HC Deb 13 February 1948 vol 447 cc706-7

Amendment made: In page 3, line 25, after "period," insert: or in the first six months of any quota period."—[Mr. Belcher.]

Mr. Scott-Elliot (Accrington)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, after "A", to insert "short".

This Amendment can be taken together with the Amendment, in line 35, after "foot", to insert: and a long film of which the total labour costs are less than thirty shillings per foot. As was shown in the previous discussion, the present figure represents a retreat from the 1938 Act. That Act laid down a minimum cost of £15,000 per film. If we take a 5,000 foot film, the figure works out at approximately 30s. per foot labour cost. Why has this retreat taken place? My right hon. Friend said that he had been recommended to put in these figures by the Films Council, but it has since been discovered that there was a misunderstanding. I have in my possession a copy of the letter written to my right hon. Friend by a member of the Films Council stating that this was not the case. The Films Council recommended that there should be a 10s. minimum in respect of all short and documentary films. They were at that time unable to determine what should be the higher figure, but they postulated a higher figure in respect of second feature films. I think there is an overwhelming case for this figure of 30s.

If American films are to be shut out from this country, there is obviously going to be a great incentive to produce British films, but if the minimum cost figure is reduced even for a short period—and I feel that it can be reduced only for a short period—it will encourage the industry to produce a large number of films, sacrificing quality for quantity. In these circumstances, I ask my right hon. Friend once again to consider this matter, and if he is unable to accept this Amendment, I ask him to consult the Films Council on this as a matter of urgency, so that before the Bill is discussed in another place, he will be in a position to table an Amendment.

Mr. Collins

I beg to second the Amendment.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson)

It is quite true that there has been some misunderstanding about this matter by the Films Council. It cannot be said, however, that any agreed view was reached by the Council on this matter. I think that the position is still the same as I explained when we last considered this. The position is that we have taken powers to prescribe a different and higher figure in the case of these films, and I have already given assurance that we will ask the Films Council to look at this as a matter of urgency, and then, if they report that a higher figure should be inserted, we can do it very quickly, after considering their recommendations. It would be a mistake at this stage to fix any definite figure. I do not know what will be the report of the Films Council, but as I have said, as soon as the new Council is established, I will refer this to them as a matter of urgency. I do not think there is much point in referring the matter again to the present Films Council, which is now in process of being wound up. I think that it would be far better for the new Council to look at the matter.

Mr. Collins

Would it be possible to arrive at a decision on this matter before the Bill has passed through all its stages?

Mr. Wilson

I will have a look at that, and see whether it will be possible to get this matter reviewed. I would prefer to leave it to the new Films Council.

Mr. Scott-Elliot

In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.