HC Deb 23 February 1938 vol 332 cc483-7

10.7 p.m.

Sir A. Baillie

I beg to move, in page 17, line 10, at the end, to insert: Provided also that if at any time it appears to the Board of Trade that by reason of the restrictions imposed under this Section the bookings of British films are being prejudiced in comparison with the bookings of foreign films owing to the fact that such foreign films have been exhibited and published outside Great Britain before being trade-shown the board may, after consulting the Cinematograph Films Council, lay before Parliament the draft of an order providing that the prohibition imposed by this Section shall not apply to any undertaking by an exhibitor or exhibitors to take delivery of a British film for public exhibition at a date not being later than twelve months after the date on which the undertaking is given if reasonable arrangements have been made to satisfy the exhibitor or exhibitors concerned that the film, when completed, will have special merit for entertainment.

Clause 17 deals with the restriction of blind booking of films, and the Amendment aims at securing a certain amount of blind booking for British producers. To that extent the Amendment might appear revolutionary, but I think I shall be able to show that it is nothing of the kind. The object of Clause 17 is to make sure that every film producer, when he sells his picture to a renter, must start on an equal basis with others. In point of fact, the matter does not work out in that way, and it is fairly easy to see why. Out of every 100 films sold, 80 are from abroad and have probably been produced and exhibited for three months before the trade show in this country. They may have been exhibited in America for four or five months. Their box-office value is, therefore, known to every exhibitor and renter in this country. They have been publicised in the trade papers and every exhibitor knows all about them. Exhibitors who are accustomed to dealing with certain renters will know that they are going to have the picture when it comes here, immediately after it has been trade-shown, without in any sense of the word contravening existing legislation or anything that we may impose in the Bill. Exhibitors may make a mental reservation: "This picture will do for my hall on a certain date." Many hon. Members know that that is called "pencilling it in."

On the other hand, until the day of the trade show no one can have any idea of the merits of a British picture. It has been seen by nobody until the trade show and it has not been possible to give it advance publicity. When its starting date arrives, the foreign film has an advantage over it of four, five or it may be nine months. When the British producer wants to sell his picture through the renter to the exhibitor, he finds that the exhibitor requires a very long period before he can show it. The object of the Amendment is to make everything fair to all concerned. I submit to my hon. and learned Friend that, as the law stands to-day, it gives a flying start to the foreign producer. The Amendment is, therefore, by no means revolutionary, because it sets out merely to restore to the British producer the state of fairness and justice.

It has one more advantage; in fact, it has a double advantage. If the Amendment were accepted, British producers would be allowed to make arrangements with exhibitors in this country. It would be only permissive upon the exhibitor. If I were a producer, for instance, I should be allowed to go to Mr. Ostrer and say, "I am going to produce four pictures in a row. These are the stories and these are the casts. Will you, after the trade show in three or four months' time, book this picture for me?" That would promptly get over one of the difficulties with which we are confronted to-day, that of obtaining the necessary finance. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that it was the financier that was spending the money, but I think he meant to say that it is the financiers who have lost the money.

Mr. T. Williams

Who finds the money?

Sir A. Baillie

The financiers.

Mr. T. Williams

Who lost it?

Sir A. Baillie

The producers lost it and the financiers found it. The Amendment would facilitate the financing of production, because there would be more certainty of early exhibition, and the gap between the production of the picture and the time when the money comes back would be minimised. For those reasons I recommend the Amendment to my right hon. and gallant Friend and to the House as a whole. One of the difficulties in British film production laid before the Moyne Committee was the obtaining of finance, and another was the unfair competition which results from exhibitors' dates in this country being booked up for long periods ahead by American films. I think the Amendment would obviate those difficulties. Whenever I have discussed the Amendment with people in the picture business, exhibitors, producers or renters, they have not been able to find any snag in it.

10.14 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor

I beg to second the Amendment.

In doing so I thoroughly endorse the arguments which have been put forward by my hon. Friend. I think it is most desirable, if possible, that the British and the American film should start with the same chance of being booked up, but, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, and as must be within the knowledge of every Member of the House, American films, before they come over here and are trade-shown to our exhibitors, have already been exhibited, not only in America, but in other parts of the world. Therefore, their quality is known, their entertainment value is known, and it is possible to find out, from the receipts in the cinema house, how each film has paid. Such a film, when it is trade-shown here, has an immense initial advantage over the British film which is being shown for the first time. This Amendment does not mean discrimination against the American film, but merely justice for the British film. The object is to enable the British film to start from scratch with the American. If the Amendment is carried, it will be possible for the exhibitor, before the British film is made, to inquire about it and satisfy himself that, when it is available, it will be a good film and he can book it up. That will be no disadvantage whatever to the exhibitor, but it will certainly be of great assistance to the British film industry.

10.17 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. I understand, of course, and appreciate what my hon. Friends are trying to do, but it must be recognised that this is an extremely retrograde step. We have prohibited blind bookings, whether of American or of British films, and it would be entirely contrary to our general commercial policy in this country to discriminate between British and foreign products. That is a consideration of some importance, though I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) will not agree with it. It is not, however, the only argument which I have to adduce. I have others which I hope will satisfy him. No representation has been made asking for this provision from any of the three important sections of the trade, and it was not recommended by the Moyne Committee. The Moyne Committee recommended that the blind booking provisions should be continued, and it seems a little difficult, when it is recognised as illegal, that one should maintain these provisions as regards foreign films and not maintain them as regards British films.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Sir A. Baillie) based a good many of his observations on the suggestion that a British film did not, before the trade show, acquire any publicity at all. I do not pretend to any expert knowledge of films, but I seem to have seen some extremely good publicity about various cinema stars who have been working in Elstree and various other film centres in the neighbourhood of London, and I think that, in the matter of Press publicity, it is a little difficult to say that the British exhibitor gets no indication, before the actual trade show, of the kind of film that he may expect to see at the show. If, in fact, there is not enough publicity, that is a matter about which, surely, the trade ought to do something.

Sir A. Baillie

Is it not the fact that it is not possible for anyone to know anything about the British film until there has been a trade show? It cannot be shown in this country until there has been a trade show, whereas the American picture has been shown for months in the United States, and everything is known about it.

The Solicitor-General

I appreciate that argument, but I thought my hon. Friend advanced the further argument that American films had a great deal of Press publicity, whereas British films did not. But, in my limited experience, I seem to have seen a good deal of publicity about British films.

Vice-Admiral Taylor

There is a good deal of difference between the publicity given to a film which has actually been shown and the publicity given to a film which has not been shown, on the supposition that it is a good one.

The Solicitor-General

I quite agree. It is, of course, thoroughly true that American or other foreign films have gone through the test of experience; but it is not by any means a guarantee, or passport, to British audiences that a film has been found acceptable in America. But whether that is so or not, the countervailing disadvantages of taking this very retrograde step of doing something to encourage blind booking, of which we want to see an end, are so great that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.