UNREVISED PROOF COPY Ev 6 HOUSE OF LORDS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS UK FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRIES WEDNESDAY 13 MAY 2009 MS JANA BENNETT, MR GEORGE ENTWISTLE and MR PETER SALMON MR JOHN SMITH and MR WAYNE GARVEY Evidence heard in Public Questions 500 - 628 USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT 1. This is an uncorrected and unpublished transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. 2. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither Members nor witnesses have had the opportunity to correct the record. If in doubt as to the propriety of using the transcript, please contact the Clerk to the Committee. 3. Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Clerk to the Committee. 4. Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. 5. Transcribed by the Official Shorthand Writers to the Houses of Parliament: W B Gurney & Sons LLP, Hope House, 45 Great Peter Street, London, SW1P 3LT Telephone Number: 020 7233 1935 WEDNESDAY 13 MAY 2009 ________________ Present Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B Eccles of Moulton, B Fowler, L (Chairman) Gordon of Strathblane, L Howe of Idlicote, B Inglewood, L King of Bridgewater, L Macdonald of Tradeston, L Manchester, BP Maxton, L McIntosh of Hudnall, B ________________ Memorandum submitted by BBC Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Mrs Jana Bennett, Director, BBC Vision, Mr George Entwistle, Controller of Knowledge Commissioning, BBC, and Mr Peter Salmon, Director, BBC North, examined. Q500 Chairman: Good morning. I am sorry you are quite a long way away, as always in this room, but welcome. I think you know what we are doing, so I will not go through a long explanation of that. Basically what we are trying to look at is film and television and seeing really what contribution they make to UK Plc, both in terms of the economy and also in terms of culture and other aspects as well. Let me start on BBC Films, if I may. It may come as a bit of a surprise, I think, to some people that there is an organisation called BBC Films. Tell me what the remit of it actually is. Ms Bennett: My name is Jana Bennett and I am Director of BBC Vision, which includes our televisions channels and BBC in-house production but also BBC Films is within BBC Vision. I am also with my colleague, Peter Salmon, who is the Head of in-house production, that is Vision productions, as Chief Creative Officer and is about to be taking up post as Director of 2 BBC North, which I think is relevant to the discussion about the industry and particularly our role in it, and George Entwistle, who is the Controller of all of our factual commissioning across television and online and BBC Knowledge Commissioner. For my own position, BBC Films is part of our fiction story, the scripted story for the industry, in terms of our partner industry. It is run on three basic fronts: one is innovation and to help boost the creativity of the sector; the other is the actual investment in the sector. We are the second largest funder in terms of the British industry, British films, and in many ways that plays three roles: one is sometimes development funding at an early stage - something like The Damned United, which has, I think, come out as a very good film, there would be a development effort at the front end of scripts and so on - sometimes we help with the completion of the funding of a film and other times we will help to bring together the various parties and we will be a catalyst for the creativity around a particular project. Q501 Chairman: Film4 and you: are you roughly comparable, or not? Ms Bennett: I think we are a bit bigger than Film4, who are having to justify financial pressures and reduce their budget, as far as I know, but I am sure they can talk about that themselves. BBC Films, when we entered the new licence fee period, we committed, as far as we could, to increase our investment, so we stepped it up from £10 million a year to £12 million a year. This is not for profit ultimately. If we are successful, we want to bring any dividends back both to defer licence fee expenditure and investment, but also, more importantly, the catalytic effect is to raise, in a way, more finance outside the BBC’s investment in order to make these films happen at all. So our £12 million commitment is there pretty much to stay in terms of this licence fee period. Q502 Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt, but this £12 million a year is straightforward licence fee money? 3 Ms Bennett: That is licence fee money, although it can be replenished and offset. If there is commercial success, it can defer some of that cost, but I think the important thing, working with the UK Film Council and other partners, was for us to have a sense of being able to give some security to the sector by being able to plan and commit to a sensible, prudent but very important element of investment in the sector. So I think the important thing about the licence fee is that we can plan ahead and that we have been able to commit to at least that figure going forward and, given the pressures on film finance generally, I think that is seen as rather vital to the sector being able to know that there is a very solid cornerstone there along with the UK Film Council. Q503 Chairman: If I was a licence fee payer, which I am, would I not actually say, “What do I get out of this?” You are investing £12 million a year, risking £12 million a year. If that all goes down the plug hole, I am £12 million poorer. Ms Bennett: The money does not disappear. The reason why it is connected to the BBC, ultimately, and into being close to the BBC channels is that these films make it back onto BBC television channels. So although they may have theatrical releases, they are also ways of having home-grown British film on BBC channels, and so none of that investment is wasted from the point of view of fitting the schedules as well. I think that is another important part of it. We also know that the audiences that television can bring to film are substantial and, therefore, the benefits are not only seen in the theatres. Q504 Chairman: Does that mean if the film is not a great success, you still have the fall back that it is going to appear on BBC television in any event? Ms Bennett: I never think of it as a fall back; it is far more positive than that. Something like Billy Elliott, not only was it an amazing success--- 4 Q505 Chairman: No-one is claiming that that was anything other than a success. Ms Bennett: ---but it also made its way into the Christmas schedules on BBC One, and that was a huge success and more successful than some of the biggest blockbuster movies. Mrs Henderson Presents is another example. We also have a kind of cultural aspect to our investment, which is that it is very good that we are supporting people like Michael Winterbottom’s work or interesting new directors who may choose part of their career in terms of cinema and film but also will be working in television. So someone like Armando Iannucci, having done The Thick of it, wanted to make a film In the Loop, and it was again quite a prudent investment; it will also be on television. So we are actually making sure we are, in a way, recycling our investment for the benefit of the biggest possible audience that these films can get and, thus, stimulating the film industry at the same time. Q506 Chairman: We are getting quite accustomed in this film inquiry that we are doing to people coming along and saying, “This film is an enormous success.” People are rather less forthcoming about what their failures are, and, as I understand it, in this industry you do have failures. What are your failures? Ms Bennett: I think I would point to the fact that the BBC Trust is doing a review of BBC film, as part of the commitment we made when we went into the Charter commitments, and I am sure will be addressing some of the hits, misses and maybes that come along in an industry which is bound to have risks associated with it. So rather than do the performance review just now off the top of my head, I would want to share that with the committee, if I may, because there are obviously areas where we are hoping to stimulate new talent, new writers and to go with some of their creative ambitions, and this is an area which is not a dead cert. This is true of Hollywood as well, but it is very true of British film, and as an industry we want to be able to take risks and also make sure we are not just going for mainstream talent but trying to break new talent.