Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

That is vital. Some of the complaints were specific and some were not.

We will go through the industry. I get it, in that a DAC has to be formed. I get the way films work. It is very difficult for it not to be on a project-by-project basis but there are certain problems created there. We talk about a sustainable industry and worthwhile employment. Beyond that, a fair question was put about what the State can get back. Maybe we should look at that from the point of view that as we are putting in a stake, maybe there has to be something for us. We also have to facilitate what can be done into the future. Ms Donaghy spoke about employment frameworks and all the rest of it. That brings us back to the round-and-round-the-garden question. The producer applies for the grant and gets the money but it is the DAC that is the employer so it is very difficult to actually hold anybody to account if there are particular issues.

Ms Nash spoke about moving away from heads of department, HODs, because it seemed as though it was very simple if somebody made a determination that an employee had been a nuisance and had been bringing up that he or she thought the employer was in breach of whatever. I have heard of instances of it but I obviously cannot prove it. The fact is the HOD makes or does not make the call. We have had numerous people come to us stating that this is ongoing and that there is blackballing, as they would determine it, within the industry. An issue still exists around how many people are actually employed and we do not have any detail on that.

An idea about which I have been told concerns ratios, in that there has been a move away and that the ratios are for fewer experienced workers versus trainees. That is trainees who do not have a huge level of experience. There is an element, we are told, of a race to the bottom. I am just throwing out what has been said to me. If we are talking about a sustainable industry into the future, it does not indicate that we are going to be able to maintain the fabulous productions of the last while if we do not have enough people who have guaranteed good employment to stay in the business and who can actually do it. These are questions that need to be answered. I get that the witnesses are not the police here. I understand that but we have a problem here in the sense that we are told this is happening. We are into "he said, she said". I can see why people would be slow to raise issues that exist because it could have an impact on their employment. We need to find a framework that will allow this to be dealt with. That means not having to bring everything through the framework we have spoken about as regards employment rights.

Equity brought up intellectual property issues and the fact that they were signing away their rights to derivative payments, which they would have been better off having. When we were dealing with the producers, there was an acceptance that we need new collective agreements. That is not something the witnesses can enforce but when we are dealing with these organisations, whether Screen Ireland or some of the many other outfits, it appears there is a certain belief within the industry whereby, to talk specifically about crew, there is no representation for them. Could representation for crew at a board level or whatever be looked at into the future? That could possibly mean these issues could be dealt with at that sort of forum and we could find the means. Obviously the correct stakeholders would then take part in whatever collective agreements are needed. This is all about bringing about something that is sustainable so we are not here making these complaints into the future. A lot of people are afraid to put their heads above the parapet. A number have done that previously and believe they have paid a price for it.