Film Industry
We now move back into public session. Item 2 on the agenda is the film industry inquiry. The committee has received a report by Mike Russell on an inquiry that he undertook into the Scottish film industry on behalf of the committee. I ask Mike Russell to introduce his paper.
On 3 November 1999, the committee appointed several reporters, of whom I was one. The gestation period of the report has therefore been longer than that of an elephant. That has not been all my fault, as the committee's inquiries got in the way. I was asked to take written evidence from organisations and to synthesise their views into recommendations for further action by the committee. The committee identified the Scottish film industry as an area in which it wanted to be of assistance by producing positive work and positive thinking, but it needed to be clear about the issues.
I am grateful to the bodies that gave me information, which are listed on the back page of the report. I also spoke to individuals who work in the industry and who were known to me personally. The report brings together all that evidence, I hope briefly and to the point.
The background is taken as read. I identified several key issues that emerged from the evidence: terms and conditions and remuneration for those who work in the industry; training; encouraging indigenous production; developing a film studio; tax and fiscal incentives; creating a film-friendly environment; funding of script and project development; and funding of distribution. I briefly outlined views on each issue.
If we narrow what is in the report down to the subjects on which the committee could be of most use, two issues emerge quite strongly. The first relates to training. Provision is diverse for those who wish to train professionally for the industry. Scotland has a major advantage in its considerable expertise in producing computer games, because the skills for producing them are similar—sometimes identical—to those that one would use in the film and television industry. If training brought together a range of individuals and courses, a critical mass of production could be created. The committee might want to consider that in the light of existing provision and plans for expanded provision. The Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama has secured funding to introduce a new course but has not yet secured the Executive's permission to increase its student numbers. That argument is being conducted at the moment.
The RSAMD is but one institution; Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design is another, and one or two others have made contributions. It might be possible to bring their courses together in a collegiate fashion to begin to develop a national film, television and multimedia school. It might be possible thereafter to build on that possibility and to argue that a new institution is required. The committee could help in examining that.
The committee might also help to put to rest the myth that the profusion of media studies courses trains people for work in the film and television industries. That is a cynical manipulation of young people. As members know, I still do occasional work as an independent producer. Like all independent producers, I receive two or three letters a week from young people who want to work in the industry and who believe that their media studies courses at school or university have given them that opportunity, but that is not the case. Media studies has a place in a school or university curriculum in providing an understanding of the language of the media, which is important for all, but media studies does not prepare people for production work.
Fiscal incentives are also worth investigating. There is no doubt that increasing globalisation means that companies in the vastly competitive worlds of film and television production are looking for the best deal possible wherever they plan to film. Scottish companies that are trying to develop productions often find that difficult because of unacceptable costs and because it might be cheaper to work elsewhere. We are all familiar with the "Braveheart" example—part of it was filmed in Ireland because of the fiscal incentives there.
The Parliament does not control the tax system, except in a very small way. It would not therefore be possible for the Parliament to do what the Irish did. They created, under finance legislation, a model of tax incentives for incoming production, which has had its own difficulties and has created a creative bottleneck in some sectors, but has massively increased incoming and indigenous production. There is a range of similar examples around the world, such as the system in Canada and the favourable regime in the Isle of Man.
It would be creative for the committee to consider that problem in the context of devolution, to find out whether action could be taken to encourage indigenous and incoming production and put in place a regime of fiscal incentives, married with the continued development of a film-friendly Scotland that encourages production and is organised to welcome it. Scottish Screen's film charter is one part of that idea, as is the establishment of a range of film commissions and film offices, largely through local authorities. Bringing together fiscal incentives and film-friendly structures might provide a major boost.
I have not, for various reasons, recommended that we investigate the establishment of a studio. In the report I express only my opinion—it does not really matter whether the committee shares it—that instead of investing £6 million of public money in a studio at Pacific quay, that money could be better used elsewhere. I am not saying that to spend that money at Pacific quay would be a total waste of money; I am saying that, if one wanted to invest £6 million in the film industry, Pacific quay would not be one's first choice, because of its location and because of issues that surround the public funding of a film studio, such as the fact that film studios that are supported by the market and that have a throughput of market product are more likely to do well than those that do not. Publicly funding a film studio without having a secure throughput of product would be a risky and fruitless venture.
In the report, I have narrowed down the issue to two possible areas of investigation. The committee might want to consider one or both for inclusion in its work programme for the year. If it did so, the committee would be making a useful contribution to a Scottish industry that is a considerable earner, and which has the potential to be an even greater earner.
I thank Michael Russell for his report and recommendations. If we want to do something useful in this area, we should consult our colleagues on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee because there are areas of overlap in relation to fiscal incentives and training. That committee might want to send a reporter along if we consider the area in more detail.
I enjoyed reading the report; it contains some useful observations. I support the idea of examining training in more detail and perhaps doing some work on the issue in the autumn. I agree whole-heartedly with Michael Russell that there must be links between the colleges and universities and the industry. I am concerned that young people who enter media courses at educational institutions expect to get jobs in the film industry when there appears to be no clear link between the courses and the outcome in terms of jobs. There is potential in the idea of linked work courses, which link academic study with work experience in relevant organisations. That system is not in place at the moment. The establishment of a Scottish film and television school would give people not only academic qualifications, but work experience and an opportunity to make progress in the field. Such a school is needed and should have been established a long time ago.
I accept what the convener said about there being a role for the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee in our investigation and I agree that using a reporter might be a way to facilitate that.
It would make sense to examine training, education and employment. Opportunities could be created by initiatives such as tax incentives and a range of fiscal approaches. There are a number of different players in the industry in Scotland, such as local authorities and major companies. The problem is that there is a lack of a means through which good ideas can be filtered.
I disagree with what Michael Russell said about Pacific quay. The issue is not only about the development of the studio; it is to do with economic and social impacts. It would be valid, however, to argue about how that could be filtered through in a broader Scottish context.
I have a couple of points to raise about the report. The first is to do with typographical issues. Page 2 appears to talk about a new type of film called "Holywood". That might be an interesting genre to develop.
It could deal with religious epics.
Given this country's history, that would be interesting. Page 2 also seems to talk about a failed character from "EastEnders", called "Whiksy Galore". It is important to raise those points—people will pick them up.
On the broader debate, in developing film charters and so on, it is important that we do not bring together only people in urban Scotland who have resources. A consortium approach could be taken. The paper is facing the right direction and the two points that Michael Russell has identified are genuinely worth exploring.
I welcome Mike Russell's report. It is a useful document that states the current position. However, I am disappointed that it does not go further in some respects and I am curious about some aspects of it.
I welcome what Mike Russell says, and I support and share his view on the idea of a film studio and the possible investment of £6 million in Pacific quay. That might be the end of the matter—Scotland will have a film studio and everything will be fine and dandy—but serious questions must be raised about that investment. Will it deliver the sort of cultural and financial returns that we would want? I shall return to some suggestions on that. I agree completely with Mike on the viability of the project. The level of production does not justify a commercial studio and there is no indication that a studio would secure a greater level of production. That must be taken into account. I had hoped that Mike would be able to give us more detail on the issue of film studios. There is much to be debated and I have further suggestions to make.
I find it curious that paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 raise the fiscal difficulties that Scotland faces in comparison to the situation in Ireland. Mike Russell rightly points out that some films with Scottish subjects have been co-produced in Ireland, but that is not just a Scottish problem; it is a British problem. The fiscal solution to that problem is to provide attractive tax breaks or other means of drawing business in. It is a British problem that requires a British solution. Paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 do not allude to that.
A great deal of "Saving Private Ryan" was filmed in Ireland and "Tess"—which was set in Devon—was filmed in Normandy. Often, although locations are available in Britain, they are not used because there are financial reasons for filming in places such as Ireland. Although the Scottish Parliament might be able to change the situation if it had tax powers, those tax powers are available to the British Government. The report might have mentioned that. However—although I am sure that this is not the reason for that omission—some people would like the Scottish Parliament to have greater tax powers, and I have a sneaking suspicion that that might have been in the back of Michael Russell's mind.
The idea of a sound stage or film studio merits a great deal of consideration. Now that the committee has received the report, it is possible to take some evidence on that issue. I hope that Mike Russell will support that suggestion. If £6 million is going to be invested in a film studio at Pacific quay, through support for Scottish Screen as part of the national cultural strategy, and as we were concerned enough to take evidence on the investment in Hampden and Scottish Opera, we should give proper consideration to that major step. We could take evidence from Scottish Screen, from some of the commercial developers and from the minister to determine the potential cultural benefits. If the Audit Committee wanted to raise questions on the investment, it would be for that committee to conduct such an inquiry. We could consider the cultural aspects of providing support for a film studio.
Thank you, Brian. However, your mention of Scottish Opera and Hampden are sailing close to the wind. Those were areas of concern because specific problems were associated with those investments. I do not think that Mike Russell was suggesting that there is a problem with the funding for a film studio.
I was anticipating the problem.
Brian, let us not always see the bad in things; let us try to look for the good.
On raising the debate about tax in the UK, I must point out that there are ways that we in Scotland can shape and influence that. The issue is not necessarily an argument against the unitary nature of the British state, Brian.
I pointed out merely that the report does not mention that issue.
There is no need to flag it up all the time.
Can we try not to have a discussion across the table? I ask Michael Russell to comment on the points that have been raised.
I welcome the support of Cathy Peattie and Frank McAveety on training, which is the issue that we should start on, although I also want us to bear it in mind that we should continue to have a discussion about fiscal incentives.
I did not suggest action by the British Parliament because I am not a member of the British Parliament and I was producing a report for a committee of the Scottish Parliament. There is another solution to the problem, which is to have independence and to be able to have a full—
There he goes.
He mentioned the word.
I mention independence quite often. That would solve the problem because we could have the right type of tax regime. We should be clear about the fact that a UK tax regime that encouraged incoming production would not necessarily help the Scottish film industry. It would be more than likely that production would be drawn to studios in the south of England rather than to Scotland. Although it would have an effect, it would not have the more beneficial effect that specifically Scottish fiscal incentives might have. Of course, even if there were a UK tax regime that favoured film production, we would still want to have specific incentives in Scotland to maximise our position in that market. The matter is complex and worth considering. It requires imagination to consider it within a devolved settlement as opposed to within an independent Scotland, but that might be worth doing.
I will not support Brian Monteith's suggestion that we should have an inquiry into the proposal for a film studio. There are genuine differences of opinion about the matter, which I do not think this committee could resolve. The committee could ventilate the differences, but it could not resolve them. I respect the fact that Scottish Screen has spent a lot of time and effort coming to the conclusion that the right location would be Pacific quay. I have spent less time considering the issue, but I have read the reports, which convince me that it is not the right solution in terms of geography, capability for expansion and public investment. I accept Frank McAveety's point that there should be media development in Pacific quay and I think that it is an ideal site for it. However, I do not think that that element fits in with the proposal.
A number of other proposals are on the table: the Inverness proposals are apparently likely to come to fruition and there are some flexible proposals for the former post office building in Edinburgh that involve small studios. There is the purely commercial Gleneagles proposal, which might be one of the first to be implemented and there is the well-known Edinburgh proposal involving David Murray and Sean Connery, which requires rezoning of land before planning permission can be sought. As I said, although we politicians can have views on the issue, I do not think that the committee can contribute a great deal. It will be more productive for us to decide whether to examine training issues or fiscal incentives first. I appreciate what committee members have said and would be happy if we could schedule an inquiry into training for film, television and the multimedia industry for later in the year, perhaps in the autumn. It would be wise to ask for a reporter from the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to join us.
Obviously, if Michael Russell's colleague Mr Salmond is successful in his election, he can pursue the fiscal issue at Westminster.
I am certain that he will be able to do so with the help of a large group of SNP MPs.
I promise to tell Margo MacDonald that you mentioned independence twice.
Let me mention it a third time to get the hat trick—independence.
Is there an election presently?
I suggest that we factor in an inquiry into education and training in the media industry.
Industries.
Industries. That inquiry should focus in particular on our cultural and educational role. We will invite colleagues from the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to join us.
I do not pick up support from committee members for Brian Monteith's wish to have an inquiry into the Pacific quay issue. If Brian wants to make a specific proposal, I shall put it to a vote, but I advise Brian that he would probably lose.
I would like to make a specific proposal and put it to a vote. Let me explain why.
We are all aware of the arguments on both sides.
Michael Russell made an important point, which I have not had a chance to reply to. I am happy to restrict my comments to that.
I shall give you 30 seconds to do so.
Michael Russell said that there are strong views and that all we can do is ventilate the issues. Surely it is the committee's job to speak to and hear from quangos. The only way in which we can scrutinise their operations is to bring them before the committee. If the committees do not do that, it is certainly not going to happen in the chamber. We have seen with the Scottish Qualifications Authority what happens when nobody is looking at how a quango operates.
I am sure that members are more than aware of the committee's role in scrutinising quangos and public bodies. If there was a will within the committee to fulfil that role in this case, we would do it. Do members support Brian Monteith's proposal?
Members indicated disagreement.
As no members have indicated their support, I suggest that, at this point, we do not conduct an inquiry into Scottish Screen's Pacific quay proposal but that we hold an inquiry on training and education. If that inquiry, which we would hold in the second half of the year, leads to a discussion of the Parliament's fiscal powers, we can consider that issue as well. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.