HC Deb 02 March 1970 vol 797 cc170-83

Subsection (1)(a) of section 17 of the Films Act 1960 shall be amended by leaving out the words ' or by or on behalf of any Commonwealth Government or of the Government of the Republic of Ireland '.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ridley

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

It would probably be convenient to discuss, at the same time, new Clause 3, Reciprocal agreements concerning registration.

Both these Clauses deal with the same Section of the Films Act, 1960. They are related, but not entirely on the same point. The first seeks to remove the protection given to films made by or on behalf of the Governments of Commonwealth countries or the Government of Ireland from the protection afforded by the British film legislation by means of the quota and the levy. The protection is considerable. It is not only a question of allowing a foreign Government's film to come into this country without let or hindrance: it is also to be subsidised by the levy system out of the box office receipts of the film industry as a whole if it is classified as a British film.

The hon. Lady must tell us why it is necessary to include in the definition of a British film a film made by or on behalf of the Government of Ireland or the Government of any Commonwealth country. This is a point which we missed in Committee and I am grateful for this opportunity to press the Government to explain why we in this country should allow into our preferential arrangements films which have been made by foreign Governments of this sort.

We should need some information here. I should like to know how many foreign Government films, whether Commonwealth or Irish, have been included in the quota in recent years, and been declared British films. If the answer is that none has been included, the provisions of the Films Act, 1960, are quite unnecessary and the new Clause should be accepted, because there is no need for those words to be in the legislation. If, on the other hand, a considerable number have been brought in and classified as British films, there is every reason to pass the Clause, because they should not have been.

I do not see why we should make these arrangements for foreign Governments, who usually produce propaganda films—the main point of a Government making films is propaganda—which could well in many cases be propaganda against this country. I do not say that that is so in all cases, but there are Commonwealth countries which have been engaging in progaganda against this country, and it seems remarkably illogical, to say the least, to include in the British quota and subsidise from the British box office films made for this purpose.

Of course, there may be some reciprocal arrangements with foreign Governments, whereby films made in this country by or on behalf of Her Majesty's Government receive equal treatment in the Commonwealth country concerned. We should like to know whether there are such arrangements and, if so, with which foreign countries. It might make sense for us to be able to get our propaganda films into Commonwealth countries in return for allowing them to put their films into this country. That might be a worthwhile bargain, but I suspect that we have no such reciprocal agreements in relation to films made by or on behalf of foreign Governments. I would even go so far as to say, perhaps rashly, that I am against films made by or on behalf of Governments. I do not see why they should make films or have films made for them.

Though there may be a number of tourist films and documentaries which would be quite harmless, the idea of Government propaganda through the celluloid medium has been abused in the past, so it would be reasonable in this stage of our evolution of the film industry to drop this procedure and allow foreign Governments to make what arrangements they can for getting their films shown in this country on ordinary commercial terms.

That is the point of new Clause 1, and I hope that I have explained it clearly enough for the hon. Lady to say that she will accept it.

I should also say a word about new Clause 3. This arises out of our debate in Committee. The hon. Lady will remember that we on this side sought to remove the arrangements given to films made in Commonwealth countries or Ireland from the availability for British quota. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) moved an Amendment that there these arrangements should exist only for foreign countries which had made reciprocal agreements to give preferential treatment to British films. It emerged in the debate that the right way in which to deal with the matter would be to move a new Clause giving the Board of Trade powers to include the films of certain countries as British films if they had made satisfactory reciprocal agreements with this country.

It would be wrong both to use the expression "reciprocal agreements" as the definition and to ban all these arrangements. The Clause has been devised to give the Board of Trade power to declare that a country is an approved country and, if there are satisfactory arrangements in existence, it may approve any country.

The second point about the Clause is that it does not apply only to the Commonwealth and Southern Ireland. It may be that countries which are not members of the Commonwealth have made good arrangements with us to allow our films to penetrate into their markets, and we would like to extend the same facility to them. It is absurd to limit this sort of bargain to Commonwealth countries and Southern Ireland, and we propose that any country which makes a reasonable arrangement with us may be deemed an approved country by the Board of Trade and allowed to share in our quota and levy system without difficulty.

There may be countries to which we would like to extend these arrangements unilaterally. I have in mind Hong Kong, which is a Crown Colony. We have a direct responsibility for negotiating its external trading arrangements. Probably there are other countries where, for political reasons, we would like to extend freedom of entry to the British market. But to do it in respect of all Commonwealth countries, whether or not they have entered into a reciprocal agreement with us, is wrong.

I think that the Clause will commend itself to the Government. It allows them to meet the requirements of the Cinematograph Films Council which, in the minority report, pointed out that there were no reciprocal agreements worth having. The hon. Lady confirmed this in Committee, when she said that the only reciprocal agreements of which she was aware were with New South Wales and New Zealand. Though we are grateful to them for making reciprocal agreements, New South Wales and New Zealand do not represent the Commonwealth as a whole. I think that the hon. Lady will agree that, so far, we have had rather a bad bargain.

There are advantages to the British film industry to be able to make films abroad and call them British films. We do not want to prevent that. It seems that to give some power to the Board of Trade to enter into this with more of a commercial spirit, to make a bargain here and to move somebody else out there, might be useful during the next 10 years over which the Act will be current.

I hope that both new Clauses will commend themselves to the Minister, because genuinely through discussions in Committee we have found answers which would help to strengthen the hand of the Board of Trade and strengthen the opportunities for the film industry by allowing it to get better openings abroad for the films that it makes.

10.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody)

Both new Clauses embody an idea which was widely discussed in Committee, when fears were expressed that some Commonwealth Governments, or the Government of the Republic of Ireland, might make a violently anti-United Kingdom film. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) argued that it would be wrong that such a film should be a British film. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the possibility that Rhodesia might make a film full of propaganda against the Government of the United Kingdom, though, as I explained, there is a prohibition on imports from Southern Rhodesia, so there was hardly and likelihood that the problem would arise.

New Clause 1 seems to be something of a panic Clause. I am not aware that any film has, in fact, ever been made by a Commonwealth Government with the object of discrediting the Government of the United Kingdom. The present arrangements regarding registration of British films are of long standing, and I prefer not to upset them in order to guard against a risk which, in my view, is not realistic.

New Clause 3 would apply not only to films made in studios in Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Ireland—

Mr. Ridley

Before the hon. Lady leaves new Clause 1, will she tell us how many films have been made by foreign Governments that have been declared as British films? Secondly, what reciprocal arrangements do we have with foreign countries in relation to British Government films which get preferential treatment in those countries?

Mrs. Dunwoody

There have been no films made by foreign Governments. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we are in the process of exploring reciprocal agreements with many countries. This is probably one way in which joint ventures can very well go in future. To bring in a restrictive measure of this kind is, to my mind, going in the opposite direction from that which our commercial interests dictate.

The hon. Gentleman is talking as if the Board of Trade is not interested in commercial deals. It is precisely because it is that we regard films as a commodity and as one of the matters to be taken into account when we are dealing with Commonwealth countries in general.

Mr. Frederick Silvester (Walthamstow, West)

Did I hear the hon. Lady aright in saying that there were no films made by overseas Governments? The figures published by her Department show that there were nine made by Government agencies in 1967, 10 in 1968, and nine in 1969.

Mrs. Dunwoody

The hon. Gentleman asked me about Government-made films. There is a difference between films made by Governments and films made with Government assistance. The hon. Gentleman was waxing quite eloquent about the difficulties that we might face when Governments made films which he seemed to regard as films which could be used only for propaganda purposes. I was trying to explain accurately that Governments had not made films.

Concerning films made in studios in Commonwealth countries, in Committee a proposal was made that the continued grant of British status to Commonwealth films should be made dependent on the making of inter-governmental reciprocal agreements. I said that this seemed unnecessary and, indeed, might not work out to the benefit of the industry in this country.

Films made here already enjoy benefits in some Commonwealth countries. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has chosen to suggest that the 25 per cent. quota for British films in New Zealand and the 15 per cent. quota in New South Wales are not of great importance. I take it from his remarks that he is implying that State legislation in Australia, which gives British films some advantages over foreign films, is also not of any great use to us. But I must strongly disagree with him.

Mr. Ridley

The hon. Lady must not misrepresent what I said. I said that that was only a small proportion of the Commonwealth. Will she tell us whether there were any other reciprocal agreements, apart from those with Australia and New Zealand which form only about 5 per cent. of the population of the Commonwealth?

Mrs. Dunwoody

As I explained in Committee, there is no reciprocal agreement at present. The hon. Member must not run this argument into the ground. We must remain aware of the fact that this is a useful and necessary way in which we may be able to develop possible reciprocal agreements in future. We do not believe that a restriction of this kind will assist us.

In considering this matter it is important to have regard to the capability of the film industries of different countries to translate the arrangements into practical benefits. Looked at from that point of view, the advantage lies heavily with the film industry in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman has chosen totally to ignore that point.

The industry here is without doubt among the leaders of world film production, on grounds of quality and technical skill. Our producers and distributors are well placed to take full advantage of any benefits accorded, or which will in the future be accorded, to British films in Commonwealth countries. Commonwealth production, on the other hand, does not at present offer a serious challenge to our own. This situation may not exist for ever, and we shall continue to keep the position under review. As regards films made in foreign studios, hon. Members will know that Section 19 of the Films Act, 1960, already provides for the conclusion of films co-production agreements with other Governments. I have made it clear that I do not think that a case has been made out for disturbing the present provisions concerning the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland. Not all the Irish are still fighting Cromwell. As regards foreign countries, Section 10 of the 1960 Act seems to offer adequate facilities. I ask the House to reject both new Clauses.

Mr. Hay

The House is now witnessing the same sort of performance from the hon. Lady that those of us who were in the Standing Committee became very familiar with, namely, to rattle at high speed through her brief, to give no answers whatever to the questions that have been put and, in effect, to treat the Opposition as some kind of impediment to the exercise of her power. She has completely failed to understand the purpose of the House of Commons, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

Withdraw.

Mr. Hay

I shall not withdraw, because I have said nothing that needs withdrawing.

One of the most extraordinary arguments that I have heard the hon. Lady use in dealing with new Clause 1 was that it appeared to have been put down in panic. When Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a few moments ago, I drew attention, by means of a procedural Motion, to the fact that we had only two working days in which to put down Amendments. My hon. Friends and myself have not done too badly in getting a number of Amendments and new Clauses on the Notice Paper at very short notice, and it ill-becomes the hon. Lady to say that we have put things down in a panic. We have done the best that we could in the limited time that the Government gave us, because we knew nothing about the Report stage being taken tonight until the Business statement last Thursday.

On the merits of new Clause 1, my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made his case clearly and simply. He moved the Clause in no hostile spirit, simply seeking an explanation of why it was necessary still to have this provision on the Statute Book. Let me remind the House what it is. Section 17 of the 1960 Act provides that a film made by or on behalf of a department of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, or by or on behalf of any Commonwealth Government or of the Government of the Republic of Ireland is to be regarded and may be registered as a British film.

Why should this continue to be so? Here we are, in 1970. The Act was passed 10 years ago. We have still not had from the hon. Lady any clear explanation of why it is necessary to have this provision on the Statute Book. The only explanation we can get from her, apart from her remark about our being in a panic, is the traditional housemaid's baby argument, that it is a little one and, therefore, we need not worry—that very few films are made by Commonwealth Governments or their Departments and are registered. But the fact that there is only a small number is no reason for maintaining on the Statute Book a provision which may be obnoxious in the future.

We have an opportunity here to discuss and amend the law. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to something which need be there no longer. If, as he said, some Commonwealth Government—there are now a good many countries in, or technically in, the Commonwealth—wanted to make films hostile to this country or to views held in this country, they would benefit instantly under Section 17 of the 1960 Act and could have their films registered as British films. That must be nonsense. I strongly support the Clause.

I come now to new Clause No. 3. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) back in his place. He has had a busy day, and I am sorry that he missed my hon. Friend's explanation of this new Clause. He and we on this side were very much at one in Committee on the desirability of reciprocity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, now that he has had an opportunity, during the short time available, to study new Clause 3, will advise his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that its purpose is dear to his heart, too, and that the House should accept it.

I put this plea to the Parliamentary Secretary. During the hours which remain to us, since the rule is suspended, we shall wish to raise several issues on the Bill which might not necessarily have been raised if the Government had not been so precipitate in bringing on the Report stage. I hope that she will have a little patience and not seek to brush aside our arguments in a torrent of words. I assure her that we are trying our best to raise issues that should be discussed and decided by the House, issues which we honestly believe to be worth consideration.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

I cannot resist the invitation offered by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). I am sorry that I was absent during the opening speech by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), but even Members of Parliament must occasionally have a little something to eat, and I have, as the hon. Gentleman said, been busily engaged all day.

New Clause 1 does not commend itself to me because it is restrictive. It is designed to prevent, without any alternative, the use of our quota legislation in Ireland and elsewhere in the Commonwealth. In Committee, I put down a new Clause which sought to establish a reciprocal arrangement; in other words, to provide that, in return for benefits extended to our film industry, we should continue these benefits, and it seemed that that was a better idea than the present proposal.

New Clause 3 does not commend itself to me, either. As I understand, it would remove the words "Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland" and substitute therefor the words "approved country". In other words, this is a sort of "Common Market Motion", an anti-Commonwealth move, and I am thoroughly opposed to any proposition to substitute for "Commonwealth country" the words "approved country". I am very much in favour of Commonwealth countries and would favour no such substitution.

Mr. Ridley

The hon. Gentleman has got both new Clauses wrong, so perhaps I may try to help.

New Clause 1 deals only with films made by Governments and does not, as he alleged, concern our commercial interests. New Clause 3 confines the privileges to countries which have concluded reciprocal agreements, which exactly follows the terms of his own proposal in Committee. I am surprised, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to support now what he supported last Tuesday, which is not very long ago.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

Whereas I could support my own wording in Committee, the wording of the two new Clauses here I cannot support. I do not accept the view that it is in any way identical with that of the new Clause that I there moved.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Silvester

The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) must realise that even though the wording of the two new Clauses is not the same as that which he used in Committee, it is very much the same tone. We are here proposing a very sensible and modern arrangement, which is that an approved country, whether or not it is a Commonwealth country—and there is no suggestion that an approved country would not be a Commonwealth country; on the contrary, the chances almost certainly are that the countries would he members of the Commonwealth—should be put on the same footing, so that, where the Government wish to do so, they may make reciprocal arrangements in order that the British film industry can receive in those countries the same benefits as are provided by us. That is a very natural and sensible arrangement, particularly when we remember that we do not define reciprocal arrangements.

The hon. Lady says we object to a quota from New South Wales, and so forth, but that is not so. There is nothing in the new Clauses to say that the nature of the reciprocal arrangements could not be defined as her own Board of Trade thought fit. They simply say that the same reciprocal benefits should be provided for our film industry in that country as is provided for the overseas industry here.

The hon. Lady was at great pains to say that films which are not made by the Government—that is to say, presumably, by the Minister—are not Government films, but, clearly, they will not be made by the Minister but by a film board. The productions of the National Film Board of Canada, for example, are classed by the Board of Trade as Government films. It is, therefore, nonsense to say that these films do not exist.

I have here the figures taken from the Board of Trade Journal supplemented by the latest figures for 1969. Of 184 short films in 1967, there were 10 of these films, of which, by my calculation, is about 5 per cent. In 1969, there were 10 of these short films out of 105, a total of about 10 per cent. There is no doubt that the number of films falling into this category is growing. Taking the long films, in 1968, we had an Australian long film, and in 1969 we had a Canadian long film. I have no objection to their coming in, but I object to the Minister denying that we face a position in which more and more of these situations are likely to arise.

As we are legislating now for the next 10 years, it seems quite reasonable that the hon. Lady should take power to enable her to make arrangements with those countries so as to ensure that our industry gets the same benefits abroad as do those industries in this country. I understand the Minister to say that some of the film industries are small compared with our own industry, and that is true. For example, I read in the trade Press that there is an attempt to build up Malta as a film making centre.

The object of the legislation is not primarily to secure large markets. No one suggests that the number of people going to Malta to make films is enough to make the industry quake. The object is to ensure that there is enough work for our studios and people. It is the place where the work is done that matters.

I therefore ask the Minister to look more seriously at these new Clauses. No one suggests that in two days we have been able to do a perfect drafting job. I am sorry if the hon. Member for Putney does not like the exact wording, but the sentiment is clearly one that he supported in Committee, and it is one that he has in mind. We would be happy to have these provisions come back from another place with other wording, if the hon. Lady so desired.

Mr. Ridley

I am disappointed by the hon. Lady's reply. I particularly resented her reference to Cromwell. There was nothing Cromwellian about new Clause 1 or in anything I said. There was nothing which she had any right to take as hostile to or critical of any foreign Government. The whole tenor of her remarks was below her usual exalted performance. If we are to deal with the Bill properly I hope that the hon. Lady will pay attention to our arguments and not merely try to make cheap cracks against my hon. Friends, who are trying to make serious points on an important Bill for the film industry.

Secondly, I twit the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who is willing to put down Amendments in Committee, but, when they are, most unusually, adopted by the Opposition, runs away from his own point of view by saying that he does not like the drafting. Of course, he may be worried because there are equal numbers of hon. Members present in the Chamber on both sides tonight, so that he might find himself the cause of a disaster to the Government if we came to a vote.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

If the Government decide to press new Clause 1 to a Division, I will seriously consider my position.

Mr. Ridley

Now the hon. Gentleman has changed again. He is a bell ringer. But we welcome him back to his original point of view.

The hon. Lady said that she was in the process of exploring reciprocal arrangements with other Governments. Unless she arms herself with new Clause 1 she cannot do more than explore, because those Governments will be able to say, "You are bound by legislation to give us a privilege in the British market. Why should we budge an inch in ours?" She would need a new Bill to correct that position.

We are asking her to take power to enable her to use the bargaining strength at her disposal rather than have it imprisoned by being locked in. It is not an invasion of this country by foreign films which matters—it is a possibility, though remote—but the opening up of foreign markets to British films. The point about reciprocal arrangements is that it becomes easier and also gives us a greater commercial opening for our films.

The hon. Lady is making a great mistake in not accepting our proposals. I do not vouch for the drafting of the new Clauses, since we were a little pushed to get Amendments down at all for Report. If that drafting is not perfect, I am the first to admit that it should be put right. For that reason, I do not intend to suggest that we press the new Clauses to a Division, but I ask the hon. Lady to take the point that has been made. A loophole has been found in the Bill.

The hon. Lady's speech was far from satisfactory, because she failed to defend her position. No foreign Government films have come into this country, she says, but why leave a loophole for them to come in in future? Again, she has reciprocal arrangements with only two countries for commercial films. Why not take power to force a few more Commonwealth countries to make reciprocal arrangements with us? Her answer was thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Question put and negatived.

Forward to