HC Deb 13 February 1948 vol 447 cc701-5

11.6 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out "three," and to insert "six."

This Amendment gives effect to the promise made during the Committee stage that we would lengthen the period from three to six months, and I hope in view of the fact that we had the discussion in the Committee stage, and that this promise was given and is now being implemented, the House will agree to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton (Aldershot)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end, to insert: and that the percentages prescribed therein for each of the purposes hereinbefore mentioned shall not be less than the percentages prescribed by the order to be made under Subsection (1) of this Section. The object of this Amendment is to raise the same point which was raised during the Committee stage in order to give more security about the quotas which will apply to the production and exhibition of British films. I understand that the probable reason why the Government, after consideration, rejected the previous Amendment on this matter was because it was generally thought that there might be many defaults if the percentage of 35 per cent. were now applied to British films. I do not think there is any particular reason why that percentage should have been rejected, because the Films Council would naturally take into account the fact that the percentage could not be filled owing to the shortage of films, and I do not see that any particular harm would be done.

If that is the reason which has impelled the Government to reject the Amendment, I suggest that the new Amendment represents a reasonable compromise, and that it would have the effect, when the quota is fixed by the Board of Trade later on this year, that the makers of British films could be assured that that percentage of the quota would be the minimum during the life of the Act. I suggest very strongly that, when the Bill goes to another place, this Amendment might be incorporated in it, because it will give that extra security, both to those now engaged in the production of British films and also to the capital which may be risked in the future, that the percentage will not fall below the minimum which the Board of Trade fixes when the time comes.

Mr. Belcher

I must resist this Amendment. The House is conversant with the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends during the Committee stage, and I do not see that it is necessary to go to any great length in stating the case against it. It is that, while we hope that the number of films produced in this country will steadily increase, and while my right hon. Friend has given an undertaking that he will, year by year, raise the quota according to the number of films available, we cannot predict with any certainty what is going to happen in future. We may fix a figure for this year, and it may well be that, for two or three years, the production of films will increase, so that the quota can be increased accordingly. We do not know that, at some time in the future, something quite unpredictable may not happen.

For instance, the number of films available may be insufficient to enable the exhibitor to meet his quota. Therefore, we do not want to tie ourselves in the way suggested by the Amendment. In any case, the putting of a figure into this Bill would not guarantee the production of a single extra film. It would simply place an obligation on the exhibitors, who have always claimed, with good reason, that they ought to have some guarantee that the figure imposed upon them by the Board of Trade should be capable of being met out of the production resources of the country. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject this Amendment, and will leave us free to fix the quota according to the number of films available.

Mr. Walter Fletcher (Bury)

The argument of the Parliamentary Secretary has, of course, a certain basis in reality, but when he says that the Government are going to inform the trade, from year to year of the increased numbers that will be available, I should have thought that would have compelled him to accept this Amendment. Surely, the one thing the producer wants to have is some platform on which to build the whole of his business for the coming year. We listened to what was said during the Debate on the Committee stage, and we have substituted the idea that when the Films Council has examined the matter, and, after examination, has fixed the minimum number for the first year, that shall be regarded as permanent. To talk, as we heard, of increasing the number of studios, surely presupposes that we shall not go back; that, after this scheme has started, we shall not have less films. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider his decision, and to regard this as a sort of solid factor in a world of otherwise complete conjecture.

Mr. Collins (Taunton)

I hope my hon. Friend will look at this matter again because it appears to me to be a very reasonable and desirable proposition, not from the point of view of the exhibitor, but from that of the producer. A very substantial section of the industry cannot begin to plan at all until they know, with some reasonable degree of security, exactly what proportion of the market they can hope to share. I am thinking, particularly, of the smaller film-making units to whom this particular question is a matter of life or death. Percentages of quota are mentioned in the Clause, and I hope that the Board of Trade will give consideration to different percentages for different sections of the industry. After all, one must be assessed on a footage basis, and that matter should also be considered.

I entirely subscribe to the view that we should now be considering a minimum, in the hope that we can use that as a starting point for further development. In my view, the Parliamentary Secretary did not answer that point. During the discussion on the Committee stage, we accepted the view, which he put forward with great cogency, that to write a percentage into the Bill now might prove to be a handicap. But, surely, it cannot prove to be a handicap in future if we agree that the figure, or figures, of the quota eventually decided upon, on the recommendation of the Films Council, should be regarded as a starting point, and not as a maximum.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Benn Levy (Eton and Slough)

This argument, which has been put forward on both stages of the Bill, seems to me to be based on a complete fallacy. It is based on the notion that to fix a quota now, or, at least, to fix a minimum quota, will provide some degree of security and encouragement to producers. Surely, that argument has no basis at all? Let us follow it to its logical conclusion in concrete terms, and not think just in terms of vague quotas, but in terms of what those quotas will mean. Suppose, for example, that the quota is fixed for 100 films a year—that the percentage quota translated into films is 100 a year—does the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment really suppose that, to know that the quota is 100 films, is going to afford security for producers? It can only afford security for producers if the individual producer not only knows that there are 100 films to be exhibited, but also knows that there are not 101 films in production or planned for production, because, unless he knows that, he does not know that he is not going to be the 101st. There, again, we come back to the old point, that the only real security which the producer can have is the guarantee that his film will be shown. From that point of view, the actual size of the quota is irrelevant.

I feel that my hon. Friend has really a complete case when he rejects this Amendment, because all it does—for no good reason so far established—is to bind him in the future to say that, in no circumstances, whatever they may be, and however unforeseeable, will it be possible to reduce the quota below the first figure. He has already given a general assurance. After all, there may be unforeseeable factors, and it seems to me perfectly reasonable that he should allow himself that loophole.

Mr. Lyttelton

I must reply to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), which seems to be of the most curious description. He says that, if we guarantee that 100 British films shall be produced, the only security given to the producer is that he would know he was making the 100th film, and not the 101st. But that is not the point. The point is that the producer of films, or somebody about to undertake the production of films, would be in a greater position of security to plan if he knew that the quota could not fall below a certain percentage. That is absolutely obvious to anybody. It does not give a guarantee; nobody suggests that it does, but it does, at any rate, give the exhibitor reason to believe that he is likely to have his film exhibited. Under the Bill as now drafted, there is absolutely no platform, other than the extraordinary assurance given by the President of the Board of Trade that he would guarantee that the film quota would never go down. As we pointed out on the Committee stage, that is subject to the Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and it was largely on that point that the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary took flight from the position they had previously taken up. The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough has no substance at all.

Mr. Levy

Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. The argument which the right hon. Gentleman is affecting to answer is not really the argument I made. Surely, he will accept the position that there is no security in knowing that there are 100 films in the quota unless it is also known that 200 films are not being planned for production. As all the manufacturers ire not—

Mr. Speaker

I must point out that we are on the Report stage, and that this Bill was not considered in Committee upstairs. I had forgotten that. Therefore, a second speech by the right hon. Gentleman was out of Order.

Amendment negatived.