Examination of Witnesses (Questions 540
- 550)
TUESDAY 17 JUNE 2003
RT HON
TESSA JOWELL,
MP, RT HON
LORD MCINTOSH
OF HARINGEY
AND MR
ANDREW RAMSAY
Q540 Mr Bryant: And distribution
and exhibition? Because there clearly are some areas of market
failure there as well.
Tessa Jowell: Yes, I mean I think
I have made clear that there is more that could be done to increase
incentives in relation to distribution and I would just say, finally,
in relation to the allegation that you make, that if there is
an abuse of market power, if there is a cartel operating, then
the OFT should investigate it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: And
it is also exactly the Film Council's stage two strategy, which
is to extend from not abandoning support for production but extend
to supporting distribution and exhibition.
Q541 Mr Flook: Thank you, Chairman.
We have heard that the film industry in France is there, the Minister
sort of half-jokingly said, to protect the industry of speaking
French and we have heard that the BBC puts in a whole £10
million out of its £2,000 million into the film industry.
When we were in the States we met a chap called Colin Calendar
and he is a Briton and I think, by common consent, his was the
most impressive meeting. Now, he is a Briton and last year Home
Box Office, which he runs, makes $800 million. Now, Hollywood—no
government gets involved, no state government, no county, no federal
government gets involved in the film industry within California.
What is your philosophy as to why the British Government should
get involved in the film industry?
Tessa Jowell: For the reasons
that I have set out over the last hour or so. I think that the
scope and role for Government involvement is very specific. I
think that there is a role for Lottery investment. I think that
there is a role for my Department to allocate core funding to
the Film Council. There is a need—
Q542 Mr Flook: The philosophy behind
it rather than the process.
Tessa Jowell: Well, because I
think that there is a role for Government in promoting creativity,
in supporting innovation and in building, through investment in
culture, a sense of national identity and enthusiasm for culture.
So I mean that is the philosophy. It is an intrinsically good
thing that we have good challenging films for people to see. And—
Q543 Mr Flook: But they do not get
to see it because one of the things that we have come across is
that the way it is set up in this country is that distribution
blocks out quite a lot of those cultural films. So there they
are all being subsidised to quite a great extent, yet this great
cultural bonanza that the people of our country are hoping to
see do not get to see any of it, or very, very little of it.
Tessa Jowell: So you move then
to the second stage, which is from principle to practice and intervention
and the Film Council, as I have referred to, took the initiative
announced last week of increasing the number of funding for the
number of copies that could be distributed for small film makers—
Q544 Mr Flook: That is quite a long
way—I mean that is only last week. What has been happening
in the last 30 years, 40 years is the British film industry has
been struggling.
Tessa Jowell: I mean the tax incentives
for production have been in place for less than ten years. I think
that it is important that we keep pace. The attitude of Government,
the approach of Government, keeps pace with the way in which the
industry itself is developing. I mean the British film industry
has strengthened considerably in the last five to ten years. The
public's interest in film, against all predictions, has sort of
been re-awakened by the increase in numbers of people going to
the cinema. We need to capture that in the way we support the
industry, but it is like a modern way of supporting the industry,
not of picking winners and propping bits of the industry which
are never going to work terribly well.
Q545 Mr Flook: Secretary, you have
only obliquely made reference to the financial benefits from the
film industry and one of the things we also heard was the way
in which a million dollars of tax break can actually bring in
$20 million of foreign money into Britain or, more importantly,
as we heard time and time again, in Prague and in Romania there
are quite often British technicians going over who, of course,
are then bringing their money back, because I cannot imagine they
are going to stay in Romania. I do not think they really want
to. But you did not sort of allude to that. You talked about a
cultural positivism—
Tessa Jowell: Well, I think I
was drawing a distinction in your question between philosophy
and policy. Policy, as I said earlier, is to create the right
kind of tax regime and to create an industry which is sufficiently
well skilled. A lot of these industries that service the film
industry are highly mobile, as you suggest.
Q546 Mr Flook: Maybe that is where
you and I might differ on the basis that I recognise that Colin
Callender at HBO made $800 million because he had his eye on the
bottom line, whereas you were talking about philosophy rather
than finance.
Tessa Jowell: No, because you
asked me about philosophy.
Q547 Mr Flook: Sorry, sorry. You
mentioned culture in relation to my question about philosophy.
Money pays for the culture. That is where HBO comes in for a lot
of the satellite organisations that they provide the films to
and it is very lucrative for them.
Tessa Jowell: Yes, but the money
comes without Government assistance.
Q548 Mr Flook: Yes, it does, but
the question is—when I asked you to lay out what you thought
was the philosophy, you did not mention finance until I—
Tessa Jowell: Well, of course
it is important, but Government financing of film is always going
to be nugatory compared to finance for film which is raised from
other sources. So the Government's role is to maximise the potential
for that investment, which we have done through the tax regime.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: And
that has produced the leverage. It is for you to ask the questions
and us to answer them, but you are not suggesting we go back to
the ED levy and have a levy on tickets and have quota quickies
again?
Q549 Mr Flook: I did not say anything.
I was really trying to get behind the Government's philosophy.
Does it include a bottom line or is it just about cultural wonderment
for the rest of Britain?
Tessa Jowell: I think if you look
at the way the different Lottery programmes have been developed,
I mean on a small financial base they reflect maximising profit
through the Premiere film programme, introducing children to some
of the technical wonder of film making through the First Light
programme and providing investment for films which will never
get a chance if there is not some Lottery money through the New
Cinema Fund and so forth. So it is a differentiated strategy,
but Government is not going to become a major sort of substitute
for commercial funding of film. It is Government's job to create
the right kind of environment to promote that investment within
a philosophical context where we see film as a very important
expression of culture more generally.
Q550 Chairman: A good lively action
sequence to conclude this afternoon's takes. Thank you very much
indeed.
Tessa Jowell: Thank you.
| 
