|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, the speeches today have illustrated the range of expertise available to the committee--agricultural, international, medical and scientific. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for his contribution. I only wish that he had been part of the committee. I thank my noble friend Lady Byford for her thoughtful and detailed contribution.
I perhaps owe an apology to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose for an omission on my part. I should have drawn your Lordships' attention to the introduction to the report where, not without difficulty, we define the remit of the inquiry. We excluded all forestry. Because it is the scientific committee we focused on the growing of short-term crops which would provide the raw material for new industrial processes. No insult to Christmas trees was intended. All forestry was excluded along with daffodils and golf courses.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his detailed reply, taking carefully into account all the points made in the debate. Like other speakers, I remain disappointed about the involvement of a Minister for Science. I do not see any incompatibility between a forum chaired by a senior industrialist and the Minister for Science adopting the role of the champion within Whitehall. However, that should not lead MAFF to believe that I am not extremely grateful for the care, courtesy, detail and encouragement in its response.
When our excellent clerk, Andrew Makower, briefed me for the debate, he hinted delicately that at this hour your Lordships' minds might be moving from non-food crops to perhaps the other kind. I conclude by commending the Motion.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to supplement the amendment to Schedule 1 to the Films Act 1985 which was agreed in this House in July 1999 and came into force in August. That schedule sets out the criteria which a film must meet in order to be certified as British and hence eligible for film-specific tax incentives. Compliance with the criteria is also a basic requirement for access to government production funding.
One of the two main criteria is that at least 70 per cent of a qualifying film's labour costs must be paid to Commonwealth or EU citizens or residents. Under the Act, the labour costs include all amounts paid or payable in respect of the labour or services of persons directly engaged in the making of the film. In the past, therefore, the labour costs have included living expenses--that is, payments made to meet food and accommodation expenses.
Some time after last August's amending order, we received representations from the industry arguing that the inclusion of living expenses in the labour cost calculation could rule out films shot entirely in the UK with a predominantly UK workforce. If a production involving a number of non-EU, non-Commonwealth staff requires a lengthy period of filming, the substantial accommodation costs associated with those non-qualifying employees could put the amount spent on labour costs of Commonwealth or European Union citizens or residents below the 70 per cent threshold.
The Government believe, however, that if a foreign star or producer working on a film stays at a London hotel, that should count in the film's favour and not against it. It seems to us anomalous that the living expenses of a few staff brought in from abroad for a production could cause that film to fail the current labour cost test, even though those living expenses were spent in the UK and contributed to the UK economy.
We therefore consulted industry experts and representatives of trade bodies on a minor amendment to the Films Act to remove living expenses from the calculation of labour costs. The amendment, which was welcomed and endorsed by those consulted, furthers the objective of last year's order: that is, it makes the qualifying criteria simpler and more rational. We envisage that it will have a bearing on only a small number of productions that are close to the 70 per cent labour cost threshold. Indeed it was because there had not been previous representations about this issue that it was not covered in last year's order. The change will
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the provisions of the order. The House has been given the courtesy of a fuller and more detailed explanation than was accorded another place; and I am grateful for that. I make it clear that we support the making of the order today. Common sense measures to promote the success of the British film industry are, of course, always welcome. The proposed change will, I hope, do that.
The order was taken a month ago in another place where my honourable friend Mr Richard Spring asked the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting three questions for clarification which she agreed to answer in writing, and did so. I mention those three questions because the letters in answer have not been placed, quite properly perhaps, in the Library of the House; and, therefore, there is as yet no formal confirmation of the information given. I invite the Minister to provide that confirmation for the record.
The three questions asked were these. First, which items would be classified as "living expenses", and would that definition include merely food and shelter, or would it include travel expenses? Secondly, how could one calculate reasonable living expenses? Thirdly, my honourable friend asked what guidelines the Secretary of State would provide with regard to living expenses.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches support the order. I congratulate the Government on taking such a sensible and pragmatic line in making the definitions appropriate to British film endeavour at this time. The Minister explained clearly this quite narrow adjustment. It is consistent with that aim. It is sensible that the adjustment should be made in order that individuals may be able to work on films without jeopardising the success of the film. I reiterate my congratulations to the Government on doing something for the British film industry which has long been needed.
I had intended to refer to the point raised by the noble Baroness as to exactly what constituted living expenses. I dare say that the Minister will take that into account and will answer in due course.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the welcome they have given to this small order. I am grateful in particular to the noble Baroness not only for asking three questions, but for answering them, too. I confirm that the answers she read out are our best definition of living expenses.
The reason why it is not entirely cut and dried is that some people are paid a per diem allowance, which is meant to cover accommodation, food, subsistence and sometimes travel. It is rather like the payment made to your Lordships. If that is the case, it is not always possible to sort out which element of the per diem is used for which purpose. That is why there has to be the otherwise undesirable reserve power of the Secretary of State to certify whether a particular payment is reasonable.
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|