HC Deb 20 March 1952 vol 497 cc2527-9
10. Mr. Woodrow Wyatt

asked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of defaults on first-feature films under the Quota Act between September, 1950, and September, 1951; and, in particular, what was the number of defaults on first features by the Rank circuit and Associated British Cinemas circuit, respectively.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft

I would refer the hon. Member to the Board of Trade Journal of 9th February, 1952, which contains on page 264 a detailed report on the 1950–51 quota year. Of the 771 first feature defaults, 23 were by theatres in the A.B.C. circuit. There were no first feature defaults by theatres in the Odeon or the Gaumont-British circuits.

Mr. Wyatt

Is not this a shocking number of defaults in view of the fact that we are trying to help the British Film Industry? Why does not the Board of Trade prosecute far more vigorously in these cases, for which there is no excuse whatever?

Mr. Thorneycroft

As the hon. Gentleman knows, these matters are referred to the Films Council for consideration and the matter of whether a prosecution should be brought is then gone into. The fact that there is a default on the quota in the amount of films shown does not necessarily mean that an offence has been committed.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan

Does my right hon. Friend realise that, at any rate in Scotland, the question of consumer choice is very much linked up with the question of default, and that this matter needs to be looked into, for it does not necessarily follow that films which appeal to an English audience also appeal to a Scottish audience?

11. Mr. Wyatt

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the members of the Films Council, who are film exhibitors, defaulted under the Quota Act from September, 1950, to September, 1951; and if he will remove such defaulters from membership of the Films Council.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft

Four of the members representing exhibitors on the Cinematograph Films Council are directors of exhibiting companies which, at some of the theatres owned by them, did not exhibit the number of British films required by the prescribed quota. This does not necessarily mean either that an offence has been committed or that, if one has been committed, the director could be held responsible. No decision has yet been taken about prosecutions for defaults in the 1950–51 quota year, and no circumstances have yet arisen which call for the removal of any member of the Council.

Mr. Wyatt

The President of the Board of Trade has just told us that prosecutions are decided by the Films Council. Is it not extraordinary, therefore, that four members of the Films Council should be people who are themselves liable to prosecution and do not prosecute themselves? Why are they not removed?

Mr. Thorneycroft

I do not think it would be possible to find anyone interested in films exhibition in a large number of theatres where at no one in any circumstances was there a default in the quota. Although the point put by the hon. Member is attractive at first sight, it is not quite so powerful on reflection.

Mr. Wyatt

Why should we spend dollars to help put the British Film Industry on its feet if the Board of Trade's own regulations for the industry are defied by people from the industry who are appointed by the Board of Trade to see that the regulations are carried out?

Captain J. A. L. Duncan

Is not the answer to all this to have a more realistic quota?

Mr. Thorneycroft

The quota has, of course, been reduced to a more realistic figure and should be adhered to.

Mr. I. Mikardo

Was the right hon. Gentleman really saying in his last answer but one that he cannot find any prominent exhibitor or a director of any prominent exhibiting firm to sit on the body which safeguards the operation of the quota who can be trusted not to violate the quota? If that is so, ought not there to be a real clean-up in the industry?

Mr. Thorneycroft

There is no question of that. There is no suggestion that these men have violated the quota or committed any offence under the Act.

Mr. Wyatt

There is.

12. Mr. Wyatt

asked the President of the Board of Trade what exemption he has granted to the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, from the requirements of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft

None, Sir.

Mr. Wyatt

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why this cinema only showed one British film last year and why it has not been prosecuted?

Mr. Thorneycroft

As the question of prosecutions is now under consideration, it will be better to leave it to be decided in another place.

Mr. Wyatt

Could we be given some assurance that this time those exhibitors on the Films Council who are themselves defaulters do not prevent any other defaulter from being prosecuted?

Mr. Speaker

We have spent long enough on these Questions. I think that we had better get on.