24. Mr. H. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what applications he has received, under Section 5 of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948, from proprietors of cinema circuits for permission to acquire additional cinemas; and what answer he has given to those applications.
§ 30. Mr. G. Jegerasked the President of the Board of Trade what applications he has received from large cinema-owning circuits for approval of proposals to acquire additional cinemas.
§ Mr. H. StraussThe Rank Organisation and the Associated British Picture Corporation have been told that the Board of Trade will not use their powers under the Section to prevent either from acquiring up to 607 cinemas.
Mr. WilsonIs not that a most scandalous announcement by the Parliamentary Secretary? In the first place, will he not agree that this will defeat a great part of the film policy of both the last Governments in this matter and will put the independent producers more and more in the hands of the big circuits? Secondly, since this matter is controlled by statute, and was controlled by a gentleman's agreement initiated by the late Sir Stafford Cripps, does he not consider that he ought to have come along to the House quite honestly and informed the House of a big change of policy, without our having to wait to get it out of him by means of Questions?
§ Mr. StraussThe right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken in thinking that there has been any change of policy. If he will refer to the correspondence of about 11 years ago— [Interruption.] Yes, 11 years ago, because that was what the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. If he does so, he will find that the maximum prescribed was something less than 607. That is where the figure 607 comes from, and we are allowing the circuits to rise to that number. Perhaps, as the right hon. Gentleman says there has been a change of policy, I may remind him of what he said to the House in speaking on this Section. This is what he said:
These paragraphs confer a fairly wide power on the Board of Trade. I recognise that that is so and that it is one which could in theory be used in a restrictive way. I give the assurance that I have no intention of using it except for the strictly limited purpose of holding the balance even between the large circuits." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 1736.]There has been no change of policy.
Mr. WilsonSince I said that there was no change of policy, because the policy was laid down, not in 1948 but in 1946 by the late Sir Stafford Cripps, is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that policy stated that there would be no increase permitted above the then level of cinema holdings for large circuits?
§ Mr. StraussThe matters are dealt with by this Section of the Act, and it is this Section on which we will rely and on which the large circuits have approached us. For the reasons I have given, there is no change in policy between what was announced by the right hon. Gentleman 180 the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) at the time I mentioned and the policy now being adopted.
§ Mr. JegerDoes not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is scandalous, because more and more of these independent cinemas may fall into this semi-monopolistic control, which debars independent producers from having guaranteed exhibition of the films they make? Since most are British quota films, is it not therefore a pro-American film policy, directed against the interests of British film producers?
§ Mr. StraussNo; on the contrary, what I have announced is likely to be in the interests of independent British producers, who require large circuits for their bookings. The hon. Member assumes that all these cinemas are being acquired from somebody else, but they may be newly-built cinemas or war-damaged premises repaired.