The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

'Cine Technician9 August-September Stop Press FILM QUOTA (Prosecution) Reprinted from Hansard 3rd July, 1952 Mr. Swingler asked the President of the Board of Trade how many members of the Films Council are connected with cinemas which failed to fulfil the quota in the year 1951; and to what extent he took such connections into account in considering the council's recommendations about prosecutions. Mr. Wyatt asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will remove from the Films Council all those persons concerned with the ownership or management of cinemas which have become liable, through persistent defaults, to prosecution under the Films Quota Act, 1948. Mr. P. Thorney croft: Six members of the Cinematograph Films Council are directors of exhibiting companies which, at some of the theatres owned by them, did not exhibit in the 1950-51 quota year the prescribed number of British films. I do not think that this fact either makes necessary any changes in the Films Council as set up by the Cinematograph Films Act of 1938 as amended by the previous Government in 1948, or casts any doubt on the fair and reasonable nature of the advice which the Council has given me in the cases so far examined. The Act provides that if any member of the Council is convicted of an offence under the Act, he shall forthwith cease to be a member of the Council. The House should, however, be aware of the wide defences available to any person charged under the Act. The fact that the exhibiting company does not fulfil the prescribed quota does not in itself constitute an offence if it can show that its failure was due to circumstances beyond the company's control. Section 13 of the Act provides that failure to fulfil the quota can be deemed to be due to circumstances beyond the control of the exhibitor if, " owing to the character of the films available or to the excessive cost of such films, it was not commercially practicable to fulfil the requirement." And if an offence has been committed by a company, a director can be prosecuted only if there is evidence to show that he personally aided or abetted the default or that it was attributable to his neglect. The procedure of the Council is under the Act a matter for the Council itself to regulate. But it is already part of that procedure that members of the Defaults Committee should withdraw from the meeting during consideration of cases in which they have any personal interest, and that they should take no part in the subsequent discussion of these cases when they come before a full meeting of the Films Council. I have in addition suggested to the Chairman that they might also withdraw on these occasions. Mr. Swingler: Is the President aware that practically everybody, apart from himself, now appreciates that the Films Council has become an open conspiracy to defy the law? Is it not quite clear from what we were told last week that this Council recommended that the most notorious defaulter of all, the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, should not be prosecuted, and that the Minister has accepted that advice ? Will he disregard the recommendations of the council in a situation like this — when vested interests are represented on it — or else ask the members connected with defaulting cinema circuits to resign from the Council forthwith ? Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not accept the description applied by the hon. Gentleman to the Films Council, of which at least one hon. Member of this House is a member. It has 22 members, seven of whom are independent members of standing, including Lord Drogheda, the Chairman, and there are, in addition, some members — I think seven — who are exhibitor members. However, I realise that there is some substance in the point that if an exhibitor member is sitting on the Council when the' case of a cinema for which he is responsible comes up for consideration it would be better if he were not there during the deliberations. I have accepted that. In fact, such members do not attend when the the Defaults sub-committee meets. I have suggested to Lord Drogheda, as I said in my answer, that they would do well to withdraw when the cases relating to their cinemas are considered by the full Council. Mr. Wyatt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to a document which I have here, issued by the Board of Trade itself, his answer was inaccurate in that there are not six exhibitors on the Film Council but seven ? On the Defaults Committee and the Quota Reliefs Committee there are seven exhibitors out of 14 members, and on certain occasions the place of Sir Arthur Jarratt as a renter is taken by Mr. Sam Eckman, who is the controller or owner of the notorious Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, and these occasions give the exhibitors a majority on the Defaults Committee. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all defaults are first considered by a Defaults Sub-Committee, which has four members of whom two are exhibitors? Is it not absolutely fantastic that this situation, with its ramifications of interests, should be allowed to continue? Even if exhibitors withdraw when their own cinema is under discussion, naturally their friends and business associates will not recommend their prosecution in their absence. Mr. Thorneycroft: Exhibitors are members of the Films Council because that was laid down not by me but by the previous administration. I have no doubt that we could have a discussion as to whether that was right or wrong, but it is a fact and one that we have to accept. My job is to try to administer that arrangement in the fairest possible way. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the proposal which I have put forward is a reasonable one, that we should accept the Act passed by the previous Administration and that a member! of the Council who is concerned with a cinema which comes before the Council should withdraw during the consideration of its case.