I am a Glasgow boy. When I applied to the Scottish education department for support to go to film school in London I was sent a very nice letter, which I still have somewhere. It said that it was turning me down because film was not an academic subject. That was my introduction to Scottish political life. I then worked for 10 years in Scotland. I finally ran out of steam—I could not sustain it—and I moved south. However, my heart is here.
I find myself in a leadership position in the UK film industry: I chair the British Film Commission, the film skills council and the Film Industry Training Board. The British Film Commission’s function is very specific: it is there to promote and sell team UK and the UK-wide opportunity. The stats that the British Film Institute will publish at the end of January will probably show that, as a result of inward investment and export of goods and services, film has been worth more than £1 billion in the past year. It is a failure that Scotland is not competing for its proper share of that £1 billion market.
That is not to speak of the other opportunity that sits alongside film, which is high-end TV drama. Chancellors of the Exchequer, in their wisdom, saw fit to create film tax relief in 2007 and to bring in TV tax relief in 2013. Since then, inward investment in television has topped £300 million and is likely to grow. In fact, growth potential on the high-end TV side of things is very high indeed. It is probably plateauing out on the film side, although many investments are being made in film: Pinewood Studios, for example, is doubling in size. Building is happening now and it is hoped that facilities will come on stream within a year. The demand is definitely there and the reason for that—the hook—is film tax relief and television tax relief. That is what brings to the UK the full attention of, in particular, the United States, but other countries as well.
What brings them back is our skills agenda, which has been built up over 20-30 years in the south-east. It has been carefully engendered by bringing the industry together to speak with one clear voice to the Government. That has made it clear to the Government that we are talking about not just the very important issue of creativity and culture, but the system within which they can grow and flourish, which is the commercial-industrial side.
Two businesses sit alongside each other: the film industry, which I think of as the indigenous British film industry, and the film production industry, which is completely separate, although it is connected. There is symbiosis between them, in that by engendering in the film production industry a strong share of the international market we can sustain our indigenous industries, build up our skills and protect our talents and, as a result, move forward. We have been very successful in that; God willing, it will continue. The Treasury and UK Trade and Investment, which we work with, are so far very pleased with what we are doing. We are contributing to Britain’s economic landscape.
Look, as I do, at the offer that the UK is making. Twenty years ago, Scotland was the biggest production cluster outside of the south-east of England. Now it is probably fourth or fifth. The clusters that are going up the rankings are south Wales and Bristol, Northern Ireland—which the committee has heard a lot about—and Manchester and Leeds. Scotland is lagging badly behind, just on that economic basis.
The makers of “Game of Thrones” wanted to come to Scotland. They knew that Scotland was bigger and had lots of locations, but what stopped them was that there was no adequate shooting space for them to hedge. TV series like that cannot be made entirely on location; it just does not work. If there is no shooting space, forget it—they move. Richard Williams in Northern Ireland jumped up and said, “Look at us.” Northern Ireland has Titanic Studios, and the rest is history. “Game of Thrones” is worth somewhere in the region of £35 million to £40 million per year to the Northern Ireland economy.
Another aspect is the link with tourism, which is very strong. I produced the “24” series, which we shot in London in the early part of last year. It was not set to come to London, but the facts that the tax credit existed and we had the skills to deliver what we promised brought it there, so $62 million was spent within the space of nine months. That work could easily have come to Scotland, but the lack of a shooting space and the lack of proper infrastructure—technical infrastructure and skills infrastructure—has meant that people are shying away.