HL Deb 30 March 1950 vol 166 cc676-84

5.12 p.m.

Debate resumed,

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I had arrived at the point of telling your Lordships that upon this occasion the Films Council had managed to come to a majority decision, and I had just explained how the Films Council had voted. The Films Council reached the decision to recommend this new quota after they had considered a statement prepared by the British Films Producers' Association that there might be between 106 and 108 new British films produced during the quota period. But the Films Council, showing a marked degree of prudence and taking into consideration the traditional optimism of the film industry, knocked these figures down to between fifty and sixty, because they thought they might be realised. So upon that anticipated realisation they came to the decision that a quota of 30 per cent. might be more nearly the right figure.

Perhaps I should explain that in the distribution of first-feature films there are three main exhibiting circuits—Odeon, Gaumont-British, and A.B.C. It is necessary for these big circuits, and for the other large cinemas which are liable to a full quota rate, to have one first feature film every week. We must therefore have 156 first-feature films—British or American—to fill the quota. 'This means that if we can realise a production of between fifty and sixty it w ill give us some little elbow room—something in the nature of twelve films—room for what noble Lords opposite would call "freedom of choice." For the current quota year, the quota was 40 per cent., requiring a minimum of sixty-three films. Probably about seventy will be produced, and that, of course, will give a margin such as we all want.

The fixing of the quota is a rather delicate business. We are always on the horns of a dilemma. First of all, its object, as noble Lords know, is to provide some incentive to British production, and the problem always is whether to fix a quota at a level which can be comfortably reached by all the cinemas to which it will apply, or whether it should be fixed at a level which will really be effective for the bigger and more lucrative cinemas which are of most importance financially to the British producer. I do not think I need waste your Lordships' time by saying anything about the question of defaults.

I think the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, will be interested to note that, under the new Act, reductions in the quota can be granted when certain conditions are fulfilled. It may be reduced on a sliding scale between 10 and 40 per cent. A reduction may also be made in the case of those who cannot fulfil the quota obligations owing to circumstances beyond their control. In the first period we granted reductions to 1,473 cinemas. In exceptional circumstances there are total exemptions. There are, broadly, two conditions: they have to show first that they have two near competitors, and secondly that their turnover or box office takings do not exceed £100 per week, This year 1,522 were granted reductions, and there were 228 exemptions. Although I have not the figures for the present quota period, because it will not finish until the end of September, I think that the figures will be roughly the same.

I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the question of the supporting programme quota, but I should like to say one or two words about the general position and prospects of British production. I have to admit that the industry is not in an altogether healthy position. I sometimes smile to myself when noble Lords opposite chide noble Lords on this side of the House about the losses of nationalised industries and hold up various industries as being the acme of perfection under private enterprise. I have never heard noble Lords opposite hold up the British film industry as a shining example. I think that we must admit that it is the skeleton in the private enterprise cupboard. The reason I think is that there have not yet been produced enough good directors and enough good script writers to reach a really high standard. Certainly there are always outstanding exceptions. I am told—though I confess that I cannot speak from personal experience, because I never go to see films—

A NOBLE LORD: You ought to go.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am told that The Third Man was an excellent film. The wretched tune which is featured in it I do know. It is played incessantly in my house by members of my young family who are keen filmgoers but, if that tune is any guide to the film, then I do not want to see it. However, I understand that The Third Man is very good. I gather that the outstanding British production—I expect that Lord Lloyd knows all about it—is The Blue Lamp. That, I am told, is first-class, and all noble Lords who are interested in the subject which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, raised in your Lordships' House the other day should go to see it.

The two things of which the industry is woefully short are good directors and good script writers. The third thing, I must admit, is finance. It has not attracted finance, but we have been able to do something about it. When I tell you that the National Film Finance Corporation have been in a large measure responsible for financing 50 per cent. of the films produced I think that your Lordships will agree that a considerable degree of encouragement has been given by His Majesty's Government. We shall have an opportunity of discussing this matter in detail, because the first annual report of the Film Finance Corporation will be published, I hope, before the end of April. That report must be presented to Parliament, and I have not the slightest doubt that your Lordships will seize the opportunity of debating the whole question of the British film industry.

I have called attention to the broad position. I have told your Lordships that we shall not be able to have a higher quota than this. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, is going to tell me, "We told you so"—I am prepared for it—and I know that he is going to do it in the charming manner which he always displays. I should like to make this suggestion to the British film industry. What it must realise is that the British public are becoming more selective—and rightly so. I am beginning to wonder whether the sex and crime-ridden cinema advertisements which despoil our papers and our hoardings do not repell more decent-minded citizens than the adolescents they attract into the cinemas. If the industry will overhaul its salesmanship a little, and cease to think that vice and lewd advertisements attract the British public, they may be able to increase their receipts. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 22nd instant, be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

5.23 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, we are once again indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his clear explanation of the situation which confronts us and which we had to discuss on finding this Order laid on the Table of the House. There is not a great deal of time before this Order has to be passed. Last year, a similar Order was laid on the very last day possible to avoid chaos in the film industry. This year, we have one day's grace, and we must be thankful for small mercies. We are grateful to the noble Lord for the clear picture that he has put in front of us this afternoon. I join with him in regretting the absence of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who has had a long experience of the film industry and of the work of the various Cinematograph Films Acts. My noble friend is disappointed that he is unable to be here this afternoon, but as the noble Lord knows he had an engagement which he was unable to put off. He will be consoled when he hears that there will be an opportunity of debating the whole state of the film industry on the report which the noble Lord was good enough to mention. I think we shall wish to take advantage of that suggestion.

This afternoon I do not propose to deal widely or at great length with the industry as a whole—for two reasons: first, because the Order deals only with quotas, and although the rules of order in this House are wide, there are certain limits; and, secondly, because on looking up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate a year ago, I find that my noble friend, Lord Swinton, forecast very accurately what would happen if the Government insisted on keeping the quota for first-feature films at 40 per cent., and I can save your Lordships' time by recommending to your Lordships, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, my noble friend's speech of last year. I shall not deal with the questions of sex and crime, important though they are and although I agree with much of what the noble Lord has said. A great deal of clearing-up has to be done, but for the moment I am going to confine myself to the clearing-up which I think is necessary because the Government fixed too high a quota last year.

My noble friend, Lord Swinton, said in last year's debate that he would have thought after the recent experience which the Government had had of a 45 per cent. quota the Board of Trade would decide to fix a lower figure, which would carry the good will of exhibitors and encourage the production of good films. My noble friend said he hoped that the Board of Trade would learn from experience and be more realistic. It looks as though that hope has been fulfilled, and that, not for the first time, my noble friend has been right. The noble Lord opposite anticipated that, and I gave him notice that I was going to point the moral. On the last occasion, as the noble Lord told us, the Cinematograph Films Council, recommended (though I know the majority was not a big one) a 33⅓ per cent. quota—and after all, one would have thought it was their recommendation that mattered and not the reasons for making it. This time, they have been much more unanimous. I think it can be fairly said that the only dissentients were the trade union group.

I should be the last person to say that I do not sympathise with the attitude of the trade unions in the film industry. Everyone wants to see a state of full employment there, as everywhere else, but if full employment in the film industry has been bought—which I very much doubt—it has been bought very dearly. The 40 per cent. quota has caused an inrush of unqualified people. At the present moment, the bottleneck is not the sort of labour which is collected in the trade unions; it is not even finance, as I shall try to explain in a moment; but it is a shortage which cannot be overcome in a hurry, one to which the noble Lord referred—namely, the shortage of producers, directors, script writers and all those people whom one might call the artistic class of technician. These are born not made, and no amount of money poured into the film industry, no amount of union labour waiting at the door, can possibly increase the supply of the artistic class of technician. Until that supply is increased the only result of trying to increase the quota will be to produce a larger number of thoroughly bad films which disgust the film-going, public and harm the reputation of British films overseas.

I am afraid that that is what has happened as the result of fixing the film quota too high, against the advice of my noble friends on these Benches. But at last we are learning the lesson: that when we are dealing with a commercial matter, such as film production must be if it is to be properly handled, we have to take decisions for commercial reasons. If we try to bring in any extraneous reasons—and I think that a number were in the minds of the Government when they fixed the quota at 40 per cent.—then disaster will follow. We have now got down to a figure, I think the noble Lord said, of fifty-three or fifty-four first-feature films.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

About fifty-five to sixty.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

A figure of between 106 and 108 was quoted. That I am glad to say has been debunked. My information is that that figure of fifty-five to sixty—or, to put it another way, one first-feature film coming from one studio or another every week—is about right, and is in fact attainable if we maintain a proper standard of production, direction, script writing and everything else. That is the bottleneck. I think we can fairly look forward to the production of proper quality films at that level. I do not think that finance is the bottleneck. Most of the money in the Film Finance Corporation has, I believe, been used, and the noble Lord opposite said a word or two about it. He said that they were responsible for the finance of about 50 per cent. of the films produced.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

For helping to finance.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

For financing in some degree or other, I take it?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Yes.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

I will not pursue that point further now, because as I have said we should like to come back to that later. However, it occurs to me to wonder among how many real customers that finance was distributed. I will, so to speak, give notice of that question to the noble Lord, and we will come back to it in the debate on the report.

We are now left in the film industry with the business of getting rid of a certain number of the duds—the "spivs" and people of that sort—who flocked into the industry when the time came for it to deal with a bigger quota than it could reasonably be expected to cope with. The first step now will be to restore a proper standard among those engaged in the industry, and on all sides of the House we wish them every possible good luck in that undertaking. It is the first fence to surmount, and until we have accomplished that there is no real hope that the industry will put itself right. The noble Lord cast a fly about private enterprise, and said (as I understood him) that we should not lake the film industry as a conspicuous example of profit making. That may be so, and I will not contest it. But what I would say is that it was very largely due to the action of the Government in messing up the industry by prescribing too big a quota which made it so difficult for those engaged in the industry to run their show properly. I do not think the question of profit making in the film industry will bear a lot of examination.

We feel that a right decision has been taken this year. We are sorry that it was not taken last year, because if it had been a certain number of difficulties which have arisen would not now have to be overcome. But that is no reason why we should not express our approval of the quota figure in this Order, and our sincere hope that it will be possible for the film industry to fulfil that quota and restore a 'proper standard in British film production.

5.34 p.m.

THE EARL OF DROGHEDA

My Lords, in view of what has, been said by the two previous speakers, and of the large amount of business still before the House, I will be very brief. I entirely agree with everything that my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Bridgeman have said. It is a fact that for once in our history—almost for the first time—the Films Council were practically unanimous on this question of quota: almost everyone voted for 30 per cent. If I myself abstained, it was not because I thought the quota was being fixed too low, but because I was afraid it might be rather too high, and I would have preferred to fix a quota of 25 per cent. However, I hope that it will be possible to live up to the 30 per cent.

One of the disadvantages of having a high quota that has not been touched upon to-day is that it causes a large number of defaults. I cannot help feeling that it is bad legislation to have an Act which says that you must do this and that, and then to have a great many defaulters, whom in practice it is difficult to prosecute, because it is necessary to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the defaults are not due to circumstances beyond the control of the exhibitors. I feel (I said this last year) that no greater disservice could be done to the British film industry than to compel, if we could, the showing of a large number of indifferent films. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned The Third Man and The Blue Lamp, which are two outstanding films. Our difficulties will be solved if we can produce anything like a large number of films of that quality, because we shall not then need a quota—the British public will demand to see British films. I hope that eventually we shall come to the position that there are so many good British films made that the quota will be unnecessary. I am quite sure that finance is not the main difficulty at the moment, and that we should not gain by creating numbers of films rather than good-quality films. What we want, above all, is to encourage the production of good British films. I thoroughly commend this Motion to your Lordships.

On Question, Motion agreed to.