United States Film Tariff

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

First, may I, on a co-operative note, say that one reason we have a very strong film and high-end television sector in the UK is the joint policy, adopted across several years by both Conservative and Labour Administrations, to ensure we have very competitive tax credits. I pay tribute to the work done by the previous Government, which we were able to enhance when we brought in two new tariffs—I mean two new tax credits—in the Budget just before Christmas. No, we are not in favour of bringing in tariffs. I think I am right in saying that in 1947 the Labour Government did bring in tariffs on US films, because we thought too many US films were being shown in British cinemas. That strategy did not go very well: the Americans simply banned the export of US films and we ended up watching “Ben Hur” repeatedly in every cinema, as well as a film called “Hellzapoppin’” which I do not think anybody has watched since. However, the successful bit of what we did in 1947 and 1948 was that we invested in the British film production system, which led to films such as “Hamlet” and “Kind Hearts and Coronets”. That is the pattern we still want to adopt.

Let me be absolutely clear: we believe that there are mutual benefits to both of us if we continue on the path we have selected. I am not sure precisely what is intended: I do not know what a tariff on a service would look like and I do not know whether the intention is for it to be on movie theatres. The danger is that the US already has two major problems with its film industry: one is distribution costs, so if the US went down that route, it could lead to heavy problems for the industry; and the other is the very high cost of making movies in the US.

Most films these days are an international collaboration of some kind, and we want to maintain that. Even the British production of “Paddington”—I am looking at the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) only because I suspect he is about to mention it; and he has just given me a Paddington hard stare—was made by StudioCanal, which is, of course, part of Canal+. It had Spanish actors as well as British actors. This is just a fact of modern films: they are multinational and that is one of their strengths. Incidentally, I do not think that Paddington ever went to Peru—I do not think they filmed any of it in Peru. I am also told by my Peruvian friends that there aren’t any bears in Peru.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Minister’s measured and thoughtful response to President Trump’s latest announcement and his full-throated support for the British film industry. He will be aware that my constituency is very much a filming venue for both film and television. In his discussions with the United States, will he ensure that he is also championing high-end television, as I think he briefly mentioned, which is often filmed, produced and made in Hackney? I also make a plea for all the creative industries in my constituency that feed into the film industry. Can the Minister ensure there is good communication from the Government on these negotiations? This is creating a great a deal of uncertainty.

[Chris Bryant]

I know Hackney very well; as my hon. Friend knows, I used to be a councillor there. It is not just London that is a phenomenal place to make a movie, but the whole United Kingdom. We have some of the best scenery and some of the best buildings. It is not only Bath, which gets used endlessly in lots of films—when I was there a couple of weeks ago, I heard about a long list of them. My hon. Friend is also right about television. What is the difference between making “Bridgerton” and making a movie? In fact, the pattern is very similar; international collaboration is important because it delivers international audiences, and we want to maintain that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1.   If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)]

I start by thanking Professor Sullivan for her independent review into sex and gender data. This is an important area, and we have shared the report with Departments as part of our ongoing policy work. After landmark online safety regulations came into force last week, platforms will now have to act to take down illegal content. I have just got back from the United States, where, from Nvidia’s conference stage to investor meetings, my message was clear: the UK is hungry for the new era of growth that is promised by AI and emerging technology. As the Chancellor shares her spring statement, that is an era I will keep working with her to deliver.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The Secretary of State has today referred to space and AI as key drivers of growth. Closer to home, in my constituency and across the country, our creative industries are huge drivers of growth, but there is a battle with AI. If our creators’ content is taken and they are not recompensed, that will damage the economy, too. Is he talking to those industries and to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that our creative content creators are protected?

[Peter Kyle]

I can assure my hon. Friend that I am speaking to both sectors, and I am determined that both sectors will get fit for the future as we face the opportunities and challenges. We are lucky as a country to have the second largest creative arts sector and the third largest AI market in the world. This is both a benefit and an opportunity for our country, and this Government will navigate any challenges it poses so that both sectors are fit to exploit the opportunities they have and for commercial gain into the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Meg Hillier Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We had to deliver a Budget to wipe the slate clean, to deliver a stable basis for our economy and, at the same time, to repair our public services. That is why we invested £25.6 billion over two years in the NHS, including additional funding for GPs and hospices. We are taking measures to ensure that funding is there to support our vital services.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q11. Every week, I visit constituents living in the most appalling, overcrowded social housing, some with triple bunk beds in the bedroom and the parents on a sofa bed in the living room. The nearest available property to buy would be £500,000, and that is out of reach for these hard-working families. I really welcome our Government’s commitment to 1.5 million new homes. Will the Prime Minister agree that we need clear targets for the number of social housing units, so that families in Hackney can live in dignity?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend describes an appalling housing situation, and one that will be familiar to a number of MPs on both sides of the House. That is why we will deliver the 1.5 million homes that we desperately need across the country. The Budget announced £500 million for the affordable homes programme—that is hugely important—£100 million of which will go the Greater London Authority. We will also reform the right to buy, to deliver a fairer, better value and more sustainable scheme where long-standing tenants can buy their own home.