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

I would like to thank all of the committee members who participated in the production of this report and all of the contributors who work or are involved in the film industry. I would also like to thank the former Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Oversight, Deputy Hourigan, who was the Chair during the production of this report, who inputted significantly to the report and who was open to the suggestion that we should do a report on section 481 and the film industry. I appreciate that. I asked our committee to do this report but all of the members of the committee were very receptive to the idea that we would examine the section 481 relief.

I am very pleased with the report that has been produced. What does this report do? It acknowledges the importance of public funding for the Irish film industry and the audiovisual sector. There is a clear commitment and, I think, a consensus across all parties that we need to continue publicly to support the film industry and the audiovisual sector. Some of the recommendations coming out of the report are specific proposals on increasing the amount of public investment in the film industry via section 481 and extending the regional uplift of section 481 to stimulate the film industry.

The report also proposes putting a number of very important conditions on the funding. I will go through them in a little bit more detail later, but in broad outline what it says and what it reinforces is what is in the Finance Act in relation to section 481 and what is a requirement under EU state aid rules for the audiovisual sector. There are legal conditions attached to section 481. Just so people know the moneys involved, it is in the region of €100 million. Sometimes it is €120 million and sometimes it is €80 million. It is in this territory and it may rise each year. It is a lot of money going to the Irish film industry.

The obligations on the recipients of section 481 funding are that they must meet what are called the industry development test and the culture test. This means the money must contribute towards the development of a sustainable industry that, critically, ensures quality employment and training. The directive goes further with regard to creating permanent pools of skill in the industry. This is a condition of getting this very large amount of money. The funding is given to the film industry every year. I have not calculated exactly how much has been given over the various years through section 481 and its predecessor but some estimates put it in billions.

It is important to stress that the report deals with section 481 but in addition to this funding there is also €40 million coming from RTÉ and about €20 million coming from Screen Ireland. I am not sure but I think there may be some money coming from the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland as well. Given that it has been the topic of the week, we are speaking about an amount of public funding going into the film industry that is on a par with what goes into RTÉ. Think about the controversy in RTÉ. What has happened in RTÉ adds to the seriousness of the recommendations of the report. If we had discussed the question of public funding to RTÉ a few months ago, the need for scrutiny and whether the conditions were being met, people might not have listened very much. After what has happened in recent weeks everybody is saying we need scrutiny and governance and that we need to know we are getting value for money to protect public service broadcasting. There is a frenzy, and a legitimate one, that we need forensic oversight to ensure public money is being spent in the way it should. A key part of this narrative is that while some were doing very well at the top courtesy of public money, the workers, artists, performers, journalists, staff and crew were not doing so well at all.

We are discussing the audiovisual sector. There is a direct overlap between RTÉ and the Irish film industry. Many of the same issues that have emerged in the RTÉ controversy or scandal are also alleged to be taking place in the Irish film industry. The industry development test and the culture test are not being met and they are systematically being resisted by those who get the money. They are systematically ensuring the quality employment and training, which are supposed to be conditions of the investment, are not happening and cannot happen given the way the industry is currently operating. There is, in fact, no way of even quantifying whether the industry is meeting the culture test. This is something acknowledged in a Government report back in 2017. It is very difficult to assess the culture test and how something contributes to culture.

It is a bit easier to assess how the industry should be contributing to quality employment and training and the industry development test. The allegation from some representatives of film crews and from representatives of actors and performers, particularly in Equity but I have also heard it from writers and directors, is that the industry development test in terms of quality employment and training is not being met and is being systematically resisted by the recipients of section 481 funding.

I will briefly enhance the analogy with RTÉ. The Minister of State may have noticed that one of the groups that put out a press release today with regard to this report is Screen Producers Ireland. The Minister of State may have seen it. It has also been furiously putting out press releases all week on foot of the RTÉ debacle, essentially saying that what is happening in RTÉ should not impact on the money its members receive via section 481. I understand it also receives money from RTÉ. I believe, and the Minister of State can check this as we do need to start to check this sort of stuff in the aftermath of the RTÉ scandal, that virtually all of its funding comes from public money but it is the representative body of the producers in the industry. A relatively small number of producers control the industry and get the majority of public funding, which is interesting.

We all say we need forensic accounting of the money spent in RTÉ. Essentially, the thrust of this report is that we need forensic accounting and oversight of public investment in film. Our report has gone as far as to write to the European Commission asking it to investigate whether the current situation in the Irish film industry is in breach of fixed-term workers' legislation in terms of systematic abuse of fixed-term workers' contracts. We have also asked the Commission whether there is systematic failure to comply with the European copyright directive in terms of the royalties that accrue to the performers, actors and writers because of the use of what are called buyout contracts. Unless those who want to work in the Irish film industry are pretty much superstars, they are told to sign a buyout contract which, in effect, means all of the onward royalties accruing for that film production go to the producer company and not to the performers and writers. They have to sell those for a set amount regardless of how much money a film might make. Let us say a film is being made courtesy of section 481 and it goes global and becomes a huge success. The people who worked on it, regardless of that success, will not see any of the benefit for ten years.

They will get a one-off payment and their rights are bought out for the next ten years. According to the Equity report, that will happen for another ten years and, of course, while all the main royalties and the profits will accrue afterwards, it is normally in the few years after a production is made.

It is important to note that Screen Producers Ireland, SPI, is saying it is in negotiation with Equity at the moment. I am sure the Minister of State has read the SPI press release I spoke to Equity today, just in case somebody were to make the point that all that is fine. What the president of Equity is saying is that the head of SPI, who is a former head of Screen Ireland, a public body, and has now moved over to represent the producers, systematically misled the Committee on Budgetary Oversight on the question of royalties.

See this speech in context