Deputy Boyd Barrett:

I spent all of my summers as a youth in Kerry, Deputy Healy-Rae. It is a great spot and I could not agree with you more.

I thank all the representatives from the Departments for their contributions and for attending the committee. Regarding the WRC decisions, I do not know how much the representatives can express an opinion about these things, but I see them as a pretty damning indictment of what is probably the biggest recipient of section 481, namely, Metropolitan Films International. It is certainly in the top two or three. It confirmed what some of us and what representatives of the stage crew have been saying for four years. Metropolitan Films International admitted this before this committee. It is not just it, but all the others came in, such as SPI, and said they were employers. They told us they were doing this. They went into the WRC to say they were not employers, but they came before the committee and the Department said they were. Now we know the truth, which is that the people who were blacklisted because they asserted their rights under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Workers) Act were having their rights abused by Metropolitan Films International. This is in the public domain; I know the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach gets nervous when I mention names. This is very much in the public domain. We know all of them were essentially making the same case in case after case. In fact, from what I understand, the adjudicator who made earlier rulings has sort of acknowledged that she did not fully understand the issue. When more evidence was brought before her to clarify the issues, she stated that it was very clear to her that there were breaches. She said - and this is where we all come in - that the company that was in receipt of section 481 was hiding behind the designated activity company, DAC, and disowning its responsibility to employees. The adjudicator very clearly said that it was not on.

We have been saying this for a long time, as have the Irish film workers. Now, it has been confirmed by the WRC and that has very serious implications. The whole basis on which the money was being given to these companies was that they were going to comply with all legislation, including the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Workers) Act. Yet, a serious examination of the position the companies have taken prior to this has made clear that this is a systemic approach that the producers have adopted. They say, “Give us the money because we are creating loads of employment”. Then, they go into the WRC and say they are not the employers. They cannot have it both ways and the WRC has now finally called them out on it. Fair play to it.

I want to know whether there is a recognition of the seriousness of this. At one stage, I pressed the Minister for Finance and asked him what “quality employment” meant? I said that it at least means compliance with the law. He said “Yes”; it has to at least mean that. Frankly, it should mean more. It has to at least mean compliance with employment legislation and that companies would be penalised for not doing that. In fact, I think he went as far as to say - and we should check all this - that the money would be taken back if they were found to be in breach.

I think that is a fair assessment. We are speaking about the blacklisting of these people who lost their livelihoods after working for the industry for decades. They have now been vindicated and given a big award but, of course, they just wanted their jobs in the industry in which they had worked all along. I know there are limits to what officials, as opposed to what political people, can say, but is there a recognition of the seriousness of this? Is that the understanding people have gained from these rulings? What understanding have we gained from them? In the representatives’ understanding of the policy around section 481, what will now have to happen? If that is the case and if the WRC ruling is what it appears to be, what is going to be done about it? Will there be penalties? Will the money be withdrawn? One company has now been found out in regard to this practice and even cursory examination makes it clear they were all doing that. What are we going to do about it? That is my big question.

On the issue of copyright, I spoke with Equity, the Writers Guild of Ireland and the Screen Directors Guild of Ireland. I have not met with the Screen Composers Guild, but I think they are all on the same page. I had a meeting with one of those groups before the forum, but they are telling me a very different story. They want the UK agreement. They do not understand. It is a better agreement and a better situation. It formalises and puts structure on things, and it ensures compliance with the copyright directive. SPI said it is an administrative burden and that it is difficult to anchor in Irish law. The Minister said we need a specific Irish agreement because it is difficult to anchor Irish law, etc. In other words, we are hearing from the Minister what we are hearing from SPI. I would just like to know if the representatives have a sense of why we cannot just transpose the UK agreement. It is an agreement, it is a blueprint and it is actually being used here in some cases. However, by and large, actors, performers, writers and directors are not getting the benefit of it and, as I think all the representatives understand, that has to do with the downstream revenues. This is a matter of the back-end deal, as it were, which the buy-out contracts are robbing from our writers, actors, directors and performers. They are forced to sign it. They gave evidence on that. They are under pressure to sign contracts that are inferior to the UK agreement and they have asked for the UK agreement. I would like to hear about the Department’s thinking on those things.

I have one very last question on the forum itself. I am delighted it is happening; it has been a long time coming. Yet, I would like to hear more about how it will be constituted. I would like to propose to our committee, which is the committee that sought this, that it should be invited to the forum because, as representatives of the people and of the Houses of the Oireachtas, which fund the film industry, we are stakeholders too. The public and the representatives of the public who have sought oversight of this should be invited, so we can see how this is being resolved. Are there any opinions on that? Do we have to ask formally? Is there an understanding that that would be okay? Where do we see the forum going? I hope the forum is not going to be a one-day wonder or a box-ticking exercise, but that it will actually be an ongoing attempt to resolve these issues and ensure proper oversight of the public money that is being expended on the Irish film industry. I would be delighted if that was the case.