Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
WEDNESDAY 20 MAY 1998
THE RT
HON TOM
CLARKE, CBE, MS
BARBARA PHILLIPS,
MS JANET
EVANS AND
MR CHRISTOPHER
DAWES, OBE
Chairman
80. Minister, I should like to welcome you and
your officials here this morning to a climate somewhat more sultry
than Cannes I should think. You are very welcome indeed. We are
most interested to hear from you. If you have a brief opening
statement which you would like to make to the Committee before
we start putting questions to you then we should be very happy
to hear it.
(Mr Clarke) I am very grateful. I have
just recently returned from Cannes where I saw some very good
British films and I hope that is the message we can spread elsewhere.
May I respond to your invitation to say a word or two at the beginning,
looking forward very much to the questions and points colleagues
will make? May I say I am genuinely delighted to be here as the
first designated Minister for Film and Tourism, but with responsibility
as well for the Royal Parks and Royal Palaces. I believe that
my role as Minister, consistent with the work which is going on
in my Department, is to communicate the real enthusiasm we feel
and indeed the passion we have for film and tourism. I know that
this is something which is shared by the Committee. We have gained
immensely from previous reports produced by the Committee, particularly
in these fields and I hope you will find that these are reflected
in some of the work we have been doing, some of our publications
and some other things we shall be discussing this morning. I have
to say that I am a very fortunate person indeed to be associated
with the two big successes of Creative Britain, not just in the
last year but in earlier days, because British film has come into
its own; people at Cannes knew that. In tourism I am fortunate
to have a very big responsibility but one which is capable of
delivering still more. I believe that the work of the Department—and
therefore that reflects on my activities as the Minister—involves
consultation, which is genuine and real, partnership, which does
exist and is not simply a slogan and strategic leadership. We
have conducted two key reviews: A Bigger Picture dealing
with a comprehensive review of the film industry and involving
people from every part of that industry; and the ongoing discussions
which are very proactive in tourism where a forum and its various
groups will be able to report to myself and to the Secretary of
State and enable us to do something similar in producing a document
which we will publish on tourism some time in the summer. We want
to build on the success which we have achieved. We are not living
on our laurels and we want to ensure that there is true excellence.
We intend to lead and we hope we are doing that, but that is based
on genuine listening. My responsibilities, consistent with the
role of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, are based
on three objectives: liberating individuals' talents, investing
in people, equipping people with skills to realise their talents
and nurturing creativity so as to enhance the contribution of
cultural entrepreneurs. I believe that these objectives are crucial
for the national cultural and economic benefit of us all and it
is that which all of us in my Department seek to achieve.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed;
we are most grateful for that. What I shall do, at the suggestion
of Mr Maxton, is divide the questioning into two sections so that
the two areas do not get mixed up with each other: that is film
and then tourism. I shall take film first.
Mr Maxton
81. May I ask what seems to be a very basic
organisational question within the Department? You are deemed
to be the Minister for Film and yet another Minister is in charge
of television. That seems to me to be a division which is unwarranted
because they are so closely linked in terms of production, in
terms of the people who appear in both media, in terms of actors,
producers and directors. How does the Department marry those two
things? How do you get together? How do you ensure that there
is a joint working together?
(Mr Clarke) That is a very good question
and it is one I often ask myself. I can say that I regard film—and
Mr Maxton will know that I spent most of my working life before
I came to Parliament in film—as being part of the audiovisual
agenda which is important to us as the Government, important to
the Committee and indeed important to Europe as we demonstrated
by our Birmingham conference on audiovisual matters as part of
our European Union Presidency. Yes, I do indeed see a connection
between broadcasting and film. Fortunately we do work as a team.
It is that sort of Department. Just as a matter of interest, during
the Birmingham conference, because of the responsibilities on
my colleagues, the Secretary of State and Mark Fisher and Tony
Banks, I found myself replying to a debate on the Doyle Carte
Opera. That really was not a bad thing because there is a coming
together of all of these matters. Yes, my main responsibilities
are tourism and film and the Royal Palaces and the Royal Parks,
broadcasting, as perhaps we will see as the discussion develops,
is very, very crucial to the success of our objectives in film.
I do see the connection.
Chairman
82. I have just received, as no doubt you have,
you probably more likely since you were a governor of the British
Film Institute, a publication of the British Film Institute on
the 360 film classics which they are compiling, in which they
say that very few of those film classics now, apart from new prints
being manufactured for the national film archive, are available
on celluloid any more, and they can only be seen on video. They
go farther and say that almost all of the films which are shown
on television now are not shown from film prints but from videos.
Therefore, there is a converging nexus on this which emphasises
what Mr Maxton has been saying. Furthermore, when we visited the
Sony studios a few weeks ago we were told that in future it is
quite likely the technology is about to be available whereby films
will be shown in theatres not from celluloid copies distributed
but over the Internet from one copy shown on the home base. Is
there any discussion within the Department about breaking down
what I agree with Mr Maxton does seem to be a very artificial
barrier?
(Mr Clarke) That raises a number of points
which I believe are crucially important and which are addressed
in our document, A Bigger Picture. This was a very, very
comprehensive review, followed by the appointment of an action
group, that is the people who were on the review and others who
will, I believe, help in dealing with the monitoring of our recommendations.
I think you will see that throughout the objectives expressed
here we address that very, very important issue. We have to acknowledge
that times have changed for film. I love film and have always
been involved in it. You will recall that it was Harold Wilson
who introduced the Eady levy. That was appropriate to its times
because it meant that a percentage of the ticket of those who
went to see films, which still in my view remains the main art
form of the twentieth century and the main means of communication,
would be used straightaway to go into productions so the people
producing the film they were about to see did not have to wait
for the exhibition process. That was good and it worked. It worked
in its time because audiences used to go in much, much larger
numbers to see films. When it fell apart, after it has to be said
two decades of success, it was when patterns changed. People began
to see film in broadcasting, they began to see it in video, they
saw it perhaps in theatres and cinema but distribution was very
much part of that as well. Taking your point, that is one of the
reasons we recommend that if we are to sustain the successes we
have achieved in the last year, and we have more than doubled
the audience for British films which was one of the objectives
set at Cannes which I frankly thought we would achieve in a full
parliament and with the help of the British film industry we got
it before Christmas with films like Mrs Brown and The Borrowers
and The Spice Movie and so on ... Based on all of that the question
which you ask leads me to ask again: should not those who benefit
by film contribute to the investment of future films? That is
one of the reasons why our two major recommendations in this review
are firstly that there should be an all-industry fund, voluntary—I
do emphasise that it is voluntary—so that those who now
use film, not the Eady levy where it was mainly the patrons of
the cinemas who did it, but the people you mentioned, the broadcasters,
the theatres, the distributors and the video people, should ensure
that we have an industry upon which we can build. The same applies
to training and to a skills development fund and the recommendation
there. That is a fair approach and what is wonderful here is what
was recommended to us by the people from the industry who are
the overwhelming majority of the people who sat on the review.
You have introduced as a second point, and again very relevant,
a point about new technology. I want to see us, as we heard at
Birmingham—and this is not new to us, it has to be said,
but I welcomed the discussion at Birmingham from European countries—make
the very best of new technology. That is why I was very pleased,
coming to the latter part of your question, to be asked yesterday
by Odeon to open the first new Internet in Britain here in London
where people can tune in and put questions about their favourite
director or about a film they were vaguely aware of or about films
in particular categories which they want to hear about, so that
people are not only being encouraged by marketing and by marketing
strategy to come to see films, but that information is readily
available in a world which in terms of new technologies is changing
very rapidly.
Mr Maxton
83. May I return to the position of film and
television which you were quite rightly dealing with? Unlike yourself,
and I have to say the Chairman, I believe television is a more
important medium than film is. With the emphasis which is being
put on film by your Department and by the fact that you as Minister
of State are senior to the Minister in charge of television—
(Mr Clarke) I think you mean broadcasting.
84. Broadcasting; right—then there is
a tendency to view your Department as somehow making film a considerably
more important medium than television.
(Mr Clarke) I wish it were so. Our individual
perceptions tend to be, like love and beauty, in the eye of the
beholder. I just wish that the things we have been doing and indeed
in tourism, would get the profile I should like to see. I know
Mr Maxton has a very important view on broadcasting. Mr Maxton
tends to regard myself from a Scottish constituency background
as being something of a peacemaker. I do not see film as being
in competition with broadcasting, indeed I want to take this opportunity
to thank the broadcasters. Frankly in the 1980s, when things were
pretty dull for film, where would we have been without Channel
4? Indeed more recently, without the involvement of BBC Scotland
Mrs Brown would never have been seen on the silver screens. That
working together is important but I accept that Mr Maxton, looking
to the future, looking to changes, constant change is here to
stay, as we often hear, is right in drawing your attention to
the fact that for example when digital television is introduced
and when we do eventually switch off analogue, people in broadcasting
will be queuing, absolutely queuing to use films. I want to ensure
that those films are of good quality, seen by British people who
have the right to have a choice, and people abroad as well, but
also that those who use films, including those broadcasters, make
some contribution to every aspect of film from development right
through to distribution and exhibition.
85. How do you define a film? If someone comes
looking for the incentives, the money which is available, wanting
to make a film which essentially is a film for television only,
are they entitled to get money?
(Mr Clarke) I am very happy to deal with
public investment, public money in film. If their case is strong
enough and it convinces my Secretary of State and he in turn—not
an easy task—persuades the Treasury that is the right thing
to do, then fine. I am not saying that either in broadcasting
or in film we simply throw money at the problem; indeed I very
firmly do not believe that. That is the main thrust of A Bigger
Picture dealing with film. I see no reason why those same
principles should not apply to broadcasting as well.
86. That is not quite the point I am making.
What I am trying to say to you is that films can be made which
are essentially for television only. Are people making those films
in this country entitled to the same tax and other benefits which
might accrue if they were making that same film for showing in
cinemas?
(Mr Clarke) Mr Maxton will understand
that I as a Scot do not propose to write a blank cheque either
in broadcasting or film. Yes, the general answer to the question
is of course. Nevertheless, people in broadcasting should not
feel complacent about that. They should know that they are being
judged on merit, they are being judged on what the market thinks
and on what people think and the consumer in this as in other
issues is the most important person.
Mr Fabricant
87. I am going to resist the temptation to be
nasty to you because you are doing the very job that I should
most like to do. C'est la vie. For a long time there was
an anomaly between the way capital allowances were treated, between
film production and television production. I was pleased that
was put right, to my intense irritation, since the last general
election. It came about because of the compartmentalisation where
film was handled by one Minister and television was handled by
another Minister. Really just following on from John Maxton's
line of questioning, is there any move within the Department to
try to embrace broadcasting within the same ministerial line of
command? Would you welcome that?
(Mr Clarke) Briefly, I do and that is
what is already happening in my field. May I say to Mr Fabricant's
introductory remarks that I cannot imagine him being other than
absolutely charming and therefore I would not regard any question
from him as being in any sense offensive. We may even share the
same views on French films. Yes, of course there is integration
there. That is why when we were producing A Bigger Picture
the broadcasters were there, were on the various groups, were
on the review group itself, and because of the importance of the
link between the two, which you and Mr Maxton rightly identify,
we have decided that there should be more people from broadcasting
in the action group, which is set up for the next 12 months, to
make sure that this does not gather dust and that we look to see
how things are actually being implemented. Whereas I accept your
concern about integration between broadcasting and film—and
they do dovetail very often, as do tourism and broadcasting and
we may come to that later—that the Department itself is
not addressing the issue, certainly I am as Minister and I am
sure Mr Fisher does as well. May I say this as the final response
to Mr Fabricant, that clearly in some ways we have to reflect
what the industry feels about it? I would simply put on record
that you may just have noticed that BAFTA this year had two different
award ceremonies: one for film and one for television. We all
have to think whether there is a message in that.
88. It was certainly my experience that in the
1970s and 1980s many of the people who moved into film were originally
trained in broadcasting. Do you have any view on the changes which
have taken place within the BBC, which was the main training ground
for people working in the film industries since the second world
war? Do you have any view that changes within the BBC, whereby
there are fewer training schemes available than there have been
in the past, might have a detrimental effect on the film industry?
(Mr Clarke) A lot of this depends on
the quality of the training schemes. When I come to speak about
training schemes in film and in tourism, I may have the opportunity
to develop that. In identifying training you have done a great
service to both industries, broadcasting and to film. You have
underscored the clear link there is in audiovisual matters and
why it is right we in Britain should see these things as being
taken together. It may be that others in Europe—and I do
not want to be too critical of our European colleagues because
I am working with them and signed a co-production deal the other
week with Mr Veltroni from Italy—have a bit of catching
up to do. What I can reassure you of—and I do hope you feel
reassurance—is that at Birmingham these matters were considered
and discussed at very great length and glasnost was there.
89. When Tony Banks came before the Committee
he said that he had very few funds available to him and he said
his job—in only the way Tony Banks could say it—was
characterised by knocking heads together. Is that how you see
your role?
(Mr Clarke) Tony always speaks for himself
and I am sure everything he said was absolutely right. In my Department
we have to put successive governments' record on display. This
takes us right into what I believe is the core of our approach
to how we see the film industry. Here we see the balance between
public expenditure and private investment and in my opinion, and
in the opinion of the review group, both are absolutely essential.
What the Government has done in my field in film in franchises
we announced last year at Cannes, £92.5 million, Lottery
money awarded to films, £101.7 million, does not take on
board the money made available, rightly in my view, to organisations
like the British Film Institute, just over £15 million, British
Screen Finance, £2 million, European Co-production Fund,
£2 million, British Film Commission, £850,000, National
Film and Television School, £2.1 million, coming all together
to £22.05 million. Then we move to Europe and see the £6
million there as our annual contribution to the EU media programme.
Taken together, that is quite a substantial public commitment.
Let me say this. I believe that the real test of the success of
our film industry—and I regard all of this, the Government's
policies, the excellent review to which I have referred as being
a kick start to the new film industry we want to create —the
more success we have then frankly the more the section of the
report dealing with private investment, dealing with links with
the City, dealing with people who have the confidence to invest
in confidence, the more we will see that public contributions
do fade out in time, that market conditions do indeed prevail.
That is not describing a new industry. It does take place in other
countries, notably in the United States. Lest it be thought I
am offering a negative view as between public expenditure and
the private involvement, may I say that films like Shooting
Fish—and there are three such films—received Lottery
money, were able to gather their own capital, returned Lottery
money so that could then be used for other films and then went
on to promote the film. I see that as a very good example of best
practice and government wants to create the environment in which
that can continue and that approach can be built upon.
Mr Fearn
90. I have been concerned for a while about
the great many students who are going through university on media
studies and drama schools and being turned out at the end thinking
they have a qualification which can get some kind of recognition
within the film and television industry and finding that most
of them cannot find work. The film industry is on a high at the
moment and we hope it will continue to be so. We are talking now
about the Fair Deal for Work as well. Do you see the industry
swallowing up any of those students who are coming out really
with nothing to do? We still have the established actors and actresses
and we have some young ones coming through very nicely but not
very many.
(Mr Clarke) Like Mr Fearn I want to see
success and I want to see talent recognised in front of a camera
but also behind the camera. You are bringing up a very, very important
point and one which worries me and one which Lord Puttnam has
written on and spoken on for some time. I do not often feel slightly
depressed or negative in this job because it is a wonderful job,
but David Puttnam has identified the simple fact that of all the
disciplines people who study media studies in university are the
least likely to find jobs. That is a great worry and it is one
of the reasons why, among our many recommendations in the report,
A Bigger Picture, we have said that there should firstly
be this all-industry fund which creates a pattern throughout the
industry, beginning with production, scriptwriting, getting that
right and then the distribution and exhibition and then re-investing.
Because an element of that voluntary funding would involve money
for training and then we move on to another recommendation about
a voluntary funding for skills and for training, what we want
to see there—something I discussed very recently with Stephen
Bayly, the Director of the National Film and Television School—is
the follow-on. It is right that education, education, education
is of supreme importance, but we have to be sure we give an incentive
to people to study in the fairly reasonable hope that there is
going to be a job and a job which gives fulfilment to follow that.
The best way to do it is to carry on with the global policy which
we have for producing more quality British films, being seen on
screens in Britain but also internationally.
91. Do you have a hands-on effect on those training
schemes at all or is it purely up to the voluntary sector, the
film industry itself, without any kind of interaction from you?
How much can you do on the training schemes?
(Mr Clarke) In this Department as in
government we set the environment. I think that is the right thing
to do. If hands-on means that we can dictate to the National Film
and Television School or to the Media Centre in Sheffield or wherever,
they would not welcome that. They do welcome partnership, which
is a word I keep using and genuinely mean partnership. Even if
they get everything right and I think they are doing superbly
well frankly, they share your worry. We want to ensure that people
are able to move into jobs, jobs which acknowledge their talent
and jobs which are able to show to the world, as Richard Attenborough
tells us, rightly, the British skill and genius. That remains
a worry and I do take it on board. I welcome any views the Committee
may have and I do tell you that in acknowledging that as a concern
the whole review group agreed with what you are saying.
92. Are there no Lottery funds which can be
directed into that?
(Mr Clarke) Some aspects of Lottery funds
do find their way into job creation. Some people would want to
debate whether that is the right thing to do but in that field
I have to be very strict with myself in saying that although the
Government have made resources available for the franchises and
the Lottery, it would of course be very inappropriate for us to
interfere with the distributors who are there to decide what the
priorities should be.
Ms Ward
93. What proposals do you have to work with
the Department for Education and Employment to promote not just
the training and education of graduates or those who are going
on to university degrees in the film industry but post-sixteen?
It is very important that we get young people who are going to
their further education colleges and doing media studies, which
as you rightly said are not respected in the industry and in general
and are not achieving what we want to see of recruitment and training.
How do you think we can work on the post-sixteens to make sure
that there is a connection between the industry and education?
(Mr Clarke) Yes, there is a very specific
link, not just in the industries with which I am dealing, important
as they are, but also in a more global sense. Throughout our review
the various groups and particularly the one dealing with training,
kept in very close touch with the Department for Education and
Employment. I think that was relevant. I found from them an excitement
about our agenda which perhaps has not been obvious for a very
long time. We have to build on that and therefore one of the responsibilities
of the new action group, and particularly those who were involved
in training and education and trying to link that into industry
and into jobs, over the next 12 months, is not simply to remind
themselves of the discussions which have taken place with the
Department for Education and Employment, which have been very
positive, but also to ask very practical questions about what
progress we are making. That is a very fair question.
94. Do you accept that we need to concentrate
on the post-sixteens, that age group, as well as the graduates
with whom really the National Film Schools and most of those are
working?
(Mr Clarke) There are individual priorities
which quite correctly exist in the different groups and among
the different ages. It may be because I have always had a passion
for film, but frankly I want to see film studies, film appreciation,
introduced right from primary school all the way to higher education.
I saw a letter in The Guardian the other day, a very interesting
and I thought positive letter
Chairman
95. That is rare, is it not?
(Mr Clarke) I am sorry but the problem
of acoustics is one I have now discovered. Would you be kind enough
to repeat that?
96. You said there was a letter in The Guardian
which was positive and constructive. I said that was rather
rare, was it not?
(Mr Clarke) As you know, I have what
some people regard as a generosity of spirit which at times might
be too extravagant.
97. I wish they accused me of that from time
to time.
(Mr Clarke) If it turns out that you
and I are agreed then I am sure the headline in The Guardian
tomorrow will be "Tom and Gerry support letter writers
to The Guardian".
98. Toby Jessel would not have known what that
meant.
(Mr Clarke) It is the influence of the
film industry and Cannes and audiovisual matters which leads to
that. May I return to Claire Ward's question which was a very
serious one? I want to see film addressed in every sense all the
way through education. This sounds terribly pompous but I used
to be Secretary of the Scottish Amateur Cinematographers and that
meant Buggin's turn gave me a chance to be president of the British
Amateur Cinematographers. Because of that—it worries me
now as the Minister but I am delighted to have come full circle—there
do not seem to be as many amateur organisations, there do not
seem to be as many film production groups. In the international
film festival which I used to organise from Scotland, one of the
most important groups used to be film productions and then we
moved on. We had films submitted from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Southern California University and all the rest.
There was a very, very clear link there between education and
film and film development and audiovisual matters. As you know,
David Puttnam wrote a book about it which was a very, very good
book. I should love to have time to discuss it this morning but
what I would simply say is that I endorse the main principles
of his book, The Undeclared War. Claire Ward has given
us the opportunity for further discussion.
Ms Ward
99. Moving on to some of the contents of the
review group report, you rightly identified that one of the greatest
weaknesses in the industry is that we are production led and fragmented
in comparison to the US, which has that coordinated system of
production and distribution. Can you explain how you think the
establishment of an office in Los Angeles will actually be able
to assist in changing that structure when it seems likely that
the Americans already know that the best way for them to exploit
the industry in the UK is to continue to allow somebody else to
produce it and for them to distribute and get the profits?
(Mr Clarke) I think we were absolutely
right to recommend that there should be an office in Los Angeles.
Already at the embryonic stage, where work has been done, that
judgement has been confirmed. May I just underline the simple
fact that that office is going to be financed on the basis of
both public and private expenditure? I believe that we have a
job to do and I know the Committee considered these matters in
earlier days in great detail and I was delighted that they went
out there to see things for themselves. There are two main responsibilities
on our Los Angeles office. The first is to promote British interest
unreservedly. I do not want ever again to see the lessons we learned
from The Full Monty, by any standards a brilliant film,
which cost US$5 million to produce. If judgements are made by
people, then people liked The Full Monty. I have to say
that the market seems to me to be the best indication of what
the film industry should be doing, which is why I want more market
research. What happened? Because they were not able to make a
judgement about the success of the film on the basis of clairvoyance
the profits went elsewhere, largely to the United States. I am
trying very, very hard to ensure that never happens again. To
do it, I want our interests to be represented in Los Angeles as
they are and increasingly will be but I also want the film industry
in Britain and my Department and the Film Minister to have the
most up to date intelligence about what is going on in the United
States. Claire Ward has raised a pivotal point to everything we
are trying to discuss in this industry. The Government has the
responsibility for creating the environment in which film and
audiovisual matters thrive. That is why Gordon Brown, not just
in one budget, delivered what people in Cannes last year were
asking me to deliver: in the first budget, a waiver of 100 per
cent for three years for films up to £15 million. He did
that and that is what people asked for. The review later suggested
that he should extend that by one year. On the day we published
it, Gordon Brown went one further and extended it by two years.
I tell you the industry genuinely welcomes that and I tell you
that across the Atlantic people recognise that as well. I do not
want to be too much involved in the aggro which probably exists
in the presentation and distribution of film. Frankly it makes
both commercial and cultural sense to be working with those in
Europe, as we are doing, but also those in the United States who
have already set something I want to achieve: I want to see the
vertical approach, I want to see investment leading to good scriptwriting,
development going on to exhibition, which involves marketing and
then from that you are able to re-invest in the industry. That
is what I want to see. The fact that the Americans have achieved
it, does not lead me to criticise the Americans, it leads me to
say right, we should be getting off our backsides and doing exactly
the same. We have the talent to do it, we have the skills to do
it, I believe the capital is there; Orange demonstrated that this
week with yet another announcement in which they were encouraging
people who were coming into film for the first time. We have done
it in the document and in what we have said in the Lottery and
the franchises but I want to approach this positively. There has
been a very, very good response to our proposals across the Atlantic
and that is why I am getting confident. If anything the Americans,
it seems to me, are astonished it has taken us so long to get
to this point.
|
