Filming (2014)

Request

  1. How much money the House of Commons is expecting to receive for allowing the movie "Suffragette" to be filmed in Parliament?
  2. How much money the House of Commons is expecting to spend on allowing the movie "Suffragette" to be filmed in Parliament?
  3. Whether the House of Commons expects to make a profit or loss by allowing the movie "Suffragette" to be filmed in Parliament, and how much either way?
  4. What fee was charged for the use of the Parliamentary estate as a location for the film Suffragette?
  5. What estimates have been made of the costs to the taxpayer of the filming, for instance in staff time / security?
  6. Have agreements been reached for any other uses of the estate for such purposes and if so how many and for which films?

 

Response

  1. How much money the House of Commons is expecting to receive for allowing the movie "Suffragette" to be filmed in Parliament?

    And
  2. How much money the House of Commons is expecting to spend on allowing the movie "Suffragette" to be filmed in Parliament?

    This information is held by the House of Commons. 
    We have concluded that the estimation of the costs spent and the fees charged for the use of the Parliamentary Estate for the purposes of filming is exempt under section 43(2) of the FOI Act in that the House of Commons considers that the disclosure of this information would be prejudicial to the House’s commercial interests.
    We have considered the public interest in transparency in public money and resources being used effectively as well as the negotiation of fees being conducted in an open and honest way.  However, whilst there may be a public interest in access to this information, this project was a pilot for the House and a learning experience; it has generated interest from other film makers who are beginning to make enquiries about future projects. Any release of what we anticipated to spend, or what we charged in this instance may affect what we are able to charge in the future if we continue following evaluation of the pilot.
    In these circumstances, it is our view that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information at this time.
  3. Whether the House of Commons expects to make a profit or loss by allowing the movie "Suffragette" to be filmed in Parliament, and how much either way?
    This information is not held by the House of Commons. 
    Following decisions by the House of Commons Administration Select Committee and the House of Commons Commission to allow appropriate commercial filming on the Estate when the House is not sitting, Suffragette is the first commercial filming proposal to be taken forward, and will serve as a pilot for any future proposals.  The filming was intended to make a profit but the main purpose of this event was to assess how viable commercial filming would be for the House. 
    The House of Commons expects to make a profit for the commercial filming of Suffragette, helping in its aim to generate income to offset the running costs of the House of Commons.  Because this is a new and untested venture for the House, an estimation of the amount of profit could not be made until the pilot was completed.  It may help you to know that the Administration Committee has not yet received information about the actual costs or profit of the pilot, but a paper evaluating the pilot is due to come to the Committee on 9 June 2014.

  4. What fee was charged for the use of the Parliamentary estate as a location for the film Suffragette?
    This information is held by the House of Commons. 
    We have concluded that the fees charged for the use of the Parliamentary Estate for the purposes of filming is exempt under section 43(2) of the FOI Act in that the House of Commons considers that the disclosure of this information would be prejudicial to the House’s commercial interests.
    We have considered the public interest in transparency in public money and resources being used effectively as well as the negotiation of fees being conducted in an open and honest way.  However, whilst there may be a public interest in access to this information, this project was a pilot for the House and was a learning experience; it has generated interest from other film makers who are beginning to make enquiries about future projects. Any release of what we charged in this instance may affect what we are able to charge in the future.
    In these circumstances of the case it is our view that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information
    at this time.

  5. What estimates have been made of the costs to the taxpayer of the filming, for instance in staff time / security?
    The fee charged for filming covered any outgoings of security and staff.  There is no estimated or expected cost to the taxpayer for this filming.
  6. Have agreements been reached for any other uses of the estate for such purposes and if so how many and for which films?
    At the time of your request, no other agreements have been made for any other uses of the Parliamentary Estate for such purposes.