VITAL TO EMPIRE

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 64, 17 March 1927, Page 9

VITAL TO EMPIRE

HOME PRODUCED FILMS •

BILL BEFOR E' PARLIAMENT

(United Press Association.—Copyright.) (Received 17th March, 110011.)

LONDON,. 16th March.

Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, President of the Board of Trade, moving the second readii ; of the Cinematograph Films Bill, pointed out that it followed the methods considered at the Imperial Conference; Only 5 per cent, of tho films nt present being shown in the Empire were of British origin.. 'The cinema was the greatest advertising power in the world. Foreign films operated against British trade throughout tho Dominions. Exhibitors throughout Britain, he continued, recently received requests, if they objected to tho Bill, to telegraph to their local member of Parliament. Prepaid telegraph forms were enclosed. Tim requests tamo from a European motion picture company, of which tho chief shareholders woro Americans. Producers in America were euabled to forgo ahead in wartime when British film-making was stopped. The Bill was necessary to give socurity to British film makors, but tho compulsory quota of British films was deliberately kept low becauso they recognised tho necessity for competition. Tho success of tho British film industry in.volyed great interests.'national and Imperial. Tho determinations of the Imperial Conference must bo translated into action. LABOUR CRITICISM. Mr. J. R. Mac Donald (Lab.), Leader of the Opposition, moved the rejection of tho Bill on tho grounds already announced. Ho claimed that the Government had not shown sound reason for the Bill. Where was tho difference between the provisions of tho Bill and forcing tobacconists to sell 25 per cent. British-grown tobacco. "Foreij^i producers would only laugh at the confession that British films cannot be produced without a Government to help you." The Minister: "Are you aware that there is a 50 per cent, quota in Germany?"

Mr. Mac Donald: "It is purely nominal. If tho Government is adopting the principlo of tin- bounty, it should be for a definite limited period." Mr. W. Runciman (L.) .described the Bill as the craziest form of Protection. Tlio public were entitled .to tho best films, wherever produced. Mr. H. Day (Lab.): "Tho Bill does not protect the renter and exhibitor, for the public are the only judges of the bad producer, Britain last year only produced enough for 3 per cent, of the programme, and only a third of them were worth seeing." Mr..H. G. Williams (C.) said that exhibitors were not free buyers owing to the iniquitous system of "blind" block bookings. A supply rf good British films could bo produced, if tho market offered.

The debate was adjourned