general practice because it would be modified by a myriad of individual agreements and all we would be doing would be adding to the complexity of these matters.
    Therefore, neither from the point of practical utility nor from the point of view of principle, do I consider this case to be made out. But it does not mean at all that the Bill is in any way unmindful of the interests of the staff journalists or unfriendly in its approach to them because, as I have said, the changes made in the copyright law are considerably to their advantage over that which has prevailed during the last forty-five years.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I hope that it will not be unparliamentary for me to say that we have just had an example of Satan in the form of the Parliamentary Secretary rebuking the sin which he attributes to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells). This is not a Bill on which any of us has been wholly consistent, and if the Parliamentary Secretary is going to make charges of that kind I can assure him that we shall be able to reply in kind. There are many aspects of the Bill on which a little more flexibility on his part would have been more acceptable to my hon. Friends and certainly to some hon. Members opposite.
    As good democrats, we on this side have always supposed that the purpose of debate was to thrash out the merits of a case and to come to a conclusion on those
    680
    merits. We have been fortunate that in this case there has been no lack of advice tendered to us by the many bodies which have an interest in the subject under discussion. Perhaps the rather pleasant aspect of that is that almost invariably contrary advice has been tendered to us from the various bodies interested, and therefore we have been in the happy position of being able to weigh the merits and make up our minds on the case put to us.
    I confess frankly to the House that, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North I began by feeling that this provision should apply to the freelance journalist, but that there would be difficulties in applying it to the staff journalist. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) and I very nearly imperilled an old-standing friendship by our disagreement on this issue, but my hon. Friend has now convinced me of the Tightness of his point of view, and I hope that he will convince the House as well.
    This is what we are striving to do in the Amendment. At present, if a staff man writes an article it may reappear in other papers with considerable profit to the employer, but with no additional profit to himself. We say that that should apply only if the journalist has expressly, in writing, agreed with the proprietor that that should be the case.
    5.15 p.m.
    We all agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that anything of this kind can be included in the agreement which is made between the staff journalist and his employer. That, I think, is one of the most convincing arguments against the point of view which the Parliamentary Secretary has expressed. Every staff journalist ought to be in the position to negotiate with the proprietor a reasonable condition of employment, and all we are saying is that, in the absence of agreement of that kind, there should be no automatic presumption in favour of the proprietor. Already in matters of this kind the balance is sufficiently far tipped in favour of the proprietor, and we think it wholly unfair to introduce a new factor of this kind in favour of the employer.
    We have already discussed this matter at considerable length in Committee, but there is one further argument which I should like to bring to bear today. We all agree, now that we have put forward

    681
    the Amendment in this form, that, of course, the proprietor shall have the right to use within the group which he owns contributions made by staff journalists, but I ask the House to address itself to the difficulty of the staff journalist who is perfectly prepared to write for one group of newspapers, but who does not want to be associated with outside publications.
    There are cases of hon. Members of this House, associated with political parties, who are nevertheless staff journalists, and who might find themselves gravely embarrassed, not only politically but in other ways, if they found to their dismay that an article written for their own newspaper was being used in a publication run to advance the aims, for instance, of Sir Oswald Mosley's Union movement. That might well be the case unless there was a specific provision in the agreement to the contrary. The presumption which the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking to introduce would make that perfectly possible. One could think of a
    Roman Catholic journalist, who although prepared to allow his work to be used in one group of newspapers, would not be happy to find it used to advance the cause of the Rationalist Press, or some organisation of that kind.
    It is unfair of the Parliamentary Secretary to take this attitude to the Amendment. Since the Committee stage, we have gone into the matter very carefully indeed and we have now proposed that the Amendment should apply only to other periodicals owned by the proprietor. Therefore, we have narrowed its scope. We have gone a long way to meet the objections which were raised in Committee, and it is therefore necessary for us to press the Amendment to a Division and to vote against the Government on this issue.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 232.

    Division No. 283.]

    AYES

    [5.19 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lindgren. G, S.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Anderson, Frank

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Logan, D. G.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Fernyhough, E.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Balfour, A.

    Finch, H. J.

    McGhee, H. C.

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Fletcher, Eric

    McInnes, J.

    Benn. Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

    Forman, J. C.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Benson, G.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McLeavy, Frank

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

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    MacMllian, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Blackburn, F.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mahon, Simon

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Boardman, H.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mason, Roy

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Grey, C. F.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Boyd, T. C.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hannan, W.

    Monslow, W.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Moody, A. S.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hastings, S.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Healey, Denis

    Mort, D. L.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Henderson. Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Moss, R.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Moyle, A.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Carmichael, J.

    Hobson, C. R.

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

    Champion, A. J.

    Holman, P.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Holmes, Horace

    Oram, A. E.

    Clunie, J.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Orbach, M.

    Coldrick, W.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Oswald, T.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Owen, W. J.

    Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Padley, W. E.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Cove, W. G.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Irving, S, (Dartford)

    Parker, J.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Janner, B.

    Pearson, A.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs,S.)

    Pentland, N.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Deer, G.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Probert, A. R.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Randall, H. E.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Rankin, John

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Reeves, J.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Reid, William

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Ross, William

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Royle, C.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

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

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Willliams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Thornton, E.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Timmons, J.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Silverman, Sidney (Nelson)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Viant, S. P.

    Woof, R. E.

    Snow, J. W.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Steele, T.

    Weitzman, D.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Freeth, D. K.

    Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Armstrong, C. W.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Ashton, H.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    MacCallum, Major Sir Duncan

    Atkins, H. E.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Banks, Col. C.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Barber, Anthony

    Green, A.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Barter, John

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. C.

    Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Gurden, Harold

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Marples, A. E.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Maude, Angus

    Bishop, F. P.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Body, R. F.

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Braine, B. R.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Bryan, P.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Neave, Airey

    Carr, Robert

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Channon, H.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Cole, Norman

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

    Osborne, C.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Page, R. G.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Partridge, E.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Jennings Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Pott, H. P.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Keegan, D.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Redmayne, M.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Kimball, M.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Lagden, G. W.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Eden, Rt. Hn. SirA. (Warwick&L'm'tn)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Robertson, Sir David

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Russell, R. S.

    Fell, A.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    684

    685

    Sharples, R. C.

    Teeling, W.

    Wade, D. W.

    Shepherd, William

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Simon, J. E. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Thorneyoroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Speir, R. M.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir p. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Storey, S.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Vosper, D. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Wills and Mr. Legh.

    Clause 6.—(GENERAL EXCEPTIONS FROM PROTECTION OF LITERARY, DRAMATIC AND MUSICAL WORKS.)
    Mr. John Rankin: I beg to move, in page 8, line 8, to leave out subsection (7).
    The fact that the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) has been good enough to subscribe his name to this Amendment is not evidence of an unholy alliance, but is proof of the fact that there is a widespread desire on both sides of the House to amend this Clause.
    I was inspired to move this Amendment because of the representations which I have received from persons residing in my own division who assure me that their incomes will be adversely affected by the insertion of this subsection. Some of them I have known for a long while. Not only will they be deprived of certain rights which they now possess, but, as they assure me, it will affect their standard of living. Because of that, I felt in duty bound to submit this Amendment to the House and to the Government for their consideration.
    I am assured that this subsection is entirely new to copyright law and completely foreign to all the principles of copyright. I am told that it is a fundamental principle that the author shall have the sole right to control the copying or other reproduction of his work in any material form.
    5.30 p.m.
    It is interesting to note that that principle is already safeguarded in the Bill, because if we turn to subsection (5) of Clause 2 we find the words:
    (5) The acts restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work are—
    (a) reproducing the work in any material form.
    Therefore, the principle is already protected in the Bill. It seems to me that, having protected the principle in Clause 2,
    686
    the Government are now proceeding in the Bill as it stands to destroy that principle in the subsection of Clause 6 which I am asking should be deleted.
    As far as broadcasting is concerned, the subsection virtually robs the author of his present right to control the copying of his work on records, and so deprives him, as I have already been assured, of a certain amount of the income which he presently earns from that source. Of course, as we are aware, at the present moment the B.B.C., the Independent Television Authority and the programme contractors who look after the Radio Luxembourg broadcasts, have been paying fees agreed between them and the authors for permission to record copyright music for the transmissions of these broadcasting associations.
    If this subsection remains in the Bill, then the broadcasting companies will be able to record such music as they at present record for payment without the authors permission and without any payment to the author whatsoever. It is a complete reversal of the existing provision. However, we are assured that before they do that they must have obtained a licence to broadcast and that the records which they do broadcast are to be destroyed within twenty-eight days after they have been heard on the air.
    The trouble about that is this. There is no obligation whatever on a broadcaster to give notice to the copyright owner of the fact that he is making such a record or of the fact that after the twenty-eight days he has destroyed that record. No obligation exists to inform the copyright owner of that fact, so that what would seem to be a safeguard of the author's rights and income is without any value whatever. The total effect of the subsection is to deprive him of any protection whatever.
    There are people, with whom I have discussed the point, who say that the

    687
    author has tended to abuse his rights in the past, but, quite frankly, I have no evidence of the truth of that. Within my own—I agree somewhat limited—experience, I have been assured by those who know that no such abuse has ever been perpetrated by authors in the past ; that is, by seeking unreasonable fees or trying to impose impossible conditions. I am told that the present arrangement works very smoothly indeed and that the position is an amicable one where the broadcasting authorities and the authors are concerned.
    I therefore urge the Government to take my advice that, in view of the fact that the present arrangement works well, they should leave well alone, and agree with me that this subsection ought to be deleted.
    Mr. Robert Crouch: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I think I should make it clear how this came about, because some of my hon. Friends told me yesterday that they had no idea that I kept such company. A fortnight ago, I heard from one of my constituents—I have heard from others since—Mr. Roderick Fletcher, of Bryanston, near Blandford, who is without question a very able composer and writer of music. He pointed out to me what the effect would be on authors, writers and composers if this subsection remained in the Bill. It was not until I arrived here yesterday that I realised that I was not the sponsor of this Amendment, but found that my name was supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin). I think that rather strengthens the case for it. The hon. Member for Govan lives in Scotland and I live down in Dorset, and we have come together across very nearly the whole of the United Kingdom, representing people who have the same views on music.
    Authors and composers of music do not often, until in advancing years, earn great sums of money, and I think that, in view of the hard life they have had to live before they eventually get to the top, there is no need for this particular subsection. It has already been pointed out that the arrangement up to now has worked very smoothly indeed, and I cannot see the point of this subsection. It provides that the records shall be destroyed, but what proof will there be that they have been destroyed? Provided
    688
    that they have been destroyed within the twenty-eight days of being made, there is no liability to pay royalty.
    I appeal to my hon. and learned Friend representing the Government to accept the Amendment and to allow this amicable arrangement to go on. I know that on the Government side there are some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are interested in music, and I also appeal to them to support this Amendment.
    Dr. Barnett Stross: When we considered this Bill in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) spoke so convincingly and, I thought, with such great knowledge about this matter that we were disappointed that his views were not then accepted. It is true that the Committee did not divide on the matter, but I must say that I am entirely in agreement with the mover and seconder of this Amendment for reasons that have been made apparent by them. In Clause 2 the words are very clear when we attempt to safeguard the rights of the author. Subsection (5) puts it in this way:
    "The acts restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work are—
    (a) reproducing the work in any material form;"
    In that Clause, the author is safeguarded. In Clause 6, however, there is some diminution of those rights, but with no recompense. We shall be most interested to hear what the Assistant Postmaster-General has to say and how he explains this divergence. I am not sure whether at this stage we have evidence as to loss of remuneration in any particular way, but for the future we have no guarantee that there would not be any.
    Mention has been made already of musicians and writers. Normally, as I said upstairs in Committee, they are not very good at looking after themselves and we should not be afraid even if we erred in our attempt to safeguard their interests as much as possible. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Bill, which we have considered with so much pleasure and profit upstairs, is to safeguard the author, the musician and the playright. Throughout all our discussions, both sides of the Committee obviously had that carefully and fully in mind.
    With reference to this and to writers, authors, musicians and artists generally,

    689
    I noted that there was a letter to The Times on 16th October which, I am sure, has come to the attention of the Assistant Postmaster-General, who must be fully aware of it and of the names appended to that letter. They include names such as Arthur Bliss, Vaughan Williams, and so on. They say that for the first time something novel is being introduced into our legislation so far as copyright law is concerned. They then point out that there is a discrepancy between the safeguard in Clause 2 and this attempt to diminish or whittle away their safeguard. They say:
    "Clause 6 (7) virtually robs the author of his right to control the copying of his works on records and deprives him of his income therefrom."
    It is that phrase of which I am not as yet sure, but I am sure they are quite right when they say:
    "Under this subsection, the B.B.C. and other broadcasting authorities will be able to record such music without the author's permission and without any payment to him whatever, provided that they have obtained a licence to broadcast and that the records are destroyed within 28 days after going on the air, but since there is no obligation on the broadcaster to give notice to the copyright-owner of the making and destroying of such records, this proviso is valueless."
    That is their view and it is expressed very strongly. I am sure they have given it a great deal of thought.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale said much the same in Committee. He expressed similar fears. Now, I think, all parts of the House feel that he was probably right. There is still time to amend the neglect by the Assistant Postmaster-General in not putting it right at that time.
    Two things are possible. If we removed subsection (7), we should have the original position. That, I think, would meet with the approval of the people most concerned whose interests we ought to consider carefully. If we do not revert to the original position, we should try to make some arrangement so that in respect of these so-called ephemeral recordings a payment of a reasonable nature should be made. I know it is late in the day, but I am sure it would be possible for the Assistant Postmaster-General to give the question further consideration and to let us, in this small matter, have our way on behalf of people whom we are all interested in supporting.
    5.45 p.m.
    Sir David Gammans: Some of my hon. Friends and I have a similar Amendment on the Order Paper—in page 8, line 27, at end insert :
    (8) The person who makes a reproduction to which the last preceding subsection applies shall, as soon as practicable, give notice to the person who (in relation to the making of the reproduction) is the owner of the copyright of the date on which such reproduction was made and of the date on which it was destroyed.
    (9) The person who makes a reproduction to which subsection (7) of this section applies shall pay to the person who (in relation to the making of the reproduction) is the owner of the copyright such sum by way of royalty as may be agreed between them or in default of agreement as may be fixed by arbitration.
    —but I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, raise the point I have in mind in discussing the present Amendment. My Amendment does not go quite as far, but I am happy to support the present Amendment, for the time being at any rate, until we have had an explanation from the Government as to why they consider it necessary to proceed on these lines.
    I raised this point on Second Reading, but I have never been satisfied that the Government have met it. If they want the support of the House on it, they should give a fuller and better explanation as to why it is necessary to alter the existing law. I think that when altering an existing law, as the Government propose to do, the onus of proving the need to alter it must rest with them. I cannot see why it is necessary—I remain quite unconvinced—to change the existing law and practice on the subject.
    For many years it has been the practice that the person who wishes to record a musical work on a record or tape must pay for it. That right has to be paid for. As the Bill stands, an entirely new principle has been introduced, namely, that the work can be reproduced for what is called an ephemeral recording for a period of twenty-eight days. There arises, first, a practical point. What safeguard does the composer have that the record will be destroyed at the end of twenty-eight days? After all, he is dealing with a vast corporation or, perhaps, a big company, and he has no means of knowing that the record has been destroyed at the end of twenty-eight days.
    Is there something sacred about the period of twenty-eight days? By stipulating the twenty-eight days, the Govern-

    691
    ment admit that a composer has an absolute right over his own work, but why do they abrogate it for a period of twenty-eight days? Why do they say that anyone can copy it for that period? Why not twenty-seven days, or thirty days? There may be a perfectly good explanation, but I have not heard of it.
    I hope that the Government will not fall back on the recommendations of the Brussels Convention, for I would remind them that if they use it to assist them there is nothing mandatory about it; it is purely optional. It is left to each Government to make what kind of regulations it chooses, and from the Brussels Convention there is no reason why the period should be twenty-eight days. It could be one day or it could be three months. There is nothing sacrosant about the twenty-eight days.
    I hope that the Government can give us more convincing reasons than they have done up to now, although I should like to see the Clause abolished altogether. That is why I support the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch). If the Government give some reason why it should be retained, the least they can do is to put upon the recording authority the obligation to inform the owner of the copyright that a recording has been made—there is no such obligation at present—and, secondly, to insist upon an obligation on the recording authority to inform the composer that the record has been destroyed at the end of the requisite period.
    Colonel Sir Alan Gomme-Duncan: I should like to add my support to the Amendment. I have very great sympathy with composers of music in particular, and in these degenerate days precious little advantage is given to them. Anything which will encourage them to produce more should be done, but as it stands the Clause is a discouragement.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans) made a very good point when he asked what was sacrosanct about 28 days. If we are to take a man's livelihood from him, it does not matter whether the period is 28 days or 28 years; they are equally bad. Not having heard the Government's explanation, I do not see why, Clause 2 having
    692
    laid down one thing, Clause 6 should change it, certainly for music composers, in whom I am most interested. I should like to hear something more from the Minister to convince me that the Amendment is not highly desirable, as I think it to be at the moment.
    Mr. Philip Bell: I may be wrong, but surely very heavy weather is being made on this issue. We are being told that people's livelihoods will be taken away from them, but, as I understand it, this subsection is inserted as a business arrangement for the convenience of actors and actresses. The real position is that when actors and actresses are ready to come to the microphone there are occasions when nobody is ready to listen to them. Someone says, "We had better record you on Saturday, but we cannot hear you until Monday morning." The actors and actresses say, "Yes. Saturday morning will be all right, but we shall be out on Monday, at the House of Commons listening to a debate." So the programme is recorded and broadcast later.
    The proviso says that it must be reproduced only in accordance with the assignment or licence. The author gives permission to broadcast the work. It may be decided to broadcast it twice and he is paid for that. The broadcasting authority says that it can have the actors for only one performance and so it takes a recording of the first and live broadcast and the second broadcast is recorded. Possibly the actors are available on only one occasion and then both broadcasts are recorded.
    That is the bargain, it is business and for the convenience of everybody. It is not a new right. Hon. Members are making a mountain out of a molehill. There is no substance in this talk of authors not getting paid and of having things done behind their backs and losing their livelihoods. There may be something in the issue about destroying the record to prevent somebody from subsequently selling it to Peru. I do not really mean Peru, let us say Lilliput—they would be rather stupid putting it out in Lilliput—and to avoid that disaster we must put in an affidavit which, I hope, will be settled by a competent lawyer.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The rather unexpected union between my hon.

    693
    Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) and the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) has been a happy one, and I hope that it will turn out to be fruitful as well. The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) says that we are making rather heavy weather of this, but I can assure the House that it is the Government who are making very heavy weather of this matter.
    The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East said that this is an arrangement for the convenience of the performer or artist. We have never suggested that the practice of making these ephemeral recordings should be abolished. It is obviously a most satisfactory arrangement from everybody's point of view. However, we do object to the fact that the Government are now proposing to upset what has been, as my hon. Friend the Member for Govan said, a very amicable system by which both the B.B.C. and, I understand, the programme contractors have been prepared to pay the performer for the two rights which the broadcasting authority has been receiving.
    Those two rights are the right to broadcast and the right to record. What the Government are now proposing is to give the broadcasting authorities two rights for the price of one. It is very difficult, particularly in a private enterprise economy, to justify an attitude of that kind. I am afraid that throughout the Parliamentary Secretary has not appeared to be wholly in control of the situation.
    When we discussed this matter in Standing Committee, I ventured to read to the Parliamentary Secretary the criticism which the Performing Rights Society made of the Government's proposal. The Society said :
    "It is in our submission the makers of commercial advertising films who may indirectly reap the benefit of this subsection. … Admittedly they are not the licensees of the owners of the performing rights, but the Programme Contractors hold comprehensive licences to perform music and they own subsidiary companies which make advertising films. Under the existing law, the makers of these advertising films must obtain the permission of the copyright owner before recording a musical work in what may well be a most unsuitable connection. These films, because they are often repeated, must have a short life to avoid boring
    694
    the television viewer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 28th June, 1956 ; c. 170–1.]
    Although one might not think that that was a characteristic of advertising films, when we put this point to the Parliamentary Secretary he admitted that he did not know what the answer was to the point about advertising films, and he said that he did not know whether it was the Independent Television Authority or the programme contractors who would be affected by the subsection. I have waited anxiously for nearly four months to have some elucidation, either in writing or in the course of the debate, from the Parliamentary Secretary upon the point which my hon. Friends and I put to him in Standing Committee.
    I have said that we accept the inevitability of the making of ephemeral recordings of this kind. In Standing Committee we proposed an Amendment which is identical with the one standing in the names of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and the hon. Member for Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans) and others. It would have had two effects. One would have been to ensure that the broadcasting authority would have to give the owner of the copyright notice of what was being done, and there were certain safeguards about the destruction of the recording and that there should be suitable remuneration by way of royalty.
    I am glad that hon. Members opposite have tabled a similar Amendment, and we shall certainly support that, if it is necessary to do so, just as we shall support another one which my hon. Friends and I have put down. I want openly to say to the Government that we do not want to delete this subsection. Throughout our discussions we have tried to improve it so that it will not impose any hardship upon the people it is to affect. We are trying, even at this late stage, to improve the subsection, and I ask the Government whether they are not prepared to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham as well as the Amendment standing in my own name.
    If they are able to give us that assurance, it will remove any possibility of injustice being perpetrated and we shall not find it necessary to divide the House. If, on the other hand, they cannot assure us on these points, it will be necessary for

    695
    us to add our weight to the gesture that the hon. Member for Twickenham and others are to make by going into the Division Lobby in the event of their Amendment being resisted by the Government.
    I should like to say how much we appreciated the words of the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan) on the way we pay our composers. They are paid very little indeed; we treat them as meanly as we treat most other creative artists in this country. I would rather the House did not go on record as perpetrating an injustice which will operate meanly in the case of the fellow citizens to whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I take the view which is taken by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell). It seems to me that this is just a mechanical subsection, laying down how the business of reproducing shall be carried out where reproduction is more convenient than having a live broadcast. But I am bound to say that the fear expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that there is more in this subsection than the mere mechanics of the business and that perhaps it takes away a right which at present composers enjoy has communicated a certain amount of anxiety to me.
    I should like my hon. Friends and those who have moved the Amendment to know whether the Government take the view that this relates purely to the mechanics, or whether it is the birth of some new right, or the whittling down of a right which composers at present enjoy.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I am obliged to the House for an exhaustive debate on what is, on the whole, a relatively small aspect of the general problem of the whole relationship between broadcasting and the world of composition and music. I think it right to say that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan) overestimated—as was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell)—the effect of this upon musicians and composers.
    696
    Speeches from both sides of the House have shown that hon. Members are concerned to watch carefully and to safeguard the interests of the composers in a matter of this sort. The Government fully share that view. At the same time, I think it right to point out that the opportunities available to a composer at present are, as a result of the invention and increase of broadcasting, very much greater than they have ever been in the past; and the reason why in fact there has been no separation of the two rights under the 1911 Act, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), is because at the time the Act was passed there was no broadcasting. We are bringing the law into relation with the circumstances of the present day, and the existence of a highly powerful organisation of broadcasting, including both sound and television, which has brought great benefits to composers generally as a result of the increased use of their works.
    The hon. Member for Rossendale asked me a particular question which he had raised with my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary during the Committee stage discussions. It was whether it would be the programme companies or the I.T.A. which would enjoy the benefit of the provision in this case. In case the hon. Gentleman is still concerned about this matter, let me say that it would be the programme companies; but it is covered by the Clause as it stands at present.
    Let me explain the reason for the Clause. It is, as I say, in principle to bring the legal situation into relation with existing circumstances which have changed very substantially, as the hon. Gentleman recognised fully, since the passing of the 1911 Act. It is perfectly true, as was said by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Sir D. Gammans) that we are not under a mandatory injunction under 11 bis 3. But at the same time there is no doubt of the intention of that provision of the Brussels Convention.
    Indeed, there is a further matter which is relevant, namely, the Report of the Copyright Committee which recommended a period of something like 28 days ; and that this particular provision should be included and the right of ephemeral recordings be given to the

    697
    I.T.A. and the other authority concerned. Therefore, were we to take out the whole of this subsection, we should in fact be going against the obvious intention of the Brussels Convention and also the recommendation of the Copyright Committee, whose authority in this matter I do not think the House has ever suggested that we should ignore. Indeed, we have not done so in the general approach to this Bill during its various stages.
    Sir D. Gammaus: My hon. Friend has brought in the Brussels Convention and suggested and that if it is not mandatory at any rate it is so suggested. If he would explain to the House how many countries have amended their copyright laws since that time to bring in something of the order of a 28-day period, it would strengthen his argument.
    Mr. Alport: No doubt that would be the case. On the other hand, there has always been a sense that in the legislation which we pass on this subject this country is the leader. Therefore, there is no doubt that what we do will be followed by other countries to a large extent when they face similar problems about bringing their own copyright law into relationship with present-day conditions.
    As was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East, it is a matter of convenience that a recording is taken in order to facilitate the presentation of a programme. The authority which the owner of the head copyright gives is given in respect of the use of his work in relation to the broadcast. It seems reasonable, and I suggest that it is reasonable, that the broadcasting authority should have the right at the same time to utilise, without paying a second fee, whatever method is convenient in order to put the work of the composer or other artist concerned on the air. We feel that to be the logical and proper approach. It is certainly the logic behind the Brussels Convention and the Report of the Copyright Committee.
    I do not think that the emolument of the composer would be greatly affected by this, because the total emolument will be in respect of the full use of his work, whereas what has been suggested in other Amendments which have been put down
    698
    is that there should be a division between the recognition of the mechanical right on the one side, which is the recording, and the copyright on the other, which is in fact the broadcasting of the work.
    Although there are always fears by the parties interested in this matter, I suggest that their apprehensions are not well-founded, because the total emolument, or the award, or the payment made, would clearly be affected by the fact that the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. would not have the full scope for the use of the work if the authority to broadcast did not include the full authority to use the work in whatever way was most convenient to ensure that a broadcast was made successfully and fully.
    Mr. Rankin: What guarantee, then, is to be given, say to the composer, with regard to the 28 days?
    Mr. Alport: The question of the 28 days was discussed—or the notification at the end of the 28 days was discussed—at some length during the Committee proceedings. My hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made reference to what he called, I think, "statutory scepticism" of the bona fides of these authorities—the I.T.A., which is responsible for the programme companies, and the B.B.C.—and whether they would carry out their obligations in this matter.
    May I correct a point which has been made, I think, by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin)? We shall shortly make an Amendment to this subsection to prevent the recordings being made for broadcasting out of the United Kingdom, or those Colonies, as in fact they are, to which this particular subsection is extended. That limits the use of this privilege to the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. The hon. Gentleman need not fear that there will be any abuse of this right by the despatch of recordings from this country for use overseas. I am merely anticipating an Amendment which is to come later in order to answer a point which was made by the hon. Member for Govan.
    Mr. Crouch: We are listening with interest to my hon. Friend's argument. Can he tell us at what time of day the first live musical broadcast is given? I know that at 7.30 a.m. or thereabouts there are no live broadcasts.
    Mr. Alport: My hon. Friend is a farmer and no doubt gets up considerably earlier in the morning than I do. I am unable to say when the first live broadcast takes place in the day. I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to broadcasts of music. I cannot give him the information straightway. I do not think that point affects the principle that we are trying to establish. It may be that my hon. Friend has in mind that it is not necessary to use these recording rights for broadcasting as much as the broadcasting authorities say, but I can assure him that there is no question of early rising for actors, actresses and musicians but of their having other engagements which preclude them from appearing on a particular feature. This makes recording a very convenient way of handling the presentation of certain programmes.
    We have made provision in the Clause to prevent abuse of this facility—it is no more than this—which is being given to the broadcasting authorities to enable them to make proper and efficient use of the wares which the composer has to sell. I have drawn attention to an Amendment which is to be considered later, but I think we have made it clear that these recordings must not be copied and must be destroyed within 28 days.
    I shall be surprised if any hon. Member on either side of the House does not accept the good faith of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. for the carrying out of their obligations in this matter. I do not think that it will hamper or detract from the legitimate rights of composers but will, on the contrary, ensure that their works are efficiently and perhaps more effectively used by the broadcasting authorities. We have to recognise that what may appear superficially to be a conflict of interests is not really so. There is a community of interest between composers on the one side and the B.B.C. on the other that facilities should be as adequate as possible to enable the B.B.C. to extend its work. This can only be in the interests of composers.
    Because of that, and because of the earlier arguments I put before the House about the Brussels Convention and the recommendations of the Copyright Committee, as well as the fact that we have taken full precautions to prevent any abuse of this facility, I hope the hon. Member for Govan and my hon. Friend
    700
    the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) will not feel they must press the Amendment.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. William Wells: The Assistant Postmaster-General has advanced arguments which have been in our minds throughout these proceedings. We did not divide in Committee on the question of ephemeral recordings as such. I must now ask the Assistant Postmaster-General, who has raised the question that is implicit in the Amendments in the name of the President of the Board of Trade and of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), whether he can give an assurance that he will meet the point of the Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and myself, in relation to arbitration. This was also the point of two Amendments which we put forward in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman can give that assurance we shall not divide the House on this Amendment. If he is unable to give it we shall have to ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to go into the Lobby.
    Mr. Alport: With the permission of the House, perhaps I might say that the merits of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and his hon. Friends will be considered later. I can give no undertaking on the matter. I think the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) would agree that his Amendment is covered by the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade which will be proposed in due course. Beyond that I cannot go.
    Mr. Rankin: The Assistant Postmaster-General appealed to me to withdraw the Amendment which stands in my name and the name of the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch), who has joined forces with me and my colleagues on this side of the House. Having put his hand to the plough, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will follow us to the bitter end, that is, if the end is to be bitter. There is still time for the Assistant Postmaster-General to recant.
    I do not know whether he sought the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary to

    701
    the Board of Trade. I thought there was a little consultation going on. If it is not as helpful as I hoped, I am prepared to carry on saying a few more words to allow Ministers a chance of reconsidering the bitter end to which they are driving their hon. Friend the Member for Dorset. North and one or two other of their colleagues who have been good enough to support the Amendment.
    If I followed the argument of the Assistant Postmaster-General properly, he admits defects in the present set-up. They will be remedied by the deletion of this subsection. He based a good deal of his argument on the Brussels Convention, and at the same time said that no other nation was yet implementing the Brussels Convention, but that we were going to set a lead which others would follow. We have not had many examples
    of followers for the lead that this Government has set in other spheres, and matters do not look very hopeful in this instance. It is not disputed that the subsection will deprive composers of certain rights which they now have and, by virtue of that, will deprive them of a certain amount of their income. The Assistant Postmaster-General has said nothing to show that that will not be the effect if this subsection goes through. I wonder if the two hon. Gentlemen have now had second thoughts on this matter. If not, I hope that we shall divide the House on the Amendment.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 9, stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 175.

    Division No. 284.]

    AYES

    [6.21 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Kerr, H. W.

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Fell, A.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kimball, M.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Lagden, G. W.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Freeth, D. K.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Ashton, H.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Atkins, H. E.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Leburn, W. G.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Gower, H. R.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Barter, John

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Beamish, Maj, Tufton

    Green, A.

    Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Gurden, Harold

    McCallum, Major Sir Duncan

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Body, B. F.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Braine, B. R.

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastlc)

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Holland-Martin, G. J

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hornby, R. P.

    Marples, A. E.

    Channon, H.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Maude, Angus

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Milligan, R. Hon. W. R.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hurd, A. R.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Danee, J. C. G.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Neave, Airey

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H, B. H.

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P

    Deedes, W. F.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Page, R. G.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Partridge, E.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Keegan, D.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Pott, H. P.

    Speir, R. M.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Redmayne, M.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Wade, D. W.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Storey, S.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Robertson, Sir David

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Teeling, W.

    Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

    Russell, R. S.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Sharples, R. C.

    Thorneycrott, Rt. Hon. P.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Shepherd, William

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Mr. Barber and Mr. Bryan.

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Probert, A. R.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Holman, P.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Anderson, Frank

    Holmes, Horace

    Randall, H. E.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Rankin, John

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Reid, William

    Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Beswick, F.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

    Hunter, A. E.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Blackburn, F.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Blenkinsop. A.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Ross, William

    Boardman, H.

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Royle, C.

    Bowden, H W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Janner, B.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn&St.Pncs,S.)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Burke, W. A.

    Kenyon, C.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Snow, J. W.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Steele, T.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Carmichael, J.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Clunie, J.

    Logan, D. G.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Coldrick, W.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Swingler, S. T.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Cove, W. G.

    McInnes, J.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Thornton, E.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Timmons, J.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Mahon, Simon

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Mason, Roy

    Viant, S. P.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Watkins, T. E.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Weitzman, D.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    Monslow, W.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Moody, A. S.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Mort, D. L.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Moss, R.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Finch, H. J.

    Moyle, A.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tlillery)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Oram, A. E.

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

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Orbach, M.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Oswald, T.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Owen, W. J.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Grey, C. F.

    Padley, W. E.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hannan, W.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Woof, R. E.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Parker, J.

    Yates, V, (Ladywood)

    Hastings, S.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Pentland, N.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Deer

    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Alport: I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, at the end to insert:
    "from a place in the United Kingdom, or in another country to which section two of this Act extends".
    Perhaps it might be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to consider, with this Amendment, that in page 8, line 14, at the end to insert "in the United Kingdom", standing in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher).
    During the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Islington, East raised the question as to whether there might not be the danger of an abuse of the right to record for broadcasting purposes given under this subsection if it were possible for, say, a record to be made of a broadcast and for that record subsequently to be sent abroad and copied there. As I promised on that occasion, we have gone carefully into the desirability of making an Amendment along the lines which were suggested by the hon. Member. We have come to the conclusion that there was weight in his arguments and that, indeed, we would be going beyond the letter—and possibly beyond the spirit—of the Brussels Convention by not making such an Amendment as that which we now propose.
    We suggest that, possibly from a purely drafting point of view, the wording of our Amendment is more appropriate than that which the hon. Gentleman has tabled. I say at once that that is merely because we have the advantage of the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen. In these circumstances I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to the Committee, and that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), who made some rather ungenerous remarks about the failure of the Government to meet points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, will now feel that he has no longer substance for that accusation but that we have, wherever we possibly could, met the points put to us from hon. Members on either side.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: The Assistant Postmaster-General has said that his Amendment is designed to meet a point with which I dealt in Standing Committee B, and reported in columns 161, 162 and 163, on 28th June, 1956.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: That is a long speech.
    Mr. Fletcher: It may have been too long but, in his reply, the Assistant Postmaster-General expressed his gratitude to me for explaining so clearly the problem with which I was then attempting to deal. That is the only justification I have for going into it at that length, and it will probably not be necessary to repeat the speech on this occasion.
    The hon. Gentleman has also said that he has the benefit, which obviously I have not, of access to Parliamentary draftsmen. I am afraid, however, that I cannot accept his view that his Amendment adequately meets my point, and while I welcome it as far as it goes, I shall, unless I obtain a satisfactory reply from him, still feel it necessary, in addition to accepting his Amendment, to move mine which appears immediately after it on the Order Paper.
    I do not want to enter into this delightful controversy as to how far, if at all, the Government have met the criticisms of this Clause which were made in Committee. I think that the whole House and the country were obviously very impressed by the letter, to which reference has already been made, which appeared in The Times on 16th October, over the distinguished signature of Sir Arthur Bliss and others.
    The fact that the Government have resisted the last Amendment and have insisted on Clause 6 (7) remaining in the Bill makes it all the more necessary that we should look carefully at the safeguards, because the real gravamen of the charge made by Sir Arthur Bliss and others in their letter was that the provisions in the proviso were "valueless." We are, in this Clause, trying to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the business requirements of having a record made of a broadcast so that it can be repeated and, on the other, ensuring for the benefit of composers and others that there is no possibility of abuse creeping in.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General's Amendment would mean that Clause 6 (7) would read as follows:
    "Where by virtue of an assignment or licence a person is authorised to broadcast a literary, dramatic or musical work, from a place in the United Kingdom, or in another country to which section two of this Act extends but … would not be entitled to make reproductions

    707
    of it in the form of a record or of a cinematograph film, the copyright in the work is not infringed by his making such a reproduction of the work solely for the purpose of broadcasting the work."
    I still think it necessary to make the end of that subsection read, "for the purpose of broadcasting the work in the United Kingdom."
    The two points are quite different. I think the Clause should be limited to broadcasts from the United Kingdom or other territory to which Clause 2 extends, but equally it seems to me necessary that the reproduction from the record should be limited to reproduction in the United Kingdom. There could, otherwise, be this possible result. The record, although authorised for a broadcast in the United Kingdom, may itself be used for reproduction and use outside the United Kingdom. The Assistant Postmaster-General shakes his head, but that, I think, would be the result.
    My object is, first, to limit the permission given by this Clause to broadcasts originating in the United Kingdom, and secondly, to limit the reproduction from the record to reproduction in the United Kingdom. What I think is feared by the composers and the others is that the record might be taken out of the country and there used for some purpose which obviously would not be fair to the composer, and would not be necessary for the protection of the B.B.C. or of the I.T.A. Therefore, before we part with this Amendment—to which, I imagine, none of us takes any objection—I very much hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will also see the desirability of accepting the next Amendment in my name, on the Order Paper.
    Mr. W. Wells: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that we are discussing both these Amendments at the same time, and it appears to us that, while the Government's intentions here have been virtuous, their execution has not been perfect. My right hon. Friend says that is the opposite to usual, but I am not sure that that is quite correct, either. During the Committee proceedings the Assistant Postmaster-General, referring to the Amendment that then stood in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and which now stands in the names of my hon. Friend
    708
    the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and myself, said:
    "As I understand it, the hon. Member is attempting to remedy what he considers to be a loophole in the Bill. He will correct me if I have got the main problem wrong, but I think that he is putting forward the possibility that a film might be televised and recorded purely for television purposes; that the recording—which is almost a retake of the film—might then be copied, and the copy sent overseas and used, free of all copyright obligations, for the financial gain of the people concerned. It is certainly against the spirit of the provision which we are now considering that that should happen. If there is such a loophole in the Bill it would be the wish of my right hon. Friend to prevent it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 28th June, 1956 ; c. 164.]
    I think my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East has demonstrated that the purpose of his Amendment has not been achieved by the Amendment which the Postmaster-General has accepted and has put forward in the name of the President of the Board of Trade. I therefore formally move the Amendment which stands in the name of—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. At the moment we are dealing with the Amendment moved by the Minister. We cannot go beyond that.
    Mr. Wells: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I intend formally to move the Amendment in line 14.
    Mr. Alport: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Islington, East on this matter. It is a point of construction and drafting. Perhaps I should draw his attention to the following fact. If my Amendment is read in conjunction with subsection (7), the subsection will read:
    "Where by virtue of an assignment or licence a person is authorised to broadcast a literary, dramatic or musical work from a place in the United Kingdom, or in another country to which section two of this Act extends …"
    In that we include the point which the hon. Gentleman has in mind because the assignment or licence is referred to again in paragraph (a), which says:
    "Provided that this subsection shall not apply if the reproduction is used for making any further reproduction therefrom or for any other purpose except that of broadcasting in accordance with the assignment or licence. …"
    The assignment or licence is a licence to broadcast from a place in the United Kingdom and goes no further than that.

    709
    If it is used for any other purpose, then it is an infringement of the licence.
    I hope I have made it clear that by our Amendment we are covering precisely the point which the hon. Gentleman wishes us to cover and intends should be covered in his Amendment.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I think I detect on the faces of hon. Members opposite—and, no doubt, it is present on the faces of my hon. Friends on this side of the House—a look of slight bewilderment about the exact effect which this Amendment is going to have.
    We may well be getting into a difficult situation. We had occasion during the Committee stage from time to time to suggest that the Assistant Postmaster-General did not make things as clear as, no doubt, he intended to do. We felt from lime to time the need for having one of the Law Officers of the Crown present to advise us on matters of drafting.
    6.45 p.m.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General has clearly put the Recess to good advantage; he must have been taking a correspondence course on clear exposition, but nevertheless on a matter of this kind, which is one of drafting, it would be a great convenience to the House if for the rest of the consideration of this Bill we had the benefit of the unusual powers of elucidation possessed by the Attorney-General or other Law Officers of the Crown.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker: The Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) in page 8, line 27, to add new subsections (8) and (9), and in the name of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) to add a new subsection (8) seem to me to cover the same ground. I select the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Rossendale.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought you were going to call the Amendment standing in my name, to page 8, line 14, at the end to insert "in the United Kingdom".
    Mr. Speaker: I do not call that one. Mr. MacColl.
    Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move, in page 8, line 27, at the end to insert:
    710
    (8) Where a reproduction is made solely for the purposes of broadcasting in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding subsection, the owner of the copyright may apply to the Lord Chancellor who shall appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1950, to determine the remuneration to be paid to the owner in respect of such reproduction.
    This Amendment deals very much with the same point as is dealt with in the second part of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), namely, the question of going to arbitration.
    I felt that the Assistant Postmaster-General, in the remarks he made about the proposal to leave out subsection (7), went a bit too far in what he set out to prove. He was inclined then to dismiss the concern which had been expressed about the working of the subsection as being due to a misunderstanding and he adopted the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) that the whole matter could be settled because the terms under which this recording took place would be taken care of in the original licence. That being so, there was no need to hedge this power around with any precautions or protection for the owner of the copyright.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General was inclined to say that we rely on those in charge of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. as being decent chaps who would always play the game and that, therefore, there was no danger of this power being abused. If that is so, I cannot understand why we need to have the safeguards that are already provided in the subsection. If the whole matter could be covered without any risk of misunderstanding or error or abuse, by means of the original licence, we would not need to have the limit of the 28 days. We would not need to charge the B.B.C. with this duty of solemnly destroying this rather dangerous recording which they have in case it should be used in the wrong way. There would be no point in stipulating that duty if the whole question of the recording could be covered by the original licence.
    In the same way all this complicated and extremely technical argument which has gone on between the Assistant Postmaster-General and my hon. Friend the

    711
    Member for Islington East about whether the use of these recordings outside the United Kingdom should be prevented would not be necessary if the whole matter were covered and if there were no danger of the recording being used in the wrong way.
    We have already accepted the principle that we should have subsection (7). I do not want to go back on it but the fact that we agree that the B.B.C. should have the right to make a simultaneous recording of this sort does not of itself deal with the question of what remuneration should be paid for doing it. Provided that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. have the power to make these recordings I cannot see why there is so much objection on the Government benches to having some provision in the Clause which would make certain that fair remuneration would be paid to the owner of the copyright. I cannot see that it can do any harm. I can see that in some cases it might do a great deal of good and might be a valuable protection to the copyright owner, and I am sure it is the object of everyone to make quite certain that composers, authors and others concerned are paid fairly.
    What this Amendment does is to provide either that there shall be agreement on the amount to be paid, or, in default of agreement, there shall be recourse to arbitration. It seems to me to be a perfectly fair and sensible way of tackling the problem. In most cases, of course, one need hardly doubt that there will be agreement. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bolton, East said, in most cases the original agreement or licence would be comprehensive and would take up all these points ; there would be no argument or friction between the parties.
    In some cases, however, something may go wrong; there may be misunderstanding, a composer may not be very acute in looking forward and anticipating all the possible things which might happen, or it may be that some quite new situation will arise which is not envisaged at the time agreement is first reached. Therefore, it is important to be sure that there is machinery for arriving at a fair measure of what the recompense to the owner of the copyright should be.
    712
    There is a very little danger of this provision being abused ; there is very little danger of it being used as a means of exerting some kind of blackmail on the B.B.C., because, under the Arbitration Act, the arbitrator has power at his own discretion to award the costs of the proceedings. Quite obviously, if an arbitrator were of opinion that the proceedings were unnecessary, the point being already covered and the proceedings, in his view, being used for wrong purposes, that would be something which, with costs in his discretion, he could take into account.
    I do, therefore, suggest that this is a reasonable compromise between the two views, the extreme view that subsection (7) should not be in the Bill at all, and the view which the Government have been taking, namely, allowing a considerable amount of freedom to the B.B.C. and I.T.A. to use these powers just as they will. Here is a reasonable compromise between the two views, whereby we say, "We accept the principle that, as part of the normal mechanics of reproduction, recordings and films of this sort are part of the process and therefore should be allowed, but at the same time we will put something in the Bill to make sure that there is a fair recompense being obtained by the owner of the copyright whose rights are affected." That seems to be an entirely sensible, workable and reasonable thing to do, and, that being so, those arguments ought—though I am not at all sure that they always do—to present themselves as entirely convincing.
    Dr. Horace King: I beg to second the Amendment.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has moved his Amendment with his usual persuasiveness and clarity. The House has shown quite clearly this afternoon that it desires to protect the interests of the creative artist, and it is concerned that reduplication of a broadcast should not endanger his fair reward. Indeed, the whole of subsection (7), as my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes has just pointed out, is devised to protect the artist against any such danger.
    Neither the B.B.C. nor the I.T.A. can be accused of not having played fair with artists so far over the question of

    713
    what is a second broadcast or a repeat performance, but the difficulty may arise at some time in the future. Indeed, from what has been said this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), it appears that there may be discussion and debate as to the effect on the artist of a repeat performance in an overseas broadcast. There may at some time be the difficulty of deciding the relative value of the fees given to an artist for the first performance and a repeat performance.
    It is desirable that we should have written into this Bill, in order to deal with those cases, something which may not have to be used very often but something to which the artist might turn as a last resort if he fails to come to terms with these powerful corporations. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
    Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: I wish to ask a question in connection with this Amendment. I see that a copyright owner who thinks he has been wronged
    "may apply to the Lord Chancellor who shall appoint an arbitrator".
    In the case of a Scottish artist, to whom will he appeal for the appointment of an arbitrator?—not to the Lord Chancellor, I presume. What is the proposal about that?
    Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I would not intervene in this debate at this late stage were it not for the fact that there is in my constituency of Twickenham a great musical and literary tradition. We have associations with Alexander Pope, Horace Walpole, Sir John Hawkins, the writer of "A General History of the Science and Practice of Music", and, more recently, Walter de la Mare. I find it not surprising, in a constituency which has the Kneller Hall of Music, the Royal Military School of Music, that a number of composers should live in the neighbourhood, and they have voiced certain fears to me, which have been bruited about in the Press already but to which I think I must on their behalf refer again briefly.
    It is a new principle, I think, brought forward in this Bill that a recording should not be paid for. The fear which has been expressed to me is that the composer has no means in the future of checking whether a recording is or is not
    714
    destroyed. Without imputing dishonesty to anybody, it may be that, by carelessness, recordings are kept by the B.B.C. or I.T.A. or any of these other organisations, not being paid for, and used in the future. Composers do feel, rather strongly I think, that the owner of the copyright should be informed if and when a record is destroyed.
    Having heard what they have to say, I repeat that it seemed to me that in this Clause some further protection for the owners of copyright is required.
    Mr. Rankin: What puzzles me about the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) is this. Why did he not come into the House and deliver that speech in support of the Amendment which I moved earlier, which he then opposed?
    Mr. Alport: I have noticed that when the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) finds any arguments advanced by myself unpalatable, he immediately gets up and accuses me of confusing and misleading the House. While I regret that there should be any deficiency on my part in the clear exposition of what are complicated legal problems, I think it has been hard that he and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) should have decided not themselves to move the Amendment which the House is now considering, but should have left it to two of their hon. Friends on the back benches, and should have done so without explaining to them the meaning of the Amendment and the fact that it has no relevance whatever and is incapable of carrying out the purpose for which apparently it is intended.
    By the terms of this Amendment, it is suggested that if a composer or head copyright owner is dissatisfied with the payment which he receives in respect of the reproduction or recording of his work by the B.B.C. or the I.T.A., he should then apply to the Lord Chancellor for the appointment of an arbitrator in order to ensure that his remuneration is correct. But we have made it clear that the whole purpose of the preceding subsection is to say that no separate fee should be paid. What, therefore, is the purpose of deciding to appoint an arbitrator to decide between two fees, when in fact the whole purpose of the previous provision is to

    715
    ensure that there should be one fee and one fee only?
    7.0 p.m.
    In these circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and learned Friend will not press the Amendment, because not only does it not make sense in the context, but, in fact, it would not accomplish the object which they have in mind. Let me, as we shall shortly be departing from this Clause, say that we are just as concerned as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and his friends in safeguarding the proper and legitimate rights of composers in this matter; but, in this particular relationship, we must also consider the interests of what is for them a very lucrative field of employment, namely, the legitimate interests of the broadcasting authorities concerned.
    Mr. W. Wells: I cannot resist the challenge of the Assistant Postmaster-General, and, in any event, I had intended to make a few remarks on hearing what the hon. Gentleman had to say in reply to the speeches from both sides of the House on the Amendment.
    I do not argue for a moment that there are not technical defects in the way in which this Amendment is drafted. They are technical defects which, even at this stage of the Bill, the procedure of the House is quite adequate to rectify. The Parliamentary Secretary need not look so dubious. There are many ways in which a correction can be made, even at this late stage. There is the possibility of recommital, and it has even been known, I understand, for a comparatively minor Amendment of this sort, although it is, I believe, very unusual, to be embodied in the Third Reading of a Bill, and there are other possibilities. So it is really not quite fair for the Assistant Postmaster-General to say that the Amendment has no relation to what precedes it.
    It is perfectly clear that the intention of the Amendment is to provide that where there is a case, such as that instanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Dr. King), in which, in the light of all the circumstances, the fee paid for a repeat performance is found to be inadequate and unfair, the matter may be reopened in some way. It is precisely to meet that contingency that the Amendment is framed.
    I am sorry that I am unable to answer the very pertinent question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Sir A. Gomme-Duncan). There again, that matter could be rectified. Whether it is the Lord President of the Court of Session or the Scottish Law Officer who is the requisite authority, I know not, but certainly the resources of the Government are equal to determining who is the right person in Scottish law to appoint an arbitrator to deal with a problem of this kind.
    The point is quite a simple and short one. It is simply a matter of whether we are to introduce a safeguard into the very wide power that is given to the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. under the Clause as it stands. We have had support from both sides of the House for the view that safeguards should be written in. For that reason, and without any reference to the particular drafting drawbacks and defects that there may be in the Amendment, I shall now ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for it, and I hope that hon. Members opposite who have paid vocal service to the principle of introducing safeguards into the Bill will now show that their words will be equalled by their acts.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 192.

    Division No. 285.]

    AYES

    [7.5 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Clunie, J.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Coldrick, W.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Anderson, Frank

    Brockway, A. F.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Cove, W. G.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Burke, W. A.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Beswick, F.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

    Carmichael, J.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Blackburn, F.

    Champion, A. J.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Boardman, H.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Logan, D. G.

    Ross, William

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Royle, C.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Fernyhough, E.

    McInnes, J.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Finch, H. J.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Fletcher, Eric

    McLeavy, Frank

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Forman, J. C.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mahon, Simon

    Steele, T.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mason, Roy

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mikardo, Ian

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Grey, C. F.

    Monslow, W.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Moody, A. S.

    Thornton, E.

    Hamilton. W. W.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Timmons, J.

    Hannan, W.

    Mort, D. L.

    Turner-Samuels, M

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Moss, R.

    Viant, S. P.

    Hastings, S.

    Moyle, A.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Herbison, Miss M.

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

    Watkins, T. E.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Weitzman, D.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Oram, A. E.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Holmes, Horace

    Oswald, T.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Owen, W. J.

    West, D. G.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Padley, W. E.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pearson, A.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Pentland, N.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

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

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Probert, A. R.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Janner, B.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

    Randall, H. E.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Rankin, John

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Woof, R. E.

    Kenyon, C.

    Reid, William

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Rhodes, H.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Mr. Rogers and Mr. Deer.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Deedes, W. F.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Ashton, H.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Atkins, H. E.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Barber, Anthony

    Eden, J. B, (Bournemouth, West)

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Barter, John

    Fell, A.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Beamish, Mai. Tufton

    Freeth, D. K.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Keegan, D.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Cower, H. R.

    Kimball, M.

    Body, R. F.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Lagden, G. W.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Green, A.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Braine, B. R.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Bryan, P.

    Gurden, Harold

    Leburn, W. G.

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Legge-Bcurke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Channon, H.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hesketh, H. F.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    McCallum, Major Sir Duncan

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    718

    719

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Teeling, W.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Pott, H. P.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R, (Croydon, S.)

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Redmayne, M.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Maude, Angus

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Sharples, R. C.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Shepherd, William

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Neave, Airey

    Speir, R. M.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Woollam, John Victor

    Osborne, C.

    Storey, S.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Page, R. G.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Partridge, E.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Mr. Edward Wakefield and

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Colonel J. H. Harrison.

    Clause 7.—(SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AS RESPECTS LIBRARIES AND ARCHIVES.)
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 9, line 29, to leave out from the second "the" to the end of line 31 and insert:
    "librarian knows the name and address of a person entitled to authorise the making of the copy, or could by reasonable inquiry ascertain the name and address of such a person."
    It might be convenient if we also considered the Amendment in page 10, line 1, to leave out from beginning to "and" in line 4 and insert:
    (b) at the time when the copy is made, the librarian by or on whose behalf it is supplied does not know the name and address of any person entitled to authorise the making of the copy, and could not by reasonable inquiry ascertain the name and address of such a person.
    These Amendments are designed to improve the effect of Clause 7, and they arise out of discussions which we had on the Clause in Committee. The general effect of Clause 7 is to make new provision to meet the position of librarians. It is occasioned by the demand for copies arising out of modern techniques of microfilming and the like. Clause 7 (2) defines the kind of libraries which may be empowered by Board of Trade regulations to supply copies and also defines the conditions on which they may do so.
    Subsection (3) deals with the copying by the library staff of part of a literary, dramatic or musical work which is not an article in a periodical. Subsection (3) is intended to provide protection for the
    720
    librarian who copies for students. Under subsection (3) procedure, the conditions in subsection (2) prescribed by the regulations apply, but the proviso is also material, and under the proviso the librarian must satisfy himself that the identity of the copyright owner is not known and cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry.
    We had some discussion in Committee as to whether that was a very happy condition. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) there proposed that the librarian should be entitled to copy so long as he does not know not only the identity of the copyright owner but also his address. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) dissented from that proposition. I was anxious, as I always am, to reconcile the differences of the Opposition, and consequently I suggested that this principle should obtain—that applications to copy should not be indefinitely held up if, although the identity of the author is known, there is no practicability of communication.
    7.15 p.m.
    I gave an undertaking to consider the matter in the light of that, and these Amendments give effect to that undertaking. The first Amendment relates to the copying of part of the book and the second relates to the copying of the whole book by one librarian for the purpose of another librarian within the statutory description. The effect is that the librarian will have cover in copying

    721
    unless he knows the name and address or unless he could by reasonable inquiry ascertain the same. The phrase
    "… a person entitled to authorise the making of the copy …"
    may appear to be a little cumbrous but it is deliberately used in preference to "author" or "copyright owner" so as to provide for the exclusive licensee.
    The practical effect of the Amendment will be that the librarian will, in any event, know the name of the author and know presumably the address of the publisher of the edition in the library. Inquiry from both these sources should ascertain who can authorise the copying. If, however, after a reasonable inquiry, he is unable to trace anyone who could give permission he will, under the Amendment, be free to make a copy. I think that that meets the general concensus of view in Committee as to what would be appropriate, and I hope that it commends itself to the House.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: There have been very few occasions in the course of our discussions when I have had the pleasure of being able to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has done. In the course of debates in Committee I put forward and spoke on a number of Amendments based upon a memorandum supplied by the Standing Conference of National University Libraries, the Association of Special Libraries and the Library Association. On that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary made a number of pertinent observations on the proposals in my Amendments, the reasons for which I saw, and I therefore did not press the Amendments to a Division.
    I am most grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the consideration which he has given to this matter between the Committee stage and today, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment which he has tabled.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 1, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 4 and insert:
    (b) at the time when the copy is made, the librarian by or on whose behalf it is supplied does not know the name and address of any person entitled to authorise the making of the copy, and could not by reasonable inquiry ascertain the name and address of such a person.—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 11, line 10, after "public", to insert "or makes a record of it".
    I have said that the previous two Amendments which I moved were a result of discussion introduced in the Committee upstairs by hon. Gentlemen opposite. This Amendment is designed to make an improvement in the Bill which was suggested to me by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), who has taken such a close and informed interest in this Bill. I am indeed grateful to him. It is to provide that when, after an unsuccessful attempt to find the copyright owner by an advertisement, an old, hitherto unpublished work has been published, it may be broadcast, relayed and performed in public.
    This Amendment will permit, in addition, the making of records of the work in such circumstances. Of course the concession will apply mainly in the realm of music. I think it may be of some value, and it will be of some benefit to the British Broadcasting Corporation since, as the subsection already permits broadcasting, it is not unlikely that the broadcasting authorities may wish to make recordings for broadcasting purposes.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 8.—(SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN RESPECT OF RECORDS OF MUSICAL WORKS.)
    Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment I call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). It occurs to me that he might discuss with it all the consequential Amendments in his name, of which there are a number on the Amendment Paper. I suggest also that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) should discuss the Amendment which follows to page 12, line 12. If, at the end of the discussion, the hon. Member wishes to have a Division upon that Amendment, and if it were moved formally and seconded properly, I would put it to the House.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: I beg to move, in page 11, line 36, to leave out subsection (1).

    723
    Thank you, Sir, for calling my Amendment. I agree, of course, that the other Amendments on the Amendment Paper standing in the name of myself and my hon. Friends are consequential.
    As I understand the position, it has been the law since 1911 that once a company has made a record of a composer's work, any other company may also claim the right of making a similar record of the same work. What I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain to us when he winds up this debate is why should a composer have to give an automatic right to anyone to make a record of his work.
    The position is rather different from that of 1911 when there were perhaps only a few reputable gramophone companies making records. Nowadays all sorts of people are using tapes and tape recordings, and the entire process of reproduction is very much easier and therefore rather different from what it was thirty or forty years ago. So I should like to know the answer to this question put to me by writers of songs and music: Why should they allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to make perhaps an unsatisfactory recording of a composer's work? It may be that the person claiming the right to make a record is in an unsatisfactory financial position from which the composer cannot perhaps get his royalties. Therefore, why should a composer be tied to such a person?
    I have not heard it first-hand, but I am told there is a case, which the Board of Trade knows about, where a recording company purchased a nominal number of stamps and then proceeded to make a much larger number of records than was warranted by the number of stamps bought. Then they sold the records through the post to the public, and so there was no check on the composer's royalty, who, of course, was not paid the full amount of money to which he was entitled. That is the kind of thing which I am told is happening in practice. It is not just imaginary.
    In France I believe there is no automatic right of reproduction of composers' works, and it does not seem to me that there is any difficulty there. Nor has it led to composers restricting the reproduction of their works or the setting up of any form of monopoly in reproduction.
    724
    I was not present during the Committee stage of this Bill, so I should like to hear the reasons why composers are expected to go on for all time—because it will be for a long time after the passing of this Bill—giving an automatic right of reproduction to any company that claims it.
    Mr. Ronald Russell: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. W. Wells: We on this side of the House are not in love with the principle of the compulsory licence, and we well understand that this question arouses strong feelings on the part of those representing copyright owners. It also arouses strong feelings on the part of performers and those interested in performing rights. I think that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has made some forceful points in connection with the practice in France and, in particular, about the change in the conditions in the gramophone industry of this country since this principle was first introduced in the Copyright Act, 1911.
    Nevertheless, it would be wrong to ignore the serious consideration that has been given to his question, both during the Committee stage of this Bill and in the long and authoritative proceedings of the Copyright Committee. I would draw the attention of the House to the paragraphs in the Report of the Copyright Committee dealing with this question. They are to be found on page 31. Paragraph 80 reads:
    "In order to understand how the present situation has arisen, it is necessary to refer to Article 13 of the Berlin Convention, 1908, which for the first time gave to authors the right to authorise the mechanical reproduction of their works. This Article was considered by the Copyright Committee of 1909, which recommended that the right should be recognised in our law. At the same time the Committee accepted the representations made by the gramophone companies that they themselves were entitled to copyright, which the Committee recommended should be restricted to a right to prevent the copying or pirating of a record so produced. Representations were made to the Copyright Committee on behalf of the gramophone companies that once a manufacturer had been licensed by the copyright owner to make records, any manufacturer who chose might thereafter also demand a licence from the copyright owner on payment of appropriate fees. The Committee did not agree with the representations made by the record manufacturers, and recommended that the author's right to authorise reproduction by mechanical means should remain his without qualification. Nevertheless, Subsection (2) of

    725
    Section 19 does provide that once 'contrivances' (e.g. records) have previously been made by or with the consent or acquiescence of the owner of the copyright in the work being produced, and subject both to compliance with certain formalities and to the payment of a prescribed royalty, any manufacturer may thereafter make records of that work."
    7.30 p.m.
    Paragraph 81 says this:
    "In view of the fact that this provision has been the law of the land for forty years, during which time interests have grown up, we do not feel that a sufficiently strong case has been made out for making a fundamental change now in the right given to the gramophone companies to prevent the copying or pirating of records made by them, or for altering substantially the conditions under which recordings subsequent to that first authorised by the composer may be made. We think that no one will question the justice of preventing trade competitors from copying a record made by a gramophone company. Our second recommendation, namely, that the right of the gramophone companies to record copyright material which the composer has already authorised for recording shall continue, may be more open to question, but the principle was clearly enunciated by the Legislature in the Copyright Act of 1911, and we see no sufficient grounds for recommending any substantial change in a practice which has a history of 40 years behind it."
    Therefore, I think it is pertinent to make two observations. First, that the right of the owner of the copyright to make any charge in respect of a recording is a creature of statute, and, second, that after all, although there may be changes in the conditions in the gramophone industry now, as compared with 1911, I do not think—and I do not think it has been argued—that these changes have come into being since 1951, which was the year of the Copyright Committee Report. It follows, therefore, that this very authoritative Committee, going into the matter in great detail in 1951, and being fully aware, as I think the two paragraphs which I have read show, of the various difficulties involved in the problem, nevertheless on the whole came down on the side of leaving the compulsory licence principle inscribed in our legislation dealing with copyright.
    It is, I suppose, a good Conservative principle, though I cannot pretend to be an authority on good Conservative principles, not to interfere with the structure of an industry unless an overwhelmingly strong case, or at any rate a very clear case, has been presented that the present structure involves abuses. [HON. MEM-
    726
    BERS:"Hear, hear."] Unfortunately, the Government is a Conservative one, and the majority of the House of Commons is a Conservative one, and, therefore, if one's views are to be carried into law, one has to carry the Conservative majority with one, unless one can ensure that they are not there at the appointed time, which is sometimes difficult, owing to the vigilance of the Patronage Secretary.
    Therefore, it is clear that while this is a matter of great difficulty and one on which, standing here in 1956, one might wish that different views had been taken in 1911 and that there had been more pre-vision of what might happen afterwards, nevertheless, forty-five years have gone by and the structure of the industry has been built up. We feel that a very great responsibility would rest on those who, in view of the evidence adduced before the Copyright Committee, and in view of the obvious fact that the industry has grown up around the rights established in the 1911 Act, wished to alter it without the clearest evidence that that alteration was necessary.
    That was the line which we took in Committee, and it is the line that we take now, but, in Committee and again now, having as almost the forefront of our object in relation to this Bill the improvement of the conditions of creative artists and the increasing of the incentives, such as they are, to those who are gifted in musical and other artistic directions to use these talents, we are most anxious to write into the Bill such safeguards as we can to make sure that the artistic heritage of this country is not diminished, but is enhanced, strengthened and nourished as a result of the labours of the House on this Bill.
    It was for that reason that, amongst other Amendments which we put down in Committee, was one by which we sought to exclude the operation of the Clause in respect of certain classes of records ; that is, the classes of record whose playing time exceeds four minutes. The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), with his usual perspicacity, pointed out that a gramophone record generally has two sides. It is wonderful what experience of life a lifetime of service at the Chancery Bar will give, and we were certainly grateful to the hon. and

    727
    learned Gentleman for giving us that information, which, in some peculiar way, seems to have escaped our notice. Therefore, in order to meet that very pertinent criticism which the hon. and learned Gentleman made of our efforts upstairs, we are now seeking to write into the Bill, by our Amendment in page 12, line 12, the words
    Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a record of a work or works if the playing time of the record exceeds eight minutes.
    The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East also pointed out, and it may well be the truth—in fact, clearly, in some examples, it is the truth—that the main object, as we have put it forward, of the Amendment which we have proposed in Committee was to ensure that compulsory licence should not apply to works of classical music, but should only apply to works of purely ephemeral value, such as jazz and "rock and roll" and all those other musical variations which cause a certain amount of excitement and disturbance in various quarters.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that there were long-playing records of jazz as well as of classical music. That may as a proposition be true, but it is perfectly clear, I should have thought, within the experience of all who listen to music, that the great majority of long-playing records are of rather good and serious music. Long-playing records, I believe, are much more costly to produce and they are certainly much more expensive to buy. Therefore, people who spend their money on these long-playing records will probably want to enjoy their use for a long period, and on the whole people who want to hear the same music very often, tend to want to hear good music.
    Therefore, I believe, as I believed when we argued this matter upstairs, that in substance our object of removing the classical music from the scope of the Clause would be achieved by a rather simple form of words such us we have now put forward. We shall put forward at least one more set of Amendments related to this provision of the compulsory licence, but I hope that on reflection the Government, having heard the expressions of opinion on both sides of the House about the compulsory licence, will feel able to accept the Amendment which we are now putting forward in relation
    728
    to the length of the playing time. I shall move that formally. If the hon. and learned Gentleman or the President of the Board of Trade do not indicate their ability to accept that Amendment we shall in due course press it to a Division.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) referred to the views expressed by both sides on this point. I listened with the care with which I always listen to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), and it will be within the recollection of the House that they moved their Amendment in what I might call an interrogatory or exploratory vein. They said, very properly, that they had received representations in regard to this matter, and they were anxious to know what we had to say about it from this Box.
    I should perhaps start by making this observation about the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. In the course of the Committee stage upstairs, as the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North will confirm, I was careful to say that I was certainly not taking any drafting points on this difficult and complex Measure; but the series of Amendments which are being moved by my hon. Friend do not, in fact, make a very cohesive or satisfactory pattern. That becomes a little more important the nearer we get to the end of the proceedings on a Bill.
    The operative provision in all this mass of Amendments which are being taken together in the names of my hon. Friends is the omission of subsection (1) of the Clause. That would eliminate the licence of right altogether. The anomaly which would be left, however, is that the Amendments, having done away with the licence of right, would nevertheless retain a statutory rate of royalty and apply it to the first as well as to subsequent recordings. It is, of course, a novel concept that a statutory royalty is required in anything other than the licence of right procedure. The pattern of the Amendments in the names of my hon. Friends is not, therefore, very satisfactory, quite apart from the reasons which I propose to give why the case for the elimination of the licence of right is not well-founded.

    729
    7.45 p.m.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham asked why there should be a licence of right procedure to which composers are subject. The first and short answer is that there has never been anything else. Before the Berlin Convention of 1908, composers had no right either to authorise or to prevent the recording of their works. That was their position before 1908. They were unable, in any way, to control the recording of their works. It was only following upon the deliberations of that Convention that our Copyright Act of 1911 gave, for the first time, what we call mechanical rights to the composer.
    Therefore, the point I should like to urge upon my hon. Friends in that context is this. It is only under a licence of right system such as prevails today that composers have ever been entitled to receive earnings from the recording of their works. That system, as the hon. and learned Member has reminded the House, has now been in force for 45 years, and some degree of prescription must, I think, attach to anything which has been in force for so long.
    We perhaps differ on the two sides of the House as to the degree of authority that we would give to such a prescription, but nobody, I think, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), who likes to be sui generis in these matters, is likely to dissent altogether from that proposition.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman know of any other merit which this proposition has than the circumstance that it has survived for 45 years?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I am coming to that. Perhaps I might finish this point first.
    The Copyright Committee, which investigated this matter with great authority and to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has been good enough to refer, came to the conclusion at paragraph 81 of its Report that it saw
    "no sufficient grounds for recommending any substantial change in a practice which has a history of 40 years behind it."
    The hon. and learned Gentleman gave a good definition of what should be a sound Conservative approach to these matters. It was put more tersely and, perhaps, happily by Lord Falkland when he said
    730
    that when it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change. There is certainly no case made here for varying the practice of 45 years.
    To deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Edge Hill about the advantages of the system, I would think they are these. First, the advantage to the public is that it gets free competition between record manufacturers in respect of copyright music. For the composers, they have the protection, in the licence of right procedure, of royalty rates fixed by a statutory procedure after the holding of a public inquiry.
    They will get the further advantage beyond what they have had under the Copyright Act, 1911, that the rates, as hon. Members will know, can be fixed in relation to any one or more classes of records, and all this will enable a differentiation to be made in respect of long playing records which very properly exercise the minds of hon. Members.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and other hon. Members adverted to the suggested disadvantages of this procedure, basically the disadvantage that may arise in respect of the reputation of the higher calibre composers. However, although I have no doubt that the apprehensions are sincerely felt, in practice they are exaggerated. The House will have in mind that the market for this type of music, the better and more serious type of music, is to some extent a specialist, limited and discriminating market, and on that market bad recording clearly will not sell.
    Moreover, companies which are interested in serious music are no less jealous of their reputation as high-class commercial companies than composers are jealous of their reputation as high-class artists. Again, serious music is difficult to record without the co-operation of the music publisher, because it is normally necessary to hire orchestral parts ; and so control can be exercised by the music publisher, even under the license of right procedure, and nobody has so far suggested that the music publisher would be any less jealous of his reputation and efficiency in these matters than the composer. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases with which we are primarily concerned, with serious, higher-class music, the interests of the recording company,

    731
    composer and publisher are happily identical.
    Another issue raised by my hon. Friend and the Performing Right Society, the growth of recording companies, some of which are thought to be not of high standing, is covered by the considerations to which I have just referred ; but I should like the House also to have in mind that these companies are companies which are ignoring their statutory obligations under the licence of right procedure. In doing that they are, of course, infringers, and being infringers under this law, they would be infringers, if they had the opportunity, under any other law. No system of law, however perfect, can provide against the person who is desirous of evading it. If one is negligent or evasive of one's obligation to pay a royalty fixed by statute, one is equally so if one negotiates a royalty by free agreement.
    As we are discussing these Amendments together and as the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North has given notice of certain action he proposes to take with his Amendment, I should like to address myself to the proposition put forward in the hon. and learned Member's Amendment. His attitude is that he agrees that the licence of right procedure should be retained, but he wishes to confine it to records not exceeding eight minutes playing time, four minutes on each side.
    I need not remind the House what a very difficult thing it is in practice to draw an appropriate line of demarcation. It is not for want of trying. We have had a shot at it not only in this House, but in another place where this Bill started. It has occupied a good deal of time and ingenuity, but it has not proved possible to establish an appropriate line of demarcation. The original concept was to do what hon. Members might think appropriate in a general sense, to draw the line between serious and other music.
    It is generally agreed, and it is not otherwise suggested in the hon. and learned Member's Amendment, that such a line of demarcation is impracticable to draw. What is put forward in his Amendment is an alternative designed as a rough approximation to such a line of demarcation. His line of demarcation
    732
    would not operate satisfactorily, because, as he will recall I said in Committee upstairs, a good deal of serious music takes less than four minutes and certainly less than eight minutes to perform and, conversely, many jazz records and the like last more than four minutes. I understand that some called "long players" actually last half-an-hour and some, like these "rock and rollers," no doubt sound as though they last for eternity. That being so, although the hon. and learned Member's intentions are good, he has failed—and that is no criticism, because everybody has failed all along the line—to establish this line of demarcation.
    Perhaps I might be allowed to recall what The Times said in its leader on this point this morning. It says:
    "But it is certainly beyond the wit even of a Parliamentary draftsman"—
    and we have had the advantage of the most experienced and excellent Parliamentary draftsmen in this Bill—
    "to differentiate in an Act between musical compositions according to their quality ; and with the present speed of technical change it would not be satisfactory to make the distinction by reference to the type of recording."
    That of course is the second thing which the hon. and learned Member's Amendment proposes to do.
    As The Times says, and I will endorse, it is the fact that no differentiation is practicable. We are faced with the choice between keeping the licence of right procedure for all records and dropping it altogether, because there is no difference in principle between one long playing record and six or a dozen playing for a shorter time. One of the reasons we must, if that be the choice, come down on the side of keeping the licence of right procedure is that it is in essence a move against monopoly practices. It is not appropriate to go back on that in the present political and economic climate. The Economist has described this as one of the anti-monopoly Clauses of the Bill. Having cited The Times in my favour, I must in all honesty tell the House that The Times also says :
    "The fear of monopoly is rather farfetched."
    When there is this war on Olympus, mere mortals should play for safety and adhere to the anti-monopoly position which we have had for 45 years.

    733
    What is certain is that this Measure was conceived and designed as an anti-monopoly Measure in 1911. Clearly we cannot afford to be more tender to monopoly in the sharp competitive conditions of 1956 than were our predecessors who were still wrapped in the natural protection of generations of industrial and mercantile hegemony.
    Faced with that clear choice, I hope that the House will think it right to keep the licence of right procedure. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied with the explanations which I have sought to give him and that he will not press his Amendment and that the hon. and learned Member will not press his, or, in that event, that the House will reject it.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: I am sorry to speak after my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, but he will perhaps forgive me for doing so if I assure him that at least I rose before him. I have the misfortune to differ from him on this matter, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). I cannot understand the approach to this matter embodied in the Bill. It seems to me to be an ordinary, simple question of the duty of society to protect a man in the possession and enjoyment of his property, whether it be cabbages or artistic copyright. The man has created something. It is his. It is entirely his business what he does with it, and it is the duty of society to protect him in the possession and enjoyment of that property.
    If a man writes a musical work, he is entitled to keep it to himself completely and not publish it at all; he is entitled to publish it to a few people, but not to others, or he is entitled to publish it broadcast. In any of those decisions he is entitled to the support and protection of organised society. If we start with that idea or on that basis, these other considerations of a more complicated kind of public interest never enter into the matter at all. The fact that for forty years society has executed that duty imperfectly, and before that it did not execute it at all in many cases, is really no excuse in 1956 for not improving the law and doing what it is our plain duty to do.
    734
    The argument for monopoly completely puzzles me. I have always assumed that the purpose of patent and copyright law was to create a legal monopoly in favour of the author or creator. He having brought the industrial property or the artistic property into existence is entitled to, and is given, a monopoly in its exploitation. Surely, therefore, it is contradictory to describe a Copyright Bill as in any sense an anti-monopoly Measure. Why should not a composer say, "I have composed this song or symphony. I am willing that a certain gramophone company should make records of it and sell them, but I am not willing that any other gramophone company, on any terms whatever, should make those records and sell them."? I do not think that questions like the reputation of the composer or the technical competence of the gramophone record maker enter into this in any way, except as explanatory of the motive which might be in the mind of the composer.
    Of course, I agree with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend that to leave in the Stamp Duty is a little unfortunate, if we are proposing to omit subsection (1). Yet if we allow a licence of right to every other gramophone record maker on the statutory terms, are we not in fact imposing the statutory terms also on the first maker of the record? After all, why should he ever agree to give more than the statutory payment, if he knows that from the day he sells the first record, all his competitors can come in under the licence of right and make records of the same work for the statutory price? Quite obviously we are, in practice, in fact limiting the composer to the amount of the statutory stamp. For that reason also I say that the licence of right procedure is bad, as it presupposes the fixed statutory right of duty and that is bound to limit what the composer gets from the first record.
    The only argument I have heard against this at all is that this has been done for forty years. After all, the Berlin Convention, on which this law was based, recommended there should be no licence of right. One does not know why the Legislature in 1911 ignored that advice and introduced this peculiar doctrine. All we know is that it has continued for forty years, and, therefore, it is suggested that

    735
    we should not change it. On that argument, I assume that if we have another Copyright Bill forty years from now, it will then be said that this has persisted for eighty years and therefore it is unthinkable that it should be altered. That is not an argument which has any influence with me, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend, even at this late period of the Session, when the legislative complications are only too obvious, will at least reconsider this, to see whether the Amendment of my hon. Friend cannot be accepted.
    Mrs. White: I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that there is considerable disquiet on this point among hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is true that through the processes of history this licence of right has been established for forty-five years, but when that legislation was drawn up, the practice of recording sound, and so on, was far less widespread than today, and no one could be expected to foresee its ramifications. I cannot think that the arguments put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary on the merits of the history of the case were really adequate.
    What moves me to reinforce what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House is that, clearly, the composers themselves are not happy. They made representations earlier in the year on this matter, and since then they have had the advantage of studying all the arguments put forward by, among others, the Parliamentary Secretary himself during the Committee discussion; and they have not been convinced. After all, they are the persons whose work we are considering. It is their "children" with which we are concerned. Plainly, they are not satisfied with the treatment they obtain at present.
    I agree that we may have to strike some balance of convenience in this matter; that it would be very disrupting to go all the way and try to expunge the whole principle. But surely, some kind of compromise on this—a matter which is disturbing so many of us—is not unreasonable? Therefore I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells), although I agree with what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that it
    736
    is by no means a perfect method of distinguishing between one type of work and another. I also agree that it is impossible to find a perfect Amendment, but nevertheless, this seems to me a not unreasonable way of distinguishing between the more serious and the less serious work to this extent that the composers themselves are clearly of the opinion that these longer playing records, so far as they are concerned, would cover the works about which they are most keenly anxious.
    I know quite well that it would also include a number of other lighter things. But the point is that we are including the longer works, concertos and symphonies and so on, the ones about which the composers are most concerned, rather than their shorter pieces. Therefore this is not an unreasonable compromise in a situation in which it is perfectly clear that no perfect compromise can be arrived at.
    The Times this morning, in a leading article which has already been quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary, suggested that because of mechanical invention and improvement, any distinction based on, say, the time taken to play a record, or something of that sort, might become out-of-date. If that is considered an objection, there is still time to recommit the Bill and put in something by Order—we are proposing to do something by Order a little later—if we want a greater degree of flexibility. I think that disposes of The Times argument.
    It would be a great pity if we passed this Clause as it now stands without making any effort to meet the serious objections which have been raised. We have to recognise that we cannot turn the clock right back. Those of us who support the Amendment are not asking for that. But let us at least do something to meet what seems to be the serious and deep-felt opinion of our most distinguished composers. The names in the published list I think include all the most illustrous names in British music.
    Mr. Philip Bell: Let us see whether the arguments put forward in favour of the Amendment are adequate. We are told that composers are not very happy, and that is a depressing thought. Do composers really think that if they were restricted to one gramophone company for the publication of their work they

    737
    would make more money? On the other hand, some people seem to think that if something is altered it must be bad. What basis have they for thinking that if composers restrict their work, particularly a long-playing work, to one company it will be bad for the composers?
    Mrs. White: There is no suggestion that publication should be restricted to one company, but that the composers themselves might have some control over the quality of the reproduction of their work, which at present they have not.
    Mr. Bell: I am talking about the licence. The idea is a speculative one whether under a system by which one gramophone record company only reproduces their work they would benefit.
    I am torn between two conservatives, the party opposite on the one hand, and my hon. Friend and namesake supporting this Amendment on the other, who wants, not a lifelong copyright, but one for ever and ever. There may be a theological reason for that view. If there is private property, it should not be taken away. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "No" and that after a period of about forty-five years when the absolute right has been cut down, we should accept the cut.
    The truth of the matter is that copyright property is a difficult thing. It is something which the world feels must be shared, whether it is in a poem or a piece of music. In respect of this type of property the State must hold the balance between the author, the publishing company, and the public. If there is no compulsory licence system it tends to take
    reproductions of works off the market. To limit the right of reproduction under compulsory licence to small records will mean that the trade will make no small records at all : people who cannot afford large records will not be able to get any records. It will be possible, by using this procedure, to prevent poorer persons from getting either small or long-playing records. Everything will be put upon long-playing records, so that there can be a monopoly, and there will be neither variety nor competition. Hon. Gentlemen opposite often proudly assert their interest in the lower income groups. They therefore should not support the Amendment.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: The debate has revealed a measure of disquiet on the question of composers' fees but I was impressed by what the Parliamentary Secretary said about my Amendment and the difficulty of taking away the licence of right and the statutory fee. I was impressed by some of his arguments for maintaining the licence of right and although some feeling has been expressed against it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, in view of what he said.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. W. Wells: I beg to move, in page 12, line 12, at the end to insert :
    Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a record of a work or works if the playing time of the record exceeds eight minutes.
    Mr. J. C. Forman: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill :—
    The House divided : Ayes 164, Noes 202.

    Division No. 286.]

    AYES

    [8.16 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Carmichael, J.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Clunie, J.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Coldrick, W.

    Finch, H. J.

    Balfour, A.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditoh & Finsbury)

    Forman, J. C.

    Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Beswick, F.

    Cove, W. G.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Blackburn, F.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Boardman, H.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Grey, C. F.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Deer, G.

    Hale, Leslie

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Halt, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Burke, W. A.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hannan, W.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hastings, S.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Moody, A. S.

    Steele, T.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Mort, D. L.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Moss, R.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Moyle, A.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Hunter, A. E.

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

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Oram, A. E.

    Thornton, E.

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Oswald, T.

    Timmons, J.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Owen, W. J.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Janner, B.

    Padley, W. E.

    Viant, S. P.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Weitzman, D.

    Kenyon, C.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Key, Rt Hon. C. W.

    Pentland, N.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    West, D. G.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Probert, A. R.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Proctor, W. T.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Pryde, D. J.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Randall, H. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Mabon, Dr. J. D.

    Rankin, John

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Reid, William

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

    McInnes, J.

    Rhodes, H.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Mahon, Simon

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Ross, William

    Woof, R. E.

    Mason, Roy

    Royle, C.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES :

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. Pearson.

    Monslow, W.

    Sparks, J. A.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Duncan, Cap. J. A. L.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Fell, A.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ashton, H.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Atkins, H. E.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Keegan, D.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Freeth, D. K.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Barber, Anthony

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Kimball, M.

    Barlow, Sir John

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Lagden, G. W.

    Barter, John

    Glover, D.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Lambton, Viscount

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Gower, H. R.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Green, A.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Gurden, Harold

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Body, R. F.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    McCallum, Major Sir Duncan

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Braine, B. R.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Malden)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Bryan, P.

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V.(Macclesfd)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Channon, H.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hesketh, R. F.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Maddan, Martin

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Crouch, R. F.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Marshall, Douglas

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Maude, Angus

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh W.)

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    740

    741

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Neave, Airey

    Sharples, R. C.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Shepherd, William

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Osborne, C.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchster)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Page, R. G.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Speir, R. M.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Pott, H. P.

    Storey, S.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Rawlison, Peter

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Teeling, W.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Woollam, John Victor

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Thompson, Lt. Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Thorneyeroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Mr. Redmayne and

    Russell, R. S.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Mr. Hughes-Young.

    Mr. W. Wells: I beg to move, in page 12, line 25, to leave out "Board of Trade" and insert "owner of the copyright".
    This Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and myself is yet another attempt on our part to improve the machinery of Clause 8 and to introduce further safeguards in the interests of composers and those associated with composers in these activities. This Amendment and the following Amendment proposed in line 30, to leave out from "records" to the end of line 45 and insert:
    "the owner of the copyright or any organisation representative of owners of copyright may apply to the Lord Chancellor who shall appoint an arbitrator pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1950, to determine the rate or amount of royalty to be paid either generally or in relation to any one or more classes of records"
    are designed to have the broad effect of substituting for the existing, rather cumbrous machinery of the Bill the short and simple remedy of allowing an author to go to arbitration if he feels himself aggrieved by the fees being fixed under the Clause being inadequate.
    The Clause as it stands provides in subsection (3) that
    "If after the end of the … year beginning with the coming into operation of this section it appears to the Board of Trade that the"—
    prescribed rate of fees which are fixed by Clause 8 (2) are inadequate—
    "either generally or in relation to a particular class of records the Board may hold a public inquiry."
    The object of the Amendment is to substitute for the Board of Trade the owner
    742
    of the copyright and to substitute for the procedure of the public inquiry the procedure of an arbitration.
    There are two fundamental arguments in favour of the Amendments which we propose. The first is the very simple argument of equity that as we are interfering in this Clause with the rights of the composer it is really not a very just solution to leave it to a Government Department to decide whether, that interference having taken place, it is operating in an inequitable or unsatisfactory manner. The person who suffers the injustice is the owner of the copyright, not the Board of Trade, and it is in the hands of the owner of the copyright that, in our view, the remedy ought to rest.
    That is the argument of simple equity, but there is also an argument of a machinery kind against the procedure established by the Bill as it stands and in favour of the procedure we suggest, namely, a resort to arbitration. If the Bill remained as now drafted the Board would hold its public inquiry, and after the inquiry it would come to its conclusion on the matter reported to it as a result of the inquiry. Finally there would be yet a third stage before any change would take place—any increase over the minimum rates fixed by subsection (2) of the Clause ; this House would have to intervene and an order would have to be made under this subsection.
    8.30 p.m.
    When we come, as we do here, to the question of the livelihood of authors, and whether a just kind of bargain is being reached in relation to records involving the use of the copyright of an author for the profit of the makers of the record,

    743
    to have this complicated procedure of a public inquiry, no doubt a thorough examination of the results of that inquiry in the Board of Trade, and finally the matter having to come to be decided by a Resolution of this House, that, in our view, is such a cumbrous procedure as, in itself, to defeat the ends of justice.
    In our view, the case for an Amendment of this kind is an overwhelming one, and we hope that the Government will feel able to accept it. But in any event we feel that the principles of justice so plainly demand in this Clause an alteration of this character that we shall feel bound, if the Parliamentary Secretary is not able to meet us, to press the matter to a Division.
    Dr. King: I beg formally to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The Amendment which the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) has just moved seeks to replace the Board of Trade inquiry, and the consequential fixing of royalty rates after an affirmative Resolution of Parliament, by some arbitration proceedings. That is a principle, I may say, with which I have considerable instinctive sympathy, but I should, perhaps, just indicate certain defects in the formulation of the Amendment. I think this matters, because if Parliament were to give effect to this Amendment at this late stage, then, as I said on the previous Amendment, the nearer one gets to the end of the Bill the more important do these things become. I think I may say that in Standing Committee I was careful not to make merely drafting points on this complicated Measure. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity I think that I should indicate what these defects are.
    In the first place, the Amendment provides for applications for arbitration only by the copyright owner. It does not make provision for the time for which the determination would be valid. It makes no provision to prevent an overlap between different references to arbitration. Finally, line 28, in page 12 presupposes "an order under this subsection" but if, in point of fact, the amended subsection were given effect to there would not be an order at all. I mention those points because they would, of course, mean that the Amendment would not be very satisfactory, even if the principle were acceptable.
    744
    As I indicated a moment or two ago, I certainly feel a good deal of sympathy with the purpose of this Amendment, and I should be very happy indeed to be able conscientiously to relieve the Board of Trade of what is a burdensome, and normally, I would think, an invidious task. As the House will appreciate, that Department already has a good deal to do. Unfortunately, after giving a good deal of consideration to this matter, we have reluctantly come to the conclusion that it is not practical—and it would not be strictly constitutional—to take the course so persuasively commended by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    The House will appreciate that the royalty fixed is a statutory royalty. That being so, it follows that any variation of it is a legislative function, because to vary that which is laid down by Parliament is itself a legislative function. That is why the Board of Trade prepares the order only, but can make it only with the approval of Parliament. That is why there is this provision for the affirmative Resolution of Parliament. Therefore, it is not quite correct for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that it is not right that the solution should be left with the Board of Trade. That would not be right, but, of course, that is not what the Bill provides for, because the Board's order only becomes effective on the approval of Parliament.
    The basic and simple difficulty with the hon. and learned Gentleman's otherwise attractive solution is that it is not constitutionally appropriate in this country, with our Parliamentary system, for an arbitrator, however independent, expert and distinguished, to vary what Parliament has done in its legislative function.
    Mr. W. Wells: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to clear up one point? He says that with the Bill as drafted, it is not for the Board of Trade to decide, but that it is for Parliament to decide. Surely, unless the Board of Trade decides that there is a case for making an order, the matter does not come within the purview of Parliament at all?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: That, of course, is true. The initiating act has to be taken by the Board of Trade, but the executive or legislative act which brings about the order varying the royalty is one which

    745
    can only be taken with the sanction and approval of Parliament.
    I think I am entitled to remind the House—some hon. Members who participated in the proceedings will not need to be reminded—that when we were engaged in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act earlier in the Session, there were speeches from hon. Members opposite indicating the impropriety, in their view, of letting the legislative function of Parliament in any way be given to any form of judicial proceedings. The practical difficulty, as I see it, is this. Arbitration is a procedure for settling disputes of law or fact, or mixed law and fact, which arise between known parties who go to arbitration. It can only operate satisfactorily on that basis and within that framework.
    But the fixing of statutory royalties and the licensing right procedure is not a matter of dispute, either of law or of fact. Not only that, but the award is bound to affect a great many people. Those people who are affected by an order fixing royalty rates can, under our procedure, appear and put their point of view at a public inquiry, but they would not, of course, have any status at an arbitration inter partes so to do.
    There is the further point, that I can see a danger in this arbitration procedure in that one unrepresentative composer, possibly a man of straw, could be put up and his case would prejudice a great many other composers who would not have had an opportunity to put their case in the arbitration.
    I have, of course, on seeing this Amendment, made such search as I have been able, with the assistance that I have, to see if there are any valid precedents for taking the course suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, which, as I say, appeals to me. I have not, unfortunately, been able to find any valid precedent. The nearest one, which is an unsatisfactory one, is Section 5 of the Prices of Goods Act, 1939. That suffers from a triple disadvantage. In the first place, it was emergency legislation, which is a bad guide to normal legislation. Secondly, it had to contain very elaborate provisions to make the scheme workable at all, and, thirdly, and not least, even with that, it was never put into practice. That is not a very encouraging precedent.
    746
    The next nearest precedent which I could find is one which will be familiar to the hon. and learned Gentleman, namely the Transport Tribunal. But that is not a very good precedent for the arbitration side of the matter because the Transport Tribunal operates by means of a public inquiry, as we propose to do here. It follows from that that it is not possible to remove this duty from the Board of Trade and pass it to the arbitrator, as I personally would be glad to do if it were constitutionally proper and practical.
    Nevertheless, although we must ask the House for the retention by the Board of this jurisdiction, I can reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walsall, North to this extent, since he did raise this point, which I accept, about nothing being initiated except by the action of the Board of Trade, that the Board of Trade will always be ready to hold a public inquiry within the appropriate statutory time limits if there is a reasonable prima facie case made out by applicants for such an inquiry to be held with a view to refixing of rates.
    In regard to the conduct of the inquiries, we are certainly very much open to any suggestions for improving their procedure. In that, as in all these sorts of public inquiries and administrative proceedings, we are hoping to benefit by the Report and recommendations of the Oliver Franks Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries, when that appears.
    In the circumstances, I hope that the House will think that that is the best we can do to meet the point raised, and that it will not be necessary for this Amendment to be pressed to a Division.
    Mr. M. Tamer-Samuels: I do not for the life of me know why the Parliamentary Secretary is adopting such a rigid attitude about this matter. Here we have a contest about the method or medium through which, when it appears that the rate of royalty has become inequitable, it may be determined whether that is correct or not. The dispute is as to whether the right machinery is a public inquiry or the determination by an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
    I listened to the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary with great care

    747
    and great interest. It seemed to me—and this is why I used the expression "rigid attitude"—that he was wedded to the idea that since a certain type of machinery had been used hitherto or is used in other connections, it was therefore appropriate that it should be slavishly followed on this occasion when an alteration in the procedure might be very desirable and publicly profitable. In my view, the proposals of my hon. and learned Friend are much to be preferred to the contentions advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary in favour of the public inquiry.
    The Parliamentary Secretary has said that, in the circumstances, it might be possible before an arbitrator to present to the tribunal a man of straw. I cannot see why the same attempt could not be made at a public inquiry. Indeed, my experience of public inquiries leads me to think that one might with much greater facility attempt to present a man of straw before such tribunals than before judicial arbitrators, experienced in mode of procedure, appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Perhaps it might save time if I were just to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) what I think is the answer to that. A public inquiry is public in the sense that all interested parties attend, so if one man of straw attended it would not commit the others. Before an arbitrator, the man of straw might be the only applicant, and what was decided in the absence of the others would constitute an adverse precedent in their case.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: If a man of straw was to be the central figure in this dramatis personœ which was to come before this public inquiry, I think that he would be the first person to be presented under whatever guise this inquiry, judicial or public, took place. Really all that the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary does is to accentuate the weakness of the case which he is endeavouring to put forward.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said, again trying to draw away from the weakness of his position, that here we did not have a question of law. It may be, of
    748
    course, true that in the strict sense there is no question of legal definition to be decided here, but where we have an issue in which it is a question of whether a state of things is equitable or not, the Parliamentary Secretary, who is no undistinguished lawyer himself, knows very well that we get involved at once in legal principles of the highest order. Therefore, it is ploughing the sands for the Parliamentary Secretary to submit an argument of that kind not merely to other lawyers on this side of the House but to all Members of Parliament of common sense who are sitting here and who are not lawyers.
    What is more important in this matter is that the mind which is concentrating on the inquiry should be a judicial mind. This is, as I have said before, a consideration of whether a royalty is equitable or not. It is a matter which concerns not only the author but the public. It is a matter which has to be weighed in the balance very carefully and thoroughly because, although it is quite true that the property which comes from the brain of the author is of the greatest value to the author, nevertheless, the balance has to be held in regard to the public ; because, first, if it were not for the public the production of the author would not be worth anything at all, and, secondly, the production of the author, if it is worth anything at all, is worth something because of its divertissement or its educational value or whatever other value it may have. Therefore, it is right that it should be shared by the public. We then get an issue of a very important character to which there should be applied a judicial mind in order to see that justice is thoroughly done and in order to bring about this equitable situation which is contended not to exist in regard to the particular royalty in question.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, in his wisdom, has also said that the arbitrator before whom the person would come would have no status. Really that is cutting it very fine. It seemed to me, as I listened to that, that it was not a question of a man of straw but of the last straw. There was a case here, or perhaps no case here, that was so devoid of argument that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is not unresourceful, found himself in the deepest and most profound difficulty to try to make sense out of it. Therefore, to say that the person who

    749
    comes before an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chancellor has no status is, to put it kindly, for the Parliamentary Secretary to speak with his tongue in his cheek.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: What I actually said was that the people who did not come before the arbitrator might be affected by a decision taken in their absence.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: This is a two-way traffic, and the Parliamentary Secretary can have it either way. We are not concerned with the people who do not come before the arbitrator; we are concerned with the people who want to come before the arbitrator, who feel that they have a case and a cause and some just reason for coming before him. Such people would have just as much status if they came before an arbitrator as they would if they came before a public inquiry, and. equally, as little status if they did not come before the arbitrator as they would have if they did not come before the public inquiry. The thing as put by the Parliamentary Secretary adds up to absolute nonsense, and nobody knows it better than the Parliamentary Secretary. I can almost hear him whispering that to himself.
    The House is now called upon to decide what ought to be done in the matter. It is presented with the choice of what is in the Bill—that there should be a public inquiry—or of what is in the Amendment of my hon. Friends, which is that there should be an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chancellor. It is not a matter of little importance whether there is a public inquiry or an arbitrator. I concede, of course, at once that which, ever method is adopted the matter certainly going to be considered, but that is not the question. The question is which is the best method in the interests of the public as well as of the author.
    On the one hand, we have a public inquiry which, of course, is very suitable for matters such as concern local government. On the other hand, we have a plain issue between an individual and the public. Ordinarily, the public has the advantage of dealing with similar matters in the courts by the appropriate procedure which, of course, is very well known to the Parliamentary Secretary.
    750
    The procedure suggested by the Amendment is cheaper, quicker and easier than that of going to the courts or to a public inquiry. The effect of the Amendment would be to get an arbitrator appointed without delay who will be solely concerned with a specific issue of the royalties of a particular author in relation to the amount of those royalties and the interests of the community. In these circumstances, I ask the House not to allow itself to be pushed into the situation into which the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to push it, but to say without any doubt what is almost too obvious for words that there is no comparison between what is proposed in the Bill and what the Amendment says should be in it, and what I hope, will be in it if my hon. Friend's Amendment is accepted.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I am greatly reassured to have had the support of two of my hon. and learned Friends for the Amendment which stands in my name. What my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has said has confirmed my own impression that perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary is ill-advised upon this issue.
    I agree with the first part of what the Parliamentary Secretary said when he analysed the purpose of our Amendment. We are proposing to substitute for the Board of Trade inquiry a system of arbitration. He expressed great sympathy with the principle of arbitration and then said that at this stage it was very difficult to make an Amendment. I am sorry that when we have had so much time to consider this, the Parliamentary Secretary, with the great sympathy he felt for the principle, did not find it possible in Committee to lay the matter before us for our consideration. It is because we have become increasingly uneasy about the operation of the Clause that we have tabled, on Report, the Amendment in my name.
    We think that arbitration is preferable to the Board of Trade inquiry, because we believe in the first place that the Board of Trade inquiry will be extremely slow. First, the Board of Trade has to decide to order that an inquiry shall be held. It orders an inquiry. The next stage is that the inquiry is held. The third is that

    751
    the President of the Board of Trade considers the report of the inquiry, and the fourth is that, in the light of that report, the President will lay an Affirmative Resolution before the House. That will be an extremely long and cumbersome process.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that the royalty which is to be fixed will be a statutory royalty which can be altered only by Parliament. I think that the hon. and learned Member is missing some of the finer points involved. In the first place, what will happen if the Board of Trade refuses to hold an inquiry? It is surely most desirable that if anybody is feeling a sense of injustice there should be some course of action open to him, even if the Board of Trade does not feel that that is the proper course at any particular time.
    In how many cases will we in the House be able to judge whether the President has come to the right conclusion? If we had some arbitration machinery which would enable all the relevant interests to be represented and to make representations to the President of the Board of Trade, it would make things much easier for the House in coming to a conclusion. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary is wrong in saying that the arbitration machinery would be dealing only with the question of royalty. Although that is its fundamental purpose there might well be a dispute whether a record or a class of records came within a category of records for royalty purposes or not. I should have thought that some specialist arbitration machinery would have been extremely valuable in those circumstances.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that one of the difficulties about our proposal would be that one person appearing before the arbitrator might well prejudice the case of other people in the same class. It is very solicitous of the Parliamentary Secretary to feel that on behalf of copyright owners, but I think that he would be the first to agree that copyright owners as a whole are not badly organised and that they tend to know what various members of their community are doing. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary need be too apprehensive about what would happen. Most of them would be prepared to act through the extremely efficient organisation that they have. I do not think that there would be a serious danger of the claims of one prejudicing
    752
    the claims of another, and it would be perfectly open to the President of the Board of Trade, when a request for arbitration was made, to acquaint the various organisations representing the copyright owners.
    All of us want to make progress with the Bill. There is, especially among composers, a great deal of unhappiness about the effect of the Clause. What we are really doing is saying that Parliament shall have the right to fix a minimum remuneration for a whole class of our fellow-citizens. When we are doing that, it is desirable that we should introduce any safeguard which it is open to us to introduce; and if we could provide for this system of arbitration I think that it would greatly reassure composers. Although the Government have not done very much to meet the wishes of this side of the House in the course of the progress of the Bill through the House and in Committee, I hope that they will be able to say that they will consider the issue of arbitration; otherwise, on this issue too, we shall find it necessary to divide the House.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: With the leave of the House, Sir, I will respond shortly to that invitation. I cannot, I think, serve any useful purpose by spelling out again the difficulties and obstacles standing in the way of accepting a solution by arbitration. I have said already that, were it possible, I would find it an attractive solution for many reasons, but both constitutionally and in practice I am satisfied that it could not be incorporated into this procedure.
    At the same time I should not like the composers to feel that there is any inherent disadvantage to which they would be exposed under this provision. I am sure that under the sanctions of Parliament it will work equitably. It may not work very quickly, but neither would arbitration procedure, because one of the difficulties about hearing the whole of this matter is that it takes a considerable amount of time.
    Nor would I like it to be thought that there would be any reluctance on the part of the Board of Trade, if there is any prima facie case for an inquiry, to institute such an inquiry and to hold it as expeditiously, as fully and as fairly as possible.
    Question put, That the words "Board of Trade" stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 158.

    Division No. 287.]

    AYES

    [9.2 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Osborne, C.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)

    Page, R. G.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Ashton, H.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Partridge, E.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Baldwn, A. E.

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Pott, H. P.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Powell, J, Enoch

    Barter, John

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Profumo, J. D.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Hornby, R. P.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Redmayne, M.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Body, R. F.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Russell, R. S.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Braine, B. R.

    Johnson, Or. Donald (Carlisle)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Sharples, R. C.

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Shepherd, William

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Keegan, D.

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Channon, H.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Kimball, M.

    Speir, R. M.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Lagden, G. W.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Crouch, R. F.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Storey, S.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)

    Leburn, W. G.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Teeling, W.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    McCallum, Major Sir Duncan

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Fell, A.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Fisher, Nigel

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Freeth, D. K.

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Maddan, Martin

    Vosper. D. F.

    Glover, D.

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Gower, H. R.

    Maude, Angus

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

    Green, A.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Gurden, Harold

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Neave, Airey

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Barber and Mr. Bryan.

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

    Brookway, A. F.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Beswick, F.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Blackburn, F.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Burke, W. A.

    Balfour, A.

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercllffe)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Carmichael, J.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Raid, William

    Champion, A. J.

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Rhodes, H.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Janner, B.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Clunie, J.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Coldrick, W.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Kenyon, C.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Royle, C.

    Cove, W. G.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Ross, William

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Sparks, J. A.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Steele, T.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Deer, G.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    McInnes, J.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Delargy, H. J.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Dodds, N. N.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Thornton, E.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Mahon, Simon

    Timmons, J.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mason, Roy

    Viant, S. P.

    Finch, H. J.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mitchiscn, G. R.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Forman, J. C.

    Monslow, W.

    Weitzman, D.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Moody, A. S.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mort, D. L.

    West, D. G.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Moss, R.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Moyle, A.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Grey, C. F.

    Oliver, G. H.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire. N. E.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Oram, A. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hale, Leslie

    Oswald, T.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Owen, W. J.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Padley, W. E.

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

    Hannan, W.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Hastings, S.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Pentland, N.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Woof, R. E.

    Holmes, Horace

    Probert, A. R.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Pryde, D. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Randall, H. E.

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Rankin, John

    Question put and agreed to.

    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 12, line 42, to leave out from beginning to "was" in line 45 and to insert:
    (b) where an order comprising a class of records (that is to say, either a general order or an order relating specifically to that class, or to that class together with one or more other classes of records) has been made under this subsection, no further order comprising that class of records shall be made thereunder less than five years after the date on which the previous order comprising that class (or, if more than one, the last previous order comprising that class).
    This is in effect a drafting Amendment, clarifying the position of music published before 1st July, 1912. Subsections (5) and (9) inadvertently went beyond the 1911 Act, which was not intended. The Amendment simply puts the position right.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move in page 14, line 26, at the end, to insert:
    Provided that this subsection shall not extend the operation of subsection (5) of this section
    756
    to a record in respect of which the condition specified in paragraph (b) of that subsection is not fulfilled, unless the words comprised in the record (as well as the musical work) were published before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twelve, and were so published as words to be sung to, or spoken incidentally to or in association with, the music.
    This is a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10.—(SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN RESPECT OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS.)
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 16, line 43. to leave out from beginning to "by" in line 7 on page 17 and insert:
    "the following provisions of this section shall apply.
    (3) Subject to the next following subsection—

    (a) during the relevant period of fifteen years, it shall not be an infringement of the copyright in the work to do anything which, at the time when it is done, would have been within the scope of the copyright in the design if the design had, immediately before that time, been registered in respect of all relevant articles; and

    757

    (b) after the end of the relevant period of fifteen years, it shall not be an infringement of the copyright in the work to do anything which, at the time when it is done, would, if the design had been registered immediately before that time, have been within the scope of the copyright in the design as extended to all associated designs and articles.

    In this subsection 'the relevant period of fifteen years' means the period of fifteen years beginning with the date on which articles, such as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection, were first sold, let for hire, or offered for sale or hire in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (c) of that subsection ; and 'all relevant articles', in relation to any time within that period, means all articles falling within the said paragraph (b) which had before that time been sold, let for hire, or offered for sale or hire in those circumstances.
    (4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) of this section, no account shall be taken of any articles in respect of which, at the time when they were sold, let for hire, or offered for sale or hire, the design in question was excluded from registration under the Act of 1949."
    Clause 10 is the rather difficult Clause dealing with registered designs. The effect of subsection (2) as drafted is that if the owner of the copyright in an artistic work applies that work as an industrial design, without previously registering it, and markets the articles to which it has been applied, he loses his copyright protection, not only in respect of the articles which he has marketed, but throughout the whole industrial field. For example, if a design is applied to a cup, it falls into the public domain, not only as applied to cups but also as applied industrially to any other article of manufacture.
    This penalty falls particularly severely on designs such as cartoon figures. There is a considerable demand for their use as designs to be applied to a large number of different articles. It is true that a copyright owner can protect himself by registration, but should he by inadvertence fail to do so he loses protection, not only in the sphere in which he has used his design, but in all the rest of the industrial sphere.
    The Amendment is designed to make that penalty less severe. Its effect is to limit the field in which protection is lost to those articles to which at any given time the copyright owner has himself, without prior registration, applied the design and which he has marketed. The design goes into the public domain to the extent that its proprietor would have
    758
    received protection had he first registered it.
    I should, however, add this. It is a fundamental principle of the Clause that an artistic work which is applied industrially shall not enjoy an industrial design protection for longer than the maximum period—fifteen years—obtainable by registration under the 1949 Act, and that thereafter the design as industrially applied becomes public property. The Amendment, therefore, also provides that fifteen years after the first occasion on which the design is used industrially, copyright protection is lost throughout the whole industrial field. This corresponds with subsection (1) of the Clause, in which, at the expiry of the period of registration, the same thing happens.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Philip Bell: I put forward an Amendment on this matter in Committee, which by mutual consent we thought was too complicated to deal with at that late stage. I put down the same Amendment on the Order Paper, but by some misunderstanding to which I need not refer it was eliminated from the Order Paper. I discovered that only this evening, or I should have been imposing upon the House a full explanation of my Amendment.
    The Amendment which I had in mind was to provide a comprehensive register, that is to say, one in which industrial persons could register a design not only for a particular article, but for a number of articles, in one registration, and could register an associated design, that is not just one particular design, but a group of designs on the one register. The idea was in that way they would be saved from having to get protection which they were entitled to get by individual registration but would do it all in one.
    I am bound to confess that that would have meant altering the Registered Designs Act, 1949, and perhaps this is not the occasion to embark upon that complicated manœuvre. However, the Amendment which my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has moved has gone some way to remove what the owners and proprietors of registered designs felt might be a grievance, because, as the Bill was originally drafted, a mistake in not registering could have been very

    759
    expensive. Failure to register some article might have meant a big penalty ; that is to say, the owners lost the copyright not only of that article, but of associated articles, and not only of associated articles, but of associated designs, even whether there had or had not been sales of what would have been the offending articles. It is now proposed that failure to register a design means that one forfeits only the right to protest against associated designs which are in fact sold and which, therefore, are free of any restriction of the owner of the one registered design. In those circumstances, although I had hoped to go a little further on this matter, I am satisfied with the Government's Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12.—(COPYRIGHT IN SOUND RECORDINGS.)
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 18, line 31, at the end to insert:
    Provided that where a parson commissions the making of a sound recording, and pays or agrees to pay for it in money or money's worth, and the recording is made in pursuance of that commission, that person, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, shall, subject to the provisions of Part VI of this Act, be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the recording by virtue of this section.
    The effect of Clause 12 (3) is that the ownership of copyright in a recording vests in the maker unless expressly varied by contract. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who made many valuable suggestions in the course of the Committee stage upstairs, argued there that in cases where recordings were specifically commissioned either for private messages or advertisement purposes copyright should go to the commissioner. The effect of this Amendment is to follow that suggestion and vest the ownership of the commissioned recordings in the commissioner instead of the maker.
    That is logical because it puts gramophone records on the same footing in this respect as photographs where copyright already vests in the commissioner in similar circumstances under Clause 4 (3). I hope that the Amendment will therefore commend itself to the House. It implements an undertaking which I gave in Committee, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion.
    Mr. Graham Page: I had expected to have the opportunity of expressing my gratitude to my hon. and learned Friend earlier on an Amendment on page 12, line 42, but as in moving that Amendment he made his speech on the Amendment in page 14, line 26, I was deprived of the opportunity. However, I am very glad to have the opportunity of expressing my gratitude now for the introduction of this Amendment. I need not enlarge upon it. I put my arguments during the Committee stage discussions and my hon. and learned Friend has explained them here.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 19, line 1, to leave out, "they did not bear" and insert:
    "neither the records nor the containers in which they were so issued bore."
    Perhaps it might be convenient if this Amendment and the two following Amendments on the same page in lines 9 and 10 were discussed together. They arise out of subsection (6) of the Clause which provides that there shall be no infringement of copyright if at the time of the issue to the public in the United Kingdom the records did not bear a label or mark indicating the year of first publication. We have been considering that in the light of certain further considerations which appear to arise and be material in this regard. They are, first, that again this matter is affected by the impact of the advent of long playing records which may of course comprise several recordings already issued as shorter records. That being so, several dates might have to be put on the one record.
    The next consideration is that modern devices like magnetic tapes and wires are not physically capable of bearing labels in the same way as conventional discs. There is a third consideration which is legislative rather than mechanical. It is, of course, that during the Committee stage discussions we lengthened the copyright period for gramophone records from 25 to 50 years which minimises the importance of this date stamping provision in regard to records. Therefore we put down these Amendments.
    The first Amendment makes it possible to have copyright protection for the records if the date is put on the container

    761
    instead of the records. For example, in the case of long playing records it would normally be, presumably, on the sleeve of the long playing record. I feel that this gives reasonable protection to the user. The other two Amendments are consequential on the first Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 19, line 9, leave out "bearing".
    In page 19, line 10, at end insert "either on the records themselves or on their containers."—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]
    Mr. Philip Bell: I beg to move, in page 19, line 17, to leave out from "are" to the end of line 19 and insert:
    "directly or indirectly to relieve the poverty or to advance the religion or education of its members or are purposes beneficial to the public".
    Hon. Members will appreciate that the purpose of the Clause is to protect certain societies from paying an additional fee for a gramophone record played on their premises. This exemption was recommended very strongly by the Report of the Copyright Committee in paragraph 194. Perhaps I may be permitted to remind the House that the paragraph stated:
    "We are strongly of opinion that most, if not all, of the activities of the branches of the kind of organisation represented by the National Council of Social Service, admission to which is restricted to members, ought not to attract a fee for the ancillary rights we are now considering, at least in respect of the use of records and sound broadcasts. The Societies are not conducted for profit, but are bodies with objects of a religious, social or educational kind; their aim is not to provide entertainment but to contribute to the well-being of society, and the members are joined by this common bond."
    The Report went on to make recommendations as to how that should be done. It was suggested:
    "That statutory power should be given to a rule-making Authority—we suggest the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—to make rules under which societies of a religious, social or educational character, not established or, conducted for profit nor conducted primarily for giving performances, should be entitled to apply for a certificate."
    That would be the authority for these societies not to have to pay a fee. In an attempt to avoid extra expense and trouble for the Government, the Bill
    762
    attempted to give effect to that object. The point of my Amendment is to test whether the drafting of the Clause as it stands has given effect to that object.
    The House will appreciate that it is desired to exempt not only charities but some sort of auxiliary bodies not necessarily charities. The Clause originally said:
    "Where a sound recording is caused to be heard in public …
    (b) as part of the activities of, or for the benefit of, a club, society or other organisation which is not established or conducted for profit and whose main objects are charitable."
    That gives rise to difficulty, because the expression "charitable objects", if used strictly within the meaning of the law, involves the members of the society not being the objects of the charity. However worthy the objects of a society are, if they are devoted entirely to the benefit of the members, the society is not a charity. It might be said that the main objects in this case are to promote education, but if they are merely to promote the education of the members the society is not a charity in the legal sense of the word.
    Dr. King: Surely the criticism which the hon. and learned Gentleman is making is invalidated by the fact that the original Clause referred to organisations
    "concerned with … social welfare"
    The social welfare of the community would include everything about which we are anxious.
    Mr. Bell: Yes, I appreciate that point, but I was dealing with the first point about the main objects being charitable and was expressing doubt whether an organisation which, on the face of it, stood for charity or education could be regarded as an organisation for charitable objects if these were only for the benefit of the members.
    Let me go on to the second point. The Clause proceeded:
    "or are otherwise concerned with the advancement of religion, education or social welfare."
    We have to imagine a society with objects which are not charitable but are concerned with the advancement of religion or education or social welfare. In the opinion of the courts advancement of religion has been held to be something

    763
    direct and not merely assisting or helping or doing it indirectly. Therefore, any society which only indirectly helps the advancement of religion or education might not go far enough to come within this part of the Bill.
    9.30 p.m.
    On the question of the advancement of social welfare, we are in the difficulty of not knowing whether that means the social welfare of the members of the society or social welfare at large. One can conceive of a society—indeed there are many—which, although its objects are stated to be the relief of poverty in general, may really be for the relief of its own members. Does the Clause as drafted mean a society whose objects are to help its own members or must it be a society which helps those outside its subscribing members?
    Those are the reasons which have impelled me to put forward this Amendment. I am not saying that this Amendment carries the matter much further, but in an attempt to carry it further I put first the inclusion of organisations in which the charity is directed towards themselves and therefore suggest that the exemption should apply to clubs and societies whose objects are
    "to relieve the poverty or to advance the religion or education of its members. …"
    That includes what might not be strictly a charity, and then I seek to put in the general words:
    "or are purposes beneficial to the public."
    That would include all the charitable organisations, and would also include social welfare and charities at large—any organisation which in conferring benefits on its members also benefits a substantial portion of the public. The difficulty I had is that I wanted to be satisfied that as far as possible this Clause would be wide enough to include what the House and certainly the Committee and the Report wanted—not merely societies which help people outside their membership, but also those which confer some benefit on themselves.
    It is interesting to see the sort of societies which might not be caught by the present provision. A society for the repatriation of Jews probably would not be caught, that is to say, would not get the benefit of the exemption. There was an example recently of a Welsh centre
    764
    being formed for holding jolly Welsh festivals in London. It may be a good thing to have Welsh music on the gramophone, but such a society would have to pay for use of records. I am not sure that, as the Clause is drafted, it would get any benefit from the exemption. I am not even sure that Women's Institutes would get any benefit, because it might be said that they are not doing anything for social welfare except for themselves. Clearly this is not intended to benefit any froth-blowers' club or supporters of a football team. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary might be able to help us by saying whether he is really satisfied that these words cover the sort of organisation which we want covered.
    It is interesting to notice that the Copyright Committee appreciated the difficulty by not attempting to draft the wording because the exemption was to include charities and something else. That is why it suggested that statutory powers should be given to a rule-making authority which could give a certificate and, subject to approval by this House, could specify the sort of organisation which should have the benefit of this exemption. For myself, I must say that where it is difficult to make a definition I would have thought that this was one of the cases which might properly be given to the rule-making authority.
    Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: I beg formally to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The House will be obliged to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) for moving this Amendment with his characteristic clarity and conciseness. The Amendment deals with an important subsection, because under subsection (7) the exemptions are granted from the operation of the performing right in respect of these gramophone records. There are two heads of exemption under the two paragraphs of the subsection, one being certain types of residential premises—private hotels and the like, with which we are not here concerned, and the other, under paragraph (b) being these, broadly speaking, charitable, philanthropic and other organisations.
    My hon. and learned friend has queried the language in which we have sought to spell out the type of organisations which will have the benefit of this

    765
    exemption and proposes—or tentatively proposes, I think I may say, if I interpret his approach correctly—another form of words. Naturally, I feel somewhat diffident in canvassing matters concerning the interpretation of the law of charities and so on with my hon. and learned Friend, who practices in the Division in which these matters are dealt with, but perhaps I might first of all take his point in regard to the limitation of the word "charitable" in our definition.
    Our definition reads:
    "… whose main objects are charitable or are otherwise concerned with the advancement of religion, education or social welfare."
    With respect, I am at one with my hon. and learned Friend in what he has said about the limitation which the courts have placed upon the meaning of the word "charitable", in this sense, that it excludes organisations, clubs or societies which are devoted to the relief of their own members. If our definition stopped there, there would. I think, be substance in his apprehension that our definition might exclude from the benefit of the exemption of this subsection certain philanthropic or voluntary organisations on the ground that their work was primarily directed to the benefit of their own members.
    But of course—as was pointed out in what was, if I may say so, a characteristically helpful intervention by the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King)—our definition does not stop at the word "charitable"; it continues:
    "… or are otherwise concerned with the advancement of religion, education or social welfare."
    Those words do spread very widely the net of our definition and, therefore, the benefit of our exemption under this subsection. I would venture to suggest that it is quite clear that if, in this time and age, an organisation is devoted to the relief of poverty, albeit it may be the relief of poverty of its own members—although that might not technically be "charitable" under the construction of that word in the courts—it would clearly fall within the wording "or otherwise" for "social welfare." I cannot see that it could fail to come under that limb of our definition.
    That, I think, removes the main apprehension of my hon. and learned Friend. I do not think I will follow him in discussing all the examples which he gave,
    766
    because I think that the line of demarcation is clear and practical in the definition as we have it and that the Amendment which he suggests is unnecessary for the reason I have given.
    I think also that the wording which my hon. and learned Friend suggests would be in some ways less satisfactory than the wording in the Bill. The Amendment proposed contains the words:
    "… to advance the religion or education of ils members …"
    In the Bill we say:
    "… the advancement of religion, education or social welfare."
    That leaves the concluding words of the Amendment:
    "… or are purposes beneficial to the public"
    to cover the charitable and social welfare referred to in our definition. In other words, my hon. and learned Friend's broad paraphrase has got to support the more specific things under those two heads in our definition.
    I would suggest for the consideration of the House that the words which my hon. and learned Friend proposes in that respect are too vague to be satisfactorily written on the Statute Book. The terms that we have got have these advantages. The word "charitable," although not entirely comprehensive, as I have indicated, is a useful term because what it covers is pretty well clearly understood owing to the decisions of the courts in the past. The term "social welfare" is also a useful term as defining more precisely than my hon. and learned Friend's proposed terminology the sort of cases which one has in mind. It also has the added advantage that it has been written into a Statute as recently as in the last Session of Parliament. My hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that it is a test prescribed in the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955. It is there used in a context dealing with the rating concessions to charitable and other bodies, which is rather analogous to the use here. The use of that phrase in the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act will mean that there will be built up a body of interpretation and practice which will assist in the context of this Measure.
    I hope that what I have said has brought reassurance to my hon. and

    767
    learned Friend that the form of words which appears in the Bill will meet the very proper anxieties which he has in mind, and perhaps he will be content with that and will not wish to proceed with his Amendment.
    Sir Lionel Heald: Before we part with this Amendment I would like to ask my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade if he is quite satisfied about this wording. He has told us that the effect of his wording is to go rather beyond the definition of "charity," and although he claims that it is not so vague as the wording of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), he has not really told us where it goes to.
    I think we ought to be a little careful about this matter, because we are not merely enacting a new Act of Parliament. We may also be creating a precedent. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that everybody knows what a charity is. I am sure he is well aware that in recent months there has been a little more uncertainty about it. There was a great controversy, for example, as to whether it was charitable to set up a bridge for the exclusive use of indigent Methodists, and other interesting discussions have taken place.
    I cannot help thinking that it may be a little difficult if, at a time when we are all rather uncertain about what a charity is, we are going to make an exemption in a Bill of this kind in favour of something more than a charity but we do not know quite how much more. I hope this matter will receive careful consideration, because it is important that when we make provisions of this kind and of a rather new character we should be as precise as possible. Certainly it is not very satisfactory to say, "This is not a charity; we do not quite know what that is, but it is something more than a charity, and we do not quite know how much that is ". I cannot say that I think the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East would make matters very much better, but I think that, whatever the difficulty is, we should like to have an assurance from my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that he is really aware of what is being done in this Clause.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I can give my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) that assurance, though to give an assurance that one is aware of the intention of a Clause is not, as I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate more readily than anybody, to give an assurance that the wording which is proposed in the Clause, or in any other Clause of this Bill or in any other Clause or any Act of Parliament at all, will never fall to be interpreted by the courts. Of course, there is a long history of litigation in regard to the construction of what are charities and what are not ; but that does not mean that it is not better to use terminology which has had the benefit of construction in the courts or has the benefit of other use in an Act of Parliament.
    Here we use the expression "charitable", which is at least a well known term, and I do not think my right hon. and learned Friend suggested we should not use it at all. The main point of difference here is as to whether it is better to use my hon. and learned Friend's phrase "purposes beneficial to the public" which has the benefit neither of precedent in an Act of Parliament nor of judicial construction, or our phrase "social welfare" which at any rate has the benefit of having been written into an Act of Parliament as recently as in the last Session. I think my right hon. and learned Friend will agree with me on that. Although I do not suggest that any course is going to be immune from the risks of litigation—I carry my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East with me in that, I am sure—I do think that this is the best form of words which, having regard to human fallibility, we are able to achieve.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Before we leave this Amendment, I should like, if I may, to repeat a protest I made earlier in our proceedings today. This is a highly technical Bill. It is a Bill in regard to which those of us who are ordinary layman feel at something of a disadvantage, and I think the Government might have treated the House with rather more courtesy and arranged for one of the Law Officers of the Crown to be present. We have had the Government's wording

    769
    criticised by a very distinguished Chancery Silk, and a former Attorney-General has expressed doubts as to whether the Government have chosen the right wording. I think the least the Government could have done would have been to arrange for at any rate the Solicitor-General, if not the Attorney-General, to help us in our deliberations.
    Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: Is it not possible that my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a lawyer of great distinction, is as capable as the Solicitor-General of answering questions on these matters?
    Mr. Speaker: This is getting rather remote from the Amendment before the House.
    Mr. Philip Bell: In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, faced perhaps with the risk of litigation in the future—and that terrifies me—but hoping that my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is right, that this does achieve some freedom for such societies, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 13.—(COPYRIGHT IN CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.)
    Mr. Alport: I beg to move, in page 20, line 35, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 42.
    This Amendment is intended to meet a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) during the Committee stage. The proviso as it is at present drafted assumes that the maker of the goods is the man who makes the contract with the maker of the film where that film is required for advertising the goods of the first person I have mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, however, pointed out that it was normal commercial practice for these contracts to be made not between the maker of the goods and the maker of the film direct but usually between the advertising agent representing the maker of the goods and the maker of the film.
    In these circumstances, as my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said during the Committee stage:
    "Obviously, we do not want to spell out a proviso which does not govern what normally happens in the commercial sphere. I quite
    770
    appreciate that there is a case for looking at this proviso again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committtee B, 10th July, 1956 ; c. 306.]
    As I have said, we have done so and we have come to the conclusion that my hon. Friend's criticism is well-founded and that it would be far batter for us to leave the position with regard to the ownership of the copyright of the film to be a matter to be decided in a contract made between the two main parties in this matter, that is the maker of the goods and the advertising agent concerned. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will feel that we have gone quite a long way, indeed fully, to meet his point by moving this Amendment, and that it will commend itself to the House.
    Mr. Page: Again I rise only to express gratitude that my point has been fully met.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker: With regard to the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), there is an Amendment in the name of the President of the Board of Trade which goes some way to meet the point raised by the hon. Member. I do not know whether, in these circumstances, he wishes to move his Amendment.
    Mr. Page: I would not wish to move the Amendment in page 21, line 6, in my name.
    Mr. Alport: I beg to move, in page 21, line 6, at the end to insert:
    (6) The copyright in a cinematograph film is not infringed by making a copy of it for the purposes of a judicial proceeding, or by causing it to be seen or heard in public for the purposes of such a proceeding.
    This Amendment goes part of the way to meet the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) during the Committee stage.
    Mr. Speaker: I dislike interrupting the hon. Member, but would it be convenient—I am not sure whether it would—for him to deal at the same time with the Amendment to Clause 14, in page 24, line 9, at the end to insert:
    (9) The copyright in a television broadcast or sound broadcast is not infringed by anything done in relation to the broadcast for the purposes of a judicial proceeding.

    771
    which seems to have similar provisions with regard to television broadcasts, etc.? I do not know whether that relates to the same point.
    Mr. Alport: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. If it is in order and agreed, it would be convenient to do as you suggest. It is little more than a consequential Amendment once the principle is accepted with regard to the Amendment which I am moving.
    When my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby originally moved his Amendment it took the form of the Amendment which he is now not proposing to move and which we are considering in conjunction with the Amendment which I am moving. It was wider in scope and dealt with matters of research as well as with copyright for judicial proceedings. We felt that, in certain circumstances, that might lead to abuse. The reason was that there might be occasions when the interpretation of research went far beyond what is normally considered to be research, that is research for purposes of study other than commercial purposes.
    Mrs. White: On a point of order. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is in fact referring to an Amendment not moved, in regard to research, and if he is permitted to discuss an Amendment which has not been moved, I should like to speak on it.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be better to deal with this question as if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Crosby was not in fact before us. I think that all the Minister was trying to do was to explain why his Amendment differed from what was originally suggested. I think that as the hon. Member for Crosby is not moving his Amendment, we can, for the purposes of this stage of the Bill, proceed with the Minister's Amendment.
    Mr. Alport: I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker. I was merely trying, in view of the cogency of my hon. Friend and the interest which the House showed during the Committee stage, to explain some of the reasons which brought us to the modified Amendment which we are now considering. Earlier on we were doubtful whether this Amendment would
    772
    have any practical effect, but we now realise that it may have some effect. We certainly do not wish that there should be any charge for cinematograph films or, indeed, any charge in respect of copyright where a work is used in connection with a judicial proceeding. In those circumstances, I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to the House and will be accepted by it.
    Mr. Page: A very real point arises out of this Amendment, mainly in connection with television commercial films. It is a practice for one advertiser to monitor, as it were, the films of other advertisers in order to check for any passing off of goods, any breach of the Merchandise Marks Act, any trade marks breaches, and so on. Of course, the same sort of thing is done with newspaper advertisements, but, in that case, one has the newspaper and can cut out the advertisement and thus have the evidence of it. In the case of commercial television broadcasts the evidence is ephemeral, except that it is likely to be repeated.
    This Amendment would give the person who believes that there has been some breach of a trade mark, or something of that sort, an opportunity of taking a photograph of the film so as to have the evidence for the purpose of judicial proceedings, but only, as the Amendment now stands, for that purpose. If the Amendment were not introduced there might be some grave injustice in that the person who suffered was unable to preserve and provide the evidence.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Alport: I beg to move, in page 21, line 28, to leave out "production" and insert "sequence of visual images."
    This Amendment is moved in response to a point raised by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) during the Committee stage. It deals with a fairly technical point and I will try to explain it briefly. The present reading of the subsection refers to production. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley suggested that the word "production" might be confused with the actual production of the film as opposed to the film itself. By the film I mean the negative, that is, the film strip itself.
    Having further considered the matter, we came to the conclusion that there

    773
    might be another source of confusion in that "production" might be considered as referring to something made up, that is, to a film which was made up as opposed to a film which was a record of actual facts such as a nature film or a news film. In those circumstances, it seemed to us entirely right that an Amendment should be made and it will, I think, meet the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman by substituting for the word "production" the words "sequence of visual images."
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. Alport: I beg to move, in page 21, line 30, to leave out from "capable" to the end of the line and insert:
    "by the use of that material.—

    (a) of being shown as a moving picture, or

    (b) of being recorded on other material (whether translucent or not), by the use of which it can be so shown".

    This Amendment again is in response to a point raised by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), and it is a highly technical one. There are two steps in the process of making a film. The first is the creation of the negative and the second is the production of the positive film record from the negative. The right hon. Member was apprehensive that there was a danger, on the present wording, of the restriction on the use of copyright applying only after the point when the negative has been transferred to the positive. He was concerned to ensure that the sequence of images should be protected as a film from the moment that it is fixed on the negative itself, irrespective of any steps still to be taken in order to make it available for actual showing from the film projector on to the screen. Our Amendment is designed to meet this important and highly technical point and I hope that it will have the approval of the House.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 14.—(COPYRIGHT IN TELEVISION BROADCASTS AND SOUND BROADCASTS.)
    Mr. Alport: I beg to move, in page 22, line 29, to leave out "twenty-five" and insert "fifty."
    It will be recollected that in Committee we extended the copyright life for broadcasts from 25 to 50 years. This is therefore a consequential Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 24, line 9, at end insert:
    (9) The copyright in a television broadcast or sound broadcast is not infringed by anything done in relation to the broadcast for the purposes of a judicial proceeding.—[Mr. Alport.]

    Clause 17.—(ACTION BY OWNER OF COPYRIGHT FOR INFRINGEMENT.)
    Amendment made: In page 26, line 13, leave out "every infringement" and insert "infringements".—[Mr. Alport.]
    Mr. Alport: I beg to move, in page 26, line 20, to leave out subsection (2).
    We undertook during the Committee stage to remove this limitation on the rights of the copyright holder, and we are accordingly doing so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 27, line 12, after "interdict" to insert:
    "and 'interlocutory injunction' means an interim interdict".
    It might be convenient, Mr. Speaker, also to take the next two Amendments to line 15. These Amendments are consequential upon the insertion of Clause 19 in Committee. The first and third Amendments provide the Scottish equivalent for terms used in that Clause and the second, appropriately enough in this context, is a matter of grammar.
    Mr. W. Wells: I can only say how jealous I am to find that the hon. and learned Gentleman is so much more successful at dealing with Scots law than I am.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 27, line 15, leave out "and".
    In line 15, at end insert "and 'costs' means expenses".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

    Clause 18.—(RIGHTS OF OWNER OF COPYRIGHT IN RESPECT OF INFRINGING COPIES, ETC.)
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 27, line 22, at the end to insert—
    Provided that if, by virtue of subsection (2) of section three of the Limitation Act, 1939 (which relates to successive conversions or detentions), or of any corresponding provision which may be enacted by the Parliament of Northern Ireland, the title of the owner of the copyright to such a copy or plate would (if he had then been the owner of the copy or plate) have been extinguished at the end of the period mentioned in that subsection or corresponding provision, he shall not be entitled to

    775
    any rights or remedies under this subsection in respect of anything done in relation to that copy or plate after the end of that period.
    The proviso which is here sought to be inserted is necessary now that subsection (2) is to be omitted, in order to indicate how the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1939, apply to the rights and remedies given by subsection (1) of Clause 18.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 27, line 23, to leave out subsection (2).
    This really implements the Government's undertaking given in Committee that the period of limitation for actions under subsection (1) of Clause 18 should be governed by the ordinary law relating to limitations and actions in tort.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 27, line 27, to leave out from the second "to" to the end of line and insert:
    "any other pecuniary remedy (except costs)."
    This is really a drafting Amendment designed to make clear the intention of the Bill in this regard.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 19.—(PROCEEDINGS IN CASE OF COPYRIGHT SUBJECT TO EXCLUSIVE LICENCE.)
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 28, line 30, to leave out from "section" to the end of line 46 and insert:
    (a) the exclusive licensee shall (except against the owner of the copyright) have the same rights of action, and be entitled to the same remedies, under section seventeen of this Act as if the licence had been an assignment, and those rights and remedies shall be concurrent with the rights and remedies of the owner of the copyright under that section ;
    (b) the exclusive licensee shall (except against the owner of the copyright) have the same rights of action, and be entitled to the same remedies, by virtue of the last preceding section as if the licence had been an assignment ; and
    (c) the owner of the copyright shall not have any rights of action, or be entitled to any remedies, by virtue of the last preceding section which he would not have had or been entitled to if the licence had been an assignment.
    (3) Where an action is brought either by the owner of the copyright or by the exclusive licensee, and the action, in so far as it is
    776
    brought under section seventeen of this Act, relates (wholly or partly) to an infringement in respect of which they have concurrent rights of action under that section, the owner or licensee, as the case may be, shall not be entitled, except with the leave of the court, to proceed with the action, in so far as it is brought under that section and relates to that infringement, unless the other party is either joined as a plaintiff in the action or added as a defendant:
    Provided that this subsection shall not affect the granting of an interlocutory injunction on the application of either of them.
    It might be convenient, Mr. Speaker, with your approval, to take with this Amendment and the three other Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend to page 29, line 3, line 6 and line 32. The purpose of these Amendments is to remove doubts about the operation of Clause 19 as drafted. That Clause deals with the position of its exclusive licensees.
    These Amendments, which I am afraid take up rather a lot of space on the Order Paper, do not represent any change in the Government's intentions in this matter. The main features of the scheme in Clause 19 remain unchanged, though I hope clarified. These features are, first, that the exclusive licensee is empowered to sue in his own right under Clause 17 in actions for infringement, and, secondly, he can sue in his own right under Clause 18 in actions for detinue and conversion. Coming to the copyright owner, he can sue in his own name under Clause 17 for infringement, but he cannot sue under Clause 18 for detinue and conversion because this right is reserved to the exclusive licensee, who is, of course, the only person, where he holds the exclusive licence, who is entitled to exercise the copyright.
    Coming to the Amendments in a little more detail, the Amendments to subsection (2) are merely drafting, and the new subsection (3), which I am now moving, maintains the provision that the exclusive licensee must join the copyright owner in the action either as plaintiff or defendant. That seems to us a reasonable provision, because it is desirable that in these matters the copyright owner and the exclusive licensee should co-operate together so far as is possible.
    Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will recall that the main difficulty which we envisaged in

    777
    the provisions which we were making for defining the respective rights of the copyright owner and the exclusive license; was to avoid any danger of a duplication of damages in this context arising from the possibility of successive actions by the copyright owner and the licensee respectively. We have avoided this, I think successfully, in the case of actions for detinue and conversion by the provision to which I have already referred, whereby the copyright owner cannot sue for detinue and conversion but only the exclusive licensee, but two possible difficulties have arisen out of the consideration which we have given to this matter since the Committee stage.
    The first is an action for infringement under Clause 17, in which, as the House will appreciate, both the copyright owner and the exclusive licensee have the right to sue. Our intention is and always has been that the owner should recover damages only for his loss, and the exclusive licensee only for the loss that he suffered. Consequently, there would in principle be no duplication of damages. The difficulty that arises is when the actions are individually brought and the court may feel bound to disregard the contractual rights of the licensee in an action brought by him and award him damages on the basis of the full loss suffered by the copyright owner, and, conversely, the same thing might happen in respect of the copyright owner.
    To meet that difficulty, we propose this new subsection (5), which, in effect, directs the court to have regard to the fact that the copyright owner and the exclusive licensee have each got distinct and limited interests in the copyright and in the remedies in respect thereof.
    10.15 p.m.
    The other difficulty which has suggested itself to us is that the remedy of an account of profits was likely to cause difficulty under the old drafting. It is as a solution for this possibility that we propose the new subsections (6) and (7). Under subsection (6) the Court is to apportion the profits between the copyright owner and the exclusive licensee and the new subsection (7) will save the infringer from the duplication of proceedings and thereby save him consequentially from the danger of a
    778
    duplication of damages awarded against him.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 29, line 3, leave out from "if" to "shall" in line 4 and insert:
    "this section had not been enacted and the action had been brought by the owner of the copyright".
    In line 6, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert:
    (5) Where an action is brought in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3) of this section, and the owner of the copyright and the exclusive licensee are not both plaintiffs in the action, the court, in assessing damages in respect of any such infringement as is mentioned in that subsection—

    (a) if the plaintiff is the exclusive licensee, shall take into account any liabilities (in respect of royalties or otherwise) to which the licence is subject, and

    (b) whether the plaintiff is the owner of the copyright or the exclusive licensee, shall take into account any pecuniary remedy already awarded to the other party under section seventeen of this Act in respect of that infringement, or, as the case may require, any right of action exercisable by the other party under that section in respect thereof.

    (6) Where an action, in so far as it is brought under section seventeen of this Act, relates (wholly or partly) to an infringement in reapect of which the owner of the copyright and the exclusive licensee have concurrent rights of action under that section. and in that action (whether they are both parties to it or not) an account of profits is directed to be taken in respect of that infringement, then, subject to any agreement of which the court is aware, whereby the application of those profits is determined as between the owner of the copyright and the exclusive licensee, the court shall apportion the profits between them as the court may consider just, and shall give such directions as the court may consider appropriate for giving effect to that apportionment.
    (7) In an action brought either by the owner of the copyright or by the exclusive licensee,—

    (a) no judgment or order for the payment of damages in respect of an infringement of copyright shall be given or made under section seventeen of this Act, if a final judgment or order has been given or made awarding an account of profits to the other party under that section in respect of the same infringement ; and

    (b) no judgment or order for an account of profits in respect of an infringement of copyright shall be given or made under that section, if a final judgment or order has been given or made awarding either damages or an account of profits to the other party under that section in respect of the same infringement.

    (8) Where, in an action brought in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3) of

    779
    this section, whether by the owner of the copyright or by the exclusive licensee, the other party is not joined as a plaintiff (either at the commencement of the action or subsequently), but is added as a defendant, he shall not be liable for any costs in the action unless he enters an appearance and takes part in the proceedings.
    In line 32, at end insert:
    "the other party", in relation to the owner of the copyright, means the exclusive licensee, and, in relation to the exclusive licensee, means the owner of the copyright ; and "if the licence had been an assignment" means if, instead of the licence, there had been granted (subject to terms and conditions corresponding as nearly as may be with those subject to which the licence was granted) an assignment of the copyright in respect of its application to the doing, at the places and times authorised by the licence, of the acts so authorised.—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

    Clause 20.—(PROOF OF FACTS IN COPYRIGHT ACTIONS.)
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 29, line 42, after "if", to insert:
    "he claims to be the owner of the copyright and".
    This Amendment is consequential upon the introduction of Clause 19.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 23.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF TRIBUNAL.)
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 34, line 23, at the end, to insert:
    (3) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed, or being, a member of the tribunal so long as he is a member of the Commons House of Parliament, or of the Senate or House of Commons of Northern Ireland.
    This Amendment is self-explanatory. It is necessary because membership of the Tribunal constitutes the holding of an office of profit under the Crown, and being an office of a judicial character, it should not be held by an elected Member of Parliament.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 25.—(REFERENCE OF LICENCE SCHEMES TO TRIBUNAL.)
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Does the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) want to move the next Amendment?
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. In view of the Amendment in page 36, line 35, in the name of the President of the Board of Trade, I should not wish to proceed with this Amendment.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 36, line 35, to leave out from "other" to the end of line 37, and insert:
    "organisations or persons (if any) as apply to the tribunal to be made parties to the reference and, in accordance with the next following subsection, are made parties thereto.
    (3) Where an organisation (whether claiming to be representative of persons requiring licences or not) or a person (whether requiring a licence or not) applies to the tribunal to be made a party to a reference, and the tribunal is satisfied that the organisation or person has a substantial interest in the matter in dispute, the tribunal may, if it thinks fit, make that organisation or person a party to the reference".
    It might be convenient of we could take with this Amendment a number of other Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend. In Clause 26, page 38, lines 7 and 18, and in Clause 27, page 39, lines 15, 16, 17 and 27.
    In page 39, line 17, after "question", insert:
    "and to every other party (if any) to the application."
    These Amendments all deal with the functioning of the Performing Right Tribunal whose jurisdiction is defined in Clauses 25, 26 and 27. Those Clauses give the basic jurisdiction of the Tribunal in licensing schemes and the further consideration of those licensing schemes and also individual applications under Clause 27 by applicants who seek to show that they are within a licensing scheme.
    The question arose during Committee whether in addition to what might be termed the basic parties to the dispute before the Tribunal under these various Clauses there should also be a right of audience to other interested parties. In Committee the Opposition moved an Amendment which would have given an unqualified right of audience to organisations claiming to be representative of interested persons. On behalf of the Government I said at that time that while I could not accept an Amendment in terms as broad as that, I would undertake to study the possibility of the rules providing the appropriate result within specific cases, without writing a general right into the Bill.
    In this case, though in some cases I may have disappointed hon. Members opposite in the result of the consideration which has been given to these matters, I can say that I have done a bit better

    781
    than I thought would be possible at the time of that undertaking, because what we have now done is to write these provisions into the Bill. We came to the conclusion that the right course was to write into the Bill, and not leave as a matter for the rules, a discretion for the Tribunal to make any organisation or person a party to a reference on application, if the Tribunal was satisfied that that organisation or person had a substantial interest in the dispute.
    The result of the Amendments will be that the position is maintained that only the parties to the actual dispute have an unconditional right to be heard, for the reasons I sought to give in Committee. Secondly, although that is so, nonetheless organisations of persons having a substantial interest in the dispute may ask to be heard and at the discretion of the Tribunal may be joined as parties.
    It follows, of course, that being joined as parties, they will have all the rights and liabilities of the other parties, for example, the right to appeal on a point of law, which is a right and liability to be condemned in costs, which is a liability. That is the position in short which these Amendments will provide. That is the right approach, because the functions of the Tribunal being what they are, a determination of disputes between parties, the Tribunal ought not to be required in mandatory terms to hear all those representations which, while no doubt of interest and importance socially, are not directed to those issues with which the Tribunal is being established to deal.
    If we give an automatic right of audience, we might frustrate the essential purpose of the Tribunal and lay it open to all sorts of pressures. I think that that is appreciated by hon. Members opposite, because, although their original Amendment would have given an unqualified right of audience, their present Amendment of the Order Paper leaves it to the discretion of the Tribunal. So I am glad to say that there is a general consensus between us on this matter, and therefore we have these Amendments to give a discretionary right to the tribunal to join these persons interested as parties.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I am very glad that what I hope will be my last contribution tonight can be one of congratulation to the Parliamentary Secretary on the wisdom he has shown in moving
    782
    this Amendment. As hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will know, the Tribunal is one of the most interesting and in some ways one of the most controversial aspects of the Bill. Many people outside this House made representations to us that the Tribunal was unnecessary and the rights which were created in other parts of the Bill should be subject only to the limitations specified in the Clauses which conferred those rights.
    We on this side of the House rejected that view, and I stated our views during the Committee stage discussions as follows:
    "In the first place, we consider it most important that the Tribunal should have full power to prevent abuses and to protect the legitimate interests of the parties concerned and of the public as a whole. Secondly, we believe that it is equally important that all the interests affected should have full and unfettered access to the machinery of the Tribunal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 19th July, 1956 ; c. 414.]
    I agree that in the light of subsequent discussions that was perhaps an overstatement of the case, and that was why my hon. and learned Friend and I tabled our Amendment. We did make our appeal to the Tribunal a qualified and not an absolute right, as the Parliamentary Secretary said. Unfortunately, in our discussions in the Standing Committee the Parliamentary Secretary held the view at that time that normally the only parties to the dispute before the Tribunal would be the copyright owners and the users, and that, so far as he could see, the organisations representing professional or trade interests would have no interest in any dispute before the Tribunal. He persisted in that view in spite of a most powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) who has great experience of industrial and trade union matters.
    On our side of the Committee we argued that a trade union like, for example, the Musicians' Union, although not directly a party to the granting of a licence, would have a substantial interest in whether or not a licence was granted, either because it would affect many members of the union, or because it might create a precedent detrimental to the members of the union as a whole. We took the view, which we expressed forcefully at the time, that an important principle was involved in this point and it

    783
    was one of the few occasions when some acrimony entered into what was otherwise an extremely good-natured and harmonious discussion. We on this side of the House rejoice that the Parliamentary Secretary has, somewhat belatedly, recognised the justice of the case we put forward. We rejoice at his change of heart and hone that the House will accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 26.—(FURTHER REFERENCE OF SCHEME TO TRIBUNAL.)
    Amendments made: In page 38, line 7, leave out from "other" to end of line 9, and insert:
    "organisations or persons (if any) as apply to the tribunal to be made parties to the reference and, in accordance with the provisions applicable in that behalf by virtue of subsection (5) of this section, are made parties thereto."
    In line 18, leave out "(5) and (6)," and insert "(4), (6) and (7)."—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

    Clause 27.—(APPLICATIONS TO TRIBUNAL.)
    Amendments made: In page 39, line 15, at end insert:
    (4) Where an organisation (whether claiming to be reoresentative of persons requiring licences or not) or a person (whether requiring a licence or not) applies to the tribunal to be made a party to an application under the preceding provisions of this section, and the tribunal is satisfied that the organisation or person has a substantial interest in the matter in dispute, the tribunal may, if it thinks fit, make that organisation or person a party to the application.
    In line 16, after "under," insert "subsection (2) or subsection (3) of."
    In line 17, after "question," insert "and to every other party (if any) to the application."
    In line 27, leave out "the last preceding subsection" and insert "subsection (3) of this section."—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

    Clause 39.—(PROVISIONS AS TO CROWN AND GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.)
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 50, line 23, to leave out "preceding."
    Perhaps we might take with this Amendment the following Amendment, in line 26, and also the Amendment in page 51, line 19.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 50, line 26, leave out "preceding."
    In page 51, line 19, leave out "preceding."—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
    We have made good progress with the Bill today, but the next Clauses raise issues of importance and controversy.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I entirely agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. Those Clauses are among the most controversial in the Bill, and it would be a great pity to embark upon them at this time of night. It is only right that hon. Members who have not found it convenient to stay until this stage should be here to contribute their wisdom to what, I hope, will be a fruitful discussion.
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Swiss Federal Council of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Draft of an Order entitled The Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (Switzerland) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, an Order may be made in the form of that Draft.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

MEDICAL BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Wills.]
Committee Tomorrow.

ROYAL AIR FORCE
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]
10.33 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I have two points to put to the Under-Secretary of State for Air, who has had notice of them. I am sure that he will be here in a minute. The first point is about the procedure of inquiry into accidents, and the second is the shortage of transport aircraft, shown by the Suez mobilisation.
The present procedure does great harm to the Royal Air Force. No one suggests that security should be ignored, but the present policy of secrecy is not suited to conditions in which the public are concerned. Crashes affect not only the public directly, in the case of loss of life to civilians on the ground, but, as in the case of the recent Vulcan crash at London, where the facilities used by the Service aircraft are civilian.
The object of the Air Ministry should be to show to the public that the Royal Air Force is a Fighting Service caring for the people of the country it serves. I regret to say that there is increasing hostility among the people towards the Air Ministry because the Royal Air Force is made out to be a self-satisfied Service indifferent to the feelings of the people outside the Service. I know that the Royal Air Force is in no way self-satisfied ; it is the duty of the Air Ministry to see that the public knows that also.
I recently had the task of going through the papers of the case of one of the 15 young officers killed when a Valetta crashed in January, 1954, that of Pilot Officer Purcell. Everything that could have been done to sadden the parents of that young man was done. The telegram giving information of the death was sent to the wrong address, and so was the telegram as to the funeral. The parents were told that their son had been killed instantly, whereas in fact he died in hospital. Even at the funeral the wrong initials were on the coffin. It appeared to the parents and to their friends that they were being treated as intruders into a matter which concerned the Service only. The result is that the parents and their friends have become anti-Air Force. I am certain that no other member of
786
that family will choose to serve in the Royal Air Force. These were defects in administration, but how much would have been avoided if the Air Ministry had set out to show how much it cared, and if subsequently the inquiry had been public so that parents and friends could have heard everything that happened.
Another and more recent case of what can be crudely termed bad public relations was the handling of the Vulcan crash at London Airport, in which so many fine men lost their lives. The whole country felt for them and their families. The aircraft, which was using a civil airport, was using the ordinary civil ground control system. Naturally, there has been disquiet at the veil of Service secrecy which has been thrown over the operations of this civil ground control system. Once more it appears as if the Air Ministry regards the public as a nuisance, as intruders to be pushed off.
I believe the root cause of all this is the system of closed inquiries which makes the public believe that a group of professionals are getting together to cover up something. I ask the Under-Secretary, and through him the Secretary of State, in fairness to the Royal Air Force, to examine carefully the present procedure to see if in the interests of the Service there should be so much secrecy on matters which cannot possibly have any problem of security.
My second point is an entirely different one. For several years now we have been pointing to the neglect by the Air Ministry of Transport Command. Tonight I ask the Under-Secretary not only to tell us how Transport Command and the transport services have operated in the Suez mobilisation, but what changes the Government are making in their policy towards Transport Command. The Minister of Defence told me today in a Written Answer:
"we still have a long way to go in formulating a long term policy for the transportation by air of men and materials."
That is indeed true. Recently in The Times, Sir John Slessor and Sir George Pirie, writing in his capacity as Chairman of the Air League, have referred to Transport Command as the Cinderella of the Royal Air Force. If this is the Cinderella, when can we expect to have the transformation scene, when can we expect

787
that Transport Command will be allowed and equipped to play its true part?
The Air Council should begin by studying what the United States Military Air Transport Service does. I have been impressed with that service ever since 1948, when, as Under-Secretary, I saw some of the operations of the Berlin Airlift. Let the Air Council notice not only the size of M.A.T.S. but its policy. Of course, we cannot compete with the size of the gigantic United States force with its 450 four-engined aircraft and 100 twin-engined aircraft, not counting the Navy's 100 four-engined aircraft and about 50 twin-engined aircraft. But let us look at their policy. The policy of the United States services is that all of them adopt trooping by air whenever possible because it is cheaper. Compare that with the Answer I got just before the Recess from the Minister of Defence—that the percentage of trooping by air is still only, I think, 54 per cent. It has gone up by about 1 per cent. since last year—it is very small indeed.
Secondly, the United States policy is to cut the overheads on their material by using air freight for all such equipment as aero engines—
Mr. Paul Williams: Was the figure quoted by the hon. Member that carried by Transport Command or by independent companies'?
Mr. de Freitas: The figures, I recall, covered everything—air trooping by Transport Command, independents and everyone.
Mr. Williams: I think the hon. Member would accept that, in fact, it is mainly done by the independents.
Mr. de Freitas: Yes, that is the point. The policy of trooping by air is not accepted generally in our Services as it is in the American Services. Again, on the carrying of freight they cut their overheads by always taking aero engines by air. This reduces the number in the lines of communication, storage and so on, because the time is cut to one-ninth or one-tenth.
Most important of all is that United States military thinking recognises the importance of air transport. I shall quote
788
this extract from the House of Representatives Defence Appropriations Committee:
"The mission assigned to M.A.T.S. is of major strategic importance. It is more than just a convenient air transport system; it is a significant portion of our over-all Air Defence Forces."
I ask the Government to consider setting up a military transport service, trained and operated by the Royal Air Force and borne—and I think this is fair—on a Ministry of Defence Vote, because, after all, it would work for the three Services. If the Army developed its Mobile Strategic Reserve, what would move it at this moment? If the Navy developed its fleet trains in far-off parts of the world, what would move its supplies? And I emphasise again that, of course, I am here referring not only to men but to equipment. I know that the Hermes can carry a 25-pounder, but how many Hermes are there?
It has been the Government's policy to look for reserves among the independent civil operators. They look to them for aircraft and for aircrews at short notice, but it has proved impossible to rely on them for many reasons. The first is shortage of aircraft. I think it is right to say that there were only 13 long-range aircraft available at the time of the Suez mobilisation. So we found civilian Dakotas taking twice as long to transport the men, and transporting only, say, one-third of what could be transported in a Britannia—and using two pilots.
That brings me to the second point. There is a shortage not only of aircraft but of aircrew. There were aircraft ready and waiting on the ground—and that with an important line like Skyways—because there were not enough pilots. The basic problem is shortage of money to buy the aircraft. That is the problem everywhere. It is the problem in the United States, too. I know that the independent airline firms claim that they could provide the aircraft if they got, as do the shipping firms, long-term contracts for trooping—seven to ten years. Unfortunately I have not time to develop or argue that point.
Looking ahead, must we not recognise that there will be no future for us in military or civil transport unless we are prepared to find a really large sum of money for the design and development of a supersonic bomber and transport, for civil and

789
military use? Therefore, I ask the Under-Secretary to ask his colleagues in the Government for an urgent inquiry into the supply of aircraft and aircrews for the transport of men and equipment of all three Services.
10.45 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Christopher Soames): May I first say how glad we are to see the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) none the worse off for being in the unpleasant incident which we all regret so much?
The hon. Member suggested first that we should hold public inquiries into accidents to R.A.F. aircraft. Of course, he knows quite well that the Air Ministry does not in any way under-rate the natural and considerable concern felt by the House and the public about aircraft accidents. But we feel that the public inquiry is not the right way to satisfy it. In the first place, the full investigation of an accident to a Service aircraft will generally involve constant reference to secret information—such as the performance of the aircraft and what it was doing at the time.
Secondly, we feel that both witnesses and the court itself will give their views much more freely in private than in public. This point was explained by my predecessor in the full statement he made to the House on the accident at Tom's Hill, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in January, 1954. I was deeply sorry to hear about the sadness then caused to the parents of one of the victims, but the story as recounted by the hon. Gentleman seems to reflect on administration rather than on the form which the inquiry took.
The hon. Gentleman himself, when he occupied the office which I now hold, was no doubt swayed himself by the same arguments. Of course, the outside observer's point of view naturally differs a little, but I am sure that anyone actually concerned with the running of the Service would feel as I do. There is no question of any desire to cover up. The basis of our view is that we get a franker, speedier and more effective investigation from a private inquiry than from a public one. We appreciate that this in no way detracts from the right of the House to be kept informed, and my right hon. Friend will continue, as he has done in the past,
790
to report to the House his conclusions about accidents of special public concern.
The hon. Gentleman particularly mentioned the Vulcan. My right hon. Friend answered a question on that today, to the effect that there are still inquiries going on and it is too early to give any additional information, but he will do so as soon as possible in the House.
I come now to the main topic—the question of transport aircraft. I believe there is a widespread misapprehension on what is the primary rôle of Transport Command. The primary rôle is to provide a military air transport force available to all three Services, which can transport men and material into a theatre of active operations and provide them with logistic support on active service. It follows from that that the further we are from the danger of war, the more we are able to use Transport Command on day-to-day tasks. Conversely, the greater a threat becomes, the more we must collect, concentrate and conserve the force lest the risk become a reality and it be necessary to commit it to its primary rôle.
It is essential to bear this overall strategic concept in mind when examining the use which has been made of Transport Command during the Suez emergency. In fact, all the troop movement that has been done by air in this connection could have been carried out by Transport Command alone without recourse to civil charter aircraft had we wished to use the Command in this fashion. But how wrong we would have been to have done so.
We have never made any secret of the military value we place on the existence of a thriving civil air charter industry. In undisturbed times, they do our routine air trooping for us. As I said in the Air Estimates debate, in the year 1954–55, 172,000 troops were carried by air, and 92 per cent. of them were moved by civil aircraft. Meanwhile, the aircraft of Transport Command—again in undisturbed times—are performing numerous functions which, for security or other reasons, are more suitable for military aircraft. But we do not like to commit too large a proportion of Transport Command to routine tasks. I would liken Transport Command in some ways to a fire service. There are certain functions

791
which a fire service is prepared to perform on a day-to-day basis, and it must, of course, be kept in constant training, but it is not part of its duty to use its fire engines, so to speak, as Green Line buses on routine scheduled services.
So it is with Transport Command. Both men and machines are kept in a constant state of readiness in case an emergency arises which cannot be met by civil aircraft, such as dropping parachutists and flying men and materials into an active theatre of operations. They perform many valuable day-to-day transport tasks, but one cannot expect a number of aircraft to fulfil two different tasks at one and the same time. They cannot be scattered all over the world on routine flights and at the same time provide a reserve of mobility for all three Services in case of urgent need.
It is the latter which we regard as the main task of Transport Command, and we must not lose sight of it. In other words, the greater and more imminent the danger the more necessary does it become to preserve the power of Transport Command, and the greater use do we make of the civil fleet.
This is what happened when the Suez crisis burst upon us. We have been able to provide the aircraft we needed by diverting civil aircraft which were already on charter to us, and by taking on other aircraft as and when they became available in the charter market. The efficiency and scale of effort of the independent operators and of B.O.A.C. did the greatest credit to civil aviation. With their cooperation we have been able to fulfil all the calls made on us without having to resort to any compulsory direction or requisition of aircraft.
Meanwhile Transport Command has been relieved of as many of its day-to-day duties as possible, and brought up to a peak of operational readiness lest the crisis should develop into war. Then, and only then, would be the moment to bring its full force to bear. That would be the testing time for which its strength must be conserved.
So much for the military rôle of transport aircraft. It would appear that there are many misconceptions on what can be asked of an air transport force. It should
792
be able to move troops and parachutists to a trouble spot with their personal equipment, close support weapons and such vehicles as they need for their immediate tactical support. But there are severe limitations on the type of operations which air lift can support. One cannot, for example, lift a Centurion tank in an aeroplane. There is no aircraft in the world that can carry one. It follows then that one cannot rely on an air transport force to mount an operation which requires the use of modern armour. It would also be unrealistic to suppose that we could keep an air transport force capable of committing to battle an infantry division which requires for its support vehicles numbered in thousands rather than in hundreds. We must rely on sea transport for movements on this scale.
So the sort of operation which can be mounted and supported solely by airlift is in the nature of things limited—what might be described as a military policing operation most certainly, but not an operation which requires a large number of troops to be committed in the early stages together with their armour, heavy artillery and impedimenta.
I reject completely the allegation that the Suez crisis found either Transport Command or the civil air fleet wanting. The build-up of forces which the emergency required could never in our wildest dreams have been undertaken by air alone, and Transport Command was in no way a limiting factor in our precautionary preparations.
The hon. Gentleman has urged us to speed up the re-equipment of Transport Command with the most modern aircraft. We will never of course have all that we should like. I fully agree with him that Transport Command is becoming more and more a vital force in our strategic military thought, and I can assure him that nowhere is the importance of Transport Command in the general defence picture more appreciated than in the Air Ministry.
I told the House last March of our plans for re-equipment. Since then Comets and Beverleys have joined the force. More will come in next year, and in 1958 we shall be getting Britannias. We plan by March, 1959, to treble the airlift capacity compared with March, 1956, and, of course, speeds will be ever

793
so much higher. That is a very big improvement, and things are going along well.
The hon. Gentleman asked if we had learned lessons from the use of civil aircraft in the Suez emergency. Certainly we have learned lessons. I do not believe that we shall ever get a Secretary of State for Air or a Minister of Defence who is happy that he has enough at his disposal. But, broadly speaking, the machinery has worked extremely well. There are one or two minor improvements which we feel can be made, but there was no important factor which seemed to weigh against efficient operations in the field of air transport.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman suggested that Transport Command might be taken away from the Air Ministry and set up as an entity on its own after the fashion of the American M.A.T.S. He believed that that would render it more capable of providing the needs of all three Services and place it more directly under the control of the Minister of Defence.
At first blush that may seem to have certain attractions, but it would certainly also have many disadvantages. In fact, under present arrangements Transport Command is available to all three Services, and as a weapon it is in the hands of the Minister of Defence. Whenever there are conflicting demands for air transport it is the Chiefs of Staff and not the Air Ministry who advise the Minister of Defence what the priorities should be.
The difficulties of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions speak for themselves. If the transport force were to be removed from
794
the Air Ministry it would have to take with it to the Ministry of Defence all facilities for the formulation of operational requirements, for planning, manning, training and operational control. All these facilities exist anyway in the Air Ministry, and to set up this extra machinery would involve prohibitive overhead costs to administer a single Command. The hon. Gentleman asked—
Mr. de Freitas: I said that the training and operation should be left at the Air Ministry, but that they should be on the Ministry of Defence Vote.
Mr. Soames: If they are to remain within the Air Ministry except that the Vote would be hived off to the Ministry of Defence, then I do not see what different arrangements are going to be reached apart from the fact that the money comes from a different source. I do not believe that would give the Minister of Defence any greater control over the activities of Transport Command than he has at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman asked for an inquiry to be set up to look into this matter. I can assure him that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence will look most carefully at all that he has said, but I am bound to say that the balance of advantage seems to rest with the present arrangements.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.

  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  HUNGARY AND ROUMANIA (SOVIET ARMED FORCES)
  HUNGARY AND ROUMANIA (SOVIET ARMED FORCES)
KENYA
  Parliamentary Delegation
  Parliamentary Delegation
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Lenge Reserve (School)
  Lenge Reserve (School)
  Mukobeko (Petition)
  Mukobeko (Petition)
  Arrested Persons
  Arrested Persons
UGANDA
  Toro (Constitution)
  Toro (Constitution)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Lincoln Area Directory (Errors)
  Lincoln Area Directory (Errors)
ROYAL NAVY
  Ship Designs
  Ship Designs
SHIPBUILDING
  Orders
  Orders
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Dyce Aerodrome (Noise)
  Dyce Aerodrome (Noise)
  Science and Engineering Graduates
  Science and Engineering Graduates
  Reservists
  Reservists
  French Prime Minister (Aircraft Delay)
  French Prime Minister (Aircraft Delay)
  Aircraft Accident, London Airport
  Aircraft Accident, London Airport
  Valetta Aircraft Accident (Report)
  Valetta Aircraft Accident (Report)
  Ration Scales, Germany
  Ration Scales, Germany
  Air Safety Regulations (Report)
  Air Safety Regulations (Report)
TRANSPORT
  British Transport Commission (White Paper)
  British Transport Commission (White Paper)
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
CIVIL AVIATION
  Alcoholic Beverages (Airport Sales)
  Alcoholic Beverages (Airport Sales)
  Prestwick Airport (Runway Extension)
  Prestwick Airport (Runway Extension)
  American Aircraft (B.O.A.C. Purchases)
  American Aircraft (B.O.A.C. Purchases)
  London—Moscow Service
  London—Moscow Service
  Air Safety
  Air Safety
  Gatwick Airport (Reopening)
  Gatwick Airport (Reopening)
ROADS
  Great North Road (Two-Lane Carriageways)
  Great North Road (Two-Lane Carriageways)
  Tyne Crossing
  Tyne Crossing
  Clayton Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Clayton Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Rochester By-pass
  Rochester By-pass
  Flyover, Hammersmith
  Flyover, Hammersmith
  Casualties
  Casualties
  Urban Motorways
  Urban Motorways
RAILWAYS
  Tube Station Escalators (Design)
  Tube Station Escalators (Design)
  Main Line Stations (Taxis and Cars)
  Main Line Stations (Taxis and Cars)
SHIPPING
  Tramp Shipping (Sales)
  Tramp Shipping (Sales)
  Fishing Vessels (Losses)
  Fishing Vessels (Losses)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Suez Canal Dispute (Cost)
  Suez Canal Dispute (Cost)
  Air Transport Facilities
  Air Transport Facilities
BRITISH ARMY
  Reservists
  Reservists
  Arab Legion (British Officers)
  Arab Legion (British Officers)
  Villa, Cyprus (Cost)
  Villa, Cyprus (Cost)
  Works Services (Review)
  Works Services (Review)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Hatherleigh Moor
  Hatherleigh Moor
  Egg Marketing Scheme
  Egg Marketing Scheme
  MINISTRIES (LONG TITLES)
  MINISTRIES (LONG TITLES)
EDUCATION
  Teachers (Call-up)
  Teachers (Call-up)
  Schools, Swindon
  Schools, Swindon
SCOTLAND
  Police (Recruitment, Resignations and Retirements)
  Police (Recruitment, Resignations and Retirements)
  Murders
  Murders
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Officers, Lincoln (Accommodation)
  Prison Officers, Lincoln (Accommodation)
  Gypsy Caravans
  Gypsy Caravans
EMPLOYMENT
  Swindon
  Swindon
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Horse Guards Parade (Car Parking)
  Horse Guards Parade (Car Parking)
HOSPITALS
  Mental Defectives (Admissions)
  Mental Defectives (Admissions)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers

  THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTSMOUTH
  William Launcelot Scott, Lord Bishop of Portsmouth—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
  The Lord Strathspey—Took the Oath.

  FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS' PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN
  2.40 p.m.
  LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government if they are aware of a recent propaganda campaign in the form of letters and pamphlets addressed to Members of Parliament by the Greek and Egyptian Governments, and if so, whether retaliatory measures are contemplated.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, I have seen certain letters and pamphlets which have been distributed by the Egyptian Government and by various Greek organisations and agencies, including the Greek Embassy in London. I am confident that Members of Parliament can evaluate them at their true worth. No direct retaliation is contemplated. There is, of course, no means of preventing foreign Governments or Missions from sending propaganda material, however hostile or mendacious, to Members of Parliament or other persons in this country, provided that the action does not constitute a breach of diplomatic privilege. Her Majesty's Government are making every effort, through our information services abroad and other means, to make known the facts and to publicise the British point
  972
  of view on the questions over which we are in dispute with the Greek and Egyptian Governments.
  LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for his reply, I find the Answer not entirely complete, and should like to reserve the right to raise the matter again on one of the occasions when we have an appropriate debate.

  MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
  2.43 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce (Cmd. 9678); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Royal Commission whose Report I am inviting your Lordships to consider this afternoon was set up following a debate in another place on the Second Reading of a Private Member's Bill, the Matrimonial Causes Bill. This Bill had been introduced by Mrs. Eirene White in March, 1951, and the Second Reading of that Bill was carried by 131 votes to 60. The Bill had for its object, broadly speaking, that either husband or wife should be entitled to obtain a divorce if the parties had been separated for not less than seven years.
  The Bill was not proceeded with. following an undertaking by the then Government that a Royal Commission covering the whole subject of marriage and divorce would be set up. As your Lordships will be aware, this is a recognised and timely method of shelving inconvenient questions, and this very inconvenient question was shelved for a number of years. The trouble about Royal Commissions, however, is that they do eventually report, and the Report comes home to roost. It does not always come home to roost in the nest of the particular bird that hatched it, however, and in this case it was a Labour Government that set up the Commission but it is for the present Government to deal with the Report. The Commission was duly appointed in September, 1951, and reported four and a quarter years later, in December, 1955. Throughout the whole period it sat under the distinguished

  973
  chairmanship of a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, who I am very glad to know is to follow me in this debate. Incidentally, that will save me a good deal of my speech, because I imagine that he will say many of the things that I might otherwise have wanted to say.
  Just to complete the picture of the Royal Commission, I would mention that it. held 102 meetings and heard evidence from 67 organisations and 48 individual witnesses; and it spent £35,463 4s. 6d. I am sure your Lordships will agree that every penny of it was well spent. The Commission published a long, comprehensive and most interesting Report and I think that your Lordships would like me, first of all, to thank the noble and learned Chairman and his Commission for the great service they have rendered am for their long and arduous labours, which arc greatly appreciated by all concerned. Their Report will long be a reference book on the vital problems that they studied.
  My Lords, I:feel that an organisation should be set up for the protection of Royal Commissions. This Commission reported after four and a quarter years, and there was then dead silence. They have no idea whether their Report is being considered, whether it has even been read; and still less have they any idea of what action Her Majesty's Government 'propose to take on it. I am not criticising this Government alone, for this is an occupational disease which seems to affect all Governments alike, I feel that, when we set up a Royal Commission and invite people to spend four years of their life in a monumental task of this kind, the least one can do is expeditiously to consider the Report and make some statement on it; and it is largely for that reason that I have thought it right this afternoon to introduce this Motion. I hope that, as a result of this Motion, it will be possible for Her Majesty's Government to make some statement showing whether they have come to any decision on the matter, what their decision may be, what action they propose to take, and when.
  In the past there have been two previous Royal Commissions on Marriage, one in 1350 and one in 1909. It is a
  974
  relatively rare thing to have a Royal Commission of this kind, and on each of the two previous occasions, in due course but after long years, some action was taken. It was twenty-five years before any action was taken following the second of those Reports; but, as I say, in each case action was eventually taken, and in each it was in the direction of easing the law of divorce and facilitating divorce in the case of unfortunate marriages. The scope of the Report of the most recent Commission is contained in paragraph 13 of the Report, which I believe it is worth reading, so that your Lordships may see the comprehensive character of the investigations made by the Commission. This is what they say:
  "The scope of our inquiry was very wide, embracing not only the law relating to divorce and other matrimonial proceedings but also the administration of that law in all courts, and the law governing the property rights of husband and wife. Moreover, for the first time, the subject of the inquiry extended to Scotland, as well as to England and Wales."
  In this very long document the Commission have dealt with their terms of reference at some length and, as I have said, in a most interesting and readable way. I cannot remember Beading a Report of a Royal Commission which is so clearly expressed and which puts the case in such an interesting way. If any of your Lordships is ever in need of a little light reading I would recommend this particular Report as one which is worthy of consideration.
  On the whole, however, public interest is confined to that part of the Report which deals with grounds of divorce. The Commission draw attention to the large number of marriages which end each year in divorce, and they say (as I am sure we all agree) that this is a matter of very grave concern. The fact is that the number of divorces is, in part, a reflection on social conditions, as the Report recognises, and the amount of human unhappiness which those conditions cause, not only to the parties to marriage but to others, including children. And may I put in a word for parents as well? Divorce is, after all, the last resort. It is the recognition of the fact that the marriage has broken down. It is usually the culmination of years of misery; the partners have, in the end, found life together quite intolerable. At the stage of the complete breakdown of marriage, it is usually too late for there to be any

  975
  hope of mending or alleviating the conditions of the marriage by conciliation or reconciliation.
  The only real hope of making the marriage institution more successful is by action at the beginning. If it were possible, the right solution would be to make marriage more difficult and divorce more easy; but that is not a matter which is within the realms of possibility, except when the parties are too young. The fact remains that one of the great difficulties is that in many cases marriages are too hastily entered into by people without guidance and without experience. That, I would say, is probaly the greatest cause of the breakdown of marriages. Frequently they are entered into without a realisation on the part of either party of what the obligations of marriage are.
  I have known many young women enter into marriage who were not in a position to employ domestic assistance at the outset, even if they could have found it, yet who had no idea how to cook a meal. I should have thought that that was the worst possible beginning for a marriage. I have even known of marriages of young people in which the husband, after doing his day's work, has had to return home and cook a meal for both himself and his wife. That is a bad start. I believe that one of the things that can be done—and the Report recommends it—is to arrange for far more guidance and help to be given to the partners to a marriage at the outset, so that they do at least know what they are going to be in for and what their responsibilities will be. For that reason I am glad to know that there will be a considerable number of speakers in your Lordships' House this afternoon and that they will include the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who is Chairman of the Marriage Guidance Council.
  I come back to the fundamental question which the Commission was primarily set up to consider—that is, the grounds upon which there should be divorce; whether or not an irretrievable breakdown of a marriage should be a ground for divorce, in addition to the existing grounds. The particular point which the Commission considered was naturally based upon the Bill put forward by Mrs. Eirene White, which was based upon the view that if the parties had been
  976
  separated and living apart for seven years or more that should be, automatically, a ground for divorce, in addition to any other grounds that may be available. It is unfortunate—I am sure that it is due to no fault on the part of the noble and learned Lord who was Chairman of the Commission—that on this fundamental question the Commission were evenly divided. Nine members, including the Chairman, took the view that there should be no change in the grounds for divorce. Nine supported the introduction of a new ground for divorce founded on the complete, irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
  I should like to take up a little of your Lordships' time in dealing with the case as presented by each side. And may I say that the way in which the respective cases of the two sides have been presented in the Report is wholly admirable. The case for each side has been fairly, objectively and clearly set out. The case for one side has been countered by the other, and it is for any one of us interested in this subject to read the conclusions of the two sides and to form his own judgment. I want to say straight away that I take the view, after careful consideration, that the grounds for divorce should be extended to cases in which the parties have been separated for seven years or more. But I should like to add that this is not an easy decision to reach. The grounds against such a decision are formidable. In the end, one has to take the cases for the two sides and weigh them up and then come to one conclusion or the other. I do not think—and I believe that the noble and learned Lord will agree with me—that the two views are reconcilable. One must accept one or the other. I see no way of compromising.
  The main objection to the principle of breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce which has been put forward by its opponents was that it would amount to divorce by consent if, at the end of seven years of separation, either party to the marriage could apply for a divorce, and that it would tend to make marriage seem as something of less concern if it should be possible automatically to terminate it in this way. It was further contended that it would encourage the ending of marriage more lightly. I suppose that is true, and one must concede

  977
  the fact that. to the extent that divorce is made easier, there may always be people who will enter into marriage more lightly than they otherwise would do. I would invite your Lordships, however, to consider how much there is in this argument. When they are about to get married, people do not really sit down and weigh the pros and cons of the divorce law and what will be the grounds of divorce. I should not think that they go to their solicitors and get counsel's opinion of what will be the possibilities of getting a divorce if they do not get on together. People rush into marriage because they want to rush into it, and one of the problems is that they rush into marriage much too impetuously. I cannot conceive that they will enter into marriage more rashly if they realise that, if their marriage does break down and they live apart for seven years, it will be possible to get a divorce, particularly as it is possible to get a divorce on other grounds without waiting seven years.
  In the course of the Second Reading debate to which I have referred, Sir Hartley Shawcross, who was then Attorney-General, stated (I have not the reference readily available) that at the 1912 inquiry made by the Royal Commission the King's Proctor gave evidence and stated, in the words used by Sir Hartley:
  "The truth was that 75 per cent. of divorces obtained in this country were in fact divorces by consent."
  These are divorces which have been obtained by agreement between the parties, although, of course, it is illegal, not at the end of seven years, but in accordance with the then law, which was on the ground of misconduct. Speaking from memory, I think that at that time that was the main ground for divorce. Desertion was not a ground, nor, I think, was cruelty. That was the evidence of the King's Proctor, that 75 per cent. of divorces based upon the misconduct of one of the parties were arranged divorces.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to interrupt him? Would it not be true to say that they were arranged divorces which, in a great many cases, involved perjury?
  LORD SILKIN: Not necessarily, because the parties would not have to make any statement on whether or not it was an arranged divorce. In an undefended
  978
  divorce case which has been arranged, either implicitly or explicitly—and I imagine that the King's Proctor would include divorces which had been arranged in the sense that the parties had acquiesced or agreed, although they had not come to a definite legal understanding—] think one could get by without committing perjury at all. It must be within the experience of many noble Lords that there was a time—the idea is not so prevalent today—when it was regarded as the right thing, where the parties wanted a divorce, for the husband to provide the grounds. If he did, whether 113 was the guilty party or not, he acted like a gentleman. If he refused, he was a cad. Everybody knows that that was the case for many years, until additional grounds were provided, such as desertion for three years, and cruelty. My own view is that, as a result, the proportion of divorces secured by consent has been substantially reduced from the figure of 75 per cent. quoted. I doubt whether it is correct to say that, to any material extent, people will enter into marriage more lightly as a result of facilitating divorce where marriage has substantially broken down.
  Then there is the objection that, in the form is which the case is put by most people, a divorce can be applied for at the instance of either party, which may mean that the guilty party can apply for a divorce at the end of seven years. That is perfectly true, but I think that the nine members of the Royal Commission who took the view that divorce should be possible where a marriage had substantially broken down did not all agree that it should be at the instance of either party. Four took the further view that divorce should be at the instance of either party, whether that party was guilty or not. I would associate myself with the four who took that view. In view of what I have said, it is very difficult to see who is the guilty party and who is the innocent. Of course, there are cases where the position is clear, but in a large number of the cases which come before the courts, if we were to go behind the formal fact that one is the petitioner and proves his case against the court—and I have suggested that it would be right to go behind that and get the true facts—we should find that it is unrealistic to say, in the majority of cases, that there is a guilty party and an innocent party. My own view is that, where a marriage has

  979
  broken down, both parties, possibly not equally, have some responsibility for the breakdown.
  At the present time, where there are grounds for divorce for the innocent party, where there has been misconduct or desertion for three years, or cruelty, or where other grounds are available, it is possible to file a petition; but there are cases where, although this remedy is open, the injured party is unwilling, for reasons of spite or vindictiveness, to take the necessary action. Therefore it is suggested by those in favour of the divorce for breakdown of marriage that if, at the end of seven years, such a party has not taken the necessary proceedings, it should be open to either party. I recognise, of course, the force of the statement contained in the view of the relentionists (if I may so call them), that it would be allowing the guilty party to take advantage of his own wrong, which I am sure would be repugnant to any lawyer, but I have already suggested that this conception of a guilty and an innocent party in the breakdown of a marriage is, to a large extent—though I do not suggest wholly—unrealistic.
  After all, we have to look at this from the point of view of the total amount of human happiness involved. In many cases, at the end of seven years' separation one or other of the parties has entered into fresh quasi-matrimonial relationships, and may have children; and to refuse to permit divorce purely on the ground of the seven years' separation would condemn a considerable number of other people who have entered into these relationships, as well as their children, to the continuation of a most unsatisfactory kind of life. I would say that, from that point of view alone, it should be possible for the whole matter to be straightened out by a divorce.
  The retentionists put great reliance on the fact that divorce is injurious to children; and so it is. The trouble about all these points that they make is that there is an clement of truth in them. But in the case that we are examining, where the parties have been separated for seven years, or more, it will follow that the children will have been without the guidance of one parent or the other for at least seven years, and they will have become materially older in the process.
  980
  I cannot conceive that refusing the parents the opportunity of divorce at the end of seven years is in any way going to benefit the children.
  Those, I believe, are the main bases upon which the extension of the grounds for divorce were put forward. I hope that I have been fair to the case presented by the nine retentionists. I imagine that some, at any rate, of the retentionists are opposed to divorce at all, and that they would have equally resisted the existing grounds for divorce at the time when they were submitted. I should like to ask them whether they think that, if we had no divorce and no means of putting an end to an unhappy marriage, whatever the circumstances might be. that would add to the total of human happiness. The question arose whether, even if you permitted a divorce on the ground that the parties had not lived together for seven years, it should be only with the consent of both parties. I think that I largely dealt with that point when I said that I took the view that it should be at the instance of either party, and that unless there were strong grounds for refusing a divorce, or it was unreasonable for a divorce to take place —and that I feel would be a rare case—a divorce should be granted at the end of that period. Of course, it would be conditional upon many things, such as the custody of the children and making provision for them. Certain financial arrangements and other matters of that kind would have to be dealt with in a satisfactory manner. But I have already expressed my view that, subject to that, it should be possible to get a divorce; that it should be at the instance of either party, and that no regard should be paid to the question of guilt or innocence or the commission of a matrimonial offence.
  I recognise that Her Majesty's Government have a difficult decision to make. I have no doubt that the general trend of opinion and the climate of our increasingly complex and nerve-racking society all lead in the direction of loosening a tie which has become intolerable and without hope of alleviation. However, it is for the Government of the day to weigh up faithfully and without bias the case for and against change and to come to an early decision, I recognise that they are bound to be influenced by the fact that the Commission were evenly divided; but I hope

  981
  that they will be influenced also by the fact that, when this matter came before another place, a Bill for providing for divorce on this same ground was carried by 131 to 60 on Second Reading: and I have little doubt that if a vote were taken in the present Parliament the result 'would be much the same. What would 'be intolerable would be for the Government to make no decision, or, worse still, not even to consider the problem because of its great difficulties. These difficulties do not diminish with time. I hope that, if not to-day, Her Majesty's Government will make an early announcement of what they are prepared to do. I have expressed my opinion as to what should be done.
  Of course, it is conceivable that the Government would be prepared to facilitate the passage of a Private Member's Bill. In that case, I would ask them to stand by that Bill once it is passed, and to ensure that such a Bill is carried into effect, if that is the will of Parliament. That is the real question upon which the public are desirous of having a decision. It is not enough merely to give some encouragement to the recommendations dealing with advice and guidance, with a view to helping to prevent the subsequent breakdown of a marriage, important as they are. If I have not dealt with these recommendations in any detail, and if I ask for something more than that, I am not in any way diminishing the importance of the pre-marital guidance that can be given, which I am sure would have great effect in making marriages more successful.
  It is for these reasons that I have called attention to the Report of the Royal Commission. I have dealt with the main issue which was before the Committee, and I have tried to put both sides of the case, not concealing my own view. I. have not suggested that there is no substantial ground for the view taken by the retentionists but I do suggest that they have over-stated and magnified the objections to the proposed change, and that they have assumed that conditions will obtain on a large scale when, in my view, the cases which they refer to as the hard cases will be few indeed. I believe they have underestimated the great amount of unhappiness and misery which the
  982
  retention of the present grounds of divorce creates.
  I have deliberately not dealt with the views of the Churches on divorce and marriage, and whether such persons as are divorced should be allowed to remarry. I have not dealt with it, partly because I cannot claim to have any particular contribution to make to the subject, and, further, because I do not think the Royal Commission dealt with that aspect of the matter. I recognise that the Churches have an important contribution to make to a consideration of this subject. They have great experience anti great knowledge of the lives of people. and I know that we shall listen to what the members of the clergy have to say to us this afternoon with great respect and attention. I hope they will not feel that they are being treated disrespectfully if I do not deal with some of the problems which know they have been facing in the recent past. I hope that the result of this debate will be to afford the Government an opportunity of making some statement as to what they propose doing. and at least of giving the Royal Commission, which has laboured so long and so patiently, some kind of recognition for their great and long efforts. I beg to move for Papers.
  3.22 p.m.
  LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON: My Lords, may I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, most sincerely for the kind things that he has said about the work of the Commission and its Report. We did work hard. Our terms of reference were very wide, and we ourselves were scattered over the whole of England. Scotland and Wales. We are sure that all our recommendations will be carefully considered, and we hope that some, at least, will be put into force. It may seem ungrateful, after the kind things that the noble Lord, Lord Silk in, has said, that I confess at once that I am quite unrepentant in thinking that the proposals in the Bill brought forward in another place by Mrs. Eirene White would do infinitely more harm than good. I shall no'. take up your Lordships' time by repeating the arguments which are set out in the Report for that view.
  Here I think as Chairman, and do not wish to be controversial. but I would say this at once. The noble Lord is quite wrong in thinking that the retentionists, as he calls them, were against all

  983
  divorce. There is no foundation whatever for that view which he put forward. I must point out one rather important aspect of the matter. Of the nineteen members of the Commission, not a single one supported in its entirety the Bill which was put forward in another place by Mrs. Eirene White. I should like to make that good by telling you what we did think. Although there is nothing of a Party nature about this topic at all, the Division in another place did follow, to some extent, Party lines. I am sure that the two largest Parties were represented in our Commission, although, of course, we never talked politics. The remarkable thing is that all the nineteen people were unanimous in rejecting one feature of Mrs. White's proposals.
  Nine of the Commission, including myself, were against divorce by consent, and we were against divorce at the option of either party where no matrimonial offence had been committed. Nine of the Commission went further and were in favour of divorce by consent of both parties after seven years' separation. Four of the nine went further still, and were in favour of divorce after seven years' separation at the option of either party, provided—and this is very important—that that party could prove that the separation was due at least in part to the unreasonable conduct of the other party. But what nobody supported was that men who had gone off leaving a guiltless wife for seven years, should come back and divorce her against her will, notwithstanding that she might have conscientious scruples, and thereby deprive her, she having committed no matrimonial offence at all, of her status as wife; of her right to maintenance as a wife—although that might be provided for by something in the order—of her rights, such as they are, to remain in the matrimonial home, and of her rights to claim against the estate of her late husband under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938, which provides, in effect, that if due provision is not made for a wife she can come to the court and claim it. That would be gone because she had been divorced on no grounds except the seven years' separation, which may not have been her fault at all.
  I pass from that to another Bill which was before this House shortly before the
  984
  Royal Commission was appointed. We had to consider matters which were dealt with in that Bill. It was a Bill produced by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and if I may state its purport quite shortly, and somewhat inaccurately, it was directed to this: that a man should be able to marry his divorced wife's sister, or a woman should be able to marry her divorced husband's brother. In the Commission, the noble Lord's suggestions received a satisfactory majority—sixteen to three. I happened to be one of the three, but I should like to say this in the presence of the noble Lord: that it was only after great hesitation that I did take that view, and what influenced me was the evidence given before the Royal Commission by the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Dr. Hutchison Cockburn on behalf of the Church of Scotland. It was after considering this that I came down on that side.
  I had expected, when I heard that this debate was to take place, that I might sit back and listen to what other people said about our Report; but I was told, and given due warning, that it would be helpful if I made some observations about the work of the Commission generally, and then perhaps called attention to some particular proposals. I shall deal only with those recommendations which were unanimous, or nearly so. In general, one comment that was made has always lived in my mind: it was that it was obvious from the Report that the Commission was dominated by its lawyer members. I should like to see any lawyer, or anyone else, for that matter, try to dominate any one of the lay members of that Commission. In saying that, I do not suggest that they were in any way cantankerous or obstinate. I mean merely that every member of that Commission listened to the evidence, read the documents and made up his or her mind quite independently.
  Another comment which rather stuck in my mind was that this was an irreligious Report. That was based, I think, on a sentence in paragraph 38 which is word for word this:
  "This report will contain no discussion of what may be called the religious aspects of marriage or divorce. …"
  That was perhaps an unfortunate phrase, but what it meant to me, and I think to

  985
  my colleagues, was that there are many people in this country who honestly and firmly believe that in the sight of God a marriage, once solemnised, can never be ended except by the death of one party or the other. It was not for us to go into matters of that kind at all. We were appointed in a country where legislation has been passed to enable people to get a divorce on certain grounds and it was for us to consider simply this: are these the best grounds that can be devised? That, of course, was only one part of our work. The State has to legislate for all its citizens, whatever may be their religious beliefs.
  I have one more comment of a general nature. In all comment on our Report attention was focused very much on the differences of opinion, and especially the difference of opinion to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred. I should like to say that I think it is remarkable how unanimous the Commission were. Those who have read through the Report —and I expect all your Lordships have—will have seen that the great majority of our recommendations are unanimous. That is rather striking, because we were dealing with human problems. It was impossible to prove anything One way or the other; it was just a matter of what was the best thing. The members of the Commission differed very greatly in their work, and their general outlook, and also, I am sure, although it was never discussed., in their politics. And yet there were all those unanimous recommendations. If I may say so, I think that we formed an average cross-section of reasonably intelligent and reasonably hard-working people in the country, and I suspect that, even if we were divided on certain topics, it may well be that the country also is divided' on them, and possibly our recommendations, where they were unanimous, might be entitled to some weight just because we were all different people of different occupations and outlook.
  May I come, I hope briefly, to some of the recommendations that I should like to bring to your Lordships' particular attention? First of all, there is a recommendation as to children. In paragraph 373 we recommend that no couple shall get a decree absolute until the judge is satisfied that the future arrangements made for the children are the best that can be devised. We thought that that might have two good 'results. First of all,
  986
  we provided that the petitioner—and, if the custody was contested, the respondent —should put down on paper exactly what he or she proposed should be done about the children after the divorce, if it was granted. We thought that that put the children in the proper place. It brought out that there are not only the two parties who arc concerned with the divorce but also the children, and that the State, too, is interested every time that a marriage breaks up.
  The second thing we had in mind was this. if two people—or, at least one of them—have to put down those matters on paper and. think them out, we thought there was a considerable hope that in the cases where the parties really should not be going to get a divorce at all, because it was unnecessary—and there are such cases—they might be led to think again and to wonder whether they could not try to "make a go of it" for the sake of the children. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, the number of divorces in this country each year is very great. At present the total in Great Britain is nearly 30.000—and that is more than ten years after the war is over. In our Report—I shall not trouble your Lordships with it in detail—we tried to give some of the reasons for that. We made a suggestion as to how the matter might be improved. We did not think that it would remedy it at all to make divorce more difficult, but we suggested that much could be done by free marriage education, in the widest sense, and by other steps which are mentioned in the Report.
  We made this suggestion, that a suitable body (I shall comment in a moment on "a suitable body") should be set up at an early date to consider the problems of how people should be educated for marriage and how hasty and ill-considered marriages can be avoided. We said "a suitable body" because we ourselves could not do anything, as it was not within our terms of reference; also because we thought—or at least, I thought—that no body could be suitable for a purpose like that which contained in its number not one clergyman of any denomination and contained, to my mind, for this purpose—and I say only "for this purpose"—too many lawyers. We said a good deal in our Report about marriage guidance and conciliation, and we were satisfied that a great deal of good work is

  987
  being done by bodies carrying on that work.
  We had a great deal of evidence that, when there are available people whom married folk can consult, if they are getting into difficulties with their married life, provided that they are the right people, with the right sort of training, a great many marriages can be saved from breaking up. I shall not deal more fully with that aspect, because I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will be speaking later, but I will say this. Very large sums are spent every year in helping people to get divorced by means of legal aid. I am not saying a word against that, but I think that comparatively little is spent on trying to save marriages which are in danger of breaking up, and it seems to me that more might be done about it.
  May I refer briefly to three other matters in the Report? First of all, Part XII, which is perhaps not so easy reading as the rest of the Report, deals with the jurisdiction of courts in various countries to pronounce decrees of divorce. That work—and it was very hard work indeed—was done by a committee consisting of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm (as he is now), Mr. Justice Pearce and Professor Geoffrey Cheshire. who was co-opted for the purpose. They have set out in an Appendix a draft code. One of the principal objects that that committee had in mind was to reduce the number of what are sometimes called "limping marriages"—that is, marriages where the parties have been divorced in one country and they re-marry, and their re-marriage is regarded as good in that country but not in another. We felt that much could be done to mitigate that evil, because to some extent it is an evil.
  Another topic that gave us great concern was the position of a deserted wife where the house belonged to her husband, or where the husband was the tenant of the house, and also where the furniture, or the greater part of it, belonged to the husband. There have been recent decisions in the Court of Appeal, though they have not yet come to your Lordships' House, which hold that a deserted wife has certain rights, even if she is not the tenant or even if the husband, as the owner, is
  988
  staying on; but we felt that the law on the subject was not altogether clear and that something ought to be suggested by us, as it came clearly within our terms of reference, to make the position of the wife clearer and to give her as much protection as is reasonably possible, consistent with the rights of third parties.
  What rights third parties should be given is by no means clear at the moment, and one must have in mind the case of a mortgagee who has lent the husband money on the security of the house in perfect good faith before there was any matrimonial trouble, and who may now find himself in a difficult position; and also the position of the landlord who. again, has nothing to do with the matrimonial troubles but who may find himself in a very strange position if, for instance, he wishes to get possession of the house or, in the case of a mortgagee. if he wishes to sell, because the wife is probably still there. These things we have tried to deal with and we have suggested that legislation should be passed to deal with them.
  Lastly, may I say a word about the Appendices. I do not know how many people read Appendices, but these Appendices represent an immense amount of hard work and research in regard not only to this country but to all parts of the world. We did not travel over the world to obtain first-hand information. but your Lordships will find in these Appendices a great deal of information about the divorce laws of other countries and other information. I have read a criticism saying that it is all very well for the Commission to set out these facts in the Appendices, but they might have commented upon them and drawn their conclusions from them. We did not think it right to do that for two reasons: first, it would have enormously increased the length of the Report—and I assure you it took some compression to get our material into 309 pages, exclusive of the Appendices and the Summary; and, second, we felt that those who were sufficiently interested should read the Appendices and ponder them and form their own conclusions.
  I have just realised that in all that I have said I have made no mention of Scotland. I need hardly say that I would

  989
  never overlook my native country. The reason it has not been specifically mentioned, although there are many recommendations which relate to Scotland, is that all the recommendations that I have mentioned apply equally to Scotland as to England and Wales, allowing only for those differences rendered necessary by the differences between the two legal systems. I end as I began by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and by expressing the hope that some, at least, of our recommendations may be put into force.

  HONG KONG
  3.42 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LLOYD): With your Lordships' permission I will make a statement on Hong Kong. On the morning of October 10, a non-Communist Chinese national festival, a dispute developed on a Government resettlement estate in Kowloon. The settlement supervisor tried to stop tenants sticking Nationalist paper flags on the walls. Flags may be flown in Hong Kong, but may not be stuck on the walls of Government buildings. A crowd assembled, the resettlement staff were assaulted and their offices wrecked. The police successfully dispersed the crowd.
  The same evening, however, fresh crowds assembled and began assaulting both Asians and Europeans and attacking property. apparently incited by criminal elements. By early morning next day order appeared to have been fully restored and bus services were resumed. But later in the morning fresh disturbances were begun at a number of points in Kowloon by mobs who started fires and attacked vehicles, buildings and police patrols. The mobs rapidly dispersed in face of police attacks but quickly reassembled elsewhere to renew the rioting. Troops were therefore called in to cordon off the affected areas and isolate the mobs. They deployed during the afternoon of the 11th, and in the evening a curfew was imposed on Kowloon and both public transport and the ferries between Kowloon and Hong Kong Island were stopped. There were also serious clashes between opposing Chinese factions in a textile factory area, to which police and troops had to be despatched. The
  990
  major disorders were all suppressed by midnight on October 11. There were minor incidents the next day —chiefly cases of looting—and on October 13 administrative services were resumed in the affected area. On October 16 the curfew was entirely lifted and all troops were withdrawn.
  In the course of these disturbances 60 lives were lost and about 400 people were given hospital treatment. Damaged buildings included police posts, resettlement offices, factories, stores and schools. Over 5,000 arrests were made and nearly a quarter of those arrested were found to have previous criminal records. The Government of Hong Kong have begun a rigorous investigation into the origins and course of the riots. Until this investigation is completed I shall not be able to make an authoritative statement on their causes and significance. I should like, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to say how deeply we regret these disturbances and to extend our sympathy to all who suffered in them.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his statement, may I, on behalf of noble Lords on this side, express our sympathy with the innocent people who have suffered as a result of these disturbances? May I ask the noble Lord one question, namely, whether his attention has been drawn to the allegations that the Hong Kong Government did not take due precautions against such a disturbance and did not deal energetically with the situation when in first arose.
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. I would merely say that it is quite untrue that the Hong Kong Government took no steps to anticipate this sort of disturbance. I think the noble Lord knows Hong Kong and will know that there are two national days. The Double Tenth is one of these. At a time like that, every precaution is always taken; and, indeed, the fact that the preliminary riots were so speedily dealt with was in itself, I should have thought, evidence of the readiness of the police to deal with disturbances at what was an obvious moment of danger. I should equally like to deny arty report that may have circulated that the Government of Hong Kong have not throughout taken energetic and, indeed, successful steps to restore law and order in the Colony
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? I do not know from his statement whether all the people who made this shocking trouble are citizens of Hong Kong, in the sense that they are people who are domiciled there and entitled to remain there. If any of them are not so entitled, would the noble Lord assure us that the Governor of Hong Kong has full power, and will not hesitate to use that power, to deport them to whatever place they really belong?
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, as explained to the House, we have not yet received the report of the Government of Hong Kong on the investigation which is now taking place, and therefore I am not in a position to say at this moment whether any and, if any, how many of those responsible for the riots came from elsewhere. I would only add that. so far as I know, all Governors have powers in a case of emergency to deal with those from outside who come and create trouble in any British territory; and the Governor of Hong Kong has the same powers as other Governors.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I did not mean persons who just came in in order to make trouble, but people who were sitting inside British territory, although they were not denizens of that territory, and then abused that hospitality.
  LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, my point has been to some extent covered by the answer just given, but I should like to ask whether there is any evidence so far that these troubles and riots have been inspired from outside the Colony. It may be too early to say yet, but have the Government any indication that these troubles have been inspired from outside the Colony?
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, as I have already said in reply to my noble friend, we have not yet had from the Government of Hong Kong the report on this whole matter, and it would be improper for me to-day to anticipate anything that that report may say. However, I will bear in mind what the noble Lord has said. Obviously that is one of things which we shall look at.

  MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
  3.49 p.m.
  Debate resumed.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I thought it might be of some help to your Lordships if I were to intervene at this stage in the debate on the Royal Commission's Report to make a statement to your Lordships about the conclusions which have been reached so far—I repeat, so far—by Her Majesty's Government on this most difficult and important subject, and to let your Lordships know upon which recommendations in the Report the Government propose to act. My noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor, will be winding up the debate from the Government side and he will, of course, be able to deal with other points which will doubtless be raised in the course of the subsequent debate.
  I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. for raising this extremely important matter. He has more than once in recent months put down Motions on similar lines to this one, about other Reports and other Royal Commissions. I suspect that he wishes to go down in history as the Inspector General of Pigeonholes. But I can tell the noble Lord this at once: Her Majesty's Government have already examined, and are continuing to examine, this Report most carefully. The noble Lord suggested that the Report had been received in the New Year, and the rest, he said, was silence. I think that was perhaps hardly fair to my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General, who, in another place on June 4, gave some indication of what was in the mind of the Government. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government have studied this Report most carefully. If it is of any comfort to him, I can tell him, here and now, that I myself have read through the Report from cover to cover, including—I am certain my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton will be happy to hear—the Appendices. Had I wanted to, I could even have read the Report in the course of my summer holiday. I was particularly happy to see a copy of it on sale in a book shop in Venice. I was slightly startled to see that it was listed,

  993
  not as one would expect under "Law" or "Sociology", but under "Romance".
  I should like, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, and his colleagues of the Royal Commission for their monumental work. I can do this, standing at this Dispatch Box, in more than a sense of formality, because I myself am in the happy position of having personally given evidence before that Royal Commission, and I therefore can testify to the care and the broadminded thoroughness with which they undertook their most important task. They have produced a Report which is not only one of the most readable Reports a Royal Commission has ever produced, but one of the most socially important. But, as both noble Lords who have so far spoken have indicated, the Royal Commission did not produce any revolutionary conclusions. Their Report falls into two parts: first, the divorce law, and secondly, the matrimonial jurisdiction of the courts. Of course, the second is important, but I suspect that public opinion will be concerned mostly with the first. I suspect that that will probably be the burden of most of the specches in the debate this afternoon.
  Many of the Commission's recommendations can, and will, be dealt with by minor legislation, by amendments to the Rules of Court and the like. Some, of course, can be dealt with administratively; but some undoubtedly require major legislation. Of these, the most important and by far the most controversial is the question of allowing divorce after the parties have been separated for seven years—roughly, the subject of Mrs. Eirene White's Bill. I say "roughly" because your Lordships will now have appreciated that there is quite a sharp difference between unilateral divorce and divorce by consent. As the House now realises, the Commission were evenly divided on this question of divorce by consent. I suspect that that probably reflects a similar division of opinion throughout the country and in your Lordships' House. I have no means of controverting the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but I think that probably he has put a little too much weight on one side rather than on the other.
  There being that equal division, few Governments would be ready to legislate
  994
  in such circumstances without first allowing time for public opinion to crystallise, and, indeed, for Parliament to express its views. As your Lordships may imagine, people feel very strongly on this matter—equally strongly on both sides. I am afraid that I must tell the House that Her Majesty's Government can hold out no present hope of being able to introduce legislation dealing with this or the other principal topics requiring major legislation. I am sorry to appear a little uncompromising in this matter. I regret it, but I should be less than frank if were even to hint otherwise. We will, of course, give full consideration to the views expressed in this debate and in the country, which, incidentally, has been surprisingly restrained, even reticent, about the Report of the Royal Commission; and we can and will take means. short of legislation, for dealing with many of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
  What I have just said applies, I am afraid, in some ways also to the all-important question of the welfare of children. There are a large number of recommendations in the Report, of which I suspect that probably one of the most important is to the effect that no decree absolute should be granted until the court is satisfied about the children's welfare. Naturally, people are uneasy about what happens to children in divorce cases. Something like 20,000 children a year are affected by divorce. Something can and will be done by amending the Rules of Court, but legislation is required to enable the court to go so far as to withhold a decree. I am afraid I cannot hold out much hope of legislation on those lines in the coining Session.
  On some of the other topics I am glad to say that Her Majesty's Government can be more forthcoming. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor proposes to invite the Supreme Court Rule Committee to consider what other amend-merits to the Rules of Court are needed, and I believe that similar action is proposed in Scotland. Such procedural amendments might, I suppose, amongst other things ensure that a parent claiming custody must give the court full information about the arrangements proposed for the children's maintenance and upbringing, and also perhaps that the court would he given power to grant an injunction preventing a child from being

  995
  taken out of the country before a case is heard; and there are others. Her Majesty's Government hope to take action on all the important recommendations falling within these particular categories which can be dealt with by means short of legislation.
  Now I will turn to the matrimonial jurisdiction of magistrates in England. The Royal Commission made a large number of recommendations about matrimonial proceedings in magistrates' courts. Many of them would require legislation, some of them present practical difficulties, and all need careful and detailed consideration. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that we are going ahead with this consideration, so that although there is no prospect of finding time for legislation during the next Session we may be clear in our own minds what we want to do, and how to do it, when time for legislation is available. In the meantime, I can tell your Lordships that a Bill is in an advanced state of preparation for consolidating the scattered statutory provisions relating to the matrimonial jurisdiction of magistrates in England and Wales. This Bill should be ready for introduction in the new Session, and the consolidation of the law which it will effect will usefully pave the way for subsequent amending legislation. I think this will go some way to meeting one of the Royal Commission's more important recommendations.
  In considering the recommendations in this field, we shall look at those which do not require legislation, to see whether any of them can usefully be implemented in advance of those that do. Unfortunately, financial considerations may preclude action for the present on some of the Royal Commission's recommendations which would involve considerable additional expenditure. For instance, there is the implementation of the provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, and there is the provision of a complete record of proceedings. I think the Royal Commission themselves recognised that expense might make that provision almost impracticable.
  There are some less important recommendations which are suitable for Private Members' Bills. After all, that is the only way in which reform of the divorce law has been effected in the last twenty
  996
  years. I must confess that I could not but note with gratitude that the proposals of my own Marriage Enabling Bill, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henry ton, was good enough to refer to, were supported by the Royal Commission by a majority of sixteen to three. I could not also but fail to note with grief that the noble and learned Lord was amongst the three who voted against me—a blow from which I am recovering, but slowly. I think it would be immodest and tactless of me to suggest any future for my own Bill, but, to give an example of a potential Private Member's Bill, I believe that the noble and learned President of the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division, whom we are to hear later in the debate, would welcome a Bill on voluntary maintenance agreements. The present law, we know, is unsatisfactory. A husband's promise is not at present enforceable, and a wife should be able to apply for increased maintenance out of her dead husband's estate. Her Majesty's Government are ready to consider proposals for such a Private Member's Bill and, if necessary, to assist with drafting.
  I will now say a short word about probation officers. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department proposes, in accordance with the Commission's recommendation, to extend to the Provinces arrangements whereby in London a few probation officers assist the Divorce Division by inquiries about children. He also hopes to amend the Probation Rules to make this a prescribed duty of probation officers. I understand that legislation is needed before probation officers could do this work in Scotland.
  On marriage guidance grants, about which noble Lords have spoken with firmness and sincerity—and I think their views will find an echo in nearly every other speech to which we shall listen this afternoon—the Commission unanimously recommended a financial increase. Provision for the coming year is now under consideration. All I can promise is that Her Majesty's Government will look at this problem most sympathetically. My right honourable friends, the Home Secretary and the Minister of Education, have agreed to receive a deputation from the National Marriage Guidance Council on this and

  997
  other matters, particularly a review of the marriage law and pre-marital training. They will listen most sympathetically to what this deputation will have to say; and I can endorse most heartily the views so far expressed. Her Majesty's Government share the high opinions, expressed by the Royal Commission about the Council's work and the value of that work on this problem.
  I appreciate, of course, that Her Majesty's Government may not have promised as much as some noble Lords may have wished. We have, however, promised to do a great deal. But, for all their painstaking examination, the Royal Commission have given us n..-) very clear lead on the major issues of controversy. if the Royal Commission had demonstrated an unquestionable demand for major reform along one particular line or another, then the situation might well have been different; but in view of this position I am sure the House would think it unreasonable to expect Her Majesty's Government to give any more specific undertakings now than I have been able to give. We are doing as much as time permits; and when time and public opinion permit more, well, we must do more.
  4.3 p.m.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I am one of those who welcome the Report of this Royal Commission with warmth and gratitude. It is the third Report on this great subject within a century and, when one reads it in comparison with the other two, its distinctive mark seems to me to be its strong emphasis on the recommendation for steps by education or conciliation, to reduce the number of divorces. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in opening this debate, for which we are all grateful, said that he thought public attention was confined to the section of the Report dealing with the, grounds for divorce. I do not believe that public attention is confined to that part. I believe that a great deal of public attention is enormously interested in education for marriage and the conciliatory processes by which the number of divorces can be reduced, and my reading of this Report is that it comes as a kind of summons to the State, the Church, local authorities and voluntary agencies to redouble their efforts in education and conciliatory
  998
  work to reduce the divorces which take place in this country.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who has just spoken for Her Majesty s Government, promised certain legislative and administrative changes which he described as "minor". Let me assure the noble Lord that they will not be regarded as minor if they give real, effective help, as I am sure they will, to those who care deeply and work hard for education for marriage and conciliation. I was very glad that the noble Lord promised that Her Majesty's Government would consider the possibility of greater financial aid to marriage guidance councils. The work of those councils goes on with a good. deal of anxiety on account of the need for funds: and many of those who work in the service of those councils as guidance counsellors do so at considerable personal self-sacrifice. T was sorry, however, that the noble Lord said nothing about the recommendation; the Commission's Report that:
  "a suitably qualified body should be set up at an early date charged with the review of the marriage law and the existing arrangements for pre-marital education and training."
  I think there will be a good deal of disappointment that the noble Lord said nothing about that.
  Then there is that aspect of education for marriage which lies very near to the ceremony of marriage itself. When a marriage takes place in church, the great solemnity of the words used certainly say something to the mind and the conscience; but the parish priest always endeavours to ensure that those who are to be married do not have that occasion as their first encounter with the solemn words they are going to say. He will have done everything possible, by meeting the parties beforehand and talking to them and getting them to read the solemn words in advance, to get them to give their minds to what it is they are going to undertake. When the ceremony is in a register office it is good that something on the same lines is done. It was a great step when, a few years ago, registrars were instructed to address the parties, informing them of the life-long character of the undertaking that they were making. It would be a further great help if it were requisite for written help to be available in register offices. to be put into the hands of the parties, showing

  999
  them where and how they could get help in troubles that might arise.
  When we talk of education towards marriage, that inevitably includes the realisation of what a great thing the marriage is going to be; and here I am heartily glad that the noble Lord did not indicate that there would be legislation extending the grounds for divorce, and in particular the proposal for divorce after seven years' separation on the plea of either or both parties. I was heartily glad of that because I believe that a revolution of that character in the grounds for divorce would have a reflex effect upon the approach of couples towards marriage, and an effect which would be thoroughly bad. Your Lordships will remember a debate which took place six years ago, before the appointment of the Royal Commission. It was on November 23, 1950. I was not then a Member of your Lordships' House, but I noted some words used on that occasion by the then Lord Chancellor. the noble and learned Earl. Lord Jowitt. Those words have stuck in my mind ever since, and they seem to me to express powerfully what I should always wish to say. The noble and learned Earl said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 169. col. 513]:
  "… if we are going to allow this sort of divorce, are we not in danger of making people think more and more that marriage is a contract at will and not a union for life?"
  It is in relation to education for marriage that I am heartily glad that the revolution in the grounds for divorce that has been discussed on these lines is not within the intention of Her Majesty's Government.
  One word more about children. Paragraph 373 in the Commission's Report would, if it were translated into legislation, be held to be a children's charter. I am very disappointed, and I think that there will be a good deal of disappointment in the country, that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was not able to promise, on behalf of the Government, legislation to lay down that a decree should not be made absolute until the court had been satisfied concerning the provision for the children. There will be great disappointment at that. If my recollection of the text is correct, it was one of the agreed recommendations of the Report. I have used the term "children's charter." I
  1000
  believe that that term was used early in the present century in connection with a Bill promoted by the Home Office, at the time when the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was its Under-Secretary, for the welfare of children. If Her Majesty's Government had found it possible to introduce legislation for the welfare of children on this specific point in relation to the law courts, the name of the noble Lord would have been associated with what would indeed have been a children's charter. As I say, what we have been told is disappointing, but we were glad to hear that Her Majesty's Government had given only preliminary consideration to what they propose to do and not their full and final consideration.
  No doubt it is a very good thing that one of the parties in a divorce suit should have to put on paper what he or she is prepared to do for the children. But the court needs far more satisfaction than that. It is surely very difficult for a court to distinguish between a profession by one of the parties that the children will be looked after and a real conviction that they will be. The only occasion in history on which a court distinguished infallibly between a woman who said she cared for a child and a woman who really cared for the child was that of the judgment of King Solomon, but the method of decision then used is one which is not accessible to Her Majesty's judges to-day. I think that opinion in the country cares greatly for those positive aspects of this Report which Lord Silkin has emphasised so strongly. It will be grateful for what the noble Lord has said on behalf of the Government but, as I say, there will be disappointment that he has not said a great deal more.
  4.15 p.m.
  LORD MERRIMAN: My Lords, after what the most reverend Primate has said, I need only add, very shortly, my tribute to that which Lord Silkin has paid to the Report of the Commission. In my opinion, it is a most valuable social document. The review of the law and the history of this matter is masterly, and I join with both the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the most reverend Primate, in thanking and commending the noble and learned Lord the Chairman of the Commission for the Report. I cannot profess to be entirely surprised by the announcement of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that legislation on a large scale was not

  1001
  immediately contemplated, but I hope that there is one, recommendation of the Commission, at any rate, to which some attention will be paid. It will be remembered that they came down very strongly on the side of the appointment of High Court Judges to deal with this matter, recognising, of course, the qualification that it was impossible to appoint a sufficient number at once, largely because of the lack of accommodation. But I hope that the Government will make a beginning in that direction. And may I add hope that, if and when that happens, the Government will also bear in mind the Commissioners who for nearly nine or:en years have borne the burden and heat of the day without any security of tenure or the right to one penny on their dismissal.
  Lord Mancroft has mentioned rules. I should like just to tell the House this simple fact; that everything that can be done by title is, in fact, already in draft and ready for presentation to the Supreme Court Rule Committee. I am not going to weary your Lordships with details; they are highly technical and a matter which would be quite unsuitable for this debate. I also welcome what Lord Man-croft said about the assistance which would be given to a Private Member's Bill dealing with maintenance agreements. There are some matters which do require putting right in that respect.
  There is one other matter upon which I should like to touch, before I come to the main subject of Lord Silkin's speech, and the point about which the Commission were divided—again it is a matter of legislation. I imagine that there is likely to be a Finance Bill next year, and I believe that what I want dealt with can be dealt with by a clause in the Finance Bill. It is this. It will be remembered that some years ago a clause was put into the Finance Bill of the year that small orders, which were defined as orders for £2 a week, could be dealt with outside the scope of the Income Tax Act. That applied to orders made by any court, including the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. When the maximum order that could be made in magistrates' courts was increased to £5, that figure was inserted for those courts, but if one of the Registrars of my Division makes an order for £5 a week we are left in the absurd position that it has to go through all the rigmarole of deduction and retention and reclaiming by the wife, instead of being treated, as a corresponding order in a
  1002
  magistrates' court would be, as a small order escaping the income tax net.
  Now I come to the matter which is really the subject of controversy. If your Lordships will allow me to say so, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was less than fair when he said that the retentionists were against divorce in all events. I repudiate that on behalf of many professional friends of mine and everybody ii know who has anything whatever to do with the administration of the existing divorce law. It is simply not true. There is a slightly derogatory reference in the Report to the fact that those who arc retentionists are those (I think the phrase is) "with legal minds accustomed to discourse of legal rights and wrongs." I have observed (and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, will correct me if I am wrong) that at the two poles on this vital question there is at am: the noble and learned Lord himself and, at the other, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm; and nobody can doubt that they have legal minds—indeed, legal minds of so acute a character that without them they would not have attained their present dizzy eminence.
  Legal mind or no legal mind, I confess myself at once unashamedly to he a retentionist. I agree with Lord Morton of Henryton's party—hereinafter to be called the "Morton party," as distinct from the "Keith party," as conveyancers say—that the breakdown theory leads at best to divorce by consent and at worst to divorce at the instance of the spouse responsible. The most reverend Primate referred to something that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said some time ago. I remember that debate and I remember that the noble and learned Earl stressed most firmly that particular point, that the proposal would lead to divorce at the instance of the party responsible for the breakdown of the marriage; and I am sure that that is right. When it is said that the retentionists are against the exising divorce law, my own view—and I speak for those whom I know as well as for myself—is that the "Herbert Act" was very beneficial and has met, I hope efficiently, all, or practically all, the hardships it was intended to meet.
  I am not going to attempt, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to go through the arguments for the retentionist view,

  1003
  which are so fully set out in the Commission's Report. But I should like to attempt to deal with one or two of the arguments which are put on the other side. Not only in the Report itself, but also in general conversation outside, I have heard it said that most present divorces are by consent—the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, himself said as much in his speech to-day—and, though the noble Lord did not add this, it is quite commonly said outside that many of those are collusive. It all depends what is meant by divorce by consent and what is meant by collusion, and to what extent collusion, properly understood, goes. Of course. I do not deny for a moment that collusion exists—I will come back to that in a moment.
  As regards divorce by consent, I suppose it may be assumed that most petitioners wish to be divorced or they would not have brought a petition, and it may well be that in a great many cases the respondent is glad to be divorced. But that is not divorce by consent. It has been long settled, even with regard to desertion cases, that the mere fact that a party is thankful to see the last of the other is no answer to the charge of desertion, because the parting is by consent. In cases where there is a legitimate grievance, the mere fact that the parties are both thankful to be rid of each other is not an answer to the suit and does not turn what is a remedy for a proved wrong into divorce by consent. What I mean by "divorce by consent", and what I think the Commission mean by it, if I read their Report aright, is divorce where the agreement of the parties is the only basis on which divorce is sought. That, of course, is not the law at present; but my opinion, for what it is worth, is that the introduction of the breakdown theory would greatly increase that tendency.
  Now I want to say a word about the proposal itself. I suppose that nobody really imagines—certainly I do not—that people are deliberately going to enter into a separation agreement with a view to bringing a divorce petition in seven years' time. That proposition is too absurd to be considered. The truth is that the introduction of a seven years' period is specious and fallacious. The seven years as a period adds nothing to that which has already happened seven years before—
  1004
  that is, the breakdown of the marriage. Whatever period is taken, in 99 cases out of 100, it is merely confirming that which already exists. Apart from the avowed intention of reformers to reduce the period from seven years to four or two, or some other figure, the real point, as I see it, is that the period as such is completely irrelevant. The breakdown has already happened.
  In the case of practically every separation agreement that I know anything about, and naturally I see a good many in the course of divorce cases, the time-honoured phrase, "whereas unhappy differences have arisen", conceals some serious cause of action. It should be remembered that separation agreements are not always, though they are sometimes, entered into either from religious scruples or because the spouse will not divorce out of spite; often it is in order to avoid doing injury to the career of the wrongdoer, a consideration which, oddly enough, still prevails in this world of ours. The real point about this period is that when eventually the period is reduced, as inevitably it will be, from seven years to some other minimum period, then the easy way out will be provided, easier even than divorce for desertion for three years. And if it is true, as I think to some extent it is (the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to it and it is referred to in the Commission's Report), that, for a time at any rate, easy desertion took the place of easy adultery with a view to getting undefended petitions through, I think there is some evidence that the pendulum has now swung back the other way. Be that as it may, there will always be unscrupulous divorces, and there will always be people who are unscrupulous enough to take advantage of loopholes in the law and to deceive the court. But whatever opportunities for fraud exist in connection with desertion cases, or, for that matter, in connection with adultery cases, they will, in my opinion, be magnified many-fold the moment this breakdown period is introduced.
  There is one other small matter in that connection which I should like to mention in passing. It is quite idle and unreal to talk about protecting the financial position of the ex-wife. I have had a good deal of experience of trying motions for committal orders in the High Court and on appeal from magistrates on the question of amount. Over and over again

  1005
  the point is that there is a new wife—or a so-called "wife"—and a new growing family and, to use the words of the Commission, "there is just not enough money to go round." When the ex-wife is put in competition, not merely with the sentimental rights but also with the legal rights of the new wife and the new family, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it is quite futile to talk of making secured financial provision for her.
  I do not want to enlarge too much on the differences that have occurred between the two schools of thought in connection with the breakdown agreement itself, but I am very dubious about the proviso which the extremes of the "Keith party" put in: that the objection of the other spouse should not be valid if that spouse had conducted herself or himself unreasonably and was in part responsible for the breakdown. It is one of two things: either unreasonable conduct is a matrimonial offence, or it is not. If. it is, it is raised seven years, or whatever the period is, too late, because it should have been raised by the party as a petitioner himself at the time when the offence occurred. But it will not always be said to be a matrimonial offence, and when we are told, as we are in one paragraph of the Report, that this proviso entirely meets all objections, that argument seems to me not quite to ring true, especially when, in the same context, there is scouted—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has himself scouted it:his afternoon—the existence of such a person as the innocent party, and when in the same context it is suggested that for the aggrieved party not to have sued is itself unreasonable conduct.
  I mentioned the question of collusion, and that is a problem with which we must come to grips. I said that it all depends on what is meant by "collusion". To my mind, "collusion" means a corrupt bargain; and the corruptness is the essence of it. It may be to bribe the other party to bring the petition—it need not necessarily be on false grounds, and the bribe need not necessarily be money, though those are merely palliations. The essence is that it is a corrupt bargain to bribe the party to bring the petition, or, it may be, to suppress a defence or falsify the facts. That is the essence of collusion. I must say that I am astonished at the suggestion—it is quite
  1006
  prevalent, and it is hinted at in the Report itself—that discussion of maintenance, and so forth, beforehand in a responsible way is evidence of collusion.
  I should like to remind your Lordships—as I ventured to remind the Commission, though it is not noted in the Report—that in the Herbert Act there is a clause which (if I may be egotistical for a moment) I was responsible for getting inserted, whereby, instead of having to present a separate petition for maintenance after the decree had been granted, the parties could begin as soon as the petition was presented, or even in the petition itself, to claim maintenance, and to deal with all the other matters related to maintenance, such as settlement of wife's property, secured provision for the wife, secured provision for the children, and so forth. Those things can be dealt with the moment the petition is presented. If the order cannot be made until after decree nisi. and cannot become effective until after decree absolute, as is the law, how can it be collusion for the advisers and the parties to discuss the details in order to present them to the court the moment the decree nisi is made?
  I feel it very important that the ignorance about what collusion is, or may be, should be dispelled, and I am going to take a rather absurd instance to illustrate my point. As your Lordships know, in practically every case of insanity the official solicitor is appointed the guardian ad litem of the respondent, the insane person. It is the settled practice that, if possible, there should be presented at the hearing an agreed order for maintenance to be embodied in the decree. It really is quite fantastic to assume—nobody in his senses would assume it—that in such circumstances the necessary negotiations, very often cost-saving, should be regarded as collusive. But assuming the line to be drawn where I think it is drawn, if I take the hypothetical but impossible situation that the petitioner offered to double the allowance paid to the official solicitor for the guardian ad litem if the official solicitor would suppress the fact that he or she was living in adultery, or would omit to file a defence that the insanity had been gravely conduced to by a monstrous course of conduct of cruelty, that would be miles the other side of the line.

  1007
  It is always difficult to know where to draw the line, but it is easy to see that some things are on one side or the ether of any reasonable line that can be drawn. I am sure that most competent solicitors can be trusted to know where to draw the line and, in any case, can protect themselves and their clients by disclosing the facts to the court.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord a question about collusion. unless he would prefer that I left it until he has finished this part of his argument.
  LORD MERRIMAN: Please do.
  LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord is so enlightening on this matter that I should like to put this question to him. I understand that he regards corruption, the offer of some kind of bribe, as being of the essence of collusion.
  LORD MERRIMAN: Yes, I do.
  LORD PAKENHAM: What of the case where the husband and wife grow tired of one another—perhaps the wife wants to get rid of the husband and to marry somebody else, and the husband goes to a seaside watering place and simulates adultery with a maid, or somebody like that, which has not taken place at all? That is the case which has discredited all this sort of thing in the minds of the public, but I would not say that a bribe has passed.
  LORD MERRIMAN: It is a bribe really. Plainly, on the face of it, it is a corrupt arrangement. That is the common case of a corrupt bargain and certainly, in my mind, without any doubt, would be included as a corrupt bargain. That is, of course, exactly where the question of the extent of collusion comes in.
  Before I deal with collusion. may I, in passing, say a word or two about the percentage of cases of divorce by consent? I have tried to deal with cases by consent, but I must say that my withers are unwrung by statistics given about the percentage of cases by consent in 1912. If your Lordships look at Table 1 on page 356. you will find that the total number of petitions presented in that year was 920. As we know, that was long before poor persons' aid, and the courts were concerned with one section of the
  1008
  community who could afford to pay for their divorces. I do not know in what sense the King's Proctor of the day was dealing with divorce by consent, even at that time; but if that was true at that time, it is certainly not true now; there is nothing like that percentage.
  In my opinion, this matter has been gravely exaggerated. I disclaim any particular knowledge of social problems, or that knowledge of social problems in general resides in judges, but after all, when one has, between 1933 and 1947 (when we were relieved of undefended cases), oneself tried between 12,000 and 15,000 undefended cases, I think one is entitled to claim some knowledge of the difference between a case which is perfectly simple and straightforward and one which requires rather more scrutiny because there is some feature in it which suggests that things are not as they should be. I have discussed this matter with my friends, one of whom I regret to say has passed away, and nobody has ever put the percentage of cases which required further consideration higher than 10 per cent. Of those, on adjournment and investigation many proved right, and it is really—I am going to be dogmatic—sheer nonsense to suppose that the bulk of undefended divorce cases are collusive.
  I have spoken much too long and I am sorry to have done so, but if your Lordships will give me one moment more I should like to deal with one further point. We have referred during this debate to figures. May I give your Lordships a few? When I was appointed in 1933, we were still under the influence of the First World War and of the 1923 Act, which made divorce for a single act of adultery by a husband at the instance of the wife a ground for divorce—an Act which I am quite certain was largely responsible for what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, called the "gentlemen's agreement". Those things combined brought about a position in which the number of petitions presented was less than 5,000 a year—not that that is anything to be proud of, but it was less than 5,000 a year. From 1933 to 1937, the figure remained steady at about 5,000. But when the Herbert Act was passed—and this was inevitable, because that Act brought in retrospectively desertion cases and cruelty cases of old standing—there was a sudden leap forward to just under 10,000. By 1940, that again had steadied

  1009
  at an increase of about 30 per cent. since the Herbert Act, at just under 7,000 petitions a year.
  Then came the Second World War, and in 1947 the unprecedented peak figure of 47,000 petitions was reached. Once again it subsided, to less than 30.000 by 1950, but there was another surge forward—the third that I have known—in 1951, due, of course, to legal aid and to the fact that a good many people had held back in the year or two before in the expectation of the coming of legal aid. That rushed the figure up again to 37,000 petitions a year. It has been steadily dropping since then. I have not got the official figures for the whole country after 1954, which are published in the Table to which I have referred, but, taking last year and this year, and using London as a barometer—and I get the figures every week—it is quite apparent that we are stabilising now at what wit probably be, for both those years, something like 27,000 petitions. They are at present running absolutely even with last year, week by week. Now that is bad enough, but at least it is 20,000 better than the peak year of 1947, and 10,000 better than the year when legal aid began to take effect. My Lords, these are dreadful figures. Is it not time to call a halt?
  4.48 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I speak as a Catholic. First, let me quote from a joint pastoral letter of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy of England and Wales, written several years ago, on marriage and divorce. There it is stated:
  "The main teaching of the Church on marriage is contained in a single sentence from the Gospel of St. Mark—' What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder '."
  I know, of course, that this teaching is held by many Christians throughout the world, whether or not they are of the Roman Catholic Church. Our conviction is that no degree of civil law can sever the bond of a validly contracted marriage. Some people, wilfully, or in ignorance, may say: "What about annulments granted by the Catholic Church? Is not this divorce in disguise?" But the difference between divorce and annulment is a clear one, known in civil law as well as in Church law. In general, a marriage can be declared null by Church or State when it 13 proved that no true marriage
  1010
  ever took place: for example, if one party or the other was forced unwillingly to make the marriage contract or is physically incapable of fulfilling it.
  But enough of the Catholic position on divorce, and let me turn to the Report itself. The authors are to be congratulated on it, for not only does it show evidence of conscientious and solid work but also it is inspired by the highest regard for the well-being of the family. That, I think, is most important. I do not intend to comment on the three suggestions for new grounds for divorce, since, in the light of my beliefs, divorce is such that it is inadmissible. On the question of divorce by consent after seven years' separation, naturally I strongly side with those who rejected the proposal as—and I quote again:
  "fundamentally incompatible with the concept of marriage as a union for life '',
  and further that:
  "it would foster a change in the attitude to marriage which would be disastrous to the nation."
  The duty of a Christian Government is to strengthen, not to loosen, the bond of marriage.
  That brings me to my main point, the recommendation in the Report to the Government that aid should continue and be increased for the three existing national bodies dewing with marriage guidance. I know those of our Church concerned with such things welcome it strongly, and I was very happy to hear the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York also speaking to the same point.
  The three bodies—the National Marriage Guidance Council, the Family Welfare Association and the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council—are voluntary and their work falls into two main categories: the work of reconciliation after marriage when difficulties have arisen, and the education of those contemplating marriage. Taking the second category first, the Report of the Corn-mission strongly supports the thorough preparation for marriage. It is unnecessary for me to go into great detail on this subject. Sufficient to say that such pre-marriage preparations must be good and should be actively encouraged by the State in every possible way.
  For the second category—helping to resolve difficulties after marriage has

  1011
  taken place—the value of the three Marriage Councils' work is very obvious and great. I see that the National Marriage Guidance Council estimate that in at least one-third of the cases they deal with in this category they have been helpful, and for the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council the estimated figures are at least as high—over one-half in the case of their London headquarters where last year they dealt with 1,000 cases. What a splendid work it is and how enormously worth while for the State to support! The difficulty is shortage of money to enable these bodies properly to carry out their work.
  I will confine my further remarks to the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council, which in no way implies that the other two bodies are not equally good and valuable in their work and worthy of support. To-day, this Council has its headquarters in London and has established over the last five years sixteen new centres in other parts of the country. It has plans afoot to increase its numbers by eight new centres a year for the next five years, and it hopes equally to extend its activities to Scotland and Northern Ireland. But all this needs money. The total Government grants at the present time towards this Council's activities are just over £2,000. The figure is absurdly small. Increase, and a very material increase, must be a sound investment, quite apart from the immense benefit to the nation's happiness and well-being.
  Let me give some figures of the costs which were mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton. For the last few years the average cost of legal aid to the nation was over £1 million. Of that, no less than 75 per cent., or £750,000, was in connection with divorce proceedings. Or, again, of the 80,000 children at the present time under the care of local authorities, no fewer than 15,000 are under that care because of unhappy marriages. It is estimated that the cost of looking after these children is about £300 for each child. If only 1,000 children a year can remain with their parents owing to the help of the Councils—and I suspect that the actual number is even greater to-day—then there is a saving to the State of £300,000 a year. At the moment, the Government grants to all three bodies total only £13,000. Clearly, any increase
  1012
  that they may make would be more than offset by the saving that they got on such things as legal aid and the care of children. Let there be no Government pleading of financial considerations. I am encouraged to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that something will be forthcoming. That support should be both directly to the bodies and through grants to local authorities, as the Report advocated.
  I have talked in terms of money, but it is not really a matter only of money indeed, it is rather one where the very well-being and existence of the Christian State is at stake, and the happiness and lives of thousands of children. Apart from help to voluntary organisations, the State itself should actively pursue measures to help happy marriages and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York have said, we very much hope that the recommendation to set up some suitable body to consider the further promotion of thorough preparation for marriage will be undertaken. The importance of such a suggestion is seen when one knows of the tragic figures: that the increase in divorce since the beginning of the century is over a hundredfold.
  To sum up, some of the Report, as I have already said, is not for us Catholics to comment upon, but we greatly hope that the Government will carry out many of its valuable recommendations and, in particular, will be really generous in the support that they give to the Marriage Councils. That will clearly pay great dividends. Our Church believes, with many, many others, in the fundamental truth that upon stable family life the strength of a nation is built.
  4.59 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I find myself in agreement with a great deal of what the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat has said, particularly about the work of the Marriage Guidance Council but, in respect of this Report that we are discussing today, would remind your Lordships that on its first appearance it received a rather mixed reception at the hands of the Press. Many commentators found it a disappointing document, and while I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who introduced this discussion this

  1013
  afternoon, that it has many admirable features, I too found it a disappointing document in regard to the most fundamental matters, or at any rate some of them, with which it deals. That is largely due to the terms of reference, which in my view were altogether too cumbrous and covered so much ground, largely of a rather technical legal character, with the result that the essential matters with which the Commissioners were concerned became rather overlayed by the very large number of technical recommendations which, admirable as they are, are nevertheless, as Lord Mancroft indicated, of somewhat secondary importance. I think that was an unfortunate thing, but the Commissioners themselves are in no sort of way responsible for that.
  I think also—and I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton. will not mind my saying this —that the personnel of the Commission were not at all well selected, though I appreciate that the selection was made by the Labour Government. It seems to me that the fundamental problem with which this Commission were concerned, and which the Commissioners themselves, more than once in the Report, underline as one they should have in mind, was
  "the need to promote and maintain healthy and happy married life and to safeguard the interests and well being of children".
  I feel that a set of lawyers are not the best qualified people for making really valuable recommendations on an essential problem defined in that way. I believe that about eight of the members of the Commission, of whom there, were nineteen altogether, were lawyers.
  Presiding over the Commission, of course, was the noble and learned Lord. Nobody could have a greater admiration for his abilities as a lawyer than myself—indeed, ever since I had the great privilege of being associated with him as a junior barrister, when he was one of the leading members of the Chancery Bar, I have felt that he was one of the most eminent practitioners in Equity Law that we have in this generation. But a life spent in that sort of work, with great respect, is hardly a qualification for dealing with the essential and substantial matters with which these Commissioners were called upon to deal. I think that the fact that of his fellow members almost a majority were men who had been
  1014
  trained at the Bar, rather than trained in the solicitor's profession (I believe there was only one solicitor among the eight lawyers), again makes for a rather top-heavy Commission, because, after all, the barrister is not the person who sees this type of case in the raw; it is the solicitor who does that. If we had to have all these lawyers I think it would have been better to have a number of knowledgeable solicitors.
  My other serious criticism of the selection of the personnel is that, while there were schoolmasters and doctors, and other professional people, there were practically no people who could approach this matter in a scientific way. After all, this sort of problem has been intensely studied in the sociology departments of the universities and in other institutions over the last fifty years or more. Yet no social scientist was put on this Commission. Another criticism which might be made is that quite a number of the Commissioners were prominent members of the Marriage Guidance Council. I do not think that one would seriously find fault with this, because the Marriage Guidance Council's work is something that we all agree with and should wish to support. On the other hand, it may well he said that the important recommendations which were made in the Report in respect of the work of the Marriage Guidance Council would have come rather better from the Commission if three or four of its members had not been vice-presidents of that excellent society.
  When one conies to study the Report itself, one finds that there is nothing in it that suggests that any of the Commissioners were aware of the important recent work which has been done by outstanding sociologists on the very problems with which the Commission were called upon to deal in their Report. Some of them appear to have been appointed, so far as one can judge, for their practical experience of some of the problems with which they had to deal. That again raises rather an important question which I feel has not been sufficiently studied. I have the impression about a number of the recent Commissions that have been appointed that people who would really be better qualified to be witnesses giving evidence before the Commissions are appointed to the Commissions themselves. That was not. the original idea, I think,

  1015
  when this method of investigating problems by means of Royal Commissions first became popular in the last century, and I venture to suggest that this aspect of it ought to be looked at.
  My third criticism, which is more important than the other two and which I regard as one of really great importance, is in regard to the method of taking evidence. The witnesses who were called before the Commission largely gave evidence on the basis of conjectures and value judgments, and even prejudice. There was very little research into actual facts. It is astonishing, as one goes through this Report, how judgment after judgment is made on matters of very great importance without there being any real factual evidence. It is true that opinions are expressed by witnesses before the Commission, but there is very little real factual evidence. I suggest that a model of how this thing ought to be done is provided by the Report of the Royal Commission on Population which went about its work in quite a different way. It got research workers of high reputation and ability, and put them on specific jobs on which they spent a great deal of time. sometimes extending into more than a year. after which they came back with the results of their work.
  It is rather interesting to notice that some of the witnesses before the present Commission—I believe they were witnesses from the Marriage Guidance Council—indicated how extremely difficult it was to come to form conclusions on a number of these problems because of the absence of real research. There is an interesting passage at arms, so to speak, between Mr. Brayshaw, of that Council, and Lord Morton of Henryton, in which the noble and learned Lord says, in effect: "It really is an expensive business. It would take a long time and therefore we cannot do it." That seems to me to be a wrong attitude, especially when the Commission were sitting for a period of something like five years. If they had set about real research at the beginning of that work. I think it might well have been that on a number of these problems they would have been able to obtain factual evidence of real importance. Lord Morton of Henryton was evidently of the opinion that these questions are so intimate that it is not really possible to do research into them, but I do not think that is so; and I think that
  1016
  if he were aware of some of the work which has been done in this country, in America, and perhaps particularly in some of the Scandinavian countries into this sort of problem, he would be prepared to revise his judgment on this sort of point.
  Now I will give one example, which I think is a good example, of the need for further research. I refer to this matter of collusion which has been adumbrated a good deal this afternoon by the noble Lord the President of the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court. There was a good deal of conflicting evidence on this matter before the Commission. Professor Gower, a solicitor of great experience, and I think other solicitors also, gave evidence that, in their opinion, in undefended cases something like 50 per cent. of those which were not legally aided were collusive in the sense that Lord Merriman referred to: the parties say "this marriage is broken", and one of them says to the other "I will go off and provide the necessary evidence so that you can bring your petition." Lord Merriman says that that is collusive, and I agree with him—that is what one understands by a collusive divorce. Undoubtedly. whatever the actual number of such divorces is, in my view it is substantial. and certainly larger than Lord Merriman indicated.
  We had a considerable discussion about this point in the earlier debate to which he referred, and I do not want to go into it more than that. But it is interesting that the Bar Council witnesses disagreed pretty well in toto with the evidence given by the solicitors. I should have thought that the barrister was less likely to know, because he does not come in until all that part of the case is over. The interesting thing is that when the Law Society came to give evidence before the Commission, this question was not put to them at all. Although it was put to the representatives of the Bar Council, and there was a great deal of discussion about it in the Minutes of Evidence—it takes up a lot of space—when the solicitors came there, through the Law Society, this matter was not put to them at all; yet they were the people who were more likely to know about it.
  There are other things that one can say about this. The county court registrars, I think, said that there was a good

  1017
  deal of collusion. I think the Law Society wanted to get rid of collusion in connection with this business altogether. But my point is that this is a subject which is open to research and one into which research could have been made by a number of capable research workers. In that way, this matter, in regard to which there is such a conflict of evidence, could be resolved on a factual basis. I think it is a great pity that an effort was not made to do that The question is one of great importance, not only in itself but because it is such a horrible business when people whose marriages have broken down are driven by the law to act in this way, as they undoubtedly are. Does it not prove conclusively that there is a need for an improved divorce law? In my submission it does. For these reasons, there is a good deal to be said against the way in which the work of the Royal Commission was carried through, although I yield to nobody in my admiration for the great amount of detailed work in regard to matters of legal import which is contained in the Report. In my view, however, these matters could have been cleared up without the "heavy artillery" of a Royal Commission—some of them departmentally, and others, perhaps, on the level of a departmental committee.
  If I may turn for a few minutes to the Report itself, I again wish to say that it has many good features, most of them of a minor character but at least two of them of fundamental importance. I should like to associate myself strongly with what has been said, particularly by the most reverend Primate, in regard to the children's charter "aspect of this Report, which I regard as its most important aspect. The Commissioners put the question of the children on the same sort of basis of importance as the divorce itself; anti undoubtedly that is a great step forward. One of my colleagues drew my attention to the fact that in all the legislation on the Statute Book of this country dealing with divorce there is only one reference to children. I have not been able to conduct any research to see whether that is true, but I have no doubt that it is, because the colleague in question is a most careful scholar. It is ironic that, when the matter has been dealt with by the Divorce Court, the position of the child is described as an "ancillary relief"—almost a grotesque expression to employ in connection with a subject of such
  1018
  human importance. I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me on that particular matter.
  There is one item which some of your Lordships may think is not very important but which seems to me to be of some importance, and upon which I think the Commission went wrong in regard to this question of the children—namely, legitimation per subsequens matrimonium. The subsequent marriage of the parties ought to legitimate children and, generally speaking, I think the Commission were in agreement with that view; but they felt that if the child had been conceived during the marriage which was subsequently dissolved but had been born after the dissolution took place, then there ought not to be any legitimation. Surely that is going against the very principles upon which they were working, because the interests of the child should be the touchstone in this matter, and the brand of illegitimacy ought not to be put on the child for a reason of that kind. Therefore, if the Government decide to introduce legislation on this matter—I certainly add my supplications to those of the most reverend Primate in asking for such legislation—I hope that they will disregard that particular portion of the Report and will provide for legitimation per subsequens matrintonium in all cases.
  Then, my Lords, I agree with everything that was said by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in regard to the important matter of marriage guidance. I join in everything that has been said by other noble Lords in beseeching the Government to step up their grant to this admirable society rather than to cut it down. Speedy legislation is required in regard to both these matters, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will convey to the Minister responsible that it is the wish, as I am sure it is, of all Members of your Lordships' House that these matters which are beyond controversy should be put upon the Statute Book as quickly as possible.
  What is so disappointing in the Report is, I feel, the attitude to the fundamental problem of divorce, with the result—indeed, it appears that the Government have taken this view of it, which is quite natural—that there is going to be no change. I regard that as most unfortunate. There is only one member

  1019
  of the Commission who took what I should regard, and I think what Lord Silkin would regard, as a really forward-looking view on this particular matter, and that was Lord Walker, who wished to make a three years de facto separation a ground for divorce, provided that there was, in addition, evidence upon which the court could come to the conclusion that the marriage had, in fact, broken down. Lord Merriman said that these separations do not, in fact, take place unless a marriage has broken down. In a sense, that is really an argument for allowing divorce at the earlier stage, when the marriage breaks down. But the object of this period of three, four or seven years, as the case may be, is really to pray idea locus penitentiae—a period during which it will become perfectly clear whether or not there is a real breakdown, or only something which might have appeared to be a breakdown for a time and which has been got over by reconciliation, or something like that.
  I would remind your Lordships that it has 'been the law of Scotland ever since the time of the Reformation that not only was sexual misconduct a ground for divorce, but also what is called malicious desertion for four years—that is to say, separation for four years caused by the conduct of one of the spouses is also a good ground for divorce. Nine members of the Commission went halfway towards meeting the case put in Mrs. Eirene White's Bill. It seems to me that all the Commissioners were too much obsessed with the divorce figures, with the great increase in the number of divorces which have taken place over the last years. This increase in the number of divorces does not really mean that there has been an equal increase in broken marriages; and I think that is the important point. Sometimes it seems that the Commissioners appreciated it: at other times it seems that they did not. A well-known American sociologist has said:
  "There is hut one cause of divorce—the culmination of the process of marriage disintegration of which specific instances are but the evidences of its retrogressive trend."
  I think that is a very truthful and searching observation.
  The legal grounds which have been adumbrated by legal Members so much
  1020
  this afternoon are really the symptoms of the decay of the marriage. It is not a case of choosing between divorce by consent and divorce for guilt. We can really have much easier divorce and still stop a good deal short of the divorce by consent which is allowed in some other countries, particularly in some of the Scandinavian countries. This tendency to equate divorce with the broken marriage rate is most unfortunate, because I am sure it was the reason which led the nine Commissioners who wished to be liberal to draw back, so to speak, at the last moment. So far as I can see, there is no kind of evidence anywhere in the Report of the Commissioners to support this view. The increase in the rate of divorce, which has been continuous throughout the century from 1900 onwards (it is continuous, though it is true that it goes in jerks) is the result of many complex changes in the law—and not only in the law but also in the social outlook of the population. If one had time, it would be important to analyse this position in a little more detail, and it is a pity that the Commission did not themselves do so. I have not time to-day to do more than mention just one or two of the points which strike me as being important.
  First of all, I will draw attention to the fact that the figures published in the Appendices bring out the astonishingly high proportion of divorces among marriages which have tasted more than ten years. That is not at all the general view of the public and shows the importance of getting at the facts on these occasions. So far as I can make out, about 60 per cent. of divorces—certainly more than 50 per cent.—occur in marriages which have lasted more than ten years and something like 20 per cent. in marriages that have lasted more than twenty years. That is quite contrary to the usual view that frivolous people get married with the idea of having a divorce very shortly afterwards. Another important fact is that about 40 per cent. of the divorces are cases of childless marriages, which indicates that there is intense longing to have a child and that when there is not a child a very large number of spouses feel they had better break up the marriage and start again, because that would enable them to have the blessing of a child.
  These figures have not varied very much, in proportion at any rate, since the beginning of the century, and they

  1021
  seem to me altogether to refute the theory that the population has become more frivolous and immoral in these matters. It is interesting to notice that, according to figures published by the Registrar-General, which are, I believe, contained in one of the appendices to the Report, there has been a continuous rise, over this fifty years, in the proportion of the population who marry. It is difficult to know whether before that time there was a much larger number of illicit unions or a great deal more celibacy; but undoubtedly the marked increase in the marriage rate in proportion per thousand of the population is significant of feeling in favour of the marriage institution. Another highly significant factor of the same type is the very high re-marriage rate among divorced persons. From 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of divorced persons re-marry. That seems to show (hat the object of the divorce is to try to get a more stable and more happy marriage instead of one that has gone wrong—which seems to me to be a very good reason.
  One very important matter which I am not sure comes out very clearly in the Report is that the quite generous provisions which we now have in regard to legal aid, and which have enabled a large number of people in the poorer classes of the community—people who until comparatively recently were completely deprived of the divorce facilities which the middle and upper classes have had, at any rate since the beginning of the century—have obviously led to a substantial increase in the number of divorces. I think that is altogether a very good thing, because it was absolutely indefensible that wealthy people should be able to get a divorce, whereas poor people were denied that type of legal right. I suggest that there is 113 real evidence whatever that marriages have become less stable because of the improved facilities for divorce There is no evidence whatever that marriages are less stable in Scotland, where they have had a more generous divorce system ever since the Middle Ages as I have pointed out; or that marriages are more stable in Italy, where there is no divorce at all, than in France, where divorce is easily obtainable. So one could go on.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble. Lord a question, on a point of clarification? Is he saving that
  1022
  there is no evidence that marriages have become less stable for any reason at all or is he saying only that there is no evidence that marriages seem to have become less stable because of changes in the divorce law?
  LORD CHORLEY: I am saying there is no evidence at all that marriage is less stable, and it is something on which research should be done, The fact that the divorce rate has gone up in the way it has is no evidence that marriages have become less stable: it is a non sequitur. This phenomenon of increasing divorce is not pecular to England. It is noteworthy that in all countries where Churches are not dominant, and where the religious issue is not in the foreground, the tendency is towards a more liberal divorce law and an increase in the number of divorces. It is in no way peculiar to This country. It is common throughout Scandinavia, New Zealand, Australia and the United States, and in my view it is a sign of an advancing civilisation. I know that that statement will shock a very large number of people but I have no doubt that it is so. It shows that society is becoming more progressive and that we are getting away from the conception of the "guilty party", which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is an entirely wrong one. No doubt there are a few cases where one parry is entirely guilty and the other entirely innocent, but in most cases there are faults on both sides, and this conception of almost criminal guilt is, I believe, altogether wrong and is one of the reasons why we make so little progress in this matter.
  One's thoughts go back to the old action of criminal conversation. As a result of the medieval outlook the matter was regarded as a criminal matter, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman, used the word continually throughout his speech this afternoon in relation to the party responsible for the break-up of a marriage. I believe that most social workers would say that there is seldom a case where one party is solely responsible for the break-up of a marriage. It may be a case of three to two, or four to one, or equal; but almost invariably there are faults on both sides: there is some 'incompatibility of temperament which leads to the breaking up of the marriage.

  1023
  We are here faced, of course, with fundamental conceptions as to the real meaning of marriage—whether we think that it is a religious institution which ought never to be broken, or a social institution which can be broken, and properly broken, when the interests of the parties and the interests of the community as a whole require that it should be. The test, or one of the tests, as Lord Silkin indicated, is the test of human happiness. The happiness of the parties to the marriage and also (I do not think the noble Lord stressed this as much as it deserves to be stressed) the interests of the community at large are involved.
  This was well put by the late Lord Simon, in the case of Blunt v. Blunt, which is referred to by the Commission at one place in their Report. He said in that case that the interest of the community at large has to be considered, and that has to be judged by maintaining a true balance between respect for the binding sanctity of marriage (curiously enough, the Commissioners leave out that important sentence in their quotation from his speech) and the social considerations which make it contrary to public policy to insist on the maintenance of a union which has utterly broken down. It seems to me that that side of the matter is very important indeed. Lord Merriman discussed at some length what he thought was the altogether wicked case of a spouse who wished to maintain a marriage as against a guilty party, being forced, so to speak, to agree to divorce at the end of, say, seven years' separation. I think that on investigation it would seldom be found by a skilful fact-finding court that there was a completely guiltless party. I think that any doctor or any psychiatrist who has investigated this kind of case will tell you that often the reason a party refuses to agree to divorce in this sort of way is a psychological infirmity, a subconscious weakness which in a large number of cases can be removed. However, even in this type of case, I am told that where such a party has given way, he or she (usually it is a she) has been very much happier in the end and the whole thing becomes a success.
  Successful marriage is a very difficult attainment. The idea that it is not is now probably not very widely held. The
  1024
  fact that it is more and more realised that successful marriage is so difficult of attainment is the reason why the Marriage Guidance Council has figured so largely in the Report. It is surprising to me that there are not more failures. When one looks at the statistics given in the Appendices to the Report, and notes that the number of divorces per 10,000 marriages is only something like twelve —even although the total figure for divorces is something of the order of 30,000 a year—one realises that only a minute proportion of marriages are ended in court. It is interesting to note that the Registrar General, in his Statistical Survey for 1946–50, makes this very point. He warns against exaggeration as to the proportion of marriages which ultimately are broken by divorce. The number of divorce cases viewed against the background of the total number of marriages is really very small indeed.
  Where there is failure, where marriage has broken down, I think it is best to face up to the fact frankly and to grant divorce as they do in so many other countries. I think it is time that we followed their example. It is easy to make jokes about divorce in America, but when I was in America I came into personal contact with a number of cases of successful divorce, and I was very much impressed with what I regard as the sensible attitude of the Americans in this matter. I discussed it with an American lady who, incidentally, had deeply religious convictions. She told me that her daughter's first marriage had been unsuccessful. That was recognised by both her daughter and her husband, and they decided to call it off and have a divorce. After that, the daughter made a successful marriage and had a family, and she and her second husband and the children were very happy. That seems to me to be a very sensible and commonsense way of dealing with the matter.
  I appreciate that to those who take a deeply religious view it may seem revolting. Nevertheless, I think it is common sense; and I believe the trend of opinion in this country is going the same way. I support that and welcome it. I feel that if the Government do nothing, they will be swimming against the feelings of the people of this country. It is significant that over the last years judgments of the

  1025
  courts have tended to mould themselves to the feelings of the people. They have been taking a more liberal view, for example, of cruelty for purposes of divorce. It is interesting to notice that mental cruelty, which was hardly a conception to be regarded by the courts at all in the beginning, has been developed over the last years until it is possible to get divorce for mental cruelty. Twenty years ago, of course, it would not have been possible to get a divorce in such cases at all, hut I cannot imagine that what is now held to be mental cruelty would have been regarded as cruelty at all. My Lords, I am afraid that I have taken up a great deal more of your Lordships' time than I originally intended. I believe that, eventually, we shall have a more liberal outlook in regard to this matter; we shall have a really comprehensive Statute dealing with divorce, and I look forward to that time.
  5.36 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, first I must declare an interest in this matter, though not a personal one, for I ant Chairman of the National Marriage Guidance Council. I wish to correct, if I may, a statement of fact made by the noble Lord who has just sat down. He said, if I heard him aright, that many of the Commissioners were members of the National Marriage Guidance Council. The fact is, I am informed, that no one of them has ever been a member of the National Marriage Guidance Council. One of them was at one time, but is not now, a member of a provincial council. I just wanted to get that right for the purposes of the record.
  LORD CHORLEY: I am certainly most willing to withdraw the statement, but I must say that I got the impression that several of the Commissioners were vice-presidents. No doubt I have made a mistake. am sorry, and if I have done so I shall certainly apologise to the noble Lord.
  LORD MERTHYR: In my turn let me say that if I am making a mistake, I shall apologise to the noble Lord later. I should like to urge Her Majesty's Government to implement the provisions of this Repert which are set out in Part IV.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I have found the document which was sent to me by the Marriage Guidance Council.
  1026
  They say that vice-presidents include Lady Bragg and Sir William Russell Brain. I think there was another name also.
  LORD MERTHYR: Lady Bragg was the one to whom I referred who had been a member of a provincial marriage guidance council.
  LORD CHORLEY: This says: "1956–57".
  LORD MERTHYR: I do not want to detain the House. I shall apologise to the noble Lord if I am wrong.
  As I say, I want to urge Her Majesty's Government to carry out some of the recommendations which were put forward by the whole of the Commission, or very nearly all of them. But, first. before I come to that. I want to mention one other matter, and that is the subject of attachment. of wages which is dealt with in paragraph 1095. In Scotland it is the law that when an order is made against a man to support his wife. money may be compulsorily deducted from his wages, week by week, for the payment of that order. In England Plat is not the law. I want to ask whether in Scotland that is a good thing or a bad thins,. If it is a had thing, why is it continued? We are told by the Commission that it is accepted there as a matter of course. If it is a good thing in Scotland why is it a bad thing in England?
  I must confess that I totally fail to understand, nor do I believe, that on one side of the Border this piece of legal machinery works, but on the other side it would work badly. I just do not accept that. Therefore, I regret the conclusion reached by the Royal Commission, after the most careful analysis of the arguments, to which I pay tribute, that it should not. be operated in England. I am told that prisons in Scotland are always empty of debtors. If that is so, or nearly so, it is a formidable argument for the same system to he used in England. It suits nobody that these men should be kept in prison; yet what is the alternative? I am well aware of the differences of opinion that exist on this system, but I urge the Government to look at it again and see whether it should not be tried, at least. in England and Wales. I welcome the conclusion of the Commission in. paragraph 1108 recommending that when a

  1027
  man goes to prison for non-payment under an order, the arrears should not be cancelled. At present, a man who has accumulated arrears under an order goes to prison and his arrears are wiped out. I do not think that that is right and I welcome the decision of the Commission on that score.
  If ever there was a case where prevention is better than cure, I should say it applies to the breakdown of marriages; and for that reason, if for no other, I sincerely welcome the recommendations of the Royal Commission that this matter should be tackled at an early stage by increased facilities for marriage guidance, and even to apply them to couples who intend marriage. I think your Lordships would be surprised to hear to what extent advice is now sought voluntarily by people who intend to marry. I am encouraged by that. This seeking of advice is developing, and I think that, with help, it could be much further developed and would prove a useful source for the improvement of the figures. I particalurly welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said on this matter and what was said by other speakers, including, not least, the noble Earl, Lord Perth. In this matter there are some slight differences between Catholics and Protestants, but to a large extent there is common ground upon which we can entirely agree with each other. The question is: will Her Majesty's Government act upon these recommendations, which it is pleasing to find have received so much support, both in this House and outside it.
  I am interested in paragraph 330, where it is recommended that a body should be set up to review the Marriage Law and pre-marital education and training, a matter which was referred to by the most reverend Primate and other noble Lords. I want to make one suggestion about that. Would it not be better to have two separate bodies, one to review the Marriage Law and the other for pre-marital education and training? That might be an improvement in detail on the suggestion made by the Commission.
  When I come to the financial figures I find myself repeating what has already been said. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, the present sum spent by the taxpayers on marriage guidance annually is
  1028
  £13,000. The question arises, how much does it cost the taxpayers on the other side of the account? How much do broken marriages and broken homes cost? When we consider such matters as the cost of National Assistance to wives separated from their husbands, of maintaining children in the care of local authorities, of approved schools and Borstal institutions, to say nothing of prisons, and of maintaining unmarried mothers, one begins to wonder what sort of bargain the taxpayer is getting. The total cost of these services approaches £30 million a year. I admit straight away that nothing like all of that could be saved. Much of the cost of such things as Borstal institutions is due to other causes and those institutions could not be closed down merely if there were no broken marriages; but I think it would be agreed by those who have made a study of criminology that a great deal of crime as well as unhappiness is caused by broken homes. I think that that truth is beginning to dawn on social workers more and more every year. So I would ask the House to consider the cost to the taxpayer of the present position, as well as the actual amount that is spent by way of grants.
  No one would expect any Government to pay the whole cost of the Marriage Guidance organisation. at least not at the present time. I readily admit that the public ought to contribute by private charitable efforts some part of it, though I do not think they can be expected to pay the whole. In particular, I speak with gratitude of the help which has been given by many business houses already, and I should like to mention that possibly more help might be given by some of the great charitable trusts which have done so much for the improvement of social conditions in this country, and thereby earn the admiration of everybody.
  I pass to the subject of legal aid. The Legal Aid and Advice Act was passed in 1949. I wonder what your Lordships would have said seven years ago if the noble and learned Earl who was then the Lord Chancellor had stood by the Woolsack and told us that that portion of the Act which dealt with legal advice would not be brought into force for at least seven years. I wonder what sort of reception the noble and learned Earl would have had for that statement. Yet

  1029
  that is the case. I think that this has been a profound mistake. If ever there was an example of false economy, I think that this is outstanding. Legal aid was brought into force stage by stage, but legal advice has so far not been touched, although it is the law of the land. A man has to choose between free legal assistance in fighting a case in the courts, and costly legal advice. Which is he going to choose?
  I can confirm the figures quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. The small variation in my figures will only, I hope, add to their significance. My figure is that 77 per cent. of all legal aid cases in the courts are divorce cases, and of those, 80 per cent. are receiving aid as petitioners. Over £1 million a year is paid thus to subsidise divorce. Therefore, I urge Her Majesty's Government to bring in legal advice. This much they will admit: that it does not require legislation. It cannot truly be said by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that there is not time to do this. I am sure your Lordships will not let him get away with as much as he expects to from his speech this afternoon. He really cannot say that there is not time to give us legal advice; it is the law of the land and only needs to be put into force.
  I welcome the recommendation of the Commission in paragraph 373 on the subject of children. This has been dealt with by several speakers to-day, and I only mention it and wish to support it to the greatest extent possible. It is the provision that, before a decree is made absolute, the welfare of the children must be provided for to the satisfaction of the court. Surely Her Majesty's Government will relent a little on this score. I think everybody is agreed on this particular point, and whatever else must wait, I would ask the Government to do something in this direction. It was a unanimous recommendation, and I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, say that there was no hope at present of its being brought into force. We shall continue to harry the noble Lord until something is done about this matter. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord say, incidentally, that it was proposed to consolidate the law on matrimonial courts.
  I should now like to deal with the question raised in paragraph 358 of the
  1030
  Report, on the subject of privilege of witnesses. 'The recommendation is that facts learnt by marriage guidance counsellors should be inadmissible in evidence in any subsequent matrimonial proceedings. That is a matter of some importance. Fortunately it has never yet come to a head in an unpleasant manner, but there was a case where a marriage guidance counsellor was subpoenaed to attend court to give evidence and went there with her bag packed, ready to go to prison for refusing to do so. Happily, at the last moment it was not made necessary, because the application for her evidence to be given was withdrawn. Only this week another subpoena was served on a marriage guidance counsellor to go to court to give evidence, and who knows but that he may have been asked in cross-'examination to disclose the most intimate and private details given to him in confidence by someone seeking his aid? The mere knowledge that it is possible for that to be compulsorily disclosed in open court must greatly reduce the value of this 'work. Here is a recommendation made by this Commission, and made previously by the Denning Committee, that the law should be altered in this respect. I am the first to agree that the cases in which any witness in any court of law should be able to refuse to answer should be reduced as far as possible—that is obviously desirable and in the public interest—but I submit that this is an exception, and that if privilege is not granted to such witnesses the cause which they serve must inevitably suffer.
  The present law, in the view of many people, militates against conciliation—indeed, the Commission themselves say so. If a married couple resume life together, it may prejudice one or both of them if they should ever come before a court. The Royal Commission, I observe, by a majority of figures, fourteen to five recommend that parties should be given what is called a "second try" of up to one month, in which they could resume cohabitation without prejudice subsequently to their rights in a court of law. True, that is not a unanimous recommendation, but it seems to me to be a sensible and desirable one, and at least worthy of a trial. There is another case of the law hindering conciliation. At present a wife must either leave her husband or forgo her order.

  1031
  Surely, that could be put right. In paragraph 1,042 the Royal Commission say:
  "…the law positively encourages the breaking up of the home where the sole or the main cause of the trouble is financial."
  Therefore, I would urge Her Majesty's Government, as one of the reforms consequent upon this Report, to make the order enforceable, notwithstanding that the husband and the wife are cohabiting.
  Those are only a few of the suggestions which I could have made to the House for the alteration of law and practice and procedure consequent upon this Report. I will conclude by saying this: that I, like so many other noble Lords—in fact, I believe all of us—are grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Chairman of the Commission and his colleagues for the great work which they have put into this matter. I am sure that in due time they will reap their reward.
  5.58 p.m.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I feel the utmost diffidence in rising to take part in this debate, for I am fully aware that I have no special claim or qualification to speak, unless it is the fact that I have lived a long life and in the course of it have been brought into direct contact with many persons who are suffering from unhappy marriages, some of whom have asked my advice, sometimes one party and sometimes both in the same case. In view of what I am going to say later on, I should like to put my own position quite clearly at the outset. I am a strong believer in monogamy. I regard the love and affection of one man and one woman for one another as a fundamental of life, and I wish that in all cases it could remain unbroken and untarnished to the end. Every declension from that high ideal means sheer loss and almost certain suffering to all the parties concerned: to the individual man and woman, to the children, if there are any, and to the whole society of which that man and woman are an integral part.
  But we are all frail, and most of us, at one time or another, lose our way. Many are the different causes for this event, and many are the forms which it takes. In my opinion, persistent unkindness may cause a much greater scar upon the harmony of married life than a single act of marital sexual infidelity. I am aware, of course, that in taking this view I have
  1032
  not the support of either the Church or the State. Where a breach has actually taken place, far and away the most important thing is to heal it as quickly and as effectively as possible. The training of young people before marriage should, therefore, be directed towards helping them understand the differing emotional reactions of men and women. Here, I should like to express, in common I am sure with every Member of this House, our appreciation of the work which is being done by the organisation of which the noble Lord who has just spoken is the Chairman. Patience, tolerance, forgiveness and spiritual humility should, therefore, be inculcated and should be what everyone should explain to those intending to get married. Genuine, and what might have been lasting, love may well be broken on the wheel of rough words and so-called righteous indignation of one party at the admitted or alleged wrong committed by the other.
  We are living in a world of unreality, however, if we imagine that it is possible in all cases for the breach to be healed. Sometimes one party, sometimes both parties, are irrevocably determined that the union can no longer be held together. The love which must be the ultimate cement of all marriage has completely gene, and, in some cases has been replaced by an irritation or even a hatred which renders the constant presence of the other party unbearable. It is a pitiful situation, fraught with great suffering to all concerned; and, what is worse, there is really no good way out. Neither the State nor the Church can re-create a love that has died, and without love cohabitation is a mockery. Nor is it really possible, in these days, to expect a woman to enter a nunnery or the man to enter a monastery, whether we use those words in a literal or a figurative sense. I do not think I am by any means alone in expressing the view that both Church and State have failed to find a satisfying solution to this problem.
  Before I sit down I will try to indicate the direction in which, in my view, they should go. Before I do so, I propose to tell two stories that have recently come into my life and which I think serve as an illustration of the facts as I see them. A friend of mine had a son, and some years ago he was living happily, as it appeared, with his wife and their two

  1033
  children. He had to go abroad for some months, and when he came back he found that another man was living with his wife in his own house. They suggested to him that he should live there at the same time. Naturally, he could not agree to that, and his wife and her paramour left the house, leaving the children with him. He took out an action for divorce, and succeeded. What was he to do? He had these two children, he had his work, and he was a man with feelings like others. After some time he found another woman whom he could love, and who could love him in return. He married that woman, and she was a mother to the two children and to the additional members of the family that she brought into the world.
  That is one story. The other story is this—and it is rather an interesting one. A woman told me —a well-known woman although naturally I will not reveal her name—that many years ago the man who became her husband was married to another woman who left him and went away with another man. He got a divorce, and he wanted to be married to the woman who was telling me this story. The Church refused to marry him. He got married in a register office, but arranged that on the following day he would have a ceremony of a kind in church, which was agreed. He came back with the woman to her house after the civil marriage, and they had tea together. He said, "Now, Mary, I am going away, and I will come back tomorrow." She said, "What do you mean? We have just been married." He said, "I would rather wait until the religious ceremony is over before we enter cohabitation." To my way of thinking, both those men were moral men, with deep religious convictions. I could not bring myself to consider that these men were morally wrong in what they did, nor can I accept the view that the blessing of God could not rest upon the second union which they made. Yet how easily might the way in which they were treated have driven them to disavow and spurn all recognised religion! Owing to their strong innate spiritual faith they withstood that temptation. But how many others of weaker natures have yielded and put religion on one side? It would be pre- I sumptuous for me to bandy texts with high dignitaries of the Church, and I will
  1034
  say only this. I take my stand with many devout laymen who do not place the same interpretation as the Church on the teaching of our Lord.
  I turn now to the State, and what do I find? The State allows dissolution of marriage when one of the parties can be proved in a court of law to have misbehaved in some way or another, but if both the parties are decent folk, who have striven long and earnestly to fulfil their vows and. live together in harmony, but have come to the conclusion that it is no longer possible, the State refuses release. In consequence, as we are all aware, many of them resort to the obscene farce of forging false evidence. To me, it does not make sense. Now we have this Commission on Marriage and Divorce. Half the members want to retain essentially the present law and the other half want to grant a divorce by consent, provided that there has been a seven-year period of separation. Are either of these views in accord with reality to-day? I cannot think so. I would ask those who support the second proposal, this seven years' period: What are the parties expected to do during the seven years of separation? Many of them are young people in their twenties, maybe some of them in their thirties, hut still vigorous, virile people, who go about their ordinary daily lives meeting members of the opposite sex day by day. What are they to do? How are they to comport themselves? They must not offer marriage; they must not show affection for members of the opposite sex, and they cannot bring their original spouse back to live with them because, if they did, it would break the seven years' period. It seems to me to be asking them to live a life which is totally impossible.
  For that reason I say that it seems to me that the State has failed. Your Lordships are entitled to ask me what I would do. It is not easy to answer that question. I am not an expert in these questions. There is no time, even if I had the ability, to put down a blueprint of a different course of action, but let me say, first of all, what I would not do. Are we to open the gates wide for licence and accept the view that sex relationship is its own justification and can be indulged in promiscuously. without constraint, in order to gratify the fleeting passions of individual men and women? Any such

  1035
  suggestion seems to me a denial of everything I hold, sacred in this wonderful world which we see all round us.
  What I do suggest, and I suggest it in all humility, is that we should make a new approach to the whole problem and create entirely new machinery for handling it. What I should like, if it is possible—it may not be—is that we should have some different machinery from the law courts, some panel or tribunal; and that, instead of laying stress upon wrong committed and the need for reparation, we should take as our watchword the one word "salvage Every opportunity should be given to heal the breach but, if that is shown to be impossible, then we should secure that at least the innocent persons, particularly the children, should suffer as little as possible; and, further, that all the persons concerned should be given a chance in the future to lead an upright life. I recognise that some steps in this direction are already being taken. I would have them go much further. I have no desire to make divorce too easy and too automatic. I should wish to have a waiting period, but certainly not one lasting as long as seven years. I may remark, in passing. that unless I am mistaken, in the New Zealand prototype it is no more than three years, which is quite a different matter. But, under proper conditions and with proper safeguards, I think that in the last resort we cannot deny divorce to couples agreeing together to ask for it where their marriage, according to them. has broken down. If we do deny it. we are inviting them to adopt illicit and unworthy subterfuges. As I have said, I have no time to elaborate my views in detail. What I desire, above all things, is that Church and State should approach this problem in what I, in all humility, regard as a more realistic and human spirit, recognising that this love of man and woman for one another is one of the noblest instincts of mankind.
  6.15 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, if I have understood that moving speech correctly, it would appear that the noble Lord is in entire agreement with the Report of the Commission when he pleads that there should be much greater scope given to conciliatory work before marriages are ever allowed to reach the
  1036
  divorce courts. I have no doubt that every one of your Lordships is in profound agreement with that. But, of course, as the Report says, compulsory conciliation is a quite hopeless proposition. The difficulty in which both Church and State stand over this matter is in creating an atmosphere favourable for reconciliation between two parties who are estranged from one another. I am sure the noble Lord realises that it is but idealism to speak as he has done for a change in the attitude of Church and State towards this problem. Certainly the Church, and I hope the State, are concerned as much as possible to effect a reconcilation before any final breakdown occurs.
  I am bound to say that, as a churchman, I welcome very much this Report. I believe it is generally welcomed by churchmen of every kind of opinion. But it is also true that the Church has been saved a very great embarrassment by the fact that the Commission have not been able to recommend divorce by consent or any alteration of the existing doctrine that divorce is for matrimonial offence. I will try to explain to your Lordships as briefly as I can why, had this not been done, the Church would have been embarrassed.
  The theory of divorce now is that one party to a marriage is released from the duty of discharging the obligations of that marriage, in whole or in part. because, on account of the conduct, past, present or continuing, of the other partner, the discharge of those obligations has become intolerable or incompatible with personal safety. physical or mental. That being the condition, a higher authority relieves the party from the duty of discharging all or part of the obligations of the marriage. That was a practice which was common in the Church and in Church courts when the Church in this country was responsible for the administration of the marriage laws. Later, when this responsibility was transferred from the Church to the State. the same practice continued, with this addition: that the discharge from the duty of fulfilling the obligations of the marriage might be made so final, absolute and complete as to leave both partners to the marriage free to marry again. This extension was accepted by the Church partially and regretfully, if at all, but it was seen to be. at least theoretically, compatible with the old doctrine of marriage

  1037
  that it is an exclusive, life-long union, the obligations of which may be removed by higher authority for good cause.
  But, once the doctrine of divorce for matrimonial offence is removed and there is substituted for it the theory of divorce by consent, inevitably the whole doctrine of marriage as it has been accepted in this country is changed. Those who contract a marriage under such a system of law can only with the greatest difficulty be said to be contracting a lifelong and exclusive union, for they would then be contracting a union which could be terminated by the will of either or both of them. The decree of divorce issued by the State court, so far from being the action of a higher authority, would be merely an act of notarial registration, registering the decision which had already been arrived at by one or both of the parties concerned.
  The Church., therefore, would be exceedingly embarrassed, because we should not know whether any two Christian people marrying in the Realm of England were indeed intending to contract a Christian marriage as this land and Realm of England has always understood it, an exclusive and a lifelong union, or whether they were contracting a marriage terminable at will by either or both of them, a contract which, so far from being that of, Christian marriage, would be more accurately described as a contract of concubinage. You see, my Lords, how deeply embarrassed the Church would be if legislation were to take that direction. I am therefore, as I think the whole Church are. profoundly grateful to the Commission for having reported as they have.
  I should like briefly to refer to three other matters which are I think more important because they are positive. The first is the work of conciliation or reconciliation done by the Marriage Guidance Council. I should like to add to that—and I am sure the Commission would agree with me—the work that is done by the Church of England Moral Welfare Council over the whole field of sex education. I need only remind your Lordships of the rather controversial document which that Council produced a year or two back on homosexuality. But this is a Council which is alive and thinking hard and acting vigorously, and I hope
  1038
  very much that if there is any public money going for the assistance of voluntary societies at work in this field, that Council will not be wholly ignored.
  It is very important that more money should be made available to the Marriage Guidance Council, because they cannot work effectively unless they enjoy the confidence of other workers in the social field. clergy and doctors and so forth; unless they enjoy the confidence of parents and of friends; and unless they enjoy the confidence, of course, of the persons themselves. They will not enjoy that confidence unless it is known that they are themselves not only good and devoted people but skilled and informed people. Therefore the training of these counsellors by way of conferences and reading and other methods is of great importance. But it is unbalanced and undesirable that counsellors should be drawn only from one stratum of society. It is important that they should come from all strata, and it should be made possible for them to be adequately trained.
  Secondly, the clergy are very well aware of the inadequacy of the existing law as it concerns the preliminaries to marriage. It is too easy to get married in this country. The clergy try to prepare every couple whom they marry. But what is three weeks? It is very often three weeks from the day that the banns put in to the day of the marriage, and what can a poor clergyman do in three weeks? Lord Mancroft has said how hard pressed Her Majesty's Government are for legislative time, and I understand that. But surely they are not so pressed for time that they will not immediately set up the committee for which the Commission ask, to go into the whole question of the law as it touches the preliminaries to marriage.
  Most of the speeches in your Lordships' House to-day have been about education for marriage. I am very concerned with the actual legal requirements for marriage. I do not believe, for example, that the existing system of the calling of the banns, which was perfectly applicable. and worked out, in the Middle Ages. is the slightest use in. England in the twentieth century. It does not give the amount of publicity that it was designed to give. Still less does the posting of a

  1039
  notice on a dark stairway leading up to the civil registrar's office. Publicity, the length of delay between the first notice of intended marriage and the celebration of the marriage, are the kind of things which I believe a committee ought to investigate immediately, with a view to reducing the possibility, as the Commission say, of hasty and ill-considered marriages.
  Lastly, I would refer to the proposal that no decree shall be made absolute until the court is satisfied that adequate provision has been made for the children. I was deeply disappointed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, say that the Government had no intention immediately of introducing legislation on this point. I am so naive as to have supposed that this would have involved only a very simple amendment to the existing Marriage Act. I am so naive as to have supposed that it is an amendment which is almost wholly uncontroversial. And I am so politically inexperienced as amply to have hoped that discreet arrangements could be made, both here and in another place, to enable this very simple act of legislation to go through very quickly. Her Majesty's Government are, of course, deeply concerned and preoccupied with grave and weighty matters: but a great number of children and their happiness are concerned in this little amendment, and that, in my judgment, is also a grave and weighty matter. But I can assure the noble Lord that there will be continuous pressure from some of us in this House to see how soon the Government can make this legislative step.
  6.27 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I wish briefly to support my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who initiated this very welcome and interesting debate. I have always found it expedient to accept definitions, otherwise there can be no discussion, but to question axioms and general propositions. It is not necessarily that one finds them wrong, but one does, I think, get to the basis of the problem; and I therefore question this general proposition that marriage is not only desirable but completely necessary for any civilised community or any community whatsoever. What is the basis of this proposition, and why is it true, if true? It is, after all, a proposition which is accepted by nearly every race, every
  1040
  religion, indeed, by people all over the world.
  I will put my argument in this form. There are perhaps three main reasons why it is absolutely essential. The first, which I think is the most obviously important, and has just been ably dealt with by the right reverend Prelate who has spoken, is the begetting of children and the rearing of children. So far as one knows, there is no alternative that has ever been devised so efficient, so worth while, for rearing, educating and bringing up young children as the home which gives them the attention and love of their parents.
  I think the second reason, which is important, too, is the aspect of economic partnership. Various nations have different patterns, but the general pattern in this country and in most of the Western world is that the man is the person who earns the means of sustenance and what is required, and the woman, completing the other side of the bargain, looks after the house. produces, rears and looks after the children and is kept and supported by her husband. That is so, in spite of the fact that women are now much more going into industry and the professions. It still remains the basic pattern. It obviously would be manifestly unkind. unjust and unwise, if those women, after many years of performing this service, looking after the children and enduring so many hardships, could be turned out by the husband when they were perhaps no longer sexually desirable, no longer capable of bearing children, and left without any means of support and no profession or trade by which they could earn their living. There is that basis which is a very important reason why marriage should be made a lasting contract.
  I think the third reason. which is equally important, is that it is a way of satisfying our natural desires and instincts. I do not mean only the sexual instinct, which is a strong and dominant one, but the instinct of making a home. of living together and producing that relationship which I think Lord Pethick Lawrence described. so well—the basis of the companionable life of love which a really successful marriage alone can produce. It seems to me that we should keep in mind that those are the three reasons for which marriage must be maintained and provided for.

  1041
  What this Report largely deals with and what most other speakers have discussed this afternoon are not the millions of marriages which are either very happy, or successful, or not so successful, but. in this particular question of divorce, the absolute failures—that relatively small minority of unhappy marriages which have gone completely wrong, sometimes from one cause, sometimes from another. Really we are trying to find out if there is anything we can do to mitigate terrible suffering and unhappiness. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Methyr, in regard to the Marriage Guidance Council, whose work should, I think, be further promoted and subsidised by Her Majesty's Government than it has been hitherto. That is the real answer—prevention rather than cure. But, in spite of anything that one can do, we shall get this residue of cases which are absolutely beyond repair for the people concerned.
  Here I think that I should like respectfully to differ with many of your Lordships, in that I think the law takes a completely wrong attitude. The attitude of the law is that there must be a wrongdoer, there must be someone, one partner, who is the guilty partner, and there must be punishment for the guilty. I agree with those noble Lords who take the view that this is a wrong attitude. So often in marriage it is not a question of a guilty partner, it is a question of circumstances, of different clashes of temperament, of an infinite variety of causes. In some cases there are temperamental or physical difficulties, like a husband being an incurable drunkard. Occasionally you can allocate more blame to one party, but so often it is a combination of blame to either side and to circumstances. I should have thought that the attitude of the law should be to find the fairest and wisest way to deal with this problem, rather than always to look for the criminal, the guilty party, and punish him or her.
  have been told—if I am wrong I shall he grateful for correction—that in Scandinavia, and particularly in Sweden (I have not verified this but I was just told it), the custom is that where a marriage has broken down completely, particularly when there are no children, the couple can apply to the courts, if they are in agreement, and they then give the reasons why the marriage has
  1042
  broken down and ask that they shall have a divorce. I am told that the judge argues with them and asks them the reasons, satisfies himself that this is a genuine case, and then tells the couple to think it over and to come back in a year's time. If they come back the divorce is automatically granted. That may sound rather revolutionary to some of your Lordships, but it seems to me a more sane way of dealing with the matter. Here you have a marriage which has completely broken down but where there is not the problem which is the worst of all, that of children, and where presumably financial arrangements are satisfactorily agreed It seems to me that in those cases it is right that the law ought to let the divorce go through easily, without asking for pretended adultery or other means which are resorted to by the people concerned.
  Here I am a little at sea after what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman, has said, but it seems to me that collusion is a difficult doctrine to understand, and I should have thought in many cases it did much more harm than good. Surely what we must have in mind ace circumstances such as occurred in the story of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. If the marriage has failed, if it is impossible, then let us get it over with and give the couple a chance to start a better life which may he fruitful, happy and virtuous. That, of course, is the case where there are no children involved.
  Then l think we get to the real difficulty on this problem—namely, where there are children, and the question of what to do with them. I should like to reinforce the remarks of the most reverend Primate, and I believe of some other noble Lords, who have pressed for the requirement that the court should be satisfied that provision for the child is adequate. I think that is most important. But what I always think is a great mistake—committed, perhaps more abroad than here—is to give the child in joint custody, saying that one party can see it for so long and the other for another time. I think that produces in the child a terrible conflict. In most cases, it is better that the child should go to one parent or the other, and not have this divided loyalty. When that happens nearly always it is a case where the divorce has been fought bitterly and

  1043
  it is almost beyond human nature for the parents not to try to instil into the child hatred, or at any rate dislike, for the other parent, or else try to outbid the other parent in bribery, by spoiling the child in every way.
  One must remember that the whole of this problem is much harder for the poor people than it is for those of the middle class or upper class who can afford to live separate lives, whereas the people who are poor have to live in one room together; which in a marriage that has gone wrong is difficult and disastrous. Then the question has been raised of the seven-year period. I agree with Lord Pethick-Lawrence on this matter. I do not see the point of the seven years at all. What do the people do during those seven years? A difficult point is where one party has deserted the other and has gone to live separately for many years, for whatever reason, and the allegedly guiltless party, the one that has been deserted or been abandoned, refuses, out of spite, to give a divorce. I am wondering whether some means could not be evolved whereby after a certain period of time the guilty party could ask for a divorce to he granted. I know that that sounds rather controversial, but if one thinks of the happiness of the three parties—when say "three parties" I mean both parents and the children—it seems better than this long-drawn-out situation in which there has been a breakdown of the marriage and one partner has gone off and perhaps is living adulterously with someone else or even is living alone. It seems to me that no good at all comes out of a situation whereby a divorce cannot go through perhaps because of maliciousness on the part of one party.
  I do not wish to talk on the religious aspect—I do not feel qualified to do so. I know that some sects look down on divorce of any kind as absolutely wrong. I fully respect their opinion. Other Churchmen look upon it as wrong only in certain circumstances. But I would ask them this question: however wrong they may think divorce may be, could they not be a little tolerant towards those who do not believe that it is necessarily wrong? To take a parallel, many people believe that it is wicked and sinful to play cricket on Sunday afternoon, and even more wicked to go to the cinema on a
  1044
  Sunday evening. On the other side, there are many people who think that a man who has worked hard for six days a week should be able to have one afternoon of relaxation to play cricket or to amuse himself by taking his wife to the cinema. There are two different points of view. One cannot, by legislation, force those who believe it is wrong to do it; and there is no reason why those who think it wrong should go and watch or play cricket. But we ask a certain tolerance for those who do not believe it wicked, for what they conceive to be innocent amusement. Although different religious sects may think this is absolutely wrong I feel that as this is the law of the land, some discretion should be allowed and there should be some little "let-up by making it easier for these unhappy people.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: May I ask the noble Lord: easier to do what?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I am glad to answer the most reverend Primate. My speech has been purposely vague. I do not want to produce a blueprint, first because I am not qualified to do so and, secondly, because the hour is too late. But the burden of my speech is that the tendency of our law is to make it difficult for those who are most deserving of divorce to get it. especially when there is agreement of the parties and where there are no difficulties such as the presence of children. This surely is one class of case in which we should make divorce much easier. So often at present, in complicated issues where there are children and one party has committed adultery, it is much easier for one party to get a divorce than when they arc both agreed. That is the burden of my discourse. I do not wish to keep your Lordships any longer but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider a little their time schedule and perhaps give a little more thought at least to helping any Private. Member's Bill which may expedite or clarify what is admittedly a very confused law.
  6.44 p.m.
  LORD MESTON: My Lords, we have it on the authority of Holy Scripture that "the last shall be first." I confess that I find that it requires a certain degree of fortitude to accept that principle when

  1045
  one is the last of a long line of speakers and all one's predecessors are of great ability and have covered practically the whole ground. I will therefore be as short as possible and keep myself within my "statutory" limit of ten minutes. In my view. the whole subject of divorce is incapable of any easy solution. We all know of the great philosopher who said of the institution of matrimony that those outside the institution wanted to get in, and those inside wanted to get out. That is a cynical view and ore which is not fortified by events.
  Dealing now with the matter before us to-day, we should first thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for having raised the subject. I was beginning to wonder whether anybody was going to mention this matter at all. But wonders never cease! This matter has been mentioned, and something even more explosive has been mentioned--namely, the question of modifying the Rent Restrictions Act. At all events, this debate gives us an opportunity of expressing our appreciation of the work done by the Royal Commission and of voicing our appreciation of the sagacity of the noble and learned Lord who was Chairman of that Commission. I would remind your Lordships that there are 149 recommendations of the Commission and it would he interesting to know whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to implement any of those. Of those 149 recommendations, sixteen are directly related to the question of children. There are many others which deal with children but sixteen recommendations have an immediate bearing upon that subject. It would be very interesting to know whether Her Majesty's Government intend to implement any of those sixteen recommendations.
  LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, if I may interrupt the. noble Lord, am I right in suspecting that he was not in the House when I made my speech?
  LORD MESTON: I must apologise to the noble Lord if I have been discourteous by being absent when he spoke. I always make a point of coming into the House when the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, speaks, because I consider the best speaker on the Government Front Bench, but I must apologise on this occasion.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I was not asking for that very kind compliment but trying to save the noble Lord trouble, as I have already given a great deal of the information he is now seeking.
  LORD MESTON: My Lords, I have no doubt your Lordships have read the Report of the Commission from cover to cover. Your Lordships will observe that in Appendix IV there is a draft code dealing with matrimonial jurisdiction and recognition of the jurisdiction of other countries. I can only say that that is a masterly document and I hope that it will soon receive legislative recognition.. Generally speaking, the Report can be considered under two main aspects. First of all there is the subject of dissolution of marriage, and then we have the various. matters which are consequential upon dissolution, such as maintenance and custody of children.I will make only a few comments on these matters.
  Everyone is agreed on one point—namely, that wilful refusal to consummate a marriage should be a ground for divorce and not annulment. I suggest that there is a good deal to be said for allowing as a ground of divorce the fact that a husband and wife have lived separate and apart for seven years, at the wish of either party. That means that the consent of the other spouse is not required. In all such cases, proper orders should be made—as, indeed, they are made in all cases—to safeguard the position of the wife, and children, if any. That may seem rather outrageous to sonic, but would point out that if this were made a ground of divorce it might reduce what I regard as one of the very worst misfortunes of mankind, the stigma of illegitimacy. Human nature being what it is, when spouses have been away from each other for a long time it frequently happens that one forms an illicit union with some member of the opposite sex with—I win not say the inevitable consequences, but with consequences which frequently follow.
  That leads me to say that the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, 1938, should be amended so as to give a wife whose marriage has been dissolved, either on her own or on her husband's petition. the, same status as a dependant for the purpose of claiming maintenance out of the former husband's estate. Take the case of a woman married to a man

  1047
  for twenty years. At the end of twenty years the marriage is dissolved, either on her own petition or that of her husband. If, years later, when her husband dies, the spouse is in a very poor financial position it seems only human that she and any other dependant should be entitled to go to court and ask for assistance out of the former husband's estate. Then I would earnestly urge that all children born out of wedlock should become legitimate by the subsequent marriage of the parents. At present it is only where both parents were free to marry at the time their child was born that the child can become legitimate.
  Finally. I will make a few observations on the subject of desertion. There is an excellent suggestion in the Report that, in effect, the period of three years should not be deemed to he broken if the parties once conic together for a period not exceeding one month. In my view, that is not a device to get more divorces but rather an attempt to encourage spouses to make one good attempt at reconciliation. May I be permitted, in a House which abounds in juristic giants, to make two technical observations? One is that delay should be no bar in desertion cases. In cases which are founded on adultery and cruelty there is a discretionary power to refuse a decree because of delay, but It appears to me that, so far as desertion is concerned, delay should not come into the subject at all.
  The other point deals with constructive desertion, which means that one spouse has had to leave the matrimonial home on account of the conduct of the other. I speak under correction, as I say, in a House which abounds in juristic giants of every description. I believe that I am correct in saying that there are cases to the effect that conduct of a grave and weighty nature, not amounting to legal cruelty, does not justify one spouse in leaving the other. That strikes me as being an absolute confusion of ideas and as treating human beings as mere pawns in a legal game. I suggest that the test should be that, if one party behaves, and continues to behave, in a way inconsistent with reasonable married life, that is tantamount to putting an end to the married life and is desertion.
  My Lords, I had not intended to say any more. I am very glad to see Lord Merthyr here, because he made a state-
  1048
  ment which I should like to question. I think he rather indicated that an officer of the Marriage Guidance Council might I be in contempt if he or she refused to answer any questions as to attempts at reconciliation made between the parties. I speak under correction, but I very much doubt whether that is the practice of the courts of this country. If it is not the practice, I think the statement ought to be corrected, because it would be unfortunate if it went out to the world that qualified people who are genuinely trying to effect a reconciliation can be sent to prison for contempt if they do not disclose to the court conversations which they may have had with some of the parties.
  6.53 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, we have had a debate of exceptional interest, and I consider it very indulgent of my noble acting leader, Lord Silkin. to allow me to speak last from this side of the House. He knows that my views, at some points at least, though not at all, do not accord with his and he realises that I belong to one of what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has called the "sects". I am not quite sure what sects are, and whether the Church of England is also a sect. I gather that the Catholic Church throughout the world is a sect. No doubt there are some other considerable sects. I do, of course, belong to one of these sects, as do so many people in this divided Christendom who call themselves Christian. I cannot pretend to represent the views of others present. I do not think anyone, except perhaps Government spokesmen and leaders of the Church, would claim to speak in a representative capacity. My views, such as they are, have the merit, or demerit, of being my own.
  I should like to say how deeply moved I was by one speech—though I could not agree with it at all points. I refer to the speech of my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I thought that there spoke a great Nestor. Though I could not agree with some of his ultimate conclusions, there was much in his speech which all of us will treasure for a long time. I think I am right in saying that there was once a Mr. Lawrence and a Miss Pethick and they became Mr. and Mrs. Pethick-Lawrence. Whatever views we hold, no one can imagine a more

  1049
  happy marriage in practice than that of Lord and Lady Pethick-Lawrence, a perfect Hegelian synthesis—thesis, Mr. Lawrence; anti-thesis, Miss Pethick; synthesis, Mr. and Mrs. PethickLawrence. What God joined, no action of man—not even imprisonment for justly-held beliefs—could put asunder. I am sure we shall all join in paying warm tribute to the noble Lord for his contribution to this debate.
  I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, whose speech was also most interesting, has no idea that anyone is, so to speak, trying to look down on him. Certainly those who frown on divorce and detest divorce as an institution, as I do, would not like to be thought to be claiming to be holier than anyone else. There is no "holier than thou" attitude on our part. I think we must all recall those words from The Imitation of Saint Thomas a Kempis:
  "All we be frail, but thou shalt hold no man trailer than thyself."
  I hope that with those words I shall assuage the anxiety and irritation of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon—indeed., I come here in a white sheet from every point of view. I suppose it is true to say that I have been responsible for many more divorces than any man in. your Lordships' House—even more than the noble Lord, Lord Merriman. I remember very well being election agent for Sir Alan Herbert—indeed, I persuaded him to stand. It is a matter of historical fact that, without my persuasion, Mr. A. P. Herbert (as he was then) would never have stood for Parliament. If he had not stood, he would never have been elected, and the Act of 1937 would never have been passed. I anticipate that I shall have a very long and arduous spell in purgatory. I only hope that I shall have the delightful companionship of A. P. Herbert to alleviate some of the worst pains.
  I come now to some of the grave points before us. There is one paragraph which I must recall to the House, and that is paragraph 36, of the Report of this very important and valuable Royal Commission. I am afraid that I must read it rapidly through to the House. It runs:
  "By the law of England and of Scotland marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. This means that on entering marriage husband and wife must intend that their
  1050
  marriage shall be for Life. The State has, however, recognised that in certain circumstances it would be contrary to public policy and would inflict hardship on individuals if the marriage could not he dissolved. It has accordingly made provision whereby in circumstances defined by the law the marriage may be dissolved by the courts and the parties set free to marry again."
  It is not for me to argue now whether the terms of reference of the Commission were wisely drawn. I think that Lord Chorley, whose speech was most interesting though, from my point of view, very trying, felt that the terms of reference were not very wise. I will not argue whether, in view of the terms of reference, the Royal Commission could have adopted any other line than they did. They have, in fact, adopted the idea that divorce is regrettable but permissible in certain circumstances. They have started from that basis.
  I would only say here that the views which they have taken as their basis are not the only ones which can be held by a Western Christian democracy. There is no legal provision for divorce in Ireland. Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland includes this passage:
  "No law shall be enacted providing for the rant of a dissolution of marriage."
  So it is possible to have a different basis front the one accepted as inevitable, as part of their duty, by the Royal Commission. Whatever your Lordships may feel about the relative civilisations of this country and the Irish Republic, whether or not you regard civilisation here as materially more successful than the civilisation of the Irish Republic, whether you choose to regard the civilisation here as more advanced, more open-minded, more in accordance with the spirit of the twentieth century, I think you would find it hard to claim that there is more reason for concern about the future of the family in Ireland than there is in this country. You can hardly suggest that the family is less healthy in Ireland than in this country. I submit that there is no more reason to be concerned about the future of the family in Ireland, under their law, than about the future of the family here. notwithstanding the difference as regards the matter of divorce laws. I am not saying that the difference in this matter concerning the divorce laws is the main influence at work—there are deeper factors and more subtle influences. But, at any rate, I think we ought to seek

  1051
  for a different divorce law which could go with what many people would feel was a less vulnerable family life.
  Your Lordships know that Roman Catholics and a good many others believe divorce to be utterly wrong, but I do not think you will be very much impressed by being told that they think this is wrong because that is part of the official teaching of the Church; and perhaps you will not be impressed by the fact that other Christians think it wrong, for a similar reason—that it is against the Divine revelation as their Church interprets it. I think that recent experience, as studied by the psychologists, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, would wish us to pay so much attention, lends more support to what I call the Catholic view and to the view held by so many other Christians than it does to the opposite view. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not here, because I thought his speech was one of the most interesting one could listen to on a subject of this kind: I disagreed with it so much and at so many points.
  The noble Lord knows very well, because he is an expert criminologist, that it is very difficult to bring forward any material on any human question which demonstrates a point conclusively as it could be demonstrated in mathematics or in the natural sciences. Recently, as I have had occasion to mention more than once in your Lordships' House, I had to undertake an inquiry into the causes of crime, in which it was my duty to conduct such researches as the noble Lord thought might have been conducted under the auspices of the Royal Commission. I will not stop to argue the point whether the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, had an adequate reply to Lord Chorley's criticism: but whether these researches were conducted for two years. or five or ten, I think that in the last resort we should still have to make up our minds as to the connection between the growth of divorce and any alleged decay in morals. Hardly anybody concerned with criminology and human problems would dispute—and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who speaks with such great authority, laid it down in his most interesting observations—that there is a connection between the broken home and crime, both juvenile and adult; and when we are trying to seek the cause
  1052
  of the broken home, I think we are driven to ponder again certain passages in the Report of the Royal Commission.
  It is too late to read them now, but for reference, the passages are between paragraphs 39 and 49, entitled "Background of inquiry". There we are given a considered view, not based on statistics—it would have been rather difficult to base it on statistics—but unanimously arrived at by all these representative ladies and gentlemen of much experience. That view contains, among other passages. the statement that
  "The large number of marriages which each year are ending in the divorce court is a matter of grave concern … The disquieting feature is that the divorce rate is still so high."
  The Report then points out, in paragraph 46, that
  ".… there have been rapid and far-reaching social changes "—
  but they go on to pick out what they call "the root problem": that
  "… a further factor in the problem of marriage breakdown … is a tendency to take the duties and the responsibilities of marriage less seriously than formerly."
  And in paragraph 48, they offer the opinion that:
  "The change in the community's attitude to divorce has some share in responsibility for this situation."
  The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is perfectly entitled to come here and say. "What are their proofs? and if we had more time I should desire to give a lengthier reply, but for the moment I would accept their interpretation of the facts as carrying a great deal of weight. I will not say more, as it is something that can be argued about indefinitely, but if we do accept the Commission's interpretation of the facts, almost all of us can go a long way together, though not quite the whole way.
  We can surely agree that not in the first generation only, but also in subsequent generations, the harm done by marriage breakdown is incalculably great. I think that the Royal Commission had that in mind when they described it, in effect, as a tragedy whenever it occurred. If we accept the findings of the Royal Commission on this point. we can agree that people do tend to take the duties and responsibilities of marriage less seriously than formerly, and that this lies at the root of the problem. We can accept also that the change in the community's

  1053
  attitude to divorce has some share of responsibility for this situation. There the Royal Commission stop; but I, and others with me, go forward.
  I go further and submit, not on a priori grounds but on grounds of experience, that the facilitation of divorce in the last fifty years, and the virtual creation of divorce in the last hundred years, cannot possibly be exempted from some of the responsibility for the change for the worse in the community's attitude to divorce. I submit, therefore, with heartfelt conviction, that the coming of divorce to our country has not been a blessing but a curse to England. None who think as I do could have any hand or part in making divorce easier or a more permanent part of our life, or fail to hope and pray for its ultimate elimination from our midst. Almost all of us, whether we accept divorce as a regrettable necessity or would wish to eliminate it, must deplore it when it comes to our friends or relations. None of us are pleased when we hear that friends are to be divorced. We all then regard it, as my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence regarded it, as a symptom of failure. We all unite in trying to prevent the breakdown that leads to the failure; and when we find people, particularly young people, struggling with hideous problems of this kind, we are reminded of the further words of The Imitation—
  "Be not hard to him that is tempted but give him comfort as thou wouldst should be done to thee."
  I have only a few sentences more. I strongly endorse what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and by other noble Lords, in favour of assistance for marriage guidance. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who always speaks so well and whom I always seem to have to criticise, has not said the last word of the Government on this point. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will be able to say something more encouraging to-night; and if he cannot say much more to-night, I hope he will be able to say that it will be possible on a later occasion. On this side of the House we have encountered the noble and learned Viscount, in recent important debates, as a frank, formidable and much-respected adversary. We respect his character and appreciate it highly. We look to him to-night to give a
  1054
  lead on a question which rises far beyond any question of Party, and, ultimately, beyond religious differences. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will say something constructive, or hold out the possibility of saying something constructive, and show for the first time in living memory that the family is going to be given its proper priority in the councils of Government.
  7.8 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I do not think that anyone has ever had a more compelling appeal made to him than that made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. I think that the very making of that appeal is a proof of the fascinating character and importance of this debate, Having enjoyed hearing the speeches so much, I should like to convey my real thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for initiating the debate in the way he did. I agree with him that it is high time that Parliament should have had an opportunity for considering the Report of the Royal Commission, and I think all of your Lordships agree with me in considering that document one of the highest importance. I should like to take this opportunity of again expressing the gratitude of the Government to my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton and to all his colleagues on the Commission for the way in which they have performed a most difficult task, The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was good enough to write to me to say that he had to leave early in order to fulfil another engagement. Lord Chorley was the only noble Lord who criticised the composition of the Commission. As he is not here, I think it is sufficient to say that it is an interesting fact that the only noble Lord who criticised the composition of the Commission was a member of the Government who appointed it in 1949. I think I can leave that criticism at that point.
  It has been stressed, and I think rightly, that the terms of reference of the Commission, including as they did the law of Scotland as well as the law of England, and the matrimonial jurisdiction of the magistrates' courts and the sheriffs' courts in Scotland, and the divorce jurisdiction of the High Court and the Court of Session, imposed a large task indeed, and a much bigger task than that which faced the Gorell Commission in 1909; and I think everyone has agreed that my noble

  1055
  and learned friend Lord Morton of Henryton and his colleagues have discharged that task with a thoroughness, and I say—and I maintain this strongly —a human sympathy for which we should all be profoundly grateful.
  One comes to consider the size of the problem with which we are dealing. Again, I think everyone except the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, viewed the actual number of divorce cases that have been brought into the courts as a matter of grave concern. If my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman will forgive me, I should like to round off the figures which he was good enough to give to your Lordships in an earlier part of the debate. The only difference between our figures is that those supplied to me are the figures of decrees, and I think my noble and learned friend's figures were those of petitions. These are striking figures. In the year 1912, when the Gorell Commission reported, there were no more than 690 decrees; in 1937, when Sir Alan Herbert's Act was passed, the figure had risen to over 5,000; and in 1939 it reached 8,248. The war led to a catastrophic increase in the divorce rate, although the great flood of cases did not reach the courts until the conclusion of hostilities. The peak figure was recorded in 1947, when no fewer than 52,248 decrees were granted.
  Since then, I am thankful to say, the tide has receded, but the number of decrees granted last year was over 26.000, and all the indications point to the divorce rate being steadied at somewhere about this figure for as far ahead as we can see at present. I have been giving the figures for England and Wales. In Scotland the divorce rate is much lower, and in the average the number of decrees granted every year is now something over 2,000. I think all your Lordships have felt that there is a great social significance in these figures. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said that it was impossible to equate these figures with the number of broken homes that would exist if the parties did not go to the Divorce Court. I tried to appreciate that argument, but to me it seems that the only possible view is that that does reflect broken homes.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. I have had to consider the cases of
  1056
  crime: in fact, when I became Home Secretary, rather in the height of a crime wave, I had to consider every aspect of it; and, having considered detection. the numbers of police and all the penal arrangements that were made, I came to the conclusion—I am afraid I have said this more than once—that the most important causes of crime were broken homes and the lower moral standards that I found. Therefore. as I have said, I consider that there is an immense social problem here. Where I would differ from the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. is that my reading of history has shown me that at every stage, even when divorce a vinculo matrimonii has not been recognised by the Church, it happened in the cases where it was politically necessary. I hope the noble Lord will not misunderstand me. I mean that any human urgency has its frailty. and that happened. At the time before 1857 about which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter spoke, you had your Private Bill procedure, and those who could afford the Private Bill procedure got divorce a vinculo matrimonii, although, as he said, it was different in the ecclesiastical courts.
  If your Lordships will forgive me. I should like to quote one of the oldest and best known but most sensible addresses to a prisoner that has ever been made by a Judge. Shortly before 1857 Mr. Justice Maule had to sentence a tinker for bigamy, and he said:
  "You had a drunken and unfaithful wife, the curse of your existence and her own. Your remedy was perfectly plain. You could have brought an action for criminal conversation against her adultery. You could then have got a decree of divorce a mensa et toro in the ecclesiastical courts, and then you could have promoted a Private Bill and got it through both Houses of Parliament. You may tell me that that would have cost you £1,000 and you have never had 1.000 pence. But I am here sitting as a Judge of the High Court of England to tell you that in this country, at least, there is not one law for the rich and another for the poor. The sentence of the Court on you is one day's imprisonment; and as you have been here since the beginning of the assizes, that means you can go."
  I am sorry to inflict this well-tried and well-worn chestnut on your Lordships, but I quote it again to put to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, the other side of it: that is, that while we all desire—and I agree with him that everything we can do as a State and as individuals we must

  1057
  do—the preservation of the family, it is impossible to face cases of that sort and to deny men and women any freedom from it.
  I do not want to spend the time during which I ought to be dealing with the Royal Commission's recommendations, on these most fascinating side streams, but I think that what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter said is well worthy of consideration. He put more clearly than I have heard before the matter which we must always have in mind: that if at the back of people's minds there is even the idea that marriage has a voluntary break clause, then we may well have changed its character in a way which would do immense harm. It is a difficult balance, and that is the balance which I think should be held. I believe that the Royal Commission have maintained that balance in their Report. It is against the background which I have sought to paint that your Lordships have to consider the Report and the suggestions that have been put forward.
  The Report of the Royal Commission has been criticised because it contains no striking proposal for an alteration in the grounds for divorce except the one upon which I shall say a word in a moment, about divorce after a separation of seven years. I think it is important to remember, when that criticism is put forward, that the terms of reference of the Commission were to consider, not only the way in which marriages may be brought to an end, but also
  "… the need to promote and maintain healthy and happy married life and to safeguard the interests and wellbeing of children. …."
  That is a most important part of our social life, as it is of the terms of reference. Some people may think that this purpose would not be furthered if the law were altered in such a way as to permit husband and wife to obtain a divorce solely because in his or her view the marriage had broken down.
  If I may contrast two sets of speeches. I will refer again to the speech of the right reverend Prelate and, on the other hand, to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. These speeches make it perfectly clear that this is a matter on which people can, with deep sincerity, hold diametrically opposed views. In these circumstances, it is not
  1058
  surprising or, indeed, a ground of criticism that the Royal Commission broke even in its numbers on this point. But what is perfectly clear is that, after everything that has been said in this debate and the Report of the Royal Commission taking the form and showing the divisions which I have mentioned, no-one could possibly expect a Government to announce legislation on this subject, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft pointed out in his speech. Of course we shall give the fullest consideration to everything that has been said. and I shall read again the speeches that I have enjoyed so much hearing to-day. But I repeat that I do not think anyone could criticise the Government for refusing to announce legislation on that point.
  Now I come to the question that has tilled a great deal of the debate, and that is the question of marriage guidance. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, began by saying —if I have his words aright—that the only hope was advice at the beginning. The most reverend Primate followed, and my noble friend Lord Perth made an eloquent and sincere speech in the same direction. We also had the advantage of hearing my noble friend Lord Merthyr, who is Chairman of the Marriage Guidance Council. They all said, rightly, that the Commission did its work and paid a great deal of attention to this point. I have the greatest sympathy with all that has been said on this point: first, the need to ensure that persons entering on marriage should do so with a full appreciation of their duties and responsibilities, and that every assistance should be given to persons already married in the difficulties they may encounter, so as to avoid the breakdown of the marriage if at all possible—that is obviously right—secondly, that everything possible should be done to ensure the welfare of the children who are the innocent victims of a broken marriage.
  I am glad that under the first of these heads the Commission have paid a well-deserved tribute to the work done by the various marriage guidance organisations, for whom my noble friend Lord Merthyr spoke. I believe their work is of immense importance and I endorse what the Royal Commission has said about it. I hope that as soon as circumstances become more propitious it will be possible for greater contributions to be made by the State towards this work. We

  1059
  recognise the importance of the work, and the importance of its being helped. If my noble friend Lord Merthyr would convey to his friends in the organisation a message from me, I would say that I read the booklet which they prepared on the Report of the Royal Commission and their views with the greatest interest and sympathy, and I should like to pay my tribute to a well written and interesting booklet.
  My noble friend Lord Merthyr raised the further point about the question of the legal advice provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act. I want to say again that we, as a Government, have promised that that section of the Act will be put into operation during this Parliament, and I should like to give him my assurance that I have not forgotten the importance of that aspect of the Act. Again, as soon as the financial position allows that will be done. I have his point very much in mind, and I accept his major premise that it is cheaper to get good advice than to go into doubtful litigation.
  I come to the welfare of children. On that aspect of the matter, your Lordships will agree with me that one of the most important recommendations in the Report is that in paragraph 372, to the effect that, where children are concerned, it should not be possible for a decree of divorce to be made absolute until the court is satisfied that full consideration has been given to the question of the children's welfare and that satisfactory arrangements have been made to this end.
  The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter made some remarks on the question of legislation. Having heard the right reverend Prelate speak several times, I should be the last person to accuse him of naï veté, which he seemed to fear. I can only tell him, after an experience of being a Minister that now goes back some fifteen years, that in every Government in which I have served every Department has produced the most admirable Bill, all of which were non-controversial and all of which could go through both Houses of Parliament in the minimum of time, and it is among these new lambs that the slaughter of innocent legislation takes place. I want to tell the right reverend Prelate that getting a Bill into the Parliamentary cursus is not an easy task, and those of
  1060
  us who fail are not lacking in energy. I think that all noble Lords who have been Ministers will agree with me as to the difficulty of that point. Therefore, I hope the right reverend Prelate will not be too hard on me.
  On the other hand, I want to make this fact quite clear. I propose very shortly to invite the Supreme Court Rule Committee to consider an amendment of the Rules of Court whereby any party to divorce proceedings who seeks to obtain an order for custody of any children will be required to supply the court with full particulars of the arrangements which he or she proposes in regard to the children's future maintenance and upbringing. I hope that this will go some way towards filling the gap which undoubtedly exists at present.
  I am at the same time arranging for an extension of the exceedingly useful work done by the probation officers who have for the past six years been seconded to the Divorce Division in London and who have been of considerable assistance in providing the Court with accurate information about the home background in cases where there has been a contest between the father and the mother for custody of the children or about the terms on which access to them should be granted to either parent. Advice of this kind will in future be available to the judges trying divorce cases outside London, and I hope that full use of it will be made. Those are immediate matters. One is a matter of subsidiary legislation, the other is a matter of administration, and I think they go some way to improving the position pending the legislation.
  On this point of subsidiary legislation, and particularly the Rules of Court, I want to say that there is a difficulty. which I mentioned, on legislation; but so far as these recommendations can be dealt with by Rules of Court, it is my intention to bring them all—I repeat "them all"; that is, all the recommendations of the Commission—before the Supreme Court Rule Committee in a very short time. In that way, I hope that we shall be able to deal not only with the question of requiring a party who seeks the custody to disclose his or her own intentions about the children's future, but also with such matters as the stage in the proceedings at which applications for

  1061
  maintenance and so on are to be made; the fact that a wife ought nowadays to be treated on the same basis as her husband in regard to security for her costs, and the power of the court to grant an injunction whenever there appears to be any risk of a child being taken out of the jurisdiction before the case can be heard. These are relatively small matters, but they will, I think, when they are dealt with, effect a real improvement in the courts' procedure, and I have no doubt that similar action will be taken so far as Scotland is concerned. t want to say again that, of the many recommendations by the Commission which can be dealt with by subsidiary legislation, action has been and is being taken with regard to them all. And that, I think, is quite an appreciable part of the total.
  I have mentioned the position with regard to legislation. Of course, there remain a number of recommendations which cannot be dealt with without legislation, although I confess that some of these seem to me of comparatively minor importance when considered against the background of the major problems to which I have referred. For example, the suggestion that wilful refusal to consummate a marriage should in future be a ground for divorce, rather than nullity, is no doubt a perfectly logical proposal, and one which might relieve the conscience in some cases; but it is not, as I apprehend, one which would make any practical difference to the law. From the practical point of view, I think that many of the most important recommendations are those dealing with the law relating to a wife's maintenance, and in particular the suggestion that, when a wife re-marries, any maintenance order made in her favour should automatically cease, on the ground that a wife who marries a second time should accept that she thereby ceases to have any claim against her former husband. On the general point, as I have said, I am glad that there is a large field with which I can deal without legislation.
  The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, put to me, with great force and eloquence, the point of the attachment of wages. He said to me, I am sure realising that that argument would appeal to a Scot: "If you can get attachment of wages in Scotland, why does it not apply in England? If it is a bad thing, why do you allow it
  1062
  to continue in Scotland?" in fairness to the Commission, I think that, if the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, looks at paragraph 1103 he will find that argument dealt with. Perhaps I may quote a sentence or two from this paragraph:
  "The power of arrestment of wages in Scotland is, however, part of the common law, so that it may be said to be traditional to the county and therefore accepted as a matter of course. Under the English common law there was no procedure for the attachment of debts; this was first introduced in 1854. In 1870 the power of attachment was very substantially limited by the Wages Attachment Abolition Act, to which we have referred in paragraph 1097."
  They set out further objections in paragraph 1107. Lord Merthyr, if he will mentally move from his post as Chairman of the Marriage Guidance Council to that of Chairman of the Magistrates' Association, will, I think, realise that it is important, as no one knows better than he. that there should be general public support for penal measures in the law. I think the explanation is that there is at any rate that acceptance and familiarity with it in Scotland, whereas, in England, wages, both in the minds of the ordinary people and in the minds of the trade union movement, have always had a tremendous sanctity. One can see the same sort of thing in the Truck Acts, with which the noble Lord is familiar. I feel myself that there is greater strength in the arguments put forward by the Royal Commission than the noble Lord allowed in his address.
  My noble and learned friend Lord Merriman mentioned the suggestion in the Report that divorce work should be dealt with by High Court Judges, and the Commission's recommendation that the divorce jurisdiction, because it is of great social importance, should be retained in the High Court and be exercised by High Court Judges and not by Commissioners. I should like to say a word about that point, because there are important aspects, and particularly my own. As your Lordships may remember. the expedient of employing Commissioners of the High Court to try divorce cases was adopted by my predecessor, Lord Jowitt.. immediately after the war. in order to deal with the really grave emergency presented by the large number of cases awaiting trial. I have already mentioned to your 'Lordships that no fewer than 52,000 decrees were made in

  1063
  1947, and it was obvious that this presented a problem which could not be dealt with by the Judges of the Divorce Division alone. It was for this reason that the county court judges, as well as practising barristers, were called in to help. So well was this task discharged that the very large lists were dealt with. Without the help that we received a most serious crisis might have arisen. Of course, it was not foreseen at that time that the divorce figures would continue to be so large, or that the Commissioners would be employed for so long a period but it is clear that if we are to continue to be faced with as many as 26,000 decrees a year, many more High Court Judges would be required if they alone were to deal with them.
  I have noted that the Royal Commission themselves say that this is not a matter which they expect to be changed overnight. With regard to that, I should say that I accept their estimate of the great importance of the work, and I have very much in mind my own duty under the Judicature Acts to see that the appointments of Judges to the High Court are made having regard to the work in, and the requirements of, the various Divisions. Therefore, I can assure your Lordships that this problem is in my mind. I agree with the Royal Commission that it is one which should be solved gradually I want everyone to know that I am taking that approach, and I hope to be able to show results as the months pass. I think that is not avoiding the problem but approaching it in the way the Royal Commission recommended.
  There are various points of great importance that have been raised in these speeches, and I should not like any noble Lord to think that because I have not dealt with them, they are being ignored. We shall go through them most carefully and we shall examine exactly what can be done about them. We are all very much indebted to the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, for introducing debates of this sort on important topics, apart from all the work he does at the Committee and Report stages of Bills, which is appreciated greatly by noble Lords in every part of the House. I hope that Lord Silkin will not think at the end of the day that we are neglecting this Report. He knows the difficulty of legislation, but he also, as a lawyer. knows how much can
  1064
  be done to improve the practice and to put recommendations into force by rules of court and by administrative action. Lord Mancroft and I have tried to show him that it is our intention to use that course as fully as we can to cover all the recommendations that can be dealt with in that way. If he is disappointed on the question of the seven years, again I put it to him, as an ex-Minister of experience, that after publication of the Report and after what has been said to-day, he could not really expect legislation on the part of any Government, whatever its political colour. I feel, however, that we have, as a House, to-day successfully kept the balance in one of the great problems. It is always difficult, when our views of what is for the good of the community have to be reconciled with the failure of the human faculty, and much more difficult when that failure is the failure of the human spirit. Nevertheless, I think we have done it as a House to-day, and the difference between our views has, in totality, made a contribution to the consideration of one of the most difficult problems of mankind.
  7.48 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I feel that this debate has been fully justified because it has enabled us to ventilate the Report of the Royal Commission and discuss, in what I think has been one of the best debates I have listened to since I have been in the House, the very difficult problems, with which the Royal Commission were concerned. Of course, I do not propose to continue the discussion, but I want to mention just two matters upon which I think there has been some misunderstanding. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Henryton, was rather angry with me, and so was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman, for having suggested that what I call the "retentionists" were really opposed to any form of divorce. I did not intend to say that. I will look tomorrow morning with great interest at what I said, but if I conveyed that impression to either of the two noble Lords. I am sorry, for it was not my intention.
  What I really meant, if I may put it in one sentence, was that all the arguments that were put forward for retention might equally well have been put forward by those who were opposed to divorce of any kind. Of course, there are such people and several of them have spoken in this

  1065
  debate. They accept divorce most reluctantly, and if they had had their way there would have been no divorce at all. Therefore, there are people like that, and I felt that the arguments that such persons would put forward against the views of those who want to change the law would have been exactly or very much the same as the views that were put forward by the retentionists. That was one point. The misconception that should like to correct is in regard to the point upon which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman, spoke with such authority—namely, the question of collusion. There, again, I did not mean to suggest that large numbers of divorces were collusive.
  LORD MERRIMAN: May I intervene? I expressly said that the noble Lord did not say that. The noble and learned Lord said that a great many were by consent, but I think I expressly said that he did not suggest that they were collusive. At any rate, that is my impression; that is what I meant to say.
  LORD SILKIN: I think that the noble and learned Lord actually said what have suggested. However, I do not think I need pursue that point.
  I come to the reception which this Report has received from Her Majesty's Government. May I thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the kind remarks that he made about me. and, in all friendliness—I hope he will not take offence at it—say that if I had to have had news conveyed to me by any person in this world I would choose as the emissary the noble and learned Viscount. He manages to convey his bad news in such a way as almost to give you the impression that he is conferring a great boon upon you.
  1066
  I gathered from the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble and learned Viscount, that the Government are grateful to this Commission, but they have either no time to legislate or no money to legislate with. or both, and that therefore what they propose to do is to go as far as it is possible to go without the expenditure of either time or money. That involves making a few regulations which I gather from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman, already have been made and will have been made regardless of this Commission at all. Well, that is rather cold comfort—indeed. I would say icy comfort—but at any rate we now know the views of the Government. We can only hope that in the near future they may have either the time or the money in which to carry this Report of the Commission a stage further. One must appreciate, however, that the average period for the implementation of a Royal Commission's Report is something of the order of ten years so there is still plenty of time. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

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

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
  Fifth Report from the Select Committee, made and to be printed.
  House adjourned at six minutes before eight o'clock.