Culture, Media and Sport Committee
Oral evidence: British film and high-end television 2, HC 328
Tuesday 28 January 2025
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 28 January 2025.
Members present: Dame Caroline Dinenage (Chair); Mr Bayo Alaba, Zöe Franklin; Mr James Frith; Dr Rupa Huq; Natasha Irons; Liz Jarvis; Jo Platt; Tom Rutland; Paul Waugh.
Questions 63 - 168
Witnesses
I: Ben Roberts, Chief Executive, BFI; and Jay Hunt OBE, Chair, BFI.
II: Sir Chris Bryant, Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism; and Alastair Jones, Deputy Director, Creative Industries, Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Witnesses: Ben Roberts and Jay Hunt OBE.
Q63 Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. Over the past year, we and our predecessor Committee have been looking in depth at the British film and high-end television industries. As we saw last week when we visited Warner Bros. Studios, Leavesden, it is a glittering, glowing and growing sector. We have also heard that there are some challenges, particularly for the workforce and for independent producers of both film and high-end TV.
For this final session in the inquiry, we have saved the best until last, ladies and gentlemen. We are going to explore some of those potentials and potential policy solutions, and we are delighted to welcome Ben Roberts, the chief executive of the British Film Institute, and Jay Hunt OBE, the chair of the BFI. You are both very welcome.
Before we begin, I should mention that in working on our inquiry in the last Parliament and then launching its sequel inquiry in this Parliament, we have worked with the BFI and others to ensure that our terms of reference and the evidence we are gathering have covered the breadth of issues facing the sector. Do any Members have any interests they wish to declare? No. Okay.
Ben, I am going to start with you. One of the biggest changes since we kicked off this Select Committee—and we like to feel that we may have played a small part in it—was the introduction of the independent film tax credit. When it comes to evaluating the impact of that, how will it be judged? What will success look like? Will it be more films being made? Is it going to be how they perform at the box office? Is it the number of jobs created, or is it something else? What does “good” look like for you in this?
Ben Roberts: I will start by saying thanks for having us here. I know you have heard from a lot of people, and I hope that we are able to give a unique perspective on the range of challenges because of the three legs of the stool, as I call them: our role as a public funder, using lottery money and grant-in-aid money, our role as a cultural charity and all that that means we do—of course on programme and archive—and our work as lead body setting policy. We are looking forward to answering a range of questions today.
Specifically on the independent film tax credit, let me say, first of all, thank you. I think that the heat of inquiry around the needs of the independent film sector, as your inquiry was starting, was brilliantly timed. The challenges for the sector were really coming into focus. We had published an economic review of independent film a couple of years prior, where we examined all the challenges facing independent film across exhibition, distribution and production, and it was an absolutely game-changing moment when the 40% IFTC came into effect.
We did a lot of work with the sector. You asked a lot of questions about what we expected to get from that tax relief back in the first part of the inquiry. There were a number of successful outcomes for us. First, we have a unique ecosystem in the UK. We are really lucky that we have a lot of interest from Hollywood, a huge amount of inward investment and production being made here, but it only works because we have a rich R&D, talent development, skills development sector.
We want to make sure that films are being made that give opportunities for filmmakers to show their talent, to hire other new entrants into the sector and critically, because of that £50 million budget range, to help filmmakers step up through into larger scale independent filmmaking, because even though we are calling it the low budget end, to be making a film at £10 million to £50 million is still a huge undertaking.
We want to see talent grow. We want to see audiences and market share for British independent films grow in the UK. It is currently sitting at about 9%. For context, the markets are very different, in Italy the market share for Italian films is around 25%, in France the market share for French films is over 40%, so we have some way to get back up to the right level of market share. Back in the “The Inbetweeners” or “The King’s Speech” days, you could have expected that to be closer to 15% to 20%.
We would love to see more audiences in the UK and overseas watching this unique British content. Obviously, we calculated it to show a return on investment. The return on investment on our tax reliefs are fantastic. We produce a screen business report every few years.
We probably will not have data to be able to evaluate what the impact of tax relief looks like in a screen business report until 2027, because we only started taking applications in October last year. We already know that interest in applications for the cultural test at the BFI certification unit are up. We have spoken to some studio facilities, and they are taking an increased number of inquiries from independent films looking to book their stages, so we feel positive already.
Q64 Chair: Fantastic. Jay, welcome. One of the things we are worried about is that more British films may end up being made but not necessarily being seen. Do you think that the Government should do more to support the distribution of films, maybe with support for advertising and promotion?
Jay Hunt: Yes, I would just echo what Ben said. We are delighted to be here to talk to you. This is something I feel passionate about. I have built my entire career in this sector, so I am really excited to discuss some of the issues with you today.
As well as what Ben has outlined, I think there is additional anecdotal evidence. The Piers Brosnan boxing biopic, which was shooting in Malta, has already relocated to Leeds. To Ben’s point, it will be a few years before we can quantify the concrete outcomes, but there has been such enthusiasm and such a wave of positivity around opening up this opportunity again. I know the Committee has heard evidence on this, but those lower-budget films are much more likely to take a chance on a new director than any other type of film will. Therefore, we are beginning that pipeline of great new British storytellers I think, which is exciting.
On the other half of the picture, you are absolutely right, and we are unbelievably grateful to the Committee’s support on the IFTC, but we are now staring down the barrel of a crisis hitting cinemas. I know you have heard evidence on this, but the Independent Cinema Office is projecting that 45% of cinemas will be loss-leading by year-end. Obviously, that is a very regrettable situation. I know the FDA has described it as powerless. With a BFI hat on, we do now think there needs to be help to support the cinema sector and distributors.
The press and advertising budgets are large. The risk for the distributors is huge. If we do not find a way of helping that part of the equation, some of the good work that has been done on the production side is not going to pay back. In addition to supporting cinemas, we would also like to see—we are talking to DCMS about this now—capital investment in cinemas. Many of them are deteriorating and not the places you would want audiences to be enjoying great films. We need some grant funding to support their ongoing sustainability and business development.
It is not simply about the distributors. It is about recognising that cinemas are at the very heart of communities and—as the Committee knows only too well—they are often the only artistic provision in the UK. They are driving £1 billion in GVA, but they are also getting people back to the high street, back to using small businesses. I think the second half of that equation is now looking at what we do to support distribution and the cinema sector more generally.
Q65 Zöe Franklin: Good morning, Ben and Jay; it is lovely to meet you. I have a couple of questions about supporting co-productions. As a Committee, we have heard that there used to be a significant contribution from Creative Europe to co-production and that there have been calls from across the sector to rejoin Creative Europe. Ben, does the promised funding from the UK Global Screen Fund negate that need to rejoin, or is further support still necessary?
Ben Roberts: This is another moment of thanks, because the UK Global Screen Fund has been transformative for the UK and the signals it sends about our ambition and appetite for co-production. We have seen, I think, 49 co-production awards made through the UK Global Screen Fund across 31 different countries since it was launched, which is demonstrating that the UK is arms wide open to co-producing with other markets, which has a number of really important impacts.
Financially, we have just talked about making independent films. I think a lot of our producers here recognise that to get a film made, working in co-production is a really smart way to do it. We also work in a very international market, the UK. We have people who come and live here who work internationally, and that is one of the great strengths of the UK cultural landscape. Obviously, the UK Global Screen Fund was entirely born out of our decision to leave the EU. Our focus at the moment is on making sure that that continues, because it has been a remarkable success. It is very popular. Producers love it. It is probably one of our most in-demand funds, but it is also, at its current level, one of the hardest to secure funding through as an applicant. Only 18% of applicants to that fund currently receive grants.
Our immediate priority—we are grateful that we have just had this extended through 2025-26—is that funding is secured for the long term. We are proposing that it is doubled, because by doubling that funding, it definitely brings you closer to the levels of funding that we were able to distribute through the Creative Europe MEDIA programme. However—and I know you will be hearing from Minister Chris Bryant later—we are keen to keep talking about joining the Creative Europe programme in addition, because they do not really do quite the same thing.
While it is unclear to us at the moment when and in what shape we might rejoin Creative Europe—likely as a third country—right now we need to get the UK Global Screen Fund secured. That is a really big focus for us in the comprehensive spending review, and, as I say, it has been transformative for how we are engaging internationally.
Q66 Zöe Franklin: Jay, what other support do you think the Government could give to boost co-production, including through other interventions?
Jay Hunt: I echo what Ben was saying about Creative Europe. It is probably worth stating that, while the UK Global Screen Fund has been incredibly successful, moving out of that programme, we lost £80 million-worth of value across the entire chain. As Ben says, the broad point is about continuing to focus on the UK Global Screen Fund as an incredibly effective way of supporting co-production, but we are very encouraged by the more positive noises from this Government towards Europe, and rejoining as associate members is a very logical next step.
Q67 Mr James Frith: Good morning, and thank you for coming in. On supporting cinemas—this question is on independent cinemas—I note that only 2.7% of National Lottery receipts are awarded. Is it worth asking—or perhaps you have already asked—the lottery to stump up more, rather than coming to the Government to expect departmental support, when the lottery might need to do a bit more than it is doing?
Jay Hunt: You are absolutely right. We are in receipt of 2.7% of lottery revenue. As BFI chair, I can say that we would be delighted if there was more revenue heading in our direction. It would allow us to invest in a number of programmes, not just support for the cinemas. However, obviously that is not in our gift, but you make a good point.
Q68 Mr James Frith: Have you asked for that?
Jay Hunt: I don’t know if we have formally asked for that.
Ben Roberts: There are two elements to this. First, we have a new lottery operator in Allwyn, and we are excited by Allwyn’s projections for lottery income because, in securing the fourth licence, it made a commitment to doubling lottery receipts over the course of the licence. If Allwyn were to successfully double receipts over the course of the licence, that 2.7% of ours would go a lot further and allow us to do a lot more. I think we should all keep working with Allwyn, and focus on Allwyn in terms of its ability to deliver that step change.
On the 2.7%, I think we do a lot with a very small share of the pie. We have been doing a lot with 2.7% since the lottery was brought in 25 years ago. The sector has completely changed over that time, in terms of growth of the market, jobs, what that means we need to deliver with our lottery funding across skills, training, production, talent development, and some of the research work that we do. It is apples and oranges compared with where we were 25 years ago.
We have not asked, because in a way, that is a DCMS calculation to do, and we recognise that if you increase one share, you impact another share. I would make the point strenuously that I think we are incredibly good value for money with a very small share.
Mr James Frith: Has it been 2.7% during the whole 25 years?
Ben Roberts: I believe so, yes.
Q69 Mr James Frith: Right. So it probably is due a review, is it?
Ben Roberts: It would be great to look at the value for money of what we do and how much further our investment can go. Our lottery investment is broadly across five areas. There is audience development; our skills and education work; our work supporting production and creativity more broadly; the work we do with heritage; and the work we do on industry growth. That is a completely different picture, and a lot to do with—
Q70 Mr James Frith: I understand that. I guess that, if I was in receipt of a request to the Department for grant funding, I would expect the industry to have asked for additional funding from the lottery for a settlement that is 25 years old.
Ben Roberts: Yes. I sit on a forum with all my National Lottery peers, and we have to take a look at where lottery goes in the round. We are taking a responsible view, as one of a number of lottery distributors, but, absolutely, yes, we should—
Jay Hunt: Your point holistically is right: we could do more with more, of course. I do not think that is currently in our gift. On the Allwyn point, in one of the early board meetings that I had as chair, we had the Allwyn chief executive in, because that is an area we can influence, in terms of understanding Alwyn’s trajectory for growth and continuing to put pressure on it to deliver on what it said it would deliver when it got that contract.
Q71 Mr James Frith: To come back to you, Jay, I am emphasising this point: how strong is the case for grant funding to support independent cinemas, especially given the pressures on departmental budgets? Do you not have a duty to ask other stakeholders that fund before going to Government and asking for departmental support before exhausting those prospects?
Jay Hunt: That is a legitimate question.
Q72 Mr James Frith: The point Ben makes about having to consider it in the round and being around the table is a version of what the Department is having to do in allocating its spending all of the time. Would you make a formal approach to them on that basis?
Ben Roberts: We will definitely take it away. It is still an ask of Government, because if we are making an ask for a different share of lottery funding, that is still an ask to DCMS in how it considers it as a lottery consideration—and it is a big lottery consideration. I anticipate that that would entail a major review. It is not that we are asking for available money. We are asking someone to review a paradigm that has been in place for 25 years. I have to say that we work brilliantly with DCMS. We have a great relationship with the Department, and I think the first job is to present the challenge.
Is there a challenge with the independent cinema sector at the moment? We believe there is. There are a number of existing models where operating expenditure and capital expenditure makes its way to cultural venues. The NPO model that the Arts Council administers works really well for other cultural venues, and we feel that there needs to be a version of that for cultural independent cinemas. Whether that is a lottery solution or whether that is a grant solution is the conversation we should be having, and we are open to how we get to the right solution.
Q73 Mr James Frith: What would the characteristics be of that application to Government? What do you think would make the strength of the application as compelling as it would need to be to try to increase that settlement?
Ben Roberts: Is that on the lottery allocation, or are you talking about the cinema provision?
Mr James Frith: On the case to make to the Government, yes.
Ben Roberts: For cinema specifically, I think we should say that we absolutely believe that cinemas are pillars of the high street, pillars of communities. They offer incredibly good value access to the arts. From a DCMS report that was published last year, we know that attending a cinema is second only to reading a book, in terms of the popularity of arts participation. Almost 50% of people said that they attended a cinema last year. We appreciate that it is a very different experience going to a cinema on your own, with your partner, with your family, with your friends than it is to watch something at home.
We make the case for the cultural activity. We make the case for the ripple effect of how people spend money, once they leave the home and go to the cinema. As we always do, we would make an argument from a data-led, research-led approach, which is: what GVA contribution is made by this sector? What is the cultural value? What is the cultural contribution? We have started that process with DCMS already. As to the source of funding, we would be really happy to discuss that.
Q74 Mr James Frith: Just on cinema audiences—I ask as an avid cinema-goer myself, although I like to go on my own because, in truth, I get away from all the people I live with at home—what is it going to take to get cinema audiences back to pre-pandemic levels? What do you see as the role of the Government and the BFI in that?
Jay Hunt: To build on your previous question, I will say two other things in answer to your point about the case. One of the things that I think is disproportionately important is this is an art form that over-indexes for lower socioeconomic groups as well. It is really important to say that in certain parts of the country, this is the cultural provision, so protecting it is important.
Another thing I found interesting was a recent piece of work that the BFI did about changing attitudes to cinemas—which may well speak to your experience—showed that this is now a treat. If they are going out, people are going to have a nice night out. This speaks to the point you made earlier about capital investment. We are looking at an infrastructure that is deteriorating rapidly, that is often not very energy efficient, that may not be the best possible place for people to spend time. Those things also go hand in hand with stepping out to acknowledge this change in behaviour.
Ben Roberts: I would love to build on that because, like you, I am an avid cinema-goer. My first job was in the cinema when I was 17. I am cinema through and through. I really believe in the future of cinemas, and actually, we are on a path back to pre-pandemic attendances. I get very frustrated by some of the narratives that play out in the press—one week I will open the Financial Times and cinemas are collapsing, and the next week they have come back with a vengeance. It is an exhausting narrative that starts to rattle everyone’s confidence.
The truth is that in 2024, the UK box office hit £1 billion for the first time since the pandemic. For context, a high watermark year pre-pandemic was £1.25 billion, so we are on that path. After the pandemic, we were hit by Hollywood strikes, which impacted the supply chain. I have confidence in that path back.
To answer your question, I will just build a bit on what Jay said around Government support. The FDA PMA proposal, which would build more awareness for marketing and more accessibility to a wider range of films, is pretty critical. What we have learned from the last few years is that in order to build a prosperous, diverse cinema audience, you need a real diversity of supply. This is a great moment in the year to think about what diversity of supply looks like, because you have the award season, when “Conclave” and “The Brutalist” are sitting alongside some very big blockbusters as well.
That is why the combination of the IFTC, the FDA PMA proposal and support for independent cinemas would be an incredible intervention by the Government. I would also like to remind the Committee that we do not believe that cinema is on its last legs at all. We absolutely believe in its prosperity.
Q75 Mr James Frith: There will be no narrative here that suggests it should be anything other than in its pomp or on its way to be, for sure.
As I understand it, a film that is released has to be at the cinema for a period of time to qualify for some awards. Would you support that period of time being extended and, therefore, improving the chances of people seeing such films at the cinema?
Ben Roberts: Awards eligibility has been moving around quite a bit in the last few years. You now have a film in contention this year, “Emilia Pérez”, which was acquired by Netflix out of Cannes. Netflix is putting it through its model of some cinemas and a streaming home. The new model has massively disrupted what awards eligibility criteria look like. The two big awards bodies—BAFTA in the UK and AMPAS in the US—spend a lot of time with their members talking about what feels appropriate.
I am not sure I feel that that is the lever for bringing audiences back into cinemas, because there are new windows in place—the theatrical window to online release, which has really shrunk in the last couple of years. The data from the studios would suggest they do not believe it is hurting their theatrical box office.
There is a lot more flexibility in that market than there was a few years ago as well, so exhibitors are less rigid. The distributor takes their time to be tactical about when it makes sense to move something from a cinema release to an online release. A number of Christmas releases decided to extend their theatrical run because they were working so well in cinemas. My suspicion is that that would not be the effective lever to bring audiences in.
Q76 Mr James Frith: I have a final point, just on the levers to bring audiences in. I read an article last week about the rise of the intermission, and is this cinema finding it a USP that people would prefer perhaps to sit in a more comfortable chair with a bigger screen, and with the intermission allowing them to take a comfort break—[Interruption.]
Jay Hunt: I am laughing, because Ben has been to see “The Brutalist” again, which I am sure you know has a—
Mr James Frith: I am desperate to see “The Brutalist”.
Jay Hunt: It does go back to part of what we talked about earlier—that enhanced audience experience and equipping the independent cinema sector with the ability to be nuanced to respond to audiences and to understand that this needs to feel like a treat. I think we are entering a different era, because people can watch films in other contexts. This has a different tonality to it now.
Q77 Tom Rutland: I am going to ask a little bit about supporting high-end television. Some producers have called for domestic high-end television to receive an enhanced tax credit like independent film. What assessment has the BFI made of the likely return on investment of that policy?
Ben Roberts: I should start by saying that we would see any intervention that grows the opportunity and grows the pipeline as worth exploring further. On the high-end TV tax relief conversation, we welcome the conversation, and we are very happy to embark on a piece of analysis similar to that which we did on the independent film tax credit to understand its true value. We have not done that work yet. We have not been asked to do that work or commissioned to, but we do talk to Pact, with which we worked hand in glove on the independent film tax credit, and we would be very happy to undertake that piece of work.
The analysis done around the IFTC was exhaustive and the conversation around the IFTC lasted several years. The work really came into focus after we published the “Economic Review of UK Independent Film” and were able to put some energy behind it, as did the Committee. We pride ourselves on taking a very data-led approach to what we do. It has really helped to take the industry through some disruptive times, whether it was Brexit, covid and, more recently, the strikes.
We have always worked with the sector through our research and statistics team and our policy team to put together watertight arguments about the benefit. We have never wanted to be a sector that says, “We’re in trouble”, rallying a team and saying, “Help us, help us”. We always back it up with evidence and data. We would need to undertake the same process, but I will say clearly that we would be really happy to do that.
Q78 Tom Rutland: Do you anticipate that that would take as long as it did for the film side?
Ben Roberts: I could not say. Obviously, these things work when you have everyone coming to the table and there is consensus. We had consensus on the independent film tax credit. Caroline, I know you heard from a lot of stakeholders who—wherever they were in the sector—were absolutely clear that this was an intervention they needed. We even had Sir Christopher Nolan making the case for why an independent film tax credit was so important to him, as someone who no longer really operated in that space. If we can build consensus and we can get everyone to the table—obviously, we have done some modelling around how to demonstrate value, and we have that dialogue with Treasury, so I think it would take less time.
Jay Hunt: As you have already heard, evidence is very nuanced as to how this could potentially be applied, and you have heard from multiple stakeholders with different views about that. In that sense, it is a more complex piece of work, because there is unlikely to be very clear consensus about the application. To Ben’s point, when we look at the growth of this sector, which has been extraordinary over the past decade, 86% of that is inward investment, and on that growth trajectory, anything that fuels that investment is good for us.
Q79 Tom Rutland: Jay, what other measures would the BFI support to help independents and PSBs make high-end TV that speaks to British audiences?
Jay Hunt: First, I would echo something that Ben said earlier. I have spent nearly 30 years in the television sector in this market, in almost every part of it, so I have a good understanding of it. I think one of the things that has differentiated us from other markets is the unique ecosystem we have here. We have this extraordinary pipeline of R&D that sits between the PSBs, the commercial broadcasters, independent film, commercial film and now substantial inward investment. That continues to be massively important.
But my biggest concern is that we end up being complacent about the high watermark that we now find ourselves at. If we look at the figures around production spend in 2024, it staggeringly hit £4.2 billion across film and television, which is a remarkable figure. There is a danger that we assume that that is where this industry settles, yet when I look across the landscape, I see a very challenging regulatory environment coming in in Europe, and immediately from the new US Administration, very protectionist language around Hollywood as well.
One of the reasons that the BFI has such an important role to play in this is that we need to keep drawing attention to where those challenges are, and to make it crystal clear that the growth trajectory will not continue unless we invest and support the sector. Some of that is about a benign tax environment, without a shadow of a doubt.
Q80 Tom Rutland: Beyond the benign tax environment, are there any other measures that would specifically help if independents and PSBs make high-end television in an era of increased budgets?
Jay Hunt: I have read the evidence that has been submitted to the Committee, and I would make one small correction, which is that there is an emerging thesis that the only television that speaks to British audiences is made by public service broadcasters. The Committee will know my background. I have spent most of my career in public service television, and extraordinary programming is coming out of the BBC, Channel 4 and Channel 5 the whole time, but it is also now coming out of inward investment. I am not saying that in a parti pris way, but if you look at shows like “Slow Horses”, or “Rivals” on Disney, or the multi-award-winning “Baby Reindeer”—whatever your perspective on that show—or even what Amazon has done in re-energising the non-scripted sector with a show like “Clarkson’s Farm”, or Paramount with “The Crow Girl”, there is great British content being made beyond the PSBs as well.
Just to push back a little bit on that narrative, the success, from a BFI point of view, is that that entire ecosystem continues to be fuelled, because there is a seamless transition from people working in that R&D engine room of great British creativity where they progress through that lifecycle and end up driving investment into this country. We need to continue to support that very precious ecosystem.
I look at where we are internationally. We are twice the size of the second biggest production sector in Europe, which is Spain. We are in a great place, but it will not continue to be a great place if we do not understand the complexity of that market and support people in navigating it.
Q81 Tom Rutland: We have talked a little bit about lottery funding already, how much lottery funding currently goes to high-end television, and are you satisfied with the amount?
Ben Roberts: Yes. I will not take us back 25 years, but obviously when we were given our small allocation of 2.7%, we had been very focused on film. Some of our National Lottery funds, our production funding, for example, is for feature films. There is no allocation within some of our funds for high-end TV, but, increasingly, the lines are blurred. I cannot give you a number, because there is not a number where we allocate money to high-end television versus film.
However, I would say that across our skills work, our policy work, and actually, a lot of the talent development work that we do—there is a film that came out last year called “Scrapper”, by a young filmmaker called Charlotte Regan, who was making her first film. It was a big success. She is not unique in being someone who has gone from a debut film to having conversations with commissioners about telling their stories in long form on television.
Jay Hunt: She then went on to a big Apple premium drama, so that is a classic example of precisely that relationship between the two sectors.
Ben Roberts: There are a lot of blurred lines. We offer our other grant funds, and this is probably an area where I would make another case for the UK Global Screen Fund, because the UK Global Screen Fund is not a lottery fund. It is a fund that comes from the Government. It is a grant-in-aid fund. It has a different set of parameters around it, and we do support businesses across the screen sector, film, TV and games. I cannot give you a split, but I would say that it is increasingly a blurred space.
Jay Hunt: On the data and research piece, the BFI’s role in speaking across the sector is incredibly important. Also, in terms of shining a light on great British creativity in the television space and the seasons that are done at Southbank, the relationship that the TV sector has with the BFI, I think, has changed unrecognisably.
As someone who works in a day job in high-end television—to Ben’s point—these sectors are utterly fluid now. It is entirely possible that a director will be on a feature and then move across to a premium drama. That is really exciting. It has never been a more dynamic place to work.
Ben Roberts: I will make one case for the archive as well, actually, which we have not talked about. We have the national film and tv archive—I know some of you have visited recently—and we are, I think, the first archive in the world to start taking in high-end TV streaming content from streamers here in the UK as well. We increasingly feel we have both arms around television. It is inevitable and natural. Obviously, Jay’s appointment as chair somewhat speaks to that.
Q82 Tom Rutland: At the risk of asking an obvious question, if the BFI had more lottery funding to distribute, what more could you do for high-end TV?
Jay Hunt: That feels like a sort of Christmas day presents question. The fundamental truth, and we have talked about lots of things today, is that there are so many calls on the BFI’s limited resource now. If our lottery funding were increased, I think that rather than blurting out something now, we would be very circumspect about where that could best be directed. But I can only state again that high-end TV investment is absolutely critical to the growth of this sector, and we would obviously want to continue to support that, but I suspect there would be quite a lot of other calls on that money.
Ben Roberts: We would do the same analysis we always do, and as we would do for the tax relief. We go into consultation with the sector whenever we start to remap out how we are spending our lottery money. We always want it to be good value for money. It has to demonstrate additionality. Obviously, one of the key tenets of National Lottery funding is that it is good-cause money and that you are delivering additionality. We would do that work, but I think—to Jay’s point—that would be an amazing opportunity for us, for sure.
Q83 Chair: We talk a lot about this ecosystem of high-end TV and, no doubt, it is brilliant. We get so much international investment, but of course, they are drawn by the remarkable skills and the great culture of creativity that we have here. There are suggestions that those international investors are somehow feeding on the great talent we have, but also, at the same time, driving up prices for the PSBs and making it slightly harder for them.
You will have seen that last week we published evidence from the “Wolf Hall” director, Peter Kosminsky. He was calling for streamers to pay a levy on subscribers to directly fund producers making high-end TV for PSBs. What is the BFI’s view on that? Should streamers be doing more to support the ecosystem that allows them to thrive?
Ben Roberts: It is really important to start by saying that we embrace the ecosystem that we have. We have moved a long way from when it felt like streamers coming at us. I have colleagues who worked with me in the independent sector who now work for the streamers. It is a fully integrated business in the UK. I say that because I think there are still some elements of putting things into opposition. We obviously have to look at it in a sober and objective way, but we do believe in the notion of that integrated system.
On the particular matter of levies, which is a big topic of conversation, obviously there are various models running across Europe. I sit on the board of the European Film Agency Directors council, and you can imagine that a lot of the conversations there are around streaming obligations, whether they are levies or something else. I know you have heard from others coming to give evidence that there are different views of what the consequences of imposing a levy here in the UK would mean, where the model is entirely different to France. At this stage, there is no consensus on the best path forward, whether it is to support the sector, to support the high-end TV tax relief model, to look at other options, or a combination of all of them.
We are doing some research and analysis where we scan the landscape of where levies exist and what the impact of those looks like. It will not be a piece of research that arrives at any recommendations, but we think it will be a very useful piece of analysis to really understand what the consequences of levies look like. We want to wait until we have been able to look at that. That will deliver in the summer. It feels pretty critical for us, because we have to hold this analysis in the context of the UK market being very unique and pretty enviable, actually, to the rest of the world. I probably don’t have much more to say other than that we want to look at the analysis, but there is absolutely no consensus that a levy would be the right approach right now.
Jane Featherstone did an absolutely brilliant job of painting a picture of the complexity of the landscape and the difficulties of getting certain types of things made. Ultimately, we believe that producers like Jane need to have choice. It is really about choice, so if there is a deal over here that is not the deal you want to do on a certain type of project, you have options. I think that is where the high-end tax relief comes into play, because it creates more optionality.
Q84 Chair: If you cast your mind way, way back to when we very first started this inquiry under our predecessor Committee, one of the first people to give evidence was James Hawes, who Jay will know from “Slow Horses” and “One Life”, the brilliant movie that came out last year. He started his career at the BBC, as you know. Is there a concern that unless we have something that focuses attention on those brilliant breeding grounds for supreme British talent, we could be in a kind of spiral and it is not going to enable us to have that fantastic ecosystem in the future?
Jay Hunt: To Ben’s earlier point, we have such a rare thing in this market—it is the envy of the world, and it is about the inter-relationship of all of those different sectors. From a BFI point of view, a well-resourced public service broadcasting environment is incredibly important, but there are multiple nursery slopes.
The IFTC will now give people a chance to enter this sector who might not otherwise have had a chance. There are a whole series of short-form initiatives—a programme called “Future Takes”, which the BFI is doing with Channel 4, which will again give entry-level opportunities. Increasingly, we need to think of this as quite a sophisticated model, where people can move through the entire value circle, for want of a better way of putting it.
But you are absolutely right: it is important that there is a strong and robust public service broadcasting environment here, because it fuels a lot of creativity.
Q85 Paul Waugh: I will ask you a bit more about skills. Obviously, the BFI takes a lead role in this. The industry is spending quite a lot on training and skills—no one denies that—but the BFI and others have expressed concern about it being too fragmented. How confident are you that ScreenSkills can deliver on that strategy and all the training that everyone needs, whether it is in any of our individual constituencies, for the jobs and the training that is powering this regeneration?
Ben Roberts: Our industry is transformed from the cottage industry it was a decade or two ago into being an absolute pillar of growth, integral to the Government’s industrial strategy. When I started working in film, Skillset—as it was at the time—or ScreenSkills was pretty much one of the only places you could go to for advice or signposting, or any resources on training. Now, as you say, we are calculating that last year the sector contributed £100 million into the sector, of which I think around £9 million was through the skills investment fund levy via ScreenSkills. That just shows how dramatically the landscape has changed.
I personally feel that it is great that ScreenSkills, in this strategy, is very focused on a data-led approach and producing the data that the sector needs to identify what the gaps are and when in the sector, and to allow for more responsiveness to that. The sector is starting to join up really well. The screen sector taskforce and the skills taskforce, put together to work with ScreenSkills on the new strategy, was a radical shift in how the sector works together, so I feel optimistic about that. We must not lose sight of some of the smaller training providers operating around the UK as well, and how we bring them into scope.
There are lots of small businesses—like Fully Focused, MAMA Youth and Resource Productions—who do incredible grassroots work, and the opportunity we have now is to bring all those training providers at a very local level into the system, so that the opportunities are really felt very locally.
Where we have shifted our focus is with our shift in lottery funding from a channel through ScreenSkills to our skills clusters model, which we think is working. It is still quite early days, but 84% of our overall beneficiaries for lottery funding are outside London and 69% of our skills clusters activity is happening outside London. We think there is an opportunity to build on that with the Government’s combined authorities’ approach, because our clusters align very well with the combined authorities. I feel the idea that we are fragmented is starting to feel a little bit historical and we are pulling the pieces together. ScreenSkills has a key role in that.
Jay Hunt: I would completely accept your analysis. To Ben’s point, it is an industry that has exploded, in terms of growth. The BFI taskforce obviously started a lot of this work and then informed the five-year ScreenSkills strategy as well, and what emerged from that was a complete lack of comprehensive data on precisely what the picture was. That might seem a relatively modest thing, but inevitably, it is impossible to plan what the future asks will be when we don’t know what the picture is.
This new data-led approach is already beginning to deliver in interesting ways. As you say, I also think that in some respects, it was not a resource issue; it was a chaotic delivery issue that links back to the lack of data. The industry is now moving in step. We are beginning to behave in more formal ways, even introducing things like formal job descriptions, and beginning to be able to think about how people can have career planning and what it would look like to have an intervention mid-career to fuel that career.
One of the exciting innovations that the BFI has championed are these out-of-London skills areas, where we can grow proper hubs of expertise, which I know drive investment, because that is what producers and investors are looking for. Where can I go and make something and be confident about the calibre of people working there? It has been a tricky road, but we are now on the right path.
Q86 Paul Waugh: In 2023, you awarded—we are talking about National Lottery money—more than £9 million for the skills clusters and for the bursaries. I think there was talk about a five-year plan. Where are we on that? Where are we heading in terms of skills?
Ben Roberts: We have a 10-year strategy, and we are in a three-year cycle, so we are heading into the third year of the first skills clusters cycle next year. Our intention is that those clusters will grow. At some point, the partnership funding or funding from elsewhere will mean that the reliance on lottery subsides and we can direct our attention to other areas of growth. We have a small pot of money—a places fund—which allows us to also direct some sort of tactical funding to areas where perhaps the ecology is very early, but we can see opportunity for growth. We will keep them under review.
A key mark of success with those clusters is what they lever from local funding, partner funding, and combined authority support, so that we are making that lottery funding go so much further.
Q87 Paul Waugh: You think data has got a lot better. Can it get even better? Is the industry ultimately spending enough on skills, do you think?
Jay Hunt: This might be overly ambitious, but I would love us to get to a cradle to grave strategy, where we can actually have an intervention at every point in someone’s career and properly offer up a formal career structure to people moving into production in every possible form. There is still work to be done, but I think substantial progress has been made and that is encouraging.
Alongside the actual delivery of skills, the BFI is also leading on some really important work about the changing culture in the workplace. Again, in many respects, that is long overdue. There is a project running at the BFI at the moment around what the perfect day in production would look like. This is a challenging sector for people with caring responsibilities. How do we begin to think differently about the way we make things? It is not just pure skills delivery; it is also about enhancing that experience for everybody who is part of that workforce.
Q88 Chair: Our predecessor Committee met ScreenSkills, and I have to tell you that we were underwhelmed—I think that is probably a generous way of saying it. It has since published a new five-year strategy, which promises to deliver a workforce plan, but when are we actually going to see that turning into meaningful change, do you think?
Ben Roberts: I will be generous to ScreenSkills, because the challenge is huge, not least because the workforce is so freelance. We estimate that we have at least 90,000 people working in this sector, of whom at least 73,000 are working in production. We are not sure that that is entirely the right number because of the nature of how people come into the sector, the adjacent sectors and when they leave. It is quite a moveable feast to pin down and we have been on this explosive growth curve.
The reason I feel hopeful is that ScreenSkills has been working much more closely with the industry, and I think that the industry, through the skills taskforce and the skills review, feel much stronger stakeholders in ScreenSkills. My observation would be that maybe even just five years ago, the industry’s relationship with ScreenSkills is probably, “We pay into a SIF levy most of the time in a voluntary way. We feel we have deposited a number of trainee coupons with you, and we would like to be able to get them out again”. That is not a joined-up, cohesive approach towards skills development.
I am not giving you a clear answer on when we think we will see that. That is because it will feel quite iterative. I do not have to hand ScreenSkills’ plans for publishing a plan, but—
Jay Hunt: Can I just speak to that a little bit? An interesting thing happened that has given this entire conversation a momentum it did not have before—probably going back 18 months, there was a palpable crisis in the sector around delivery. Productions were closing because there were not enough carpenters, and we could not start filming because we did not have any production finance people.
To Ben’s point, the agenda around skills is always transformed when the industry is engaged. The industry is engaged from a position of crisis, which was that productions were closing because we did not have that workforce. In that sense, there is a focus, a scrutiny and an obsession with getting this right now, which will give it onward momentum.
I appreciate your feedback on ScreenSkills’ evidence. The notion that the task is gathering data can sound quite passive, but the truth is that it is such an essential piece of work to this next phase. And then building on the clusters as well, I think you can begin to see how this can get us to where we need to get to, but I appreciate your point.
Q89 Chair: Jay, as you say, the sectors are utterly fluid. How does it make sense that ScreenSkills is siloed based on genre?
Jay Hunt: To be fair, that is probably a question for ScreenSkills. Ben, do you want to pick that up?
Ben Roberts: In terms of the councils and the funding? I think that is partly to do with how the contributions are made and therefore held in long-standing training programmes. There is a really well-developed high-end TV training programme, which I feel is like the heart and soul of ScreenSkills. It is very well held by that particular council. I agree with Jay that this is probably a question for ScreenSkills. I agree that maybe there needs to be a bit more crossover between those councils and perhaps that is already in their minds.
Q90 Dr Rupa Huq: On the archive that you mentioned, we had a lovely trip there recently, but a third of the stuff in there is not viewable by members of the public either. We know that it is very slow and laborious to digitise it, but I have just been googling a few things while I am here and they seem to be blocked, or you have to buy a subscription. Are there any plans to open that up in the way of, say, iPlayer, where there is a load of content out there for free, to make it accessible to the public?
Ben Roberts: I will speak to this; it is my passion project. We have a different statistic that we use, which is that the archive is so huge that only 2% to 3% of the holdings of the archive are accessible to the public across the entirety of the collections. That speaks to the vastness of it.
We are on a digitisation and public access path, but before you can digitise something, you have to make sure that it is in a good condition. A lot of our material is held in huge storage facilities, and we have a team who are constantly reviewing and assessing the quality of material.
We have to make a plan as to what we might prioritise to put on a scanner and make available to the public. We have BFI Player, which was born out of a lottery programme that ran through a project decades ago, which was lottery funded, and it was the last time we really had a national heritage strategy. We spent about £25 million digitising content from not just the national archive, but our film archives across the UK, and it was enormously popular. The output from that Britain on Film project has had at least 100 million views across our digital channels.
The challenge we have is knowing truly what is in the archive and the resources we need to get it online. We do have a spending review proposal that we are working towards, the CSR, the basis of which is a fundamental review of the holdings of the BFI national archive. That would be transformative for us.
Q91 Dr Rupa Huq: I have just googled two things: “Dance Craze”, which is a 2 Tone 1980s thing—you have to buy a subscription to see that—and then also “I’m British But…”, which was the first thing Gurinder Chadha did. She came and spoke to our Committee last year. I remember seeing it at a Southbank screening. It is blocked; it says, “Not available”. Those are things out there—I am not talking about digitising.
Ben Roberts: You are talking about rights?
Q92 Dr Rupa Huq: Yes, the iPlayer and 4oD, where you can watch a lot of historical Channel 4 and BBC things for free. Would you ever consider such a thing?
Ben Roberts: We do. There is a lot available on BFI Player for free. We also have a library product on BFI Replay. It is a rights issue. We do not own everything that we hold. We own a lot of collections, but we also hold a lot of collections for the public. If you take “Dance Craze”, it is a film that we licence—
Q93 Dr Rupa Huq: I know the soundtrack but I have never seen the film—
Ben Roberts: Yes, we licence it. Therefore, if we licence it, we are responsible to the rights, holders in terms of making sure that there is a transactional element to it. We cannot make it available for free. I will also say that the BFI Player does have a subscription model. That is now a big pillar of the BFI’s income generation. We try to hold it in a balance of stuff where we do not hold the rights and stuff where we do.
Jay Hunt: The board is taking a disproportionate interest, in this because it is an extraordinary collection and it is multifaceted—the problems that the collection review, which we have asked for support with, will address. One of them is precisely to Ben’s point: what is appropriate to be digitised? At the heart of this is the ambition that we can make this one of the most open archives in the world, because obviously the end game is that we want access to those great assets.
The rights piece is an absolute minefield, because we do not know what rights we have on every single piece in the collection and, until we do that, we cannot progress the open access agenda, because we are not in a position to make that material available. It is a tedious, long-term, complex piece of work that could potentially make extraordinary content available to audiences.
Q94 Dr Rupa Huq: I am actually going to see a Doctor Who on Saturday at Southbank, “Spearhead from Space”. Ealing is all over that episode—the first one in colour, I think. I have done a voiceover on a DVD version that is coming out, so they invited me. However, looking at your programme, the majority of the screenings at Southbank are not British. Would it not encourage more British content if you shifted the balance a bit?
Ben Roberts: We would have to do some analysis on that. I am not sure whether that would play out in aggregate across the year, because we are an international cinematheque. We screen material from around the world. It is probably true that the majority is not British, because we are a broad church, that is what our audiences want to see. I will say that on Sunday, I watched “The Brutalist” for the second time at the BFI, and every single screening at the BFI was sold out. I cannot remember the last time that that happened. That was some TV previews, some international stuff, some new release stuff.
I will say—we have not put this into the public domain yet—that we are planning on building a moment for British film. We think it is long overdue. I am not talking about our year-round programme, I am talking about a moment as the BFI heads towards its own centenary in 2033, where we remind the public, in the UK and internationally, just how amazing our filmmaking heritage is and just how wide-ranging and diverse our cinema heritage is.
I am happy to do a bit more analysis on the spread of our programme and also on our player, because our player has been a transformative tool for us in reaching audiences across the UK, but also in terms of what we can programme. I think you would see a different story on the BFI player.
Jay Hunt: I think we should also flag the London film festival, which has been an extraordinary success story and an absolute beacon for British soft power. It is remarkable how that now drives investment—a whole series of people are coming to sample great British content in the way that they would not have done before. The festival that has just gone by had the highest attendance for 10 years.
Alongside people sampling great British content, we also have a responsibility to bring people to cinema, generally, and grow that behaviour, and that is an absolute beacon of the activity.
Q95 Dr Rupa Huq: I mentioned that “I’m British But…”—the first thing Gurinder Chadha did—says, “Currently unavailable”.
Jay Hunt: We need to get you a copy of that, I think.
Q96 Dr Rupa Huq: I remember that in the ’90s—I am that old—I went to a screening at the Southbank. It was a discussion—there were different ethnic minority filmmakers describing how they got in. That came through one of those very short film schemes, and we have heard evidence that those micro-budget schemes have disappeared. It was a way for people to cut their teeth. I think there were other people—Tanika Gupta. There was a whole load of people in a panel discussion.
Wasn’t that a great pipeline? Are those kinds of schemes coming back? I think the Arts Council does some. Would you consider bringing more of those sorts of schemes back for non-mainstream filmmakers to cut their teeth before people give them a chance on a “Bend It Like Beckham”, or something?
Ben Roberts: Yes, we have a fantastic history with Gurinder at the BFI. “I’m British But…” was financed, I think, by the BFI production board—she will tell me if I’ve got that wrong. Films at that stage of a career vary in length. “I’m British But…”, is not a full-length feature.
Dr Rupa Huq: Twenty-nine minutes, it says here.
Ben Roberts: We were partners in a number of micro-budget film schemes for a number of years and—
Dr Rupa Huq: They have vanished.
Ben Roberts: Well, they have not vanished. I would say that they have transformed in accordance with the market. I came to the BFI as the director of the Film Fund, so I ran the lottery investments and production before I was the CEO. There were a number of schemes. There is a brilliant one that Film London ran, which we partnered with them on, called, Microwave—it was a really successful scheme in identifying new filmmakers.
The budgets of those films were £150,000 or less. The real challenge they had was hitting the market because, as we talked about earlier, there is a challenge in distribution. It sets a very high expectation once you are making a feature film that that feature film will then make it into cinemas, pick up a distributor, hit festivals, and sell internationally. On that basis, £150,000 is still quite a lot of money.
We have moved on from supporting feature-length low-budget talent development and we spend a lot more in short-film talent development. “I’m British But…” is a short film. It is 29 minutes. We are really invested in that type of work.
Jay mentioned earlier a scheme called, “Future Takes”, which is a partnership between the BFI and Film4. That has actually created a lot of impetus around higher budget shorts, because what we were also seeing away from the micro-budget end of the spectrum, was five brand shorts, which did not resource filmmakers enough to put production value on screen. So “Future Takes” is probably where Gurinder would go now with “I’m British But…”, not Microwave.
Q97 Dr Rupa Huq: Ben, I saw you quoted in a couple of Guardian things—they weren’t great stories, I have to say. One was three months ago—“BFI apologises to film-maker over racial discrimination complaint”. The other is from the year before, “BFI accused of taking limited steps to address systemic racism”. These were both in The Guardian, and we have the CIISA, the regulator, the new standards thing coming in in a couple of weeks. Is that next week? They are coming in soon, aren’t they? I just wondered whether you have a comment for Jonte Richardson and Faisal Qureshi, who claim that you are not supporting BAME filmmakers.
Ben Roberts: Sure. I will start on this, and Jay may want to speak to it, too. We have spoken to Faisal and Jonte. We had a meeting with Faisal, which I think has been reported. We did make an apology for the manner in which a complaint was handled, and we have looked at addressing the complaints procedure as a consequence of that. But I do want to stand by our record on supporting black and global majority filmmakers. We have EDI baked into our strategy. It is one of the three core principles of Screen Culture 2033. We have set ourselves targets around supporting black and global majority filmmakers, which are 40% in London and 30% UK-wide.
In most areas of our investment in filmmakers, we are exceeding those targets in the last year by some mile. I can speak to all manner of filmmakers that we have been supporting over the past few years who are from black or global majority backgrounds, who are telling their stories, and those stories are travelling around the world.
One of the challenges we have in the Film Fund is that only 6% of applications into our production fund are successful. Only 3% of applications into our talent development programme, which is our BFI network programme, are successful.
We are mostly in the business of turning down filmmakers and that is really challenging for us, in terms of the extent to which we can offer continued support. That creates a lot of unhappiness, in terms of who we have and have not supported, but if you look at the data of who we have supported, I think we are doing a really good job.
Q98 Dr Rupa Huq: I think the accusation is that a lot of money is spent on anti-racism training, whereas you could have a ringfenced budget for these sorts of schemes. We had Myriam Raja from “Top Boy”, which I think started on Channel 4 and then went to Netflix, like “Black Mirror”—that I have some relationship with. She graduated from the National Film and Television School with very prestigious qualifications, and she was unemployed for a year. The BFI is not helping, or is not a nurturing environment—those were her words—for sustainable careers for well-qualified people who may be of those backgrounds, if it is all going in training schemes and not—
Jay Hunt: Perhaps I could just speak to that. The first thing on the Faisal complaint, specifically, is that it was investigated and Verita reported that there was no evidence of racism in the way that that was handled. I think that is significant. It was not a well-handled complaint, and we have discussed that at board level. As a consequence of that, the complaints system at the BFI has been reviewed. There has been additional training for key individuals, and we are watching it very carefully. In addition, I have appointed two anti-racism champions to sit on the board to ensure that the strategy continues to be something of focus.
To the point around training, I would simply say that I have been working for many years in public service organisations that have done anti-racism training. The depth and calibre of the anti-racism training that has taken place—supported by What If—at the BFI is second to none, in my experience. I do not think it is a small thing that the organisation has taken that as seriously as it has, and it is watching this incredibly carefully.
To Ben’s point—I say this as someone who has built my career on the creative side—there will always be people who are disappointed that an organisation has been unable to support them creatively. That will always happen. It does not necessarily mean that the choices that have been made are incorrect.
Q99 Natasha Irons: I will talk a bit about artificial intelligence, which is a big topic at the moment. We have had some great witness and evidence around ethical AI, the use of this in post-production, and the opportunities for the UK to grow in this space.
To you, Jay, just to bottom this out a little bit, would you expect the exception to copyright for training of AI for commercial purposes, as the Government proposes, to undermine the growth of the film and high-end TV sector?
Jay Hunt: To your point—even looking at the news agenda this morning—this is a huge, huge issue. The first thing to say is that we are a sector that is used to embracing technological change. You have all been to the archive. You have seen the different iterations of screen culture over the years. We are used to dealing with change, so we are energised and excited by the opportunity that AI affords.
It is already clear that it could have implications around cost-cutting. It could enhance productivity. It could help us drive forward the sustainability agenda as well, so it is an important area and one that we understand the Government’s appetite to see growth in. Having said that, I think our priority has to be protecting creative rights holders. That is for a very pragmatic reason, which is that defending creative copyright historically has delivered huge returns for UK plc.
The key thing in this next phase for us will be ensuring that creative rights holders are correctly remunerated, that there is transparency in however that process is applied, and critically—this is across the sector—that we are skilled up to be able to navigate this very complex new world order.
It is precisely moments like this when the BFI is an invaluable organisation. We have three significant pieces of work that we will publish in the next few months: one is capturing what is going on in the AI sector now, identifying pathways in the UK; one looks at what is going on internationally that might inform regulation and ways forward in this manner; and one, again, looks specifically at the sustainability agenda and how this may help.
In addition, I have asked Professor Declan Keeney—who is a professor of innovation and screen culture at the University of Ulster—to chair a board sub-committee to take the expertise that we also have on the board in order to ensure that this agenda is really foregrounded for the BFI.
We are in a period of profound change. I think it is precisely the moment when the thought leadership that a strong arm’s-length body like the BFI can offer will be significant, but it is going to be a complex one for us all to navigate.
Q100 Natasha Irons: Have you had the opportunity to make your views known to the Government? Have you had conversations as the chair of the—
Jay Hunt: I am sure, as you know, that there is an ongoing consultation that we will be feeding into. Given how quickly this agenda is changing—I say only, look at what has come out this morning—it is important that we have time to do that in a proper way, but we are already thinking holistically about the positive and negative aspects of this agenda and how they will impact the sector.
Q101 Natasha Irons: To you, Ben, the use of, say, ethical AI has potential for growth, especially if you think about the amazing archive that you have. If that is used ethically in a way of training AI models, that could be a massive thing for us all. How have you been maximising those opportunities and helping filmmakers and production companies to understand how they could use the tools of AI in the future?
Ben Roberts: There is so much to say on this subject, so you will have to stop me when I have gone on too much.
The first thing we should say is that these tools have been used in the sector for a long time. It is not new, particularly in areas around VFX post-production. Our sector is inherently dependent on technology and technology shifts. If you think about the medium of film, it was born out of a technology that was invented and has changed continuously over the last 100-plus years. The sector is very good at being adept, agile, responsive, and problem solving. It is steeped in innovation and, as I say, we have digital tools to reproduce smooth edges and tweak voices, and those have been in existence for many years.
Last year, we started asking our applicants to our lottery funds a really safe, benign question: Can you just tell us in this application if you have used or plan to use AI in your application to us?”, and 8% of them said yes. So we are creating an environment where it is okay to talk about AI. We think that is really important.
You mention the archive. We have started doing some pilot investment in how we can do AI-focused training on collections, because we recognise that that is a hugely important area for us. We currently have a number of reports out there that will come in for publication in a few months’ time on best practice in the sector, the carbon footprint in the sector, and looking at international trends as part of a CoSTAR Foresight Lab, so we can understand what the challenges are and what the change in weathers look like.
Then we have a spending review bid going in, which has two key planks to focus on innovation. The first of those is funding for an AI observatory, which would bring together academics and researchers, and twice a year would feed our latest knowledge, trends, data to the sector, because we really believe—as Jay said—that it is our role to equip the sector with the agency to start grappling with these tools.
If we are successful in our spending review bid, we are also planning to build a tech demonstrator hub that would have a strong AI element as well, so that people can really start to get to grips with what the tools actually mean to them.
Q102 Natasha Irons: In their AI action plan, the Government are talking about having an AI sector champion for the creative industries. Would the BFI be interested in that role, and would it see itself as a good leader in that?
Ben Roberts: I hope our thought leadership has been really strong and well felt by the sector. I would say we will absolutely be a sector champion for AI, whether we are appointed as a formal sector champion for AI or not. We absolutely are thrilled, stimulated and challenged by all the opportunities that come with that.
Q103 Jo Platt: Thank you for attending this morning. I am going to go back to screen heritage and the fantastic trip we had, where we conducted a roundtable. It was really important to follow on from the predecessor Committee and its findings, and to discuss the challenges and concerns. This first question is to Ben: what would be the cost implications of a statutory deposit scheme for the BFI national archive and those making content?
Ben Roberts: Thanks for the question, because this is a such a key area of what the BFI does. I think the BFI was built and established on its collecting role. One of the things that excites me about the national archive is, first, the continuous story it can tell, the filmmaking in the UK— everything. The AI piece will come into that, in terms of how we can look back at what happened technologically, so the work that was being produced right now at this moment in time.
A statutory deposit is useful in terms of having an automatic ability to call something in and say you want it. At the moment, we work not on a statutory deposit basis but on a curatorial basis ,where we ask for material to come in. If we were to receive everything, I think that would be challenging for us, because part of our conversation with DCMS at the moment is around the fact that our conservation centre is now full. It is physically full. The building that you visited in Berkhamsted was built in the 1980s with a 30-year life span. We now have significant challenges on our hands across our conservation centre site in Berkhamsted and our master film store in Gaydon. We have an ambitious plan to double our film storage site at Gaydon if we are successful in the spending review process.
To get to your question, conceptually, a statutory deposit is a great idea. It would bring us up to the standard of a lot of other archives around the world. However, we would have to look at how that would be resourced. I will not put a number on what that would look like, because we would have to select things in, but with our relatively modest amount of grant-in-aid and the fundraising we do around that, I think we would have to look at a different system of how contributions were made to support a statutory deposit system, as well as any more public financial support. But we would love to look at it some more.
Q104 Jo Platt: Jay, how wide should the scope of a statutory deposit scheme be, and should it include online content?
Jay Hunt: Goodness, I don’t know if I feel equipped to answer that. As Ben says, the biggest problem is that we are entering a phase where there is so much content now, and we are going to have to start making some choices about what is worth keeping and what is not worth keeping. I think the statutory instrument would allow us to have the option to make that choice, but, to Ben’s point, we could not then house it. Expanding that to include all online content as well, I suspect, does not feel sustainable, but that feels quite a long way down the road.
Ben Roberts: I can add a coda to that, which is that we have just launched, for the first time, a discrete project, where we are curating online content for a lottery-funded programme called “Our Screen Heritage”, because we recognise that that is where a lot of interesting cultural material and cultural artefacts thrive.
We did a project during lockdown called Britain in Lockdown, where we brought into the archive the key moments that the country was feeling and experiencing during lockdown. Right now, I can only think of Joe Wicks’ PE. “PE With Joe” would be an example of holding a collective experience of what was happening in lockdown. That was online content.
Q105 Jo Platt: This last question is to you Ben. The BFI had its own screen strategy, but that expired in 2022. You have referred to it in a few of the other questions. What are the gaps in support for the archives that you would want to see if—and when—developing this new strategy?
Ben Roberts: That was such a brilliant lottery strategy, because it was a massive investment in working with all of the regional and national archives to pull together material that could live forever online. I do not know what was shown to you, but alongside that programme, we produced a map which I think is still alive, which allowed you to search by postcode for digitised heritage content online.
It was very expensive. It also came at a moment when the BFI had just become the National Lottery distributor. We took over that role from the Film Council, which caused us some challenges, because it meant that we no longer had anywhere to apply for lottery funding, so we had to run through section 27 hoops. There was a big, ringfenced investment of, I think, around £25 million.
We digitised a huge amount of content, but we only scratched the surface. Therefore, I think if we were able to access some similar level of resource, we would love to think about something else, working with the national and regional archives.
In addition to the public access piece, we have to look at the physical infrastructure. Lots of regional or national archives are held within university environments. Those university environments either cannot afford or are not prioritising looking after their archives, so we do see our role as a superordinate national archive holder to make sure that the capital infrastructure and the operating costs of those are supported as well. I am sure you heard that from visitors—so it is about money.
Q106 Chair: Thank you very much, Jo. That brings us nearly to the end. As you know, this is our last session. If you were in our shoes, what would be the one game-changing recommendation that you would put into this Committee report, Jay?
Jay Hunt: I am reluctant to come out for one thing because I think there are so many different sectors. The tentacles of this Committee, fascinatingly, have gone into all parts of British life. So rather than one particular recommendation, the one thing I would say is to reiterate what I said at the beginning: we cannot afford to be complacent.
We talk about the huge revenue-driving opportunity that this sector has provided to UK plc. I am anxious that we assume that that will continue without proper support. We have outlined things from the Global Screen Fund to how we might support the cinema sector, to what we need to do around the archive, but it is about protecting that unique ecosystem. I am not trying to dodge the question, but I don’t think there is one thing. I think there is a bigger note that recognising the contribution that this sector is making is huge. It can continue on that trajectory, but only with some support.
Chair: Spoken like a true politician.
Jay Hunt: I did not mean that as a true politician. I think it is a really difficult question.
Q107 Chair: Ben, what would make the BFI’s job easier?
Jay Hunt: That is an easy one.
Ben Roberts: I was going to take Jay’s coupon for a recommendation. In the last decade, we have got to grips with our complex role across lead body/funder/charity. It makes sense to me. All the levers support each other and it can work in beautiful harmony. I would love you to recognise that and our thought leadership, and what that can do to drive the sector forward.
To be cheeky, I will take Jay’s coupon on mine and say that I am glad that you are recognising the value for money of our 2.7%, and I would love you to continue to dig into that a bit. I have to say that for our foot on the world stage, as part of our spending review bid, the Global Screen Fund is securing its continuation. Significantly growing that pot would be fantastic for independent film, TV, our co-production opportunities and our relationships with the rest of the world.
Jay Hunt: Our grant-in-aid position has not changed since 2011, which represents a 30% cut, so I hope you have some sense today of the scale of the sector that we are trying to work across now, which is hugely complex. Additional resource would also make what we could do more effective.
Chair: Thank you both very much for your time.
Examination of witnesses
Witnesses: Sir Chris Bryant and Alastair Jones.
Q108 Chair: For our second panel this morning, I would like to welcome Sir Chris Bryant MP, the Minister for Creative Industries, Art and Tourism in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and Alastair Jones, the deputy director of the creative industries in DCMS. Both of you are very welcome. I think this is the Minister’s first appearance before the Committee, so you are very welcome. Most of us saw you yesterday in the debate on the creative industries, so we feel quite warmed up for this meeting today.
Chris Bryant: More than you expected. Can I just do my declaration of interest because I have to do that for the House?
Chair: I was about to ask you that.
Chris Bryant: Oh, sorry.
Q109 Chair: I understand you are not only an author, but venturing into film and high-end TV yourself, so did you want to declare an interest?
Chris Bryant: I have to declare it, because it is a requirement of the House that I declare anything that is a potential interest or might be perceived to be an interest by a reasonable member of the public. This is simply to say, I am not entering into making films myself, but two of my books have been optioned: one by Mother Pictures and the other by Pathé, either to be turned into film or high-end television.
If I might just say, briefly, I know many of us will have friends who live in California and are part of the film industry out there. On behalf of the Department and the Government, I would like to send our best wishes to everybody who works in that industry. It is going to be very, very difficult for many people who have lost their own homes or their places of work. If there is anything that we can do to assist, we stand ready to do so.
Q110 Chair: Thank you very much. I am sure we share that sentiment across the Committee as well. I am going to kick off the questions. I really want to know, as a starting point, what role you see for film and high-end TV in the industrial strategy for this Government.
Chris Bryant: That is a vital one, and I am really delighted that we are having an industrial strategy. That is an important thing for a Government to have, because it determines some of the areas where we see potential for economic growth. Secondly, I am delighted that the creative industries are part of that—one of the eight sectors. I am delighted that Shriti Vadera and Peter Bazalgette are working together with us, with a taskforce, to put together clear deliverables that we might be able to put into that industrial strategy.
As I said yesterday in the debate, I think some people sometimes want to disaggregate bits of the creative industries. I am rather against that. Of course, they have their specificities, but I am rather in favour of embracing the whole connectivity of the various different parts of the creative industries. You can see that perhaps most clearly in film, because you do not get a film without a distributor, a venue, hair and make-up, technology and actors and so on. So I am very keen to make sure that we retain that whole ecosystem approach in our industrial strategy as it relates to the creative industries.
Q111 Chair: When it comes to film and high-end TV, where do you think Government intervention would best be targeted?
Chris Bryant: I thought it was interesting in the debate yesterday that the one thing that has come back to me most frequently from the creative industries, apart from discussions about artificial intelligence—which you might come on to later perhaps—has been in relation to access to finance, but it wasn’t much debated yesterday afternoon, which surprised me. It is a simple fact that the creative industries represent something like 6% of the economy, maybe 6.5% of the economy, but they do not attract anywhere near that percentage of R&D financial support[1].
You probably do not want to have a precise equation, because for R&D, you would then go through every different sector of the economy and go, “Right. You’re getting X. You’re getting Y”, and so on. None the less, it would be good to get much closer to that kind of figure. That is one of the things that we are working on with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
Quite often, many people in the sector have said to me that financiers do not really understand the creative industries and how to invest. Sometimes they understand how to invest in London, in the south-east, but not anywhere else and not in creativity. Understanding risk in film and high-end television is a key part of what I think could transform that. That is why we are working with the British Business Bank, and I am delighted that it has said that it wants to increase the work that it does in this sphere.
I would love to sit down with every big investor in the world and explain to them why it is good to invest in high-end television and film being made in the UK.
Q112 Chair: A lot of what you have mentioned—and nearly all Government interventions so far—have focused on production. We have seen very little in the way of distribution and exhibition when it comes to film and high-end TV—film in particular. Does that need to be addressed? If so, how?
Chris Bryant: I am conscious that we have lost 124 cinemas in the last couple of years. I think we have something like 825 cinemas at the moment. While a lot of us watch movies and films on our mobile phones or on a tablet, or on a television at home, or wherever it may be, there is nothing that beats that experience of sitting in a room with hundreds of other people watching a film.
I remember going to see “Barbie” last year in Treforest, Nantgarw. It is the first time that I have seen the cinema absolutely packed and everybody was adoring it. If we had just watched it at home, it simply would not have been the same. So yes, I think we have to look at what help we can provide. Some of the work that we have done on business rates and the further work that we still have to do on business rates starting in 2026 will assist independent cinemas. However, there is probably more that we can do.
Q113 Chair: You will have heard some of the evidence from the BFI, who were here just before you. I know that your Government have spoken a lot about how they want to reset the relationship with the EU. What are your thoughts on the position of rejoining Creative Europe?
Chris Bryant: I am going to call the fifth amendment at this point—not that we have a written constitution or an amendment to it.
We are thinking about it. There are arguments in favour, there are arguments against, and there is a cost. We need to assess where we want to go on that.
Alastair Jones: Ben and Jay spoke about the value of the UK Global Screen Fund. We absolutely recognise that—it is a lot, and we will certainly be looking closely.
Q114 Chair: They also said that the Global Screen Fund did something very different from Creative Europe. From what you are saying, it is not off the table.
Chris Bryant: I am not putting it on the table, and I have not taken it off the table.
Q115 Chair: It is nowhere near the table at the moment.
Chris Bryant: There is no table to put it on.
Chair: There is no table.
Chris Bryant: There is another serious point. The fact that UK film and television qualifies as European content is a very important aspect of our future in this sector, and we certainly do not want to lose that. Anything that we can do to enhance and protect that is obviously in our interests.
Q116 Chair: To continue the analogy, I think it would be a good idea if the Government did invest in a table, because this is something that the industry does keep coming back to. The Creative Europe fund is something that a lot of people talk of with great pride.
Chris Bryant: I note that you think that, Dame Caroline.
Chair: I am not saying that I do. I am merely a vessel for the opinions of the film and television sector.
Chris Bryant: The sector has said that to me as well.
Chair: Yes. Very good.
Chris Bryant: We are conscious of it, and we are thinking about it.
Chair: I will stop talking about tables now and pass on to Bayo.
Mr Bayo Alaba: Thank you, Chair, and welcome, Minister and Alastair. “Barbie” is an interesting one; I wanted to go to “Barbie” with my 11-year-old daughter, but she did not want me to go, because it was not really cool for her dad to follow so I needed to go by myself.
Chris Bryant: What do you look like in pink? I guess that is the question.
Q117 Mr Bayo Alaba: I want to speak to you about assurances. What kind of assurances does the industry have on existing tax incentives and whether the Government are committed to maintaining the incentives or indeed increasing them? I would like to hear from you and Alastair on that.
Chris Bryant: Sure. The tax incentives—the tax credits, tax reliefs, which have been in place in various different forms over the years, not just in film and high-end television, but audiovisual as it is now termed, as well as in other sectors—are a really important part of our investment in the creative industries.
Let’s go back one step. Our aim is to make sure that the UK is the best place in the world to make film and high-end television. To do that, we have to have a competitive set of tax credits. You have only to look at other credits around the world to know that that is a simple fact. When we got to the point, as I think the previous Government recognised, that the 80% limit meant that the final 20% of post-production was sometimes being stolen by Canada or other countries where there were more effective tax credits, it was all the more important for us to have the VFX tax credit, which we introduced in the last few months.
Similarly, we are very proud of the fact that we have now managed to put in place the independent film tax credit because we think that that will incentivise the kinds of movies that reflect not just a world audience but, in particular, a British audience.
All tax credits will always have to be kept under review, but we are very committed to them as a process. There is always the danger that you might have a perverse incentive somewhere in the middle of a tax credit, so we must always look at that. I know about all the bids that have been made to your Committee. I have read all the evidence that you had last year and in December. I note that there are about five different bids for new tax credits in this area, and we will keep them all under review. Alastair, would you like to add anything?
Alastair Jones: The sector welcomes stability. You do not want to be tweaking them too often. Stability and certainty are valuable. The sector welcomes quick administration. Last week, the Government announced a further £1.5 million to the BFI certification unit to keep that moving quickly, so that tax certifications work quickly.
As I think you just heard from Ben Roberts, the case for the independent film tax credit was made by evidence over time. As the Minister says, we are always keeping tax reliefs under review, but it is up to the sector to make the case. We are always happy to work with them to understand where the evidence lies.
Q118 Mr Bayo Alaba: Brilliant. Three words came out to me there: competitiveness, review and stability. It is a competitive marketplace. As the Minister said, we want the UK to maintain its international competitive advantage. How regularly should we be checking the benchmark around tax incentives?
Chris Bryant: I do not want us to chop and change all the time for the precise reason that Alastair raised, which is that if you provide uncertainty, people will stop making investments in the future.
Take “Conclave”—I spoke to Danny Cohen after I saw “Conclave”, which is one of his films, and to Tessa Ross, who was involved. It was an eight-year project. The finance only comes together if you can be certain that you are going to have these kinds of tax incentives for the long distance. The longer we can stick with things and not chop and change, the better.
Every year, of course, the Treasury will have a look at whether tax incentives are doing what they are meant to do.
Q119 Mr Bayo Alaba: My final question is about diverse productions. This is one of the creative and cultural assets of this nation. How do you see your policies directed to supporting, sustaining and nurturing that part of the film ecosystem?
Chris Bryant: Among the UK’s extraordinary advantages are our history, our language and our communities. Quite often we are at the crossroads of nations. We can make a film like “Slumdog Millionaire” in a way that no other country would be able to do. We need to value that and not undermine it.
Diversity comes in many different shapes and forms. As I said in the debate yesterday, working-class actors Albert Finney and Glenda Jackson were born on the same day. They did phenomenally well and achieved some of the best accolades in film and theatre in their lifetime. I want to make sure that you have that same diversity of acting talent coming through from whatever demographic.
I want to make sure that we are not just telling stories about London and the south-east. I represent the Rhondda and Ogmore. In the Rhondda, we sometimes feel that the only things that ever get on television about Wales, unless they are a drug death, relate to Cardiff, Newport and Swansea. Managing to have a diversity of story coming through is a very important part of making sure that you have a strong future.
I think that people in my Department are sick of me using the word “serendipity”, but there was a time when you just turned up to the cinema because it was the movie that was on. Nowadays, you probably only go to a movie that has been marketed to you because you are the kind of person who is going to like that kind of movie. My challenge to everybody in the country is this: why do not you go to a movie that has not been marketed to you, that you do not think that you might enjoy, so that you come across something completely unexpected that might change your perceptions?
Mr Bayo Alaba: Brilliant. Alastair, is there anything you would like to come in on?
Alastair Jones: Just on skills, having a diverse workforce is important for leading to diverse stories. An independent review of the curriculum is going on. In the autumn Budget, the Government announced that funding for the Creative Careers Programme, which is currently £400,000 a year, is going up to £3 million next year to broaden the awareness of creative careers and strengthen the early-stage pipeline. There was also an announcement last week about shorter apprenticeships being brought forward to August this year, particularly recognising the creative industries as a first step to an apprenticeship levy that really works for the nature of the creative industries.
Those are just a couple of examples. The BFI also does a lot. We have heard about ScreenSkills and about how ensuring that the skills base is truly diverse can lead to more diverse stories, and going back to the Minister's points, lead to films and stories that people can relate to and want to go to see.
Chris Bryant: The point about the apprenticeship levy is really important. If the creative industries are roughly 6% to 7% of the economy, but we are only 2% of the apprenticeships, something has gone wrong[2]. That is writ large in film and television. If you are making a film, it is a project where you are probably recruiting lots of people for six months, maybe nine months, and that has not met the historical apprenticeship levy. That is why so many people have said they are so pleased that we announced last Friday that we will shorten the period for the skills levy in August of this year.
Q120 Chair: Just on that, and back to your point about the Rhondda—I am not sure if I am pronouncing that properly—
Chris Bryant: It was fine.
Chair: Would it be sensible for the Government to slightly tweak tax or financial incentives to encourage productions to take place in more diverse parts of the UK, or to include a more diverse range of people in productions?
Chris Bryant: I had a horrible feeling when I said it that you were going to ask that question. If we make it too complicated, there is a danger that it is just unusable. Historically, I have come across examples of people saying that they are making a production and that they are based in Wales to meet some kind of quota or other, whereas they are really all based in Highgate, and they have got a nameplate on a door somewhere in a village in Wales. I do not want to incentivise that sort of thing. I am a bit sceptical about those kinds of tweaks, if I am honest.
Q121 Zöe Franklin: Continuing on the theme of tax credits, we heard earlier from Ben about the general positivity towards them and how he would start to potentially measure their success. How do you think you evaluate success, and what are you hoping, generally, that the tax credits will achieve?
Chris Bryant: In particular, I hope that we are going to start hearing about a lot of independent films being made that might not otherwise have been made. I think Gurinder Chadha got a mention earlier. I hope I am going to get this right: I think she is making her own version of “A Christmas Carol” at the moment. She was very hesitant about whether the money was going to come in until the independent film tax credit came into existence. I think that is the kind of project that fits precisely into this space.
Might I say, Dame Caroline, that I want to try and achieve two things at the same time? I think this is called cakeism. I want every streamer and multinational corporation in the world to want to come to make big films and high-end television in the UK, and to use our great screen skills and our great personnel and keep the intellectual property for themselves. I want to do a chunk of that, but I also want us to make great British films that are about great British stories, which might not necessarily have an enormous international audience, but the IP stays here. I want that mixture of the two, because I think that that is the real way that we achieve long-term stability and economic growth in the sector. That may need some changes in the terms of trade.
Alastair Jones: Demonstrating the point about the ecosystem, Pinewood launching an independent film hub last year is a great example. It is a genuinely world-leading studio, and it is following the tax credit, supporting the development of independent films, and there will be a lot of cross-collaboration there as well. To the Minister’s point, all parts of the ecosystem need to thrive.
Q122 Zöe Franklin: You mentioned earlier that you have heard from industry about how it would like to see some of the tax credits expanded. We know about all the fantastic British films we have had in the past, but they are often slow burns. They do not kind of make it big in those first weeks in the cinema. Will the Government consider a tax credit on advertising costs to support the distribution of independent films and to help them reach bigger audiences?
Chris Bryant: I have heard the requests for that. I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so I will not be making that commitment today. There are good arguments for it. There are some downsides, too. If you make a film but you cannot distribute it, that is a bit of a problem.
“One Life” was probably the most financially successful of the smaller films. It was made by See-Saw, I think. It had quite a success in France, among other places. I hope that more films of that kind will be able to find the same kind of distribution rights as “One Life”.
Alastair Jones: The UK Global Screen Fund does support distribution. I reiterate the point that Ben Roberts made earlier about the importance of the evidence and the need for industry to come together on that.
Q123 Zöe Franklin: Do you think that cinemas could be doing more to programme films that tell distinctly British stories?
Chris Bryant: I can remember that there used to be a row about that. France has always insisted on quotas for music and film and all those kinds of things in French films, but then French cinemas have nobody sitting in them. I am quite hesitant about telling audiences what they must watch.
What about “Wicked”? It was made here and has several British stars in it, but I think lots of people would think that it was American. So yes, I do want to see British films, but I think the best way to achieve that is to get great British films made. One of the biggest difficulties for British films has been in putting the financial package together.
Q124 Chair: Minister you said that there were downsides to a distribution tax levy. What are the downsides?
Chris Bryant: I will have to write to you about the downsides. I knew you were going to ask me that.
Alastair Jones: With any tax relief, you want to avoid economic dead weight, and you want to avoid distortion. You want to know that taxpayers’ money is well spent. The downside, therefore, is the cost. Does it deliver a benefit greater than the cost? That is what we will always be looking at.
Q125 Chair: Thank you; that is very helpful. Can I just go back to the cakeism point? I mean I am a great fan of having cake and eating it. Otherwise, there is no point in having any cake.
You mentioned “One Life”. Director James Hawes gave us evidence; he was part of one of the first sessions of the predecessor Committee. As you probably just heard us mention to the BFI, he started his career at the BBC on TV programmes. Where do you see British PSB TV fitting into that kind of ecosystem?
Chris Bryant: I do not know where we will end up with the BBC charter review. It is not in my area of responsibility. However, I have always thought of the £3.75 billion licence fee as a massive production budget. Wherever we end up, I want us to have a massive production budget for making television, and not just high-end television incidentally, but also unscripted and other formats and movies in the UK.
And you are absolutely right—decades ago, all screen training in the UK was done by the BBC, and once people had learnt their craft at the BBC, they went on to make a bit more money somewhere else. That model has completely changed. I am very glad that the industry has seized this, partly with some assistance from DCMS in 2022. However, in making sure that you have a throughput of skills, those skills must not be just in London and the south-east; they must be in all the different parts of the UK. I am very conscious that south Wales, Cardiff and the surrounding areas, are very important places for film and high-end television as well.
Q126 Tom Rutland: I am going to ask about supporting British high-end television. The inquiry has heard that the contractual practices of streamers can make it difficult for British production entities and independent production companies to build long-term, sustainable businesses, because the streamers can own pretty much all of the rights to the programmes that they commission. Do you think that domestic producers should be able to retain more of their IP when they are making deals with streamers?
Chris Bryant: Yes.
Chair: Excellent.
Chris Bryant: If you want me to amplify that, this goes to a point I made earlier, and I think Peter Kosminsky made it to you in writing as well—he came in to see me in January. His point was that “Wolf Hall” would struggle to be made now. It was all BBC money. I think others have told you that something like 13 things that have been green-lit by the BBC are not yet being made. A green light is only a green light to, “Thou shalt go forth and find finance”, which goes to my earlier point about finance.
This is a fundamental point—this is my cakeism. I do want the streamers and others to come here. Tom Cruise, for example, has made massive investments in the UK. But I also want us to have a system where a British production company is commissioned by others to make something where the IP, or some of the IP, remains with the production company. I want a bit of both.
Q127 Tom Rutland: Peter Kosminsky proposes requiring streamers to contribute to a fund to support PSB-backed British drama based on their number of subscribers. Do you think that streamers should do more to support British-made content for British audiences, perhaps through paying a levy?
Chris Bryant: I am trying to avoid too many levies if I possibly can. I am conscious that following the recommendation from this Committee, we are pushing for the levy on arena tickets to support small music venues. Peter Kosminsky has made this argument to me, and I know that some other countries in Europe have something similar, but we do not have any plans at the moment to go down that route.
I also note that others have made the argument to you that you should increase the high-end television tax credit. I think Peter Kosminsky is opposed to that, because he thinks that the downside is that it would simply be giving more money to the streamers. It is not for us to write the contracts and the terms between the streamers and individual production companies in the UK, but I would like to see more of a mix. Alastair, do you want to come in?
Alastair Jones: There are clearly challenges in making productions. However, it is worth noting that some co-productions are still happening—I think HBO and BBC are making “First Day on Earth” with Michaela Coel, and there is “The Night Manager 2”. They are still happening, but I think that the risk for the industry is that changes in commissioning decisions made abroad can threaten the resilience of the industry here.
We keep coming back to that mixed ecology. We want strong domestic broadcasters, and we also want strong independent film, which is being actively supported. I think that the language that Jay used about more nursery slopes for training is very important. However, as the Minister says, we also want the inward investment. To Dame Caroline’s point, cakeism is absolutely the objective.
Q128 Tom Rutland: Minister, you talked about Peter Kosminsky’s comments on a potential tax credit uplift for high-end TV in the same way as there has been for independent film. What is your view on that?
Chris Bryant: If there is evidence, we will look at it. At the moment, we are not looking at changing it, but if people come forward with evidence from the sector then we will look at it.
Alastair Jones: Something else to think about are the examples of interventions around the world that Peter Kosminsky points to. In Canada, there have been a lot of legal challenges and costs being passed on to consumers for example. It is a complex picture. The British Film Commission’s evidence to the Committee talked about the risk of some interventions in this area dissuading inward investment. We do not want to unpick the success that the industry has developed over the last couple of years. As the Minister says, evidence and discussion are important.
Chris Bryant: I think Netflix’s “Heartstopper” is also still produced by a British production company, with the rights staying with them.
Dr Rupa Huq: Do you think that the UK has the right balance between independently owned studios and those that are US-owned or leased? We were at Warner Bros. the other day—the Harry Potter one. It was all very nice, but it is headquartered in California.
Chris Bryant: I am going back to my cakeism point. I want a bit of both. Yes, we want American investment, or global for that matter. I would quite like a bit more of Bollywood and a bit more of Nigerian film production to be happening in the UK as well. Ben and Jay said earlier that the UK is the largest film production place in Europe. Spain, I think, is second behind us. We are proud of that, but we want the mixture. I would like to see more independent British films being made here and achieving success either here or elsewhere.
Alastair Jones: The Government have invested £25 million in Crown Works Studios in Sunderland. There is a lot of support directly as well as through the British Film Commission and the BFI for expanding that studio infrastructure all around the UK. Square footage has doubled over the last decade. We absolutely want that to continue, and I am sure the market will develop different ownership models for that.
Chris Bryant: I cannot find a figure for the square footage of film studio space in Hollywood, but we think that we are pretty much on a par, if not ahead of Hollywood.
Q129 Dr Rupa Huq: How much additional studio space would you like to see in the next five to 10 years?
Chris Bryant: We do not have a fixed figure.
Alastair Jones: For British Film Commission-supported programmes, there is potentially another 2 million square feet of investment in the pipeline, but we will have to see how that develops. However, we have gone from 3 million to 6 million square feet, which is obviously really pleasing.
Q130 Dr Rupa Huq: It does feel as if everyone is in expansion mode. I think there is a big thing coming in Barking. They are expanding where we were last week. I think at Ealing Studios—with the longest continuous filmmaking—the site dates from 1902, and it has been making talkies since 1931.
Chris Bryant: Gainsborough did not survive. Gainsborough was one from the same year as Ealing, but it did not survive.
Q131 Dr Rupa Huq: Well, Ealing thrives. It is doubling, I think. I went to see the plans. I think an earlier extant thing was dumped. It was going to be on CGI, but instead they want more and more stages.
Chris Bryant: They do a multiplicity of different things on some of these sound stages—dubbing, for instance. Pinewood has the massive water tank that is in Bond movies and so on.
Q132 Dr Rupa Huq: Yes, we have seen that as well.
Chris Bryant: As Alastair referred to, it is very impressive that Pinewood has set aside a specific part of Pinewood for independent film.
Q133 Dr Rupa Huq: On our trip last week, we found out something that seems a bit sad. There are other things on the site of Ealing Studios. There is a make-up school, the MetFilm school—lots of other stuff going on and they all feed into one another. I know that the Tour de France does not sound like high-end TV, but it is something going from ITV. There is a post-production company, Timeline, on that Ealing Studios site. It used to do all the extra bits with the Tour de France. We found out that that is going to Warner Bros. It does feel sometimes that the Americans are hoovering up things that we used to do very well.
Chris Bryant: I said earlier that a lot of post-production was going to Canada, because their tax credit was more competitive. That is one of the reasons why we moved ahead with the VFX tax credit. That is precisely the reason why I think we need to keep these things under review, while trying to provide as much continuity as possible.
Dr Rupa Huq: Leavesden is a big ecosystem, so they can do it all in-house when that goes. I want to make a little plea. Chris, I know you said that it feels in the Rhondda that everything is in London or the south-east or, at best, Cardiff. Outer London is not the same as the streets paved with gold in central London. As a constituency MP, I have seen—Pixipixel was a company in my seat that hired out equipment. When the Government’s levelling-up stuff happened, London was disfavoured and Pixipixel had to stop supplying a series in Brighton, an ITV show called “Grace”. That work went to a company in Manchester, although the logistics—the time taken to ship all the stuff up there was way more. Pixipixel has gone under, I heard the other week. So I hope you guys can do things more sensibly rather than just “south—bad”, “north—good”.
Chris Bryant: “South—bad”, “north—good”, or any other version of that, is certainly not in my mind.
Dr Rupa Huq: The previous Government did that, not us.
Chris Bryant: I do not know about that. The only point I would make about it is that lots of things that will affect a decision about whether a Hollywood movie is made in the UK or not. Tom Cruise has committed something in the region of £6 billion, I think, in recent years to the UK. One thing that might matter sometimes is whether there is a really good hotel for the cast to stay in. In some places in the UK, that simply is not so, which means that they lose out.
The creative industries provide an opportunity for us to do proper levelling up, creating economic opportunity everywhere in the UK. I still have this concern: if you go into any primary school or secondary school in the land and ask all the 13 year-olds, “What do you want to do when you grow up?”, the truth is that one in 14 of them will go into the creative industries, but how many of them will actually know that going into screen is really a possibility for them? What does a career path in screen look like compared with, say, a career path for a doctor, or a chemist, or whatever? That is one of the things that we are working with the industry to transform.
Q134 Dr Rupa Huq: Are the Government confident that the hoped-for increase in independent film production will be catered for by our existing infrastructure, or will you incentivise new studios? It feels as it everything is expanding. Is it a case of build it and they will come, or are we going to reach a saturation point?
Chris Bryant: There were two things: first, we had a massive explosion because of covid, and then, we had a very sudden contraction because of the end of covid, the strike in the United States and concerns about AI.
There was a point last year, for instance, when all the cinema companies were telling me that they would not have anything to show. They were worried that they were going to have a terrible year because there would not be enough to exhibit. Then they were saved by “Oppenheimer” and “Barbie”—that is what many of them said to me. Trying to make sure that we do not have feast and famine is difficult. That is why we are proceeding cautiously. I think Alastair's absolutely right that the growth from 3 million to 6 million square feet of studio capacity and our human personnel are significant assets.
Alastair Jones: We want to increase demand and increase supply. Tax relief helps increase the demand for studio space, and we hope more independent films will be made. On the supply side, we need infrastructure and skills, and we have spoken a lot about both of those today.
Q135 Dr Rupa Huq: The company that went under said it was more due to the American strike than to a particular contract, but contract changes like that do not help small companies and few suppliers.
Chris Bryant:, I know of lots of people in the industry who had absolutely no work for six months, nine months. This is another issue to do with freelancers. I know that that was referred to in the debate yesterday afternoon. We are talking about an industry that relies very heavily on freelancers. There are great benefits to it. Lots of people like that kind of work, but it can be very insecure and then people leave the industry, and we lose out on having the personnel that everybody relies on to put together a great movie.
Q136 Dr Rupa Huq: Brilliant, thanks—so no overlooking outer London from now on, I hope. I can tell you that for “Barbie”, the Dua Lipa pop video scene was filmed in North Acton.
Chair: Well done—thank you, Rupa. The strikes undoubtedly shone a light on how much we rely on overseas investment and the US productions, as well as the crisis at the heart of independent British domestic film production. Even with all this overseas investment, the sound stages are predominantly being used for big overseas films. Do you think there is anything that the Government should or could do to build new studio space that can be accessed by domestic productions?
Chris Bryant: Well, just having more space means that there is more availability. Over the last few years, we have made it more and more difficult for people to open new studio spaces. Planning laws and so on have intervened, and that makes it difficult even when you have very significant figures like James Cameron supporting particular projects and saying that they want to bring work to the UK. Pinewood has set aside space for independent films and on different rates, incidentally, from their international rates. That is important.
Alastair Jones: There are different levels of demand. The big blockbusters will want a certain kind of studio space that we now have a lot more of in this country than previously. Smaller productions do not need dramatically large, aircraft hangar-type paces. They need smaller, more flexible spaces. We have done a lot, particularly through the British Film Commission, to increase that kind of studio space. You can see that in the Bottle Yard Studios in Bristol, for example. All parts of the country have a range of locations. Not all parts of the country have the necessary infrastructure and skills. If you make sure that all parts of the country have both, have that support, there is a lot more opportunity for independent films to be made.
Chris Bryant: “Wolf Hall” was made in 82 days on location in 82 different venues, many of them historic sites. The cast all tell me they were freezing from day one until the very end. Incidentally, I have meshed this with our tourism strategy, because lots of international visitors to the UK want to see the places where films that they have heard of were made.
Q137 Chair: What was the plug for your tourism?
Chris Bryant: “Starring GREAT Britain”.
Chair: Very good.
Chris Bryant: Have you seen it yet?
Chair: Numerous times.
Chris Bryant: Excellent.
Q138 Paul Waugh: I will keep my question about screen heritage brief because we are already overrunning. Less than 50% of our filmography is held by the BFI. Are the Government supportive of a statutory deposit scheme?
Alastair Jones: I think we heard from Ben in the earlier session about the challenges. The BFI does not have the capacity to take on every bit of content in circulation, but it is really promising to see the discussions that they have had with streamers in recent years. You get voluntary contributions from the likes of, I think, Netflix and a couple of the other streamers. Certainly, screen heritage is really important, and we are in constant discussion with the BFI about how we can support it.
Chris Bryant: It is, but it is really difficult to choose what to keep and what not to keep. What we think today that people might look back at in 20 years is not necessarily what they will want. Would we keep all episodes of “The Goodies”? Choose for yourself. “Yes, Prime Minister” “Yes, Minister”—yes. These are difficult decisions and Berkhamsted is already full.
Q139 Paul Waugh: At the BFI archive, the Committee heard that the Government could make minor changes to copyright laws to help expand access to collections. Are the Government open to making any reforms in that area?
Chris Bryant: We are looking at copyright.
Paul Waugh: I knew we would come on to that.
Chris Bryant: Right. Yes, we are open to looking at it. We are working through how the specifics would work. I do not want to create an overly burdensome system and create an expectation that cannot be met.
Q140 Chair: Thank you, Paul. Our birthday girl, Natasha.
Natasha Irons: I thought I was going to get away with it. There was a lot of discussion around skills and training and the apprenticeship levy and how we can ensure that the industry as a whole has the skills that it needs to grow. Going back to the apprenticeship levy, can you clarify the changes around short-term contracts? Will they be able to go from project to project? That is the nature of the business, moving from one short project to the next one.
Chris Bryant: The one specific that we have already agreed on is shorter projects. They will not have to be for a year. That will start in August of this year. We are still working on elements around portability, which is one of the key things for the creative industries. All the creative industries have been asking for it. It is very specific in film but there are other creative industries to which it also applies. We are still working on the details with the DFE.
Q141 Natasha Irons: Is there something that you are looking into?
Chris Bryant: It seems obvious to me that you have to have a portable and flexible system to be able to deliver a proper apprenticeship scheme in this sector.
Alastair Jones: The Department for Education has consulted on this and is working through the details. The film sector and the creative industries in general have been engaged and coherent in their asks, and that is really important in making a case for some of these changes. In their announcement on the Friday before last about shorter apprenticeships, the Government spoke about the first step in a flexible growth and skills levy that meets creative industries’ needs. We are working through that with the Department for Education.
Q142 Natasha Irons: Within that, I suppose it is about giving the flexibility to cover the additional costs that come with that portability, helping smaller organisations.
Chris Bryant: Yes, that is one of the things that the DFE is looking at.
Q143 Natasha Irons: How will the Government ensure that we have enough high-quality training providers in this space?
Chris Bryant: That is a matter for the DFE, I am afraid.
Alastair Jones: ScreenSkills’ new strategy, which was spoken about earlier, had five central components, one of which was about increasing access to high-quality training. The disconnect between those doing the training and current industry practitioners has been a concern in film and other parts of creative industries. The more that current practice can be brought in, so that people being trained know this is what the technology is today, for example, is important. That is true of apprenticeships and all parts of the skills system—making sure that the quality of training is available and speaks to the demand from industry as it stands today.
Chris Bryant: I know that we are doing film and high-end television now, but we are also looking at this in relation to music. Are the exams that people sit at school are really the right kind of exams for actually being able to perform and make a living out of playing the guitar, for instance? All those elements of whether we are training people to be able to make a living out of their art and their creativity are part of what we are working through in each sub-sector of the creative industries.
Q144 Natasha Irons: This has come up as you have been talking about these plans, talking about the DFE and how it sits with them, and this is really their remit. Is the disconnect between the two Departments what has made the delay in reforming the apprenticeship levy continue? Can we nip that in the bud?
Chris Bryant: We have been very keen from day one of the new Government to have DCMS work very closely with the Department for Education. When we had a creative industries event in a growth summit in Gateshead a couple of weeks ago, it was good that we had a DFE Minister there, Catherine McKinnell. We have weekly conversations with DFE at official and ministerial levels. The truth is that if we do not have a proper creative education in every school in the land, we will not have a pipeline that delivers the actors, performers, writers and all the rest for all the creative industries that we are talking about.
Alastair Jones: The creative industries are one of the eight sectors prioritised in the industrial strategy. In our conversations with the Department for Education, they absolutely get it, and we are working with them.
Q145 Jo Platt: I want to continue on the skills challenges, but more industry-specific—this follows on from what you were saying. We visited the archives and learned that there is no formal training for film archivists in the UK, at either apprenticeship or degree level. That is a huge problem for that particular industry. The industry is not financially viable. What can we do? You mentioned speaking to the DFE, but what can we do to speak to education providers to make sure that these courses are available?
Alastair Jones: We talked quite a lot about the archive. It is interesting that when you go to Berkhamsted, and with no disrespect to any of the people there, the BFI will say, “These people have all been here 20 years. We haven’t been able to get the pipeline of young people to come on and take these roles”, particularly when you are dealing with older materials. I remember when I last visited they were taping up “2005 Ashes” on the screen and the way that broadcast content was recorded 20 years ago is very different from now. It is important that they have the people to do those jobs, and we talked about how to support archiving and making sure they have the workforce to do it is absolutely essential.
Chris Bryant: It is also partly about the BBC, because it has its own archive and is required to have one. We need to bind them into those conversations as well. This technology has changed so dramatically in such a short time. I remember when I worked at the BBC in Brussels we were showing BBC TV, I think it was “Walking with Dinosaurs”, to lots of MEPs and Commission officials and so on. The big issue was whether we could find a cinema that could present it digitally rather than on tape. Now, of course, you would not think twice about that.
Q146 Jo Platt: Similarly, independent cinema argues that the exhibition has historically been ignored with public funding for skills and development. Just 2.6% of ScreenSkills funding has supported skills in the exhibition sector. How can Government address that?
Chris Bryant: I am not sure that it is for Government to address. I think it is primarily for the industry to address, and I am having those conversations with the distributors and the industry.
Q147 Jo Platt: How effective do you think that ScreenSkills is as an industry-wide skills body?
Chris Bryant: I will give it four stars out of five, and I think it has transformed the—as I said, years ago everybody just left it all to the BBC and thought that everybody else would float along and get on, and when innovations came along, they would somehow by osmosis manage to absorb it into their systems. Then everybody realised that that was not going to survive as a model. The BBC was not going to be able to do the training for everybody.
I think that the industry has seized this in the last few years, and I want to put that on record and praise them. There are areas such as the ones that you have just suggested where they need to go further, but I think that they have made very significant advances. Alastair has been very closely involved in this for the last few years.
Alastair Jones: Its new strategy is important. Laura has come in as chief executive and gripped the challenge that was set by industry. There was a challenge about fragmentation and lack of co-ordination. The new strategy has not only set out a way to do this but has, importantly, got industry buy-in.
The other thing to say about ScreenSkills is that it administers the creative careers programme that I mentioned earlier. It has done an excellent job with a very small amount of money, to the extent that the budget has almost multiplied by 10, thanks to the Treasury endorsement. I defer to the Minister’s assessment of four stars out of five.
Q148 Liz Jarvis: Retention is a significant issue in film and high-end TV and growing numbers of people are considering leaving the industry. What is the DCMS doing to stamp out poor working practices in the film and high-end TV sectors?
Chris Bryant: There is a whole series of things that are not specific to DCMS but apply across every sector. I have already referred to the issues that we have with freelancers and the fact that it is a very freelance-heavy industry. Some of the problems that we have had in the last 12 to 18 months have related to the strike in the United States of America and the collapse after covid, which has made it very difficult for people to consider staying in the industry because they have literally had no work at all. I am very optimistic about this year and future years.
There are some areas of practices in the industry that have had to change and still have not quite changed enough. That is why I support the work of CIISA led by Jen Smith and Baroness Helena Kennedy. I know that there are some people in the industry who think that they have done all their work on these issues, but I don’t think that is true. I have spoken to actors who have been in the industry for a long time who say some of the sex scenes that they did 20 years ago, before intimacy co-ordinators and so on were introduced and before the industry woke up, were absolutely atrocious.
I am glad that that has changed, but I think that there will always still be work to be done. It is an industry with very high levels of patronage from senior figures deciding on the future of somebody’s career on their signature and their say-so. That puts bad temptations in the way of bad people and that is why I think it is important that the whole industry continues to take this really seriously.
Q149 Liz Jarvis: What sort of action is the Department prepared to take against companies that do not fully get behind CIISA? Could it compel them to financially contribute, for example?
Chris Bryant: Well, we could. We have been thinking about ways in which we could do that. It is not as simple as it might seem. I think I read in one of the submissions that you have had that there was a suggestion that the tax credits could be only applied to companies that signed up. We are looking through the legal niceties of all of that, and at the moment, it seems quite complicated, but I want to encourage every single company to participate. I had a roundtable more than a year ago where quite senior figures in the industry were brought together and they all said, “I don’t know why you are bothering about this.” I said, “Can I just point out to you that there is one woman in a room of 14 and maybe if it was the other way round, people might take a different view?”
Q150 Liz Jarvis: Absolutely. The US strikes highlighted the precarity of employment in the industry. How can we ensure that our workforce is less exposed to fluctuations in the US market?
Chris Bryant: One of the main things—I think that the independent film tax credit will help with this—is that we need to make sure that we are making British content as well. Secondly, we need to make sure that British content can be exported well around the world so that it makes money. Thirdly, we need to have strong public service broadcasters who are engaged and invested in this territory. Channel 4 used to be absolutely central to the British film industry. It has struggled financially in recent years to be able to make the impact that it did in the past. The BBC’s £3.75 billion from the licence fee—I think I am getting that right—is nowhere near what Sky, for instance, has to spend every year on content in the UK.
Having a mixed economy is the best way of making sure that we are not entirely reliant on what happens on the other side of the Atlantic. I am serious about this issue of Nigeria and India. These are two countries with whom we have very strong historical relations and good artistic relations. I would like to build on that with our film industry too.
Q151 Mr James Frith: Hi, Minister; hi, Alastair. Thanks for your debate yesterday—it was brilliant, very enjoyable. I have a couple of quick questions before going on to the issue of artificial intelligence. You mentioned the BBC. Are you, like me, pleased that it is no longer a political football and that we have taken some of the heat out of the conversation around the BBC when it comes to the licence, so that it can get on with making the quality programmes that you referred to?
Chris Bryant: I would love to make Alastair answer that question, but he is smiling at me and saying it is my job. I think it is still a political football, but the BBC is one of the greatest cultural institutions the world has. It is renowned around the world and sometimes given credit for things that it has not even made because they are British. Just as there are a whole lot of authors and others from our history who we want to celebrate, I want us to retain a strong BBC in whatever shape that may be. It needs to be a version that works for the future. I fear that I am straying into the territory of the Secretary of State’s responsibilities rather than mine.
Q152 Mr James Frith: You were very quickly into the conversations I had with our previous witnesses about a larger piece of lottery funding share. Do you think there is a case that after 25 years, the 2.7% of the lottery funding that the BFI receives should be looked at in the round, not least because it intends to come to the Government direct and ask for state funding?
Chris Bryant: The BFI gets income from itself, from showing films and stuff, and it gets income from grant in aid and the lottery. That mixture renders it £157 million a year or something like that. We will write to you and say if I have that figure wrong.
Alastair Jones: It is £127 million.
Chris Bryant: £127 million. The BFI, as I heard earlier, was asking for more money and a lot of people are asking the Department for more money. I fully understand that, and I have to keep saying to everybody it is a very straitened set of financial circumstances. If we were to restructure the good causes from the lottery, and there are arguments for that, the danger is where do you take the money from? Do you take it from Arts Council England? Do you take it from heritage lottery, sport and civil society?
Q153 Mr James Frith: Thank you. I guess with the change of operator and the time passed since the original iteration, there would be quite a compelling case to revisit it, not least if it is coming cap in hand to Government.
Chris Bryant: Allwyn has said that it expects a significant increase in the amount of money that it will send on, and obviously that is good news. I am working from memory now, but I think it said that it has already pushed back when the additional money will come down the line. We have not said that we will review the list of good causes. It is not for me to tell the Committee what to do, but if you were to make a recommendation in this space, it would be really helpful if you could tell us where you think the extra money should come from.
Q154 Mr James Frith: Thank you. On the issue of artificial intelligence, as we discussed yesterday in the debate, the UK has one of the best copyright regimes in the world, which stimulates innovation and growth. How is the proposed model’s undermining of creators’ copyright compatible with Government intentions for growth specifically in film and high-end TV?
Chris Bryant: Copyright obviously works differently in all the different sectors that are covered by the creative industries, but you are absolutely right. Since Queen Anne in 1710 and then Dickens, we have had a very strong understanding of copyright in the UK. It is slightly different from the French understanding under the Napoleonic code and its concept of droit d’auteur, but we have also shared under international treaties a common understanding of the rights of creators in their own right—both a moral right and an economic right.
I stand foursquare behind wanting to make sure that creators are remunerated for the work that they have produced, otherwise how can they possibly be viable and how can our creative industry be viable? I will also say that probably as a country that is more heavily invested than most in the creative industries, we have more to lose if we get this wrong than many other countries in the world.
That is why I am absolutely serious in saying that, in our consultations, we are trying to deliver several things at the same time. I hear people tell me that this is impossible, but I am still determined to try to get there. This is back to my cakeism. No. 1—I want to make sure that more content that is being created by people and is copyright-protected is licensed by those who want to use it and, therefore, the creators are remunerated.
Secondly, I want to make sure that they have increased control. At the moment, the only people who have control over their rights are those who are able to pursue those rights in the courts, and that is an expensive business. I spoke with Getty Images yesterday afternoon. The UK court case may be happening later this year—I think they are talking about May or June—and maybe that will come to some view, but it will only be about a very specific issue. It will not resolve the matter for everybody else.
Thirdly, we want to make sure that there is enough access for the AI companies to be able to do their job, but I was very serious too when I said yesterday evening in the debate that I would always argue in every industry that there is a special dividend for those who are most the ethically bound. I think that people will probably want to use AI companies that have licensed and paid for intellectual property, and that is the kind of incentivising that we want to pursue through the process of the consultation.
Q155 Mr James Frith: Do you think that the legal wrangles will increase with an opt-out model, more than they exist at the moment? Do you think there will be more cases, more battles as a result of opt-out?
Chris Bryant: Our aim is not to achieve that. There are several parts to the consultation, as you know. There is the text and data mining exception that everybody focuses on, and then opt-in, out-out, the rights reservation issue and the transparency issue. Then there is the other issue, which I think Dr Pavis gave evidence to you about, when she said that the law is unclear in the UK and could do with some tidying up—that is, copies or things that pretend to be David Attenborough for all eternity so that he would be the person who is presenting every TV programme forever without necessarily his consent, which would not be legal in California but would be legal in the UK.
It is in that whole package that we want to incentivise the creation of a technical solution to the issue of how you can very easily, readily and accessibly protect and control your own rights as they might or might not be used by AI companies.
Q156 Paul Waugh: Given that you just mentioned the technical solution, it seems quite obvious that Government’s consultation relies on the technical solution, and you have made that clear in the House. It is contingent upon finding one. You said that AI and the tech industry should come up with one. My question is to Alastair really. It is early days in the consultation but given that it may well be that that solution is not found quickly, how will that affect the timeframe of what you are proposing?
Alastair Jones: The consultation says we will not proceed until there is confidence about the technical solution. That is somewhat open-ended, but I think there is shared interest in finding a solution as quickly as possible, and that is what the consultation is trying to achieve.
Q157 Paul Waugh: Is there any timeframe? Do you have a ballpark figure for how long that might take? The problem is—this is my understanding from the tech industry—that this is so complex that it could take quite a long time, if at all. Given that the Government have bet the farm on a technical solution, where does that leave you if you can’t find one in time?
Chris Bryant: Well, one possibility is we end up doing nothing but, as I said, that is not an optimal solution. We are trying to incentivise and engender a technical solution. I am not so sure that it is as impossible as some are suggesting. I went to the Daily Mail group last week and a lot of British newspaper houses have signed up to a particular version of AI that will tell you where the story has come from and in what proportion it is a Sun story, a Mirror story, a Daily Mail story, or whatever, and would remunerate in accordance. I don’t think that this is as impossible as some might suggest. I know that some AI companies have already been coming to DSIT and talking about it.
Q158 Paul Waugh: My question is a bigger one. How will the Government judge whether or not that technical solution is workable?
Chris Bryant: It won’t just be us. It will be us working with everybody else. I suspect that this will be an ongoing process of debate and consultation.
Alastair Jones: The value of the consultation, in particular, is that it sets out the Government’s objectives very clearly, supporting control, licensing, transparency and remuneration as well as appropriate access for AI firms. There is certainly a lot of debate about the technical way to deliver that, but the clarity of the objectives is really valuable. Ultimately, if we get into that degree of detail, we will have to work very closely with all industries to identify what has and has not been met, but the objectives are very clear.
Q159 Mr James Frith: Can I come back in on that? That is good clarity on the source material point, Minister. You made a distinction yesterday in reference to, I think, John Whittingdale’s comments on the difference between a book and a series of photographs and it being easier to determine the source of one over the other. That is definitely true in sourcing links to the Daily Mail’s article or coverage of that versus the source material or the datasets that large language models are being trained on. That becomes an almost anonymous or anonymised process, doesn’t it? The worry is that they ingest a series of creative content and reproduce it as their own, forfeiting any real claim. Unless they are signed up to ethical transparency and audit trails, the creator gets overlooked.
Chris Bryant: Unless they are required by law to have transparency about their inputs and their outputs. They have to say what URLs they have searched to come to their conclusion as part of the large language model training and their outputs. In other words, when it comes up with the fact that it has created a picture or a story for you, how much of that is based on the works of A, B, C, D, E and F. That is also part of our consultation. If you look at LAION-5B, there is an argument as to whether that was deliberately created under an exemption that already exists so as eventually to be used for commercial purposes or not, but is it impossible to be transparent about what was ingested? I would think not.
Q160 Chair: There is one thing about being transparent about what was ingested, and I think we all want to see that, and there is one thing about the likes of the Daily Mail signing up to some sort of agreement so that they can identify the provenance of something that comes back at them. But you still have the issue of the licensing deal that needs to go between the AI companies and the creators and make sure that the creators are reimbursed for their work. That takes us back to the status quo—where we are at the moment. We already have copyright legislation in place, and that is where the legal battles are ongoing because people are not clear. There are crawlers over their content, and they are not being reimbursed for something they created. With all the transparency, all the technology that can identify provenance, how does that get any further forward than we are now?
Natasha Irons: Just on top of that, Chair, it is also about consent, isn’t it? The thing that separates us and the machines is that we give consent to what we do with ourselves and our content. Someone might not want anyone to have their content, so where is the consent in that? There isn’t, is there?
Chris Bryant: Indeed, economic and moral rights have always been part of the combination that makes for copyright—so your consent and your remuneration. They are two separate things. Of course, copyright has always had a series of different exemptions for all sorts of different purposes. As I say, my biggest anxiety is that if we do nothing, a few more licensing agreements may be reached. I know those who have already signed licensing agreements, and they say that they are for relatively paltry amounts of money. The danger is that all British content will be scraped, ingested, whichever word you want to use, in another territory and AI companies in the UK won’t be able to prosper and nobody will be remunerated at all. I think that the status quo does not serve the creative industries.
Q161 Chair: I am not sure I buy that argument, though, because it is a bit like the Online Safety Act. We could equally say that we can’t govern harmful content in the UK that is created extraterritorially, but the Online Safety Act bans that kind of content in the UK no matter where it is created and has the opportunity to take legal action against people extraterritorially. We could do the same with this. No matter where something is scraped, it cannot be used in the UK without the permission—
Chris Bryant: That already requires legislation for the territoriality issue. That is my point. The status quo of just doing nothing is not an option for us. The question is what package of—
Q162 Chair: Why not make the copyright system better and stronger, rather than undermining it by giving it away?
Chris Bryant: That is precisely our intention.
Q163 Paul Waugh: On that point, you mentioned Dr Pavis. She told us in evidence that an opt-out model would likely breach international IP treaties. Are you confident—are the Government confident—that you will not be breaching any international treaties?
Chris Bryant: I presume she considers, therefore, that the EU is already in breach. In the best of all possible worlds, the major economic blocs—the United States of America, ourselves, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Europe—at least all proceed together in the same direction. That is the best way of proceeding with trying to navigate our way through that process. We have provided a consultation to try to get to a better place than we have presently.
Alastair Jones: It is worth underlining that every other jurisdiction around the world is grappling with this issue. There is a range of approaches. Japan and Singapore are giving creators no control. We want to learn through the consultation and lots of ongoing conversations with experts across all parts of industry what we can learn from others and introduce the best possible system. As the Minister said, whatever solution we come up with is not developed in isolation. Where AI models are trained and the services provided here will have a bearing on the genuine rights and potential for remuneration that creatives have. The consultation could not be clearer that supporting those rights is an objective of this Government. We encourage everyone to submit responses to that consultation and there is plenty of work ahead.
Q164 Paul Waugh: Do you think that the developments in the last few days over DeepSeek underline the fact that the big tech firms that are trying to eat the lunch of lots of creatives in Britain will have their own lunch eaten by a Chinese firm, and maybe they should be treading more cautiously over creatives’ rights?
Chris Bryant: There is always a danger. I can’t remember who I was talking to last week who said that this feels like the Napster moment. Then we ended up with Spotify. Everybody thought that nobody was going to be remunerated for stolen music at all.
Paul Waugh: They don’t get much from Spotify.
Chris Bryant: You can have an argument about whether Spotify remunerates enough. For that matter, an interesting point, Chair, you referred to creators and the AI companies, but in many different sectors there are lots of intermediaries in the way—the record labels or whoever it may be, or collective licensing and so on—and that plays differently in the UK and Europe from the United States of America. All of these are reasons why I would like to get to a place where people are remunerated for their intellectual property where it is used by AI companies. That is what I am trying to achieve. If anybody wants to help me in that endeavour, I will be very grateful.
Q165 Chair: In the interests of consultation, do you think it is timing? Should the creative industries read anything into the fact that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and the AI Minister have not met people from the creative industries yet?
Chris Bryant: No, I don’t think so, honestly. As you know, I am in two Departments, and I am meeting a lot of people on this subject. Feryal Clark and I have pretty much divided the labour, in the sense that she is mostly seeing the AI companies and I am mostly seeing the creative industries, but we have a couple of roundtables coming up, where both of us will be at both roundtables. We are making sure that both Departments hear everything, but this is a joint endeavour between DSIT and DCMS—so there.
Chair: So there. Very good.
Chris Bryant: Sorry, I couldn’t think of anything else to say.
Q166 Chair: Before you escape and run out of steam altogether—
Chris Bryant: Thank you very much!
Chair: Can I ask you this, very quickly? We heard recently the new/old American President has said he wants to make Hollywood great again. This might be a question for Alastair. Has the DCMS made any assessment of how the likelihood of President Trump’s policies, when it comes to his commitment to restore Hollywood, might impact us in film and high-end TV?
Chris Bryant: I want Hollywood to prosper as well, and I want it to prosper by making lots of its films in the UK.
Q167 Chair: Is this something that the Department will look at?
Chris Bryant: We have a very strong cultural relationship with the United States of America. We work on it all the time and I note that several British people are up, for Oscars in the next couple of weeks, including “Wallace & Gromit”, Ralph Fiennes and Cynthia Erivo. All of that is good and I don’t foresee a problem.
Chair: And Felicity Jones.
Chris Bryant: Felicity Jones—you’re right.
Q168 Chair: Finally, this is slightly more tongue in cheek, but President Trump has announced that he has film ambassadors who will be advising him on his policy on Hollywood. He has chosen Mel Gibson, Jon Voight and Sylvester Stallone. If the Minister had to choose his three to be film ambassadors to advise him on the way forward, who would he have?
Chris Bryant: Olivia Colman, Olivia Colman and Daniel Craig.
Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.
Chris Bryant: Dame Caroline, every time I say Dame Caroline, I just have bits of “South Pacific” going through my head.
Chair: I don’t know where to go with that. Thank you, Minister and Alastair, for your time.
I want to thank everyone who has appeared in front of our Committee over the course of this very long inquiry between us and the previous Committee, as well as those who have submitted the tonnes and tonnes of written evidence and those who have hosted us on visits in England, Scotland and France. We have left no stone unturned in our inquiry into what can be done for British film and high-end TV, but this is not the end. We will be bringing together everything we have heard in a report in the spring, making recommendations to ensure that telling British stories is central not only to the spending review and the industrial strategy, but to all decisions being taken in the future. For now, that is a wrap.