Examination of Witnesses (Questions 520
- 539)
TUESDAY 17 JUNE 2003
RT HON
TESSA JOWELL,
MP, RT HON
LORD MCINTOSH
OF HARINGEY
AND MR
ANDREW RAMSAY
Q520 Michael Fabricant: That is a
very welcome response because I think it is only recently, in
the last few days, the Film Council pointed out that the mainstream
film in the United Kingdom gets about 1,000 prints made, whereas
the average Brit film is only about 70 prints. So are we to be
surprised if a Brit film does not do quite so well?
Tessa Jowell: And they did make
an announcement last week about additional help in order to increase
the number of prints made.
Q521 Michael Fabricant: That is right.
And I am pleased to hear that there may be additional incentives
too, but I will not press you, Secretary of State, on that too
far. Do you have a—
Tessa Jowell: And why not? Because
the decisions are not my decision, they are decisions for the
Chancellor.
Q522 Michael Fabricant: No, that
is right. Quite. Do you have a view at all on the type of film
that ought to be made in the UK? Let me tell you where I am coming
from; one of the things that we kept on hearing from various film
producers and film companies in the United States is that maybe
we are a little bit too obsessed with culture, and I know that
you are the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, but nevertheless
too much concerned with culture, too much concerned with arty
farty films and that maybe we would become an industry if we were
industrious and actually behaved like a business and realised
that films—and I am quoting or maybe misquoting some of
the executives who said that one of the problems is that we do
not regard films as being entertainment. Does the Department have
a view on this? Do you think we are being commercial enough in
our country? Are we able to make those sorts of judgments? We
heard, in fact, from Mr Walker earlier on. He said, quite rightly,
that some mainstream films were in fact quite cultural and some
cultural films have turned out to be quite mainstream. But does
the Department have a view on this?
Tessa Jowell: Do you want to start
on it, Andrew?
Q523 Michael Fabricant: He has only
been there two days.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: 30
hours, to be exact.
Tessa Jowell: Let me pick this
up. I mean what the Film Council has done is to allocate its resources
to different streams which recognise the difference between the
kind of blockbuster commercial film, through its Premiere Fund,
and then a series of other funds, First Light and the New Cinema
Fund which funds films which are more risky, which are likely
to be less commercial and so forth. The Premiere Fund works in
a way, as I am sure you now know, which recoups Lottery funding
for re-investment from films which are commercially successful.
Gosford Park and Bend it like Beckham are two of
the films which have been particularly successful and funded by
that programme. I think that—
Q524 Chairman: I think you will have
to resume that thought when we get back.
Tessa Jowell: I will keep that
thought, develop it while we go and vote.
The Committee suspended from 16:26 pm
to 16:46 pm for a division in the House
Chairman: Do you want to remind the Secretary
of State of your question, Michael?
Q525 Michael Fabricant: I think,
Chairman, we sort of explored that question before the division.
So really I just want to ask a question relating to the evidence
that you gave, Secretary of State. You point out, quite rightly,
that more and more people are going to the cinema now and that
that has to be a good thing, but more and more people are seeing
American movies and not seeing British movies. So what can the
Department do about it?
Tessa Jowell: I think this, in
a sense, is a question at the heart of the inquiry, which is just
what is the role of Government? As I said a few moments ago, the
role of Government is to set the right kind of regulatory environment
and I think that through the structure of tax incentives, we have
been successful in doing that and attracting substantial inward
investment. The second, of course, is to make the UK an attractive
place for companies to come and make films. So obviously understanding
the skill and training needs of the industry and using the apparatus
of the Public Service, particularly Learning and Skills Councils,
the employer-led Skillset, are ways in which the industry can
increase its sustainability, both through recruitment of young
people, training and securing the necessary sort of technical
resources in order to underpin the viability of the industry.
Q526 John Thurso: One of the things
that struck me, from the evidence that was given by all of the
people we really saw when we went to America, was that there are
really quite clearly two industries. One is a straightforward
facilities industry which is highly skilled with lots of technicians
who produce films for whomever wishes to come and make a movie
in this country. The other is the British film industry which
is about producing British films, if you like the cultural side.
I would like to concentrate on the former, the facilities industry,
because that really is the inward investment. Effectively we are
competing out there, as we would in any other industry, globally
to attract people to come and spend their money in this country.
One of the things we discovered was that a number of countries
facilitate that inward investment by having people whom the producers
can contact and who will help them, for example, in negotiations
with the Treasury or point them in the right direction, who will
help them and introduce them to people who have locations throughout
the country. Who undertakes that role? Is there somebody who undertakes
that role? Is it somebody within DCMS? And what could we do to
make that person or persons as efficient as we possibly can so
that we can deliver the maximum for inward investment?
Tessa Jowell: Well, there is a
person who has this responsibility within the Film Council, the
successor body, in part, of the British Film Commission. But I
am entirely open to suggestions, through the Committee's inquiry
and on the basis of the visits that you have made, as to how we
could strengthen that. One area in which my Department acted as
a broker was, for instance, trying to assist with the difficulties
that many companies have with shooting locations in London, where
there may be half a dozen local authorities and different agencies
that have to be negotiated with in order to get road closures
and necessary permissions and so forth. So if there are ways in
which we can make the UK more attractive by measures like that,
then of course we would look at that. It is ultimately positioning
the role of Government in the public sector as enabling the industry,
not second guessing what are essentially the commercial decisions
of the industry.
Q527 John Thurso: Absolutely. I mean
I think I view this in exactly the same way as, for example, to
do with engineering or whatever the DTI or somebody in the Embassy,
a Commercial Attaché, who is there and you can go to them
and that person will help you with anything that is required for
the inward investment. One of the points that came out, for example,
was Braveheart which, although theoretically something
to do with Scottish history, was made entirely or in large part
in Ireland. Apparently the reason for that was the extreme co-operation
of the Irish Government in lending soldiers. And whilst I am aware
that ours are rather heavily committed in various parts of the
world at the moment, they felt that the people here in London
were not overly helpful with trying to get co-operation possibly
from the Army. I mean is this a role where, for example, the Department
could actually facilitate? Clearly we do not have soldiers so
that they can be in movies, but occasionally if a good movie can
be made using a barracks facility that is nearby while they are
not actually stationed somewhere abroad, that might make good
sense.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We
do not apologise for not having a vast body of unemployed. We
have got actors and actresses.
Tessa Jowell: But I think that
this is on a sort of case by case basis. This is something that
we do do. I mean I can remember when I was an employment minister
being involved in some negotiation—I think it was when the
first Harry Potter was being shot—about the employment
conditions, the number of hours on set, of a very large number
of the children that were taking part and the negotiation was
successfully completed and it secured the shooting of the film
at Leavesden. So yes, I mean I think that this is an entirely
right and proper function for Government. Going back to your earlier
question, what is important is that the industry more generally,
the production companies, wherever they are in the world, know
how they can get access, how they can get into Government and
get into the public sector part of the industry in Britain in
order to get that help.
Q528 John Thurso: Am I allowed one
last question? It is a little, tiny suggestion, question, which
is to tie in some of the work that Visit Britain, as it now is,
because they have a wealth of data and if that could be linked
in, then it seems that the Department is ideally placed to bring
those assets together.
Tessa Jowell: Yes. Well, I agree
and film tourism is one of those under-developed but popular themes.
People love coming here to see where Harry Potter and other
films shot in this country were made and so that is certainly
something we would expect Visit Britain to build on.
Q529 Mr Doran: Thank you very much,
Chair. I want to try and squeeze in two questions if I can. First
there is a devil's advocate question; we heard from Alexander
Walker earlier in the afternoon who had a fairly dim view of some
of the help that is given to the film industry and part of that
is based on his view—and I will read out a little part of
his written submission to us "Film industries the world over
are systematically dishonest. Their financial accountability would
rarely stand scrutiny by the usual principles. Accountability
of monies invested and received are subject to so many shadowy
processes of subtraction that it is extremely hard to keep track
of". Are these the sort of people we should be fighting to
give money to?
Tessa Jowell: Well, it is typically
colourful language. I think that where we did clamp down on abuse
was in relation to the amendment or the clarification, if you
like, of the sale and lease back provisions which were quite clearly
being abused. The sale and lease back provisions under Section
48 apply to films which are being made for the cinema, not films
which are being made for television. What became quite clear was
that there was widespread abuse of this and the sale and lease
back provisions—
Q530 Mr Doran: But that was by our
own television industry, not the film industry.
Tessa Jowell: Exactly, by our
television industry. There is also, I think, some evidence which
I have read of film companies sort of inflating budgets in order
to maximise the benefit of the tax reliefs. Now, I mean, you just
have to be vigilant about this kind of thing all the time and
I am quite sure neither you nor Alexander Walker are making any
kind of generalised judgment about the integrity of film makers.
Q531 Mr Doran: The second issue is
about the role of our broadcasters in all of this and it is an
area where we compare very unfavourably with some of the other
European countries. For example, the French broadcasters contribute
something like 37.5% of the total French film spend. In a recent
survey in Screen Finance magazine, the Spanish broadcasters contributed
35.6%. Our broadcasters managed around about 5% and of that 3.5%
came from the BBC. It is a pretty miserable performance and that
is an area which is directly within your responsibilities. So
have you any intention of addressing that problem?
Tessa Jowell: We have, as you
may be aware, amended the Communications Bill in order to provide
encouragement or expectation of broadcasters to collaborate in
maximising potential investment in film. I mean considering the
role that broadcasters can play in promoting film and that was
a step that was taken precisely in recognition of the facts that
you have very clearly set out. There are also, in addition, clear
quotas for public service broadcasters in relation to independent
production, original production and regional production. And I
recently, following the report of the Committee that scrutinised
the Communications Bill, undertook a review of programme supply
that looked at the ways of increasing the resilience of independent
production in this country and we have put in place a number of
recommendations that we think will be safeguards in relation to
that.
Q532 Mr Doran: The independent productions
will be for television.
Tessa Jowell: They will be for
television, yes.
Q533 Mr Doran: One of the major problems
is, for example, that the ITV network, which for many years, as
Lord Thompson called it, was a licence to print money, contribute
exactly zero per cent and I do not think, from what I have heard
you say and what I know of the amendments, that there is anything
which is actually going to push them to do anything to make a
bigger contribution.
Tessa Jowell: Expressly, no.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Not,
it is not going to force them to do it, but there is a difference.
There is a very basic and obvious point that in France, for example,
if you are going to have films shown on television which are in
the original language rather than sub-titled or dubbed, something
has got to be done to support the French language film industry.
And it is especially in the interests of the French, of Canal
Plus and the others, to give support to the French film industry.
They do not have the advantage or disadvantage of sharing a language
with the United States.
Q534 Mr Bryant: I am not sure that
is good enough, is it, really as an argument? That just because
the French speak French and nobody else speaks French in the world
that they have got to make films for themselves. Is the truth
of that not that most people in Britain would quite like to watch
films that reflect the world in which they live, their own environment,
their own culture and so on and that is different from America?
And whilst we may love watching lots of American films as well,
the broadcasters have a real responsibility, especially when they
receive so much money in the licence fee, to play a role in making
more features films, do they not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: And
they have from time to time. If you look at FilmFour, if you look
at the work of David Rose in the 1980s, for example, startlingly
successful—
Q535 Mr Bryant: But from time to
time and the 1980s—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: And
there have been bad experiences as well, as we know. And you have
heard, I think, from ITV, have you not, about their bad experiences
with supporting films? These are not areas where Government dictates.
Tessa Jowell: No.
Q536 Mr Bryant: I am sorry, but we
are about to enter a phase when there is going to be a renewal
of the licence fee, of the BBC Charter, and in that process surely
Government will be deciding what the role of the BBC is? Should
we not be more explicit about the role of the BBC in fostering
and enhancing a vibrant and lively film industry?
Tessa Jowell: Well, up to a point,
but the BBC's principle role is to make films for television.
I think that we could easily turn this discussion around in another
context where you would be questioning me very hard as to why
the Government had allowed the BBC to resile from its core purpose,
which is the production of programmes for radio and television.
Because every pound that is not spent on programming for television
and spent on something else is money which is lost to viewers
and licence fee payers. I think that that is the difficult balance.
There is a role, but there will never be, in my view, a primary
role for the BBC as a funder of British film. There is enough
debate already about what the BBC's core purpose is and what latitude
the BBC should have to spend licence fee money on purposes which
are not central to its broadcasting purpose. I think that if you
burdened the licence fee with an expectation that it was going
to make substantial investment in film, then you would have licence
payers in revolt at the loss of quality on their televisions at
home.
Q537 Mr Bryant: But all these words,
Secretary of State, are not absolutes. They are relative words;
substantial, primary.
Tessa Jowell: Yes, they are, exactly.
Q538 Mr Bryant: I mean I am not even
arguing for a primary or indeed a secondary role for the BBC,
but somewhere down the list the making of feature films that not
only reflect Britain to Britain, but also are then available for
showing around the rest of the world, must surely be part of our
biggest cultural institution that we have, which we fund to some
enormous degree. Mrs Brown was originally designed as a
film for television and then they realised the great success that
it was becoming and it ended up becoming a feature film. Now,
that is why I do not see that there is a logical problem about
making sure that the BBC has a special role to make films as being
in any way detracting from its role as making good television.
Tessa Jowell: Well, you are right.
It is a matter of degree and I have given you the figure for the
current year, which I think is in the region of £10 million.
That may increase a little bit, it may decrease a little bit,
but I think the central point is that the BBC is not going to
become a major funder of British film and eclipse other bigger
sources of income.
Q539 Mr Bryant: We heard earlier
from the founder of Easy Group that he believes that there is
a cartel out there which is making it difficult for new people
to enter into the market of cinema exhibition and that basically
the whole of the system is fixed. Do you believe that he is right?
Tessa Jowell: I do not know whether
he is right or not. I do not know. I think that what we can do,
we have talked a little bit about the extent of American dominance,
I think that what we can do is to use the public resources that
are available through funding of the Film Council, through money
which is available from the Lottery, in order to deal with or
address some of the market failure areas, the funding of innovation,
the funding of new and risky films and, in some cases but never
to a very great degree, funding—of acting as a banker for
films which then go on to become commercial successes.
|
