HL Deb 13 May 1985 vol 463 cc958-67

[The Commons Reason is printed on Paper (157). References to the Bill are to Bill (79).]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That this House do not insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof: After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:

("Levy on feature films or pre-recorded video cassette

The Secretary of State, after one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and after consultation with persons considered by him to be representative of the film production industry may by order made by statutory instrument, establish arrangements to supplement the financial assistance provided under section 5(1) of the Act by funds derived from any or all of the following schemes, that is to say—

  1. (a) a levy from independent television contractors and the BBC of an appropriate sum of money to be determined by him in respect of the showing by them of feature films on television, or
  2. (b) a levy at such rate as he may determine on pre-recorded video cassettes containing feature film material and sold in the United Kingdom,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose an amendment in lieu thereof as printed on Paper (157a). I think that this debate ought to take place in Norman French. We find ourselves on a constitutional issue, rather than on an issue of policy. Let me say immediately that, if the Commons had considered and rejected that part of our amendment which it was proper for us to put to them on policy grounds, I would not be standing up today to seek to replace it. Let me say, also, that, if the whole of the amendment had been ruled unconstitutional and involving taxation, then again, self-evidently, I would not be here to suggest any alternative to it.

But we have a curious situation. The position is that this House in its wisdom decided to propose an amendment which enabled the Secretary of State—it did not require him—by order made by statutory instrument to seek to provide financial assistance for the film industry from a levy of independent television contractors and the BBC, a levy on pre-recorded cassettes and, thirdly, the appropriate film proceeds of any levy scheme approved in respect of blank video tape. It was that third alternative which the Speaker directed in another place should be considered as taxation and an infringement of the constitutional privilege of the Commons.

The result of that was that, despite some confusion in the debate and some wish of honourable Members to discuss those items which do not constitute taxation, it was not possible to separate the three paragraphs from the new clause. Therefore, the Commons did not consider the substantive issues raised by our amendment, which we are advised—and I believe that this advice is now generally accepted—do not raise issues of taxation.

I believe that it is the right of this Chamber to insist that another place should consider the amendments which we put forward by majority vote on policy grounds. I repeat that if they adhere to their view that they do not wish to have it, I shall not seek to take the matter any further. But I believe that we have the right to have those amendments considered and not to have them fall by the wayside, because of a technicality. On those grounds, and on those grounds alone, I believe that we should support the amendment in lieu. In saying that, I should make it clear that although, as is proper, my name alone appears on the Marshalled List, I have been assured of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, and of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who signed the original amendment. Also, the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, has wished me luck in moving this alternative amendment this evening. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the amendment in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, noble Lords will know that I have a lot of sympathy with the case put forward for the film industry. With the noble Lord and others, I attended a committee where the case was put very strongly and effectively to us, and so I have a lot of sympathy in terms of wanting to help that great industry which is a very important part of our country's economy. So there is no argument about that.

But here we are back again on a constitutional point. The Commons have now looked three times at the principle behind the Bill, and the principle now is identical to the one that they started with. It is true that on one little section of it, and on a technicality, Mr. Speaker ruled part of it out of order because of the money content. But the principle was not altered and the other place had a chance of making some variation if they wanted to do so.

The reason I shall not support this amendment—I hope that it is not thought worthy of going through the Lobbies again—much as I want to support the future of the film industry, is that I believe that if we appear to want to be in direct confrontation with the other place, it will not be good for the partnership of the two Houses which we shall want on many matters in the future.

I believe that we ought to take the hint—it is more than a hint—that the elected representatives have examined the principle three times. At the end of the day it is they who will be answerable for what happens because of what goes on to the statute book. I do not think that we ought to use our voting muscle on this matter. The noble Lord has made his point, and has shown how strong are his feelings in the way of seeing what can be done to get the necessary finance for the film industry. We have played our part and, because we do not want a direct confrontation, I hope that the Lobbies will not be used on this occasion. The request that I make to the noble Lord, having put his case very efficiently, is not to push this matter through the Lobbies. It will not do any good for the film industry or for the general work which the two Houses have to do together.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I made no attempt to raise again the substantive issues about support for the film industry. I can only conclude that the noble Lord has not read the consideration of our cause in another place, because what happened there was that Mr. Speaker called upon the Minister to move to disagree with the Lords in the said amendment and there was no debate there on the substantive issues, on which I recognise he is as much concerned as I am. I do not think either of us wants to have that debate again. What we want to do is have another place give some attention to the opinion of this House.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I rise to support this reframed amendment, in no wish to conflict with the other place. British Film Year has now begun and, since we last discussed the matters largely contained in this amendment, it has been shown by recent broadcasts—mostly sound broadcasts—and a general debate in the country that there is a wide interest and a wide concern about the British film industry. I stress the word "British". The British aspect of this is something which has given many noble Lords a good deal of anxiety on this Bill, for it seems that the Government have not fully appreciated the concern about the British film industry. They see the film industry as an international film industry in which we have a role to play. We have been over these arguments ad nauseam but I think it is important to mention that. It also explodes a myth, which may have prevailed at the beginning of the movement of the Bill through this House, that the British filmgoer was no longer an important factor.

People are very interested in cinema in this country. They have become more and more interested in cinema because they are exposed to it through television, and that is something which relates to this amendment. They are becoming more and more exposed to it because they see films on pre-recorded video tapes in greater and greater numbers.

Social habits are changing, as indeed they are in the way people spend their leisure. They go to pubs less often and they drink less beer. I suggest that they look at less television. Perhaps television contributed in some measure to the drift away from the cinemas, but, as I have said through the course of the Bill, I lay the blame for that at the feet of the exhibitors. The exhibitors have shown a certain will to improve the amenities given to the British filmgoer. We shall see that through this year, but at the present time most people see films and develop an interest in films through television and through the very excellent coverage which films are given on television and of course through the prerecorded video tape.

All this amendment says, quite reasonably, as was accepted by your Lordships in this House previously, is that in the event that this new consortium should be short of funds to such a degree that the Secretary of State thinks that a contribution from television and a contribution from people who produce prerecorded video tapes would in some way increase and improve the financial ability of the new consortium to add impetus to the production of British films, he may make the necessary arrangements. That seems to me to be common sense and I hope that your Lordships will again approve this amendment in its new form.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I should just like to add one word in support of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I support absolutely the right of the Commons to impose taxation. It seems to me to be a right that we can in no way challenge; nor do we want to challenge it. I also think, however, that it is appropriate that the Commons should consider propositions placed before them by this House. What has happened in this case is that, instead of considering whether or not they shall impose taxation, they have in fact failed to consider the proposition itself. Therefore I think it right and proper that we should take it back and ask them to consider what we suggest. They can make their own decision; they can decide to impose or not to impose. When the Secretary of State makes an order, if he ever makes an order, they cart decide at that point what they will do about it. They can throw it out, accept it or reject it.

It seems to me unreasonable that the proposition should be thrown out in principle without consideration. That is in fact what has happened. I should have thought that my noble friend was right in asking them just to have a look at it again.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the brevity with which he introduced his amendment. I am not going to get myself involved this evening in constitutional issues, because they are well understood by all Members of your Lordships' House.

I would pick up one point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made in regard to my noble friend Lord Mersey. My noble friend sent me a copy of the letter which he wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in which he said—I shall paraphrase because I do not have the letter at my elbow—that we have arrived at a position—he said this in his letter—that is untenable to him. He had not realised that we were going to get into a conflict which would be to the general disadvantage of the film industry. He ended his letter to the effect that he wanted no part of this any further. I do not think that I am wrong as to the general sense of what he said.

7.45 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me, I have a subsequent letter from the noble Viscount which I think makes things clear. It says: Thank you for your note and I appreciate the constitutional position now. Yesterday"— this was when he wrote to the noble Lord the Minister— I told Government both orally and in writing that I would not put my name to any more amendments on the Films Bill. I am sorry but that is the position for manifold reasons better gone into over a cup of tea. I imagine that you will go ahead with what I call the (a), (b) amendment as opposed to the (a), (b), (c) amendment, if you get me, and I wish you luck". It was to that letter I referred when I referred to the views of the noble Viscount.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reads out part of the letter. I think I have made my point.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, a further letter.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, may I read the rest of the letter? It continues: But perish the thought that we are to have yet another debate on this Bill, a sort of Fourth Reading. Really the issues have been debated to death already. Perhaps it need only be a 10 minute debate". It is for exactly those reasons that I referred only to the constitutional issue and not to the substantive issues, and I spoke for only four minutes.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

I have a rather different letter, my Lords.

Lord Mishcon

Oh please!

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I have a letter; no, it really is not good enough for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to sit there, arms folded, and say, "Oh please!"

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I will not do it with arms folded but what I will do is to remind the noble Lord the Minister, though I should have thought that he needed no reminder, of the convention of this House which is that you do not read correspondence to the whole of the House without the full permission of the person concerned. Unfortunately the noble Lord the Minister started by doing it and suggested that my noble friend might have been inaccurate, which is a neutral phrase that I should like to use. My noble friend was accordingly driven to reply that there was a further letter, in order to show that he was not inaccurate. But I would beg both noble Lords, if I may respectfully say so, not to quote correspondence unless there is a direct authority by the person who wrote the letter so to quote.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am quite happy to go along with that. It was not I who raised the question of what my noble friend Lord Mersey said. It was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who said, and Hansard will record what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said, that my noble friend was in accord—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

No, my Lords, Hansard will not say that.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

Well, my Lords, it was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who brought up what my noble friend said, and my noble friend is not here. Because he is my noble friend, I felt that it was not unreasonable for me to give my understanding of what he felt about this matter. I am quite prepared to leave what my noble friend Lord Mersey had to say because he is not here to speak for himself. But, having dealt with that, perhaps I may say in response to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that the other place has discussed the principle underlying paragraphs (a) and (b) of this amendment.

My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said—and there is no disagreement there—that in fact the other place has discussed this matter. The other place discussed it in relation to a general principle. That your Lordships' House decided to pass an amendment with the small paragraph (c), against which Mr. Speaker has ruled, is not disputed.

The principle of a levy has been discussed in the other place. The proposition that exhibition outlets for films should be levied to assist the film production industry has been considered on a number of occasions both in the other place and in your Lordships' House. The arguments for and against various levy options have been debated in detail. Indeed, the two strands of this particular amendment were discussed here during Report and Third Reading.

I listened very carefully to the arguments advanced. The Government's opposition to the introduction of statutory redistributive mechanisms has remained unchanged since it was first set out in the White Paper on film policy, following an extensive review of the industry. I believe that at this stage little purpose would be served by rehearsing yet again the arguments which the Government have previously advanced. I shall instead reiterate the central point. We do not consider statutory recycling mechanisms to be an efficient means of encouraging an economic activity that is essentially orientated towards the expanding market place for films which the traditional and new outlets for both cable and direct broadcasting by satellite represent. We believe that our general approach of moving away from the statutory intervention of the past and towards the creation of the right business environment is the correct means of encouraging the future prosperity of the industry as a whole.

I believe that those who wish—as I and my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls do—to see all sectors of the British film industry thrive should take this opportunity to consider the consequences for the film industry if this amendment is carried, with all the risk of further delay that it would entail.

It has been clear from the discussion that has taken place during various stages of the Bill that there is widespread sympathy with the plight of the cinema. I share the concern that no fewer than 24 cinemas closed in the first four months of this year alone. Other cinemas have closed since we first debated this matter. An aspect of this Bill which has been almost universally welcomed is its provision for the early removal of the Eady Levy. The Government's firm intention has been to end the levy burden on cinemas as soon as sufficient funds were received to meet the commitments of that levy to the levy's beneficiaries.

I am sure that noble Lords here this evening would wish to be aware that, according to our latest estimate, sufficient funds have now been received to enable us to abolish the levy as soon as this Bill is enacted. I must make it clear that to delay the enactment of this legislation will be to the considerable disadvantage of the hardest-pressed sector of the British film industry—and that is the exhibitors. That is the point to which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has addressed himself on a number of occasions—not least this evening.

There are other considerations which those who oppose the Bill should bear in mind. Under the existing films legislation, the Eady Levy will carry on until October—that is under the provisions of the Film Levy (Finance) Act 1981. While that goes on, more cinemas will close. In October, the levy will cease to exist and with its expiry will go the funding it has previously provided for the National Film and Television School and the BFI Production Board. The Eady funding for the National Film Finance Corporation will end in July this year, and the NFFC itself will cease to operate in December.

This means that by the end of the summer the NFFC will no longer be able to function effectively, although it will exist as a shell thereafter. There will be no provision for its replacement by the British Screen Finance Consortium. The basis for the Government's contribution of £1.5 million a year to support film production and £500,000 a year towards project development and for short films will be lost.

The old provisions of the Films Act 1960 in relation to registering films and licensing cinemas and film distributors would, however, remain—at some considerable cost to the industry. The main purpose of the provisions here is to underpin the quota and allow a scheme such as the Eady Levy to operate. With the suspension of the quota and the demise of Eady, they serve no useful purpose, but the 1960 Act makes no provision—as this Bill does—for their removal.

I cannot see what the film industry could gain from an amendment which is merely permissive, to which the Government have made their opposition patently clear. I can see no advantage that would outweigh all the considerations of which I have just been speaking. I remind the House that the much vaunted statement—what is called the all-industry statement—which has been produced from time to time as evidence—most notably by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, during our consideration of the White Paper just some weeks before this Bill came to your Lordships' House—of opposition to the Government's film policy by, virtually all sides of the industry", was not, in fact, signed by two of the three principal groupings in the film industry—that is, the exhibition and distribution sectors. If noble Lords intend to support this amendment and thus to delay still further the passage of this Bill, with all the implications that would have for the film industry, I ask them now to think again; to consider very seriously the possible consequences of their action upon the British film industry which they seek to support—and which they indeed claim they are trying to support by virtue of this series of amendments couched in similar terms.

I shall not repeat all the arguments that we have gone through. I merely underline the very grave dangers which will face the British film industry if further delay is occasioned in pursuing a principle which, time and time again, the Government have opposed. The Government have no intention whatsoever of implementing a levy such as is provided for in this amendment. I beg your Lordships not to delay the passage of this Bill. That would do undoubted harm to the British film industry, riding as it is on a successful wave. I believe that the industry would be gravely set back were we to delay the implementation of this Bill. I invite your Lordships to reject the amendment before us this evening.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has in essence—and I hope that I am not misrepresenting him—made two points. His first point was that the amendment was considered in another place. His second was that there would be some danger (he may even have said grave danger) in the delay which would be occasioned by this amendment being carried, sending the Bill back to another place, and having it dealt with—presumably with the amendment being overturned there.

On the first point, it is necessary to say that Mr. Speaker took the view that the amendment could be considered only as a whole. When he was questioned as to whether his ruling precluded any discussion of the subsections or any opportunity to say why they should be opposed (and it was a supporter of the Government who raised these points) Mr. Speaker said: The Lords' amendment is debatable in the negative sense, 'That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment'. I do not know whether, in the light of my ruling, the hon. Gentleman would wish to pursue the matter".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/4/85; col. 222]. The honourable gentleman did not. In other words, the point I am making—if I have to make it again—is that there was no debate on the substantive issues in another place.

On the Minister's second point, I rather feel that the noble Lord has gone over the top. We are talking about a period of perhaps two weeks between a decision of this House and a further decision in another place, and then possibly another two weeks before the Bill returns to this House again, if the Commons insist or do not insist on the amendment. That is the kind of time-scale which applied before. The amount of time taken in terms of column inches is not very great. The threat to Government time is not very severe. In view of the assurances we were given by the Government concerning the healthy state of the British film industry, I find it difficult to believe that a delay of approximately four weeks in the Bill receiving its Royal Assent will make any serious difference to the economic, financial or other prospects of the film industry.

I come back to the constitutional point. We have a right that the amendment carried here should be considered on a substantive basis by another place. In moving this amendment I am asking the House to offer another place the opportunity to consider the matters which they wished to consider and were prevented from so doing by the ruling of the Speaker.

8 p.m.

On Question, That the House do not insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the amendment in lieu thereof set out on Paper (157a)?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 100.

DIVISION NO. 3
CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Birk, B.
Amherst, E. Bottomley, L.
Attlee, E. Brockway, L.
Avebury, L. Caradon, L.
Bacon, B. Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Barnett, L. Chitnis, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Collison, L.
Bernstein, L. David, B.
Davies of Leek, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. McNair, L.
Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B. Mar, C.
Melchett, L.
Denington, B. Meston, L.
Diamond, L. Molloy, L.
Ennals, L. Monkswell, L.
Ezra, L. Mountevans, L.
Falkender, B. Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Falkland, V. [Teller.] Nicol, B.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Ogmore, L.
Fitt, L. Oram, L.
Gallacher, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Galpern, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grey, E. Prys-Davies, L.
Hampton, L. Rea, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Hayter, L. Robson of Kiddington, B.
Heycock, L. Rochester, L.
Hooson, L. Ross of Marnock, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Serota, B.
Howie of Troon, L. Shepherd, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L. Stallard, L.
Irving of Dartford, L. Stamp, L.
Jeger, B. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
John-Mackie, L. Strabolgi, L.
Kaldor, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Kilbracken, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Kilmarnock, L. Tordoff, L.
Lawrence, L. Walston, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Whaddon, L.
Lockwood, B. Wilson of Langside, L.
Lovell-Davis, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Airey of Abingdon, B. Hanson, L.
Allerton, L. Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Annaly, L. Harris of High Cross, L.
Barber, L. Hood, V.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Hornsby-Smith, B.
Beloff, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Belstead, L. Ingrow, L.
Boardman, L. Kaberry of Adel, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Kemsley, V.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Lane-Fox, B.
Brookeborough, V. Layton, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Long, V.
Caithness, E. Lothian, M.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Clitheroe, L. Lyell, L.
Colville of Culross, V. McFadzean, L.
Cork and Orrery, E. Margadale, L.
Cox, B. Marley, L.
Craigavon, V. Marsh, L.
Craigton, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Crawford and Balcarres, E. Middleton, L.
Croft, L. Molson, L.
Davidson, V. Monk-Bretton, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Digby, L. Onslow, E.
Dilhorne, V. Orkney, E.
Dundee, E. Orr-Ewing, L.
Eden of Winton, L. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Elibank, L.
Elles, B. Portland, D.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Rankeillour, L.
Elton, L. Reigate, L.
Fisher, L. Renton, L.
Fortescue, E. Renwick, L.
Gainford, L. Romney, E.
Gardner of Parkes, B. St. Aldwyn, E.
Gibson-Watt, L. Salisbury, M.
Glanusk, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Glenarthur, L. Savile, L.
Gray of Contin, L. Sharples, B.
Greenway, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Gridley, L. Southborough, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Sudeley, L.
Swinfen, L.
Swinton, E. [Teller.] Vivian, L.
Trefgarne, L. Ward of Witley, V.
Trumpington, B. Whitelaw, V.
Ullswater, V. Windlesham, L.
Vaux of Harrowden, L. Wynford, L.
Vickers, B. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon)

The Question is, That the House do not insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.8 to 8.30 p.m.]