The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

December 1956 CINE TECHNICIAN 179 a Slappp Cfjriatma* ^Tljr Presfibent, General Council, €biror anb Officers tutsh all &.CMM. jllemuers a l£appi> anb Coniribtal Cljnstmas anb properitp in making anb processing IBrtttsI) films anb television burins tlje coming ©car. CINE TECHNICIAN EDITORIAL NOT GOOD ENOUGH >Y the time this issue is in the hands of our members the Government's new film legislation, to which we referred last month, will have received its second reading in the House of Lords. We cannot comment on that debate in this issue, but meantime there are a number of questions that need to be asked. First of all, why was legislation of such importance to a vital British industry introduced in the Upper Chamber instead of in the House of Commons ? And why the haste — we are tempted to write, the indecent haste — to rush a second reading through before Christmas ? The Government would presumably reply that the new Cinematograph Films Bill which has just been tabled is a piece of non-controversial legislation which requires no lengthy debate. From the point of view of those members in both Houses who have no great interest in or knowledge of our industry this may be well enough. But, to everybody, employers and employees alike, who depend on film-making for a livelihood, the bill is thick with questionable points which require the fullest possible discussion. The first thing to bear in mind is that this short measure is designed to settle the fate of the British Film Industry for the next ten years. The bill provides firstly for the imposition of a compulsory levy on exhibitors to take the place of the present voluntary Eady Levy, and for the setting up of a fund to make payments out of the proceeds to makers of British films. Secondly, it extends the life of the National Film Finance Corporation and amends its powers to make loans. Thirdly, it extends the operation of the quota provisions of 1948 for ten years and increases some of the fees payable under the Cinematograph Films Act of 1938. A question arises immediately on the first section of the bill. Certainly it follows the lines advocated by the six Trade Unions in general principle, but how is the actual amount of each year's levy to be determined ? The figure of £3,750,000 is given for the first year's levy. In future years it can fall as low as £2 millions or rise as high as £5 millions. On what basis is the yearly figure to be worked out ? The second section of the bill shows that the Government has, as we suspected that it would, completely disregarded Trade Union advice on the need to widen the powers of the N.F.F.C. Moreover, there is nothing in the bill to provide powers for the acquisition of a circuit of cinemas. The third section of the bill might have been drafted by Scrooge himself for all the concern that is shown for the welfare of British films. The quota is to continue for ten years, it is true, but it is to be a British quota as before: there is not one word in the bill to enable the establishment of a quota for foreign films, and it is a foreign quota that is essential to the health of the British industry. Even the unsatisfactory methods at present in force to define a British film are, it would appear, to remain unchanged. We are not alone in viewing this proposed legislation with suspicion and concern. Judging by comments in the trade press the employers' side is by no means happy either. To introduce a bill that will affect the industry for the next ten years through the ' back door ' of the House of Lords on the eve of the Christmas recess is bad enough. But the facts are even worse than this since the bill contains no provisions for the actual carrying out in detail of the various steps involved. This will have to be done through Board of Trade regulations. Such regulations do, of course, have to be debated by Parliament, so that there is some theoretical safeguard, but everybody who follows parliamentary proceedings knows that regulations of this kind usually get comparatively scanty consideration and the minimum of time amid the press of business in the House. We say frankly that this measure is not good enough. But we shall not let it rest at that. We shall do all in our power to see that amendments are introduced wherever they are necessary for the safeguarding of the future of the industry and of Trade Unionists working in it.