Proceeding contribution from Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Monday, 7 March 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Public Bodies Bill [HL].
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on tabling Amendment 65A, which I support, as it is an imaginative amendment that seeks to discuss the UK Film Council and the British Film Institute and how their continuing respective functions will relate to each other. It quite deliberately uses the term ““merger””. I will speak to the work of the British Film Institute and to my concerns and hopes for this important organisation in the light of the changes that are to be made. Its multifaceted work does not have a primarily commercial imperative. Its work is inherently good for British culture and British society as a whole. Film has become, as in other countries but particularly in Britain throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, part of the lifeblood of the nation, so the BFI is as relevant today as it has been in the past and will be in the future. Over decades, the BFI has done tremendous work, not least in saving, restoring and rediscovering British films that would otherwise be lost because of the fragility of the film medium. My own father, Terry Trench, worked in the post-war British documentary film industry, mainly as an editor but sometimes as producer or director. His films are among the close to a million titles that the BFI now holds in its national archive. My father was one of a number of still often unsung heroes of the original British documentary film movement, although now there is a much greater interest in this tradition, due in no small measure to the BFI—the success of its DVD compilations such as ““Land of Promise”” are a testament to this. Indeed, the BFI is keen to allow work to be as accessible as possible to the public, although, given the copyright issues, this is not always easy. As it happens, the very first film that my father edited was directed by Anthony Asquith. The BFI recently restored Asquith’s early features, including ““Underground””, leading directly to something of a critical reappraisal of his work. At present, the BFI is in the process of restoring nine of Hitchcock’s silent films in readiness for a retrospective in 2012, which in the year of the Olympics will garner considerable international interest. I think on reflection that it could be a good thing if the UK Film Council was merged with the BFI—I choose my words carefully. However, I hope that this will not lead to the current BFI becoming some type of junior partner within this cinematic coalition, as with clear overall leadership its current role could and should be kept intact and necessarily as properly funded as the UK Film Council, which I understand from Ed Vaizey’s announcement on Thursday stands to benefit from a well deserved multimillion-pound injection of financial support, just as the BFI faces an undeserved 15 per cent cut in funding. Ideally, the BFI would become the guardian of film of the past, the present and the future—the Paul Newman Butch Cassidy role to the UK Film Council’s Robert Redford Sundance Kid, if you will. However, if the overall framework overburdens the BFI and then threatens its current work, the merger will be a disaster, whatever extra funding the UK Film Council in effect receives, as there will be no legacy to aspire to and no heritage to make. In the light of this, I call on the Government to look carefully at the balance of funding and to reappraise those cuts, which are aimed at the heritage of the national film industry. We are still fighting the same ideological battles as 50 years ago, even though the stages for such battles might have changed. My father worked for the state-funded Crown Film Unit, a much respected quango that was set up to replace the GPO Film Unit, whose work of course included the celebrated ““Night Mail””. What then happened in 1952 to the Crown Film Unit, fresh from its recent BAFTA and Oscar-winning triumphs? A newly elected Conservative Government abolished it, the reason cited being financial in a time of austerity. I hope very much that the BFI goes from strength to strength and that the Government will continue to support its important work.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 725 c1424-5
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Devolved matters Crime Assets Costs Arbitration ACAS Cultural heritage Church Commissioners British Film Institute Equality Industrial relations Flood control Licensing Exports Film Ofgem Equality and Human Rights Commission Land drainage Joint Nature Conservation Committee Discrimination Gambling Commission Drinking water Drinking Water Inspectorate Membership Public appointments Public bodies Public expenditure Property Nature conservation Mergers Non-departmental public bodies Light dues Lighthouses Ofcom National park authorities Public finance Young offenders Regulation Victims Wales Shipping Research Youth justice Victims' Commissioner Broads Authority Central Arbitration Committee Certification Officer Commissioners of Irish Lights Office of Rail Regulation National Lottery Commission Northern Lighthouse Board Youth Justice Board UK Film Council Trinity House Victims Advisory Panel Natural England Marine Management Organisation Internal drainage boards Sunset clauses Norfolk and Suffolk Broads
- Legislation
- Public Bodies Bill (HL) 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:15:00 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_721699
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_721699
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_721699