 Self declared 'un-person', Perry calls himself the 'only working member of the British film community who has nothing to lose at the hands of the Film Council' and as such criticises and suggests freely in his letter. His points cover five areas: production funding, where Perry believes the FC should be obligated to find match funding in the private sector; exhibition, an area that should be invested in to encourage a greater audience for world cinema; regulation, where we should adopt a French-style production levy on all foreign films shown at the box office; the BFI, which Perry sees as sidelined under a body motivated more by targets than education; and the FC itself, which Perry claims is 60% over-budget on personnel. The Film Council responded by saying that it will come under budget at its first annual review in October and is confused as to where he got the 60% figure as they claim that the personnel budget is actually lower and covers more areas. Most interesting in Perry's comments is the suggestion that the DCMS should heavily regulate the industry - taking levies from successful films at the British box office to plough into production of UK films. A system much derided when introduced in France, it has been a great success with a whopping 50% of admissions being domestic titles. Much can be said for the idea, used before in the Eady fund (abolished 1985), although getting US distributor approval would be impossible. Thumbs up to Perry, though, for attacking Kim Howells, film minister, for his demand for the industry to make a film on the foot and mouth crisis, which is 'odd considering he is minister for tourism as well as film. I beseech you, don’t go there!'. We wholeheartedly agree that ministers, particular those with little interest or knowledge of film, should stick to legislation over pitching. | 
