Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 31 January 2018

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs

Irish Film Industry: Discussion

1:30 pm

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is féidir linn tús a chur leis an gcruinniú. Táimid i seisiún poiblí. Níl aon leithscéal faighte againn. I would ask everybody to switch off their mobile phones.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not bring one, Chair.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You set an example for all of us, Senator.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think it is disgraceful.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Inniu, pléimid coinníollacha oibre agus forbairt sa tionscal scannán, working conditions and development within the Irish film industry.

Today, we are here to discuss working conditions in and the development of the Irish film industry and to help us in our consideration of this matter we are joined by the Irish Film Board, represented by Mr. James Hickey, CEO, Ms Teresa Mc McGrane and Mr. Stephen Davenport; and Screen Producers Ireland, represented by Ms Elaine Geraghty and Mr. David Collins. Representing Irish Equity and SIPTU, we have Ms Karan O' Loughlin, Mr. Pádraig Murray, Mr. Denis Hynes and Mr. Graham Macken. Go raibh míle maith agaibh go léir as teacht isteach iinniu chun é seo a phlé linn.

Before we start, I want to read the terms and conditions of our meetings. I wish to draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also wish to advise that the opening statement or any documents witnesses have submitted to the committee may be published on the committee website after this meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Chun tús a chur leis an gcomhrá, tugaimid cuireadh anois do Bhord Scannan na hÉireann a chur i láthair a dhéanamh. I invite the Irish Film Board to make its presentation.

Mr. James Hickey:

Thank you, Chairman. I am the chief executive of Bord Scannán na hÉireann, the Irish Film Board. Anyone who has stayed in a cinema after a film is over to watch the credits will know how many people it takes to make a film. People working on films include writers, directors, producers, actors, camera operators, set designers, costume designers, hair and make-up, electricians, set construction supervisors and crews, location managers, editors, post production supervisors, music composers and performers, animators and visual effects artists, equipment hire, transport and a range of specialist services depending on the particular needs of each feature film, television drama or television animation project. These teams are assembled for each project and then work for varying lengths of time on the project, both because of the particular needs of each project - for example, an actor with a small part is only needed for a day or two - and because of the overall scale of the project. A lower budget feature film produced for €1.5 million and supported with IFB funding will have a four to six week pre-production period, a four week shoot and eight to 12 weeks post production. A ten by one hour television series made for more than $2 million an episode will have months of pre-production and a shooting period of at least six months, if not considerably more, and further months of post-production. A television animation series can take two years to make. Each time the creative and technical team is assembled and then each member of the team goes his or her separate ways when his or her particular part of the work is done and-or the overall project is completed.

Film studios do not employ on a full-time long-term basis all the creative and technical personnel needed for the production of films and television dramas. In most places, including Hollywood, film studios operate on the basis that a small team of staff manage the infrastructure of the studio and rent out the premises to production companies which then organise their creative and technical teams for the project which is using the studios. Sometimes service companies are based in the studios but they too are renters of the space. This is the case with all the studio space in the EU, including the UK and Ireland. As demand for screen content has increased, there is a more regular, if not a constant, flow of production through the studios - this is particularly true most recently in Ireland - which results in regular work for many of those involved.

The competition in getting productions to locate in a particular territory is intense. As a result only those territories with strong skills bases, suitable infrastructure and competitive financial incentives are able to attract that work. Ireland has been very successful in this area in recent years. As well as a vibrant film production sector made primarily on location and indigenously driven. It also has three major television series currently operating in Ireland, one each in Ardmore Studios and Ashford Studios both in Wicklow, and Troy Studios in Limerick. The feature film, television drama and television animation sector alone has an estimated annual spend in Ireland on personnel working in Ireland and goods and services sourced in Ireland of approximately €250 million. This is on top of what broadcasters, including RTÉ, and other producers of screen content spend on the programmes they make largely for the local audience.

It is estimated there are more than 17,000 full-time equivalent jobs in the sector and the gross value added of the sector exceeds €1 billion annually. Detailed figures are expected to be published shortly in the Department-commissioned Olsberg SPI report. It is understood the report will make recommendations for the sector to promote its growth and development over the next five years. Also recently published is the BAI-IFB Crowe Horwath report on a strategy for the development of skills for the audiovisual sector. This report, a copy of which has been circulated to the members of the committee, has a number of recommendations on training and education which are being worked on by the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in conjunction with the Irish Film Board and the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.

The Irish Film Board has a dual remit of supporting the culture of film and screen content production and the promotion of an industry for making film and screen content in Ireland. Last week we launched our production catalogue for 2018 and we provided the committee with a link to it. It has details of the following levels of production. In 2017, the Irish Film Board provided funding for the production of 16 feature films, five creative co-production feature films, 13 feature documentaries, five animation TV projects, 21 short films and the cinema release of 27 feature films in Irish cinemas. The IFB also provides development funding for all these forms of production and is the largest public funder of creative development, which is the equivalent of research and development funding, for the feature film, TV drama and TV animation sector. In addition, there has been a particular focus on production in the regions, with film and TV dramas shooting in Cork, Limerick, Galway and Roscommon as well as in the Dublin-Wicklow region.

The Irish Film Board also includes Screen Training Ireland which undertakes a range of activities in training in the audiovisual production sector. In light of the Crowe Horwath report, Screen Training Ireland is working on plans for the development of training across the audiovisual production sector and is engaging with the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht on the development of its training services. The IFB has published a report, Screen Training Ireland – A Year in Review 2017, and a link to it has been provided to the committee. In the report, under the heading “Looking Ahead: 2018 and Beyond”, Screen Training Ireland sets out its work plan for 2018.

There are huge opportunities given the greatly increased demand for screen content worldwide. There was a report today in the newspapers that Netflix, Hulu and Amazon will spend $10 billion a year on screen content TV series production in each of the next five years. This is an enormous opportunity for Ireland. As a central part of the creative industries, the sector can create a strong developmental environment for growth and job creation in Ireland. In the five years from 2011 to 2016, employment at least doubled in film, television and animation production and it is anticipated that in the next five years it could, with the proper supports, double again.

The IFB hopes that with the publication of the two reports referred to earlier and the implementation of the strategies set out in them, the sector will continue to deliver on pillar 4 of the Creative Ireland programme promoted by the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht of making Ireland a centre of excellence for media production.

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

I am employed by SIPTU as the divisional organiser for the services division. Irish Equity and the film and entertainment section of the union sit under the umbrella of the services division and the arts and culture sector within that. Today I will present on behalf of Irish Equity and my colleague, Mr. Graham Macken, will present on behalf of the film and entertainment section of SIPTU. I will be happy to take questions on either presentation if the committee desires.

The Irish Equity group was established in 1949 to organise and represent actors in the Republic of Ireland with the objective of securing decent working conditions for actors. On 9 September 1979, the Irish Equity group merged with the then ITGWU, which is now SIPTU, and became the cultural division of the ITGWU. Currently, Irish Equity sits within the arts and culture sector of the services division of SIPTU and the day-to-day work is overseen by an executive committee of Irish Equity made up of members of Irish Equity who are elected annually at the AGM of Irish Equity.

Irish Equity has presented previously to the Joint Committee on Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, the previous occasion being November 2017 to discuss bullying and harassment in the live performance sector of the arts. At that time the union made a number of recommendations to ensure that culture change is achievable and sustainable, including that there should be direct co-operation and engagement between Irish Equity, arts organisations and training bodies to develop and monitor best practice in the industry; that the Minister should encourage theatre organisations to establish a representative umbrella body that can engage with stakeholders collectively on industry matters; extending the cover of the protected disclosures legislation to cover reporting of bullying, harassment and sexual harassment; that drama schools and arts colleges should develop at least one module on dignity in the workplace and creating a positive workplace culture; and that all applicants for public funding should have to have good practice and policy in place as a prerequisite for access to such funding.

With regard to the film and TV sector, I will outline the main issues affecting performers. On the issue of bullying and harassment, it is interesting to note that the recent sexual harassment allegations in Ireland to date have related to the live performance sector with no evidence or allegations of sexual harassment having arisen from the film or TV sector here in the Republic. That does not mean that bullying and harassment issues do not exist within the sector which is why Irish Equity invited line managers, producers, directors etc. from the audiovisual sector to attend an industry seminar at the end of 2017 on bullying in the industry. The objective was to assist them with developing good practices and procedures in this regard. The seminar was jointly held with Screen Training Ireland, SPI, and the Irish Film Board, as previously discussed at this committee.

Sustaining careers and living conditions is the most difficult part for performers. The outstanding issues for actors in the industry relate strongly to their capacity to maintain themselves as performers and to have any kind of longevity in the industry. The barriers to this are mainly structural and the Government certainly has the capacity to deal with it. It is notable that these barriers also have a more significant effect on women performers.

The Government’s Culture 2025 framework policy document published in 2016 identifies seven pillars for priority, one of which is to foster creativity by examining existing systems and supports with a view to helping more people pursue sustainable careers in the cultural and heritage sectors. It is our considered opinion that achieving this objective means demonstrating meaningful commitment to the value of the arts in society and, consequently, the status of the artist.

In October 1980, the general conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, otherwise known as UNESCO, made a recommendation concerning the status of the artist which needs to be recognised. The recommendation specifically invites member states to promote and protect the status of artists by considering artistic activity, including innovation and research, as a service to the community. Member states should make it possible for them to enjoy the esteem necessary for the full development of their work and provide the economic safeguards to which artists are entitled as people actively engaged in cultural work. This includes the need to improve the social recognition of artists by according them the moral and material support required to remedy their difficulties. In practical terms, this means taking the necessary steps to see that artists enjoy the same rights as are conferred on others by national and international legislation in respect of employment and living and working conditions, and should see that self-employed artists enjoy protection as regards income and social security. For this to be meaningful, there would have to be special provision and recognition for artists at the level of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and Revenue.

Performers are one of the hardest working groups when it comes to seeking work as it is in their nature to be constantly seeking to create and perform. They seek work themselves, have agents seeking work on their behalf and create work through all manner of profit share and low-budget initiatives, but when it comes to the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection they are treated poorly and disrespectfully and when it comes to Revenue they are treated harshly. The Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection does not take the acting profession seriously and frequently tries to force performers into non-artistic work. Even where performers undertake training to increase their suitability for various types of engagement, the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection considers that they are not actively seeking work during this period and withdraws or refuses to pay jobseeker's benefit or protection.

Revenue consistently fails to acknowledge the genuine costs of staying in the profession when it comes to assessing genuinely incurred expenses. We need to develop some clear parameters around this to support and assist artists in pursuing sustainable careers in the cultural and heritage sectors as per priority No. 7 in the framework policy document.

The freelance nature of the work of actors also needs to be recognised so as to extend to them the same protections given to persons engaged on a contract of service. This is why Irish Equity has advocated and continues to advocate for the need to change the definition of to whom the employment legislation applies so as to say "worker", as it does in the Industrial Relations Acts, and not "employee", as it does in other workplace legislation.

Screen Training Ireland operates under the auspices of the Film Board and offers a comprehensive range of training courses for the industry. However, we would like to see these courses expanded to include training or upskilling for performers.

There exists a film and TV sector stakeholder forum that operates largely within the control of the Irish Film Board. This forum is not effectively used, however, and we would like to change this in favour of a jointly-led union and industry forum. This highlights the general global issues of concern of Irish Equity.

Ms Elaine Geraghty:

I thank the committee for the invitation to address it and speak with it about working conditions and the development of the Irish film industry. I am the chief executive of Screen Producers Ireland, SPI, which is the national representative organisation of independent film, television and animation production companies. As employers in the Irish creative industries, our members comprise a range of production companies from young first-time producers to producers of large-scale high-end film and TV drama. Productions include work such as "Vikings", "Ripper Street", "Penny Dreadful", "Room to Improve", "Red Rock", "Ros na Rún" and "Nowhere Fast", as well as Oscar nominated films such as "Room" and "Brooklyn". We hope the report conducted by Olsberg SPI Limited - no relation - on the economic analysis of our screen-based creative industries will be published soon. In its absence, to give the committee a sense of scale of the industry, "Penny Dreadful" alone employed 1,200 cast and crew over the course of production. This is a similar number to that currently employed by Diageo in Ireland. In addition, the combined expenditure of "Penny Dreadful" and "Ripper Street" in Ireland in the period during production was more than €50 million.

Ireland has a long history of supporting its film and television industry through fiscal incentives. The section 481 tax incentive is essential in supporting Ireland's production landscape. It has a positive impact on both indigenously produced content and attracting incoming productions, resulting in the creation of high-end jobs and contributing to Ireland's reputation as a global, high-tech, digital and creative content hub.

In 2016 Irish productions committed to spend €265 million in the Irish economy as a direct result of section 481-certified projects. This was the highest level ever achieved since the incentive commenced and demonstrates the amount of inward investment the independent production sector can attract into Ireland. Incoming high-end TV drama remains the biggest contributor to this activity. It increased from €28 million in 2011 to €161 million in 2016. This year, SPI calls on the Government to extend section 481 in its current form beyond 2020. The extension and continuation of the section 481 incentive is even more important when considering the limited sources of other national funding and the support required, in particular, for indigenous productions.

The Irish Film Board plays an integral role in the success of the local economy, providing funding and support for indigenous productions, as well as some incoming ones. Between 2008 and 2015, capital funding for the Irish Film Board decreased by more than 40% and the Oireachtas grant for 2016 was €11.7 million. By comparison, Northern Ireland Screen's annual investment in production is budgeted at €16.3 million, and this in a market significantly smaller than that of the Republic of Ireland. We seek the reinstatement of that funding to 2008 levels of €20 million.

As mentioned earlier, incoming high-end TV drama contributes significantly to the industry but the industry comprises a range of production companies, with budgets ranging from less than €1 million to producers of large-scale high-end TV drama with budgets of over €20 million. Production activity is made up of a small number of large productions and a large number of small to medium-budget productions. The pipeline of productions required to ensure growth and sustainability of the industry ideally should consist of incoming high-end TV drama and film along with indigenous Irish productions. This balance would ensure a consistent pipeline of projects for a range of company sizes and employee skill sets.

An Irish producer company employs core full-time staff who work in the areas of production, development, administration, sales and marketing. They develop original projects and go to markets to secure the finance required to make the production. The core staff are involved at all stages of the production, a process that can often take up to three or four years. Crew are hired at the production stage. Crew recruitment levels and type are dependent on the available budget and, of course, genre of project. For example, a large-scale period drama would require a large crew with a particular skill set for this genre and the crew could be hired for six months at a time, while a medium budget film would employ a much smaller number of crew members for a shorter duration, possibly eight to ten weeks.

A production company could have several projects in development at any one time over the course of a year but it is possible that only one or two of the projects actually get to production stage. The timing for production of the project is dependent on available national and international funding. Due to the project-based nature of our industry, a single production company cannot provide full-time employment for 52 weeks of the year to production crew. However, the combined total of independent production companies can and do provide significant employment.

The employment status of those working in the industry comprises a mix of PAYE and self-employed. Rates of pay and general terms of conditions of employment have been collectively negotiated between SPI and the ICTU-recognised film group of unions. The minimum rates of pay listed in these agreements for the industry are well above the average industrial wage. The majority of people working in the industry are, in fact, paid in excess of the agreed minimum rates. Construction crew rates are above the most recent sectoral employment order, which is new legislation from October 2017, for the construction industry and the Technical Engineering and Electrical Union, TEEU, electrical minimum rates are above the TEEU industry rates for many sectors. Production companies must, and do, adhere to the legislation that is in place to protect employees, as well as to the negotiated collective agreements. This ensures that employees are provided with the best possible conditions while work is available.

The provision of training is essential and a priority to enable the industry to grow and develop new talent. The provision of training is also a key deliverable under section 481. The film industry is vibrant and has international accolades. It reflects the quality of training and the trained crew Ireland has to offer. While we do need a framework for national training, the reality is that most senior people in the film industry, for example heads of departments, started as trainees in the industry.

Screen Training Ireland is the national training and development agency for professionals working in the sector. The agency is working well but requires additional resources and support to enable it to implement the recommendations of the Crowe Horwarth report. One of the recommendations is a requirement to develop a national strategy for the screen industry to provide the strategic foundation for the ongoing development of policies and plans in respect of the audiovisual sector skills and the development of clear frameworks for the valuation and accreditation of training. Screen Training Ireland, in its 2017 annual review, stated it will undertake a review of the report and seek to implement the major recommendations.

Screen Producers Ireland considers itself to be a leader in good employment policy and practice. The #metoo and other campaigns brought the issue of sexual harassment into the spotlight. These have empowered victims to speak up by providing a platform as millions of women around the world share their stories. I am pleased to say that SPI and our members' approach to this issue has always been proactive. In 2017 we collaborated with our industry partners, Screen Training Ireland, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, SIPTU, the Irish Film Board and others, including Equity, in providing a half-day workshop on dignity in the workplace, where we continued to communicate the absolute importance of a safe and respectful working environment and ensuring that individuals are protected in the workplace. Following the workshop, SPI issued a suite of resources, including policy documents and promotional materials for display in offices and on sets. We were also proud to partner with Amplify Women Collective when it published its excellent harassment and bullying practical toolkit.

The creative industries are one of Ireland's great strengths.

Irish-made productions are enjoyed by audiences around the world. They enhance our reputation and provide high-value employment.

Individuals who work within this industry enjoy working in it because it is unique, creative and dynamic and provides the opportunity to work in a growing global industry. Irish crew members are valued and highly skilled. Their talents are visible on-screen and recognised by local and international awards.

To ensure the long-term sustainability and development of our sector, we require Government understanding of the cultural and economic value of the independent production sector. It is vitally important that Ireland continues its long history of maintaining a tax incentive for production. Without it, Ireland’s production sector simply would not exist. We call on the Government for an immediate commitment to extend the incentive in its current form beyond 2020.

I hope this very brief presentation gives the committee some helpful insights into the shape of the Irish film and TV drama sector and I will be happy to answer any questions members may have.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe go léir as an bhfianaise a thug siad inniu. I apologise; before I open the questioning, I invite Mr. Macken to make his contribution.

Mr. Graham Macken:

I am the industrial organiser for the arts and culture sector in the Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union, SIPTU, and I have the brief for the film and entertainment section.

I will outline for the committee a brief history of our union. SIPTU was established in 1990 with the merger of the country’s two largest unions, the Irish Transport and General Workers Union and the Federated Workers Union of Ireland. SIPTU currently represents more than 180,000 workers from virtually every category of employment across almost every sector of the Irish economy. SIPTU provides the expertise, experience and back-up services necessary to assist workers in their dealings with employers, Government and industrial relations institutions.

The film and TV industry section of the union falls within the arts and culture sector of the services division of SIPTU. SIPTU represents some construction grades, namely, stagehands and riggers while other unions, including the Building and Allied Trades' Union, BATU, and the Operative Plasterers and Allied Trades Society of Ireland, OPATSI represent the other grades in the construction area, namely, carpenters, plasterers and painters. This group is formally known as the Irish Congress of Trade Unions construction group of unions and has the sole negotiating rights for the construction disciplines in the film and TV industry in the Republic of Ireland. The Technical Engineering and Electrical Union, TEEU, now known as CONNECT, also represents electricians in the industry. SIPTU also holds the sole negotiating rights for the shooting crew grades.

I will now address working conditions and developments in the film industry, beginning with the topics of bullying and harassment. The recent sexual harassment allegations in Ireland to date only relate to the theatre sector. No evidence or allegations of sexual harassment have arisen from the film or TV sector in the Republic. There is anecdotal evidence of a problem on the ground in the construction industry, but no specific complaints have been brought to the attention of the union for action. The information to date suggests the possibility of an issue between workers rather than a structural problem.

Within the industry there is a genuine debate about continuity of employment for those workers who are categorised as employees when they are between jobs on film and TV productions. The establishing of a special purpose vehicle, SPV, for each production means that a new company is formed every time a production is made, even when the primary production company is the same. This creates a situation whereby the production company take no responsibility for workers after each production, even when there is little or no gap between productions. It is a new, separate employment each time, so service does not accrue for the workers with any employer. This is an unsatisfactory situation in any terms and the nature of the industry is not a plausible reason for this type of engagement. The general construction industry operates in a similar project-to-project manner and has no issues with continuity of service.

In regard to employment status, there has been some general chatter about the widespread growth of what is referred to as "bogus" self-employment in the film and TV sector. There has certainly been a rise in self-employment, but there is no evidence to suggest that this is bogus, as many workers involved in cameras, sound, and other disciplines insist they are choosing the self-employed route. As a trade union, our preferred position is one of employment and not self-employment, which is why we view it as necessary to narrow the difference between these two types of employment. To achieve this, we need to change the definition of persons to whom the employment legislation applies. The legislation should refer to "workers", as is the case with the Industrial Relations Acts, and not "employees" as in many pieces of employment legislation.

On collective bargaining, pay and general working conditions are negotiated collectively between Screen Producers Ireland, SPI, and the ICTU construction group of unions for construction, and by SIPTU and SPI for the shooting crew grades. We are currently making progress with SPI on an industry pension.

There is a definite gap in the industry when it comes to upskilling, training and development structures for the sector. This has been a matter of discussion with Screen Training Ireland, SPI and SIPTU for some time. It is our view that structures need to be agreed and implemented jointly to create sustainable and quality employment in the industry. There are currently no controls on managing trainees in the industry and SIPTU suggests that a certified log book system be put in place for this purpose. This would prevent trainees being abused by being kept as trainees for far too many years. It also would ensure that all trainee roles are taken up by trainees, rather than by experienced people being used as cheap labour. There must also be a structured development system for all grades so that there is room for progression.

With regard to stakeholder engagement, a film and TV sector stakeholder forum currently exists but it controlled by the Irish Film Board and is not utilised effectively. We are therefore calling for the replacement of this forum with a jointly-led union and industry forum.

The continued funding of this industry is crucial to its growth and development. However, there must be transparency and accountability for compliance with the funding terms, in particular where funding under section 481 is concerned. In order to ensure value for taxpayers' money and to ensure that funding delivers quality and sustainable employment within the industry, we believe there should be annual published audits on compliance in respect of the numbers employed, numbers self-employed and the progression of trainees.

I hope this gives the committee a flavour of the current situation.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat. Obviously this is a very important sector for a number of reasons. The first of these is the artistic expression it allows. Second, it allows our country to tell our story. To a certain extent, it is very easy for us to become a satellite of Anglo-American culture, and that is not a good thing. Third, the sector adds a lot to the Irish economy. Another important issue here, which is one of the issues on which we are focusing, is that so many individuals rely on the industry to survive for their bread and butter. I believe that it is important that the State funds this sector but it is also important that the State analyses its funding to make sure it achieves the best output it can get. Furthermore, because the State is funding the industry, it also has a special responsibility, a duty of care, to those who are working in the sector.

There undoubtedly are problems in the sector. Anybody I have spoken to in the sector agrees on some of them. The first problem I have noticed is the precarious nature of the employment. As Mr. Macken has said, there is a debate concerning what is forced self-employment and what is chosen self-employment. In my experience, in working conditions where there is even power between the worker and the employer, there is usually a better relationship between the two. However, when the power is uneven it can sometimes lead to exploitation within a sector.

This industry seems to be structured so that much of the production happens by the use of special purpose vehicles. They are designed for accounting purposes and to reflect international practice. Those special purpose vehicles lead to short-term contracts, which lead to problems with continuity of contracts. When continuity of contracts is lacking, workers can feel that they cannot access normal employee law or regulations. There is the Workplace Relations Commission and employment legislation but if one's employment only lasts until the end of the month and one needs to stay in the good books until then in order that one can be employed on another special purpose vehicle, there is a danger that one will not access one's rights through that employment legislation. There is a danger that if a person puts up his or her hand, he or she could be blackballed. Such individuals could be seen as troublemakers. In the experience of the three organisations represented here, is that a problem in the industry? I ask the Irish Film Board to respond first.

Mr. James Hickey:

The first challenge here is that the special purpose vehicles are specifically required as part of the section 481 tax incentive. In international practice, for example in the UK, every production has a special purpose vehicle.

This is not unique to Ireland as a particular way of doing business. Special purpose vehicles for the making of feature films and TV drama series have been in place. This is not something recent and it goes back 30, 40 and 50 years. It has been standard practice for a long time not just in Ireland, but throughout the rest of the world.

There are two separate issues. There are the employment arrangement issues on the one hand and the structures of the special purpose vehicle situation on the other. The special purpose vehicle situation was introduced specifically by the Revenue Commissioners in Ireland at its request. It was not something generated from the sector. Revenue wanted it for accounting purposes and clarity of lines, etc.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Hickey recognise that it can lead to an unequal relationship between worker and employee that can be exploited. Is there a solution to it? If we can park the accounting purposes, is there a solution to the lack of continuous employment?

Ms Elaine Geraghty:

To reiterate the point, lest there be any confusion, the motivation is that it is an obligation for companies. It is important to make that point. However, within the period when they are setting up, employers and producers are obliged to meet all their obligations as employers and that happens. I refer to the funding of the industry, how often productions are made and how long a time it takes to finance them. We are not special children or a special case, but by its nature it is how the industry works. There could be huge gaps.

There are also different genres of film and productions made by the same companies which require different skill sets. I alluded to this earlier. There could be a big build, a construction build and a period piece, a long running or short running one that requires a certain set of skills, yet something completely different. In terms of moving from one production to another, it is driven by the genre, the skill set required and the number, because there are different types. That is what drives the employment level and requirement. The problem that the Deputy is talking about is the gaps between one production and another.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If Ms Geraghty went to Grafton Street and asked a person whether he or she would like an employment scenario where the job comes to an end every four months and the person has to keep reapplying for it, everybody asked would say "No". That would leave the employee in an unequal position to the employer. It would change the nature of the experience with the employer and leave the employee wide open.

Ms Elaine Geraghty:

The experiences of employees and employers are different depending on the project. This would need to be tracked, and Mr. Collins might like to speak on it, but it would be possible that an employee has worked on a number of productions for the same company or might end up working for five different employers, depending on his or her skill set and availability. There is crossover in terms of when productions are made and freedom of movement that involves availability.

In an ideal world, we would love to have full production 52 weeks a year and to be able to offer that. However, to understand the complexity of how productions are put together, and I spoke of the timescale, that reality is it could be months in terms of bringing it to bear.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Ms O'Loughlin wish to comment?

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

This is a serious problem in the industry and it is probably the biggest source of complaint. A person could work in the industry for 30 years and still have no form of security or continuity of employment and everything that comes with that. No rights are built up and there are zero protections. There is an easy answer to it. There is an accepted wisdom in the industry that this is the way it is globally. Many things were accepted globally as the right thing for a long time but they are no longer accepted practices now.

The nearest comparative industry to the film industry has to be the construction industry. It goes from project to project and builders can be involved in several projects at the same time. There can be overlap in all of those projects. They do not have the same problem. The construction industry in general, when building houses, hotels, schools or whatever, has long periods of employment and short periods of employment. However, between those periods of employment, if the builder does not have another project, the employees are put on lay-off. They can take up other work or not. When the next project comes along, the builder recalls those people back to work. If the break is not over six months long, then it is all reckonable service for employment purposes, if the committee understands what I mean by that.

There is a very easy answer to this. The special purpose vehicle is the small vehicle but the production company is the main gig and it should be the main employer. If I am the production company and I have a special purpose vehicle and I want a person in that as an employee for that time, there is no reason I cannot be the main employer. The person is then put on that production. I do not see that as rocket science. The situation makes people incredibly vulnerable in the industry. People have to be compliant and not complain about anything for the reasons mentioned. Individuals cannot stand up for anything because disagreeing too strongly might mean he or she may not get the next gig. I am not accusing anybody of doing that in this room. I am saying it is a fact of life as the committee has identified. Where there is a power imbalance and a person feels vulnerable, then he or she is more likely to be compliant in the way that he or she works rather than assert rights to good terms and conditions, etc. I do not believe rocket science is needed to overcome this problem.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Collins have a comment?

Mr. David Collins:

Yes, from a slightly different perspective perhaps. I understand entirely why the special purpose vehicle is there. I would like to emphasis though, in regard to trainees and heads of department, HODs, that ultimately it is a highly mobile and flexible industry. I not saying that is an excuse for employers to exploit mobility or flexibility, but in return for flexibility and mobility, individuals rise from trainee right up through the ranks to become a designer who will end up working not just in Ireland, but abroad developing their skills. I tend to produce live action low budget films outside conventional studios. I do not have a big construction requirement on anything that I do.

However, as part of that, normally I would be relying on my head of department to hire the crew needed to do a good job, such as a union crew, and if they do a good job, the chances are that I will work with that person again. However, I am the employer of the individuals and not the head of department. It has happened though that on many occasions I might be looking for a designer, a grip or someone in costume and these people are not available. I suffer from that mobility and flexibility too.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to focus on training. This is a major gripe within the sector as far as I can see because the training seems to have no beginning, no middle and no end. It has no accreditation. If a person looks to go into any sector, what he or she will seek is to know how long it is going to take, know what their output has to be and know the accreditation. Once they have achieved that accreditation, he or she does not participate in that space again. They move on. However, that does not seem to be the case in the film industry.

Many people come to me and say they are being forced back into the same training spots repeatedly. It seems to be motivated to an extent by the section 481 necessity to have a certain number of trainees on a production. Is that not something ripe for reform?

I am running out of time, so I will ask another couple of questions and then the witnesses might address them all together. The other issue is that the Irish Film Board has the potential to run a forum in the industry. Now is a good time, even from the level of development we have seen over the past number of years and where we want to go. There are also these underlying problems. Would it be a good idea to initiate that forum and give workers in the industry a right to initiate that in the future? Different sectors would have a right to initiate a forum. Would it also be a good idea for the Irish Film Board to have a representative of the crew workers? The Irish Board would then have a broader more insightful view into the experiences of the different people it takes to make a film. I know that is not the Irish Film Board's choice. It is the Minister's choice but it is something that could be suggested.

In respect of films, what is the break down between indigenous films and international films funded in the State at the moment? What would be the break down of films that are successful financially and those that are less so? Those are my three questions. The first one is open to everyone and the last two are just for the Irish Film Board representatives

Mr. James Hickey:

On training accreditation, I think we are all agreed the Crowe Horwath report makes various recommendations, which would include proceeding with the development of accreditations systems for trainees. There is no doubt that is something that can and should be done. We welcome it. As I understand the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht will implement the recommendations of the report, which includes this issue. That would be very welcome and is something which can and should be done. It will need a certain amount of resources.

It is probably worth mentioning that historically accreditation and going through the grades was organised through the trade unions. That system still exists in some parts of the trade unions. Again, as part of the proposed dialogue in the forum, it might be brought back into the discussion as well too. The trade unions have a significant role to play in accreditation and how people would go through the various processes of training in order to progress to employment.

I am 100% happy with the suggestion that a forum be reestablished and to reconstitute what was called the consultation committee. It was initiated during a period when there was less work going around and it was a good forum for discussions about what needed to be done. Happily at the time, levels of employment and production activity increased. Therefore the committee did not meet. I am happy for the committee to meet again and I am happy to co-ordinate and organise the meetings, if that is something the industry would welcome.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Indigenous and foreign films.

Mr. James Hickey:

That is probably more difficult to explain because obviously the inward production is a significant part of the production activity that goes on. We have very large TV series which are produced here which employ hundreds of people. As I outlined in my presentation, we fund 16 indigenous feature films a year, some of which would be quite low budget films; a higher budget film would cost about €5 million to €7 million. A €7 million expenditure would be the highest, so they are at the lower end of the scale when compared with much of the inward production.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What percentage of the total spend is on indigenous film and what percentage is foreign?

Mr. James HickeyCertainly in terms of expenditure, larger amounts of money would be spent on inward production rather than indigenous production.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would both be getting State funding?

Mr. James Hickey:

The Irish Film Board, with its annual fund of approximately €10 million to €12 million a year would be.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was referring to investment in film under section 48.1

Mr. James Hickey:

Funding under section 481 goes across both indigenous and inward production.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Screen Producers Ireland, SPI, comment?

Ms Elaine Geraghty:

Training is a requirement under section 481. Let me give the committee a short example. Training must happen and it is happening. Troy Studios recently opened its doors to "Nightflyers". It is fantastic to see the mid-west region in production now. They had two training course for set building and production trainees. Five of the 19 production trainees are now gainfully employed on the production and nine of the 34 on the set building course are also working.

"Vikings" is being filmed in Ashford Studios, 40% of the official trainees were promoted, 50% were re-employed. "Into the Badlands" is being shot in Ardmore Studios and 40% of the official trainees were promoted and 90% of the trainees were re-employed.

I really think that not enough people know that we need to monitor and measure training. I completely agree that we need a framework whereby training is structures and certified where appropriate and where possible, because that could look different for different grades. There is lots of training happening and my biggest gripe is that people do not know about it and we are not able to capture what is happening. It does need the recommendation in the Crowe Horwath report to come into play in terms of Screen Training Ireland. They are committed to this. I am completely open to a forum and to looking at how to shape and communicate the training.

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

Section 481 funding is useful for many things. I do not think the problem with training is the fault of section 481. Section 481 demands that there be trainees. That is a good thing. It is how we follow that thereafter. Currently what happens is that on a production there are a certain number of trainees, and when the production is over, that is it for those people, they are gone.

On the next production there are also a certain number of trainees, but they are not the same trainees as before. What has happened to those trainees? A framework structure is needed to follow personnel.

I shiver when I think is it time for a review of section 481 funding. A review could eliminate some of the good aspects of section 481. I would be wary of that. Section 481 needs to be bolstered for transparency and for longevity to create a framework that allows trainees to get from point A to point B in their careers.

On the issue of getting a worker representative on the Irish Film Board, if that could be recommended to the Minister that would be a really good idea.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would Ms McGrane comment?

Ms Teresa McGrane:

Training is being discussed in various guises. I am here as Screen Training Ireland but I work in the Irish Film Board and am deputy chief executive officer. A number of years ago when FÁS was being dissolved and being folded into the ETBs, with SOLAS being the policy body, FÁS came to us and asked whether we would take over the training element of the unit that had been sitting within FÁS. We were very happy to do that. That is a very small unit. This is a major piece of work that needs to be done and this is a small unit of three people. We structure our training across production and technical, which is the subject of what we are talking about today, business and enterprise and creativity and creative collaboration.

What we recognised when we got into Screen Training Ireland is that we really needed to move the agenda forward. We started the process of commissioning a report to get a national conversation on where skills were going in the screen sector.

Screen Training Ireland also covers live action, film and TV drama, animation, games, visual effects, new emerging technologies in VR and it covers television broadcasts, so it is a very wide remit. It is a far wider remit than the funding of the Film Board of Ireland.

We finished the report last year and we published it in September. I would say it took us longer to complete and when one has co-agencies it takes a while when they are on different slip streams. Let me bring the members through a number of the ideas we are developing, which will be an active part of the work plan for the Irish Film Board in 2018.

In the booklet we published, we set out all the training we have been doing in 2017. In 2017, the Irish Film Board and the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, BAI, published the AV skills strategy report. In 2018, Screen Training Ireland, STI will undertake a review of the report and seek to implement the major recommendations and these will include an advisory board for Screen Training Ireland, the appointment of a training manager, the engagement with the sector on the recommendations, a skills gap audit across live action, animation and television production sectors and consideration of accreditation models.

In 2017 major advances were made in developing apprenticeships, however we recognise the scale of the work that still needs to be done in developing more work-based learning opportunities. Many challenges still exist. Diversity, inclusion, paths for new entrants and the ongoing issue of bridging the gap between third level and industry. We also recognise that we need more hard data in terms of measuring the workforce. Therefore in 2018, we will roll out an extensive careers portal in live action, animation and the effects in television production which will map careers in these areas. We will launch that portal imminently. We need to establish an industry education forum, carry out detailed research on the scale and the breakdown of the workforce; develop more traineeships and partnerships with SOLAS, the local education and training boards and third level; develop a trainee tool kit; and work closely with industry on partnership initiatives, especially around animation and increase mentoring, especially for female talent.

Photo of Peadar TóibínPeadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would have had people come to me who have degrees, years of experience working in a particular sector within the industry who told me that they get repeated requests to become part of a production as a trainee. I do not know how that facilitates productions. One of the important things is that we leave capacity in the sector. If the Government is spending money there needs to be a capacity in the film industry that grows and grows. Training is a great way to do that, but if we are saying to the same individuals that we want them to come back on to the next production as a trainee and they are coming to the end of their time as a trainee, with no piece of paper that is QQI accredited to say they have achieved that level, is that a weakness?

Ms Teresa McGrane:

Absolutely. I will go back to Crowe Horwath report, part of which recognises that the Government through the Irish Film Board needs to put more resources into training. We have developed a new structure with the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. We are looking to fund more posts in training.

We would like to create a dedicated post that would look after the development of apprenticeships and trainees in the industry. We have not had sight of the section 481 trainees who come through the production. That is not something that comes near us. It goes into the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. However, I would fully agree that we need to develop frameworks for that kind of training and accreditation.

Let me just say I sometimes feel I am working in a different industry because I do not totally recognise what was stated about trainees coming through and staying as such for a long number of years. I came into the industry as a trainee. My cohort of friends are all from the industry. They all came in as trainees. If anything, sometimes we have a kind of galloping factor through the trainee system. It is about developing, for Screen Training Ireland, access points into productions, the development of frameworks on the necessary competencies and skills basis, and a form of accreditation and how that works.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses may forgive me as I am new to the film industry, as opposed to theatre or media.

First, is Ms McGrane making a distinction between her in an office at the bureaucratic or creative end of it, and the brilliant trainee rigger, construction worker, electrician on the ground because it does not seem as though they have the same facility to run through the system and get to the top of their game, to become supervisors, to become permanent or whatever? Does Ms McGrane understand the distinction I am making?

Ms Teresa McGrane:

Not really.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me put it this way. Ms McGrane stated that she ran through it. It was very easy for her. She got promoted. She had no problem getting promoted. She had no problem finding ways. She has no problem staying there. She had no problem having a semi-permanency. However, we are hearing that, with another end of the industry, trainees are having a problem in getting permanency and in getting work where the work is not haphazard. I am hearing a distinction between those in the office and those on the ground. Is that a stupid, innocent, crazy distinction?

Ms Teresa McGrane:

No. I am just saying that was my personal experience.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not for everybody.

Ms Teresa McGrane:

The fundamental point is we need more structures around that. I would completely agree. We would be pushing hard to make those changes.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has Ms McGrane been pushing in the right directions?

Ms Teresa McGrane:

As I say, we have come to a point where we have been able to negotiate more resources for Screen Training Ireland. I see Screen Training Ireland moving into a different space now.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a sociological answer that everybody is in certain spaces. I do not know what that means.

Ms Teresa McGrane:

I mean spaces in terms of resources. It is also all about what we can deliver in terms of resources.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Hickey stated that Screen Training Ireland has plans for the development of training across the audiovisual production sector and is engaging with the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht on the development of its training services. How is he engaging with them and what does he hope to get for them because I do not remember them becoming Quality and Qualifications Ireland, QQI, accredited? Is he talking about funding? The Department of Culture, Heritage and Gaeltacht is not an institute, such as Carlow IT. How is Mr. Hickey engaging with them? How has that engagement gone? How far is it ahead?

Mr. James Hickey:

The Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht is the Minister, Josepha Madigan, and her people.

Mr. James Hickey:

First of all, as Ms McGrane explained, the report was a comprehensive effort to try to bring together everything. We are talking about everybody participating in the production sector. We are talking about people involved in the creative side of it, such as writers, directors and producers. We are also talking about people who are involved in construction, make-up and hair, costume design, and electricians.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that. How does Mr. Hickey see his role with the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht moving that on? In what way would Mr. Hickey like to see that moved on besides a cheque?

Mr. James Hickey:

The Crowe Horwath report's first recommendation clearly states the Department takes a leadership role in bringing forward the development of training as part of an overall process. I would agree that, for example, the arrangements under section 481 need to be modified so that they can be more properly monitored and we can get a clearer picture.

Mr. James Hickey:

I do not think anybody disputes that. At this stage, no doubt there is work to be done but we are engaging with the Department. We have gone to the Department with various proposals about, for example, increased resources for ourselves in Screen Training Ireland. We also engaged with the Department on the results of this report. We are also closely working on the Olsberg report, which is another important document in terms of the future of the sector. It is between all of those.

It is a question of how Government deals with issues and questions which we need to address. There is definitely work to be done. There is a report to be implemented. There is another report coming down the tracks which we need to-----

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am a great believer that Government has to be led from the outside by people who know what they are doing. I am a great believer in those working on the ground from the writer right down to the rigger because Governments and Ministers change. Does Mr. Hickey see that Screen Training Ireland would have any connection with the Department of Education and Skills in the development of highly skilled apprenticeships in the film industry? They may be the officials with whom Mr. Hickey should be negotiating as well, if he is talking about third-level accreditation or QQI.

Mr. James Hickey:

Our lead Department is the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht because that is the Department which provides the funding to the Irish Film Board. They are obviously the officials we engage with because they are the ones we need to talk to about what we want to do.

They, in turn, organise engagements with other Departments. For example, there was a steering group which was responsible for the management of the Olsberg report which included the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment, the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation and the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. They are constantly engaging with other Departments which are also involved in this area. I agree it is us, working with the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, endeavouring to work with other Departments as well through that Department. That is something which I hope will continue and will be expanded on.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will carry on. The whole area of building skilled apprenticeships is exactly what Ms McGrane is talking about in another way. The permanency and non-haphazard level of skilled apprenticeship is not coming out of the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Its seat and its well is finding its way creatively, industrially or agriculturally, within the Department of Education and Skills. That is why it would be my opinion - it may be a personal crazy opinion - that sometimes we have to lead ourselves, that is, that we have to come ourselves with the ideas and bring them to the Department.

There is an impasse here between the precarious nature of jobs, as was being outlined by Ms McGrane. What is Ms McGrane's solution to that?

Ms Teresa McGrane:

To the precarious nature of the work-----

Ms Teresa McGrane:

-----or to the training?

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is Ms McGrane's solution?

Ms Teresa McGrane:

To the precarious nature of the work?

Ms Teresa McGrane:

It is not beyond the capacity of the parent production company to employ people on a consistent basis. In the past few years it has been a little better. There has been a lot of work and many have gone from one production to another. That means that they did not have gaps in work and in getting wages but it also means that they are still not accruing service with any employer. If, in particular, the production companies have a series that returns for series two, series three and series four, by now some of those people could have had five or six years of continuous employment and the resulting benefits. The parent production company that opens the special purpose vehicle should take responsibility for those employees. That is my solution to that.

On the training, there is a vast difference between people in office grades or more professional grades. The production companies have, as the committee heard already, some core staff.

Ms Teresa McGrane:

There is a world of difference between such employees and those working either as construction or shooting crew, or even performers, on a television or film production. It is not possible to fast-track oneself through any sort of training. It is even impossible to get through any form of training. Reports are published all the time and unless they are resourced, they are never implemented. While we are waiting on resources for all of that, there are a number of things we can do such as provide for a simple log book system and the registration of trainees.

If a production company says on the section 481 application that it has X number of trainees, then they should be registered so they can be available to the industry for the next production no matter who has the production.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So there is a progression.

Ms Karan O Loughlin:

They could take trainees out from that pool and ensure there is consistency of development for them. Those are things that can be done with little expense and fairly immediately. If there was a level of commitment and co-operation around that I believe we could get to it.

We need to be careful about section 481. There is no doubt that the relief has its faults, such as the lack of transparency, but it is a useful tool for tracking inward investment, which is where a lot of the work comes from. The tax incentives for the UK are more attractive than Ireland's section 481 scheme. We do not know where that business will go with the Brexit scenario when the EU rules will no longer apply for the UK. The UK competes with us for productions. Ireland gets some overflow work from the UK but when it comes to the big productions from Disney or Hollywood or wherever, the UK is further ahead of the game than is Ireland. We probably also need to look at this in terms of future development.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has always fascinated me that we have got to the stage where we are thinking and living in our heads. I have watched the university system over 30 years and it grew into a place that one would go to university to learn how to make a film. A person went to learn the sociology, the philosophy or the psychology of film or the brilliance of film and learn about the literature and writing of film, but to make a film takes an awful lot of ability. Students came out from university thinking they were going to make films when they were nowhere near the concept of visualising a world for screen. This is why I use the word "apprenticeships", which I say in the context of the glory of the great mosaics of years ago, great artists of the stained glass windows, writers and dramatists. This is why I suggest that the Department of Education and Skills is looking for validation and QQI awards within that. The Departments do not, however, communicate with each other here, which I have learnt as an innocent. One nearly has to go in and say "This is the route you could take and this is the conduit where people could have exactly that". They could continue to be trained until they become mentors or artists of the construction, as well as writers. I hear the problem but having said that, the film industry in Ireland is a credit to all the representatives sitting before the committee today.

Ms Elaine Geraghty:

There is a lot covered there. When we talk about parent companies, we must keep in mind that most production companies and producers are actually quite small. There are a few that are very large. It is rare but welcome that there are back-to-back series producers. I have had family in the industry for years and years. It is highly unusual that this happens but it is welcome that there are back-to-back series. To put it in context, parent companies could be two or three-person operations and beyond the office, we must consider how training can take place. It is also complex because there are different grades. Reference was made to craft. There are examples everywhere of people who started as runners in an art department and they worked their way through. That is great but it requires a particular environment. In respect of craft, I am all for measuring training, monitoring and certification of some kind and it only takes conversations around these tables to understand how this industry works. We should not, however, be afraid of that. Within the electricians in a crew, it is rare to see a trainee electrician on a production because they are all trained within the union and we are rarely given trainees. With regard to apprenticeships, it is great if they work. Screen Producers Ireland has supported a successful apprenticeship programme for the animation sector. Another programme was unsuccessful. Any solutions should be looked at but one should remember it is not that we are such a complex industry, it is just there are a lot of grades, a lot of crafts and training will look different from grade to grade and from skill set to skill set. We need to get around a table and to find solutions. These solutions will look different, in that workplace training will look different to training in between productions.

Ms Teresa McGrane:

I will confirm a point on apprenticeships and traineeships. Screen Training Ireland is doing quite a lot of them but the programmes at the moment are probably more in animation and visual effects. Our partners are SOLAS and the education and training boards, with whom we have linked for the big production "Nightflyers" in Limerick. We currently have an apprenticeship scheme with Cartoon Saloon in Kilkenny, which is training 15 apprentices. This programme is run with Cartoon Saloon studio, which has just been nominated for an Oscar for "The Breadwinner", and Young Irish Film Makers in Kilkenny. Screen Training Ireland works with these on the apprenticeship programme. All of these partnerships exist and conversations are happening with SOLAS. We are developing a school-leaver apprenticeship in visual effects with SOLAS. This will be delivered through Ballyfermot College of Further Education. We are also in the early stages of planning of a media production traineeship with SOLAS. These are all active partnerships.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is good. I am a great believer in that.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the contributors for helping to develop my understanding of the whole industry. On the broader picture of things, given the enormous potential the sector has for employment at many levels and to develop Ireland's reputation, we need to dramatically increase the amount of Government investment in film and the arts generally. It has been the poor relation of Government spending for a long time. That is a general comment. I am on the side of people who want to develop the film industry and I recognise the potential. I am, however, deeply concerned about some of the things I have heard today, and which I have learned recently. I particularly acknowledge the Irish Film Workers Association, members of which have acquainted me with their experience and who will appear before the committee in a few weeks. They paint a not very pleasant picture. First, I note an awful lot of money is going into the section 481 tax break. The witnesses may tell me if I have the figures right, and I may make silly mistakes here, but is it correct that in 2016, €258 million was given out in tax expenditures?

Mr. James Hickey:

That is not correct.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What sort of figure are we looking at annually for section 481?

Mr. James Hickey:

Is the Deputy referring to the cost to the State?

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The tax expenditure.

Mr. James Hickey:

It is about €60 million or €70 million.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is still a lot of money. Is it correct that in addition to this figure there are grants and loans?

Mr. James Hickey:

Irish Film Board funding represents approximately €10 million to €12 million.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So is this €80 million, roughly, in grants and loans? Does the Irish Film Board give out loans as well as grants?

Mr. James Hickey:

The way in which film production is funded is common throughout the EU and elsewhere with film agencies providing funding through limited recourse loans. If the film makes money then money is repaid to the agency. This is a practice throughout Europe and elsewhere.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to ask about that in a minute. The figure of €80 million is a lot of money. How many people are permanently directly employed by the production companies? Given that €80 million is going in, how many people are permanently employed in the sector? If I understand it correctly, a relatively small group of production companies - the parent companies - are the main beneficiaries of most of that money. I am aware there are a lot of small companies and so on but I understand there are ten or 15 parent companies who probably get the bulk of that expenditure, both directly and as tax relief?

Mr. James Hickey:

No. The benefit of the funding goes to the vast number of people who are working in the sector. The figure I gave for the total number of full-time equivalents in the sector was 17,000.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not mean full-time equivalents. What is the figure for people who are permanently employed by the production companies? I presume it is not the crew who apply for the section 481 tax relief and it is the company that applies.

Mr. James Hickey:

The money is used to pay the crew.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it not the companies who apply and who get the section 481 certificate and the funding?

Mr. James Hickey:

Yes, but then they receive it and pay it to the crew.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of the companies who received it, how many people are permanently and directly employed?

Mr. James Hickey:

I reiterate what I said in my presentation.

The sector is made up of a very complex set of skills across a wide range of activities. There are writers, directors, actors, cinematographers, construction crew and costume designers. The sector is made up of a very wide range of very different people.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I fully understand that. Some of my comments are less focused on actors as the State should recognise that actors are not just normal jobseekers in between jobs. After a period, when it is acknowledged that a person is a professional actor, the State should ensure a decent living for them and make some sort of arrangement where they are employed by the State or given a decent level of income so that they do not have this precarious existence. I say that as an aside and perhaps Irish Equity could respond to that point. I am talking about the people who make the props, provide transport and build the sets. These are very skilled people who have absolutely no continuity of employment at. Production companies get certain types of tax breaks, grants and loans. How many of these people do they employ directly?

Ms Elaine Geraghty:

I do not have an exact number of production companies but I can get that information for the Deputy. I will explain the process, and perhaps Mr. Collins can help as well. If a company applies for section 481 tax relief, it is for the purpose of a project. If one looks at an application for funding, every single line of the funding sought is allocated for all kinds of activities. An element would be for the production company but every other line is for those people Mr. Hickey just mentioned. A typical application includes everything the Deputy has just spoken about. There are many companies. Some are two-person operations and others are bigger. Every application by every company that is set up is for a particular film or a production of some kind. Some are small, some are medium and some are large scale.

Mr. David Collins:

This does not just apply for applications for the tax break. It is the same if one is applying for funding from the Irish Film Board. Let us say that a project costs €1.5 million. Around 40 people will be employed full-time for between two or three months. Perhaps ten to 15 people will be employed part-time for around six months. The production company might be employing between 20 and 40 or 50 actors of varying levels of renown or notoriety over that period. The amount of money a company gets from the State for that might amount to one third of the budget or perhaps slightly more than that. The producer must raise the rest of the money from other sources internationally and must hope that it all arrives at the same time. That is the volatile nature of this business.

To be clear, the top company is the custodian of those funds and it has a duty of care to spend that money as it has promised its various stakeholders. If that company does not spend its money in the way it promised, the market will turn against it and its Irish stakeholders will turn against it. A company that would behave like that would not be in business for very long. I am a producer, and my line is, "In dreams begin responsibilities". If somebody comes to me with an idea and I agree to help him or her make it happen, I then have to take responsibility for that dream.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry to cut across the witness but I am going to run out of time.

Mr. David Collins:

I thought the witness wanted a coherent answer-----

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do want an answer.

Mr. David Collins:

-----which is that we are the custodian of that money.

Ms Elaine Geraghty:

We have a clear set of rules of what is eligible and ineligible. It is transparent.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not transparent to me but that is because I do not know enough about the industry.

Ms Elaine Geraghty:

The Deputy should come and talk to us.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The picture I am getting from people working in the industry is not a good one. I am hearing that the requirement under section 481 for quality of employment and training opportunities is not the case. I do not know how this has gone on for so long, given that section 481 has been in place for quite a long time and quite a lot of money has been dispensed. I met someone recently who was a trainee for 12 years. That is not acceptable. That is an abuse of the category of trainee.

Quality employment, in my mind, cannot be defined as a hire-them-and-fire-them workforce where, at the end of every production, regardless of how long a person has worked in the industry, how many different productions they have worked on and what their level of skills are, there is no obligation whatsoever to take somebody back when the next production starts. If that person has been asking questions about health and safety issues, pay issues or conditions on the set, there is no obligation to take him or her back. There are allegations that this is happening. I do not know how widespread it is but I do not believe there is smoke without fire. The witnesses will no doubt say that the industry generally is not like that and perhaps that is true. I am simply saying that if those allegations are being made, I do not believe they are totally made up.

Ms Elaine Geraghty:

I would like to respond, because the Deputy has referenced the Irish Film Workers Association, IFWA, group today, and we read his exchange last week in the Oireachtas. The Deputy is correct; I am going to say that what he put forward does not reflect the industry as we see it. On the issue of a person working as a trainee for that amount of time, I am unaware of that but I would like to know about it. The Deputy should please come and speak with us as we would be delighted to give him other views. Finally, IFWA asked to meet with Screen Producers Ireland to express its concerns about a number of issues. We issued an invitation and it has turned us down on both occasions. Our door is open and will continue to be open. That is the respectful way to get business done. We would be delighted to share any other detail with the Deputy. What he has described is, in our view, not the industry that our producers and the group of men and women who work in this industry are experiencing at present.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms O'Loughlin wanted to respond as well.

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

The Deputy will find that there are different perspectives on this. The Deputy might pick up on the subtext here. While there seems to be a willingness to address the trainee issue, there is no doubt that there is a serious problem with trainees in the industry. We do not know who they are or where they are and they cannot be tracked. They are trainees for years because they get bits and pieces of work and cannot count up their time to see how long they have been a trainee for. If one is lucky enough to work continuously on one production after another he or she might be able to get themselves over the line. If a person is working sporadically, it is possible to end up as a trainee for many years. Sometimes, when work is scarce, it is hard for trainees to take up trainee positions because experienced people will be out of work and a production company will decide that it does not need another prop person but will offer qualified people the trainee position. Qualified, experienced people end up working for trainee money. It is a problem, and with the best will in the world, if we wait around for all of the reports to finish and then for another period for funding, the problem will never be dealt with. Trainees need to be registered. There needs to be a pool of trainees to run through the industry. Collectively the industry needs to decide every year how many trainees it wants at the other end. They should be pooled for all of the productions so that we get a more professionalised system. There is absolutely no doubt but that there is an issue with trainees in the industry.

Deputy Niamh Smyth took the Chair.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take up the invitations as I want to know what is going on. I would like the industry to get €160 million - do not get me wrong - but I believe that when an industry gets €80 million, it should create more permanent employment in exchange. I met some people the other day who were producing the most amazing props.

It was blindingly good work. They are in their 70s and cannot retire because the on-off nature of their employment means that they do not have pension entitlements. That is a scandal.

Ms Elaine Geraghty:

We can answer the pension one because that is on the table right now in negotiations with SIPTU on a shooting-crew agreement. The Deputy is right that we need to come of age in that regard. To be clear, that is under discussion and it is recognised.

Mr. David Collins:

It should have been done years ago, absolutely.

Ms Elaine Geraghty:

Yes.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will have some of the other groups in again to discuss this. I want to follow it through with everyone here.

Is there a conflict of interest in the fact that one person - I should not mention a name or I will be rapped on the knuckles-----

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Definitely.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----owns one third of Ardmore Studios and is also one of the owners of Troy Studios. There is something of a conflict of interest there. Certainly, fears have been expressed to me that Ardmore is being run down in favour of Troy. I want to see all of these studios flourish, but I put it to the witnesses that there is a problem if the same person has the biggest stake in Troy and something of a stake in Ardmore when there are fears about the future of the latter.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To whom is the question directed?

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Anyone who wants to answer it.

Mr. James Hickey:

These are two private sector organisations and their arrangements are very much within the private sector. There is no particular reason two studios cannot be owned under whatever arrangements are made. The point is that both studios are currently busy and active and being used for production. That is the great news at the moment. As I mentioned in my presentation, there are three television drama series being made in Ireland currently, which is a very significant increase on what was going on in the past. There was one big television series ten years ago but there are now three big ones being made here. That is an extraordinary tripling of activity. One is actively using Ardmore, one is in Ashford Studios in south Wicklow and the other is using Troy Studios. There are three separate large scale television series generating hundreds of jobs in each case for each project. That is the good news story.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As a brief supplementary and as a matter of curiosity, is "Into the Badlands" filmed up in the old Dublin Sports Hotel?

Mr. James Hickey:

Yes.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why is it up there?

Mr. James Hickey:

That was a particularly carved out location. It was very suitable location for the particular production. It was exactly what they needed.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no one in it. It is in NAMA, is it not?

Mr. Steven Davenport:

There is a shortage of studios in Ireland. The demand for content means we need more studios. It is as simple as that.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their contributions, which were from all perspectives and which were very insightful. I will not rehash all of the questions that have been asked. I am curious about education. We have pointed out very clearly today the flaws in that regard and the things that need to be done on measuring, monitoring and accreditation. They are no-brainers and we must see if something will be done about them. Ms McGrane referred to training resources a number of times. What is the budget for training?

Ms Teresa McGrane:

The annual budget is €700,000 which is funded by the Irish Film Board.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the committee being told in respect of that €700,000 that there are no guidelines on monitoring, measuring or accreditation?

Ms Teresa McGrane:

There are. The Irish Film Board monitors the expenditure and approves courses and budgets.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Monitoring in terms of the trainees who may come back to do a course again and not move to the next level.

Ms Teresa McGrane:

Correct.

Mr. James Hickey:

We are talking about training that goes on separately to the training the Irish Film Board provides. We keep full records on the people we train and we know exactly who they are. The problem, if there is one, is that outside what Screen Training Ireland does there is a significant number of trainees working across the industry. It is monitoring that which is in issue.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The monitoring of that. In other words, the registration of those trainees.

Mr. James Hickey:

It is not about Screen Training Ireland's activities, it is about the section 481 requirement for two trainees for every particular sum of expenditure.

Ms Elaine Geraghty:

It is also training that is happening in any event and how the information can be captured. It is happening but it is about a cohesive approach by carrying out an audit to see what shape we are in, where the gaps are and what bodies are involved.

Ms Teresa McGrane:

We are committed to doing that.

Mr. David Collins:

I reiterate the point about not just thinking in silos. It is very important to bring education into this. It is very important not to forget the key role the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment has in this area. RTÉ is the single biggest full-time employer in the audiovisual sector in Ireland and has been for 50 years. Let us not forget that RTÉ has a very significant role to play, potentially, in training. Discussion of training seems always to centre on the Dublin area.

What about training in Galway?

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was one of my questions.

Mr. David Collins:

TG4 has something to do there. What about training in Cork? We have just shot a low-budget movie in Cork and the desire of people across the board to work on the film was palpable. Incidentally, we got support for the film from the Irish Film Board, as well as key support, at a trainee level, from Cork County Council and Cork City Council. It took us six months to negotiate that support, but we got it.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That brings me back nicely to my question on the Irish Film Board. Is there any oversight of a geographical spread regarding training?

Mr. James Hickey:

Yes. As Ms McGrane was explaining, we are undertaking training activities in Kilkenny, with Cartoon Saloon, and in Limerick, with Troy Studios. All production activity includes training. Every production has trainees on it. There is a great deal of training taking place and it could be calibrated more effectively.

Ms Elaine Geraghty:

"Red Rock" is an exemplar in terms of training. It is about bringing it all together and understanding that. We know it can be confusing and the information sought is disparate.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms O'Loughlin alluded to the fact that parent companies have a responsibility for the continuation of the employment of those involved in the film sector.

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

Yes.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Understanding how parent companies work, how would Ms O'Loughlin facilitate freedom of movement and skills in that context ? I have worked as an artist and one could have three or four projects on at the same time. I might want to be involved with three or four projects. It might be half a project's worth of work on one and half on another. That is the nature of the work, which I accept. Considering that there are three or four parent companies in the country-----

Ms Elaine Geraghty:

Can we just talk about parent companies for a moment? There are a lot of production companies of all sizes. I am sorry if I have interrupted Ms O'Loughlin. I do not mean to just cut across. There are not ten parent companies but there are lots of productions companies that are employers of different sizes. That needs to be considered when we have this conversation on continuation of employment and that gap between filming in Ireland and abroad, where there may not be a project here for another ten months.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is my point. I wonder if there are any proposals as to how two very different things could be done, which is to have that continued employment while still providing for workers in the area who may actually want to be involved in two or three different projects at the same time.

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

The likelihood that crew will want to be involved in several productions at once is minimal. While that is an issue for performers, we are not going to get continuity of employment for performers because of the nature of their work. They would be better supported through improved social protection structures. People who work as crew, however, are different. It is very unlikely that a camera operator will want to be on two productions at the same time. I accept fully that there are production companies of all sizes. As I said earlier, the nearest industry comparator is the general building industry, which consists of builders of all sizes.

Those builders still manage to hire people when they have work and have them on lay-off when they do not have work. People stay on lay-off for a certain amount of time or else they move on to other work. There are choices involved in all of that for people. In my view, and it is a strongly held view within the union, the main production should take responsibility for the workers in that way. As Deputy Boyd Barrett has said, one cannot have a "Hire 'em and fire 'em" structure because it is not good for the industry in the long run. Also, it is not good for workers to have that sort of precariousness in their lives because it causes stress, ill-health and poverty.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that not due to how we fund production companies rather than their unwillingness to retain staff?

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

The Acting Chairman has asked an interesting question. I am not aware of a roll-over funding model. There must be a production before people can be employed. I am not sure whether I understand the question properly.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will try to make an analogy. Let us consider the position of theatres that are funded by the Arts Council on an annual basis

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

Yes.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As a result of that funding, these theatres can retain staff and workers are protected, which is what the union wants-----

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

Yes.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and what the committee wants to achieve, because their annual funding is guaranteed once they do the work and produce the goods. I am trying to get to the crux of the problem for production companies. In that context, do we need to consider to resource those companies differently?

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

As I understand the position, it is not the production company that is funded, it is the project. When somebody wants to make a movie, he or she is told how much it will cost and then an application for funding is submitted. If the process was the other way around, one would end up funding production companies before projects had been identified. Such a proposal would need to be explored in detail. To be honest, I cannot answer.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps there might be a way to do so.

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

The scale of funding is significantly different.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

The scale of funding that is provided for theatres, etc., is smaller than the scale of funding to which the Acting Chairman has referred, particularly for big-budget productions.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One is for a building. The Acting Chairman's analogy does not stack up.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps it does for the other people present. Do the other witnesses wish to comment?

Mr. David Collins:

On a point that Ms O'Loughlin made, sustainability should be an overall goal. Ms O'Loughlin referenced a camera operator. A director of photography hires the camera operator. Let us say one had an in-house camera operator for a feature film. The chances of the director of photography, who the funders want for their film, hiring the camera operator is probably very small. Therefore, one would build up an overhead but have no work for that person and also tying up that person who then would not be free to earn money elsewhere. I am not quite sure if the big building analogy is appropriate. We should explore sustainability with SIPTU in a serious way. In principle, the goal of sustainability is a really good one but we must parse and analyse the position regarding shooting crews. I think the industry works on meritocracy. If one is a good camera operator, one has no trouble getting work. It is not about prejudice, it is about a creative choice that is made. These people, at that level, can command sufficient funds that if they work for six months they can take six months off, if they so wish. It is a lifestyle choice that is hard-earned and hard-won. In the film industry there may be pockets of labour that would appreciate sustainability. However, there may be other pockets of labour that would rise to the challenge of a meritocracy. We need an industry that encompasses both of those objectives. That is a conversation that SPI needs to have with SIPTU.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is about the sustainability of production companies.

Mr. David Collins:

In part.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Equally, it is about keeping creative workers employed and ensure they have less precarious working patterns.

Mr. David Collins:

One must strike a balance. We have to parse and analyse it grade by grade at a shooting crew level just to see whether we can even devise a common grammar in terms of what we are discussing.

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

I must address two issues. A response that we get frequently is that if we were to employ people in that way, we might limit their ability to do A, B or C. I have heard no ordinary worker in the film industry saying that he or she likes precariousness and is afraid that other approaches would limit his or her choices. The workers are clearly saying that the current system does not work for them. There are few people in the ordinary grades in the film industry – props, hair, make-up or wardrobe – could work for six months and, as a lifestyle choice, take the next six months off. It does not work that way. If one is working as a director who is highly creative and highly paid and moves around, perhaps one could do that, but it is not a possible lifestyle choice for the ordinary, everyday working grades.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy Boyd Barrett wish to ask a question? He should be mindful that the meeting is drawing to a close.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure, although I could talk for hours about this as the topic is interesting.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will ask two questions, one of which will be on the central issue of continuity of employment for the people who are affected by precarious work. As Ms O'Loughlin indicated, there may be people at a very high and specific skill level who can pick and choose. Let us call it what it is. In the same way, a few A-list stars can pick and choose their movies. However, that is not the situation for the majority of people, and it is them whom we must discuss. I accept that there may be genuine breaks and so on, but I can see nothing from what has been described of the status quothat would prevent companies from deciding not to re-employ certain people because they did not like them. Some of the witnesses may say that is not going on, it rarely goes on or whatever, but we have workers who are saying that it is going on. It is not necessarily up to us to judge who is telling the truth, but there has to be a structure that prevents it from happening, links public funding to guarantees that it will not happen and ensures that there is enforcement and monitoring. If money is going into the film industry through tax reliefs or whatever and certificates are being given to people about quality employment and so on, there has to be monitoring and enforcement. We have to know that quality employment is being provided and that there is fairness in the treatment of the workers.

Obviously, there is a pool of workers in the industry. Step 1 is that, after two, three or four years, a person is qualified, is in the pool and cannot be discriminated against within that pool on the arbitrary basis of someone liking or disliking him or her. That last aspect is what we must prevent in order to achieve fairness. People might respond to this comment, but we must reach that point. It is only fair to those who work in the industry.

If there is this level of money going into the industry, and I would like to see more, there should be more permanent employment than is the case. I get the point about not wanting to employ someone for six months doing nothing but, on the other hand, the level of permanent employment – we cannot even get a figure on it – seems to be low compared with the amount of Government money. That needs to be addressed.

There is something called the working time directive, which, if I remember correctly, allows someone to work 39 hours plus a certain amount of overtime under EU law. Is this being flagrantly disregarded in the film industry when it comes to many of the industry's workers?

Mr. Pádraig Murray:

One need only look at the results of the survey that Equity published at the end of 2016 regarding the issues of bullying and harassment to see that what the Deputy is referring to is true.

People are terrified of rocking the boat in any way, shape or form when they are in a precarious situation in work. One of the questions on the survey asked whether respondents had ever experienced or observed any form of bullying or harassment. Something in the region of 65% to 70% of people said yes. The next questions asked if they reported it. Of that 70% of respondents who had said yes, roughly 70% said that they did not report it for fear of not getting the next job. If I heard that Senator O'Donnell was bullying her colleagues in the workplace, I would not report it, because I might be seen as the one who rocks the boat. In any precarious industry, that is going to be the case. Somebody who is in an unequal situation is afraid to say or do anything for fear of not getting the next job.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just wanted to make two points. I am in a dilemma here, because sometimes the precarious nature of a job is its creativity. Within the arts, people like to move, change or travel, to get different experiences, work with different directors or writers and so on. That applies whether they are people doing hair or the main director. The witnesses are right that precarious nature is sometimes taken for granted. Nobody wants to consider the implications of this for an actor who is 50 or 60 years old and there are no more parts for him or her. The same phenomenon of holding people in esteem exists in theatre.

This goes back to how we look at the arts and culture. In politics, we are afraid even to say the words "arts", "film" "dance" or "drama". We do not refer to them. We include them in something else. On the leaving certificate, there are 25 points for maths but not for music. We will not say that we believe in this as a proper career where people could be precarious and permanent when necessary. It is coming up here. People want to be creative and imaginative. They want to live in the world of the original, of beauty and that which is sacred and cultural. It is hard for them to do it, whether they are construction workers, writers or actors because it is precarious. Mr. Murray is right about the bullying, because it is free. The wonderful words about the caged bird being free apply in the arts. There are a lot of problems with that.

We have to get classrooms, universities and colleges out of our heads when we think of training in the arts, because mentorship plays a huge part in this. I started as a radio actress, and I was around Daphne Carroll and Sean Ford. I used to sit in the studio when I might have three lines on page 39 of the script and those actors were playing the main part. I would sit in awe of these great actors with voices and experience, and that is when one begins to learn. When I talk about training, I mean mentorship. I mean exactly what the witnesses have said. One does not have to go into a college and sit there, because that is not how it is done. It is done with greats, be they photographic greats or director greats. If I gave the wrong impression there, I just wanted to pull that back. The witnesses' industry is wonderful and it does give great employment, but because it is creative, it does not have the boundaries into which we can nicely put other areas of employment. Politics is very interesting because if they do not like us in politics, we will not come back the following day either.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will finish on that.

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

May I respond to Senator O'Donnell's point?

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Very quickly, yes.

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

It is important that we address the issue of precarity and the working time directive. On the issue precarity, I must respectfully disagree-----

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was a philosophical point.

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

Precarity does not lead to creativity. That is a myth that has been perpetrated for the purposes of neoliberalism for the past 30, 40 or 50 years. There was a time when theatre companies and film studios hired all their people and they worked on a full-time basis, even the actors. There were full-time representatives in all the theatres. Studios signed up actors on contracts to make a given number of films over five or ten years, and it was the same with crew. They hired their crews who worked on the studio lot on all of the projects that were going on there. The idea that precarity leads to creativity is a myth that has been perpetrated for a long time. It is just not true.

Photo of Marie Louise O'DonnellMarie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was talking about personal creative choice.

Ms Karan O'Loughlin:

In the context of the workplace, I wanted to make that point clear. In regard to the working time directive, how it operates in the film industry needs to be understood. The working time directive sets a maximum of 48 working hours in any week, but that is calculated as an average over 17 weeks. Within the film industry, unless a person is in a long-running production, of which there are not many, the chances of working more than 17 weeks are slim. A person could be within the parameters of the working time Act while working 55 or 60 hours a week for 10 or 12 weeks. That is still within the parameters of the working time Act because it is averaged out over 17 weeks. That is the law, that is the way it is written, and that is the way it is interpreted. I am not saying it is right, but that is the way it is.

That 17 week rolling average can be expanded by agreement. Agreements can be made to work out that average over a 12 month period. That is done in other industries where work is cyclical, where people would work six months of the year, for example, picking mushrooms. They would work intensively for a period of time and then stop. The problem with the film industry and the working time directive is that if I work 60 hours a week for ten weeks on a production, that is not outside the working time directive. If I move to another production straight away and work another 60 hours a week for another ten weeks, I am outside the working time directive in the hours I have worked over the 20 weeks, but each of those production companies, considered separately, is not. That is a problem. That is the way the legislation is written. The Government would need to address that in some way to make the industry more compatible with the law. That is the factually correct answer.

Photo of Niamh SmythNiamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will finish on that. I wish to thank everyone who made a presentation today. They were all very insightful and we appreciate the witnesses taking this afternoon to be with us.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.37 p.m. and adjourned at 3.47 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 14 February 2018.