BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE BILL (Hansard, 25 May 1949)

THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM)
My Lords, there is an old saying that, 1144 after battle, peace is best; after war, tranquility. I am sure that we shall proceed in a most calm and happy atmosphere in our discussion of this non-controversial Bill. I am glad to say that it is as short as it is non-controversial—certainly it is short compared with the last Bill which I had the honour of laying before this House. It has not thirty-seven clauses and five Schedules as had the War Damage (Public Utility Undertakings) Bill of which I recently moved the Second Reading. This Bill has only one operative clause, and a clause containing the Title. As your Lordships are aware it has been extremely well received in another place, and although I will attempt to answer any points that arise, perhaps the House will permit me in these opening remarks to deal briefly with the subject. I shall not attempt to do justice to the work of the British Film Institute, but I would say that I am sure all noble Lords who have studied the Report of that Institute will agree that it has done very fine work indeed.
The Bill is to give effect to the recommendation of the Radcliffe Committee that the Film Institute should receive a direct grant from the Treasury in addition to the grant made to it from the Cinematograph Fund. Since the grant from the Cinematograph Fund is made under the statutory authority of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, it is proper that the authority of this House should also be sought for the proposal to provide an additional grant from another source. It is in order to obtain that authority that we are introducing this Bill.
The early history of the British Film Institute is described in the Report of the Radcliffe Committee (Command Paper 7361), which your Lordships will have read. I do not think I need go into it now. I propose to take as my starting point the Report of the Radcliffe Committee itself. The House will remember that the Committee were appointed by the Lord President of the Council, and reported about a year ago. They found that, although the Institute had attempted to develop many of the activities originally assigned to it, there were few in which it had made the headway that was hoped, partly because it had had so little money at its disposal. I happened to run 1145 into one of the Governors of the Institute last night, and he told me that that is absolutely true. They have all the time been approached with friendly requests for help which hitherto they have possessed insufficient funds to meet. The Committee recommended that in future all members of the Board of Governors of the Institute should be appointed by the Lord President of the Council, and that the Institute should concentrate on three main fields of activity which were described as follows: (1) To encourage the development of the art of the film, to promote its use as a record of contemporary life and manners, and to foster public appreciation and study of it from these points of view; (2) to explore and promote new or extended uses for the film; and (3) to encourage, support and serve other bodies working in the same field.
As regards finance, with which this Bill is specifically concerned, the Committee gave an estimate of an annual expenditure of at least £100,000, together with capital expenditure of some £30,000, as an indication of the scale of expenditure which would be involved. At that time the annual grant from the Cinematograph Fund was fixed at £31,500, and even this figure involved drawing on the reserves of the Fund. They pointed out that the annual income of the Fund was only some £22,000, a figure which would probably tend to decrease, and that if the Institute was to continue to be dependent on the Fund for the bulk of its finances it would have to face a sharp contraction in its activities. And we agree that there should be an expansion rather than a contraction. The Committee recommended that the Institute should not in future look to the Cinematograph Fund for the bulk of its finances, though they saw no objection to a small proportion of its funds being drawn from this source. They concluded that the most suitable method of finance for the bulk of the Institute's funds would be a grant from the Exchequer.
I do not think I need carry your Lordships through the various detailed happenings since that Report. I would mention that the new constitution of the Institute recommended by the Radcliffe Committee has been adopted, and the governing body, under its new chairman, Mr. Cecil King, has been appointed by 1146 the Lord President. The detailed budget of the Institute has been drawn up and discussed with the Treasury. This budget estimates the expenditure of the Institute in 1949–50 at £96,000, including £7,000 capital, towards which receipts amounting to about £28,000 are expected to be available from subscriptions, sales, rental of films and other sources. It is expected that £22,000 will be available from the income of the Cinematograph Fund, and provision for the balance of £46,000—that is the crucial figure before us—has been included as a grant-in-aid in the Civil Estimates for 1949–50, Class IV, Vote 10. It is for this grant-in-aid, this £46,000, and similar grants-in-aid in future years, that the authority of Parliament is being sought in the Bill to which I am now asking the House to give a Second Reading.
As I have said, the Government accept the view of the Radcliffe Committee—and I hope it will be accepted also by your Lordships' House—that the Treasury grant-in-aid is necessary; and they consider, therefore, that the provision made in the Bill is the one required for that purpose. I know that the noble Viscount who is to follow me is a great expert on films. No doubt, he will be able to contribute more to that side of the matter than I have felt it right to do. I am sure that the distinctions between the various film actors and film actresses are much better known to him than to me. I can distinguish only with difficulty between those who are best known—between Clark Gable and Betty Grable is about as far as I can get—but I feel sure that the noble Viscount will help us there. Nevertheless, whether we are expert filmgoers or not, I am sure the House agrees that the purposes of this Bill are good, that we all want to encourage the best kind of films. Therefore, without overmuch controversy, I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN
My Lords, we on these Benches are accustomed to deal with Bills on their merits and therefore, just as we offered strong objection to the measure last before us, so we can fully agree with the measure before us 1147 now. We can agree very quickly, partly because it is unnecessary for the purposes of this Bill to follow the noble Lord into this question of Clark Gable and his fellow performers—and indeed I am really little more competent to do so than the noble Lord. The fact that this Bill has been certified as a Money Bill also makes our deliberations shorter than would otherwise have been the case; and thirdly, and probably the best reason of all, we can welcome this Bill because it is founded on the recommendations of the Radcliffe Committee.
I should like to pay a tribute to the work of this Committee in presenting what I think we all agree is a very workmanlike and satisfactory Report. There is no doubt that we all want the Film Institute to carry on, because it is a very important part of the film industry, both in its research activities and in regard to its library and everything else. If it is to go on and play its part in the wellbeing and interests of the film industry, then it must do so properly; otherwise it would be better not to do it at all. Therefore I think we should all be agreed that a grant is the right way to finance the work of the British Film Institute. One might perhaps express the view that if Entertainment Tax on the film industry were not so heavy it might be possible for the industry to finance the work of the Institute itself, in the same way that other large industries finance the work of their research institutions of a comparable kind. But I do not want to follow that path too far.
Perhaps I may come back to one or two points that occurred to me on reading the Report and on reading the Bill, which is shorter. First, although I am sure the point has been taken care of, it was not mentioned in another place how a report on each year's working of the Institute is to be presented to Parliament. Is it going to be dealt with by discussion of the appropriate Estimates on a Supply Day in another place? Is there to be an annual report; or how is it to be done? I think public money ought to be accounted for in some such way, and perhaps more particularly in a case like this—for these reasons: first, because since a film library is part of the Film Institute, the cost will expand every year, as more and more material 1148 is collected in the library; secondly, because, as the Report itself has shown (in paragraph 8 I think), there is the risk of a certain amount of overlapping with other organisations in the film and educational world which do much the same work; and lastly, because the appeals of culture and education are always rather difficult to resist, and therefore one should be all the more careful to see that money is not wasted—indeed, in these days we cannot afford to waste it. That is one point.
The other point is the question of Scotland. I have with me noble friends who are also interested in that point. There was a recommendation in paragraph 53 (h) of the Radcliffe Report, which stated The Scottish Film Council should continue to carry out the work of the Institute in Scotland and should be given additional funds for this purpose. I understand from my noble friends that they are in full agreement with that recommendation. Nothing is said about it in the Bill, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would tell us, either now or at a later date, what are the actual plans that the Government have in mind for dealing with the financing of that very important part of this organisation, the Scottish Film Council. I need say no more, except to repeat that we welcome this Bill. We support the Second Reading, and we shall not wish to trouble the Government over its further stages.

LORD PAKENHAM
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount who has expressed, on behalf of himself and his colleagues, support for this Bill. I am sorry to see that the Liberal Benches, which one would rather expect to be keenly interested in anything that promoted proposals in the nature of culture, are vacant. I will not comment further than that this evening except to say that the traditions of Gladstonian Liberalism seem to be dormant.
I will address myself to the point about Scotland. I cannot help observing that, apart from the noble Viscount and myself, who have a kind of professional interest in the discussion, the only other noble Lords who have remained to consider this Bill are all from Scotland—I see that we are now joined by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, whose cultural in- 1149 terests were never more evident than this evening. I can assure the noble Viscount, and the noble Lords from Scotland, that the Government are accepting the proposals recommended with regard to Scotland, and I hope that message will be taken back and will give satisfaction.
I would just refer to one other point—namely, the question of the Parliamentary scrutiny of accounts. The accounts will be published, together with the annual report of the Institute. These accounts will be audited by a non-Government auditor. I was not privy to recent discussions in the House, therefore I do not know whether or not that affords special pleasure to noble Lords opposite. At any rate the proposal is that the accounts will be audited by a non-Government auditor and not by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. But the auditor will have access to the books and accounts, so honour should be satisfied all round. Perhaps, having said so much, I have done enough to recommend the Bill to your Lordships.