HC Deb 17 March 1964 vol 691 cc1190-4
The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about British Lion.

At the end of last week the Board of the National Film Finance Corporation unanimously advised me to accept the offer from Sir Michael Balcon's Group to purchase British Lion Films Limited.

This offer complies fully with the conditions for the sale of the company which I summarised to the House during the debate on 4th February and which have subsequently been formulated in detail by the Corporation.

The N.F.F.C. consider this offer to be more advantageous than the other two firm offers which were received.—that from the Freedom Group and that from Mr. Sidney Box's group, the latter of which did not fully meet the conditions.

I have today authorised the National Film Finance Corporation to accept this offer. Sir Michael Balcon's group is well qualified to take over the ownership and running of the company. It has the assurance of efficient and proven management and the support of five groups of film makers including, in two of the groups, Mr. Frank Launder and Mr. Sidney Gilliat, and Messrs. John and Roy Boulting.

I have been advised that the financial arrangements proposed by Sir Michael Balcon's group should provide adequately for the efficient running of the company and will not conflict with the stipulated conditions.

I believe that the House will agree that this is a satisfactory outcome to these negotiations.

Mr. Jay

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House have never attempted to choose between one film group and another, but nevertheless, on the method of selection and the issue of public control over British Lion, we much welcome the fact that, in this instance at any rate, he has in some measure listened to criticisms from the House?

Mr. Heath

I thought that, after the rather grudging introductory statement, the right hon. Gentleman would offer a compliment. I am sorry that he did not find it possible to do so. However, I think he will agree that where a choice had to be made it was made on the unanimous advice of the National Film Finance Corporation and that it is a satisfactory outcome.

Sir L. Ropner

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the two major circuits will welcome the prospect of an increase in the production of high-quality films?

Mr. Heath

Sir Michael Balcon's group has indicated that its policy will be to work harmoniously with the two major circuits, at the same time maintaining the independence of the company.

Mr. Lubbock

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that this is the solution which I proposed in the debate on 4th February? As a result, does he realise that we shall not hold against him now the criticism which he expressed of our view on that occasion, since he has come to the right decision?

Captain Orr

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whoever proposed the solution, it is one that will be warmly welcomed by everybody who has the independent future of the company at heart? Can he say now, having secured the independence of the company, when he will be able to make a statement on the Report of the National Film Advisory Council on the long-term question of monopoly in the industry?

Mr. Heath

I cannot give the exact date. We are giving the subject urgent consideration and I will inform the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Swingler

Is it not the normal Parliamentary courtesy that an hon. Member who has a Question on the Order Paper on a certain subject should be informed that a statement on that subject is to be made? I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not observe that courtesy in this case. I had a Question on the Order Paper for answer next Thursday. It has been there for several days.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman turned an extraordinary circle? He first tried to sack the Boulting brothers, who now appear in another disguise. Is not the sum total of his achievement the sell-out of public interest in an extremely enterprising company?

Mr. Heath

No discourtesy was intended in making a statement today. It was perfectly natural that I should do so at the earliest opportunity. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's version of events. I explained, during our debate in February, the circumstances in which the Corporation exercised its option. Since then the matter has been open to tender. There were three firm ones and the Corporation has made a unanimous recommendation as to which should be accepted, and I have agreed.

Mrs. White

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having decided on the right group, although he might have reached this decision last December. On the important matter of the possible disposal of Shepperton Studios, in certain circumstances, can he tell us whether it is not obligatory for the N.F.F.C.s special director to consult the Board of Trade, which many of us would think in those circumstances should be an obligation on the special director?

Mr. Heath

I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Lady says, but it would be natural for the special director to consult the N.F.F.C.—he is the company's director—and it would then be for the N.F.E.C. to consult the Board of Trade.

Mr. Callaghan

If no discourtesy was intended to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been appropriate to inform him that this statement was to be made?

Mr. Heath

I will certainly say that it would have been more appropriate, but I was not aware that whenever there was a Question on the Order Paper it was always the practice to inform those concerned whenever a statement was to be made.

Mr. Swingler

On a point of order. To explain the point I raised, may I say that I have had on the Order Paper since the middle of last week a Question concerned with the Government's policy on British Lion. I have always thought that it was the convention of the House that when a Member had a Question on the Order Paper—in this case addressed to the Secretary of State for answer next Thursday—aid a prior statement on that subject was to be made, the Member would normally be notified. I merely wish to say that in this case that was not done.

Mr. Speaker

The trouble is that there are rules of order which concern me and conventions which officially do not. If I may illustrate the distinction, such things as pairs exist, but I know nothing of them.

Back to