Orders of the Day — Film Quota Defaulters (Prosecution)

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 24 July 1952.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Stephen Swingler Mr Stephen Swingler , Newcastle-under-Lyme 12:00, 24 July 1952

I propose to raise the subject of the prosecution of film quota defaulters. I am not sure whether this applies to the Isle of Man, but certainly it is an important issue in this island. I would preface my remarks by a number of assertions which I believe should command general agreement, but which I have no time to argue at the moment.

In the first place, in my belief every intelligent citizen in this country wants to see a healthy film industry producing and exhibiting British films of a high artistic and entertainment value. That is important not merely at home but abroad, because the President of the Board of Trade recently said that in 1950 the export of British films earned £2¼ million for this country.

Secondly, every intelligent citizen knows that we have got to reduce dollar expenditure to a minimum. The American films which are imported cost annually between £8 million and £9 million in dollars. We know that that sum has got to be kept to a minimum, and very shortly the Government will have to enter into negotiations about the future of that dollar expenditure.

Thirdly, ever since 1937 every Parliament has agreed that the quota is one way of encouraging British film production. The 1948 Cinematograph Film Act went through this House without a single Division. I believe that if we have a quota, which should be a realistic quota, it ought to be observed, and it is the Minister's job to promote the production of British films and to fix a realistic quota and see that the quota for British films, the guaranteed market, is maintained.

There is a glaring contrast since the passage of the 1948 Act between the number of defaulters and the number of prosecutions of defaulters. In the last three quota years there have been over 10,000 defaults on the two quotas, for the first feature films and for the supporting programme film. I know that the number of first feature defaults last year declined to 771, but it was still a substantial figure. On the other hand, the number of defaults on the supporting programme rose to over 2,300 in the quota year 1950–51.

Against this global total of defaults there have been during these three years fewer than 50 prosecutions of defaulters. In addition to those prosecutions, I know, a number of defaulting exhibitors have been warned about the fact that they have failed to fulfil the quota, but there is certainly a very glaring contrast between the 10,000 defaults in three quota years, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, less than 50 prosecutions by the President of the Board of Trade to attempt to enforce the quota against defaulting exhibitors.

I appreciate that there is hysteria in some quarters, and that it has been suggested that all defaulters are lawbreakers—or because it is thought it has been suggested that they are all lawbreakers. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) and I have raised a storm about our heads as a result of some of the Questions we have put in the House in recent weeks; but I have never suggested that all defaulters are lawbreakers. We know that there is a Section of the Act—Section 13—whereby, if a defaulter can show that it was commercially impracticable to fulfil the quota, he can get relief. But the onus of proof is on the exhibitor to show that it was impracticable, because of the non-availability of British films, and so on.

One of the things we ought to know more about in this House is how many reliefs have been granted—how many certificates under Section 13 of the Act have been granted—and in how many of those thousands of cases exhibitors have been able to show that it was commercially impracticable for them to fulfil the quota. It is obviously grossly unfair to those patriotic exhibitors who make efforts to fulfil the British quota that others should be able to escape from their obligations without justification, and, may be, make an extra profit; and, therefore, in fairness to the exhibitors themselves it is very important that we should have full information about the number of real defaulters that there have been, and the numbers who have managed to prove to the satisfaction of the President of the Board of Trade the commercial impracticability of fulfilling the quota, so that we can set that against the supply from the production of British films.

We have raised a number of Questions about the role of the Films Council in this matter, and I think that this is something which is very important. There is this Films Council which is representative of all sections of the film industry, one of whose responsibilities is to advise the President of the Board of Trade about defaults and about prosecutions, as well as that other vital responsibility of advising on the quota itself and upon the state of production.

In fact, it is an obligation on the President to consult the Films Council about this question of defaults on the quota and the reliefs which he ought to grant and the number of actions which he ought to take, and, therefore, the first question I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is, why this machinery for the consideration of defaults is so slow moving. Nine months after the end of the 1951 quota year only 105 of the 771 cases of first feature defaults had been considered, and advice on them given to the right hon. Gentleman. At that rate of progress it will take the Films Council more than five years to consider the first feature quota defaults for the year 1951 only.

That is obviously an absurd situation, and we want to know where the responsibility lies for this failure to establish machinery for rapid consideration of those defaults on the quota, and to offer advice to the President as to what action he should take in order to maintain the quota, and to see that it is properly observed. That is the first point—the slow moving machinery, which may be the responsibility either of the President or of the Films Council, for the consideration of defaults.

The second thing is the part played by interested parties on the Films Council. The President of the Board of Trade has made a number of statements about this, but my information is that interested parties have taken part in the discussions on the Films Council and on the default committee of the Films Council about defaults on their own circuits. I make no personal imputation against members of the Films Council, because it seems clear that they have received no directive on this subject, and it is obviously unsatisfactory that directors or others associated with circuits or cinemas that have defaulted should take part in the defaults committee of the Films Council, particularly when the committee is discussing their own cases.

The President of the Board of Trade ought to give a clear directive to the Council on this matter if justice is to be seen to be done and there is not to be an impression that in fact, the recommendations made to the President of the Board of Trade are biased by the special pleading of interested parties on the Films Council.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aston some months ago raised the question of the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, and the reason why this cinema, which showed only one British film for the whole of the quota year, 1950–51, was not to be prosecuted for its default. It appears that those responsible for the conduct of the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, have successfully argued that, because they were in this year putting on expensive stage shows which made it financially difficult for them to pay also for the hire of British films, they should not be prosecuted. That recommendation was made to the President of the Board of Trade at the same time as interested parties associated with the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, were on the Films Council.

An explanation is required from the President of the Board of Trade about this particular case which has been given considerable publicity, because clearly the impression is spread abroad that this recommendation is biased, and there is no real reason why this cinema should not be prosecuted for a notorious default. The putting on of stage shows, no matter how admirable they might be, has nothing to do with the fulfilment of the quota to encourage the British film industry, and, therefore, we need to know something further from the President of the Board of Trade if we are to be satisfied that the Minister has considered this case properly.

There are two points which I want to put to the Minister. First, could he speed up consideration of the defaults by the Films Council and get the information as to how many reliefs have been granted, and why it was commercially impractical for so many cinemas not to fulfil the quota? Secondly, could we have an assurance that the Minister will establish that he only gets disinterested and objective advice from the Films Council in their recommendations?

It may be that the quota is too high, and that, in fact, is an argument which is being put forward by some quarters, and hon. Members received information about only today in the post. If that is so in my opinion a thorough-going inquiry into the state of the film production in this country should be made. If we have reached the situation where we have to depend on more than 70 per cent. of foreign films there should be an urgent and immediate inquiry into the present state of film production. But if the Minister fixes a quota it must be taken to be a realistic quota, and if there is such a quota he ought to take action to see that it is observed.

Nobody who has examined these facts can be satisfied with the action that is being taken at the moment, and I hope, therefore, that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to say something to show that he is aware of the situation and that he is doing something to remedy the defects.