Brave hearts would help, but they'd really kill for tax breaks
Our film industry is getting its act together, says Ian Griffiths
Sunday 29 September 1996
There is nothing unusual in this: with a Budget approaching, it is almost a ritual. Every year the film industry asks for support by way of a more benevolent tax regime. Every year it is ignored.
This year, however, there is a sense that the argument for change has received a more sympathetic hearing. That in part is a reflection of the increased sophistication of the industry's arguments. Whinges and pleas for tax handouts have given way to co-ordinated and compelling economic arguments for targeted tax incentives.
The industry has also been helped this year by the work of the Advisory Committee on Film Finance. Chaired by Sir Peter Middleton, chairman of BZW and a former Treasury mandarin, it produced a report for the National Heritage Secretary offering an authoritative and independent series of recommendations which tended to reinforce and endorse the broad views of the film industry.
The committee was established to look at the obstacles to attracting private investment into the British film industry, and to suggest ways that these might be overcome. Included in its proposals were recommendations that the Government should introduce 100 per cent first-year write-offs of film-production costs and abolish withholding tax on overseas film stars.
The industry believes that these simple tax changes would have great pyschological and practical benefits. First it would begin to put the British tax regime on a par with competitor countries. Second it would send a clear signal that the climate was changing to one that actively supported film production.
Historically, the Treasury has been reluctant to introduce tax breaks in case it is accused of supporting one industry in preference to another. However, the arguments have been refined by the industry to ensure they are presented not as tax subsidies but rather as measures to encourage inward investment and improve international competitiveness.
Even the subsidy argument falls away when the figures are examined in detail. The Middleton committee's forecasts suggested that while there would be a small cost to the Exchequer at first, this would soon be replaced by higher tax revenues: a pounds 5m cost in year one becomes a pounds 52m surplus in year 10.
Also highlighted was the potential for significant indirect benefits. If more films are made in Britain it creates wealth, it creates jobs and it creates yet more tax revenues - a virtuous circle.
The industry points to the Irish experience with a combination of enthusiasm and pain. In 1993 the Irish government identified film as a promising area of economic activity and introduced fiscal reforms to encourage investors. Since then film investment has risen from $3m to $100m (pounds 65m). When Mel Gibson was making Braveheart he was keen to film it in Britain. But the tax breaks and support offered by the Irish ensured that the bulk of the $45m film was shot in Ireland.
The BSAC report to the Treasury demonstrates that Britain compares unfavourably with Australia, Canada, Ireland, France and Germany. The financial value of support mechanisms is lower than everywhere apart from Australia, which provides $1m less than Britain.
Britain has considerable attractions. Its language and historical expertise are important to the Hollywood studios, and its comparatively low employment costs are appreciated. Work being done by the Scott Brothers at Shepperton is upgrading its technological edge. However, the benefits are all too often outweighed by the tax disadvantages.
The romantic notion that we might yet recreate the British film industry of old has long been abandoned. A new realism recognises that beautiful films about the hedgerow are quaint, but if they are to be made they must be funded by movies that a lot of people want to see.
The City is slowly rediscovering the investment attractions of film production, but the money men both here and abroad are more likely to respond to a hospitable tax regime.
- 1 What happens to your body when you give up sugar?
- 2 Drugs Live cannabis trial: Hash is less harmful than any other drug, expert claims
- 3 Turkish Airlines flight TK 726 crash-lands on Nepal runway amid dense fog
- 4 Penis size: Study revealing 'what's normal' sends international media into meltdown
- 5 Have sex with your iPad thanks to the new sex toy no-one asked for
Turkish Airlines flight TK 726 crash-lands on Nepal runway amid dense fog
Ayesha Ali death: Mother and her girlfriend found guilty of manslaughter of eight-year-old
George Clooney and Amal fail to get special treatment at New York restaurant
Cindy Crawford 'un-PhotoShopped' viral Marie Claire image was doctored, claims photographer
'A girl is more responsible for rape than a boy': The statement that shocked the world... except India
Durham Free School: 'Creationism taught at' free school facing closure
Nearly 100,000 of Britain's poorest children go hungry after parents' benefits are cut
Ukip would cut billions from Scottish budget to fund English tax cuts
End of the licence fee: BBC to back radical overhaul of how it is funded
Ukraine crisis: Top Chinese diplomat backs Putin and says West should 'abandon zero-sum mentality'
Boris Nemtsov shot dead: Outspoken Putin critic who had expressed fears for his life is killed near the Kremlin
iJobs Money & Business
£25000 - £30000 per annum + benefits: Ashdown Group: A global leader operating...
Voluntary post, reasonable expenses reimbursed: Reach Volunteering: Would you ...
£36,000 - £40,000: Christine McCleave: Are you looking for a new opportunity a...
£15000 - £18000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This is a great opportunity for...