HC Deb 18 January 1949 vol 460 cc103-10

Order for Third Reading read.

6.44 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson)

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

In moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I should very much desire to pay tribute to the helpful spirit in which it has been received and discussed on both sides of the House. Like the quota Measure which was introduced about this time a year ago, it has gone through its Second Reading and Committee stages without even a single division; and, although none of the Amendments which were put forward was technically acceptable I sympathise with the object of the Amendments which were moved.

As the House will recall, the Bill's purpose is to provide supplementary transitional finance, on a self-liquidating basis, for an expanding output of British films, both to entertain the film-going public at home, and to reflect abroad as well as at home the British way of life. Quite apart from any question of what entertainment the public prefers—and I do not think our quota in any way exaggerates the proportion of British made entertainment which the public prefers—we are compelled by dire economic necessity, and will be compelled for some considerable time to come, to reduce the costs of our screen entertainment in terms of dollars for films from America. This means that the public demand for ample and varied screen entertainment can only continue to be satisfied if British cinemas can be assured of an adequate output from film studios in this country, and that demand can only be met if the industry receives and deserves the requisite measure of financial support.

It is, of course, as the House has agreed on all sides, a matter for regret that because of the industry's transitional difficulties, a proportion of this financial support has to be provided from Exchequer sources, but, as I have already made clear on a number of occasions, it is intended that that support shall be self-liquidating. The House has generously recognised that it was the clear duty of the Government to act, and, above all, to act promptly, in this difficult situation which confronts them, and, apart from the point of detail which was raised by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), the principle of which I fully accept—a point of detail which will now have to stand over for consideration perhaps in another place—this Bill can fairly be described as the formal expression of the House's recognition of the need for some action by the Government.

I do not make any claim that the Bill by itself will afford any ready made solution for all the problems of film production. In particular, of itself it will not solve the crucial problem of bringing down costs, but it will take one stage further the process of piecing together a framework within which the two sides of production, the producers on the one hand and employees and technicians on the other, can and must work together to achieve stability in the industry for their own common advantage and for that of the country.

In other words, the Bill paves the way towards a revival of confidence in the industry. It cannot create that confidence, but, given the help which this Bill will provide, the industry has now got the job of pressing on with setting its house in order for itself. I am quite sure, after the response we had in the Second Reading and the Committee stage, that the House will give its support to this Bill. 1 now ask the House to approve the Third Reading of the Bill in the same spirit in which earlier stages were carried through.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton (Aldershot)

The President of the Board of Trade said that this is largely an agreed Measure, and that is the case. He has been courteous enough to tell me that he will see that in another place an Amendment will be introduced—of course, 1 cannot discuss it in detail—which will go towards meeting the last point which I raised. Clearly, I cannot discuss such an Amendment, of which I only know the general terms, but I take this opportunity of thanking him for doing that. The Government's proposal will be examined very carefully in another place, and I hope the point I have made will be met.

There is only one other point which I wish to raise, and that arises out of some remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made in the Debate on the Committee stage. These are his words: I can tell the Committee that it is my intention, as soon as the necessary experience has been gained, to allow the Corporation to lend money direct to producers in all classes of case, if I can use that phrase, which are suitably defined and I should regard it as my duty to state the classes of case we were proposing to approve. But I would not like to tie myself down at the moment. …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 425.] Is the President in a position to say anything more on that subject? If he says he has not had time to gain experience, I must accept that answer, but I know that many hon. Members agree with me in attaching great importance to the advent of the day when loans will be made direct to producers instead of through another organisation. I do not know whether anyone else will speak for the Government tonight, but I ask that this point should be considered.

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right in saying that the provision of this finance in itself makes no contribution to the lowering of costs. I think that is self-evident. Nevertheless, I think it will be of some benefit to the industry, and I hope that the very grave risk which is to be taken with taxpayers' money will he rewarded at least by seeing the future of British films on a sounder basis.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd (Bucklow)

I want merely to say one or two things about what has happened in connection with this Bill since the Committee stage. I felt that the Committee stage was a little confused and, re-reading it, I found it even more confused than I thought at the time. It is confused because this is a most confusing industry. Things which make sense in other industries make nonsense in this industry, and it is extremely difficult for many people to grasp the situation.

I am disturbed by the thought that this Measure may well be a dead letter, for it is very disturbing to find that distributors are not being attracted by the proposition. They feel that if they have to pledge their assets in order to get assistance from this Corporation the question arises what use is it to them anyhow? They prefer to keep away from it altogether. Secondly, we have distributors who are relatively small in the industry, or who have recently come into it and who intend to utilise the facilities granted by the Corporation to become more or less little empires of their own, presumably on the strength of Government assistance. That is not the intention of this Bill. I believe there is a danger that the Bill will not really come to fruition at all.

I am also very much concerned by the fact that independent producers do not want to take advantage of this Measure. Independent producers have definitely stated that they do not intend to come forward and ask for assistance under this Bill. They do not intend to do so for the very simple reason that in the present economic circumstances of the industry it is quite impossible to make a picture which pays. Rather than take Government money, or anybody else's money for that matter, they say they prefer to stay out of the business. We have the freelance people at present virtually doing nothing and having no intention at the present time of taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill. I am afraid, therefore, that it is very likely that so far as its effect on the man we want to help—the independent or freelance producer—is concerned, this Bill may well be a dead letter.

I want to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the danger of the producer getting into the hands of distributors who appear to have no moral sense whatever. I saw a letter the other day from a firm of distributors to a producer about a certain production. This distributor, who has applied for aid under the Government scheme, said he would guarantee 60 per cent.—guarantee, not advance—of the cost of the Bill. For that he said he would require his usual distribution cost of 25 per cent. and on top of that would want 75 per cent. of the profits. That places the producer in an intolerable position. He gets 60 per cent. guaranteed. He has to find the whole of the money elsewhere, and has to go to somebody and say, "I have 25 per cent. of the profits; I will take 10 per cent. myself, and I will give you 15 per cent." I hope the President of the Board of Trade will realise that this Bill will be no use at all unless there are other reforms in the industry. It is no good dealing with this financial aspect in isolation. We have to deal with the hold which the distributor has on the business, the all-too-large slice which he takes out of it.

I want an answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) about the precise relationship between the Corporation and the distributor. At the time the point was raised the President could not say very much at all. What is to be the relationship between the distributor and the Corporation? Will the Corporation determine the programme or select suitability, or are we to depend purely on the financial standing of the distributor?

I welcome this Bill, as do most people, but having seen the results in the last month or so I fear it will not fulfil the high expectations raised when it was introduced. I am afraid there is a grave possibility that it will go the way of the Cotton Spinning Act introduced into this House and passed some time ago; I fear it will not work. If the President wants to see it work he must take very active steps to deal with the things which are basically wrong with the industry—the abnormally high costs, the too-large share which the distributor takes. He must see that those things are put right, for in isolation this Bill can do nothing to save the British film industry from disaster.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

I want to say a word or two about this Bill before it passes from this House. I agree that much must be done to cut down the cost of production. Like other hon. Members, as I go around the country I hear the many stories which are being told about high costs, empty studios and so on, but I also meet exhibitors and I know that some of the best films which have been produced here are not being shown in hundreds of cinemas in the country. This Bill refers to those who have a reasonable expectation of being able to arrange for the production or distribution of cinematograph films. I want to know what is implied by the phrase "distribution of cinematograph films"? Does it mean that there is the possibility of distributing films around the big circuits or does it mean distributing films among cinemas from one end of the country to the other?

The President of the Board of Trade knows, as every hon. Member should know, that one of the big problems is the fact that neither the producer nor the distributor can give any possible guarantee of getting a film into the cinemas of this country except in the case of the big circuits. If the Minister is to take seriously the question of the distribution of cinematograph films he must do something more to ensure that the hundreds of cinemas which are scattered throughout the country, and where it is essential that the best films produced in this country should be shown, are able to show these films. Every hon. Member knows that is the case. In how many cinemas outside the big circuits, for instance, will "Hamlet" be shown? There are hundreds of cinemas in the country where. from a cultural and educational point of view, such a film ought to be shown. The same question applies to many of the films that are produced by independent producers.

What guarantee will the Minister demand that the people who are in most need of the distribution of these films will have the films distributed to them? I would suggest that he has a talk with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see. in connection with the special films under the Bill, not only that the assistance promised in the Bill is given, but whether it can be arranged in some way that the smaller cinemas will have them without the payment of Entertainment Duty—or something to that effect. At any rate, I want to insist that something must be done to make this part of the Bill a reality. The distribution of films must not simply mean that the distributor is satisfied with the possibility or opportunity of distributing films through the big circuits. It ought to mean that the distributor is in a position to guarantee that he can get the films into the cinemas as a whole. I would impress on him the great importance of getting the best of the films to the poorer districts of the industrial areas and to the country areas, where it is very seldom that they have any possibility of seeing any of the good, highly desirable cultural films that have been produced in this country.

Mr. Benn Levy (Eton and Slough)

Has the hon. Member any device to propose whereby cinemas outside the main circuits could be compelled to take films such as "Hamlet" if they do not want them?

Mr. Gallacher

They cannot be compelled because they are not in a position to pay for the films; so I would suggest that measures be taken along with this Bill to ensure that the films will be distributed. One of the ways to ensure that, in the case of a film produced under this Bill, would be to relieve the smaller cinemas from Entertainment Duty when showing such films. At any rate, the President of the Board of Trade should be prepared to think out ways and means to ensure that these films will be shown where they are most needed—not only in the cinemas of the big circuits, but in the other cinemas in the poorer, working-class districts, and especially in the rural districts. There are some places where people scarcely ever see films of real educational or cultural value, but only the poorest and cheapest films. That is a bad situation. It means that we do not obtain the best results for the people from the films produced.

I know that hon. Members on the other side of the House are not interested in people who cannot afford big prices. They can go to the West End. What is 7s. 6d. or 10s. 6d. or a couple of guineas for a seat to hon. Members on the other side? Nothing at all. However, many people in this country, working men and women in the industrial and rural areas, never have an opportunity of seeing the best of these films, and I want to impress on the Minister, and upon hon. Members on the other side of the House, that the distribution of films should include the possibility of their distribution, not only in the cinemas of the big circuits, but in cinemas throughout the land. If the Minister takes that matter up he will be doing a valuable job, not only for the industry but for the development of culture amongst the people of the country.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. H. Wilson

If I may have leave to speak again I should like to deal with the questions put to me. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttleton), I am sorry that I cannot now indicate the class of case in which direct assistance will be available. We are working hard on the question, and intend to make it a real thing. I am sure the House would wish us to go into the matter very carefully for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman and I and others expressed at earlier stages of the Bill. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) asked a number of questions' about distribution. All I can say is that they do not really fall within the Bill. The Committee on distribution is working hard on all these questions at the present time, and I hope that many if not all of the questions asked by the hon. Member will be covered by that inquiry.

The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) said that he thought that the Bill was already showing signs of becoming a dead letter. The Bill is not yet through the House, and the Corporation is not set up. As I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman, we have not been able to set in motion 'that side of the Corporation's activities which deals with direct finance to production companies. That is where he and I and, I am sure, all of us are looking to see, perhaps, the biggest gain in the future from the provisions of the Bill.