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

The Deputies will be glad to hear that this is my last amendment and this is one where we have a bit more common ground. I genuinely thank the Minister for engaging with me on the issue of the 481 tax relief for the film industry. I refer to the extent to which it needs, should and is required to contribute to quality employment and training in the film industry and the development of that industry. I thank the Minister's officials for engaging with us as well. They have responded to some of the points I made, largely on behalf of those who have worked in the industry for decades. They believe that investment in creating employment and training in a film industry in this country is a good thing and that we should do more of that. They do not believe, however, that the current incentive has had the desired effect. The employment and training provided has not been of sufficient quality, even though that is the intent of the tax relief .

I refer to particular parts of the industry. As the Minister and his officials know, I have distinguished between the film industry and areas such as the animation sector, where the relief has had a major impact. In that sector, there are companies of scale, people have secure jobs and income and, as a result, Irish animation is boxing at the very highest level on the international scene. That area is really going from strength to strength. That has not, sadly, been the outcome to the same extent in the film industry. There have been many successful productions, but the provision of quality employment and training has not been the same in that sector. As a result, there is a quite a debate or controversy, to put it mildly, going on in the industry.

I will not recapitulate the whole debate. As I said to the Minister when we met earlier to discuss this issue - I hope it is okay to mention that - the problem is that film production companies which apply for the relief are then subsequently denying that they are the employers. The way they do that is, for each film production, the Irish production company sets up a special purpose vehicle, SPV, or designated activity company, DAC.

It is not really a company. It is merely a financial instrument. It is an accounting tool for that particular production. However, when workers attempt to assert their rights as employees, the Irish producer company which applied for the relief which is conditional on the provision of employment and training, says to the employee that it is not his or her employer and that the SPV is his or her employer. The SPV only exists for the film and then it is gone. Then the same producer company makes another film, sets up another SPV but it is a different employer, even though it is the same employer. Then it makes another film, sets up another SPV but it is a different employer, but actually it is the same employer. This is the problem.

It means that people who have worked on film after film for the same producer and the same recipient of section 481 relief are not accumulating the rights that they have under law, particularly under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 which was precisely designed by the European Union and enshrined in Irish law to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen. To concretise it, it means that those workers are completely vulnerable. There is nothing to stop the film producer saying to a worker that he or she has worked for the film producer on three or four films previously and has received awards and credits, as many of these workers have, but the film producer will not take him or her on the next film because the worker asked for the application of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, in terms of hours of work, breaks or whatever. The producer company thinks the worker is asking for too much and is a troublemaker and it will not employ him or her on the next production.

As we speak, that is what is happening. On RTÉ News tonight, one will see, if one looks at the entertainment section, reference to the sequel for "Vikings" being produced in Ashford, County Wicklow. I refer to people who worked for that producer company, Metropolitan and World 2000, which produced "Vikings" before it, "Into the Badlands" before that, "Penny Dreadful" - I can go through the list. If one went to those previous productions, looked at the credits at the end and looked at who were the stage hands, the construction-grade staff, the drivers etc. to see how many of them are on this new one when those credits role, at present the answer is "very few". They have already contacted this film company and said that they worked on its last few productions and they are hoping they will be working on these ones and they are being told that they will not. Co-incidentally, some of those people or their associates are people who went to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht discussing this issue nearly two years ago where they made allegations about the failure of the producer companies to vindicate the rights of workers and fully apply the law on bogus self-employment, the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 and other employment requirements. It is many of those people or people associated with them who now will not be allowed onto that production that is in the news tonight. That is not acceptable.

I have had a sympathetic ear from the Minister in this regard and from his officials. I hope that we will design the public support which we need in this industry in such a way that what I refer to cannot happen and that workers who ask for their legal rights will not be displaced.

See this speech in context