HL Deb 29 June 1948 vol 157 cc21-9

2.51 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.

Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My Lords, I am rather surprised that the noble Lord has not given us some explanation of this Order. I expected that he would shortly explain to the House what the Order does. As he has not done so, I feel that I must say a word about it. It is in a form that is not always easy to follow. Your Lordships will remember that the Cinematograph Films Act, which we passed unanimously in this House, gave the President of the Board of Trade the power to fix a quota for what I may call long and short films (I think they are now called feature films and secondary films), subject to producing the Order in both Houses of Parliament. The quota which has been fixed under this Order is, for the long or feature films, 45 per cent., and for the shorter or secondary films, 25 per cent. Frankly, I am anxious as to the size of the quota which has been given for the long feature films. Nobody will accuse me of anything except a keen solicitude for the production of British films. I think the House knows that I was the originator of the original Act. I piloted it through the other place, although there was a great deal of opposition at the time, and I administered it for some years. So successful was that Act that ten years later both Houses of Parliament unanimously agreed to its continuation, with some small Amendments. Then, recently, at the end of a further ten years we passed a similar Bill. This is an improved Bill, because, after all, in twenty years one does learn by experience. It was always an essential element in the original Act, as in its successors, that we should not merely produce British films, but that we should produce good British films, which would show successfully, not only in this country, but all over the world. Bad British films are not only a bad advertisement here, but are a bad advertisement for good British films when we want to sell them, whether in this country or overseas.

In the original Act I deliberately put the quota rather low. It was on an ascending scale. I deliberately invited Parliament to fix a quota which I knew was definitely below what the British film industry could produce. I added a refinement which has now, for good reasons, gone by the board, that the quota for the renter should be higher than the quota for the exhibitor. My object in doing that was that there should be an incentive to the British film producer, not only to produce enough films to fill his quota but to produce films apart from die quota which he would have to sell on merit. That worked, on the whole, very well. Actually the total number of films shown in the succeeding years in British cinemas was far larger than the number of quota films. It was also important to carry, as we did, the complete good will of the exhibitors. I have nothing to say against the combines, which I think perform a useful purpose and provide good entertainment; but it is not a case of carrying the good will merely of two or three large combines which have some hundreds of cinemas under their control; it means carrying the good will of all the others, of which there are some thousands.

What is being done by this Order? It lays down a quota which means that in every picture house in this country 45 per cent of the feature films shown shall be British films. I knew it is said—and I dare say it is true—that it is physically possible with the floor space of the British studios to produce a sufficient number of British films to fill a 45 per cent quota. But you cannot calculate films—which are, whatever anybody may think, a work of art, and sometimes a work of genius—as you can calculate the output of an ordinary factory. If you want to know how many aeroplane engines or how many biscuits you can produce out of a given factory, you take the size of the factory, the number of machine tools and other tools in the factory, and the number of hours worked, and you can make a fairly good calculation as to what the factory will produce. But the production of films cannot be calculated in that way. There are hitches; things go wrong; and some films do not turn out well. You cannot treat everything which is produced in these studios as certain to be of the right quality. I should have thought that a 45 per cent. quota was very high. I understand that on the Films Council there was a considerable difference of opinion. I am not surprised. The President of the Board of Trade then had to make up his own mind. I am not going to ask the House to vote against the Order, because I think the President of the Board of Trade must have a very special responsibility. However, I cannot avoid saying that I am—and I know that many people are—worried about this.

Then we have to consider the convenience of the exhibitors. It may be comparatively easy for one of the great organisations, which is both a producer and an exhibitor, to provide its theatres to the extent of 40, 45 or maybe 50 per cent. with British films. But observe two things. In the first place, naturally those who are producers as well as exhibitors will give the first opportunity to their own theatres. I am not putting that too high. They will still sell their films wherever they can, but they will naturally see that their own theatres get films. Secondly, it is much easier for them to make a contract for changing the films. If you have an organisation of your own, with 300 or 400 theatres in it, you can ring the changes much more easily; you can supply your own films much more easily. But in the case of the thousands of small exhibitors, of whom a number have only one house, it is much more difficult. In Scotland, where they are always on the alert, they are feeling very anxious about this matter. It may be that in Scotland—I do not know—they are more eclectic in what they go to see. They have more of these single theatres, and they are genuinely anxious about this matter.

I know I shall be told that if an exhibitor can show that he cannot fill his quota, the President of the Board of Trade may excuse him. That is not very satisfactory, though it is absolutely necessary to have that provision. If the quota is fixed so high that nearly every exhibitor comes along and claims to be excused, it means that a great burden is placed upon the Board of Trade, who will be almost driven to decide it by rule of thumb. That was never the intention of Parliament when this Bill was passed. The intention of Parliament was that the application for exemption should be the exception, and not the rule; that the exhibitor should prove his case, and that each case should be decided upon its merits. If the President of the Board of Trade finds himself faced with hundreds of applications for exemption, he will not then be able to decide them on their merits and he will be driven to decide them by rule of thumb.

Anxious as I am to see British films given the greatest screen space they can get in this country, in the Empire and the United States, I believe that we would have served the interests of British films better by not putting the initial quota so high as 45 per cent. If this fails, and you have to come down, it will not be a good advertisement. It would have been much better to fix the quota a little lower—as we did under the original Act—and then, if the exhibitors produced more good films, they would have shown them on their merits, irrespective of the quota. Then, the next year or the next six months—whenever next the quota was fixed—it could be fixed on an ascending scale. It will not be a good thing for British films, and for the co-operation we want, if the President of the Board of Trade has, later, to bring this figure down. By putting the quota so high, there is a great danger that you will not encourage the best of the film producers. Even they are open to temptation to produce a kind of merchandise which will fill the quota.

I am not talking theory here. When I introduced the original Cinematograph Films Act I did not forsee the possibility of "quota quickies." The "quota quickie" was introduced largely by foreigners who acquired British studio space to produce thoroughly bad, cheap films in order to fulfil the quota; and that did a great deal of harm to British films. We quickly put a stop to that by putting a monetary value upon the film; if a man had to put £10,000 or £20,000 into a film it did not pay him to produce a bad film. If he had to put a lot of money into a film he would put his best into it. If you put the quota so high as this, you may tempt not only foreign producers and entrepreneurs, but British producers themselves to produce "quota quickies," partly to fill the quota and partly because there is a high protection—I am a protectionist, but there is a measure of moderation in all things; I am not an exclusionist. By having this quota I think there is a danger to the quality of British films, to the presentation of British films and to the co-operation from the exhibitors, which is an essential feature if this is to succeed. I hope I am wrong, but I feel sure that the President of the Board of Trade would have been wiser to start a little more modestly.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I had intended to ask two questions of my noble friend, and I still intend to ask them, as briefly as possible. The first is: What guarantee has he—I am sure that the guarantee is available, and I do not ask this question in any hostile spirit—or, rather, what guarantee have the Board of Trade, that the 45 per cent. will be forthcoming in suitable British films? The reason I ask that question is partly because of a letter which an old friend of mine, Mr. Allport, has written to The Times to-day. In the letter, Mr. Allport, who represents the Motion Picture Association of America, attacks the proposed 45 per cent. quota in much the same terms as the noble Viscount opposite, but he does so in rather stronger language. Mr. Allport describes it as "fantastically unreal" and—I will quote just one other of the sentences—writes that it is designed…to bedevil the Americans (and British exhibitors) but not to be fulfilled. That is a serious charge, coming from a gentleman whom have known for many years as choosing his words carefully, and certainly a gentleman in a very responsible position. He reminds us that British theatres require and have received 449 feature films a year, of which, over the last four years, 23 per cent. were British. The arguments he uses are that the rise is too sharp—just as we have heard, in rather more Parliamentary language, from the noble Viscount. I am sure my noble friend will wish to assure us, especially on this side of the House, that the President of the Board of Trade is satisfied that worth-while films will be available to complete this quota, which certainly represents a very sharp rise.

The second question is this. Everyone who knows the subject—as most of your Lordships do—will agree that the trouble with British films has been the lack of finance; and that is still one of the main troubles with the production of British films. I do not propose to go into the reasons now. During the passage this year of the Cinematograph Films Act, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade declared in another place—and the same thing was said here—that he was studying the question of a film bank—that is a very old project which has been advocated by friends of the industry for many years—and that he was examining other suitable means of helping the financing of British films. I would suggest to my noble friend that it would be appropriate, if he has any information on that later point, that he should give it in inviting your Lordships to pass this Order.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Selkirk asked me to put a question to the Government on this matter which, to me, is an uncharted sea. I understand from my noble friend that while a comparatively moderate number of films can satisfy the annual demand of a big cinema, where there is a constantly changing audience, in a small burgh town, where the audience is always the same, it may take as many as 200 films to fulfil the needs of small cinemas. I understand that the total ouput of British films in the year is something like eighty, and 45 per cent. of 200 would absorb the whole of the output of British films. If this cannot be accomplished, my noble friend wants to know what will be the result for these smaller cinemas. Will they be closed down, or what will become of them? My noble friend expresses the same fears as were expressed by the noble Viscount, on the effects of cramming unsuitable British films down the throat British public. He points out that a film of elegant Mayfair depravity does not secure good audiences in burgh towns in the Highlands of Scotland.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to deal with the questions raised in the reverse order to which they were put, coming last to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, which was the most substantial contribution in this discussion. The question which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, raised in relation to the position of the small towns is, of course, very sound. They require more frequent changes, and for a town with two cinemas to have a change of film during the course of the week about 200 films will be required. On the basis of 45 per cent., it means that about ninety British films should be shown. It is probably true that we cannot be certain of having forthcoming so many feature films as that. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred to a figure of 449 which he took from a letter written, I think, on behalf of the Americans, which appears in The Times to-day. I am sorry the noble Lord should be prepared to take as gospel everything that is put forward by the other side in respect of this matter. My information is that that figure of 449 is fallacious.

With regard to finance, the Order before your Lordships this afternoon is concerned with the fixing of quotas, and not with the problem of the financing of the film industry; and with your Lordships' consent I do not propose to go into that.

LORD STRABOLGI

The two are closely allied.

LORD CHORLEY

The noble Viscount raised two specific points. He said he was afraid that the quota was too high. Your Lordships are aware—and the noble Viscount indicated—that the quota system originated when he was President of the Board of Trade, and he said that he quite agreed with the method. Obviously, he said, it is most important not to fix the quota too high, otherwise the consequences may be serious. That, of course, is true. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has naturally given close attention to this question. One could fix the quota on the basis that every small cinema in a provincial town would be able to comply completely with the requirements of the Act; but, in that case, the large circuits would be under no obligation to show anything like the same number of feature films as they could do. In fact, the industry would work at a lower tempo than it is capable of doing. The other method was the one which has been adopted; and, looking at it from the point of view of the large cinemas, whence undoubtedly the biggest demand comes, it is a reasonably realistic method. Figures are placed before the Films Council showing the capabilities in respect of the production of these feature films. After going into the question of capacities, the quota has been fixed, very realistically, on the basis of what the Council think can be done.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The noble Lord has now said something which, so far as I know, is completely at variance with what the President of the Board of Trade said. The President of the Board of Trade said, quite rightly and with complete frankness, that the Films Council were hopelessly divided on the subject and that the producers took one point of view—naturally they want a high quota—exhibitors an entirely different one. He believed that the majority on the Council was a narrow one for the higher quotas, as against the lower. He added: "I had to disregard that, and make up my own mind."

LORD CHORLEY

The noble Viscount cannot have followed what I said. The duty of fixing the quota is not for the Films Council; it is for my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. I said that the material was brought before the Films Council by the producers; and the producers endeavoured to indicate that they could produce a number of films which, if their evidence had been accepted, would have entitled them to ask for the quota to be fixed higher than 45 per cent. I am saying that it was a realistic view of the matter which the Minister took, after making allowance for possible failures or a possible excess of optimism on the part of producers, and that the 45 per cent. was fixed in relation to the needs of large exhibitors. My right honourable friend has power under the Act to exempt from the requirements the smaller exhibitors in the country towns, in cases where they can satisfy him that they are not able to secure the necessary films. There is no reason to suppose that there will be wholesale exemptions such as the noble Viscount envisaged. It is quite true, of course, that what might be called block exemptions, if handed out, would stultify the object of the Act. Obviously, there will be, here and there, cases in connection with these small towns, especially over the initial period, where there may be difficulties; but these can be dealt with by my honourable friend under what might be called the escape clause of the Act.

Finally, I think we ought to have confidence in the British film industry. Evidently we on this side of the House have greater confidence than the noble Viscount. The film industry has been through a difficult time during the war years, but it is prepared now to play its part, and undoubtedly the part which it can play is a very important one, particularly in the difficult balance of exchange situation in which we find ourselves. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that we should have confidence in this industry and that you will agree to approve this Order.

LORD SALTOUN

Does this mean that all the owners of the smaller cinemas in boroughs—perhaps 170 to 180 in Scotland alone—have now to enter upon a laborious correspondence with the Board of Trade for their exemptions? Is that the process?

LORD CHORLEY

It means that if they cannot satisfy the quota they may ask for permission to be exempted from it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.