§
The following shall be substituted for paragraph I of the First Schedule to the Films Act 1960 (which provides for the constitution of the Cinematograph Films Council):—
'1. The Council shall consist of twenty-four members appointed by the Board of Trade, and of those members—
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
184§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)With this Clause we are to discuss new Clause 6—" Composition of Cinematograph Films Council"—and new Clause 7—"The Cinematograph Films Council".
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I hope that hon. Members will leave the Chamber quietly.
§ Mr. Hay—I will concentrate my remarks on new Clause 7, because this is the most comprehensive of the three which are intended to deal with the point which was discussed at some length in Standing Committee, although with a somewhat inconclusive result. New Clause 7 is in exactly the same form as that which was debated in Committee.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Perhaps the "private committees" will leave the Chamber.
§ Mr. HayI was about to explain for the benefit of the hon. Members below the Bar, that the equivalent of new Clause 7 was debated at some length in Standing Committee and that the Committee was evenly divided. In that Committee there were nine Government supporters and six members of the Opposition. Our arguments so moved the Committee that on this issue the Committee divided six to six and the Chairman of the Committee, as was her duty, to enable the House to have an opportunity of looking at the matter, cast her vote with the "Noes". But I have no doubt that we had the best of the argument, and I will now explain what it was.
We are here concerned with the composition of the body called the Cinematograph Films Council, which has certain duties imposed by the Films Act, 1960, of which Section 41 places on the council, as constituted by the First Schedule to that Act, the duty
to keep under review the progress of the film industry in Great Britain with particular reference to the development of that branch of the industry which is engaged in the making of films".The Section continues to explain that the council has the function to report to the 185 Board of Trade and to advise it on certain matters relating to the film industry, and so on.The council itself, which now has a life of about 10 years, when drawing up its report in 1968, said that it had given some thought to its own continued existence and functions. Since Section 41 emphasised the interests of film production, the council, in paragraph 42 of its report, Cmnd. 3584, gave a clear recommendation that the words
with particular reference to the development of that branch of the industry which is engaged in the making of filmsshould be deleted from its terms of reference.10.45 p.m.
The Government have accepted almost all the proposals made in the White Paper and I am still not clear from the speech of the hon. Lady, in Committee, why this recommendation was not enshrined in the Bill. In paragraph 1 of new Clause 7 we use the words "having regard" to the interests of film production rather than "with particular reference" to film production. We were seeking to adopt a recommendation of the C.F.C. and change its terms of reference. The reason is simple, and it is that as the years have gone by the matters discussed in the C.F.C. have become more and more concerned with matters relating to distribution, renting and exhibitions and the relations between these branches of the industry, and less and less concerned with production. In the light of that situation, and the report, this change should be made.
The second point that we took on new Clause 7 was to give an additional seat to the representatives of the renters. Renting is an extensive part of the industry, with considerable influence on the supply of films for showing and this ought to be looked at carefully, particularly as the renters urge strongly that they should have the extra seat. We finally run into the problem of the two big circuits, Rank and A.B.C. I mentioned on Second Reading and in Committee the odd situation that the representative of Associated British Pictures Corporation—whose general interests are much more in production than distribution and exhibition, although it covers the whole spectrum of activities—sits 186 upon the C.F.C. as the nominee of the Cinema Exhibitors' Association.
The Rank representative—and that company is very much involved in exhibitions, running an enormous chain of cinemas, but has become less and less involved with production—holds his seat on the C.F.C. as the nominee of the Film Production Association. There is the anomalous situation that the representative of Rank, with major interests in exhibitions, is on the C.F.C. representing producers, whereas the representative of A.B.C. principally concerned with production and renting, sits as a representative of the exhibitors.
It was intended that the last part of the new Clause should put this right. We said that two members of the council
shall be appointed as representing persons who are makers renters and exhibitors (not being persons separately to be represented under any other sub-paragraph of this paragraph)".When the matter came to the vote six hon. Members on one side of the Committee voted for the new Clause and six on the other side against it. The matter was decided by the Chairman's casting vote. Despite the shortness of time, we have been able to concoct, and I can think of no better word, two alternatives which try to deal with some at least of these three points. The first of the three problems is that there is in the Statute a preference in favour of producers. Secondly, we have the problem of the circuits, which I have explained; and, thirdly, there is the request of the renters that they should have an additional seat.New Clause 5, which I have moved, is intended to ignore the point relating to the terms of reference of the C.F.C. but it contains a formula which would deal with the problem of the circuits. People would serve on the C.F.C. no longer as representing makers, but, according to the text of the new Clause, as representatives of the makers of British films—then come words in paragraph 1(b) which I emphasise—
who are not also exhibitors".In sub-paragraph (d) we say again that people, five in all, would berepresentatives of exhibitors who are not also makers of British films".187 This, again, is intended to deal with the situation of the circuits. In sub-paragraph (e) we use these words:shall be appointed as representatives of persons who are both makers and exhibitors of British films".This is an attempt—I do not pretend that it is perfect; in the time available to us, we could not do anything better than this—to solve this problem and bring it before the House again.New Clause 6 would reduce the area still further. It is intended to deal only with the problem of the circuits. It does not intend to deal with the question of the terms of reference. It does not attempt to provide an additional representative of the renters, but is intended to deal only with the question of the circuits.
This is a complicated matter. I apologise to the House for having had to try to lead hon. Members through this maze of three new Clauses, but the problem is basically a simple one. So far, the reply that we have had from the Government in Standing Committee was weak and unconvincing. The problem is that here we have terms of reference of a statutory body which no longer are relevant to the precise facts and the world in which that body now lives. Secondly, we have people serving on the council wearing the wrong hat, representing one interest when their real interest is another one entirely. Thirdly, one important branch of the industry is under-represented.
The object of new Clause 7 was to put this right. Unfortunately, we were not able to carry our proposal in Standing Committee because three hon. Members on the Government side abstained or were absent. In the circumstances, we felt that we should bring it forward again.
I hope that having had the explanation which I have endeavoured to give, the House will feel that this is a matter which should be put right. It may even be that at this late stage the Parliamentary Secretary will not take up the position that she took in Standing Committee. She used a French expression, which I will not endeavour to repeat to the House.
§ Mrs. Gwyneth DunwoodyI think that the hon. Member must. Having been reported in HANSARD as using a French expression which the hon. Member can- 188 not quote, I think that he must use the expression.
§ Mr. HayI can, and will, quote it: j'y suis, j'y reste.
Despite the puzzlement on the benches behind the hon. Lady, it was clear that she was balancing on the point of a pin, a somewhat uncomfortable position in which to be, because she was being pressed from our side of the Committee to make these changes and she was being pressed by, I think, her hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) not to make any changes by expanding the size of the C.F.C., but, indeed, to reduce it, in accordance with the views which had been put by certain representatives of trade unions. She was in the nice position of saying, "I am pressed from both sides. Therefore, I shall remain where I am."
So I hope that the hon. Lady will think about this again, and if, even now, she cannot do what the new Clauses propose, at least do what she has not done so far in all the proceedings on the Bill. I have not heard her once say, "Here is a useful and interesting point which I am prepared to look at again." I hope that tonight she will recognise that there is pressure from the industry to adjust the composition of this council, which has an important and useful function to fulfil. I hope that if the hon. Lady cannot accept new Clause 5, she will, in another place, change the Bill so that we can bring the C.F.C. up to date, after 10 years of existence, to make it carry on in the future doing a task which it does extremely well, and so that its composition and terms of reference more accurately represent the conditions in which it serves.
§ Mr. Hugh JenkinsIt is always possible and quite easy to disagree with the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), but it is seldom that I have heard him, in telling what took place in a Committee, give an account so difficult to relate to reality as I saw it myself.
Whereas on the previous Clause, if the hon. Gentleman had had the courage of his convictions to press it to a Division, I might have had some difficulty in deciding how I would vote, I have no doubt at all on these Clauses, because not only is my disagreement with the wording of 189 the Clauses, but my view of what ought to be done is absolutely opposite to what is proposed by the hon. Member.
It seems to me that what the hon. Member is saying here, as, indeed, he did in Committee, is that the industry has changed, the position of the C.F.C. has changed. So, therefore, let us change the function and nature of the council. That is what he is saying.
I think that my hon, Friend was sympathetic to the point I was trying to put, even though she did not accept it, but said she preferred to stand in her present position. I think that if she were to decide to move in this matter she would rightly move in the direction which I was advocating rather in that proposed by the hon. Member.
What is the hon. Member trying to do? He is trying to take away the whole basis of the support which the Government, and successive Governments in this country, have given to the British film industry. Support has always been given to the idea of maintaining a British film production industry. That has been the whole object of the exercise. We are not unique in this. Other countries have done the same for their film industries. The endeavour has always been to ensure that we maintain a British film industry inside our own country.
Where, if I may say so, the hon. Member was not completely frank with the House was in not saying there was a minority report and that it came not only from the trade union representatives, but from people concerned with film production. What it said was that, far from wanting what would be the effect of the hon. Member's proposal—to slant the council rather towards renting and exhibition than is the present case—it wanted the production side of the council to be restored.
As we see it, the essential nature of the Films Council is a body with a bias in favour of the maintenance of British film production. This is what my proposal advocated, and this is the opposite of what is said by the other side. They say that it is no longer necessary or desirable to protect film production as was done before and, the majority of the council being unnaturally geared towards renting and exhibition, the council should now recognise this by taking out of its constitution its fundamental duty of looking after British production; it 190 should simply have regard to it and should not be specially charged with the duty of safeguarding it.
For these reasons I am totally opposed to the Clause, and I hope my hon. Friend will have no hesitation in saying that it is entirely unacceptable. I am sure that she will do so in her usual charming, courteous fashion, but none the less firmly.
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Mr. SilvesterAs one outside the film industry who does not represent producers, renters or anybody else, it seems to me that this argument is all on our side. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), with the best will in the world, speaks of the council as if it were a body separate from the industry. The production side will not work without the exhibitors and the renters; they are all in the same boat together.
My lion. Friend's proposal is perfectly sane. It is to take the interests as they are, without passing any judgment on the good will or evil will of them, and build the council around those facts of life. If A.B.C. and Rank are different animals, a representation must be created for that animal; otherwise, it is like having a zoo without an elephant. The council must be representative of the industry as it is. The object of the council is to advise the Board of Trade on the film industry. If, on a vote, there is a majority, that will not decide anything. If the council works properly it will come to a consensus view. If a vote has to be taken and one side clobbers the other side, the council has failed, because the industry is damaged thereby.
Our suggestion is the most sensible approach, which industry is recognising more and more by coming together in the Films Industry Committee. All sections have to work together, discuss matters and try to come to a solution which is in their common interests. To do that, every person who has an interest in the industry should be properly represented, with the representatives wearing their proper hats and speaking with their proper voices. It matters not a tinker's cuss whether the renters have two or three members, or the producers have two or three members. We want a sufficient number representing each interest, each speaking with his proper voice. This is precisely our proposal, and I 191 should have thought the hon. Lady could happily have accepted it without damaging the good work which the council seeks to do.
§ Mrs. Gwyneth DunwoodyOur debate tonight, rather like our debate on this question in Committee, illustrates almost exactly the difficulty that we face with new Clauses 5, 6 and 7. It is not possible to prove precisely that the present constitution of the Cinematograph Films Council is ideal, but I firmly believe that the council's record shows that it has successfully avoided bias and has looked to the interests of the industry as a whole in a way that the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Silvester) now says it can do only if its representation is altered.
The hon. Member has made the point that it is not by majority votes that we can decide. The C.F.C. has succeeded over many years in producing a consensus of opinion about the needs of the industry as a whole, which has been of great assistance to the Board of Trade. This strongly suggests to me that the present constitution is the best which can be devised.
New Clause 5 seeks to confine the four representatives of the makers to persons with no interest in exhibition. This proposal seems to rest on the assumption that a person with interests in more than one branch of the industry cannot properly represent any one branch. I see no grounds for such an assumption. On the contrary, since the council's job is to steer an unbiased course, it seems to me that such a person would be particularly likely to bring to the council's deliberations a very balanced view.
§ Mr. HayThat, of course, is an assumption. Paragraph (e) of the new Clause deals with precisely that situation: It says:
two shall be appointed as representatives of persons who are both makers and exhibitors of British films;
§ Mrs. DunwoodyYet the hon. Gentleman has made considerable play during the discussion with the fact that the real difficulty which we are facing in relation to the circuits is their very size and the importance of their involvement in all sections of the industry. I had hoped to convince him—obviously I have not— 192 that precisely because we know what the involvement of the circuits is, we are perfectly able to judge—I hope that I may be forgiven for using the royal "we" in this sense, meanings the council—exactly how informed and accurate was the advice which the circuit members have been giving to the council in the past. It would be wrong to suggest that, because they are capable of having simultaneously three interests, they cannot express an unbiased view.
New Clause 5 also seeks, as the hon. Member said, to create additional seats on the council, for two representatives of people who are both makers and exhibitors. This proposal would introduce a new and very undesirable principle. The representative members on the council—I said this in Committee—do not represent companies, persons, trade associations or trade unions. They are there to give the Board of Trade the benefit of their knowledge and experience of the industry. It would destroy the basis on which representative appointments were made if persons were appointed to represent individual persons, or, in this case, individual companies. New Clause 6 is, therefore, unacceptable. So is the second part of subsection (2) of new Clause 7.
Subsection (1) seeks to amend the council's terms of reference. We discussed this point in some detail in Committee. The hon. Gentleman and I differed quite strongly about why the C.F.C. was set up, but I am sure that he will accept that the production of films was one of the main reasons why the House concerned itself with the setting up of some form of protection for the industry. Many other people are worried about whether the C.F.C. as it now is is overburdened. It is not a worry which I share, but the hon. Gentleman will see from the interesting remarks of Mr. Albert Finney, on television recently, about the problem of the showing of his film "Charley Bubbles" that there are still people employed in the industry who are concerned—some may think rightly—with all sorts of aspects of distribution and showing which still, apparently, need some examination.
But I feel that the C.F.C. has proved itself in the past to be capable of unbiased judgments. There will be differences of opinion: this is why we have had a minority report. I would be sorry 193 to see the day when there were not differences of opinion inside the council. It is there to represent all sections of the industry and to give us its advice. Were it always to find itself in complete unanimity, we might wonder whether we were getting as much information as we need.
Therefore, I do not see the need for or the advantage in the proposed change of wording. Nor has any case been made out for the appointment of an additional representative of the renters. I know why the suggestion has been made and developed at some length. But I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept that to upset the present balance, which I believe to be a correct one, would not really assist the working of the C.F.C. and undoubtedly would lead to considerable pressures from all the other sections of the industry, using the word in its broadest sense, for extra representation. We might even find ourselves, having performed the judgment of Solomon and given extra seats, in precisely the same situation as we are today.
§ I must ask the House to reject the Clause.
§ Mr. RidleyThe hon. Lady continues to advise the House to reject every proposed Amendment. However, I am glad that, on this occasion, she has argued her case at some length and in some depth. That makes it easier for the Opposition not to press the Clause.
There are two points to the Clause which are quite separate. The first is that the C.F.C. should not have regard principally and primarily to production but to the general welfare of the industry as a whole. Perhaps I might quote three passages from the hon. Lady's speech on this subject in Committee. The first is:
… the council has paid, and will undoubtedly continue to pay, proper attention to the interests of all sections of the industry.The second is:The C.F.C. has done noble work in representing all sections of the industry…The third is:… but I am confident that the council will in practice continue to `have regard' to the problems of distribution and exhibition as well…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 24th February, 1970, c. 150.]Three times the hon. Lady emphasised that the council is not obeying the law 194 and concentrating on the whole industry, instead of on the aspect of production. We are delighted that the council is concentrating on the whole industry, but why not take this opportunity of bringing the law up to date with reality? The hon. Lady would lose nothing by accepting that part of the Clause, and I cannot see why she does not bring the law into line with what is happening, as witnessed by her own words.Secondly, there is this matter of representation. I will not go over the argument, because my hon. Friends have had much the better of it on this occasion. Again, in reality, the film industry is changing all the time and may change even more in the future. We do not have a chance to legislate all that often on films, so it will be a great pity if the Government find themselves in a position where they cannot alter the composition of the C.F.C. as and when they should.
I suggest to the hon. Lady that she should take power in another place to allow her to alter the composition of the C.F.C. as and when conditions change. It may be that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) is right and that, in five years' time, there should be more employee members. It may be that my hon. Friends are right and that there should be a more accurate representation of the existing interests. If the hon. Lady sticks pat to the present legislation, she will not be able to take account of these changes, and, therefore, she is unwise not to accept the Clause. However, it is clear that she does not agree. She has argued her case quite strongly, but we still think that it would be a good idea to have power taken in another place so that future alterations can be made to the composition of the C.F.C.
On the first point, I do not find the hon. Lady's argument very convincing, but perhaps this matter could be pursued at a later stage.
§ 11.15 p.m.
§ Mr. HayAs my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has just said, the hon. Lady addressed the House on these new Clauses in a more reasonable spirit than she has shown on almost anything else. If she would do this regularly, I think that we would get on more quickly.
195 I do not want to press the point any further. It has had a good airing. All I will say, before asking the leave of the House to take a certain course, is that if the Minister will make inquiries in the film industry generally she will find that there is a great consensus of opinion that a change of this kind should be made. I hope that the hon. Lady will have consultations, before the Bill gets the Royal Assent, to see whether, even at this late stage, some adjustment can be made.
The hon. Lady will find the industry reasonable. She will also find that adjustments could now be made without running the kind of risks that she obviously fears and about which she has addressed the House.
Having had the opportunity of discussing the matter twice, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.