Film and TV Technician (1957)

April 1957 FILM & TV TECHNICIAN EDITORIAL INCOMPETENT AND INEPT THE> new Films Bill has now passed through all its stages in the House of Commons and has become Law. As A.C.T.T. forecast, the Government resisted and defeated all amendments designed to improve the Bill and the most the Labour opposition extracted from the President of the Board of Trade were two concessions. The best that can be said for the Bill — or rather, now, the Act — is that it carries forward, for the time being, the functions of the National Film Finance Corporation, and imposes a statutory Eady Levy in place of the present unsatisfactory voluntary system. The positive value of these two sections of the Act is that independent producers can still obtain financial backing from the Film Finance Corporation for agreed projects, and British producers can be assured that their box-office returns will be augmented by a Levy which will produce £3| million pounds in the first year, and anything between £2 million and £5 million in subsequent years. Against these helpful features can be set a number of serious defects, not the least of which is the clause in the Act providing for the sale of the assets of the National Film Finance Corporation. Despite the most vigorous fight put up by Labour M.P.s, the Government insisted on the retention of this clause, and the only concession made was an amendment to ensure that any purchaser of the Corporation must be and must remain a British company. Let us consider for a moment the iniquity of this section of the Act which says that at some period the assets of the Corporation can be sold to a company which satisfies the Board of Trade that it is willing and able to make adequate financial facilities available to persons who wish to arrange for the production or distribution of cinematograph films. In effect it means that at any time during the next ten years, the Government can decide that this publicly-owned films bank shall be sold lock stock and barrel to private enterprise. In the words of Mr. John Rankin, M.P. : " Take away the Film Finance Corporation and we are handing over the industry to the great monopolies." Mr. Stephen Swingler, M.P., put it even more forcefully. " It seems to me ", he said, " that this is all part of the philosophy of saying that we should socialise only the losses and should always privatise the profits; that profits should always go into the hands of the private capitalist and only losses should be borne by public funds. Why should not we in this country have a publicly-owned films bank and why should it not be a successful piece of public enterprise?" And what was the Government's answer to that? Sir David Eccles, President of the Board of Trade, was perfectly open about it. " The Hon. Member and his Hon. Friends believe in the Government staying in business. We on this side do not believe in it." Apart from the fact that it is not the Government that is in business, but the community as a whole, the implication of this statement seems clear. It is the intention of this Government, when it thinks it can get away with it, to sell up the Film Finance Corporation to private enterprise. As other Labour Members pointed out, why stop at the films bank? Why not sell up the schools, or even hand over the Army and Navy to private enterprise? Why not indeed? The Government would really then be out of business, in more senses than one ! As members who were at the A.G.M. will know, one of the most serious criticisms we had to make of the Bill was that it extended the quota provisions for another ten years without change. As a result of our protests, combined with those of others, the Board of Trade had promised consultations this autumn on amendments to the quota, but without guarantee of Parliamentary time and new legislation. Now the President of the Board of Trade has had to go a bit further, and announce another concession. He said, in Committee : " I repeat my assurance that when we have finished the consultations with the industry which are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Bill, should it become law, we shall go straight on to the discussion of quota legislation. That ought to give us a fair amount of time to bring in legislation next session or in the following one — but I cannot commit the Government since we do not yet know what our legislative programme will be." At the third reading he tabled a Government amendment the effect of which is to carry on with the present quota legislation until 1960 instead of 1968 as originally proposed. The House of Commons agreed to this, but not without protest. Mr. Stephen Swingler again pointed out that despite the fact that the views of all the trade organisations were known months ago, the Board of Trade requires another three years and the existing system with all its faults is to be prolonged until 1960. The ineptness and incompetence with which the Government has handled the whole matter is clear for all to see. Admittedly a three year wait is preferable to ten, but three years is far too long, and A.C.T.T., at least, will not be content to suffer in silence. FILM & TV TECHNICIAN Editor: MARTIN CHISHOLM Editorial Office: 2 SOHO SQUARE, W.l (GERrard 8506) Advertisement Office: 5 & 6 RED LION SQ., W.C.I (HOLborn 4972)