HC Deb 12 August 1947 vol 441 cc2262-5
Earl Winterton

(By Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the allegation made by certain film producers in the U.S. that the new tax on U.S. films entering this country is a violation of the Loan Agreement, he has any statement to make on the subject.

This is the Question of which I gave Private Notice yesterday, and which through no fault either of the Department concerned or myself, could not be answered yesterday—namely, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any statement to make upon the effects of the retaliation by the United States film industry against the new tax on United States films entering this country as being a violation of the Loan Agreement.

Mr. Dalton

None, Sir, beyond saying that I do not accept this allegation.

Earl Winterton

In view of the fact that reasonable opinion on both sides of the Atlantic agrees that it is necessary, so to speak, to dam the flow of dollars for this purpose, and that, as the fight hon. Gentleman is aware, there was discussion on a high level, both through the Government and the trade interests, on both sides of the Atlantic, to find a compromise, can the right hon. Gentleman now give an undertaking that between now and the introduction of the quota Bill, efforts will be made to rediscuss this matter, in view of the fact that whatever may be the view of the right hon. Gentleman or his supporters, we do not want to upset our relations with America?

Mr. Dalton

No doubt this will be one of many matters on which the United States Government may wish to express their views to us, and there are many on which we wish to express our views to them, but I am sure the noble Lord is right in saying that it is the opinion of all of us that we really must restrict severely and drastically the flow of dollars for this particular purpose.

Mr. Oliver Stanley

What is the position of the tax at the moment, in view of the fact that it requires an affirmative Resolution, and no affirmative Resolution will be passed by this House before we adjourn? Is the tax in operation or not?

Mr. Dalton

An order was made on 7th August under the procedure with which the House is familiar, imposing this duty. As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said in the course of the Debate, the Government undertake that this shall be subject to affirmative Resolution, again according to our ordinary procedure. The rule is—and I have verified this—that within 28 sitting days from the moving of the Order, the affirmative Resolution must be passed, failing which the tax lapses. Meanwhile the tax is legally in operation. But, in fact, owing to the decision of the American film producers not to send further films at present to this country, though it is legally in operation, it is not operating upon any inflow of films at the present time.

Mr. Benn Levy

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if anybody else had even seemed to suggest that the course of British legislation should be deflected by threats from Hollywood, the noble Lord would have been the very first to be vociferously shocked?

Mr. Speaker

I did not quite understand the point of that question. Questions should be asked for obtaining information.

Mr. Levy

The point of the question, surely, centres upon the word "retaliation" which is the threat that prompted the noble Lord to raise this matter.

Earl Winterton

I must ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a personal explanation. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), in the guise of a question, brought a wounding charge against me, and I must ask the protection of the Chair against this charge, which is totally unfounded.

Mr. Speaker

I thought I had pointed out that the question was quite unnecessary. I will be quite frank with the House. I very much deprecate questions from any side of the House which are asked in order to annoy any hon. Member. After all, questions should be asked to obtain information and not to create spite.

Mr. Levy

May I make it perfectly plain that the intention of my question was certainly not to annoy the noble Lord? I ask to be believed on that. As a matter of fact, I thought I had put it in a fairly complimentary way when I said that the noble Lord would be the very first to be shocked by such a thing, which I believe to be true. I raised the matter because it seemed to me to be one of serious public importance, and that it should be made clear that threats from Hollywood, such as have been broadcast in the papers, should be completely ignored by this House.

Mr. Speaker

I hope honour is satisfied on both sides of the House.