Film and TV Technician (1957)

24 FILM & TV TECHNICIAN February 1957 OUR FEARS CONFIRMED /"|UR fears that the Government " has no intention of accepting amendments to the new Cinematograph Films Bill have been more than confirmed by the debates in the House of Lords during the Committee stage. Not only have all amendments been refused, but the Government spokesman has made it clear that there is no intention at this stage to permit changes in the all-important Part Three of the Bill which deals with the continuation of the Quota provisions. This part of the Bill confines itself to a simple extension of the existing Act. Now this Act is ten years old, and much experience has been gained on its operation during this period, and many weaknesses have been discovered. It was hoped that these could be corrected in the new Act, and it is quite monstrous for the Government to railroad their Bill through both Houses of Parliament without opportunity for change and amendment. It is not as if A.C.T.T. alone is objecting to this course. For once the whole industry appears to be united on the fact that changes are needed, even if views differ, as they must do, as to what changes are desirable. Joint Protest All the Trade Unions and the B.F.P.A. have jointly protested to the Government, and so, we understand, have many other trade bodies. As a result of these protests, and in reply to a question in the Lower House from Mr. Stephen Swingler, the President of the Board of Trade has been obliged to give an undertaking that later in the year he will consult the Cinematograph Films Council and all sections of the industry about detailed amendments to the Quota legislation. Amplifying this, Lord Mancroft said in the Lords that these discussions will begin just as soon as the present Bill, and regulations made under it, are completed with a view to legislation as soon as possible after that. In the meantime the Government will use its powers to get the present Bill on the Statute Book, unaltered. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the Hansard report of the Lords debate will be well rewarded. He will find, for instance, that the noble lords sit only two days a week, one day from 2.30 to 7 p.m. and on the other from 3 to 7.30 p.m. Although these working hours compare favourably with the A.C.T.T.-B.F.P.A. Agreement, it is instructive to note that in addition By Ralph Bond to the Cinematograph Films Bill their lordships also found time to consider, during these arduous working hours, the Hastings Tramways Bill, the Dentists' Bill, the Ghana Independence Bill, Egypt, and the Public Trustee (Fees) Bill! " I am Getting Tired " All this hard work obviously had an effect on Lord Mancroft, the Government spokesman on the Films Bill; at one stage he said: " I should like to finish the Bill on Tuesday night because 1 am getting a little tired of it ". To which Lord Lucas, Leader of the Opposition, very properly replied: " I have not succeeded in one of my amendments, but I am not tired ". We cannot be satisfied with the way the Government is forcing this Bill through both Houses, despite the promises of " later consultation ". The changes that A.C.T.T., in association with the other Unions, desire, are of a fundamental character. We want a much clearer definition of what characterises a "British" film. At the present time it is possible for a film to be made without any United Kingdom technicians being employed, and still qualify for British Quota. The present Act requires that to be " British " a film must, among other things, be made in a studio within Her Majesty's Dominions, and that a required percentage of the labour costs involved shall be paid to British subjects. We are suggesting in both cases that the words "United Kingdom" shall be substituted, so as to protect the employment position of A.C.T. T. and other Union members. Lord Farringdon tabled the appropriate amendments in the House of Lords for this purpose, but the Government strongly resisted them. We also suggest that a further definition be added to the effect that for a film to be " British " the makers must ensure that not less than 95 per cent of the laboratory processing costs shall be incurred with a laboratory in the United Kingdom. An amendment to secure this new provision was also tabled by Lord Farringdon, but met with a similar fate. What other changes do we want? All the Unions are now agreed that Renters' Quota should be restored. As I mentioned in my article last month, this was originally an integral part of the Act, but was dropped in 1948. At that time, A.C. r.T. and others, were confident that British films could at last stand on their own feet, and consequently we did not oppose the elimination of the Renters' Quota provisions. Events in the last ten years have not justified these hopes. Despite everything, our share of our own exhibition market is still only 30 per cent. Hollywood films are as powerfully entrenched as ever, and there is no obligation on the importers of these films to make any British films at all. Few would disagree that many more British films could be made, and the exhibitors are not altogether without reason in complaining that although they are required by law to show a fixed percentage of British films, there is no statutory obligation on anyone to make them. There is therefore a powerful argument for a new Renters' Quota which would oblige all the importers of foreign films to make or acquire a proportion of British products. The Government will resist this proposal because it will cause offence to Hollywood, and will, they say. be contrary to the