HC Deb 28 March 1938 vol 333 cc1677-93

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 16, leave out the Clause.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I regret very much that on this matter I should have to take a different line from that which has been taken in another place. I cannot help feeling that there are certain considerations with regard to this Amendment which were perhaps not fully present when this decision was come to, and I hope to show hon. Members that it is a decision to which it would really be impossible for the Government to give their assent. Let me explain what the effect of the Lords Amendment would be. The exhibitors' quota year runs from the 1st October in one year to the 30th September in the next. In the year in which we are now the exhibitors' quota year which started on the 1st October last is the last year for the quota as laid down under the Act of 1927. The quota laid down by that Act was 20 per cent. Failing any Amendment in this Bill that would have been the quota which the exhibitors would have had to fill for the year beginning the 1st October last and ending the 30th September next. The effect of Clause 16 is to reduce the exhibitors' quota of 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. I announced the Government's intention of making that alteration as far back as last summer, in the White Paper then issued setting out the Government's proposals in regard to the film industry.

I will tell the House exactly how it was that I came to the conclusion that such an alteration was desirable. I do not want to say anything which can be taken as discouraging the British production of films or throwing doubts on our capacity to produce good pictures. We have produced good pictures in the past, and I sincerely hope that we shall produce even better ones in the future. At the same time, while one does not want to do anything which makes the task of the British producer more difficult, we simply cannot close our eyes to the events which happened in the cinema world within the last two years, events which the Moyne Committee could not have anticipated. What was the position when that committe was sitting? It was that the film-producing industry were getting their hands on more money than they had ever been able to get their hands on before. They hardly had to go out to ask for it. They were practically stopped in the street and had it thrust upon them. During a year or two millions went from the City of London into the film-producing industry in this country. Those millions went. It is no good our shutting our eyes to the fact that there was extravagance and inefficiency and that there was a bubble which was bound to burst. It did burst, and after it burst it left the natural period of reaction which is bound to come whenever you have an inflated movement of that kind. I had to take those facts into consideration.

It is true that in the year before last the exhibitors' quota had been 20 per cent., and exhibitors had been showing a higher proportion than that, but there were quite a number of individual defaults, even in that period of boom production. I had to face the possibility, which has been very fully borne out, of a reaction from that period of extravagance and inefficiency which would produce a falling off in production and necessitate a lower exhibitors' quota. That coincided with another factor which, again, the Moyne Committee could not have anticipated. I refer to the date at which it was possible to introduce the Bill. It was not possible to introduce it until just after the exhibitors' quota period had started. The House knows that we had lengthy discussions, numerous Amendments brought forward and all sort of revolutionary plans put forward, almost overnight, from different quarters, dealing with the industry. All these created an uncertainty in the film-producing industry in this country which has held up, and will hold up, the production of films until this Bill is through, and for the first time the producers know exactly where they are.

I came to the conclusion as far back as last summer that the combination of these two factors would make it essential to reduce the exhibitors' quota from the 20 per cent. laid down 10 years ago, when neither of these two factors were present. I thought then and I still think, and everything that has happened has confirmed my view that I was perfectly right in doing that; but I should like hon. Members to put out of their minds for the moment the question whether that original proposal of mine was right or wrong. I want them to think of the actual position as it now is. I set out the change in the quota last August as part of the Government's proposals. It was included in the Bill, which got a Second Reading in November, and no exception was taken to it. Clause 16 passed through Committee without any discussion. The matter was not raised on the Report stage in this House.

Everything has gone to confirm the exhibitor in the belief that he could trust to the figure which has been set out as the figure proposed by the Government, and that that was the figure to which he would have to work. No one can blame him for having worked to that figure. What is the position to-day? Under the Lords Amendment we are suddenly again to make an alteration and to make the quota not 15 but 20 per cent., and that when half the year is already over. Six months have already gone and the exhibitors, trusting to the Government's proposals, have been working on the basis of 15 per cent. So far as the practical use of this proposal is concerned a further six months have gone, because I should say that the vast majority of exhibitors in this country have already booked their programmes for the next six months on the basis of the quota as it appears in the Bill. They have booked their programmes and cannot get out of them.

The effect of accepting the Amendment and of increasing the quota from 15 to 20 per cent. would be most unfortunate. I know that it will be said that it is done to help the producers, by giving them something more. I do not believe that it will help the producers one bit. Six months have gone; we cannot alter that, and for the six months still to go most of the exhibitors are already under contract. The net effect of accepting the Amendment would be, automatically, the day that this Bill becomes law to make a large number of exhibitors in this country certain defaulters, with no possibility of putting themselves right. I cannot think that that really can be rgarded as helpful to the industry. It is true that I could use widespread the powers that I have of exempting people who default, but the widespread use of powers of that kind are extraordinarily unsatisfactory. I do not believe that the producers would gain anything from this change. On the other hand, I feel that we could not have a worse start for the new Act and for what I hope will be a new era of films in this country than by making people who have trusted to the proposals which the Government put forward feel that they have been misled and made to face suddenly the prospects of losses.

It is a matter on which I feel very keenly, because I feel that it is on my word that to a large extent these people have relied. The proposal in the Amendment is, therefore, one that I must resist to the utmost, and I must ask the House to agree with me that it is an Amendment which we cannot accept without creating unfairness to a large number of people.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams

The right hon. Gentleman has to produce good, sound logical reasons for any disagreement he may have with the House of Lords. For my part, I am prepared to disagree with them on almost every occasion. Therefore, I can readily agree with him without giving any reason for it, except that I always feel glad to be able to oppose Noble Lords. On this occasion, apart from my personal feelings with regard to the other House, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has given justifiable reasons why we should oppose the Amendment. It is obvious that if, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, programmes have been filled up covering the next six months, we should simply be legislating thousands of people into default, through causes over which they have little or no control.

I went to the other place to listen to a debate there and I was horrified to hear a Noble Lord, an ex-Minister of State, suggest that we ought to delete Clause 16, with all its implications, and immediately take steps to amplify Clause 13, if need be, so that all those who were obliged to default against the law might be excused when the law had been broken. I cannot think that any hon. Member in this House, certainly no legal Member, would contemplate such a proposition for a single moment. Instead of relieving them from a liability which they could not carry out, the only safe thing for any Minister to do was to ascertain as closely as he could the possible quota which might be observed and to take such powers as is already in the old Act and in this Bill so that when through no fault of their own they could not fulfil the quota they could be relieved, as is the case under Clause 13. If Clause 16 were deleted there would be many defaults. There have been 430-odd defaults in the last three years, 200 defaults last year, when 220 films were made, and the estimate for the next 12 months is approximately only 50. In such circumstances, the Films Council would be spending nine-tenths of its time doing nothing but considering applications for relief from liabilities.

I do not understand the mentality of those in another place who moved the deletion of Clause 16 and only slightly amended the Second Schedule. When the Bill passed its Second Reading and went to Committee the exhibitors' quota for the first year was 10 per cent. We must assume that the Board of Trade officials had ascertained what films were likely to be produced and the quota which the exhibitors could fairly and squarely fulfil, and their decision was 10 per cent. In Committee, after pressure, the right hon. Gentleman increased the exhibitors' quota in the first year from 10 to 12½ per cent. The Noble Lords who moved the deletion of Clause 16, thereby making the exhibitors' quota 20 instead of 15 per cent., amended only the second part of the exhibitors' quota in the Schedule for the first operative year from 12½ to 15 per cent.

Even they have no confidence that films will be available to fill a quota beyond 15 per cent. for the year ending September this year. How they expect during the next six months for a 20 per cent. quota to be filled when the best they hope will be filled is 15 per cent., I do not understand. It would be a ludicrous situation if with our eyes open we legislate people into default and then have to employ 21 persons almost full time investigating whether default has taken place or not. I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in resisting the Amendment. Unless Clause 16 is reinstated the new Act will not start in a good environment. One large portion of the industry will be hostile, and that will be very bad indeed. I hope hon. Members who have listened to the President's statement will see the wisdom of not trying to do the impossible. It is far better to face the fact that 15 per cent. is a possibility though not a certainly, while a 20 per cent. quota is out of the question.

547 p.m.

Captain A. Evans

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in his concluding remarks drew attention to the fact that a defence of the Lords Amendment had been prepared, and suggested that it would be pressed to its logical conclusion. I think my right hon. Friend did himself an injustice in under-estimating the persuasive power of his eloquence. I did my best to present the case in favour of the proposals then on the Paper in the name of other hon. Members and myself on Report stage, but the President has undoubtedly made out a case for certain practical difficulties, and from a practical point of view I do not see how it is possible to overcome them. If we accept the Motion and reject the Lords Amendment it only means that we are postponing a 20 per cent. quota for six months, and in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said I for my part do not propose to press my point of view.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Day

I am glad of the stand taken by the President of the Board of Trade on this Amendment. There can be no doubt that it was passed in another place by Noble Lords who are not quite acquainted with the situation of the film trade. The President of the Board of Trade has made a masterly study of it during the time the Bill has been before the House, and the Parliamentary Secretary also seems to have the whole situation at his finger-tips. For further corrobation of the right hon. Gentleman's contention we have only to look at the experience of the last Act. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said there had been 426 exhibitor defaulters, but according to the Board of Trade returns there were 484 during the three years ended 1936. That is not the end of the story. The hon. and gallant Member for South Padding-ton (Vice-Admiral Taylor) said there were redundant exhibitors, but I would remind him that there are also redundant renters, because 17 renters failed to comply with their quota.

No doubt all exhibitors would be only too pleased to show first-class British films in all their programmes, provided they could rely on being able to obtain them. The difficulty of the majority of British exhibitors is that they have been unable to get these first-class attractions. If they could get films which would do ordinary business there would not be a call for foreign films. If the Amendment was agreed to by this House we should be making a lot of defaulters, because there is no doubt the trade cannot possibly get 20 per cent. of good British films to satisfy their audiences. You cannot make an audience patronise a bad film; you cannot make a person spend his money in buying something which is no good, and if you are going to try and force the British public to take a 20 per cent. quota of British films you will be doing more harm to the industry than it is possible to imagine. Why make exhibitors break the law for the purpose of excusing them? All you are doing is to set them a task which it is impossible for them to carry out. If we accept the Amendment we are only saying; "We are giving you a quota which we know you cannot get, but if you do not get it come to us and ask us to forgive you." I hope the House will unanimously support the right hon. Gentleman in resisting the Amendment.

543 p.m.

Mr. Mander

I think the President of the Board of Trade has made out a strong case for resisting the Amendment, although one comes to that conclusion with some reluctance. While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, I do not altogether feel that some of the arguments he used were sound. He laid down the doctrine that because the Government in July or August of last year said they were going to put in a 15 per cent. quota it must be assumed that it would be a 15 per cent. quota, quite overlooking the fact that there is a House of Commons and another place which might make substantial alterations to the figure. Furthermore, he made an implied attack on another place which I thought was rather surprising. He practically said to them that as this proposed went through the House of Commons and aroused no opposition, the idea that any serious alteration would be made in another place could not be seriously considered for a moment. That is the argument which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest. I say that as long as we have a second Chamber of the kind we have it must be treated with more seriousness than the President seemed to suggest. On the whole I think he was right.

5.55 p.m.

Sir A. Baillie

I rise to support the Lords Amendment and I regret having once again to disagree with the President of the Board of Trade. In his peroration he based his case on the fact that he had given a personal guarantee to a body of persons known as film exhibitors. As a matter of fact, the Lords Amendment merely continues the existence until it is properly terminated of certain Sections in the existing Act. The reasons to which we have listened this afternoon for disagreeing with the Lords Amendment are almost precisely the same reasons as have been adduced by the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association—reasons with which we have all been circulated to-day or quite recently. I do not think they are reasons which can be satisfactorily sustained. The exhibitors tell us that they object to the Amendment because they say that since the White Paper was issued in July or August last year they decided to go on the assumption that from the passing of the Bill the exhibitors' quota would be reduced from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent.; they tell us that they proceeded on the assumption that the proposal in the White Paper would become law. I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). What right have the exhibitors, or any other body of people in this country, to take action op such an assumption?

They also argue that because no attempt was made in the House during the passage of the Bill to strike out Clause 16 they were even more justified in basing their plans on the reduced quota. As a matter of fact, there was an Amendment on the Order Paper during the Committee stage to delete Clause 16. I know it was not moved, but that was owing to an oversight on the part of those who put their names to it—I agree a regrettable oversight. I should like to ask again: since when have the exhibitors or any other body of persons had the right to assume that a Bill presented to the House is going to pass in precisely the form in which it was introduced; or any right to assume that a Bill when it has been passed by this House cannot be amended in another place? It has been stated categorically that if this Amendment was accepted there would be a shortage of films and a very large number of defaulters; that we are therefore imposing legislation which will create defaulters. We heard the same argument in Committee. If that was really the case I should not support the Amendment for one moment, but no facts or figures have been produced to me to show that the Amendment would mean an increase in the number of defaulters. On the contrary, the facts seem to justify an opinion in the opposite direction.

The figures are now available up to the 15th March, showing the registration of films for this year, and I should like to know whether they are correct. The total number of long films registered this renters' quota year, up to 15th March, was 752, and of that number 197, or approximately 27 per cent., were British films. Considering those figures, I am not satisfied that there is a shortage, and I suggest that a quota of 26 per cent. would be justified, as it would give the exhibitors precisely the same margin of choice in the case of British films as they have in the case of foreign films. It also appears—and I have heard no evidence to the contrary—that the total number of British films registered this year is very nearly at the same level as in the preceding year. My right hon. Friend, for reasons which he has given, wishes to make a concession to the cinema exhibitors. I suggest that in any case the concession of a reduction to 15 per cent. is manifestly far too great.

When one considers the facts which I have given, I think it will be seen that that concession is very significant. As the Minister pointed out, the Government's White Paper was issued only at the end of July or in August, and it was only then that any indication was given to the exhibitors that the Government even contemplated a reduction during these last six months of the quota year from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. Therefore, it may be assumed that, since the exhibitors make their bookings six months ahead, when they received that indication they had already booked ahead to January or February of this year. One may assume that they had booked the full 20 per cent. of British films, in accordance with their Statutory obligations. It now seems that, since the quota is to be only 15 per cent. for the year ending September next and since they have fulfilled the 20 per cent. quota for the last six months, they will require to fulfil a quota of only 10 per cent. for the remaining months of the year. That is the significance of the concession that is being made. It seems to me that if the exhibitors acted so promptly on the basis of a mere indication of the Government's contemplation of a reduction of the quota, that is the best argument for a good stiff protective measure. On the first occasion on which they could avail themselves of the reduction in the number of British pictures which they must show, they seized the opportunity without undue delay for increasing their foreign bookings. For those reasons I support the Amendment.

Opposition to the Amendment has largely been on the ground that there will be a shortage of the type of pictures which the exhibitor must have. Such figures as I have do not prove that. Rather do they show that there will not be such a shortage, and I hope that before the discussion of this matter is concluded, the Government will say what is their interpretation of the figures I have given, and whether they are correct or incorrect. If those figures are correct, I feel that Clause 16 is a breach of faith with the renters, who have already acquired their supply, and a breach of faith with the producers who, having made their pictures, will no longer find the same percentage of guaranteed market as has hitherto existed. Unless my figures and conclusions are entirely wrong, I suggest that this will be a very bad start for the Bill, when it becomes an Act.

6.6 p.m.

Sir W. Wayland

I came to the House with the determination to support my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Sir A. Baillie) in supporting the Lords Amendment; but for the first time since I have been in the House, I have been converted by a Minister. After the speech of my right hon. Friend, I feel that I cannot support the Lords Amendment. Although I do not agree with all the Minister's remarks about the quotas, the argument which struck me as being most forcible, practical and convincing was his reference to the fact that six months out of the 12 months of the film year have passed. Therefore, in those circumstances I support my right hon. Friend in opposing the Lords Amendment.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. McEntee

I find myself in a difficulty in which few other hon. Members find themselves. I was born in a country where the people are always against the Government, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), I am always against the House of Lords. In this case, I have to choose between two evils, and I prefer the Government to the House of Lords. There is an old saying that if one has to choose between two evils, one should choose neither, but in this case I feel that I must choose one. In supporting the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in opposing the Lords Amendment, I am influenced by my own reasoning. I have no interests in the film industry, although I have friends in that industry, as in many other industries. I was, however, influenced by the Minister's speech, and by the fact that independent cinematograph exhibitors have told me that they have endeavoured to book British films, but that, in spite of making every reasonable effort, they have found it impossible to do so in some cases.

If that be so—and I believe it is in some instances, at any rate—what will happen if the Lords Amendment is accepted? A number of exhibitors will not be able to fulfil the quota requirements and will be compelled to ask for exemptions, and the Bill, as an Act, will be a perfect farce. It will give encouragement to people to break the law, and the Minister will be given a power which he ought not to have, namely, the power to grant exemptions on a very large scale. I do not think it was ever intended that any power of exemption given to a Minister should be exercised save in exceptional circumstances, but in this case, everybody might be exempted. I do not think that is a situation which the House ought to create. The exhibitors have to make their contracts in advance, and in making those contracts they have very little to guide them.

If I were an exhibitor, and had been compelled to make bookings ahead, on what ground would I have made those bookings? I should have known that the Bill was introduced, that it was given a Second Reading with the 15 per cent. quota in it, that it went to the Standing Committee, and that an Amendment on the Paper to delete Clause 16 was not, in fact, moved, either because the hon. Members who had put it on the Paper had realised that it would be unwise to move it, or because they had been converted to another point of view. I should then have asked myself whether I would book ahead on the basis of a 15 per cent. quota or a 20 per cent. quota. In view of the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for me to expect that the Bill would be passed with a 15 per cent. quota. I do not think anybody would have been justified in concluding that when the Bill went to another place, particularly in view of the fact that the Government, as well as hon. Members of the Opposition, had agreed to the 15 per cent., a different percentage would be inserted. For those reasons, it seems to me that it is reasonable now to leave the figure at 15 per cent. and, therefore, I am compelled to support the Government on this occasion.

6.14 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor

I support everything which my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Sir A. Baillie) has said concerning the Lords Amendment. Reference has been made to the fact that on the Committee stage an Amendment was not moved to delete Clause 16. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge has explained that that was due to an oversight. It was a bad mistake, and I think it only shows what an estimable institution the other place is in seeing that anything which may have been left out of a Bill by mistake is brought to the attention of the House. The hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) said that one cannot make an audience patronise a bad British film. As a matter of fact, audiences have bad British films, in the form of British quickies, forced upon them in many cases by the renter, owing to the block booking system. The exhibitor is forced by the renter to accept films which of his own choice he would never show and which he does not desire to show, and unfortunately no legislation can stop that practice. It is incorrect of the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) to say that you cannot make audiences patronise bad British films. Unfortunately, bad films are forced on the British public by the renter, as a result of block booking. In other cases, there are exhibitors who have been prepared in the past to accept bad British films, in the form of quickies, because those films were so cheap. They were almost given away. In those cases the British public are having. forced upon them by the exhibitors something which the exhibitors know quite well the public do not wish to see.

It is true that there have been many cases of default, but it is also the fact that many cases of default have been due to the redundancy of cinemas in certain districts. Exhibitors know quite well that in many districts there are too many cinemas competing one against the other. It is impossible for all those cinemas to get the films which they desire, and that is a great reason for default. The President of the Board of Trade has not mentioned that circumstance at all. No allusion has been made to it, but it is the fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge has given figures showing that there is a sufficiency of films at the present time to enable the exhibitor to fulfil his quota obligation of 20 per cent. Also the producer has at his disposal the studios, the actors, the cameramen, the technicians, and everything that is required to produce in this country any number of films which is required, and more than a sufficient number to fulfil a 20 per cent. quota. I do not understand why the President of the Board of Trade should say that there are not sufficient films at the present time and I hope he will be able to deal with the figures which have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge. Everyone is desirous of getting rid of the quota quickies as soon as possible. They ought never to have been produced and they were only produced because the American renter got round the Act. The quickies that have been made will be available under this Bill, I think, for two years, or rather longer.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. and gallant Member now seems to be getting a very long way from the Amendment which is before the House.

Vice-Admiral Taylor

These quota quickies constitute one type of film with which it will be possible to fulfil this 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. quota. Am I not therefore permitted to speak about that type of film?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking about what may happen in the next two years. That cannot possibly be affected by this Amendment.

Vice-Admiral Taylor

I submit that this is a consideration which arises in connection with the 15 per cent. or the 20 per cent.—the 20 per cent. under the present Act or the 15 per cent. under this Bill. These exhibitors are prepared at present to exhibit quota quickies as part of their programmes. Equally, they will be prepared to do so when this Bill becomes an Act. It would be very much better if we maintained the 20 per cent. instead of reducing it to 15 per cent., in order that these quota quickies should be got rid of as soon as possible.

Mr. Goldie

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly tell me what is a quickie? He will excuse my ignorance.

Mr. Denville

There is no excuse.

Vice-Admiral Taylor

I do not know whether the hon. Member is serious or not.

Mr. Goldie

I am serious.

Vice-Admiral Taylor

The quota quickie is a type of very poor, indifferent film which was introduced by the American renter in order to comply with the law under the 1927 Act. It is a short film and a bad film which the public do not wish to see and which is given to exhibitors for practically nothing.

Mr. Goldie

I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member. Now I know.

Mr. Denville

May I add—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think it would be better to keep to the Amendment which is before the House.

Vice-Admiral Taylor

I apologise for having been led away by the hon. Member on the question of the quota quickies, but I beg the President of the Board of Trade in the interests of the British film industry as a whole to consider the producer. He has considered the exhibitor and has, I think, adopted a very dangerous principle in quoting the White Paper and saying that the exhibitors assumed that it would become law. He has done that on behalf of the exhibitors, but he seems to have forgotten the producers. We shall never have an efficient film industry in this country unless we consider the producer a great deal more than he has been considered in this Bill.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

I can only speak again by leave of the House, and I intervene again mainly because of what was said by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) who is not now in his place. That, however, is only tit for tat, because I was out of the House when he made his speech, but the matter to which he referred has also been mentioned by other speakers. I am not saying that because the Government stated in July their intention to introduce a Bill which would contain a particular provision, that was a pledge which was binding on this House or on another place and could not be altered. All I do say is that it is obviously binding on the person who gave that pledge to do his best to carry it out. Secondly, I would say that, human nature being what it is, and the Government having given that pledge, when that particular detail passes unchallenged, in stage after stage of the proceedings on this Bill, it is not unnatural that ordinary persons should act on the assumption that a certain thing was going to happen. We are told about what a terrible thing it is that exhibitors should act on this assumption, but I should not be surprised to find that the producers have been acting for the last six months on the assumption that a Bill would go through which would give them a quota—in spite of the fact that things might happen in another place, or between this House and another place, which might prevent that becoming a fact. Yet I do not suppose that the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks it wrong that they should have been acting up to now on the assumption that there would, in fact, be such a provision as I have indicated.

I rise only to defend myself against the charge—I am sure not seriously made—of having acted unconstitutionally and of having done something to tie the hands of this House or of another place. I think all who heard my speech will agree that that was not the purport of it. In fact, the sequence of events was such that the people to whom I refer naturally acted in the way they did. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Sir A. Baillie) are beside the point of my argument. My argument is that for the next six months of the present quota year most exhibitors are already booked up and therefore it does not matter how many British films are readily available. I would however tell him this. It is a thing which I did not particularly want to say, but as he has challenged me I will say it. It is our information that a large proportion of these British films which have been registered in the last year are of poor quality. They obtained very low markings and indeed, we have had, during this year, about the worst type of quota quickie that we have had at any time in the history of the industry. I, for one, am not going to be a party as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested to forcing those down the throats of the exhibitors, because I believe that even from the short-sighted point of view of getting more money to the producer, it is wrong.

Vice-Admiral Taylor

I do not want to force quota quickies down anybody's throat, but if the British public have to see these quickies, I prefer that they should see them during the next six months and never see them again. Under this Bill they can be carried on for two years. I want to cut down the time. My right hon. Friend wants to extend it.

Mr. Stanley

The hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposal definitely was that we should put the percentage up to 20 per cent. so that in the next six months we should make the exhibitors take these quickies. I say that, judged on their merits, and giving the exhibitor, as I believe I do under this Bill, a fair choice, the quickies will never see the light of day and they ought not to see it. But I am not going to be a party to forcing them down the exhibitors' throats. There is no surer way of keeping people out of the cinemas and thus closing the cinemas and, therefore, closing the market for those producers for whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks.