HC Deb 24 February 1938 vol 332 cc597-605

Amendment made: In page 32, line 21, leave out "Films," and insert "said."—[Captain Wallace.]

4.33 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison

I beg to move, in page 32, line 31, at the end, to insert: (b) to enquire into the practicability of and, if possible, to make recommendations for enabling any group of exhibitors to co-operate in the booking of films. This modest Amendment is one to which some of us attach a good deal of importance, and we trust that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will give it his best attention. On the Second Reading of the Bill there was a chorus of objections from all parts of the House to any Advisory Council being formed on the lines of that which has existed hitherto. It was described as being an almost useless body, and so pressure, not only on the Second Reading, but on the Committee stage of the Bill, was brought-to bear, and the President of the Board of Trade finally agreed to set up the Cinematograph Films Council that is now in the Bill. Everybody trusts that the council will get down to some of the problems facing the industry. We all hope that this Bill, when it reaches the Statute Book within the next week or two, will work satisfactorily, that any differences that there may have been will be speedily forgotten, and that every section of the trade will combine to try and make the best of things. Upon their doing this will largely depend the success or otherwise of the council, and the amount of good will that is brought to bear, particularly by the trade representatives, will also play a very important part.

This question of independent exhibitors being allowed to co-operate in booking films has been a thorny question in the trade for a number of years, and a good many hard words have been spoken over it, but it seems to me that if the trade interests, the Films Council and the public were to get their teeth into this question, considerable advantage to all sections of the trade would emerge, and probably a scheme could be devised which would be welcomed by all. For the benefit of hon. Members who do not know, I would explain that the position is somewhat unusual. The owner of one or two, or it may be half-a-dozen, cinemas has to compete for his films against the representatives of a combine which may be in a position to book for 300 or 400 cinemas, and if the growth of circuits in this industry increases, it will become a more and more difficult problem for the owner of one or two or half-a-dozen cinemas to compete against such people. As time goes on, this trade, like other trades, looks like getting into fewer and fewer hands, and I think this House has always prided itself that when that sort of thing has taken place it has done its best to see that the small man has not been ruthlessly driven to the wall, but has been given an opportunity of surviving.

If you take a remote district like Inverness-shire, in the North, or Devonshire in the South, it will be seen that it would be convenient for the owners of small, independent cinemas to get together and agree that one of them should book for the whole lot, but the renters will not allow them to do that at the present time. To such an extent has this been carried that I am informed that in the case of miners' welfare institutes, where they show perhaps on only one night a week, where the booking with the renters is almost infinitesimal, and where it should obviously be for the convenience of all concerned that one person should be able to look after the collective booking for half-a-dozen of these institutes, up to now the Renters Society have not seen fit to allow them to do that, but have insisted that every individual hall, with the exception, of course, of the collectively-owned combines, should book its own films. I am not proposing that this co-operative booking should be made compulsory; all that I am asking is that the Government should allow the question to go before the Films Council. It would have advantages certainly for the small, independent man and for the renters as well, because the amount of money that the renters spend in sending travellers to each individual cinema must be enormous. There must be a great waste of money in this way, and I am sure that a scheme could be devised, as in other industries, whereby benefits would result to all parties.

It may be asked, "Why should they not agree among themselves?" Why should they not agree about quite a number of things? All that I am asking is that this question should be one of those to be referred by the President of the Board of Trade to the Films Council, so that they may endeavour to reach agreement among themselves and formulate a scheme. If they could do that, we should be very pleased in this House, and the trade itself would greatly benefit. If the question were referred to the Films Council and they could not agree upon a scheme, at any rate we should have done our best, and we cannot do more. I am only asking that the President or his representative, knowing how keenly the small exhibitors, particularly in country districts, feel on this question, should go thus far and ask the new Films Council to look into this question and to see whether they can agree among themselves. If they can, and if they put up a scheme, I am sure we shall have no objection.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger

I beg to second the Amendment.

I would say to those hon. Members who are not conversant with the position of the small, independent cinema owners in the country that most of the cinemas in this country are controlled by big circuits, and surely I can appeal to hon. Members opposite to give the small, in- dependent man as good a chance as it is possible for him to have. We believe that if a system of co-operative booking were inaugurated among the independent proprietors, it would give them a chance of competing on more level terms with the big circuits than is the case at the present time. I would remind hon. Members, and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary, that in this Amendment we are only asking that the Films Council shall investigate the possibility, and I think that is not asking too much.

4.42 p.m.

Captain Wallace

I am sure the House will not want me to go into the merits of this proposal, because all that is asked in the Amendment is that it should be made a definite function of the Cinematograph Films Council to consider the question of co-operative booking of films by exhibitors. The terms of reference of this Council have been drafted very widely, as I think the House will recognise, and there is no doubt whatever in my mind that these terms of reference, which will be in the Statute, will include the ability to consider this particular question. One has only to read Sub-section (2) of Clause 39, and particularly the beginning of paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) to see that. But the point that I wish to put is that if we multiply the definite functions which we give to the Films Council, we shall make it more difficult for them to consider matters which are not specifically mentioned in their terms of reference. I think it is obvious that the exhibitor members of the Council, of whom there will be four, will raise this matter, and I hope therefore that the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, on the ground that the power which he seeks to give to the Council is already inherent in it.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams

I am afraid I am obliged to disagree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. There is no specific instruction in either Sub-section (2,a) or Sub-section (2,b), or indeed in Sub-section (2,c), that this particular subject should be considered.

Captain Wallace

I never said there was.

Mr. Williams

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred the House to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2). Paragraph (a) does call upon the Council to keep the industry under review, with special reference to the development of the production side, and paragraph (c) simply refers to the provision of an annual report of the proceedings of the Council. There is no specific reference to the question of co-operative bookings. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that the council ought to investigate this problem, there ought to be a specific instruction, such as the Amendment suggests. There is nothing compulsory about it, apart from the fact that they must in due course consider the question. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must agree that if in existing circumstances an injustice is being felt by 3,500 independent exhibitors, the problem ought to be examined by the Films Council. We might give the Films Council a long list of questions to examine, and we might invite them to concentrate their efforts at the wrong time and in the wrong place. Clause 39 is a modest one, with certain definite powers and certain powers that are indefinite. Here is an instruction with the power—there is no compulsion about it—that some time, in their own sweet way, they shall examine this very grave problem.

We have approximately four large circuits owning 1,250 cinemas out of nearly 5,000. When it is a question of booking a foreign or a British film those circuits get the best terms, because they book for a large number of cinemas, while the poor, miserable owner of a cinema in the Provinces only gets certain films and on such terms as are imposed upon him. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman understands how delicate the situation is with regard to a large number of comparatively small independent cinemas. I recall the occasion when a halfpenny tax on the very cheap seats in two cinemas in my own Parliamentary Division meant that they made a loss for two successive years. That was due simply to the addition of a halfpenny tax on the cheaper seats. It may seem in-credible to residents in the City of London, where high prices are paid for good, bad or indifferent seats, but the Provinces, where the money is really earned and one gets little opportunity of spending it on pleasure, is a part of the country where the Government ought to try to be charitable and helpful when a situation of this kind arises. It is no use our blaming the renter or the foreigner. We have to take our own experience over a long period and see what has happened.

I would put to the right hon. Member this possibility—it may be remote—to indicate what might happen in the twinkling of an eye when there is no power on the part of the Board of Trade to prevent it. It is known that one individual has control of two large circuits, and it is on the cards that he is making a big effort to become controller of a third circuit. If he gets control of the third circuit, there is no reason why he should not get control of the fourth. Then one person would be absolutely in control not only of the four big circuits, not only of 1,250 or 1,300 cinemas, but he could use or abuse all the independent cinema proprietors as he wished. It is not impossible, in case all the power lands into the hands of one person, for him to exact what terms he cares to impose upon the 3,500 independent cinemas. That would compel one independent cinema after another, in sheer desperation, to lease its cinema to the person running the large circuits. That is the only safety valve that is left, namely, to lease the cinema instead of running it on his own, because he cannot get proper terms. One independent cinema after another is going into the big circuits, and the circuits are becoming bigger and bigger.

As the circuits grow, the bargaining power of the remaining independent owners becomes less and less. A point might easily be reached where, overnight, one person in charge of the big circuits could sell them to America, so that we should have no control over the production or the distribution of films in this country. The Board of Trade have already admitted that they have no power to prevent that eventuality, should it arise. We do not want it to arise. What we ask is that impossible terms should not be imposed. Yesterday, we gave power to renters up to six persons to act as cooperative renters. Why not give that same power to a co-operative body of exhibitors? We do not even ask for that power. All that we ask is that the Films Council should examine this problem, and if, in their wisdom, they feel that they ought to produce a scheme and commend it to the President of the Board of Trade, then the President of the Board of Trade should act upon the recommendation of the Films Council. It is a most reasonable request, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will respond to it.

4.52 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood)

I am not competent to speak about the merits of this question, but it seems to me that this is a matter that the Films Council might consider. There are, however, obvious objections to including the Amendment in the Statute, because when you once begin to enumerate a matter of this kind you may have to insert a good many others. It may meet the wishes of hon. Members if I undertake on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade, to refer this matter to the council, and ask them to report on it to my right hon. Friend. In that way we should avoid putting this particular matter into the Statute, and the undertaking would ensure that the matter would be considered by the Films Council, as hon. Members wish. Perhaps on that understanding the Amendment might be withdrawn.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

I am glad to hear the statement of my right hon. Friend, which will go a long way to meet us. There is, however, one aspect of Subsection (2, b), on which I should like to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary with a view to some slight alteration being made in another place. As paragraph (b) stands, the Board of Trade has no power to do that which the Minister of Health says it will do. The Board of Trade can act only when it receives a request. I have no doubt the request would be forthcoming.

Sir K. Wood

"Or otherwise."

Mr. Williams

Does "or otherwise" mean those who have a substantial interest, or do the words "or otherwise" relate to the request? If "or otherwise" means that there is power, whether requested or not, then I am satisfied, but if "or otherwise" means those who have a substantial interest, then the point needs attention.

The Solicitor-General

I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade can make inquiry at the request of any persons, or for any other reason. The words "or otherwise" can be interpreted in the widest sense.

Mr. R. C. Morrison

The right hon. Gentleman has given an assurance that if I withdraw the Amendment the President of the Board of Trade will refer this matter to the Films Council that is to be set up. On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.55 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, in page 33, line 19, at the end, to insert: (7) The said Council may, subject to any such limitations and conditions as it thinks proper, delegate any of its functions to a committee of the Council consisting of such members of the Council as it may determine. Owing to the expressions of opinion in the Standing Committee that the Cinematograph Films Council, consisting of 21 members, was too large a body to deal with routine matters which might arise under the new legislation, such as quota defaults, an undertaking was given by my right hon. Friend to consider whether power could be taken to authorise the Council to delegate some of its duties to sub-committees. This Amendment implements the undertaking then given. It will leave full power in the hands of the Council to delegate any functions they may wish to committees of the Council, who can report direct to the Board of Trade.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger

Perhaps the Solicitor-General will recollect that the President of the Board of Trade stated in Committee that probably there will be occasions when in his decision he will be guided largely by the majority view on the Films Council of independent members. In connection with the subcommittees to be set up, would it be possible for a sub-committee to have no independent members on it? There may be occasions where sectional trade interests would be considering a matter in the sub-committee, and they would not report back to the main committee but direct to the President of the Board of Trade.

The Solicitor-General

I think that is a misconception. The Amendment gives power to set up sub-committees, but it does not delegate the obligation of the Council as a whole to advise the President of the Board of Trade. It is only a machinery arrangement as between the Council and its own sub-committees.

Mr. Mander

It could appoint a subcommittee consisting wholly of independent members which would report to the Council.

The Solicitor-General

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.