Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 101, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

“Reports

40.Within 3 months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall produce a report on amending the guidelines in relation to section 481 (Film Tax Relief), to clearly define the requirement for producer companies in receipt of the relief to be the legally responsible employer for all those working on film productions funded by the relief as against the DAC which only has a temporary existence; and further to guarantee the full vindication of workers rights under the Production of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003; and further ensure genuinely equitable remuneration or performers and actors in relation to their intellectual property rights and full compliance with the EU copyright directive.”.

We discussed this at considerable length on Committee Stage but I would like to give it one last airing. This relates to the section 481 film tax relief. I will read the amendment into the record so that it is clear what we are trying to do here. It states that within three months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall produce a report on amending the guidelines in relation to section 481 film tax relief, to clearly define the requirement for producer companies in receipt of the relief to be the legally responsible employer for all those working on film productions funded by the relief as against the DAC, that is, the designated activity company ,which only has a temporary existence; and further to guarantee the full vindication of workers rights under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003; and further ensure genuinely equitable remuneration for performers and actors in relation to their intellectual property rights and full compliance with the EU copyright directive.

Why would I want that? It is critical that if we are giving out €100 million in State aid to the arts, in this case, specifically to the film industry, it is in compliance, not only with national law but also with European directives. I say that, and always predicate everything I say, as somebody who wants to see that much money and more go into Irish film and into arts and culture. I was one of the few people who noted that the arts and culture budget was cut marginally this year and condemned that fact. We need to put more money into arts and culture because we have an absolutely fantastic pool of creative people in this country. We have a tremendous tradition and reputation in all of the arts; poetry, music, theatre, dance, acting, film etc. I want to see more but I am deeply concerned that we are not vindicating the rights of stage crew and film crew who work in the Irish film industry, particularly in the live-action area of Irish film, or the performers, the writers, the actors and the dancers, and in failing to do so, we are not complying with the requirement to ensure that their rights are upheld and that certain things are achieved when one gives State aid to the film industry.

I appreciate that the Minister has agreed, following our lengthy discussion, to have some of his officials meet some of the so-called contrarians, that is, the people who are critical of the way the current structure of section 481 relief is operating and I genuinely appreciate that.

I ask the Minister to understand that it is very serious if we are required to comply with the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 and for the film producers who receive section 481 relief to tell us and the Minister that such compliance is impossible. I looked back at the transcripts of both what Screen Producers Ireland, SPI, stated at the Committee on Budgetary Oversight, what has been alleged by groups such as the Irish Film Workers Association and what, in effect, was accepted by the Minister. On Committee Stage, the Minister stated that maybe we can sort these things out through discussion and negotiation. I thought maybe we could and then I thought, no actually while discussions are welcome, there is nothing to be discussed when it comes to compliance with the law. I want the Minister to consider that and make me a commitment if a serious allegation is being made that the recipients of section 481 relief are not in compliance with the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. They have stated they cannot be because of the DAC structure and that it is not possible for somebody to acquire a contract of indefinite duration through the operation of law under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. That is what they have said because the DAC does not survive, project to project, longer than 18 months. The Minister echoed what they are telling him, that it is not possible, but it has to be possible because it is in EU law and it is in the declaration they sign. There is something very seriously problematic if one is saying the most fundamental protection for people on fixed-term contracts is not possible.

I am looking in front of me - I have not time to quote them - at two cases that have gone to the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC. One person had 57 fixed-term contracts and has never got a contract of indefinite duration even though under the fixed-term workers directive and the law, that person is required to. Another had 26 such contracts. This is because the people the Minister gives the money to go into the Labour Court and state they could have no employment relationship with these people even though they set up the DAC for the film on which they were employed, in some cases, 26 times, 57 times or whatever it might be over decades. The whole point of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 is to protect workers in that situation. If it cannot apply, there is a serious problem with the form of state aid we are giving, which is specifically designed to create an industry and to create, as the directive states, a permanent pool of skills.

In 30 seconds, I have not time to mention the performers other than to say they state their intellectual property is essentially being taken off them with buy-out contracts, which the copyright directive requires to be the exception, not the rule.

This is what the copyright directive requires. Yet in Irish contracts given by the producers to whom the Minister gives section 481 tax relief, performers and actors are required to sign away their intellectual property rights, which, under the copyright directive, they are not allowed to do. I ask the Minister to respond. If there is any uncertainty about these matters, I genuinely ask that he write to the European Commission and ask for clarification.

See this speech in context