CLAUSE 3.—(Penalty on Contraventions.) (Hansard, 14 November 1927)

§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, after the word "Act," to insert the words or if any person exhibits to the public in Great Britain a film the right to exhibit which has been acquired by him under any such agreement. The object of this Amendment is to insert words to make the Clause effective. The Clause provides that a person who makes an agreement in contravention of the Act shall, if found guilty, be liable to a fine on summary conviction. The Amendment enforces that by saying if anybody exhibits a film the control of which has been obtained by him under an illegal agreement, he shall also be guilty of an offence. The Amendment is really supplemental to the provisions already in the Bill.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
What change does the Amendment make in the Bill?

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had done me the privilege of listening to me he would have understood that the Amendment is to say that if a person exhibits a film the right to exhibit which has been acquired under an illegal agreement he shall be guilty of an offence, just as he is guilty when he makes the agreement. It is to enable the law to reach any one who has made an illegal agreement abroad, because he will be committing an offence in this country by exhibiting the film here. If the Bill remains as it is he may escape the meshes of the law, because he would say that he could not be prosecuted for making an agreement abroad.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
This Amendment is typical of the Solicitor-General, and his explanation also, I regret to say, bears some resemblance to what I have heard before. As a matter of fact, these words do not make the slightest bit of difference to the Bill, and the Solicitor-General knows it. We have already made it a criminal offence for a renter to come come to an agreement with an exhibitor that the exhibitor shall have the right to show the film, and under this Clause we devise penalties for either of those two parties, either the renter or the exhibitor. This Amendment has been put in, apparently, to catch the exhibitor again. After he has become a criminal through making an agreement he can then become a criminal again by showing the picture in accordance with the agreement. Exactly the same person is involved. I know what is at the back of the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is the fear that some of these unpatriotic exhibitors may come to an agreement in America with an alien renter and agree to rent a film and to show it. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought that in such a case the exhibitor would escape because the agreement, having been made with an alien renter in an alien land, would not be a crime in this country. But he forgets that, when the Bill was going through Committee, on one occasion when he was absent—he could not be there all the time, greatly to our regret—we added an Amendment which will get at these alien renters and at these agreements made with alien citizens. We decided that every renter, whether a German Jew, a 720 Gentile or anything else, if he wished to rent anything at all must have an office in this country where he could be got at, so that the agreement would be made in this country. The danger of the exhibitor slipping through the meshes of the law owing to the agreement which he made being made with a foreigner therefore falls to the ground. This Amendment makes no alteration whatever. The same exhibitor gets caught. I shall be sorry if we put these words in, because they make no difference, but I do not propose to vote against them. They are typical of the Government's understanding of this Measure.

§ Colonel DAY
I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out the words "one hundred," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty."
This Amendment will make the Clause state that any person who enters into an agreement in contravention of this Part of the Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20. As we have already submitted to the House, we think the penalties under this Measure are too high. As regards exhibitors, may I draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the instances which were given in Committee of exhibitors who may quite unknowingly have broken the law as laid down in this part of the Act not only being dealt with summarily as provided for in this Clause, but being penalised again when they come before the licensing bench to ask for a renewal of their licences. As happened in the case of a licensee in Bolton, they may have their licences taken away in addition to having had to suffer the penalties under this Clause. There are many other injustices which the poor exhibitor will have to suffer, and as the President has generously stated that he was agreeable to the proposal to minimise the penalties, may I suggest to him that to accept this Amendment now and to make the figure £20 instead of £50—the figure which he has already agreed to, as I understand— would save a great deal of time and perhaps facilitate the passage of the other Amendments which are down.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON
I beg to second the Amendment.
721 It would be detrimental to the interests of the film industry, and particularly hard upon the owners of small cinemas, if a heavy penalty of this character were inflicted because, possibly, of a mistake in book-keeping or some other mistake of an assistant for which the owner himself might not be personally responsible. An offence of this character is merely a technical offence, and I think a fine of £20 would meet the case and be a sufficient deterrent.

§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I do not think that I can accept the Amendment to reduce the fine as low as £20. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment has proceeded on the assumption that £100 is a flat rate penalty. It is not. It is the maximum. He said it would be unfair to fine a person more than £20 for committing merely a technical offence, but a man who commits merely a technical offence will, in all probability, not be prosecuted, or, if he is, will not be convicted at all. It will be observed that what is covered is not primarily a technical offence, but a deliberate and wilful breach of the law. You might have a very large renter deliberately infringing in regard to blind and block booking. I do not think in such a case it can be said that £20 would be an adequate fine. I did say—and I am prepared to adhere to it, because that is to cover, not only the renter, but the exhibitor also—that I would bring it into line with the exhibitors' penalty which, on summary conviction, is a maximum of £50. If the Amendment were moved in that form, it would be more or less consistent, but certainly that is as far as I can go. I do not think it would be reasonable to have a penalty as low as £20 in the case of what might be a deliberate offence.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The right hon. Gentleman has met us to a certain extent, but I wish he would remember that there are two parties to the agreement and not only the renter. By entering into an agreement one of the parties may be forced to break the law and the unfortunate exhibitors will also be criminals. As I said, the right hon. Gentleman has met us to a certain extent, and in his speech earlier in the day he stated that he would meet us on these fines, though they are not the worst. The 722 worst fines, which are most outrageous, are those levied on people, whether renters or exhibitors, who do not take up a licence. Anybody is entitled to take out a licence, and he cannot be deprived of it whether he be renter or exhibitor. People are as free to take out licences as they are in the case of motor-cars, and it will be seen further on that if any of these people omit to take out licences they are subject to a fine of £20 a day, which bears no relation whatever to people who do not take out motor licences. Yet it is merely a matter of writing to the authorities and paying £l in the case of the exhibitor and £5 in the case of the renter. I did hope, when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about meeting us, that he had 'thought about this very heavy fine. In this case we accept his suggestion, but what I am asking for is that the right hon. Gentleman should realise, that there are worse cases further on and that it is more than desirable that he should meet us on them.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, at the end, to insert the words and any agreement in contravention of this Part of this Act, wherever made, shall be invalid. This is in the nature of a consequential Amendment to Clause 1 as it stood in the Bill before the Amendment which 1 last moved was inserted. The Amendment which I am now moving means that in addition to an offence being committed by the maker of the agreement, the agreement itself will be unenforceable.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
May I ask the Solicitor-General one question? I am a babe in these matters, not being a great lawyer. Surely any agreement which is illegal is, in common law, invalid. I had always imagined that if you made an agreement which was illegal, you could not enforce it.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
It is not quite as the right hon. and gallant 723 Gentleman states it. If he will give an illustration of a particular agreement which is illegal, I will tell him whether it is enforceable or not.

§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER
This is all very amusing from the point of view of legal phraseology. [An HON. MEMBER: "Blind booking."] We must be very careful what powers we are giving to the Government or we shall surely be blind booking rather heavily in this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will remember when we were discussing this kind of case upstairs in Committee that we agreed it would be possible to have an agreement made of this kind, not in this country, but say in the Irish Free State, or possibly in America. I understand the right hon. Gentleman wishes to provide that the agreement wherever made shall be invalid. What is to prevent an agreement being made in America and that agreement being enforced against the British party here 1 I cannot see that there will be any protection to any person in this country in the case of such an agreement if he has to appear before the American courts of jurisdiction, and he may find himself very seriously placed there. On the other hand, it seems to me that in this country the converse take place and that whatever damages either party to the agreement thinks he may have incurred he would fail to obtain them in a British court of law. That seems to operate rather arbitrarily against the people who sign the agreements.