§ Mrs. Dunwoodyasked the Secretary of State for Trade (1) whether he is aware that the form of application issued 3y the British Film Fund Agency under the Films Act to applicants for aid contains no guidance to enable corporate applicants to know whether they are centrally managed and controlled in the United Kingdom for the purpose of the regulations; and if he will take steps to see that this information is provided in the future;
(2) what criteria are laid down in the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations 1970 which enable corporate applicants for aid to determine whether they are centrally managed and controlled in the United Kingdom for aid purposes;
(3) on how many occasions in the past three years the British Film Fund Agency has checked whether an applicant for aid under the Films Acts is centrally managed and controlled in the United Kingdom; and what tests it has applied or would apply in such circumstances.
§ Mr. DeakinsThe question whether a company is centrally managed and controlled in the United Kingdom is one of fact. In the period under question., the agency has challenged the correctness of the declaration required of a director or secretary of the company making the application in one instance, and the agency disallowed the claim. I see no reason for further guidance.
§ Mrs. Dunwoodyasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will issue a direction to the British Film Fund Agency instructing it to answer questions from the public concerning the interpretation and application of the levy regulations in so far as they concern the distribution of aid to makers of British films.
§ Mr. DeakinsMy right hon. Friend has no power to issue directions to the agency for this purpose, but I am confident that the members of the British Film Fund Agency are fully aware of their responsibilities as a statutory body and will answer all reasonable inquiries which are addressed to them.
§ Mrs. Dunwoodyasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether the EEC Com- 710W mission has agreed that the United Kingdom system of aids to the British film industry is compatible with Common Market practice; and whether there is a possibility of the Commission taking action against the United Kingdom under the Treaty in the event of the United Kingdom not agreeing to co-ordinate its aid system with those of other member States.
§ Mr. DeakinsThere is no requirement for the Commission to indicate such agreement and no procedure is laid down for such purpose. As no proposals have been made to members for co-ordinating their aid systems, the question of the compatability of the United Kingdom's practice with that in other EEC countries does not arise.
§ Mrs. Dunwoodyasked the Secretary of State for Trade (1) whether the EEC Commission has challenged the practice of the United Kingdom or any other member State in refusing aid to films if the companies are not centrally managed and controlled in that member State; and what opinion the Commission has given about the compatibility of a restriction of this kind with Articles 92–93 of the Treaty of Rome;
(2) whether the United Kingdom agreed in the Treaty of Accession to set aside the provision in the Films Acts which prevented companies incorporated in another member State of the EEC from qualifying for aid from the British Film Fund; why Her Majesty's Government agreed to this; and when the restriction was removed.
§ Mr. DeakinsA restriction which would have prevented a company from qualifying for such aid by virtue of the fact that it was incorporated in other EEC countries would have constituted discrimination contrary to the Treaty of Rome. Accordingly, a restriction which prevented a company from making an eligible film if all or the majority of the directors were citizens of a member State other than the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland was abolished as from 1st January 1973. Since then, the Commission has not given an opinion about the compatibility of the practice of the United Kingdom in these matters with the Treaty.