As a trade unionist I fully sympathise with the low pay and poor conditions many actors suffer while working, but as a someone attempting to produce and direct Lo/No Budget films I feel their is a danger in trying to stop Equity members being involved in such productions. There seems to be an assumption that the film maker is in some way profiteering from the actor's participation in making a film for no fee. As I have yet to make a profit, or receive a fee, from any film I have made there is absolutely no element of profiteering in the work I do. I make films because that's what I enjoy doing and am willing to put in around £3,000 of my own money per production to do this. No actor should lose money and I would therefore agree that transport and subsistance should be provided, but the payment of a fee would make the production impossible to finance from personal resources for a lot of film makers. Actors benefit from taking part in lo/no paid jobs by further developing their skills, by getting used to working with a variety of directors and getting the opportunity to be the first person considered for a paid job - if I was making a movie that was paying money the first people cast would be those I had worked with before because I know they can come up with the goods. There are too many pressures on both the film maker and actor for us to fall out over such things; I would like to see practical proposals which recognise the rights of the actor while acknowledging the benefits that lo/no budget films bring to the industry (remember not all lo/no budget film makers are students). Derek Robertson www.hbfproductions.co.uk