HC Deb 03 July 1952 vol 503 cc604-10
18. Mr. Swingler

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many members of the Films Council are connected with cinemas which failed to fulfil the quota in the year 1951; and to what extent he took such connections into account in considering the council's recommendations about prosecutions.

26. Mr. Wyatt

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will remove from the Films Council all those persons concerned with the ownership or management of cinemas which have become liable, through persistent defaults, to prosecution under the Films Quota Act, 1948.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft

With the hon. Members' permission, I will answer this Question and Question No. 26 together.

Mr. Wyatt

I do not give my permission. My Question is quite different and I want a separate answer.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member will only get the same answer twice.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft

I am prepared to give the same answer twice. I apologise for its length. It is as follows:

Six members of the Cinematograph Films Council are directors of exhibiting companies which, at some of the theatres owned by them, did not exhibit in the 1950–51 quota year the prescribed number of British films. I do not think that this fact either makes necessary any changes in the Films Council as set up by the Cinematograph Films Act of 1938 as amended by the previous Government in 1948, or casts any doubt on the fair and reasonable nature of the advice which the Council has given me in the cases so far examined.

The Act provides that if any member of the Council is convicted of an offence under the Act, he shall forthwith cease to be a member of the Council. The House should, however, be aware of the wide defences available to any person charged under the Act. The fact that the exhibiting company does not fulfil the prescribed quota does not in itself constitute an offence if it can show that its failure was due to circumstances beyond the company's control. Section 13 of the Act provides that failure to fulfil the quota can be deemed to be due to circumstances beyond the control of the exhibitor if, "owing to the character of the films available or to the excessive cost of such films, it was not commercially practicable to fulfil that requirement." And if an offence has been committed by a company, a director can be prosecuted only if there is evidence to show that he personally aided or abetted the default or that it was attributable to his neglect.

The procedure of the Council is under the Act a matter for the Council itself to regulate. But it is already part of that procedure that members of the Defaults Committee should withdraw from the meeting during consideration of cases in which they have any personal interest, and that they should take no part in the subsequent discussion of these cases when they come before a full meeting of the Films Council. I have in addition suggested to the Chairman that they might also withdraw on these occasions.

Mr. Swingler

Is the President aware that practically everybody, apart from himself, now appreciates that the Films Council has become an open conspiracy to defy the law? Is it not quite clear from what we were told last week that this Council recommended that the most notorious defaulter of all, the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, should not be prosecuted, and that the Minister has accepted that advice? Will he disregard the recommendations of the Council in a situation like this—when vested interests are represented on it—or else ask the members connected with defaulting cinema circuits to resign from the Council forthwith?

Mr. Thorneycroft

I do not accept the description applied by the hon. Gentleman to the Films Council, of which at least one hon. Member of this House is a member. It has 22 members, seven of whom are independent members of standing, including Lord Drogheda, the Chairman, and there are, in addition, some members—I think seven—who are exhibitor members. However, I realise that there is some substance in the point that if an exhibitor member is sitting on the Council when the case of a cinema for which he is responsible comes up for consideration it would be better if he were not there during the deliberations. I have accepted that. In fact, such members do not attend when the Defaults Sub-Committee meets. I have suggested to Lord Drogheda, as I said in my answer, that they would do well to withdraw when the cases relating to their cinemas are considered by the full Council.

Mr. Wyatt

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to a document which I have here, issued by the Board of Trade itself, his answer was inaccurate in that there are not six exhibitors on the Film Council but seven? On the Defaults Committee and the Quota Reliefs Committee there are seven exhibitors out of 14 members, and on certain occasions the place of Sir Arthur Jarratt as a renter is taken by Mr. Sam Eckman, who is the controller or owner of the notorious Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, and these occasions give the exhibitors a majority on the Defaults Committee. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all defaults are first considered by a Defaults Sub-Committee, which has four members of whom two are exhibitors? Is is not absolutely fantastic that this situation, with its ramifications of interests, should be allowed to continue? Even if exhibitors withdraw when their own cinema is under discussion, naturally their friends and business associates will not recommend their prosecution in their absence.

Mr. Thorneycroft

Exhibitors are members of the Films Council because that was laid down not by me but by the previous administration. I have no doubt that we could have a discussion as to whether that was right or wrong, but it is a fact and one that we have to accept. My job is to try to administer that arrangement in the fairest possible way. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the proposal which I have put forward is a reasonable one, that we should accept the Act passed by the previous Administration and that a member of the Council who is concerned with a cinema which comes before the Council should withdraw during the consideration of its case.

Mr. Marlowe

Is my right hon. Friend aware that from a purely legal point of view this is a most unsatisfactory arrangement, probably due to the fact that it was introduced by the late Government? While I accept the statement of my right hon. Friend that those who are affected withdraw when a decision is made, the important thing is that justice should appear to be done, and there is a fear in the public mind that there might be some prejudice in arriving at these decisions. Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing amending legislation which will avoid that or submitting cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions who can give an independent opinion?

Mr. Thorneycroft

I am very far from saying that all films legislation is of the most satisfactory character, but it may be some consolation to hon. Members to know that in any event I am the person who finally decides whether a prosecution should go forward or not, though, naturally, I listen to the advice which is tendered to me.

Mr. Hector Hughes

On a point of order. Is not what has just occurred a breach of Question time procedure in this House, Sir? The President of the Board of Trade has given a very long statement, and he knew it would be a very long one. He has cut down Question time by doing this and surely this ought not to be allowed.

Mr. Speaker

It is a very large question and one which we cannot proceed to discuss at Question time.

Mr. Bevan

May I ask the Minister if it is not a peculiar doctrine that people are allowed to violate the law merely because the law was passed in a Parliament with a Socialist majority? Is it not always the case that, if the criminals are consulted, they will recommend that they should not be prosecuted? Would not burglars be wise to have an advisory committee like this?

Mr. Thorneycroft

The right hon. Gentleman should recognise that it is not for him or for me to decide whether it is a fact that they have violated the law. That is a matter for the courts and will be decided by the courts on the prosecutions which I propose shall be instituted under the Act.

Several Hon. Members rose

—

Mr. Speaker

We have spent much too much time on this Question.

19. Mr. Swingler

asked the President of the Board of Trade in how many cases he has decided to prosecute film quota defaulters where prosecution was not recommended by the Films Council.

27. Mr. Wyatt

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent he considers the views of the Films Council before instituting prosecutions under the Films Quota Act, 1948.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft

Under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, as amended, I am bound to consult the Films Council before taking action on certain particular provisions of the Act, including the application which an exhibitor may make that his default was due to circumstances beyond his control. I consider the Council's advice very carefully and I have found it extremely valuable, but it is entirely for me to decide whether or not a prosecution should be instituted.

I do not think it advisable to dissent from the practice generally followed ever since the establishment of the Films Council and treat their advice as other than confidential. But I can say that in a substantial number of cases which are being examined at the moment, I have given instructions for prosecutions to be instituted as soon as possible.

Mr. Swingler

Will the President of the Board of Trade, having come out from behind the screen of the Films Council and told the House that he himself takes the responsibility as to who should be prosecuted, now tell the House why he has decided that the worst law breaker of all in this respect shall not be prosecuted?

Mr. Thorneycroft

Simply because the advice I received, and I agree with it, was that a prosecution would not have succeeded.

Mr. Wyatt

Is the President not aware that the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, showed only one British film during the whole quota year ended September, 1951, and if the right hon. Gentleman could not sustain a prosecution on that there is no possibility of sustaining a prosecution in the case of any default? Is the President further aware that the big exhibitors stack the exhibiting representation on the Films Council, and recommend the prosecution of small exhibitors in remote parts of the country who very often have good reasons for defaulting—

Mr. Speaker

We cannot have speeches.

Mr. Wyatt

On a point of order. Am I not entitled to conclude my question, Sir?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member has asked one very long supplementary question already. He was proceeding to ask another. I must in fairness to other Members ask him to remember that there are other things in the world besides cinemas.

Mr. Swingler

In view of the totally unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

28. Mr. Wyatt

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will undertake to consult the Law Officers of the Crown about prosecutions under the Films Quota Act, 1948.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft

I have been consulting the Law Officers of the Crown about these prosecutions.

Mr. Wyatt

Did the Law Officers of the Crown not agree that there were adequate powers to institute proceedings under the Act passed by the Socialist Government?

Mr. Thorneycroft

I think I had better treat the advice which the Law Officers tendered to me as confidential, as previous Governments have done.

Mr. Bevan

The right hon. Gentleman said just now that he had himself decided that a certain prosecution would not succeed. Did he have the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown in that matter?

Mr. Thorneycroft

I have had the advice of the Law Officers about all these prosecutions, and I have acted on their advice in these matters.