Minutes of evidence taken before the Departmental Committee on Cinematograph Films (1936)

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 153 7 July, 1936.] Mr. T. O'Brien and Mr. J. Rogers. [Continued. I know what the conditions are, and since the importation of these two American experts the conditions are very mnch worse than they were before, and there is any amount of room for an inspector in bhese places. (Mr. O'Brien): My colleague is referring to the laboratories, of course. 1710. (Chairman) : Well, gentlemen, we are verj much obliged to you for your evidence. (The Witnesses withdrew.) EIGHTH DAY Tuesday, 14th July, 1936 Present : The Rt. Hon. Lord MOYNE, D.S.O. (Chairman). Mr. A. C. CAMERON, M.C., MA. Mr. J. S. HOLMES, M.P. Dr. J. J. MALLON, LL.D., J. P. The Hon. ELEANOR M. PLUMEP. Lt.-Col. Sir AENOLD WILSON, K.C.I.E., C.S.I., C.M.G., D.S.O., M.P. Mr. W. H. L. PATTERSON (Secretary). Mr. G. R. Hall Caine, C.B.E., M.P., called and examined. The Committee had before them the following Report on the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, submitted to the President of the Board of Trade by the Cinematograph Films Advisory Committee: — 29th October, 1936. The Rt. Hon. Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade. Sir, 1. In considering the various matters from time to time referred to it by the Board of Trade, and particularly the statements made by exhibitors who have defaulted in quota, the Cinematograph Films Advisory Committee has been impressed by the frequency with which certain difficulties in the several branches of the film industry have been attributed wholly or partly to defects in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927. Moreover, the existence of defects of the kind referred to has been confirmed by the trade members of the Committee. 2. In the circumstances the Committee considered it desirable to undertake a full review of the Act. 3. As a result of that review, we are of opinion that two main problems urgently need solution. These are, firstly, the strengthening of Part I of the Act to enable the Board of Trade effectively to enforce it, and secondly, modification of the conditions of eligibility for the registration of films as British, with the object of securing that films so registered shall be of a reasonable standard of quality. We are convinced that any other amendments that may be desirable are consequential upon, or of minor importance compared with, those required to deal with these main problems. Blind Booking and Advance Booking. 4. The position as we understand it, is briefly, as follows : — It is generally admitted that contraventions of the blind booking and advance booking provisions of the Act are widespread and that renters and exhibitors are equally at fault in this matter. It is suggested, however, that some of the major renters representing foreign interests are primarily responsible for the development of this state of affairs. Since the Act came into force, these renters have controlled a substantial majority of the films of satisfactory quality available for distribution, and they have taken advantage of their position to induce exhibitors to take bookings of blocks of films in contravention of both the prohibition of blind booking, and the limitation of advance booking. Some exhibitors also, in order to obtain films in advance of their competitors, seek illegal bookings of this kind. The growth of these practices has forced renters and exhibitors who are desirous of complying .with the A<t to commit similar irregularities. The illegal bookings are made by means of " Gentlemen's Agreements " and formal contracts are not completed until this can be done in accordance with the Act. The difficulty of enforcing the statutory restrictions lies in the fact that no offence is committed until an agreement has been made and that evidence of the offence can normally be obtained only from one of the parties to the agreement. Naturally, neither is willing to confess his contravention of the law, and, in addition, the exhibitor fears that, were he to give evidence against the renter, he might have his supplies of films cut off, and find his livelihood endangered. 5. We have considered various proposals for dealing with this matter, including suggestions that British renters should be exempt from blind booking and advance booking restrictions; that liability to penalties should be limited to renters, and that advance advertisement of films should be restricted to a limited period before the date of trade show. We are unable to recommend any of these proposals. However, at the Meeting of the Committee on the oth July, 1934, when this matter was discussed, the Chairman suggested that the Board of Trade might be able, under its existing powers, to require each application for the registration of a film to be accompanied by a statutory declaration that the film had not been booked in contravention of Part I of the Act. The Committee was subsequently informed that thr Board of Trade had been advised that they have no power under the existing provisions of the Act to impose this requirement. 6. Although the difficulty of obtaining evidence of an offence under this proposal would probably be little, if any, less than it has been hitherto, we are unable to devise any more promising method of dealing with the problem. We think that, provided the statutory declaration were sufficiently wide to cover all the servants of the renter, and not merely the person who made it, a requirement of this kind should have considerable deterrent effect, particularly as the renter alone would be liable to the penalties for making a false declaration, and would, therefore, run a greater risk in making illegal agreements than would an exhibitor. Section 3 might remain as at present, with the addition, a a tun Iter deterrent, of a provision enabling the Court to suspend or cancel the licence of a renter or exhibitor after three convictions lor offences of this kind. \\'e recommend accordingly.