§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Sir L. Plummer
I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, after "periodical", to insert:owned or controlled by the said proprietor".
§ Mr. Speaker
Perhaps discussion on this Amendment could be taken together with discussion of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). They seem to me to be about the same point.
§ Sir L. Plummer
Yes, Sir; I think that my hon. Friend accepts that view.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that when this Bill was going through a previous stage, there was upon the Notice Paper an Amendment in my name which tended in this direction, and I was, owing to circumstances over which I had absolutely no control whatever, unable to move it. It was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) with great lucidity, if I may say so, although I will not comment on the results of his moving it. 666 Certainly, we did have a considerable discussion upstairs on the Amendment as it was then drafted.
I remember reading the OFFICIAL REPORT and finding therein that the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) made a contribution to that discussion. Although he opened with those rather cold words, "Although we have great sympathy with journalists, nevertheless I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not go too far", he did make a very important contribution to the discussion in that he pointed out that, to take The Times newspaper, for example, the number of publications which The Times Printing and Publishing Company issued were of such a nature that the Amendment in its original form would result in producing a really unwieldy and unworkable organisation.
We were extremely reasonable about this, as we have been all the way through the progress of this Bill, and we decided that a revised Amendment should be introduced which accepts the argument of the hon. Member for Harrow, Central and, I think, goes far to allay the fears of the Parliamentary Secretary, in that we are now recognising the trustification and 667 wide ramifications and interests of the newspaper business of this country. We now say that the copyright in work produced by a staff writer, a staff journalist, shall be vested in the proprietor to publish in any other paper, periodical or journal owned or controlled by that proprietor.
To take the Kemsley Group as an example, that means to say that if a staff journalist were writing for one paper within the chain, the Kemsley management would be quite entitled to reprint that writer's articles in any other paper within the chain. As I have said, this meets to a very considerable extent the opposition which sprang from depth of the experience of the hon. Member for Harrow, Central and the fears of the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Parliamentary Secretary had, I believe, another fear. The grounds of that fear also have now been dispelled. He probably had a feeling that the Government was in a rather dangerous position and he could not afford to antagonise the few remaining newspapers in the country loyal to the Government and supporting it. That ground has now been cut from under his feet. The Beaverbrook Press has made it quite clear, if I may use a naval simile, that it is going to part brass rags with the Prime Minister over the question of a European free market ; so the Parliamentary Secretary need not fear he will be attacked on this particular score, for the big Beaverbrook guns are now to be trained on—I hope he will not think I say this in any derogatory sense—a bigger target than even the Parliamentary Secretary himself presents.
Journalists are the men who produce the newspapers of this country. Let us not have in this House any desire for revenge against those gentlemen. The fact that all of us bear on our backs the scars of the lashes inflicted by newspapermen of all political parties is no reason why we should deny them elementary justice, and elementary justice for newspapermen is what I am asking for.
Journalists are united in asking that this Amendment should be accepted by the Government. They know only too well what will be the effect of the Bill going through unamended in its present form. For a reason which is obscure, 668 because he has never yet made it clear, the Parliamentary Secretary has distinguished between what he calls the commission journalist, known in Fleet Street, I think, more familiarly as the free-lance journalist, and the staff journalist. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), in Committee, gave a very lucid explanation of the advantages which are enjoyed by both, the free-lance journalist enjoying freedom of movement and action, the staff journalist enjoying a regular salary and a reasonable degree of security.
These things cannot be weighed in the balance and a result produced to show that there should now be a discrimination against one section of newspapermen in favour of the other. But this is exactly what the Government have done. The Government have said they will now make the position of the free-lance journalist much better than it ever has been before, but they will not extend the same measure of protection to the ordinary staff man who is employed by a newspaper, periodical or journal.
The Government recognise that both have property rights in their work. In fact, only a little while ago, we heard the Parliamentary Secretary say that this Bill has been based on the principle that the copyright owner should have the right to say where and how his work should be published. Here, however, a section of copyright owners is being denied this particular protection.
The Parliamentary Secretary will answer that the staff man will have a great deal of additional privilege in that he is to have the book rights of his work. Why should not he have more than that? I think that it is because the Parliamentary Secretary has not appreciated what goes on in syndication today. Syndication is a big business. It is a not unimportant part of newspaper development and enterprise. The Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that not many journalists have their work syndicated abroad. The words which the hon. and learned Gentleman used were these:There is the question of syndication overseas. I do not know how many working staff journalists normally get their work syndicated in papers overseas. Some do, as one knows, and there are such arrangements as with the Mombassa Times, which I mentioned. Those newspapers pick up material from newspapers 669 over here, but journalists who have their work syndicated, are, I should think, relatively few …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1956 ; Standing Committee B, c. 127.]
§ Mr. Walker-Smith
The hon. Gentleman will find, if he will look back to the preceding paragraph, that it is relative to the numbers who have syndication in newspapers at home.
§ Sir L. Plummer
This is an illustration, if I may say so, of the lack of knowledge by the Parliamentary Secretary of what is going on. What is happening today is that the whole content of newspapers is being sold as a kind of package deal abroad; that is to say, a newspaper in this country sells the whole of its services to a newspaper abroad, literally from the first page to the imprint.
The work of every single one of the reporters, artists, sketch writers and feature writers—the whole thing en bloc—is a package deal, as I have said, to newspapers, periodicals, magazines and the like abroad. So a relatively large number of journalists have their work syndicated, but without their knowledge, without their consent and without their knowing where the stuff is going to appear. That may be good newspaper enterprise; it may be good commercial enterprise; it is certainly a very profitable enterprise for the publisher. All that we are asking is that there should be some discussion and agreement with the staff journalist as to the share he is to get out of this enterprise.
I happen to be a director of a newspaper which indulges in syndication and gives 80 per cent. of its receipts to its staff. That is because it is a well-run, liberal and progressive newspaper. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which newspaper?"] I do not think that it is proper for me here to give publicity to the New Statesman and Nation. Therefore, a progressive, well-run newspaper sees to it that it does not take advantage of the law in its present form, and safeguards the commercial and, as it were, the ethical interests of the outstanding people who write for it. I am suggesting that that is a practice which, if my Amendment is accepted, could be followed generally in Fleet Street.
There is another problem which, I think, faces the Parliamentary Secretary, but he does not appreciate it. He tries to 670 Draw a distinction between the free-lance or commissioned man and the ordinary staff reporter or artist. What happens if they are both employed side by side to report the same incident—the Coronation, for example? What happens on a newspaper when a great event of that kind takes place is that every one of the executive staff, from the editor down to the news editor, gets into a panic and is convinced that the regular staff are not capable of doing the job.
So a number of people with names and some sort of reputation are employed to go in and work, sitting, perhaps, side by side in the same pew with the ordinary reporters. The proprietor, if the Bill goes through in its present form, can do nothing about syndicating the work of the commissioned man, but he can do what he likes in the syndication of the work of the reporters. This is unjust and is not in the proper interest of the staff man.
When the Institute of Journalists, which represents, on the whole, the editors and the higher editorial executives of the newspapers, bands together with the National Union of Journalists, which represents almost the whole of what I call the working newspapermen of this country, to say that in its present form the Bill is wrong—unjust, as I suggest, to those people—I think that the Parliamentary Secretary ought to deal with them with greater sympathy than he did in June.
In every newspaper that we pick up we see the phrase, "Copyright is reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part is forbidden." That, of course, is true. It means that reproduction in whole or in part of a single section of the work is prohibited. I say that, if we are to do justice to a body of men who, despite all their proprietors' influences, try to do a good job by British journalism, the House and the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)
I beg to second the Amendment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) indicated, this was an Amendment which was put down in his name during the Committee stage and which, as he said, I moved in his unfortunate absence, but, I regret to say, with the result that it was defeated. Now 671 that we have had the advantage of hearing my hon. Friend so lucidly explain the Amendment, I hope that it will receive, as it deserves, a better fate on the Report stage.
We have had the advantage, since the Committee stage, of examining the arguments addressed to the Committee by the Parliamentary Secretary against the Amendment. I am sure that on any fair reading of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, the House will come to the conclusion that those arguments were very inadequate and unsubstantial. In the first place, the Parliamentary Secretary objected to the Amendment on the ground that it was ambiguous. I think that any possible ambiguity in the Amendment as presented to the Committee has now been removed. Incidentally, the ambiguity arose because the hon. and learned Member himself had previously proposed an earlier Amendment which complicated the whole text of the Clause. It is now abundantly clear what my hon. Friends and I are seeking to achieve by this Amendment. There is no question of ambiguity.
The Amendment seeks to provide that, if a staff journalist in the employment of a particular group of newspapers writes an article for a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, then the copyright in such article belongs to the proprietor of the newspaper, magazine or similiar periodical, but, apart from that, the copyright belongs to the author of the article. Surely the House will agree that a provision of that kind corresponds both with equity and good sense and is essential for the protection of working journalists about whom my hon. Friend speaks with such expert knowledge.
Moreover, if there were any particular case in which any element of injustice would result, the whole subject matter of this Clause would be subject to the provision of subsection (5) and it would always be open to the parties to make any different agreement if they so desired. If there is any doubt whether the person writing the article for a particular group of newspapers should have, or has by implication, authorised the proprietor to grant syndication rights elsewhere—if that is the intention of the parties—then they can write that into a contract. There is complete freedom of contract in that respect.
672 What we want to achieve is, in the absence of any provision to the contrary, what seems to me to accord with common sense, namely, that the author, the writer of the article, writes it for the particular group by whom he is engaged. They have the full rights in the journals in the group. If, after that, some other newspaper, periodical or magazine, or any other literary work wants to reproduce the creative work of that author for their own purpose they should pay a copyright fee to that author and not to the proprietor.
My hon. Friend has explained how this practice of syndicating the works of journalists, package deals of newspapers, interchange arrangements between one group in this country and another group in another country, is growing—and growing to the prejudice of journalists. It is that situation that we are seeking to correct. I believe that there can be no possible objection to this Amendment, that it is free from all ambiguity, that it is required in the interests of justice to journalists as a whole, and I hope that it will be accepted.
§ Mr. F. P. Bishop (Harrow, Central)
As the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) was kind enough to refer to my small contribution on a similar Amendment that was moved in Committee, perhaps I might just say a word on the subject.
The hon. Member referred to one or two of the difficulties that I suggested an Amendment of this kind would create. He did not refer to all of them. For example, I pointed out that when a journalist is employed to do a particular job he does it in circumstances which make it very far from being his own individual creation. In other words, it is very often impossible to decide who is the author of a piece of work appearing in a newspaper.
As we were then sitting while a Test match was going on at Lords, I instanced the example of Press reporters who were then sitting at the Lords ground reporting the match. I said that they were not (here on their own account, but had tickets which had been provided by their employers and were there as representatives of the newspaper that had sent them. They could not have been in that position and have had those privileges otherwise.
673 The hon. Member mentioned the case of the reporting of such an event as a Coronation. I am sure that, from his practical experience, he knows as well as I do just what happens on such occasions. A number of staff reporters are sent out and posted at particular vantage points on the route of the procession, or in the Abbey or wherever the great event may be. They each contribute their portion to a long and probably vivid report which is, in fact, a composite production—in part the work of all of them. It would be quite impossible in such cases, and in many other cases, to say who was the author of that particular work.
However, there is more in it than that. I understand about this business of syndication, but it surely is very desirable, from the national point of view, that articles written by journalists employed by newspapers in this country should be quoted—quoted largely, and even reproduced in full in many cases—in other newspapers all over the world.
That situation which exists today—and I am thinking of such newspapers as The Times, the Manchester Guardian and others of the highest character—that possibility of what they write being fully quoted in other newspapers all over the world, would be very seriously hampered if the proprietors of newspapers were not, in fact, the owners of the copyright and in a position to give the necessary direction for that to be done.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) suggested that the difficulty could be overcome by special contracts in each case. I see that I said something on that also during the Committee stage. I said:It would be most unreasonable and unsuitable to put a provision into an Act of Parliament which, for practical reasons, everybody concerned had to avoid by a specific term of contract."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B ; 26th June, 1956, c. 118.]The contract could work the other way, too, but it would really be impossible and impracticable to expect that an individual contract should be made in the case of every journalist employed by a newspaper in order to get out of the effects of this provision.
§ Sir L. Plummer
Surely the hon. Member knows from his experience that an 674 individual contract is provided for every member of the editorial staff as it is. He never employed a journalist on The Times without an individual contract. What is to prevent a clause being inserted into that contract to recompense the journalist if he signs away his rights in an article?
§ Mr. Bishop
Where contracts are made I think they usually do make such a provision. I only say that it would be undesirable to throw the burden on an industry to evade the effect of an Act of Parliament by having to have a contract for each individual case. Again, I must say that I have every sympathy with the staff journalist. The staff journalist very often writes anonymously for a newspaper, and is proud to write anonymously and to be the voice of that newspaper on his own particular subject. He is paid, or ought to be paid, for the value of the work he does, taking into account the fact that it may be reproduced elsewhere. I think that it would be impracticable to do otherwise, and I hope, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend will still not be prepared to accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. Walker-Smith
The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) started by saying that I had never made clear what was the difference between the staff journalists and the commissioned journalists—or free-lance journalists, as he calls them—and why we have found it appropriate to make any differentiation between the way in which they are treated in copyright law.
If I did not make it clear during the Committee stage it was, of course, because the point was made with admirable clarity by the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. He then said:As for the other class brought within the Clause—the man who normally writes articles in the course of his employment, who has as part of the resources on which he draws to find his material all the advantages in obtaining from his employers information and in securing payment of his expenses in himself obtaining information, I feel that we are on very much less strong ground. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June. 1956 ; Vol. 553 ; col. 794.]
§ Sir L. Plummer
Perhaps I might remind the Parliamentary Secretary that Saint Paul probably travelled a great way 675 down the road to Damascus before he saw the light, and my hon. and learned Friend said that a long time ago.
§ Mr. Walker-Smith
But the precedent of Saint Paul moving from darkness into light should not be prayed in aid to justify an exactly contrary procedure from light into darkness, which is what the hon. and learned Gentleman achieved on this subject.
§ Mr. William Wells (Walsall, North)
It is not so much that I have travelled from light into darkness or from darkness into light, but that I was then saying that I thought this was a less strong case than some of the others we were putting—but I kept an entirely open mind as to its merits. I wanted to hear the arguments, and by the arguments I was convinced that the case was even stronger than I then thought it was.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I do not know that that really precisely indicates the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman who said earlier:Speaking for myself, I feel that a sharp distinction exists between (a) and (b); that is to say, between the man who writes an article in the course of his employment and the man who writes an article because he is commissioned to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th June. 1956 ; Vol. 553, c. 793.]It is quite true that after the hon. and learned Gentleman had given expression to what I would call that unequivocal statement of view his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) came to his rescue, saying:The Parliamentary Secretary referred to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) … but, of course, my hon. and learned Friend was expressing that point of view in the light of the situation as he saw it at that time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 26th June, 1956 ; c. 128.]That was, no doubt, the pattern for words that became famous in a rather larger context about a month later. I do not want to dwell on that, save only perhaps to say this, that it shows that the unifying influences of a Balliol education are stronger even than the fissiparous tendencies of the Opposition Front Bench.
Anybody listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Deptford when moving this Amendment might have been pardoned for thinking we were actually 676 making the position of the journalist worse in copyright law by this Bill, whereas, of course, as he well knows, this Bill is, in fact, making the position of both the commissioned and staff journalist better.
I think the House must, in order to get this in perspective, bear in mind the background of this matter, that is, the law as it was before the Bill was introduced. Under the 1911 Act, it is true, the commissioned journalist—because this differentiation dates right back over the forty-five years since the last Copyright Act—had all the copyright in his work, including newspaper and periodical rights, but the staff journalist, with whom we are concerned in this Amendment, had only the negative right to restrain the employer from publishing his work in non-periodical publications, and, of course, the newspaper proprietor had unqualified right in regard to syndication. That is the position from which we start in the 1911 Act.
Under this Bill the staff journalist, instead of getting the somewhat negative right of veto in the use of his work in books and symposia and the like, is given full copyright in those publications, and this, I am sure the hon. Gentleman, at any rate in his fairer moments, will admit, is a very notable advance forward for the staff journalist.
The present Amendments are, it is true, less wide than the one moved in Committee upstairs, because by this Amendment the right to syndicate within the group at home would be reserved—at least, I understand that is the intention—to the newspaper proprietor ; but he would still not have the right, of course, to supply overseas newspapers with which he may have an agreement of the sort referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) said all ambiguity had now been removed and it was quite clear what was the intention. I was just a little surprised to hear him say that because, of course, his Amendment now on the Notice Paper, in page 5, line 18, after "periodical" insert "belonging to the said proprietor", is in different terms from that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walsall, North.
§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I presume the hon. Gentleman had some intention in mind when he formulated his own Amendment and tabled it.
§ Mr. Fletcher
When I said there was no ambiguity I was referring to the Amendment which I was seconding.
§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I appreciate that. What I am seeking to show is that the hon. Gentleman himself selected a different form of words which would have a different effect from that of the Amendment which he has seconded. So like the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walsall, North he has deviated from his path.
Why I make that point is this. If it is to be any newspaper owned or controlled by a newspaper proprietor, which is what I understand to be the present thinking of the hon. Gentleman, then these words, in my submission, are defective unless there is some definition of what is understood by control in these circumstances. It may be that the hon. Gentleman has in mind Section 154 of the Companies Act. He nods assent, but he will appreciate, as well as or better than I, that it does not expressly define what is meant by control. It defines merely the relationship between holding and subsidiary companies, and I am bound to tell the House that, in my view, if this Amendment were made in these terms it would be defective in that particular.
On the principle of the matter, though this Amendment is an improvement on the Amendment moved in Committee it still does not seem to me to be either a necessary or desirable change in the law, broadly for the reasons so admirably summarised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop). In Committee, we had two cases put to us, the home and overseas; the home case about the small journalist on the local newspaper who suddenly found his work published in a national newspaper solely to the advantage of his employer. I pointed out then that if he was as good as all that at his work he would either get more remuneraion or another job. That seems to have been effective, because the matter has been put today 678 solely on the overseas case. I will address myself to the hon. Gentleman's arguments on that.
§ Sir L. Plummer
It often happens that a local journalist, the young, struggling lad whom the Parliamentary Secretary has described, is the only man available in a place to get the story. Perhaps it is the report of a murder. He writes that story. He gives it to his news editor. It appears in the paper. It is then sent by that paper to a London paper, which accepts it. Over and over again the young journalist who has got his way to make in the world finds his stuff being lifted or sold without any discussion with him.
§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was not really on that matter. What we discussed in Committee was, as it were, the original work, what, I think, would be known in Fleet Street as feature work, and not the reporting side. What the hon. Gentleman now refers to is what is called, I believe, "milking the copy." As to that I have nothing to add to what I said in Committee upstairs. If that is an unsatisfactory practice it must be one which ought to be sorted out among the newspapers and journalists themselves, because it does not fall within the ambit of the Copyright Act.
As to the overseas question, the hon. Gentleman has referred to these package deals, and if they are made in that way it seems to add reinforcement to what was my main contention before, that these matters fall to be dealt with better by contract than by any general presumption of the copyright law.
All these matters can be spelled out in contract. Every journalist who is working today is working under the system which has operated for forty-five years, that is to say in the absence of specific agreement the presumption is that the copyright for syndication belongs to the newspaper proprietor. I think that the hon. Member gave his case away in his intervention to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central because he then put to him the point that there was, in fact, an express contract in most of these cases.
It will be seen that Clause 4 (5), with which we are now dealing, has effectsubject, in any particular case, to any agreement excluding the operation thereof in that case.679 If, as the hon. Member said, there is nearly always an express agreement, it is open to the journalist to have a clause added to his agreement to deal with the question of the copyright in syndication overseas. Conversely, supposing the Amendment were passed and added to the Bill in spite of the drafting defects to which I have referred, we should have the position that the newspaper proprietors in their turn would be able to take advantage of subsection (5) and make agreements varying the general presumption. There is no doubt that in a large number of cases they would do so if they enjoyed the present copyright.
The net result of the whole operation would be that there would be no change in the practice, but there would be a general presumption written into the law which might not reflect the general practice because it would be modified by a myriad of individual agreements and all we would be doing would be adding to the complexity of these matters.
Therefore, neither from the point of practical utility nor from the point of view of principle, do I consider this case to be made out. But it does not mean at all that the Bill is in any way unmindful of the interests of the staff journalists or unfriendly in its approach to them because, as I have said, the changes made in the copyright law are considerably to their advantage over that which has prevailed during the last forty-five years.
§ Mr. Anthony Greenwood
I hope that it will not be unparliamentary for me to say that we have just had an example of Satan in the form of the Parliamentary Secretary rebuking the sin which he attributes to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells). This is not a Bill on which any of us has been wholly consistent, and if the Parliamentary Secretary is going to make charges of that kind I can assure him that we shall be able to reply in kind. There are many aspects of the Bill on which a little more flexibility on his part would have been more acceptable to my hon. Friends and certainly to some hon. Members opposite.
As good democrats, we on this side have always supposed that the purpose of debate was to thrash out the merits of a case and to come to a conclusion on those 680 merits. We have been fortunate that in this case there has been no lack of advice tendered to us by the many bodies which have an interest in the subject under discussion. Perhaps the rather pleasant aspect of that is that almost invariably contrary advice has been tendered to us from the various bodies interested, and therefore we have been in the happy position of being able to weigh the merits and make up our minds on the case put to us.
I confess frankly to the House that, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North I began by feeling that this provision should apply to the freelance journalist, but that there would be difficulties in applying it to the staff journalist. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) and I very nearly imperilled an old-standing friendship by our disagreement on this issue, but my hon. Friend has now convinced me of the Tightness of his point of view, and I hope that he will convince the House as well.
This is what we are striving to do in the Amendment. At present, if a staff man writes an article it may reappear in other papers with considerable profit to the employer, but with no additional profit to himself. We say that that should apply only if the journalist has expressly, in writing, agreed with the proprietor that that should be the case.
We all agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that anything of this kind can be included in the agreement which is made between the staff journalist and his employer. That, I think, is one of the most convincing arguments against the point of view which the Parliamentary Secretary has expressed. Every staff journalist ought to be in the position to negotiate with the proprietor a reasonable condition of employment, and all we are saying is that, in the absence of agreement of that kind, there should be no automatic presumption in favour of the proprietor. Already in matters of this kind the balance is sufficiently far tipped in favour of the proprietor, and we think it wholly unfair to introduce a new factor of this kind in favour of the employer.
We have already discussed this matter at considerable length in Committee, but there is one further argument which I should like to bring to bear today. We all agree, now that we have put forward 681 the Amendment in this form, that, of course, the proprietor shall have the right to use within the group which he owns contributions made by staff journalists, but I ask the House to address itself to the difficulty of the staff journalist who is perfectly prepared to write for one group of newspapers, but who does not want to be associated with outside publications.
There are cases of hon. Members of this House, associated with political parties, who are nevertheless staff journalists, and who might find themselves gravely embarrassed, not only politically but in other ways, if they found to their dismay that an article written for their own newspaper was being used in a publication run to advance the aims, for instance, of Sir Oswald Mosley's Union movement. That might well be the case unless there was a specific provision in the agreement to the contrary. The presumption which the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking to introduce would make that perfectly possible. One could think of a
§ Roman Catholic journalist, who although prepared to allow his work to be used in one group of newspapers, would not be happy to find it used to advance the cause of the Rationalist Press, or some organisation of that kind.
§ It is unfair of the Parliamentary Secretary to take this attitude to the Amendment. Since the Committee stage, we have gone into the matter very carefully indeed and we have now proposed that the Amendment should apply only to other periodicals owned by the proprietor. Therefore, we have narrowed its scope. We have gone a long way to meet the objections which were raised in Committee, and it is therefore necessary for us to press the Amendment to a Division and to vote against the Government on this issue.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 232.685
|Division No. 283.]||AYES||[5.19 p.m.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Lindgren. G, S.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.|
|Anderson, Frank||Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)||Logan, D. G.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Fernyhough, E.||MacColl, J. E.|
|Balfour, A.||Finch, H. J.||McGhee, H. C.|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Fletcher, Eric||McInnes, J.|
|Benn. Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)||Forman, J. C.||McKay, John (Wallsend)|
|Benson, G.||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||McLeavy, Frank|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.||MacMllian, M. K. (Western Isles)|
|Blackburn, F.||Gibson, C. W.||Mahon, Simon|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Mann, Mrs. Jean|
|Boardman, H.||Greenwood, Anthony||Mason, Roy|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Mayhew, C. P.|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)||Grey, C. F.||Mellish, R. J.|
|Bowles, F. G.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Mikardo, Ian|
|Boyd, T. C.||Hamilton, W. W.||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Hannan, W.||Monslow, W.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)||Moody, A. S.|
|Burke, W. A.||Hastings, S.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Healey, Denis||Mort, D. L.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Henderson. Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Moss, R.|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Herbison, Miss M.||Moyle, A.|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Mulley, F. W.|
|Carmichael, J.||Hobson, C. R.||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)|
|Champion, A. J.||Holman, P.||Oliver, G. H.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Holmes, Horace||Oram, A. E.|
|Clunie, J.||Houghton, Douglas||Orbach, M.|
|Coldrick, W.||Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)||Oswald, T.|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Howell, Denis (All Saints)||Owen, W. J.|
|Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Padley, W. E.|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)|
|Cove, W. G.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Irving, S, (Dartford)||Parker, J.|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Parkin, B. T.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Janner, B.||Pearson, A.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs,S.)||Pentland, N.|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Deer, G.||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Probert, A. R.|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Delargy, H. J.||Kenyon, C.||Pryde, D. J.|
|Dodds, N. N.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Randall, H. E.|
|Donnelly, D. L.||King, Dr. H. M.||Rankin, John|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Redhead, E. C.|
|Reeves, J.||Stones, W. (Consett)||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Reid, William||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Robens, Rt. Hon. A.||Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Swingler, S. T.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Ross, William||Sylvester, G. O.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Royle, C.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)||Willliams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Shurmer, P. L. E.||Thornton, E.||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Silverman, Julius (Aston)||Timmons, J.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Silverman, Sidney (Nelson)||Turner-Samuels, M.||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Slater, J. (Sedgefield)||Viant, S. P.||Woof, R. E.|
|Snow, J. W.||Warbey, W. N.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Sparks, J. A.||Watkins, T. E.||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Steele, T.||Weitzman, D.|
|Stewart, Michael (Fulham)||Wells, Percy (Faversham)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)||Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers|
|Aitken, W. T.||Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)||Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Freeth, D. K.||Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William||Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)|
|Arbuthnot, John||Garner-Evans, E. H.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Armstrong, C. W.||George, J. C. (Pollok)||McAdden, S. J.|
|Ashton, H.||Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan||MacCallum, Major Sir Duncan|
|Atkins, H. E.||Gough, C. F. H.||Macdonald, Sir Peter|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Graham, Sir Fergus||Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry|
|Banks, Col. C.||Grant, W. (Woodside)||McKibbin, A. J.|
|Barber, Anthony||Green, A.||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)|
|Barlow, Sir John||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||McLaughlin, Mrs. P.|
|Barter, John||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. C.||Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Gurden, Harold||McLean, Neil (Inverness)|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Hall, John (Wycombe)||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.||Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald||Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Markham, Major Sir Frank|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Marples, A. E.|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.||Marshall, Douglas|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Maude, Angus|
|Bishop, F. P.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Medlicott, Sir Frank|
|Body, R. F.||Hesketh, R. F.||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Braine, B. R.||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)||Morrison, John (Salisbury)|
|Bryan, P.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Hirst, Geoffrey||Nabarro, G. D. N.|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Holland-Martin, C. J.||Nairn, D. L. S.|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)||Hornby, R. P.||Neave, Airey|
|Carr, Robert||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Horobin, Sir Ian||Nugent, G. R. H.|
|Channon, H.||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.|
|Cole, Norman||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)|
|Cooper, A. E.||Hurd, A. R.||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)||Osborne, C.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Hyde, Montgomery||Page, R. G.|
|Crouch, R. F.||Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Partridge, E.|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Dance, J. C. G.||Jennings Sir Roland (Hallam)||Pitman, I. J.|
|Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Pott, H. P.|
|D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Deedes, W. F.||Joseph, Sir Keith||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Keegan, D.||Raikes, Sir Victor|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Kerr, H. W.||Redmayne, M.|
|Drayson, G. B.||Kershaw, J. A.||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|du Cann, E. D. L.||Kimball, M.||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)||Lagden, G. W.||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Lambert, Hon. G.||Rippon, A. G. F.|
|Eden, Rt. Hn. SirA. (Warwick&L'm'tn)||Lambton, Viscount||Robertson, Sir David|
|Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Leavey, J. A.||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Leburn, W. G.||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Russell, R. S.|
|Fell, A.||Llewellyn, D. T.||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.|
|Fisher, Nigel||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Sharples, R. C.||Teeling, W.||Wade, D. W.|
|Shepherd, William||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Simon, J. E. (Middlesbrough, W.)||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Smithers, Peter (Winchester)||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Soames, Capt. C.||Thorneyoroft, Rt. Hon. P.||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Speir, R. M.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir p. (Kens'gt'n, S.)||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)||Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)|
|Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)||Touche, Sir Gordon||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)||Turner, H. F. L.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Storey, S.||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)||Tweedsmuir, Lady||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Studholme, Sir Henry||Vane, W. M. F.||Woollam, John Victor|
|Summers, Sir Spencer||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)||Vickers, Miss J. H.|
|Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)||Vosper, D. F.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. Wills and Mr. Legh.|