I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out "three," and to insert "six."

I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end, to insert:

"and that the percentages prescribed therein for each of the purposes hereinbefore mentioned shall not be less than the percentages prescribed by the order to be made under Subsection (1) of this Section."

I must resist this Amendment. The House is conversant with the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends during the Committee stage, and I do not see that it is necessary to go to any great length in stating the case against it. It is that, while we hope that the number of films produced in this country will steadily increase, and while my right hon. Friend has given an undertaking that he will, year by year, raise the quota according to the number of films available, we cannot predict with any certainty what is going to happen in future. We may fix a figure for this year, and it may well be that, for two or three years, the production of films will increase, so that the quota can be increased accordingly. We do not know that, at some time in the future, something quite unpredictable may not happen.

The argument of the Parliamentary Secretary has, of course, a certain basis in reality, but when he says that the Government are going to inform the trade, from year to year of the increased numbers that will be available, I should have thought that would have compelled him to accept this Amendment. Surely, the one thing the producer wants to have is some platform on which to build the whole of his business for the coming year. We listened to what was said during the Debate on the Committee stage, and we have substituted the idea that when the Films Council has examined the matter, and, after examination, has fixed the minimum number for the first year, that shall be regarded as permanent. To talk, as we heard, of increasing the number of studios, surely presupposes that we shall not go back; that, after this scheme has started, we shall not have less films. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider his decision, and to regard this as a sort of solid factor in a world of otherwise complete conjecture.

I hope my hon. Friend will look at this matter again because it appears to me to be a very reasonable and desirable proposition, not from the point of view of the exhibitor, but from that of the producer. A very substantial section of the industry cannot begin to plan at all until they know, with some reasonable degree of security, exactly what proportion of the market they can hope to share. I am thinking, particularly, of the smaller film-making units to whom this particular question is a matter of life or death. Percentages of quota are mentioned in the Clause, and I hope that the Board of Trade will give consideration to different percentages for different sections of the industry. After all, one must be assessed on a footage basis, and that matter should also be considered.

This argument, which has been put forward on both stages of the Bill, seems to me to be based on a complete fallacy. It is based on the notion that to fix a quota now, or, at least, to fix a minimum quota, will provide some degree of security and encouragement to producers. Surely, that argument has no basis at all? Let us follow it to its logical conclusion in concrete terms, and not think just in terms of vague quotas, but in terms of what those quotas will mean. Suppose, for example, that the quota is fixed for 100 films a year—that the percentage quota translated into films is 100 a year—does the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment really suppose that, to know that the quota is 100 films, is going to afford security for producers? It can only afford security for producers if the individual producer not only knows that there are 100 films to be exhibited, but also knows that there are not 101 films in production or planned for production, because, unless he knows that, he does not know that he is not going to be the 101st. There, again, we come back to the old point, that the only real security which the producer can have is the guarantee that his film will be shown. From that point of view, the actual size of the quota is irrelevant.

I must reply to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), which seems to be of the most curious description. He says that, if we guarantee that 100 British films shall be produced, the only security given to the producer is that he would know he was making the 100th film, and not the 101st. But that is not the point. The point is that the producer of films, or somebody about to undertake the production of films, would be in a greater position of security to plan if he knew that the quota could not fall below a certain percentage. That is absolutely obvious to anybody. It does not give a guarantee; nobody suggests that it does, but it does, at any rate, give the exhibitor reason to believe that he is likely to have his film exhibited. Under the Bill as now drafted, there is absolutely no platform, other than the extraordinary assurance given by the President of the Board of Trade that he would guarantee that the film quota would never go down. As we pointed out on the Committee stage, that is subject to the Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and it was largely on that point that the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary took flight from the position they had previously taken up. The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough has no substance at all.

Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. The argument which the right hon. Gentleman is affecting to answer is not really the argument I made. Surely, he will accept the position that there is no security in knowing that there are 100 films in the quota unless it is also known that 200 films are not being planned for production. As all the manufacturers ire not—

I must point out that we are on the Report stage, and that this Bill was not considered in Committee upstairs. I had forgotten that. Therefore, a second speech by the right hon. Gentleman was out of Order.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, after "A", to insert "short".

"and a long film of which the total labour costs are less than thirty shillings per foot."

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is quite true that there has been some misunderstanding about this matter by the Films Council. It cannot be said, however, that any agreed view was reached by the Council on this matter. I think that the position is still the same as I explained when we last considered this. The position is that we have taken powers to prescribe a different and higher figure in the case of these films, and I have already given assurance that we will ask the Films Council to look at this as a matter of urgency, and then, if they report that a higher figure should be inserted, we can do it very quickly, after considering their recommendations. It would be a mistake at this stage to fix any definite figure. I do not know what will be the report of the Films Council, but as I have said, as soon as the new Council is established, I will refer this to them as a matter of urgency. I do not think there is much point in referring the matter again to the present Films Council, which is now in process of being wound up. I think that it would be far better for the new Council to look at the matter.

Would it be possible to arrive at a decision on this matter before the Bill has passed through all its stages?

I will have a look at that, and see whether it will be possible to get this matter reviewed. I would prefer to leave it to the new Films Council.

In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, to leave out "subsection (1)."

In order to save the time of the House, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having met what was obviously the general consensus of opinion by putting down these Amendments.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, to leave out from "that," to "theatres," in line 5, and to insert:

"films are so exhibited at not less than two other."

I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having considered the matter, and for having agreed to the suggestion which was made. He is perfectly right in saying that this does not in any way give a right to the exhibitor, but only gives him an opportunity to have his case examined.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end, to insert:

"(4) If upon application made to them as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section not less than three months before the beginning of any quota period the Board are satisfied—

(a) that the theatre to which the application relates fulfils the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection; and

b) that the average net box office receipts of the theatre during the year ending six months before the beginning of that quota period did not exceed one hundred pounds per week,

the Board shall direct that the foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to the exhibition of films at that theatre during that quota period."

I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, to leave out "Board", and to insert "Cinematograph Films Council".

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope this Amendment will not be pressed, because its effect would be to take responsibility for appointing, members of the Selection Committee from the Board of Trade, and transfer it to the Council. I am not at all clear what would be the value of that. I know that one or two Members opposite had in mind the danger—very remote, I think—that the President of the Board of Trade, or a future President, might appoint a Selection Committee which would be of such a character and complexion as might be likely to direct the showing of a number of films for their propaganda value. We have already given a specific assurance on that, and we have gone further by proposing an Amendment to ensure that these films shall be shown by reason of their entertainment value, which may not at all be the same as their propaganda value.

In view of the tortuous—

The hon. Member cannot make a second speech at this stage.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 45, at the end to insert:

"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall render unlawful an agreement between a renter and an exhibitor for the delivery as aforesaid of two or more films at an inclusive rental, if the proportion of the rental to be attributed to each film is defined on or before the delivery of those films."

This Amendment meets the views of many who are connected with the industry, and I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for proposing to put it into the Bill.

I wonder why these words must be inserted, and whether they are not dangerous? There has been a great deal of discussion on this Bill about the practice of charging weekly rentals of 10s. or 15s. for second feature films. All are agreed that this is a practice which is extremely bad for the industry. Reference has also been made to the practice of block bookings, whereby a feature film is given to an exhibitor for a proportion of the takings, 50 per cent. or more, and a second feature film is thrown in. My right hon. Friend has said that these words are of small importance but, in effect, they give the blessing of this Bill to these practices. The renter will be able to say, "Here is an arrangement which is not merely regarded as a trade practice, but is desirable." Nothing has been said about defining the proportions. They can be as to 99 per cent. for one film and 1 per cent. for another. I hope my right hon. Friend will look at this matter again, because I feel that these words will lead to a continuance of those practices which the industry have regarded as most undesirable.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, to leave out "five," and to insert "seven."

Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House if we discussed this Amendment together with the following Amendments which deal with the same point.

The constitution of the Films Council is a matter on which some Members expressed concern, both on the Second Reading and during the Committee stage, when I said that we had a reasonably open mind about it and wanted to hear the views of right hon. and hon. Members before putting any more concrete recommendations to the House. In Committee, I indicated the kind of Films Council which I thought would best meet the wishes which have been expressed, and these Amendments carry out that intention. It means that the Films Council will be a bigger body than we contemplated on the Second Reading, but in view of the anxiety expressed, particularly about the number of independent members, we though it right to make these changes.

The Amendments on which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken are to a considerable extent connected with Scottish views, and we appreciate the thought that he has given to this aspect of the matter It was raised on the Second Reading Debate by the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) and the hon. And gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). They made it abundantly clear that this was not a parochial matter, neither was it in any way connected with national sentiment, but was put forward because they did not feel that the Cinematograph Films Council, as laid down, could possibly take into account Scottish feelings, views and tastes. That was emphasised during the later stages by hon. Members from all parts of the House. There was, indeed, a most extraordinary alignment. When one finds the hon. and gallant Members for Argyll and Perth acting together and expressing the same views as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) and others, there is, I think, some weight behind the views expressed. While we appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has done, we do not think that he has gone far enough. We shall wait with interest to see how this matter works out.

I would like to take the opportunity of thanking the President of the Board of Trade for having come some distance to meet the demands and representations of Scottish Members on both sides of the House. I, along with some of my colleagues on this side, have put down an Amendment to include a Scottish independent member in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend has given an assurance that he intends to appoint at least one of the independent members of the Films Council to represent the point of view of Scotland, I do not think we shall need to press for the Amendment. I should, however, like to have seen that included in the Bill, because, as the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) has said, it is all very well for the present President of the Board of Trade to make a promise that there will be a member representing Scottish interests, but that is no guarantee that future Presidents of the Board of Trade will be so sympathetic to Scotland.

The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) has expressed some honest doubts which remind me of a line from an English poet:

"There lives more faith in honest doubt, Believe me, than in half the creeds."

If I may rescue this discussion from being an all Scottish occasion, I would like to say a few words on the point embodied in the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself; in line 24 after "four," insert:

"including adequate representation of the makers of films other than those exhibited as first feature films."

I rise merely for the purpose of expressing my thanks to the President of the Board of Trade for the Amendments which he has introduced. In accepting the suggestions put forward by some of my hon. Friends and myself, and by hon. Members opposite, my right hon. Friend has met the opinion which was expressed in all quarters, and has produced a more balanced composition of the Cinematograph Films Council than was provided in the Bill as drafted. The changes which are now effected will go a long way, if not the whole way, towards meeting the criticisms which have been made by those interested in the industry. The addition of two independent persons is in itself very satisfactory, as is the addition of one more representative of the exhibitors to provide a more adequate representation of the diverse exhibiting interests in the trade. I am also indebted to the President of the Board of Trade for extending to the whole industry the classes of employees from which four representatives, instead of two as at present, will in future, be appointed to the Council.

They are looked after mote often than Welsh interests.

I do not think Welsh interests are ignored any more than those of other parts of the country. Hon Members need have no doubt that the interests of Scotland and other parts of the country will be safeguarded by the President of the Board of Trade in selecting representatives to the Films Council.

I wish to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher). I speak as a Scotsman who is anxious that there shall be Scottish representation. I did not associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum), but I was entirely in sympathy with him.

With the permission of the House, I will reply to the points which have been raised. In connection with the representation of Scotland, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that it is an important event when he and the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) agree. When they do agree on anything, the House should look at it very carefully. Although they had confidence that I will carry out my assurances on the matter of appointment, both wanted some guarantee as to what future Presidents of the Board of Trade might or might not do. The best guarantee we can possibly have is the presence of so many active and vocal Scottish Members in this House. I cannot imagine a future President of the Board of Trade daring to go back on those assurances because he will know that he will have a very rough time at the hands of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and so many other hon. Members.

Suppose the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is not here.

If it is a question of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire not being here, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite to think a little about what was said of the possibility of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok succeeding to his position, because he has not shown any signs of crossing the House and even when he does he will have to work his passage. The points raised about the danger of the late Will Fyffe being cast to represent Bonnie Prince Charlie are outside the scope of this provision, and many of them ought to be dealt with by the Scots themselves expanding their own production industry. That is not a problem for the Films Council. I will keep the question of the default committee under review.

The point at issue is that the renters and producers have a bigger majority on the Council than the exhibitors, and in view of the fact that the renters have no obligations concerning the quota and that all the obligations are on the exhibitors, there is a great fear about this majority.

If my hon. Friend will look at the way in which the various sides are likely to break up, he will see that a very careful balance has been preserved. I should very much deprecate any suggestion that we should disturb this balance, which represents the general sense of the views of the House.

I beg to move, in hoe 24 to leave out the second "each," and to insert:

"and

(d) four members shall be appointed as representing persons employed by makers, renters or exhibitors of British films instead of two members representing persons employed by makers of British films.

(2) Any committee of the Council may include persons who are not members of the Council, and any such committee may co-opt as additional members of the committee such persons, whether members of the Council or not, as the committee may determine."

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the proposed new Subsection (2).

I could not understand what was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind when he put down this Amendment, but I do now. The idea of the Government Amendment was to make it possible to deal with the Scottish problem by co-opting Scottish exhibitors to serve on a Scottish Defaults Committee. I do not think it likely that the Films Council would be likely to set up committees all over the country, to co-opt all kinds of extraordinary people, and to give wrongheaded advice to the Board of Trade on many of the subjects about which they are required to advise us, particularly bearing in mind the constitution of the Council, which is a delicate balance of the various interests in the industry, include- ing certain independent members. These I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel, when he sees who are chosen, are reasonable-minded people.

I would support the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that there are constitutional objections to the proposal made by the President of the Board of Trade because, as it stands, enabling any committees appointed by the Cinematograph Films Council to co-opt outside persons. Bearing in mind the considerable and increased responsibility of the Council under this Bill—because in future the President can only act in certain directions after taking its advice—it is undesirable in general that those committees should be able, without any control either by the Council, the President of the Board of Trade, or this House, to co-opt additional members at random, which might well destroy the balance we have been taking such careful pains to ensure. Therefore, I was glad to hear that the President will reconsider the matter. If the only purpose of this Amendment is to enable the particular Scottish Default Committee to co-opt, where necessary, Scottish exhibitors, I hope that language can be chosen which will limit the powers in the Bill to that specific purpose, and not extend the operations of the Council in a way which seems objectionable in principle and might well provide difficulties in practice.

I suggest we might leave the matter where it has been placed by the spokesman of the Government. My right hon. Friend, myself and the industry are fully satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman will give sympathetic consideration to it.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 29, at the end, to insert:

"(3)References in any enactment to the principal Act shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to that Act as amended by this Act."

We are willing to accept this Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 18, at the end, to insert:

"and for the words 'that year,' there shall be substituted the words 'that period'."

I beg to move, in page 10. to leave out lines 5 to 9, and to insert:

"After subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—

'(2A) Any exhibitor who, in any quota period, exhibits as aforesaid films registered as long films shall, in addition to the matters required by the last foregoing subsection to be recorded by him, keep records of the rental paid or payable in respect of each such film so exhibited.'

In subsection (3), after the word 'by, in the first place where that word occurs, there shall be inserted the words' subsection (2) of.' and after the word 'book,' in the second and third places where that word occurs, there shall be inserted the words' or records'."

I beg to move, in page 13, line 16, at the end, to insert:

"for the word 'year,' in every subsequent place where that word occurs, there shall be substituted the word 'period'."

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I wish to support what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are grateful to the two Ministers for the way in which they have met us. The Bill, as amended, represents the collective opinion of the House on an important industry. I am sure that industry will be grateful for the valuable, if somewhat variegated advice offered to it through the medium of the Bill at its various stages.

Or over the Church.

I do not know what the hon. Member means. I do not know what the Church has to do with it.

I think that most hon. Members on all sides of the House will share to a considerable extent the views now expressed by the noble Lord. The Bill states in its citation:

"to make further provision for securing the exhibition of a certain proportion of British cinematograph films, and otherwise to amend and continue the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938."

We have been discussing this whole matter in the shadow of the most regrettable circumstances which were forced upon us by the currency situation, under which no American films are coming to Britain and very few British films are going to America. The primary need tot this industry today is to open the channels of exchange again, and to see that film-cross the Atlantic both ways. I was impressed by the arguments which my right hon. Friend and his able Parliamentary Secretary put forward for retaining some elasticity in the operation of the Bill and I accepted the reasons which he gave hit not now determining the quota or fixing finally the labour costs. Upon reflection, I think there is some wisdom in that course, because the task to which he has how to address himself is to remove this deplorable breakdown of exchanges between us and the Americans.

I would like to add my modest word to what was called the "Hallelujah Chorus" of praise for my right hon. Friend, by merely pointing out that what was, I think the first Bill he has steered through this House has gone through all its stages without a single Division. Whilst this was, not a very controversial Measure, there were items which raised a good deal of difference of opinion, and the fact that we had not any Divisions is due, in a great measure, to the efforts of my right hon. Friend.

Hon. Members have frequently pointed out that these Debates have maintained an atmosphere of almost Christmas card cordiality, and that is true. If the Debates have been uncontroversial it is for two reasons. First, because the Bill has been a good Bill and secondly, as I must point out, because it has not been a very radical Bill. If it had been, I doubt whether the discussions would have been quite as uncontroversial as they were.

Free enterprise?

The right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to claim that the sacred system of free enterprise has been adulterated by the Government's action in respect of dollars. I do him the credit of reminding him, however, that that was an action which he himself wholeheartedly supported.

I wish to say a word about the committee of inquiry, and the necessity and urgency of setting it up as quickly as possible and implementing whatever decisions it may make, especially in regard to unemployment and under-employment in the film industry. There are many people in my constituency, good technicians in the industry, who are simply unable to understand the present situation. On the one hand we have exhibitors demanding good films, and on the other hand we have the story writers, technicians and producers—we now have even studio space—and yet there is something lacking which prevents one side from satisfying the other. I have been told that 70 more people were dismissed this week from one studio. In other studios in which some of my constituents work, although there have not been any dismissals the employees are subject to under-employment. Technicians do not like that. A good deal was said on Second Reading about the cost of film production. There is no doubt that, as far as the technician is concerned, the cost of production could be brought down considerably if the amount of work going through the studios was increased. I do ask that my right hon. Friend will treat this matter of underemployment and unemployment as one of seriousness and urgency.

I assure hon. Gentlemen that although my comminations are sometimes rather protracted, my benedictions are always short. We are ending this Bill in an atmosphere which reminds me of a film première. The only things that appear to be lacking—I am surprised not to have received one myself—are a bouquet, and an introduction to one of the leading starlets. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) produced a very curious argument. It was one of those delightful paradoxes which we are accustomed to hear from him in other places. He said that the freeze-up in the exhibition of American films was due to the creaking nature of private enterprise. I should have thought that a tax on imported films of 75 per cent., and a complete embargo on the purchase of dollars by private enterprise, certainly were things which, unfortunately, interfered with the free flow of private enterprise. I may say that, though I am always prepared to take in the most cheerful spirit the paradoxes which he offers me when I am sitting in the front row of the stalls, I cannot exercise the same complacency when they are addressed to me when I am occupying the Front Bench of the House of Commons.

In thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) for his kind remarks, and in noting the spirit of happiness and pleasure which he, in common with many other hon. Members, shows about the passage of this Bill, I would like to say that if the only things he needs to make himself completely happy are a bouquet and an introduction to a starlet, I shall be delighted to arrange that for him at a convenient time. I join with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in thanking hon. Members in all parts of the House for the great help and co-operation they have given in getting this Bill through so smoothly. I also wish to thank them for their assistance in improving this Measure. I think—if I may say this with diffidence—that at the Second Reading stage this was quite a good Bill which was well received by the House. I am sure that it is now a very much better Bill.

I hope that my right hon. Friend is not implying that the terms of reference to the commission are to be restricted to the exhibition side of the industry?

No. The inquiry will be mainly into the exhibition side. It will be very difficult to go into that without discussing other things at the same time. The main inquiry is into exhibition.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "women," to insert, "to a number not exceeding one thousand."

"Although there has been a considerable reduction in the Armed Forces, I do not believe that the state of the country justifies us in keeping hundreds of thousands of men in the Armed Forces today. I want to know what the Government are doing to deal with matters which are within their own province."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 605–6.]

"Let us just for a moment have a look at the White Paper and the United Kingdom balance of payments for 1947. There is a deficit of £675 million at the end of 1947. Since July, 1945, no less a sum than £1,500 million in dollars has been spent on the Armed Forces, and with what results? The Government chose the policy of guns in preference to butter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 661.]

The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to quote from Debates on other subjects in the present Session, but must stick to the matter which is before the Committee.

I apologise, Sir Robert, but I was quoting from that Debate in order to support my argument that a further extension of expenditure on the Armed Forces was unnecessary and undesirable. I bow to your Ruling, and I will not quote any more.

It is purely voluntary.

Even so, there must of necessity be competition, because there are only a certain number of women, and both Government Departments are going to make demands upon them.

The hon. Member must confine himself to the Bill. He must not give an explanation of what the women are going to do.

I apologise, Sir Robert, if I transgressed. In one paragraph, we are actually told what Parliament must do. I have heard of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and of all sorts of other dictatorships, but it is something new that this Parliament should be told what to do by the W.A.A.F. I submit that public money is being spent in a useless and extravagant way, that paper is being wasted in printing such leaflets, and that, on the publicity side, somebody's brains could be put to better use. The following is an extract from the sort of literature at present available in recruiting offices for the Women's Services:

"In the days when Dickens wrote 'Dombey & Son' women had a very definite, but very limited place in the scheme of things. That place was bounded by the church, the kitchen and the nursery."

I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the words in the Amendment which are:

"to a number not exceeding one thousand."

The relevance, Sir Robert, of what I was saying is that this campaign for more women in the Services is being carried out by ladies producing this kind of literature. However, if I am transgressing the Rules of Order, I will not proceed with that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has not adduced a single argument in support of his Amendment. He has played all round the wicket, and, when he did indulge in a little bowling, it seemed to be body-line bowling. He must surely be aware—for presumably he has read the Bill, and heard the Debate last week—that this Bill has nothing to do with recruitment at all. It has, however, everything to do with raising the legal status of women in the Forces. Indeed, that is our primary concern in the submission of this Bill. My hon. Friend appeared to be arguing that, at this time, it was quite improper to seek to enlist women into the Forces. But that is not his reason for presenting this Amendment. He is usually accused of being sincere. Why not be sincere on this occasion, and tell the Committee quite frankly that his reason for objecting to this Bill is that he is against the existence of an Army, an Air Force and a Navy altogether?

I made that point perfectly clear in the previous Debate. I understood that on the Committee stage we should deal with the details. There is no doubt as to where I stand in this matter. I was trying to keep in Order by dealing with the Bill in detail.

Precisely. My hon. Friend has confirmed what I said; there is no dispute at all. But, if he is against the existence of the Forces, and wishes to abolish them altogether, then, clearly, there is no validity in the argument he now presents that his reason for the Amendment is because he wants to conserve manpower. That is not his reason at all. In any event, even if it were, the argument has no validity, because, as I shall show, in maintaining the women's section of the Forces we are, in fact, to the extent that we are able to obtain their services, conserving manpower. The women are employed in various administrative tasks, and, if they were not so employed, it would be necessary, for purposes of efficient administration, to employ men. In the measure that we employ women, we do not require to employ men. That is the position.

I think that this statement should be made on the Question, "That the Clause stand part."

In that case, I will defer my announcement until later.

Perhaps I may now take the opportunity to announce that we have received the Royal Assent, and it is proposed that the A.T.S. should now be designated the "Women's Royal Army Corps," and in the case of the W.A.A.F., the "Women's Royal Air Force." We had prolonged discussions as to suitable titles, but we came to the conclusion that these were the most suitable.

May I say on behalf of my hon. Friend that these seem very appropriate terms, and that we are entirely in approval? I am glad that the rather frivolous suggestion made in some quarters for another name was not adopted.

I also should like to say how pleased I am that these titles have been conferred on the Women's Services, and to congratulate the Minister on his great acumen in avoiding the trap of calling the A.T.S. the "Royal" A.T.S. with the consequent difficulties involved in the shortened title.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, after the first "as," to insert, "or as having been."

I beg to move, in page 1, line 25, at the end, to insert:

"Provided that no Court Martial shall impose a sentence on women of imprisonment in a Military Prison or Detention Barracks."

I cannot agree to insert these words, but it may be possible for me to satisfy my hon. Friend if I make a brief explanation amplifying what I said On this subject last week. When women become members of either the Army or the Air Force, they will be liable to be tried by court martial, in the same circumstances as soldiers and airmen, according to the Acts which govern discipline. Hon. Members will recall that I also said that courts martial would no doubt pay regard to sex in considering any sentences to detention. The building of special detention barracks for women is not contemplated. In our judgment there is no need for such barracks, at any rate for the time being.

A woman officer?

Not necessarily, but it will be a woman. In any event, it is another point; if my hon. Friend objects to the personnel of the court martial he can raise it when we come to the Estimates. A court martial trying a man can include a woman as a member, but she ought not to preside. That is the general position.

Before we part with this Clause there are some questions which I should like to address to the Secretary of State. On the Second Reading, I expressed certain misgivings about the application of the Army Act to the Women's Services. I believe that application of the Air Force Act would probably operate similarly because it is a similar Act. In this Clause, it is proposed to make certain modifications and adaptations of the Acts in so far as they apply to the Women's Services, and I would like some enlightenment as to what those modifications and adaptations may be. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are many parts of the Army Act which are entirely inappropriate to the Women's Services. He has only to look at Section 4, where he will see that anyone who:

"Shamefully casts away his arms, ammunition, or tools in the presence of the enemy"

"By discharging firearms, drawing swords, beating drums, making signals, using words, or by any means whatsoever negligently occasions false alarms in action, on the march, in the field, and elsewhere."

"irregularly detains or appropriates to his own Corps, battalion or detachment any provisions or goods proceeding to any such force as aforesaid—"

"contrary to any order issued in that respect."

"No person shall be charged under this section in respect of any offence for which special provision is made in another section of this Act."

I support the very pertinent suggestions and remarks made by the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage). It seems to me not unnatural that the Government, anxious to get this Bill through, should have inserted this Clause which, in effect, says, "We will get the Bill through, and think again regarding the details, particularly in relation to Clause 3 (2)." I hope that the Minister will give some assurance as to his future intentions regarding these Orders in Council. Subsection (2) states:

"His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for adaptations and modifications of enactments appearing to him to be requisite in consequence of the preceding provisions of this Act or of things done there under."

I do not think that the Minister has realised exactly what is contained in this Clause. Hon. Members have pointed out certain anomalies from the point of view of those whose duty it has been to sit on courts martial. I want to put the point of view of people who have been before courts martial. The Secretary of State for War is now in a jam, because he has committed himself against what is called the detention barracks and glasshouse. I would like to know how he is to get out of his difficulty. His suggestion that the courts should send women offenders to civil prisons and into hard labour is merely transferring the problem to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I submit that in attempting to enforce discipline on the women he will have to reconsider the Army Act.

So far we appear to have reached agreement on the main principle underlying the Bill, which is that in the Army and in the Royal Air Force the women members should be integrated with the male members of those Services. So far so good; but having accepted that principle, clearly another principle must be established: That, in the circumstances of such integration, broadly speaking, similar codes of discipline should apply to both men and women. But as was pointed out on Second Reading, and as I have already said in the Committee proceedings on a previous Amendment, we give the assurance to the Committee that the enactments relating to the provision of discipline will be administered having regard to the matter of sex. I agree that that is a matter of administration. Indeed, in the nature of the case it must be so. It is quite impossible to insert in a Bill of this character precise details indicating the variations in punishment as between men and women. I think that hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate, including the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage), who has a great knowledge of these matters, will agree with me.

I do not think one could take exception to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. It is only fair to say, not in criticism but in extension of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage), that if we are looking for anomalies in the law we need not look at the Army Act. There are thousands of Acts on the statute book which contain anomalies, and anything more fatuous than many of the Acts applicable to civilians it would be hard to imagine.

I did not by any means intend to imply that this corps should not be under military discipline. What I said was that I thought the Army Act was not the appropriate method of enforcing discipline.

I am sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend It is far better to do it through the medium of the Army Act. I can think of nothing more complicated than two Acts, one dealing with the Men's Services and the other with the Women's Services. That would increase the confusion which, as my hon. Friend says, exists already. The simple answer to anyone who objects to this procedure is that there will have to be an affirmative Resolution. I hope the earliest consideration will be given to this matter so that the procedure shall be brought up to date.

I can give that assurance at once. Naturally, we shall closely scrutinise these enactments to prepare the way for any adaptations which may subsequently be regarded as necessary.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I want to correct one observation which my hon. Friend made. It is not open to officers to resign on giving 28 days' notice. It is a much more difficult proposition than that. As to the substance of my hon. Friend's proposition, it is undesirable to treat women differently from men as regards their discharge. It would be most unfair and inequitable if we allowed women to retire on giving a few days' notice—

I think the men should be able to retire too.

—whereas men are compelled to remain in the Service. My hon. Friend has given the whole of his case away. He has just interjected that he believes men should retire if they give 28 days' notice. We simply cannot have an Army or Air Force on that basis. I understand my hon. Friend does not want them, anyway. I must point out that in addition to the principle enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence the other day, in respect of discharge by purchase—we merely postulate the principle; we have not gone further than that at the moment, although we shall in due course—women can be discharged, as can men, on compassionate grounds. On marriage in particular, a woman would be given the option of taking her discharge or continuing in the Service. In all the circumstances, the women will not regard themselves as ill-treated, and I hope with that explanation my hon. Friend will not press this Clause.

The Secretary of State is getting more reasonable as we go on. He is much more reasonable than he was, but he will not always hold his present office. Under this Bill we are giving powers to people who may not share the enlightened view of my right hon. Friend, and I submit that out of all the Amendments which he has rejected, he might accept this reasonably little one.