§ Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)Perhaps I should make it clear at the outset that I do not have a particular interest to declare in the film industry, except to say that before I came to this place I was employed by the Scottish Film Council. I was for a short time the president of the British Amateur Cinematographers Council. My interest is in the success and development of the film industry. Therefore, I welcome this opportunity to debate important matters for the industry.
I am concerned, first, about the progress of the review of the film industry, which Mr. Iain Sproat had been promising for some time. I came to the House less than two years ago and on my arrival I was told that the review would be announced in the autumn of 1982. We were told subsequently that it had been postponed and would be available in the spring of 1983, and sill later in the autumn of 1983. The Minister will recall that he stated a few weeks ago in a written answer to me that the review would be made available as soon as possible. That was a very coherent reply, but I hope that today we shall have a more specific response from the right hon. Gentleman, especially in view of the history of the review.
Those involved in the film industry and those who want the industry to be successful have waited patiently for the review, but over the past two or three years a sense of pessimism has developed. I hope that the Minister will seize upon the opportunity that is presented today to offer some hope to those who are committed to a successful British film industry.
Instead of the promised review, we have had a Budget that included capital allowance proposals that knocked the heart out of the industry . I want to know what has happened to the representations from such distinguished bodies as the British Film and Television Producers Association, the British Film Institute and the trade unions. I invite the Minister to take this opportunity to come clean on such issues as the Eady levy, the future of the National Film Finance Corporation and the capital allowance issue. There has been an enormous amount of press speculation in recent times and it has been virtually unanimous in its lack of optimism about the problems of the British film industry. For example, on 8 April, the Sunday Times carried a heading which stated,
The Chancellor strikes back".On 7 April The Times included this heading:Goodbye Oscar unless they change the last reel.The Financial Times of 5 May carried the headlineWhy the revival may falterNone of this is encouraging, and I hope that the Minister will give us a clearer definition of the industry's future as he sees it.The Minister and his Department have not lacked advice. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts published its eighth report in 1982, and the document was reprinted on 18 October 1983. That report was specific on the matters of concern to the industry, including the Eady levy.
The National Film School depends for one third of its income on the Eady levy. The National Film Finance Corporation looks to Eady for a sizeable percentage of its resources. After all this time, we are entitled to know whether the Minister feels that the Eady levy should be 1407 replaced or removed, as many people understandably believe. Will the Eady levy be brought up to date, bearing in mind changes in the use of film and especially the fact that television, cable and video are, in many ways, not just using film but exploiting film? Surely the Minister has a proposal, if not to replace the Eady levy, to respond to the anxiety of everyone involved in the industry.
The Select Committee's report discussed arrangements in other countries. Frankly, the arrangements in Australia, America and throughout Europe are far more satisfactory than those in Britain. Above all, the Select Committee addressed the matter of capital allowances, which is perhaps the most serious issue faced by film producers, and I invite the Minister to respond to that point.
The Select Committee's report stated:
the Committee received evidence that the withdrawal of 100 per cent. capital allowances 'was a blunder of enormous proportions'".The Committee endorsed that view. In the light of that finding, it is astonishing that we were given the Chancellor's Budget proposals, especially in view of the fact that on 19 January 1983 the then Financial Secretary had told the House in a written answer that the 100 per cent. allowances for the film industry would be extended until 1987.The managing director of the National Film Finance Corporation, Mr. Hassan, has said that the fall in production, should the House approve the recent measure, will be between one third and one half. There is a widespread belief that the Government are confusing the film industry and its needs with their monetarist policies in other sections of British industry. Many people, including me, feel that what Winston Churchill described as the "cold hand of the Treasury" is asserting itself on the film industry. I hope that the Minister will give a robust response on behalf of the film industry, if only because the Treasury, on this as on other matters, does not seem able to show the imagination and commitment to an essential industry.
The film industry is a sunrise industry. As the Minister knows, it includes people with fantastic skills. Some of the best studios, most gifted producers and crews, best sound technicians and the rest are here in Britain. They should be encouraged, not discouraged. Why should their jobs be at risk? Why should our indigenous film industry with a potential as a growth industry be anything less than confident about its future?
We should note what we are in danger of throwing away. In 1982 the number of hard-top cinemas in the United States increased in the ninth consecutive year to 14,977—an increase of 4,210 since 1973. In the United Kingdom, by contrast, during the 1970s a steep decline in cinema attendances occurred. Taking inflation into account, the box office returns are now 5 per cent. of the 1950 level. Cinema admissions came down from 81 million in 1981 to 64 million in 1982. I accept that those involved in cinema should be invited to respond to public demands for improving facilities and making accommodation more comfortable so that cinema can compete with other forms of entertainment and art.
Today I want to look to the future. The film "Chariots of Fire" brought in a box office revenue of £7 million and was seen by 3.5 million people. It is appropriate to quote 1408 David Puttnam in a spirit of confidence and looking to the future. A few years ago at the Glasgow film theatre, he said:
Some of the most interesting developments in the revival of the British film industry are bound to come from Scotland.We are proud of that. We are proud of Bill Forsyth and "Another Time, Another Place", "Local Hero" and "Comfort and Joy", which is to be given its premiere at the Edinburgh film festival this year. Those films are examples of the progressive output and thriving attitudes of those involved in film in Scotland. That attitude is reflected elsewhere in the United Kingdom.The great thing about Bill Forsyth is that he makes films in and about Britain. He has not been lured by Hollywood, despite the blandishments from there and the indecision here. He would be the first to acknowledge the success in the United States of other British films such as "Chariots of Fire" itself, "Betrayal" and "The Time Bandits".
I commend the British film year project which Sir Richard Attenborough launched in Cannes a few days ago. It is appropriate that it should be launched there by Richard Attenborough at a time when British films are entitled to claim remarkable success, especially when gauged against films from other countries which have sorted out their attitudes to their film industries and where there is a better relationship between Governments and the people involved in film making and distribution and the people who want to enjoy films.
The project is designed to promote British films at home and abroad. The exercise is to last only one year. I hope that the spirit in which the Government view the project will continue through the next decade and beyond because of the importance of film to the people of the United Kingdom and to British industry in a wider sense.
We are told that the Minister is keen on information technology, but he must remember that films still communicate most to most people. What people outside know about Britain is largely learnt from the British film industry. I hope that the modern attitude which the Minister from time to time commends to the House about information technology accepts that film had an important role in the past and that, given commitment, enterprise and enthusiasm, there is no reason why it should not enjoy a similar position in his thinking about future communications.
Sir Richard Attenborough said:
Unless some major initiative is taken the opportunity will pass us by.A successful, thriving and robust indigenous film industry has been handed to the Minister on a plate. Time will tell whether he makes the most of the opportunity or throws it away.
§ The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker)I congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on raising this issue on the Adjournment today. I know of his long interest in the film industry. He has frequently asked me when the film review will be completed. As he said, it was started by lain Sproat during the last Parliament. I resumed it after the election. I thought that it was necessary for me to go over a great deal of the ground kin Sproat had gone over and consult widely about it, which I have done, with all parts of the industry — the exhibition, production, direction and financial sides. I hope that I shall be able to bring the review to the House soon.
1409 The hon. Gentleman asked about the tax changes following the Budget and their impact upon the film industry. The film industry has made representations to the Government and the Government are still examining them. When those matters have been considered further and decisions have been taken, I will be able to publish a White Paper on the film industry. I do not accept the argument that the future of the British film industry depends entirely and exclusively upon the tax regime under which it will operate, although I accept that it is an important feature.
I should like to emphasise, as the hon. Gentleman did, the great strength of the film industry in Britain today. There is a wealth of talent in the directing, producing, writing and designing of films. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the names that have become internationally famous—David Puttnam, Bill Forsyth—in the past few years, and there are many others less well known but equally creative. They are a great asset. In addition, we have a great wealth of talent among our younger actors and actresses.
We have also become a major centre for technical expertise in special effects. That owes a great deal to the fact that a substantial part of the industry makes television advertising commercials. Techniques used there have been developed widely with a range of services available. That is why films such as "Superman", "Star Wars", "Return of the Jedi" and now "Supergirl" have largely been made in Great Britain.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the past four years have seen a complete transformation of the film industry in terms of size, organisation, and visibility. The film industry has been up and down since the war. Just after the war it was a strong industry, and we had the Ealing comedies, but in other periods the industry has sunk into recession. During the past four years there has been a boom. It is not too much of an exaggeration to describe it as a renaissance.
There is much more going on in the United Kingdom now. Some years ago there were few American projects and a handful of small films financed by the National Film Finance Corporation. Apart from Thorn-EMI, which is a major film maker, we now have two companies that rank high internationally — Goldcrest and Embassy. Both have a diverse range of projects on hand, are profitable, and have done much to reinstate film in the eyes of the City as a form of investment. Rank, too, has announced plans to expand film making. Virgin Records, which has built up a successful business in pop music, has also gone into film making. I welcome all that.
I pay tribute to the support that Channel 4 has given to the independent sector of film making. It has done outstanding work in promoting the making of innovative and interesting films.
The hon. Gentleman referred to cinema admissions. I enjoy going to the cinema. Not too many of our fellow citizens do so these days. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that there has been a decline in cinema admissions over the years, but I have some good news on that front. Admissions for 1983 seem likely to improve slightly on those for 1982. I have figures only for the 11 months to November 1983, when 60 million people went to the cinema compared to 56 million for the same 11 months in 1982.
In April this year there was an increase in the number of cinemas by four and of screens by seven. I attended the 1410 reopening of a famous cinema in the Portobello road by Romaine Hart, to whom I pay tribute. She is a show business personality who has refused to accept the conventional wisdom that people do not want to go to the cinema. People can be attracted back to the cinema if the cinemas make themselves attractive places to go to and to take the family to. I was glad that she opened two cinemas, as well as about the refurbishment of the cinema at Chelsea.
I very much accept that this has been a period of success for the British film industry, as the hon. Gentleman said. It is remarkable that two years running we won the best film award at the Hollywood Oscar ceremonies, with "Chariots of Fire" and "Gandhi". In the year that we won the award for "Gandhi" we won another Oscar for the best short film. The film was "Shocking Accident", made from the short story by Graham Greene. It is outstanding. This year, that same quality of excellence has come through in the Hollywood Oscar ceremonies. Two outstanding British films were in the final group — "The Dresser" and "Educating Rita".
At the Cannes film festival, I was glad to see that Miss Mirren won best actress award for her part in a film made by David Puttnam, "Cal". The award for outstanding artistic achievement went to "Another Country", which I saw about two months ago. It is a fine film, made from the stage play about the early days of Guy Burgess.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that several films of a particularly British genre, especially a Scottish genre, have been made recently. He mentioned "Local Hero" and "Another Time, Another Place", set in Scotland, which won a prize at one of the Italian film festivals. There have also been films such as "The Ploughman's Lunch" and "The Draughtsman's Contract". It is important to ensure that there are arrangements whereby such films continue to be made in Britain.
§ Mr. Tom ClarkeThe Minister has given a catalogue of successful films. Does he agree that it would have been more difficult to make those films if the Chancellor's proposals on capital allowances had applied at that time? Has the Minister's Department made any representations to the Treasury on the matter? What is his Department's view?
§ Mr. BakerThose matters are being considered by the Government. The film industry, particularly the British Film and Television Producers Association, which has tended to lead the industry's views on the matter, has made representations to the Government, the Treasury and my Department. We are discussing them at the moment.
The success of the British film industry, as I said at the outset, is not due entirely or exclusively to the tax regime which operates; it is due to a series of elements and to the coming together of a burst of talent. It is due, for example, to the excellent training that the National Film School gives. It is one of the leading film schools in the world, and it produces a flow of talented young men and women who go into all parts of the film industry. That is splendid.
I echo what the hon. Gentleman said about British film year. I strongly support the initiative taken by the industry in designating the year from April 1985 to March 1986 as British film year. It was launched by Sir Richard Attenborough at the Cannes festival and I can do no better than to emphasise what he said: 1411
The British Film Year will, for the first time in the history of the British industry, draw together all sections from within the industry to promote British films and film-making skills throughout the world.In addition, British film year will actively and imaginatively involve all sections of commerce, the media, community groups and the general public. It will be a real coming together. It is a very diverse industry. It involves not only the producing side but the exhibition, the television, the video and the creative sides. To pull all of them together is an imaginative and huge project.The overall aim of British film year is to establish a greater awareness and appreciation of British films and the cinema in general at home, and of British films abroad, through a wide range of national, regional and international events, thereby forging links that will hold firm throughout the 1980s and 1990s into the next century. A committee has been set up and is now planning and organising those events. For the United Kingdom it is planning nationally in all television areas, with particular emphasis on the cities of Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Newcastle and Southampton.
The committee has some very interesting ideas, not only to make more people aware of the cinema and of the film industry and the talents that are there — using people who are not good at publicising themselves—but by trying to reach out to youngsters, showing them that an interesting and creative career can open up for them in the film industry.
§ Mr. Tom ClarkeI am very concerned that the Minister should respond to my question about the Eady levy because, as he knows, it is of great interest. Will he tell the House about the representation that he has received and about his own thinking on the Eady levy?
§ Mr. BakerI have received scores of representations, as the hon. Gentleman knows, on the Eady levy, and it will be very much part of my film review. I hope to bring that review to the House in the form of a White Paper in the not too distant future.
One of the important aspects of British film year is the support overseas. The Government will be making available £250,000 to support the thrust of British film year. The industry is aiming to raise about £3 million. In addition, we are very anxious to support the promotion of British films overseas through the British Overseas Trade Board.
Throughout British film year, I should like to see in towns and cities around the world British film weeks in which there will be strong promotion of British films. I do not look upon this as a nostalgic binge. We have to promote today's successes and emphasise tomorrow's opportunities. The towns around the world which the committee has already identified as having a strong film week or British festival will be Geneva, Madrid, Berlin, New York, Rome, Milan, Sydney, Toronto, Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Munich, Paris, Cannes, Stockholm, Tokyo and Zurich. We have a big promotion job to do, and we will strongly support the initiative taken by the industry to promote British film year. There is also to be an issue of postage stamps during the year to celebrate British achievements in film.
I hope to bring the film review to the attention of the House quite soon. I am conscious of the fact that the British film industry is strong and successful. It is strong and successful for a variety of reasons, in which the Government play a part, but only a very small part. I believe that the British film industry will be as strong, vibrant and successful in the future as it has been in the past.