§ 5.2 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
§
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
.Payments of levy made by an exhibitor under this part of this Act shall be treated as an allowable expense for the purpose of taxation.
The noble Lord said: May I commence by confessing that this Amendment is entirely out of order. I put it down because I thought it might look better to the noble Lord who will have the opportunity of replying if he saw it consistently before him in black and white than if I referred casually to the matter on the Motion that the clause stand part, The Amendment is out of order because it deals with taxation, a matter with which, according to Statute, your Lordships are not competent to deal. But during the time that this levy was a voluntary affair between the two sides of industry, exhibitors and producers, it was arranged, very sensibly, if I may say so with respect, by Sir Wilfrid Eady—whose name will always be coupled with the British Film Production Fund, which is known not by that title but as the Eady Plan—that levy payments by exhibitors should be treated as a business expense and charged against profits before taxation.
§ Is it possible for the noble Lord to inform the industry, across the Floor of the House, that lit is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that that provision, which was a feature of the Fund while it was voluntary, will remain? Will that undertaking be carried on when the levy becomes compulsory under the Statute, 380 if this Bill comes into law? That is the simple purpose of this Amendment. Although it is quite out of order and the noble Lord can refuse to answer if he likes, knowing that I shall not press it, I believe I know him well enough to feel sure that he will try to be as helpful on this Amendment as he is on all others which I put before the Committee. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
(".Payments of levy made by an exhibitor under this part of this Act shall be treated as an allowable expense for the purpose of taxation.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
§ LORD MANCROFTThe noble Lord is quite right: this Amendment is out of order. I will, however, do my best to deal with it, because I feel that it is a matter on which the industry have a right to know how they stand. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that when these agreements were negotiated between the four film trade associations an opinion was obtained from the Board of Inland Revenue that, in their view, the Finance Acts could be interpreted in such a way as to allow payments to the Fund as deductable expenses. I am happy to tell the noble Lord that I understand that the levy on exhibitors under Clause 2 of the Bill will, in the view of the Board of Inland Revenue, be allowable as a deduction in computing profit for income tax purposes. I hope that that meets the point which the noble Lord wants.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHWould the noble Lord mind kindly repeating that, as my attention was distracted?
§ LORD MANCROFTI was saying that the important point is that the levy on exhibitors under Clause 2 of the Bill will, I understand, in the view of the Board of Inland Revenue, be allowable as a deduction in computing profit for income tax purposes.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI am grateful to the noble Lord. What he has said has eased my mind. He could not have been more helpful, and what he has said will satisfy everybody. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
381§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI do not think it can be claimed that the next Amendment is out of order. It is a very difficult matter. I do not see how an arrangement like this can be put into a Fill, but this is its object. It has been the practice, in agreements between both sides of the industry and in the memorandum of agreement which was the basis of this Film Production Fund, that the amount of the levy should be deducted in calculating any sum due from the exhibitor to the renter or the distributor in respect of hire of films. If the noble Lord would be good enough to go so far as to suggest that something that has worked very well, with the approval of all sides of industry, during the time that this was a voluntary arrangement, should be carried forward as an obligation now that the levy is to become statutory, I should be quite happy. Perhaps I may hear what is said by the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, before I make any other comment.
§ Amendment moved—
§
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
(". An exhibitor shall be entitled to deduct from his box office takings an amount equal to any levy payment made by him under this part of this Act before calculating any sum due from him in respect of the hire of films shown during the period in which such levy payment accrued due when such hire is on a percentage basis.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERONMy Lords, this Amendment would be in order, but I am afraid I am unable to accept it for a number of reasons. The first reason is that the amount of money which is to be paid by an exhibitor to a distributor for film hire is a matter of commercial dealing and therefore of individual contract, and as noble Lords—especially those who sit behind me—will appreciate, our policy should be to intervene less rather than more in the affairs of the film industry. We certainly should not wish to specify in any way the method by which distributors are to calculate rates of film hire. In any event, the acceptance of this Amendment would not protect the exhibitor, if his distributor were determined to exert his bargaining position, for, if the amount upon which the distributor is to calculate his film hire is to be decreased, then he can always seek to increase the percentage to be charged.
382 Although films are supplied under separate contract by distributors to each exhibitor, it is fairly general for such contracts to include a clause which defines the amount upon which film hire is to be paid as: "the gross receipts (less entertainments tax)." Since contributions to the Fund will, if this Bill is passed, become statutory exactions, it may well be that contracts will also, in future, specify that contributions to the Fund are also to be deducted from the gross receipts before the calculation of film hire. There is no provision in the Finance Acts which says that the exhibitor shall be entitled to deduct entertainments tax from the amount upon which he pays film hire to this distributor; and there seems no reason why treatment of the levy payments should, in this cur text, be dealt with any differently from entertainments tax. I would just add this. The voluntary levy scheme, as the noble Lord has pointed out, was in the nature of an internal agreement within the industry itself, and it was applicable in those circumstances. I should like to remind the noble Lord that the voluntary scheme is to be replaced by a statutory scheme, and that rather alters the situation.
§ LORD ARCHIBALDI do not think there is really any difference between the two sides of the House on this question, or between any of the various sections of the industry concerned. As has been said, under the voluntary levy all sides of the industry agreed that in calculating film hire on a percentage basis the levy, like entertainments tax, should be deducted from the gross receipts. I think it is only fair, in this connection, to point out that among the parties to that agreement were American film distributors who were in no way beneficiaries under the voluntary levy. It is true that there is no provision in law for the deduction of entertainments tax from box office receipts for calculating film hire and it would be open to the distributor and exhibitor, if both were so minded, to make a film hire contract for 20 per cent. of the gross receipts instead of 33⅓ per cent. of the net receipts. They could do that if they thought that there was any advantage to them in doing it. I think it can be taken as a matter of course that the industry will, 383 by agreement, do what Lord Lucas of Chilworth wishes to accomplish by his Amendment. I agree with noble Lords on other sides of the House that it is not a suitable matter for legislation.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI thank the noble Lord. Lord Fairfax of Cameron, for what he has said. I think he has gone as far as I can reasonably expect him to go. I said that though I thought that technically the Amendment was in order, I did not think that this was a matter which could be brought into legislation. Working on the principle that "a wink is as good as a nod," I think that the noble Lord has said sufficient. I was particularly interested in one thing he said, and I thought it was most gracious of him. He told me that it was the policy of Her Majesty's Government to interfere as little as possible in the film industry.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI should think that in the matter of half an hour I shall have the opportunity of reminding the noble Lord of that remark; but, for the time being, I shall say no more about it. I think, too, as does my noble friend Lord Archibald, that it will be the practice of the industry to come to an agreement. This is a matter for contractual agreement between the parties and not for legislation. The Government have indicated their wishes and desires in this direction and have intimated what they think is the right and proper thing to do. I am sure that the film industry always desires to fall in with the wishes of the Government, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 5.16 p.m.
§
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
. An exhibitor shall be entitled to deduct from his box office takings an amount equal to any levy payment made by him under this part of this Act in respect of any performance given on a Sunday before calculating any sum payable under paragraph (a) of section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, in connection with such Sunday performance when the same is calculated by reference to a percentage of the box office takings or some part thereof.
§ The noble Lord said: This is another matter that requires clarifying. As your Lordships know, for years and years various members of Her Majesty's Government—the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has done his fair share, and I have done my fair share; it is a thing which anyone who has sat on the Government Front Bench has had to do periodically—have moved certain regulations under the Sunday Entertainments Act to enable cinemas to open on a Sunday. But there is a proviso in that Act that a certain percentage of the takings must be paid over to charity. Various local authorities who have jurisdiction over whether or not a cinema shall open on Sunday have different ways of arriving at the percentage of the money to be paid over to charity. Some local authorities allow the levy payment to be deducted before the gross receipts are computed, others take a different view.
§
The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is an expert on this matter. He has a Motion down for February 20
To call attention to the provision of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932. which discriminates against Sunday opening of cinemas and to move for Papers.
I do not want to encroach upon what he is going to say—perhaps he may be tempted to say something upon this Amendment—but I think it is time that this matter was regularised. I think there should be a common practice all over the country. As I pointed out to the noble Lord, if it needed to be pointed out to him, when the levy was a voluntary matter, the impecunious exhibitor—and there are many of them—who could not afford to pay it could come to some arrangement with the renter. It is hard that in some areas the exhibitor should not be allowed to deduct the amount of levy before the amount to be paid to charity is fixed. In other words, I am trying to write into this Bill that, if the Sunday Entertainments Act goes on, as I presume it will—I can remember the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, defending it to the last ditch on a previous occasion —the procedure throughout the country for deducting the levy should be the same as the procedure for entertainments tax. The noble Lord has granted that. Entertainments tax is deducted from net box office receipts, not gross receipts. Income tax is also calculated on the same basis, and I think that this should be extended
385
to the charity contribution required under the Sunday Entertainments Act. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
§ LORD JESSELOf course, I support my noble friend's Amendment. Obviously he is the expert on this subject. This Amendment is necessary so long as the levy under the Sunday Entertainments Act continues. I hope that after February 20 there may be some chance of having legislation which will make this Amendment, even if it is in the Bill, unnecessary.
§ LORD MANCROFTI must confess that I have some sympathy with the point of view which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has put forward. I know something about this extremely complicated question because, as the noble Lord rightly said, it becomes almost a ritual function of anyone who acts for the Home Office in your Lordships' House to move Orders under the Sunday Entertainments Act. When I represented the Home Office, I moved these Orders with monotonous regularity—I moved twenty-seven in all—and on one occasion, most unfairly, a noble Lord asked a question about an Order. I nearly had a stroke, and the consternation at the Home Office was almost indescribable! This question is not really germane to the Bill. I believe that, technically, we could put in an Amendment, if we were so minded, but it would mean a complete re-hash of the Bill, a new Schedule and a great deal of work in order to drag it within the terms of the Bill. I must remind the noble Lord that, since it is outside the general content and subject of the Bill, nobody has been consulted on this point, and I do not think it would be fair to local authorities, who are intimately concerned with this question, if we were suddenly to bring this into the Bill without consulting them in any way. I am sorry that we have not had the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, before this, because it would have been interesting to see how that debate went and what were the views of your Lordships on this question.
Although there are technical reasons why it is undesirable to accept this Amendment, I do not rest my case against 386 the Amendment solely on that. I am afraid that this Amendment would not achieve the result the noble Lords wants to achieve. We know, as he told us, that exhibitors in certain areas are opposed to the calculation of Sunday charity contributions by reference to a percentage of box office takings. The Amendment may allow levy contributions to be deducted statutorily before calculating Sunday charity contributions, but the real point is that a discretion remains with the local authorities to increase the percentage they apply. That is the difficulty I see at the moment. I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment. In the first place, I think it would be quite unfair to local authorities to put it in without any consultation whatever on what is a major issue, and one which does not necessarily come within the purview of the Bill. Secondly, I would suggest that the noble Lord might like to think about it, and perhaps discuss it with my noble friend Lord Jessel, because I do not think it would achieve the object he sets out to achieve. As I say, I feel a little uneasy about this matter, because I know that there has been considerable criticism of it, but I do not think that what the noble Lord wants to do can be achieved by his Amendment.
§ LORD STRABOLGIBefore my noble friend replies, I would say that I can see the force of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Without wishing to prejudice in any way what the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, may say during the coming debate, I think that there is a great deal to be said for the abolition of the Sunday charity contribution. There seems to be no justification for it on any moral, ethical or religious grounds. Presumably there is some financial justification, but that comes under a different category. I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, but surely the Sunday charity contribution is a matter for arrangement between the local authority and the cinema proprietor. I know that some local authorities demand a much higher rate of so-called charitable contribution than others, but I cannot see that every local authority would automatically increase the amount of contribution demanded if my noble friend's Amendment were incorporated in the Bill.
§ LORD BURDENI am sure that we all thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for the tenderness which he has displayed for the feelings of the local authorities. I wish that the same tenderness was always shown, and we shall note it for future reference. We do not want to have a "pre-run" this afternoon on the question of Sunday entertainments tax, but I think we ought to tell the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that we hope the result will be to put an end to what I would describe as "face both ways" legislation. If it is right to have Sunday entertainment, why tax it? The tax is some consolation to the good people who think that it is wrong to have entertainment on Sunday. I am sure that we shall have an interesting debate when the noble Lord's Motion is before the House.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI am afraid I cannot show the same amount of satisfaction at the noble Lord's reply as some of my noble friends have done. The first thing that surprises me is that the Board of Trade, which has the administration of the cinema industry under its jurisdiction, should be unaware that the Sunday entertainments contribution and the levy were burning questions inside the industry. This has been a burning question for a long time. This Bill is produced to make the levy statutory, and I should have thought that it was apparent to anybody that Her Majesty's Opposition. fulfilling their public duty, would probe everything in the Bill that we thought needed rectifying. Why, then, was there no consultation between the Board of Trade, or the Home Office—if it is a Home Office matter; perhaps it is—and the local authorities? Why do you have to leave it for the odd chance that the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has taken of putting down a Motion, or of my putting down an Amendment, before somebody wakes up to the fact that they will have to consult the local authorities?
I was rather amused at the sally of my noble friend, Lord Burden, about consulting local authorities: "There is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth…". I am rather afraid that consultation with local authorities has been trotted out this afternoon as an excuse for not accepting my Amendment. I think that the Government and the Department concerned have been remiss. 388 If they have not been remiss, why did they not consult local authorities when they knew that legislation was being proposed in your Lordships' House to make a statutory levy, and to impose penalties in this Bill for the non-fulfilment of that statutory levy, and when they knew, or should have known, that this was a matter of disquiet, dissatisfaction and alarm, at least, on the exhibiting side of the cinema industry? If they were not remiss—I do not know what other term to use—why did they not consult the local authorities and say: "What is your view about this proposal?"
I do not quite follow the noble Lord. He served with distinction at the Bar and he was for some time an Under-Secretary at the Home Office. I have had no legal training, and I am subject to correction. I cannot understand why the Sunday Entertainments Act, as regards a levy payment upon receipts from which deductions have to be made under that Act, could not be the subject of an Amendment in this Bill. I have seen many Bills that amend other sections. Indeed, are we not going to amend the Cinematograph Films Acts of 1938 and 1948 by this Bill; are we not going to amend the Cinematograph Films Production (Special Loans) Acts of 1949 and 1950? We are going to extend various parts of those Acts and are going to amend them in this Bill. Why am I now told—the noble Lord may be right about this, and I may be wrong, but I should like to know—that we cannot have a clause in this Bill to say that the statutory levy that the cinematograph exhibitor has to pay upon the price of the seats should be deducted before any percentage is calculated that is imposed or levied by a local authority as a quid pro quo for something else? I am a genuine seeker for information here.
Another reason why the noble Lord says he cannot accept this Amendment is because it would be unfair to the local authority to spring this upon them without consultation, and if the local authority wanted to recover the amount that was deducted as a result of my Amendment, they could increase the percentage. But what about the local authorities who allow it? Is there not unfairness to them? And is that unfairness not due to the fact that the Government have not taken action here? Some local authorities allow deduction of the levy; others do 389 not allow it. All I ask is for common practice, and there is nothing unfair about that. Surely, the noble Lord should make a provision—perhaps he will at sonic future date—that if the Board of Trade saw that the object of this Bill was being defeated, they could take action to ensure that the percentage payment was statutorily imposed and that the deduction for charitable purposes under the Sunday Entertainments Act should be only a statutory percentage after the levy had been deducted. Before we proceed further, perhaps the noble Lord would care to reply to the questions I have raised. I think noble Lords would be interested in what he may have to say, and it will guide us in our future action.
§ LORD MANCROFTI will certainly try to deal with the points raised by the noble Lord. I say again, as I said before, that I have never been easy about this matter myself. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that I was once Vice-President of the municipal corporations, and I can well remember the indignation that body expressed if the Government acted precipitously without consulting them. I think it would be a most improper thing to take a step such as this, which would cause a great controversy between one section of local authorities and another, Without consulting them at all. Perhaps I can do something here to help the noble Lord. I can assure him that there is no question of remissness on the part of the Department. Both the Home Office and the Board of Trade are, and have been, aware of this matter for a long time; but it is the considered opinion that this Bill is not the right place to deal with it. There are many other things like this that are causing disquiet in the industry but which cannot be included if relevance is to be observed in this Bill. However, it does not alter the fact that the problem exists.
My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade will later this year be consulting the Cinematograph Films Council and all sections of the industry about detailed amendments to the quota legislation. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to do this. As I say, I cannot accept this Amendment, first, because of the local government point; secondly, because I do not think that, as drafted, it will achieve its purpose; and 390 thirdly, because a great deal of other amendment would, be required consequentially, and a lengthy Schedule, even to attempt what the noble Lord is trying to do. However, if he likes, I will go back to my right honourable friend on this matter generally and consult with him, and also consult with my noble friend Lord Jessel, after the debate on his Motion, to see whether we cannot have second thoughts about it. I am not entirely happy about the position, and I think that to turn it down out of hand and to say that nothing should be done about it would be quite wrong. If the noble Lord will accept that assurance from me, without any question of accepting his Amendment, of course, I will certainly see that his observations and those of other noble Lords are given second thoughts, and we will see what we can do along those lines.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI am grateful to the noble Lord, and I will take advantage of his offer. He mentioned just: now that perhaps light will be thrown upon this problem when we debate the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, on February 21. We have not yet reached the end of the Committee stage. After the Committee stage we have the Report stage and, therefore, we may anticipate that the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, will be debated before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is on Wednesday the 20th, and Thursday is a Sitting 'Day of the House. As we are privileged to be able to move Amendments on Third Reading that would appear to me to be a convenient timetable. Therefore, I will accept the noble Lord's suggestion, and withdraw my Amendment, with the proviso that I shall wait for him at some convenient time to tell the House the result of his deliberations with his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, and we can then see how to proceed. I will leave it to him to make the next gesture. On that understanding, beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ LORD MANCROFTBefore your Lordships give leave to the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment, may I make it perfectly clear that the promise I just made contains no semblance of acquiescence in the timetable which the noble Lord so cheerfully and glibly proposed.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI say this with no discourtesy, but, of course, the noble Lord does not arrange the timetable of the House.
§ LORD MANCROFTThank goodness!
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHAt least he now knows what is in our minds. I can assure him that, when the usual channels get to work to arrange a timetable, that is what we shall propose from this side of the House in order to accommodate the noble Lord and allow him to have full consultations with his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House for another place. I am quite sure the last thing we want to do is to send untidy legislation, with string and pieces of rag and frayed edges, from your Lordships' House to another place.
§ LORD BURDENBefore this Amendment is withdrawn and we pass on to Clause 3, I should like, if I am in order, to put a general point on the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD TERRINGTON)The Motion, "That the Clause stand part" has been agreed. The noble Lord should ask leave.
§ LORD BURDENI think it is a constitutional point. This clause provides for the raising of considerable sums of money which will be administered under regulations drafted and approved by this House. After that, so far as I can see, the sole control which Parliament will have over that expenditure of money is a report submitted annually to Parliament. Can the noble Lord tell me what other industry in this country has similar obligations imposed on it? How is it constitutionally correct? As I see it, neither the Select Committee on Estimates in another place nor the Public Accounts Committee can in any way interfere with, or criticize, what has been done, because, as was drawn out from the noble Lord yesterday, these are not public monies. The point I wish to make is this: is it constitutionally correct that vast sums of money of this kind, collected from an industry and used inside an industry, should be free from all Parliamentary control, except for an annual report submitted to Parliament?
§ LORD MANCROFTI do not know whether I am in order in answering the noble Lord, because I believe he was completely out of order.
§ LORD MANCROFTThen I cannot answer the noble Lord, except to say that I disagree with him, and that there are perfectly good safeguards.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 3:
§ Payments by Agency to makers of British films
§ 3.—(1) The Board of Trade shall by regulations (made by statutory instrument) provide for the making by the Agency to, or for the benefit of, makers of British films of such payments as may be determined by or under the regulations.
§ (2) Regulations under this section may—
§ (a) define the classes of British films in respect of which payments may be made;
§ 5.46 p.m.
§
LORD ARCHIBALD moved, in subsection (1), after "Trade", to insert:
, after consultation with the Cinematograph Films Council and with organisations representing producers and exhibitors,
The noble Lord said: In rising to move this Amendment, I realise that we are to some extent going over ground which, if not exactly the same, is at least similar to that which we have been over before in this Bill. But we are now dealing with regulations which will cover the disbursement of the levy, whereas we were dealing previously either with the regulations imposing it or those governing the Agency. To some extent, therefore, it is a new view that is involved here.
§ I must say that I find myself in a considerable difficulty with regard to the whole of Clause 3. The difficulty is that it provides for a series of regulations, but it fails in any respect to lay down the general principles under which these regulations will be drawn. I considered for some time whether I should put down Amendments to subsection (2) (a), possibly on the lines of those, which we have still to reach, put down by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I found that the difficulty was that, if I tried to say that films of a certain type should be excluded, or that films of a certain type should be included, I might come up 393 against the difficulty of finding later that I had forgotten one kind that should be excluded or one kind that should be included, and that the legalistically minded would argue that, having forgotten to put that one in, it was therefore automatically ruled out.
§ I considered various methods of securing that the regulations to be made under this clause would be regulations acceptable in general terms and in outline to the industry. I came to the conclusion that it was a fairly hopeless business to try to put down detailed Amendments, and that the more reasonable course was to suggest consultation between the Board of Trade, responsible for drawing up the regulations, and the industry, which is to be subject to these regulations. I confess quite freely that I prefer Amendment No. 20, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to my own Amendment, as l do not think that this is a matter on which the Cinematograph Films Council is the most appropriate body with which the Board of Trade might confer. I think it would be much more appropriate that the discussion should be between the Board of Trade and the organisations representing producers and exhibitors. But that there should be such discussions before the regulations are made is, I think, not only right and proper, but positively inevitable.
§ I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord who is to reply will be a little more forthcoming than he has been previously, and that he will not reject that part of the Amendment which I want, and accept that part about which I am less enthusiastic. I hope that this time he will not pin his faith only on consultations with the Cinematograph Films Council, but will accept that, in the very specific matters that are to be dealt with by regulation, the advice of more expert bodies is desirable. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, after ("Trade") insert the said words.—(Lord Archibald.)
§ 5.50 p.m.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Archibald; has said. Of course, we want the regulations to be acceptable to everybody; we want them to be reasonable and we want them to work—and they will, I am certain. 394 Equally certainly, I am sure that we shall consult everybody whom a reasonable person taking an objective view of the industry would say should be consulted. You will not get reasonable regulations unless you consult the right people. But the difficulty is to get that into the Bill. There are quite a number of bodies who might claim to be representative and ought to be put into the Bill. How do we decide who are the right representative bodies to be included? The noble Lord says "with organisations"—he does not say how many or which—"representing producers and exhibitors." Quite a few can claim to be included within that class. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, talks about
such bodies as appear to the Board of Trade to be representative of makers and exhibitors of British films.Many such bodies within certain limits are representative and would claim to be representative and would make a considerable objection if they were excluded and not consulted as statutory bodies.I can see the noble Lord's point. I do not think that either Amendment No. 17 or Amendment No. 20 will meet that difficulty. That is why I have asked noble Lords opposite repeatedly to agree with me that the Cinematograph Films Council is the right body to be included, if you insist upon a statutory inclusion, because that includes everybody. It may be necessary to consult frequently in the course of the ten years ahead and to consult in a hurry. If we put in half a dozen different bodies, it will be difficult to consult them. They may all well claim to be consulted if a unified decision is required. Consulted they most certainly will be in practice, as you can well imagine, on a matter which is directly their concern. That is why I think that to put in the Bill statutorily the Films Council—which does not 'necessarily mean consulting the whole Council in a full meeting but maybe some proper committee or some official—is the right thing to do. I gather that that is what the noble Lord wants—statutory inclusion. I am sorry if he disagrees with me that statutory inclusion is the right way of doing it and not the rather vague way which he and his colleague desire. The Council will be consulted on matters on which they might properly be consulted, but the only practical way of avoiding squabbling, jealousy or delay is to put the Council in the Bill rather 395 than the unnamed and slightly vague representative bodies the noble Lord has mentioned. These other bodies will no doubt be consulted, but I think that they should not be included in the Bill.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThe longer the noble Lord resists the pleas from this side of the House upon this question, the stronger does the noble Lord make our case. He has now made it in a complete manner. He said, first of all, that he was going to the Films Council because he does not want to discriminate as to whom he should ask and whom he should not ask. Who decides the membership of the Films Council?
§ LORD MANCROFTIt is already decided.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHIt is laid down. Could the noble Lord tell me the definition?
§ LORD MANCROFTWith a few minutes' notice, yes.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI will tell the noble Lord. It has to be selected. By whom?—by the Board of Trade. It is the self-same wording as in this last Amendment. Then the noble Lord goes on to say, "Of course, we shall not consult the whole of the Council. We shall consult a sub-committee." Who makes that choice?—the President of the Board of Trade. So somebody is going to discriminate at some time unless you have the whole of the Films Council, and that means independent members as well.
§ LORD MANCROFTWhat is the noble Lord's objection to the Films Council?
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThe same objection as I have voiced. Here are trivial matters of detail, not policy. The policy will be laid down in regulation. There are matters of detail which concern two bodies, the exhibitors and the producers: one who has to give and the other who has to take. There is no high policy for the future of the film industry. And yet for the purpose, and only for the purpose, of resisting reasonable Amendments put forward by this side of the House we have the "white elephant" or the "red herring"—I give the noble Lord the choice of metaphor—of the Films Council. Then, when we come 396 really to cross-examine, as we shall do continuously, upon this matter, he makes our case: he is going to consult only a section of the Films Council. Which section?
§ LORD MANCROFTNo. If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I would point out that he is taking this point to a wrong conclusion. For four years I was a member of the Bar Council. The Bar Council was consulted on innumerable occasions when it was right that it should be consulted, and, on innumerable occasions, I was not available at the time, but a proper sub-committee or division or an individual of that Council was consulted. Perhaps twenty or thirty of us, but not all of us, gathered together for consultation. That is the point. It is similar with the Films Council.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHWe are not consulting the Bar Council. The noble Lord wants to consult the Films Council and he has said that of course it will be only a sub-committee, maybe, of the Films Council. I want to know who is going to decide that. The noble Lord keeps on telling us that he cannot discriminate. He has to discriminate if he consults a sub-committee.
§ LORD MANCROFTNo. I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, because he does not often interrupt me. He is again taking this point too far. I said that the entire Films Council need not gather together to be consulted on every point. It is common or garden practice. Every councillor knows that.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThat is what I say. My Amendment, to which the noble Lord referred, says:
Regulations under this section shall not be made save after consultation with such bodies as appear to the Board of Trade to be representative of makers and exhibitors of British films.The noble Lord said, "Of course, although we put the Films Council in, it will not be the Films Council; it will be that part of the Films Council which appears to the Board of Trade to be representative of the purpose for which they wish to consult it. There is no difference whatsoever." But the noble Lord cannot make sure that at any time the Films Council represents the entire industry.
§ LORD MANCROFTYes, it does.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHNo; because, as my noble friend Lord Archibald disclosed when he moved his first Amendment, he has become the responsible head or president of a new association of producers. They are not members of the Films Council because they are not in formation yet. But, when they are, who selects them and who invites them to be members of the Films Council? The noble Lord will do far better if he can persuade his advisers that there is no stigma, that he will not get into bad odour, if he accepts an Amendment from the Opposition now and again. There might be some sense in what they say—some chance that, after they have battled in your Lordships' House, trying to present the case, hour after hour, day after day, it might be advisable to say, "Yes, we think you are right; we think this is a better idea than ours." I do not think the Government—
§ LORD MANCROFTIt is the noble Lord's idea as well; he has it down in his Amendment. I am trying to accept it, but nobody will let me.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI have not got it in my Amendment.
§ LORD MANCROFTWe are not discussing the noble Lord's Amendment.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI know; but in his speech the noble Lord brought in my Amendment—Amendment No. 20. That is why I am arguing it now. So I should like the noble Lord to consider this. I said in regard to Clause 2—I think it was about the last thing I said on the last occasion—that I was not satisfied that the Films Council was the appropriate body. The noble Lord is going to get into an unholy mess by selecting bits and pieces of the Films Council with whom to consult. There are independent people. The Council is made up of everybody in the film industry, including independent members; and this is a simple little question: "What is the best way to carry out the regulations regarding the collection of a levy? What is the best way of carrying out the regulations regarding the expenditure of a levy?" The only people who are really concerned in that are the producers and the exhibitors. Therefore, what I suggest to the noble Lord is, if he likes, that he should accept my noble friend's Amend- 398 ment, because my noble friend has attached to it the words:
and with organisations representing producers and exhibitors.It may be that we have got one opening in the door, with perhaps half a foot in, with the noble Lord admitting that in this case the Amendment which I have put down, Amendment No. 20, is by far the better way of meeting the point which we want and have laboured so hard to convince him about. Therefore, hope he will accept my noble friend's Amendment.
§ LORD BURDENMay I support my noble friends on this matter? The reason why we on this side of the House are so strongly pressing it is, first, that we do not want, I will not say hand-picked evidence, but selective evidence and selective consultation. One knows how easily that can be obtained. Secondly, we are pleading for this so strongly because of the very limited powers of this House—practically no powers at all—when the regulations have been framed and laid before Parliament. We are told, in a general way, that everybody has been consulted, and we can do nothing about it at all. Again I press on the noble Lord the point that I ventured to make yesterday—namely, that before regulations are laid, this House and, if necessary, the other place, should have an opportunity of considering the draft regulations, to know whether the intentions of the Bill and what has been said in the course of this debate have been fully carried out, as we intend to see that they are carried out.
§ LORD MANCROFTBefore the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, replies, I want to clear up this question of the Films Council. I am not happy in my mind why everybody seems to be so hostile towards this poor Council. It is set up under the 1938 Act, so that it has a perfectly respectable statutory ancestry. As the noble Lord knows well from his experience at the Board of Trade, the Board of Trade write to all the trade associations asking for nominations to the Council. First, let us for a moment look at the Council to see what it is that the noble Lord's Amendments are going to make of the Council The Council consists of seven independents, five exhibitors, four producers, four employees and two renters, and in normal circumstances the Council can obviously appoint 399 an appropriate sub-committee. That is something about which the noble Lord has made much play. What noble Lords opposite are trying to do in addition is to set up another advisory council. But the interests that one wants to consult, and rightly so, and which I have agreed should be consulted, are all on that Council and can rightly be approached. I have suggested that a reference to the Council should be included in the Bill. I cannot, for the life of me, see the point of not accepting the suggestion that I have thrown out to noble Lords opposite, instead of putting into the Bill the obligation to consult a new advisory council, which will be set up with exactly the same objects in view as the existing Cinematograph Films Council.
§ LORD BURDENDoes not the noble Lord see that to define is to limit, and we do not want that limitation?
§ LORD ARCHIBALDIf I understood the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, correctly when he first spoke on this subject, he said that of course these organisations representing producers and exhibitors would be consulted, but that the objection was to putting it in the Bill—and he made play of the fact that there could be a great many such organisations. I think the noble Lord knows that, in fact, there are not very many organisations, and even though a new one is in process of formation, it still does not make the number very great. If, in fact, the Board of Trade are going to consult the organisations representing producers and exhibitors, I do not see any reason why they should not agree to putting that in the Bill. But, as I said earlier, I prefer the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth to my own, and I propose, therefore, to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I shall support that of Lord Lucas of Chilworth when we come to it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 6.8 p.m.
§
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (a):
and shall—
§
The noble Lord said: Now we come to what I suppose will be rather a controversial matter; it is certainly a complicated matter. When I first read this Bill I noticed that in Clause 3 (1) these words appeared:
The Board of Trade shall by regulations (made by statutory instrument) provide for the making by the Agency to, or for the benefit of, makers of British films of such payments as may be determined by or under the regulations.
Then subsection (2) says:
Regulations under this section may—
(a) define the classes of British films in respect of which payments may be made.
There is a new medium which we debated the other day—television. I suppose that television is proving, and may continue to prove, one of the greatest competitors of the cinema. As an aside, I should hazard the guess—doubtless the cynic would—that the lower the quality of television programmes, the greater is the hope of the cinemas that their patrons may eventually be driven back to them. Be that as it may, I should think the noble Lord will have some considerable difficulty in not agreeing with me that it would be incongruous, to say the least —I can think of a far harsher expression —to suggest that a levy should be made upon the exhibitors in order to subsidise their principal competitor. That seems to me to be rather strange.
§
I can see the day, which may not be so far ahead, when films will be the main entertainment provided on television. Today one has difficulty in knowing the difference. In the early days, when we had only B.B.C. television, they were reasonably honest in putting a footnote in italics against every item in their programmes, saying whether it was a live programme or a film. Now, one does not know which is which; and some of them are a hotch-potch, some parts of a television programme being film and some live; and as time goes on, film will form the major part of television programmes, because nobody who sees a daylight scene on television at night can really delude himself that it is not a film. Then we come to films specially made for television. What of
401
films that are not made for television? Should they be allowed? I have tried to safeguard that point in my Amendment, because, first, I wish to exclude from the levy, and only from the levy:
any British films primarily made for exhibition n a television programme …
I believe that I am justified in asking your Lordships to do that.
§ I do not want to go into these highly technical matters, but on Tuesday we were discussing the fact that, out of the exhibitors' proceeds, the Treasury takes £30 million a year in entertainments tax. Television, however, pays no entertainments tax at all. One may sit in one's own home and watch television, and no entertainments tax is paid; there is no restriction. Look at the restrictions with which the exhibitor or the owner of a cinema has to comply, restrictions with which the person sitting watching television at home does not have to comply. Yet that person is sitting in his own private cinema. There are 19 million people in this country who can sit in front of their own private cinema, and they do not pay one halfpenny entertainments tax. There are 7 million private cinemas in this country—over 7 million homes which have a television licence—I gave your Lordships the figures in the television debate.
§ There are 19 million adults in this country who can view television on their own sets—I am not counting the children. Those people do not pay a halfpenny in entertainments tax. Yet here we have an industry which has to find, out of its box-office receipts, £30 million a year, 50 per cent. of its net takings, for entertainments tax. And it is now to be levied for £3¾ million during the coming year and a minimum of £2 million and a maximum of £5 million in any subsequent year—a levy made, quite rightly, for the purpose of ensuring that the production side of the British film industry can be put on a profitable and equitable basis.
§ Does it not appear to your Lordships that in equity, as well as in common sense, a film made primarily for television should not he the recipient of levy payments? If the television broadcasting companies want to make films, let them do so. I hope they will make films in greater numbers so that we shall not then have to pay for these half-hour "television twaddles" from America; for I do 402 not "Love Lucy," and I do not "Want to Marry Joan." I hate the wretched people. I hope that our British film producers will produce better things for television; but let the television companies pay the British producer a reasonable amount for so doing. I am sure I speak for producers as well as for exhibitors in this Amendment, which seeks to provide that we should not allow this levy to be syphoned off and find its way into the pockets of those who make films primarily for television. That is my first case.
§ The next type of film I seek to exclude are newsreels, trailers, films which an exhibitor is paid to show—and there are a lot of such propaganda films—and Government films. If the Government want films they should pay for them. As a matter of fact, I have put in those last three types of film only because they are in now and I will not waste your Lordships' time by arguing that point. The noble Lord will have to give me that point; as they are now excluded from payments from the levy I conclude that they will be excluded in future. But the Eady Plan was in existence before television films came into existence, so there I want a definite exclusion, and not the implication in the Bill that the regulations shall say what films shall receive levy payments. I want to say that at least there is one kind of film that shall not receive such payments.
§
Then we come to the old film. The levy is paid on a quota film, but your Lordships must not think that the levy is a once-and-for-all payment: it is not. It is paid all the time a film is in quota, and it can get a proportion of what it grosses every year that it is in quota. It gets it for the first four years the original period of the film quota. It can then get an extension of a further three years, making the full period seven years. That is why I put in my subparagraph (ii) the proviso:
that in the event of any levy payment being made in respect of any film such film shall not within a period of seven years of the latest date upon which any such payment is made, he exhibited as part of any television broadcast;
In other words, while a long film (not a television film) is in receipt of levy, it should not be on a television programme. If it is in receipt of levy and falls, in
403
any part of its quota period, out of levy, then I suggest that the embargo should be lifted. That is the simple purpose of my Amendment.
§ I am not tied to the wording of this Amendment. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has a better form of wording. But I do plead in all seriousness for this much-hit industry, and, in particular, for this much-hit side of the industry. And make no mistake about the position. Last year, some 179 cinemas were closed. The little cinema is affected most of all. I do not suppose that television has really affected the West End cinema very much. If you go to a West End cinema, the outing is usually quite a function. Often you go to dinner first. Personally, I prefer to go to dinner and not to the cinema. But that, I expect, is a peculiar choice of my own. When you are sitting cosy in an armchair, and it means taking a bus and going three miles to visit a cinema, your inclination to move may not be strong. You can see the television programme and you will not feel very enthusiastic about going out to see films. I think that something must be done unless nail after nail is to be driven into the coffin of the exhibiting side of the industry—for, in the coming struggle, it is the exhibitor who is going to get, if I may use such a common expression, "the dirty end of the stick".
§ Television could not exist for five months on live broadcasts, so producers of films will always have a market. Perhaps the television market for films will develop. Most of the circuits now in America are getting into the television industry. It is the exhibitor I am worried about. After all, he is part of the industry. He has played a useful part in providing this country with good entertainment, and he can still provide it. Thank goodness! the film censors are rather more alive to their job than some television censors seem to be. But that is a matter which we can discuss at some other time. I have explained as best I can the reasons for this Amendment and tried to emphasise the importance of the matter in question. I now beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
§ LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I should like to support most warmly the Amendment which has just been moved by Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I think that all your Lordships who were privileged yesterday to see the wonderful show of coloured television in this Palace must have been most impressed. I was astounded by something that seems to me to be almost a miracle. I think one must recognise that this incredible invention has become a serious rival to the cinema. I do not think it will kill the cinema, just as the cinema has not killed the theatre; on the other hand, it has undoubtedly become a very serious rival.
I raised this point about television films during the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was kind enough to write to me after that, and I should like to say, before I deal with the content of his letter, that I am glad we did not reach this Amendment last Tuesday, the first day of the Committee stage, because I received the noble Lord's letter only a few moments before the House sat. The noble Lord signed the letter on January 24—which was last Thursday. The letter did not reach me until the following Tuesday—at 2.15 p.m. to be precise. Of course, I realise that that is not the noble Lord's fault, but I think, if I may suggest it with all due respect, that the postal services of his secretariat might perhaps be looked into.
If that letter had been posted to me by his secretariat on the day the noble Lord signed it, and had been sent here, our most efficient Superintendent would immediately have directed it to me, and I should have received it on Saturday. On the other hand, if the letter had been sent to my private address, I should have received it on Friday. In actual fact, it took five days to reach me. From time to time one reads letters in the Press about letters taking five days to travel from S.W.1 to S.W.3. I have always had the highest regard for the Civil Service, and I have always thought that such communications to the Press must have been exaggerations. Now it has happened to me. I should like to suggest, with all due deference, that perhaps this matter might be looked into, because it makes things extremely difficult when one has raised a point, and the Government Department concerned have gone into it and have taken the trouble to give a full 405 answer, if one receives that answer only a few minutes before the Committee stage, in those circumstances, of course, one has not time to consider it fully.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHDid the noble Lord have the opportunity of looking al the postmark on the envelope? That would have been interesting.
§ LORD STRABOLGIThe letter was delivered by hand, as it think I made clear.
Now we come to the point I raised. The noble Lord, in his reply, told me with regard to these television films that the question is really academic, because a film made primarily for television would be outside the scope of this Bill, as only films that have actually been shown in the cinema would qualify for payments from the fund. That. I think, is probably the reason which the noble. Lord will give later for resisting this Amendment. But I believe there have been cases of films that have been made for television being shown later in cinemas. A television film, as your Lordships know, usually takes only about half an hour to show, but there have been cases of two or three films made for television being put together by cutting and then shown later in a cinema. And they have, of course, been paid for by the cinema exhibitors. It is for that reason that I think that serious consideration should be given to my noble friend's Amendment.
§ 6.28 p.m.
§ LORD MANCROFTIf the fears which the noble Lord, Lord. Lucas of Chilworth, so eloquently expressed were well grounded, I should be in full sympathy with him. I think he has made a good case, but I do not think that what he fears is, in point of fact, going to happen. The effect of his Amendment is to define certain classes of film which he thinks should be excluded from payments out of the fund, including films made for television, and cinema films which are shown on television within seven years of the receipt of payments made to their producers out of the fund. As the Bill is at present drafted, the classes of film which are to receive payment out of the fund are to be defined by regulations. I think it is clearly not: desirable to define for the next ten years in the Bill films which may receive: payment. This is an age of rapid technical development in film-making and 406 in television, as some of your Lordships saw yesterday. I, unfortunately, could not get in to see the exhibition, as the room was too crowded, bat I have heard reports of it. In this respect, I think it is not unreasonable to use the more flexible legislative method of regulation rather than a clause in the Bill itself for definition.
We intend that the regulations shall be framed by the Board of Trade, in consultation with the Cinematograph Films Council upon which are represented all sections of the film industry. We do not intend to depart very far from the detailed arrangements which have applied to the voluntary scheme. The Board of Trade would not propose to admit as eligible for payment either newsreels or trailers, films which an exhibitor is paid to show, or films made by or on behalf of a Government Department. We certainly should not propose to include those. The point on television is slightly different. It is difficult to see why it is necessary to specify that films made primarily for television should be excluded from payments out of the Fund, for the reason touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. These payments are made pro rata with box office earnings and it is not proposed to depart from this principle when the Eady Fund becomes statutory. The question of whether or not television films are likely to make demands on the Fund would be a little academic, as I told my noble friend in my much delayed letter, since only exhibitors who wish to book such films showing Lucy and Joan and other friends of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would have box office earnings on which to base a claim. I do not see that happening very often.
The second paragraph of the noble Lord's Amendment is not acceptable in any circumstances. As my noble friend Lord Jessel pointed out on Second Reading, the sale of television rights in a film are an addition to the producers' revenue, which might be of some importance, and there seems to be no reason why they should not sell such rights after they have exhausted the earning capacity of a film in the cinemas. Cinema earning capacity is much greater than television earning capacity, and I do not think it is likely that producers will sell films to television until they have squeezed the last drop out of cinema showing. At any rate, the 407 Amendment is both unworkable and unenforceable. What puzzles me is, who is going to pursue a producer seven years after he has received a payment out of the Fund and ask him to repay it. In seven years' time, who knows what may happen—the noble Lord may be President of the Board of Trade.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI do not know whether I made myself clear. The levy is not paid in one lump sum and a film can remain on quota for seven years. After four years it can be re-registered for an extended period; that is why I put in seven years, meaning seven years after the initial quota registration.
§ LORD MANCROFTI appreciate the point, but I still think that it would be difficult to collect. Another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was that of television films shown in cinemas. I believe that that was done about three years ago, but was not a great success. If cinemas think that television films are worth showing, I suppose they are worth a small slice of the Fund. But I appreciate the basic point of the noble Lord's argument, that this competition is unfair. I do not think that for one moment it will occur, because television films are made with no part of the levy. I will consult my right honourable friend about this matter, but I should like the noble Lord to look at my remarks, because if there is any gap, we might have to fill it up. I would assure him that there is no risk of this competition, which would be quite improper, on the Bill as it stands.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI am grateful to the noble Lord because he has admitted the principle, but I can see his difficulty. I am not tied to the wording, but I should be grateful if he would look into this question further, because the relations of the television industry and the film industry are growing apace and I do not know what is going to be the end of it. Perhaps I had better reserve my remarks to the next Amendment, but I would ask your Lordships if I may be forgiven for not moving the next Amendment to-night. All we "pilgrims of the night" have to go home, and some of us are anxious to go west, and the next Amendment I have on the Order Paper is of such importance that if I started upon it now, I am afraid that the 408 debate would go on for such a long time that your Lordships would not be able to finish it to-night. We shall not get much further than we are now.
May I say that the noble Lord's reply is a good illustration of why I am convinced, in my own mind that the Films Council are not the appropriate body for making these regulations? I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said, and so will the industry be grateful. If we are to leave this matter to regulations, which apparently we have to do, what will happen in a year or two about films which are made for showing simultaneously on both media? Of course, it can be said that if that were done to-day, the exhibitor would not book them, but I wonder whether in the not too distant future the exhibitor will have any choice. I think that force majeure may come into play. I can see films going on television screens in different parts of the country from where they are shown on cinema screens. I grant that this is hypothetical, but we are legislating here for a long time. There is point in much of what the noble Lord has said. But suppose this highly contentious matter, which really lies between the Board of Trade, the exhibitors and the producers, is submitted to a body such as the Films Council, with several independent people on it. Some curious decisions on like matters have come from bodies where there has been a sharp cleavage of opinion and where Government Departments have weakly relied upon the industry to save them from making a decision. That is what I am afraid of. As it is, this is a matter which, in essence, is left to a body chosen by the Board of Trade who are representative of the producers and exhibitors. This is not a high-level trade policy matter, but one of consultation. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ LORD MANCROFTBefore the noble Lord does so, will he not agree that everything he says encourages me to think that I am right in confining this to regulations rather than putting it in the Bill?
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI quite agree, but one has to make an effort to air these things. When the noble Lord said that we should refer this matter to the Films Council, I felt that I should voice my objection. I do not know whether the noble Lord wants to say more. I am willing to withdraw the 409 Amendment, and in doing so, I would ask the noble Lord whether he thinks this a convenient time to resume the House, because the next Amendment, is one of great importance. I would say again that it is not an Amendment that I shall press, but I want the Committee and the Government to listen to the case I want to put, because I think this levy, as it is operated at the present time, may well have the directly opposite effect to that which we all desire and for which it was originally introduced. That is a case that I think should be presented at a time when we have not one eye on the clock. I hope the noble Lord will meet our convenience.
§ LORD MANCROFTI am only too happy to meet the noble Lord in that respect. We agreed to sit until seven o'clock, but I am willing to amend that, if needs be, particularly as I understand that the noble Lord wishes to speak on the next Amendment with some expansiveness, and I should not like to stop the noble Lord from expanding. We will start off again on Tuesday. On that day, of course, we have the Ghana Indepence Bill once more, and I hope that we shall be able to keep our remarks on other Amendments perhaps a little less expansive than we otherwise should have done, because we do not want to be here all Tuesday night. However, that can be settled possibly through the usual channels.
LORD FARINGDONFor purely personal reasons, I should like to know whether it is intended to sit to finish the Committee stage on Tuesday night.
§ LORD MANCROFTI should think that is what will be discussed through the usual channels, but personally, I should like to finish the Bill on 'Tuesday night, because I am getting a little tired of it.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThis is an important Bill to an important industry. We are only taking the time that is given to us. We have made way for other Business. Yesterday, this Bill was originally down as first Business, but it had to take its place as second 410 Business. I do not complain about that. I may say that, so far as I am concerned, I shall do everything I can to meet the wishes of the House, but the case that we have to put will be fully deployed, whatever time we sit to. I suppose this Bill will be first Business on Tuesday.
§ LORD MANCROFTI imagine that the Ghana Independence Bill will be first Business.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI was not listening to that debate. I take it that that is the Constitution: that that Business takes precedence over this.
§ LORD MANCROFTAs I understand it, yes.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHPerhaps the noble Lord could address some of the remarks that he made to those on this side of the House on this Bill to those who are interested in the Ghana Independence Bill. There was only one Amendment on that Bill, and they seem to have taken more time to discuss three lines than we have taken to discuss many more. However, that is how things go. So far as I am concerned, I am willing to sit here next Tuesday night until as late as possible, and as late as will suit the convenience of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that if the Government are no more accommodating in the rest of this Bill than they have been up to date, we shall sit very late and there will be Divisions very late on Tuesday night.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ House resumed.