SUBMISSION 1
Memorandum submitted by the Film Office
As the provider of a service that has of recent
times enabled over 1,750 shooting days each year I wholeheartedly
applaud the interest the Select Committee is showing in the British
film industry. The Film industry—together with the Television
Industry—is a huge benefit to the UK economy. Not only do
they both contribute financially to this country but they create
a diverse cultural identity abroad that reflects those values
of which Britain can be proud: justice, equality, tolerance.
In previous years the Industry has been hamstrung
by the lack of infra-structure to support the talent the UK produces
particularly in developing credible projects and distributing
the finished films. I applaud the fact that institutions are now
coming into being that will fill the gap created by that shortfall.
However, it behoves us to ensure that those institutions behave
impeccably lest they bring the whole industry into disrepute.
I have long been a supporter of the London Film
Commission (LFC) but it is with regret that I have to say that
it has been my experience that the current administration of that
body—and others in close association with it (some of whom
are before the Select Committee this Tuesday)—have acted
in a manner that is questionable to say the least.
The LFC was set up under an overarching principle:
"to support, encourage, promote and market
film, television and audio-visual production of all kinds(Production)
in London attracting producers, directors, production managers
technicians etc . . . to exercise their skills and talents to
initiate and carry out production within the London area."
This principle was enshrined in clause 3 of
that body's Memorandum of Association.
However the actions of the LFC's current administration
over the last 18 months have particularly disadvantaged my organisation
which, as part of the industry they are supposed to foster, is
strange to say the least. Furthermore, since we are an enabling
agency for the Film and Television Industry, and their actions
have compromised our ability to support productions—both
in the short and long term—they will have had a deleterious
effect on the Industry at large.
In addition, Section I of the same clause states
that the LFC
"shall not undertake any permanent trading
activities in raising funds for the objects of the Company."
By competing for contracts the current LFC administration
has shattered both the spirit of what was intended by those responsible
for its inception ie a fair and impartial focus for the Industry,
and its own legal definition of itself. There can be little doubt
about this: indeed the attached written legal opinion by Stephen
Acton QC confirms this to be the case.
This Memorandum is not haphazard since it was
drawn up by a solicitor, and was intended to define the LFC as
a Commission ie a non-partisan body—certainly that was very
much the flavour of Christabel Albery's evidence to the National
Heritage Committee on the 19 January 1995. Moreover, since it
was on a reading of this Memorandum that the DCMS gave grants
of £150,000 on the basis that it was a Commission, a non-trading
body rather than as a competitive enterprise, one has to address
the possibility that public money has been used for purposes to
which it was not intended. Certainly the then Secretary of State,
Chris Smith MP has confirmed by letter that it is his recollection
that the money was awarded "for (the LFC's) Commission work,
of encouraging and facilitating film-making in London."
Certainly, the current LFC administration has
been able to put its privileged position to unfair advantage.
In each of the last four years for which figures have been published
at Companies House, the LFC has enjoyed an average of c. £400,000
of unearned income—given on the basis that it was a commission.
This allows them to compete against organisations that have to
earn every penny of their funding on a playing field that is radically
tilted in the LFC's favour. They have exploited their position
as a Commission, capitalising on the fruits of those activities
to gain unfair commercial advantage.
Moreover this competitive attitude makes a complete
mockery of the LFC's role as envisaged by those who set it up.
There is a clear conflict of interest for a body set up to represent
all of London then having separate arrangements with individual
boroughs. Besides, the Industry needs a representative body it
can trust, to whom anyone can go with difficulties and delicate
situations. If the LFC is a competitive body it is unlikely that
one could do this knowing that the privileged information one
might share may in time be used by the LFC to their competitive
advantage and consequently the disadvantage of others in the future.
These findings were presented to the current
Commissioner Sue Hayes and her reaction can be summed up as: "we
will do what we want;" hardly a sentiment that was likely
to inspire confidence in the future.
Indeed, as time has gone on one has discovered
that this somewhat encapsulates the attitude of current administration.
Although lip service is given to phrases like "working in
partnership" the experience has been somewhat different and
the result has been to hinder the process of enabling location
filming. Similarly the current administration seems to play "fast
and loose" with their responsibilities as a publicly funded
organisation.
What was more unsettling was the reaction of
other Industry notables to whom representations were made. Although
Liz Rymer, then Chair of the UK Screen Commission Network, realised
the gravity of the matter and was supportive, she was told not
to pursue this by the British Film Commissioner, Steve Norris,
to whom I had also written. Although he subsequently had a meeting
with Sue Hayes I have yet to receive a response more than a year
later. If he thought the matter had no merit why did he not write
and say so?
A subsequent letter to Alan Parker at the Film
Council, answered in his absence, brought no positive response.
The new film establishment clearly wished the matter would go
away since it was an inconvenience and did not seem disposed to
take me seriously despite the fact I could substantiate everything
that had been stated.
Thus for the past nine months I have endeavoured
to bring this matter to some sort of scrutiny by means of the
Select Committee and the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport
though nothing much has been achieved with the latter. It is my
hope that searching questions will be asked—and will continue
to be asked—until adequate answers are given. I am at the
Committee's disposal should they wish to examine my testimony
further.
Finally, I ask that Members of the Committee
do not draw any unfavourable conclusions about the overall LFC
(or Film London of which it has become a part) operation as a
result of this. The London Film Commission has been an absolute
cornerstone to the regeneration of the Film and TV Industry in
this country. It would be an absolute tragedy if the wrongdoings
of a minority should taint what was a well-conceived notion given
flesh by the efforts of the whole Industry. We should look to
clean the house rather than knock it down.
22 June 2003
| 
