Cinemas (Rural Areas) (Hansard, 23 June 2004)

Mr. David Bendel (Newbury)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about cinemas in rural areas

I am delighted to have this opportunity to present a Bill that will increase the opportunities for filmgoing in rural areas. There are two important trends at present in UK cinema exhibition. First, the good news: cinema audiences and the number of cinema screens are both growing. However, the bad news is that there is a growing concentration of that capacity, to the exclusion of many of our communities.

The latest figure show that, in 2003, 44.3 per cent. of all screens are in city-centre locations, and that 52.2 per cent. are in suburban, edge, or out-of-town locations. Only 3.5 per cent. of screens are in rural areas. In London, there are 6.5 screens for every 100,000 people. That compares with 3.5 per 100,000 in the north-east, and 3.8 in the south-west.

Across the country, many small local cinemas are closing. In 1988, multiplex venues accounted for only 10 per cent. of the UK's cinema screens. That figure rose to 37 per cent. by 1995, to 57 per cent. by 1999, and to 71 per cent. by 2003.

More than three quarters of multiplex screens are owned by just five companies, and more than 50 per cent. are owned by just three companies. That raises serious questions about whether there is a level playing field for competition in the industry. Richard Cobden might have had something to say about that.

My point is not that multiplex cinemas are a bad thing—we would dearly love to have one in Newbury—but that the closure of the smaller cinemas that tend to serve the rural communities has resulted in a serious problem of access in many small towns and rural areas. As John Woodward, the chief executive of the UK Film Council stated it in a letter to a local campaigner on this issue: Over the last ten years, despite huge growth in the number of cinemas and screens in the UK, audience choice has not increased. with fewer titles in wide distribution and a film diet comprising mainly Hollywood blockbusters. Why should we worry about the closure of what is often described as the local fleapit? First, cinemas are an important part of local history. Local historian Frances Berry has described cinemagoing in Newbury in the era of silent films: We sat on wooden chairs which were constantly on the move as the occupants got more and more excited at the drama unfolding before them, during which they would cheer the heroes and boo the baddies, all the while tucking into a variety of edible items, more often than not fruit from the local stalls. Above all, cinema was a communal experience—people used to bring their fish and chip suppers with them—and they were part of the life and vibrancy of the town. The trend today is in a very different direction. Cinema is less likely to be a local or a communal experience. The dominance of the multiplex has resulted in what is often a more sterile, individualised filmgoing experience.

Secondly, local cinemas make an important contribution to the economic and social vitality of local communities and to social inclusion. Their closure 1343 means that people have to travel in order to reach a cinema, often for a considerable distance and almost always by car. At the same time, many people are simply excluded from access to the cinema: if one is elderly or a child, or if one has poor access to transport or is unable to afford ticket prices, the nearest multiplex venue may not be an option. The closure of small-town cinemas runs counter both to the Government's efforts to safeguard the environment from the unnecessary use of cars and to minimise social exclusion.

Thirdly, local cinemas are important because a free and diverse society benefits from the widest possible public access to the arts in all their diversity. Cinema speaks in a universal language. It deals with universal themes of love, sadness, joy and loss. But films are also grounded in a specific cultural context. Because they communicate the particular in a language that is universal, they are powerful mediums of cultural understanding. In a society with large communities from the Indian sub-continent, for example, we all benefit from having access to Indian films. As we struggle with our identity as European citizens, we benefit from having access to continental European cinema. And, of course, British films—an important source of cultural understanding for our ethnic minorities—often struggle to get a screening. The closure of local cinemas is therefore worrying because it restricts choice and the variety of films on offer.

Fourthly, we all complain about vandalism and yobbish behaviour in this country. The Government's only answer is ever more restrictions, particularly on young people. Why not take a more positive line? Why not offer young people who want to spend time with their friends and away from their homes an opportunity to enjoy a good film? Not only social inclusion but social cohesion can be enhanced by a good local cinema.

What can be done? First, it is important to acknowledge the valuable work already being done by the UK Film Council. The digital fund for non-theatrical exhibition, involving £500,000 of lottery money, offers opportunities to film clubs, local film societies, community groups and mobile film exhibitors to buy DVD-based digital projection equipment. Awards under the scheme cover 50 to 80 per cent. of the costs of the equipment, or up to £5,000. The Film Council is also working on a grant award scheme for film societies, aimed at improving the film programming services available locally. Meanwhile, the Film Council's distribution and exhibition fund is distributing £13 million of lottery money to create a digital screen network, with the aim of expanding access to specialised films, particularly in areas of social exclusion.

Those are important initiatives, and the Film Council deserves our congratulation and support for its work. However, it is operating under significant financial constraints: only 2 per cent. of the lottery budget for good causes is allocated to its work; moreover, there is no dedicated public funding stream to facilitate capital investment in new cinema capacity in areas where there 1344 currently is none. I understand that the UK Film Council will be in a position later this year to announce some money for capital work, but we are talking about a relatively small amount to cover small-scale investment in fixtures and fittings, rather than a major investment programme of the kind needed. I hope that the Government will take seriously the case for increased public support from lottery or non-lottery sources for cinema exhibition.

So much for why my Bill is needed: let me now explain the four proposals contained within it. The first two relate to planning law. First, my Bill will remove cinemas from the use class category D2 (Leisure). At present, a change of use involving a cinema building need not require planning permission if it involves movement within the same use class. For example, a building may move from being a cinema to being a bingo hall. By removing cinemas from the leisure use class, my Bill would extend to them the same protection that applies to theatres and give local authorities an important tool with which to prevent the closure of existing cinemas.

A second change to planning law would help to facilitate the opening of new cinemas. My Bill would require the Secretary if State to bring before Parliament regulations to ensure that cinemas are included among acceptable objects for planning gain. The third proposal is an expansion of the market towns initiative to include support for cinema capacity in small rural towns. The fourth is to allow local authorities to provide business rate relief on a discretionary basis to local cinemas. That would require an amendment to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, in much the same way as the Local Government Act 2003 already enables rate relief for community amateur sports clubs. Together with my proposed change to planning rules, that would give extra discretion to local councils to safeguard vulnerable cinema facilities and, perhaps, introduce new ones.

Cinema has been de scribed as an everyday magic. It is part of social and cultural history. But, as I have tried to show, cinemas are important for the economic and social vitality of small towns and village communities. This is not just about protecting the local fleapit for nostalgic or sentimental reasons. It is a contribution to a much wider policy agenda, relating to the reduction of crime and vandalism and to the economic, social and environmental sustainability of local communities. For those reasons, local cinemas deserve political support. I hope, therefore, that the House will support my Bill.