I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, at the end, to add:

(2) Any statutory instrument containing such regulations as aforesaid shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

There is nothing which I can add to what the Under-Secretary has said, except to say that we on this side of the Committee welcome this addition to the Bill. It was very necessary that something of the kind should be included, and if the Government had not put down this Amendment we most certainly would have done.

I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, but I was tempted to suggest an Amendment to this Clause by the addition of a subsection which would instruct the Minister to carry out a recommendation of the Wheare Committee's Report and set up a national Children and the Cinema Committee. I take the opportunity of raising the matter on this Clause, because I think that it is of extreme importance.

I should like to support the plea which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) has made. I feel that we are dealing with the children's film in a way which is out of proportion to the regulations. The difficulty is that when the 1909 Bill was passed, it was purely a safety Measure. There is no doubt that the celluloid film, being so inflammable, demanded action by the Government to protect the public. As we know, very serious fires had been caused on account of the combustibility of the celluloid film, and the Bill was passed upon that basis.

In view of the way in which this matter has been put forward, I think that the simplest and best way of meeting the points raised by hon. Members would be for me to say that I shall gladly consider them with those in my office who are specially versed in them. If the hon. Gentlemen who have raised them can find time to see me quite informally and give me their views, I shall welcome them. I think that meets the substance of the matter, and I shall be very pleased if in the usual way with which, I think, they are quite familiar, they will get in touch with me and have a talk about it.

We very much appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. Throughout our proceedings we have realised that we have been legislating for two very different things. The question of the child and the cinema is, in the light of the Wheare Report, a very important matter now, and the clear and voluminous Report issued by the Committee should not be allowed to remain on a shelf but should be implemented.

In view of the manner in which the Home Secretary has offered to meet my two hon. Friends, I wish to ask him whether, when he is considering new legislation dealing with children's films, he would be prepared to accept recommendations from local education authorities, for they have had under consideration the very serious effects which some films have on the minds of children. From my experience on local education authorities I know that this matter has received their attention, and their experience and consideration may enable them to submit valuable suggestions to the right hon. and learned Gentleman which will aid him in the compilation of the new legislation which he has promised.

I appreciate what has been said by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), and I should like to draw his attention to the fact that my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education is present this morning, which demonstrates our combined interest in these matters. I should be more than glad to have that aspect introduced into our discussions, and we should then have the advantage of the point of view of the Ministry of Education which is in touch with the local education authorities.

I thank the Home Secretary for the very forthcoming and generous way in which he has received the remarks which have been made this morning. As we listened to the speech with which he opened the Second Reading debate and to the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary of State in winding up the debate we felt that in both Ministers there was an awareness of the problem with which we are concerned and also keen sympathy, and we are very grateful indeed for that.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, at the end, to insert:

(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to Scotland.

I did not say "most"; I said "some".

We need not delay unduly over that matter, but it is important to point out that the proportion is only one-fifth. By applying the Clause to Scotland, we shall be imposing what is a doubtful system of English law, even though the daring action of a few licensing authorities has not been challenged. The Joint Under-Secretary listed nine or 10 counties and burghs where the English practice has been adopted, but that is a very small minority and it does not argue very cogently for the forceful application of the system to the whole of Scotland. We are bound to record that there is on the Statute Book an Act of Union which contains specific provisions for the recognition and preservation of distinctive Scottish law. It may be said that we are being pedantic, but a serious principle is involved and we cannot let the occasion pass without reference to it.

"Ben Hur" dealt with something that happened at the time of the Roman gladiators, and that was long after the time of the Old Testament.

I apologise and bow to superior and more exact knowledge. I was confusing the New Testament with the Old Testament, not a happy mistake to make in a Scottish debate when we are all students of the Bible.

Before the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland answers, perhaps an ordinary Englishman from this side of the House, might—greatly daring and with all apologies— intervene in what is, after all, a purely Scottish matter. As the hon. Member seems to be fighting a lone battle on this point, and those who had a great deal to say when we dealt with it on Second Reading and who put their names down to this Amendment—principally the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)—not being here, perhaps someone from this side might say a few words.

I hope that the spokesman for the Government is not going to yield to the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) on the basis of his very casual acquaintance with the Scottish cinema. He has told us that he goes to the cinema only once a year. He has seen "Ben Hur," which he thought came from the Old Testament, and it is presumably on this very slender basis that we are asked to agree that Scotland should be allowed to contract out of this Clause and these Regulations.

I do not want to prolong this discussion indefinitely, but I would submit that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has not pointed out why, when the voluntary arrangements have been working very well, they should now be legally tidied up. He has not dealt with that point at all.

My hon. Friend has put his case with great charm and has not pressed it unduly. I do not think it could be said that he is staging a rebellion, as was suggested by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I agree with the hon. Member that this would certainly not be an appropriate battlefield for staging a rebellion because it is really such a relatively small point which is at issue. When we come to Clause 10 I will endeavour to explain to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) why we propose to make the concession to which he referred. There is a perfectly good reason.

I would have no hesitation in standing up anywhere for the preservation of a voluntary agreement, if it works, and I would say that in my constituency, even though I found myself bewitched by the charm of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

If my hon. Friend thinks he can get away with that one, well and good. I can only comment that I could not in my constituency.

"Matters of this kind should be left to local authorities, and not to Statute."

I thank my hon. Friend for his most lucid and persuasive explanation, and in particular for drawing our attention to the approaches made to him by local government bodies. This was the most persuasive argument in his most impressive armoury. I would point out that our Amendments were put on the Order Paper before we knew of the Amendment which stands in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We should like to have a separate Scottish Bill, and thoroughly discuss it in the Scottish Standing Committee, but that is not possible. In view of the explanation which has been given, and of the arguments, and above all in view of the Amendment standing in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, to leave out

"other than children's cinema club exhibitions."

(2) For the purposes of this section an exhibition shall not be treated as an exempted exhibition if.

"so however that this subsection shall not apply to."

I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, at the end, to insert:

"and regulations made by the Secretary of State under that Act, being regulations made by virtue of paragraph (a) of the said section two, shall not apply in relation to an exempted exhibition unless given in premises in respect of which a licence under the Act of 1909 is in force."

May I interrupt for a moment, Sir Charles? We have an Amendment on the Order Paper to line 8, to leave out "paragraph (b) of." Do I understand that you do not intend to call it?

I thought it was a little wider than the one which has just been moved, but so near that they could be discussed together if that will suit the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I purposely called the one in the name of the Home Secretary.

Thank you, Sir Charles.

I want to call the attention of the Committee to the words

"shall not apply in relation to an exempted exhibition unless given in premises in respect of which a licence under the Act of 1909 is in force."

We have listened with great attention to what the Home Secretary has told us, and I am satisfied that he has carried out sincerely the promise he made to us last Tuesday night. If I am correct, it means that an Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, to which we shall come presently, automatically falls because those points are covered. I have, however, some reservations to make, and I should like to ask some questions.

That, I understand, is the subject of a later Amendment.

I shall not refer to it specifically now, but I should like the Home Secretary to give an assurance that in the concession he has made to meet the points that we have put before him he does not intend that there shall be any specific reservation about the admittance of children into these organisations—that is to say, new any reservation that we did not discuss on Tuesday and which has not appeared until, possibly, this morning upon the Order Paper.

In welcoming the Amendment, I should like to describe a particular form of activity in relation to which the Amendment is so very welcome. I am thinking particularly of meetings, supported by cinema showings, organised by missionary societies, although the same set of considerations would apply to a number of other educational or religious instructional bodies.

As one who is interested in the exempted societies, I ought sincerely to thank the Home Secretary for making this significant concession in connection with the certificate on films. Very often a film society or one of the exempted societies have films that they wish to show and which normally would meet the requirements of the British Board of Film Censors, but they do not necessarily have a certificate to cover the film.

From my point of view, I am well content to leave the general question of the supervision of what we are discussing in the capable hands of my hon. Friends who have just addressed the Committee. I have been watching the position, of course, from the viewpoint of the temperance societies and of the churches, who are also developing considerable activity through film propaganda.

I am most grateful for all that hon. Members have said and I rise simply to say that I shall comply with the two points which were made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stress) and see that administrative steps are taken to make the position clear to all licensing authorities and request them to make the position clear to licence holders.

The Committee might find it convenient to discuss the next Amendment, in page 3, line 16, at the end, to insert the words on the Order Paper, with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) on the next page of the Order Paper, to line 31, at the end to insert:

(3) For the purposes of this section an exhibition shall not be treated as an exempted exhibition if any child is admitted thereto unless the exhibition is given—

(a) as part of the activities of an educational institution or of a religious organisation; or

(b) by an organisation or person who has obtained a certificate of exemption from the licensing authority.

(4) Subject as hereinafter provided, the licensing authority shall grant to any organisation or person who applies therefor a certificate of exemption and may attach to such certificate such conditions or restrictions as that authority are obliged or empowered to impose by section three of this Act.

(5) If any organisation or person to whom a certificate of exemption has been granted fails to observe any of the conditions or restrictions attached thereto, that organisation or person shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and the licensing authority may revoke the certificate and may thereafter refuse to grant a further certificate of exemption to that organisation or person.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, at the end, to insert:

"or to the admission of children."

We have listened carefully, as we always do, to the Home Secretary and are very grateful for the way in which he put the case. The vast majority of us—I think almost all of us—feel that the Amendment in his name will not improve the Bill. We do not like it because, even though it goes not nearly so far as the suggestions of the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), it still is not necessary as, indeed, the Home Secretary himself knows.

I wish to point out the implications of this Amendment, which, I feel, has not been fully appreciated. It means, for example, that a film society, when it held a show in licensed premises or a cinema, would have to arrange for all the films to be shown to be viewed by the British Board of Film Censors and for those films to receive certificates for their respective categories, as they affect the attendance of children.

If the hon. Member is referring to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), he is in order in discussing it.

Thank you, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I hope that my hon. Friends who support this Amendment will think again, because if it is carried it will mean that henceforth all local authorities will have the power to censor films shown by a great variety of organisations which now have freedom to show films. Those organisations have all done their job in a most responsible way. No one has ever complained about the films shown. No one has ever suggested that there should be any censorship of this type of film. For the last 30 years this state of affairs has continued unhindered. It would be a good thing if the Home Secretary were to withdraw the Amendment.

I appreciate that I have a very difficult task here. We must bear in mind something which has perhaps not been realised, namely, that the new type of film will be very much superior to the old "nonfiam." 16 mm. type. Anyone who has been to a film show organised by a voluntary society will have experienced the annoying lack of clarity of presentation usually associated with its showing.

The instrument which is used almost universally for this purpose is the 16 mm. projector, which is in use in all the schools of the country and in respect of which the Ministry of Education provides facilities not only for advice on manufacture but for servicing and the whole apparatus of exhibition. In the category which we are considering, it is the 16 mm. projector with which we are primarily concerned. It may have been an adequate instrument 20 years ago, but today it has a first-class competitor in the 35 millimetre projector.

That is the view which my hon. Friend may hold, but which I am credibly informed is not so correct as he might seek to suggest. In fact, there are these difficulties which would no longer exist, and I submit that voluntary organisations or any other set of people will have a first-class instrument for conducting their propaganda.

Will my hon. Friend tell us about this first-class instrument? I would like to know about it and I am sure the Committee would.

I understand that the new type of film will be equally useful for showing in a licensed cinema for commercial or non commercial purposes. I understand it will be a thoroughly satisfactory film and, therefore, will be used by voluntary organisations. The "non-flam" films were not subject to any control, but there were these difficulties.

That was a commercial film.

Never mind, the County Council were able to exert control and see that the objectionable parts were cut out.

I think it only fair to make a point that that film was a commercial film and has no relation to what we are discussing. Has the hon. Lady any evidence of anything at any time to suggest that parents take their children to unsuitable exhibitions of the type we have in mind in discussing this Bill? If she has no such evidence I hope she will not press her point.

I referred to that film as an example of the kind of film which it is desirable children should not see. I am not prepared to admit that because no one has any evidence that children have attended such films they have not done so in the past. This is an opportunity for correcting any deficiency in the law to protect children——

May I——

The hon. Gentleman has made several interruptions. I think it would be better for the hon. Lady to finish her argument, and then if he wishes to make further observations he can do so.

I have not a very great deal more to say, except that it has been found in the past experience of the London County Council that it is quite simple for them to license such people as the New London Film Society and the London Scientific Society who, though they mostly use 16 mm. films, have sometimes used the other film and, therefore, would be subject to control. They have a kind of block licence which imposes certain obligations which are readily accepted.

May I ask the Committee to consider the combination of the two Amendments—the one put down by my right hon. and learned Friend and the other which has been moved by the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet). It is 43 years since we had an Act on this subject, and what we are dealing with today is not only the development which has taken place in those 43 years, and particularly in relation to the activities of film societies in the last 20 years, but we must also project our minds towards the development that will undoubtedly come in the next five or 10 years, during which time it is likely that we may have another Cinematograph Bill before us.

I should also like to ask the Home Secretary if he will withdraw his Amendment and consider whether anything, and if so what, might be put in its place on the Report stage, because it does seem to me to draw back, almost at the last moment, a very great deal of the help which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has generously given on the earlier Amendments.

I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment so that there may be discussions afterwards, if hon. Members of the Committee feel that to be the proper way of dealing with it.

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman actually does so, may I say, on behalf of some of my hon. Friends, that we are very much opposed to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbett), for reasons which have been given by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and Greenwich (Mr. Reeves), as well as by the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). We think it would be a retrograde step.

If the way of the transgressor is hard, the way of the mediator is much harder. With the intention of giving everyone the chance of thinking over the matter again, and in view of the spirit in which the Bill has been discussed, I will withdraw the Amendment, and, if a convenient time arrives, perhaps I may be told what views are held. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, after "educational," to insert "or religious."

We do not think it is necessary but, like the patent medicine in the story, we do not think it does any actual harm. If the hon. Gentleman is anxious that it should be included, I am prepared to accept it.

In that case, having moved it formally, I express my gratitude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, at the end, to insert

"or by any organisation which has been approved by the Education Authority and in respect of which the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have certified that the organisation is not conducted or established for profit."

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would make the Amendment clear. If an organisation is not established or conducted for profit, does that mean that it cannot make a profit? This type of organisation may make a profit, although the money would be used for the collective benefit of members and not for distribution as dividends in any way. Under the Companies Act, a large number of companies in this country have no share capital in the ordinary sense; there is merely a guarantee if they are wound up. They are entitled to leave the word "limited" out of their title. But many such bodies do make a profit—they may run an exhibition for which they charge an entrance fee—but they are debarred from distributing the profit to the individual members. I wonder whether the words "conducted or established for profit" cover the form of organisation which we are discussing, because this could be a matter of substantial importance.

The point we are dealing with is narrow, although the form of words may appear to be broad. No new principle is admitted. The type of organisation which I have in mind is an organisation of teachers running a junior film club on experimental lines. At present such clubs are not covered by any of the exemptions in Clause 5, because they would be classed as children's clubs, according to the wording of the Bill. They are essentially educational, and that is why they should be granted some exemption.

I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. Suppose they publish a handbook and sell it, receiving in revenue more than the cost of the printing, in that case, they would have made a profit, and this Amendment would not benefit them.

The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) is labouring under a misconception. He has been in the House for a very long time, on and off, and he should know that the phrase to which he takes exception has now become almost a term of art. We all know, and the Inland Revenue know, exactly what is meant by an organisation of this kind which is not established for profit. It does not mean that the organisation will not make profit.

I hope that on consideration the hon. Gentleman will find that he need not press this Amendment, because it does not seem necessary to myself or to those who have been advising me. I think it will be convenient if I deal with it in this order.

I wonder whether I might ask one question of the Home Secretary before asking the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment? I thank him for the courtesy and consideration he has given to this matter. As I understand it, there are not many of these clubs in the country. We are hoping to see them extended, because they are specifically educational, and of an experimental nature. Their one purpose is to show films in which only children are interested, and they have nothing to do with adults in any way. Would it be fair to say that, from the very virtue of their being of an experimental nature, there will be no difficulty about the question of licence? Has the Home Secretary covered that point?

I cannot see any. I am told there would not be. I do not want there to be any doubt about it at all, and if the hon. Gentleman would care to put down an Amendment again for the Report stage I will look into the matter specifically. At the moment I do not think there would be.

I am most obliged. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, to leave out from the beginning, to "an," and to insert:

"Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection."

"an exempted organisation in any premises";

"for the purposes of this section"

"Provided that an exhibition shall not be treated for those purposes as an exempted exhibition by virtue of this subsection if on more than three out of the last preceding seven days the premises in question were used for the giving of a cinematograph exhibition which fell to be treated as an exempted exhibition by virtue of this subsection.

(4) In the last foregoing subsection the expression 'exempted organisation' means a society, institution, committee or other organisation as respects which there is in force at the time of the exhibition in question a certificate of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise certifying that the Commissioners are satisfied that the organisation is not conducted or established for profit."

"the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have certified that the organisation is not conducted or established for profit."

I find some difficulty in understanding this Bill. I think it is very obscurely written, if I may say so. It may be because it is amending an earlier Act. Frankly, I am not quite clear where we are at the moment. The Home Secretary seems to have had a change of thought or heart.

May I put the point to my hon. Friend, because I do not think he was here when we discussed it? The point that was put to me was that if one made the exemptions by reference to a Finance Act and there was a change in fiscal policy and the Finance Act was changed, that might make changes here without the mind of Parliament being adduced to it. Over the long years I have had the pleasure of knowing the hon. Gentleman, I have heard him say something on legislation by reference. This was considered by various hon. Members in different parts of the House as being a vicious example of that, so I decided on consideration to meet that point and to substitute for a certificate under the Finance Act a certificate given ad hoc by the Commissioners, if I may put it in that way. I am afraid the way in which I dealt with the matter was rather following on our discussion on Second Reading, and if my explanation was not too clear to the hon. Gentleman, I do not blame him; I blame myself, and I apologise.

I still find it a little difficult to follow. For reasons beyond my control I could not be here during the Second Reading, so I missed the earlier part of my education on this subject. I take it that we are considering these Amendments together. The Home Secretary once said "four" and he now says "three." I have an Amendment down saying "two." If the Home Secretary has travelled part of my journey, perhaps he will decide to travel the rest of the journey.

We are very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for accepting the point which had been put on Second Reading, not only from this side of the Committee but also from the benches behind him, and which has been described as the fiscal point. This Amendment, however, is in two parts. It is the part dealing with the three days a week to which we take exception. I ask him whether he would be willing to reconsider that part of the Amendment.

I will certainly consider the point. I always like to make clear that I am not making any promise; I cannot commit myself in any way, but I shall consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Court of Appeal used to say, at a certain time, with regard to complaints of counsel, "Are you suggesting the learned judge obtains silence by false pretences?" I do not want to do the same today, but I will certainly consider this matter.

May I say how grateful we are for the explanation which the Home Secretary has given us on this interesting and difficult point which we call the fiscal point, and which, for the sake of brevity, I will continue to call the fiscal point. It is an important one, and one which could have proved very embarrassing if it had not been attended to. We are very grateful, therefore, for what he has said.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, to leave out "an." and to insert "a public."

I appreciate what was animating the hon. Gentleman, but we do not think the Amendment is necessary. The only exhibitions to which Clause 5 (3) applies are those for which the public pay for admission. A private exhibition to which the public are not admitted is covered by Clause 5 (1) and there is no need for a certificate to be obtained under Clause 5 (1).

Having heard that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out subsection (4).

I beg to move, in page 3, line 45, at the end, to add:

(5) The exemption conferred in subsection (1) of this Section on cinematograph exhibitions to which the public are not admitted or to which the public are admitted without payment shall not have effect in any case in which

(a) the persons present exceed one hundred in number, and

(b) the primary purpose of the presence of such persons is to witness a cinematograph performance involving the showing of a film or films other than of a religious or educational character.

I have never encountered such an un-Christian Amendment as this one. It does precisely what we accuse the Communists of doing. It treats people as means and not as ends.

What does that mean?

I deeply regret that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has not made the acquaintance of that characteristically and deeply Christian phrase so as not even to know what it means. It means that the Christian approach treats an individual as an end in himself for whose benefit the community and the laws that we pass exist. The totalitarian treats the individual not as an end in himself but as a means to somebody else's ends.

After all that unadulterated nonsense, I must add a few more words. I shall get hold of a copy of HANSARD tomorrow and send it to Canon Smyth, who officiates just over the road, and I shall ask that learned scholar to let me know what the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) was driving at, for I have no idea.

I shall not attempt to address the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) on moral grounds, because he does not appreciate them. Perhaps I might appeal to him on other grounds in the hope of finding agreement. He asks that the exhibitions should be limited in two ways, that those attending should not exceed 100 and that the performance should be of a certain type. I observed a flash of lightning just then and now I hear thunder outside. That must be the result of appealing on too high moral grounds.

The Amendment is in the nature of penal legislation in that it penalises a certain section of the community who wish to do work which, although it may not be described as religious or educational, may still come in the category of being socially beneficial. The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has said that he is acting on behalf of some of his friends. I hope they are Croydon friends. I am sure that the cinematograph industry would not like it to be said that the Amendment was being submitted in its name. The C.E.A. would feel very uncomfortable if it were thought that the hon. Member for Croydon, East was speaking on its behalf.

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) will not press the Amendment. I am anxious that in connection with a Bill in which we have tried to keep the balance between all the interests concerned, the impression should not go out that the industry which serves this great source of entertainment to the public has been ignored.

I should like to point out to hon. Members opposite, especially the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), who objected to my reference to religious legislation, that he himself sought to put in the word "religious" in line 31. He should not make that funny kind of speech when he has done that. It is not a test of consistency.

I do not want to delay the Committee for more than a few minutes in saying one or two words about this Clause. I think they will appreciate the difficulty I am in in that this is perhaps the only chance I may have to say some of the things I had hoped to be able to say a little earlier in to-day's proceedings.

"… in view of the concern that has been shown about the possible misuse of the power to impose safety requirements by regulation, we have decided to move an Amendment in Committee to make it clear that where exempted exhibitions are given in premises which are not licensed as a cinema, these safety requirements will not be applicable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 885.]

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said in the earlier part of his speech, but there are one or two points that I would ask him to bear in mind about the latter part of it. He referred to the 1939 Committee, which did not recommend that licensing control should be extended to 16-mm. films. I would remind him of the words of that Committee in coming to that conclusion. They said:

"… we have taken into account the facts as they were presented to us. If the use of slow-burning films were to develop widely, if for example a big entertainment industry based on their use were to grow up, we think that our conclusions would then call for review."

The opportunity should be taken for someone on this side of the Committee to add a few words before we part with the Clause. After all, there have been nearly three pages of Amendments to it and we have spent most of our time on it.

The right hon. Member may recall that I made that remark in connection only with a particular Amendment in the name of the Home Secretary, freeing exempted exhibitions from the safety Regulations resulting from the Bill. He will also remember that I made a point about it on Second Reading, and I believe that he agreed with it.

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, of course. I followed what he said on Second Reading and I felt there was everything to be said for what he put to his right hon. and learned Friend on that occasion. I felt that if the Amendment were called—there was no need for it to be called, as a matter of fact—the hon. Gentleman would have found considerable support for it on this side of the Committee.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, at the end, to insert:

(5) The Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State acting jointly shall make rules regulating the appointment of assessors to advise courts of quarter sessions on questions of public safety and welfare arising in connection with appeals under this section.

I do not normally find myself supporting the hon. Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), but I ought to testify that the object which she is seeking to achieve is one which would be supported by all members of the London County Council, although there may well be differences of opinion as to the right methods. Up to now, as the hon. Lady says, there has been no general right of appeal from the decision of the licensing authorities. The London County Council has the largest sphere of work in this matter, and probably has had to face the most difficult cases and has the largest experience.

When I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper and realised what it meant, some of my hon. Friends and myself did not look upon it with favour. It occurred to me that it would not be a pleasant thing to oppose my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), who moved her Amendment with such felicity, particularly as we opposed her and her friends earlier in our proceedings today. However, when the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) spoke, I felt quite sure where my duty lay. If he is in favour of something we look at it with even greater care than hitherto.

I was referring to technical matters such as building construction, which, I imagine, would be uniform all over the country.

I agree that they should be. Perhaps the gloss which my hon. Friend puts on the matter is the right one.

I am sorry not to be able to agree with my hon. Friend. I feel quite differently about the matter. This appeals procedure is new. We do not know how many people will avail themselves of it and how many will not, but I believe that they may not be numerous. If that is the case then it is of the greatest importance that the decisions on appeal in different parts of the country should be as uniform as we can make them, and only if we have the advice of assessors on technical points for those who are engaged in quarter sessions shall we get uniform decisions.

I am sorry that I could not honestly take the course in this case which the hon. Gentleman has been good enough to put to me. It would, be quite impossible in a weekend to recast the Bill on the question of appeal to quarter sessions to an appeal to a special tribunal. I shall give careful attention to how this will work out. If the fears which have been expressed as to the way it will work out are in any way justified, or the councils make representations, those representations will be carefully considered and we shall bear in mind the feeling that there ought to be a new form of appellant machinery.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, to leave out subsection (3), and to insert:

(3) This Act shall come into operation in England and Wales on such date as the Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument, appoint for those countries, and in Scotland, on such date as the Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument, appoint for Scotland.

In thanking my hon. Friend for moving the Amendment, and particularly for his reference to the possibility of flexibility in the administration of the Bill in Scotland, I should like to ask him to make sure that flexibility is not merely a word that is used in this Committee now and forgotten when the administrators get to work, but that it is, in fact, applied.

When dealing with an earlier Amendment, when reference was made to this one, I wondered what reason the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would give for it. I knew that he would be hard put to it to find a reason, and, of course, he has been. As I understand it, the reason—to us it has always been obvious—is that we are more efficient south of the Border than they are in the North, but what effect that acknowledgment will have on the hon. Gentleman's chances in Scotland at the next Election I tremble to think.

I do not see any reason for the Amendment. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was meeting the questions raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), but my recollection of the right hon. and gallant Member's speech is that he did not think this was at all the way to meet his point of view. All he said was that this offered a certain amount of elasticity, referring only to the time it would take for the Administration to gather up all the various points.

I would point out to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that one of the names to the Amendment of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), at the top of page 2253 of the Order Paper, is that of the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). It appears, therefore, that the desire for this kind of Amendment was shared both by my hon. Friends and by some, at any rate, of the Scottish Opposition Members. In trying to meet their desires, I thought that I was satisfying a wish that has been expressed by Scottish Members from all sides of the Committee.

This was not the only Amendment to be put down, but it is the only one which the Government have gone any way to meet.

That is true. Had the hon. Member been present at the beginning—

I was.

—he would have heard me say that for a variety of reasons one of those Amendments could not be accepted.

I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out line 29.

A number of us did not like Clause 11 when the Bill was considered in Committee, nor at a later stage, but when it was passed by this House it was limited in extent. The objection in principle was to indemnities being given to persons who were going to perpetrate libels on other people which might do very great damage. As drafted, it was limited to cases where a person did not know that the matter was defamatory. In other words, it was limited to the sort of case we were mainly discussing in this Bill where libel was committed by accident, so to speak.

I listened with great respect to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). It is interesting to know that in this day and age he holds the view that there ought not to be indemnity against the commission of a tort. I take it that the hon. and learned Member considers that motorists should drive cars without third party insurance. That is a view which is not widely held in this country.

What happens to Mr. Smith?

Mr. Smith has a perfectly good case of action against the newspaper and Reuter's. It does not affect the rights of the party maligned in any way. I think the House can set its mind at rest that the rights of the libelled parties are not affected in any way. It might assist the hon. and learned Member if I point out that the person who is libelled gains, because this means that the insurance policy covering the newspaper will be valid. If the newspaper has not the money to pay damages, the person libelled will have the right of recourse against the people insuring the newspaper.

When a man buys a motor car he does not intend to injure anybody with it. He buys it and drives it for his own amusement. But even before the legislature interfered, such a person realised, if he was prudent, that he would not always be driving at his best and would sometimes make mistakes, and accordingly he insured himself against them, both for his own protection and for the protection of any innocent victim of his carelessness.

Could I assist my hon. Friend? The point was taken by the noble Lord who leads the Labour Party in the House of Lords. It is a point which seemed to escape our attention in the Committee, where the Clause was not debated, so that this defect was not realised. When the noble Lord who leads the Labour Party in another place drew attention to this defect, the Clause was, by agreement in another place, amended in the form proposed in the Amendment.

I thought that that was exactly what I was saying. I said that if the point is as obvious as we are now asked to believe, it is curious that nobody thought of it before. My hon. Friend has intervened to say that no one did think of it before, and that is exactly what I was saying. He said it never occurred to anybody until it occurred to the noble Lord who, added to his qualifications, is a member of the same party as my hon. Friend and myself, which of course makes him an infallible judge on this point.

An agreement for indemnifying any person against civil liability for libel in respect of the publication of any matter is lawful unless the agreement relates or extends to the publication of matter which the person indemnified knows to be defamatory.

I am tempted to intervene because I cannot understand what is the objection being put forward here. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was good enough to read Clause 11, and if the House would bear with me I should like to remind the House again of the words which my hon. Friend has just read. The words at the end of the Clause read:

"unless the agreement relates or extends to the publication of matter which the person indemnified knows to be defamatory."

"shall not be unlawful unless at the time of the publication that person knows that the matter is defamatory,"—

"and does not reasonably believe there is a good defence to any action brought upon it."

I have been a little puzzled myself. There is a certain amount of confusion which results from a double negative included in the form of the Amendment. I am dealing purely with the question of construction, not the merits or demerits one way or another. As I understand it, the effect of this Clause would be clear, and the truth of it would be expressed, if we left out the words

"knows that the matter is defamatory, and …"

"does not reasonably believe there is a good defence to any action"—

"brought upon it."

"knows that the matter is defamatory"

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I beg to second the Motion.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Why?

Because the statement would be libellous.

Would it?

My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has expressed the opinion sotto voce that it would not be libellous to say that a member of the British Cabinet was a liar.

We say it every day.

That certainly does not preclude an argument as to whether the statement would be libellous. I would venture humbly to advise the House that such a statement would be libellous, and could only be published at the risk of an action for damages.

The tape is not protected.

No, it is not. Certain other considerations might apply in relation to the tape.

Suppose, in one or other of the two cases we have had by way of illustration, the statement turned out to be wholly untrue, mischievous and damaging to the reputation of a person in the highest possible degree. Would the newspaper, in the view of my hon. Friend, be entitled to blazon it in headlines throughout the country, and the person defamed have no remedy of any kind? Is my hon. Friend really saying that that is desirable?

If my hon. Friend strips the rhetoric from his proposition, if he withdraws, "blazoning it in headlines" his question is whether fair and accurate reports of what took place in the Persian Parliament and the American Congress should be available to the British public. My answer, bluntly is, "Yes," even though it may cause some inconvenience and pain to the person affected.

There is one point about this which worries me. There are here two parts to the Schedule. In the first part reports are privileged, whether or not the newspaper publishes a reasonable letter at the request of the person defamed. In the second part it is only privileged subject to the newspaper publishing a reasonable letter from the person defamed. In the instance given to us would it not be reasonable to require the newspaper to publish the reply of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company officials who were defamed? Is it reasonable here to give to Senator McCarthy and Mr. Vyshinsky a privilege which in the second part we deny to the London County Council?

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has put the matter most fairly, and I think there is an arguable case for having put this in the other part of the Schedule. But I think it is a case which must be rejected, because we are dealing with foreign Parliaments; and if newspapers knew that when they reported the proceedings of those Parliaments they would be obliged to put in letters on every occasion from anyone who claimed he was defamed before they could get protection, it would limit the protection in practice and there is something to be said against it.

It was pressed on the Report stage.

With respect, no. I have reason to be fairly accurate in my recollection. What was discussed on a previous occasion was whether or not these words should remain in the Bill. No one moved any Amendments to put this in another part of the Schedule.

Surely my hon. Friend is a little unfair to the House. On the Report stage the House could deal only with what was proposed by the promoters of the Bill. If this ought to have been and would have been better in another part of the Schedule, it is not the fault of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) or myself. If it is not in the other part of the Schedule, my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. N. H. Lever) should have put it there. The fact is we are being asked to say now we should have added it to the Schedule, allowing people to be defamed in a foreign Parliament without there being any right of reply.

My hon. Friend must not mislead the House about this. The Committee and the House had facilities for doing this if anyone had thought it a useful thing to do. But that was not the proposition. It was simply whether or not we should keep these words in, and not whether we should remove them to any other part of the Schedule. Either in Committee or on Report there was an opportunity to decide into which part of the Schedule it should go, but nobody moved any such Amendment. I did not do so because I think it should be where it now is, and so do those who supported me. My hon. Friend, had he thought that it should be retained in the Bill, but in the other part of the Schedule, had ample facilities for having that point discussed. Unfortunately, nobody espoused that cause in an effort to get it effectively placed in the Bill.

I beg to second the Motion.

This is an important Amendment, which was discussed at considerable length both in the Committee stage and on the Report stage. Though on all occasions on Friday there is a thin attendance in the House, I think that on the Friday when the Bill was considered on Report, there was not a bad attendance.

High quality.

I cannot dissent from what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said about the quality of the attendance on the Committee stage, and I also accept what the hon. Gentleman opposite says without any cavil at all.

Or in a book.

And in a book? If the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. N. H. Lever) does not understand the provisions of his own Bill, he should consider them again.

I interrupted my hon. and learned Friend to say that not merely would it not be protected on the tape, but it would not be protected if it were printed in a book.

That is so. I am sorry; I misunderstood the intervention. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham was extending his Bill a stage further in an interruption. I fully appreciate the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) makes.

"Had not the practical difficulties proved insuperable, we should have desired to add to the list of reports entitled to qualified privilege, reports of proceedings in some foreign courts. But the legal systems of the different countries of the world vary considerably and drastic changes in the character of their judicial tribunals may occur with little previous warning."

"Legal proceedings may be of a political character, and may take place in absentia. We have found it impossible to put forward any criterion of general application which could be adopted to limit and define such foreign courts as maintain a standard of justice and a method of procedure which would justify our recommending that reports of their proceedings should be entitled to qualified privilege without any droit de reponse on the part of the person defamed."

"legal proceedings may be of a political character;"

If it is connected with the subject matter of the first Amendment, I think that would be in order.

The Amendments proposed extend the provision not only to foreign legislatures but to any public inquiry made by the Government or the legislature of the foreign country. It is not merely a question of the reports of foreign legislatures but also of the reports of inquiries made under the aegis of foreign legislatures.

I intervene for only one minute to say that I have listened with great interest to this debate, because when I read this Amendment I was uneasy, and I wanted to hear whether there was any fresh argument which could be adduced in its favour. I must say that I have heard nothing today that in any way satisfies me.

I confess that this is not an easy matter. It is a difficult problem when one has to deal with two conflicting interests. In this case we have first of all the public interest which must require full and free publication of matters of public concern. Then there is the private interest, which certainly requires that a private person should be protected from the repetition of any injurious statements made under the cover of public concern. I recognise fully that in considering this matter we, as a House of Commons, must weigh up very carefully both those considerations.

Only if they are defamatory.

We are discussing the publication of such reports when they are defamatory. That is the very essence of this debate. I thought that it was needless to say that. I am putting forward in this House the plea that in a democratic country like England it is surely essential we should have the fullest possible publication of anything said in any foreign legislature.

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman think of or imagine any case of a newspaper—and we are concerned here with newspapers—in which he thinks that defence can possibly apply?

I can certainly imagine cases in which an argument could be put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman with great force before a jury; and he would be the first one to put it forward, and I do not see why the jury should not accept the argument put forward by my hon. and learned Friend in such a case.

I speak against this Amendment. It is, in my view, opening the door much too wide if we allow everything that is said in any part of the world—and by that I mean in foreign parts—to be reproduced in this country to the hurt and detriment of private individuals here.

In this argument we have been appealed to from opposite sides of the House in the name of high liberal principle. I am not impressed by the pleas. I believe that the talent of this nation has lain largely in its capacity to take a common sense view and not to be unduly worried by either principle or doctrine. I approach the matter purely from a practical point of view.

I want to say a word in support of this Amendment. I do so without feeling any very passionate interest in the matter, because I do not think that the value of the Bill depends on the decision of this question, nor do I find in it any vast question of principle.

If we pass this Amendment what protection is there against an evilly-disposed person in this country who, wishing to injure another person in this country, persuades a member of a tin-pot foreign legislature to make a defamatory statement against that person?

Is not that going rather far? If such a thing could happen at all it could happen in this House. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says that we are calling ourselves liars every day or something like that. I do not wish to misrepresent him. Such things are possible, but some credit must be given and some reliance must be placed upon the responsibility of newspapers to publish things which they believe to be of public importance and of interest to the people of this country.

I hope that no one will think it reflects upon the arguments which have been put if I say that it seems to me that the balance of argument falls overwhelmingly on one side. Let us remember, first of all, that the House is being asked to change its mind. We are not being asked to consider this matter de novo. It is not a matter to which we have not addressed our minds before. We are being asked by another place to reconsider a decision we have already given. I have no complaint about that. We have a Second Chamber, and one of the most useful functions, and indeed the only useful function, it can perform is that of a revising Chamber. I have no complaint that the other place, in their consideration of this matter, should invite us to review a decision which we have already reached.

I do not think it is necessary to remind the House that this is a Private Member's Bill and that, therefore, the House is fully entitled to do exactly what it pleases about it. As far as I am concerned, I believe that everyone in the House today has the right to make up his own mind on the matter. At the same time, it is even more important than usual to remember that we have Second Chamber Government and that what happens in another place on a Private Member's Bill should be taken into consideration. However, after reading the account of what took place there, I think their Lordships would be the first to admit that the case on the other side was not developed in the way it has been today. We have had two speeches, one from each side of the House, which must have caused everyone seriously to think about the matter.

I do not want any misapprehension about this and I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for enabling me to remove any false impression. I was reading that passage precisely. I was drawing a distinction between the courts and legislatures and all my argument was intended to be directed to the point that the distinction they drew was not correct because what they said about the courts was equally applicable to the legislatures.

I thought it would be a pity if, in view of its lucid and persuasive terms, anyone in the future reading the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, might say it was vitiated in that way.

Before the House agrees with this Amendment, I think the House is entitled to one or two words of explanation by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir S. Marshall). It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that, apart from a few very brief comments by the hon. Member on the occasion of Third Reading, this Bill has not been the subject of any discussion whatever in the House. I suggest that as time does permit, the hon. Member to give the House the courtesy of a few words in explanation of this Amendment and why he is asking the House to agree.

The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), like other hon. Members, has had ample opportunity to discuss the Clauses of the Bill as they were originally presented and before they went to the other House. It was before this House and in due course went to the other place. I, as father of the Bill, can offer no objection to the Lords Amendments.

I ask the House to agree with the Lords in this Amendment. It does improve the Bill, which seeks to fill a gap in our present law against cockfighting. We have had 2,000 years of cockfighting. The Romans introduced it and, about 100 years ago, we abolished it, but not quite so well as if we were doing so today—perhaps our predecessors were not so careful—and there is this gap.

I should like to have an assurance that we shall have no cockfighting taking place in Committee Room 14.

I rise to ask for an explanation from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir S. Marshall). He said in connection with the previous Amendment that the House had had ample opportunity of discussing the Bill. May I remind him that we allowed this Bill to go through on what is known as "the nod," and that it is a little unfair that he should, in a way, abuse the concession that was granted to him by hon. Members in the earlier stages by using it as an excuse for not saying anything about the Amendments to which he is now asking the House to agree.

The hon. and gallant Member is now asking for an explanation of a purely statutory alteration made in order that the Bill should apply to Scotland. I think that the Amendment itself is almost self-explanatory, because there is no reason whatever to require any explanation other than is given in the Amendment. I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Member himself should have been sufficiently intelligent to appreciate exactly why this Amendment is being made and why I agree with it.