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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. As I understand it, it is about raising the aggregate amount that Screen Ireland can give out, presumably because we are near the limit of €500 million. The Bill proposes to raise this to €800 million.

I have long and repeatedly argued that we should increase the amount of money that we put into artistic and cultural endeavour generally, and into film. At one level, I welcome an increased commitment to support the film industry but I also, as the Minister of State, and certainly as officials in the Department of arts will know, have concerns about the conditions attached to that funding and whether the requirements for state aid to the film industry, which are set down in EU directives and, in the case of section 481, are legislated for, that you have to fulfil certain requirements in order to receive state aid for film, and the culture and industry tests, are being met.

There is no doubt, and many people have talked rightly, about the huge talent we have, and the successes we have seen in the film industry. I do not think it is a surprise to anybody because we know we have a tremendous pool of talent and creativity in this country, including writers, actors, musicians, the crew and all the various people who work in film. Enormous talent exists. It should not be a surprise that given the right support, they can achieve absolutely incredible things. It is right to list the successes and awards that have been achieved. I applaud all of that.

I am also concerned that while we need to increase the supports, we are not meeting those tests, particularly the requirement for quality employment and training in the film industry. There are two main dimensions of that that I want to talk about. First of all, there is the issue which was highlighted again in the High Court in the past few weeks. I am not sure if the Minister of State or Department are aware of this. There was a decision by Mr. Justice Garrett Simons in the High Court, in a case taken by stagehands who have worked in the Irish film industry. I was just looking through the details. I have not had the time to look at all of it and I have not read the full ruling. The judge found in their favour against motions put by one of the major recipients of Irish Film Board grants and of section 481 funding, one of the two biggest film producer companies in this country, Metropolitan Pictures. Similar types of cases have been and are being taken against the other major recipient by people who worked on Irish film productions for Element Pictures, the other major recipient. They are the two dominant recipients. There are a few others but they are the major recipients of State support for the film industry.

The first thing I would ask the Government, as I have repeatedly, but on this particular ruling, relates to the Departments of Finance and arts. Finance is relevant to section 481, although not so much to the Irish Film Board but obviously the film industry benefits from funding both from the Irish Film Board via the Department of arts and it and the Department of Finance through section 481. I ask them to look at that decision made in the courts because it related to a case taken by stagehands to the WRC over the failure over the film producer companies, which get money from the Irish Film Board and section 481 to vindicate their rights under the fixed-term workers legislation. It is complicated. I do not know how many times I have explained it. I will table an amendment on Committee Stage of this Bill saying that the giving out of grants and loans by the Irish Film Board should be contingent on very strict adherence to the obligations under fixed-term workers legislation, and that we do not have, as I certainly believe is the case, the issue with the cases taken by the stagehands. To try to summarise it, the WRC found in favour of the stagehands. The Labour Court then overturned that decision but then it went to the High Court and it essentially found in favour again of the stagehands. I do not think the Labour Court decision has been fully quashed yet but the High Court found in favour of the stagehands.

There have been many of these cases. It revolves around the fact that state aid to film producer companies in this country is contingent on giving quality employment and training. They get the money because they are providing employment but when people who worked on film productions made by those recipients and film producer companies which get the money take cases against their employer over, for example, not getting their employment rights properly vindicated, the film producer company goes into the WRC or the Labour Court and says it does not have any employees. It says the designated activity company, DAC, it set up has the employees, therefore the film producer company is not really their employer. That is sort of laughable. It is Russian doll sort of stuff. It is an abuse because, on the one hand, the company gets the money from the State on the basis that it is creating jobs, and on the other hand, when the people it is supposed to be employing say it is their employer but it is not giving them their rights, it says it has never employed them and has no employment relationship with them whatsoever. It might have set up the DAC but that is not the company but somebody else. To me, that is an abuse and should not be allowed to carry on. We have to stop giving money to film producer companies which are doing that until it is rectified.

What is the human cost of all of this? People who worked, in the case of that stagehand for 18 years in the film industry, are essentially cast out of the film industry because they try to assert their rights. They are blacklisted and they are left high and dry with nothing. Many of them would say they have been blacklisted out of the industry, having sometimes worked for 20, 30 or 40 years in the film industry. They are left high and dry with nothing because the people who have employed them again and again hide behind these DACs even though they are claiming large amounts of money.

Looking at the amount of money, if we have reached the limit of €500 million, half a billion has been given out since this started and we are now going to go up to over three quarters of a billion over the next few years. That is a lot of money. When you look at section 481 or its predecessors, it is probably €3 billion or €4 billion. That is a lot of money. I am in favour of that money being given out but I am concerned that we are giving out billions to people who say they have no employees.

The industry test as required by EU law is that we build up companies of scale. I think "companies of scale" is the phrase used in the EU directive. How can a company be a company of scale if it has no employees? Again and again, they go into the court and their employees come in and say, "You're my employer", but the person running the company says, "No, I don't have employees. I've never had employees. There are no employees. They are employed by a DAC that is now wound up". It is an abuse and it has to be stopped. It is completely unfair. I hope I have explained that.

We need to make the giving-out of these moneys conditional on that abuse stopping and the rights of workers need to be fully vindicated. Similarly with the actors and performers, the issues are different but it is to do with use of buyout contracts. The officials will be familiar with this. I know the Minister of State is new in the job and she might not be as familiar. Most actors at the best of times have a pretty precarious existence and do not really know when the next job is coming or where the next paycheck is coming from. Once upon a time they got royalties or residuals for previous performances they did on films. When films or TV series were shown again, they might get a small cheque of a few hundred quid in the post, which would be very welcome.

Despite the billions coming out of section 481 over the years, at €500 million now to go to €750 million from the film board, most of our actors and most people who work in the film industry live in poverty. While there are a few A-listers, the vast majority of them are not A-listers but they are absolutely critical to the existence of the industry, an industry where there are no jobs and there is very little infrastructure for all those billions, by the way. Where are our studios? We sold the last bit of Ardmore to an American company. Where is our infrastructure for all the billions we put in? We do not have any. Where did it go? Who has it for all those billions?

I am sorry about going off the point there. For the actors, performers, writers and so on, those residuals are critical. Now, however, apart from those A-listers or those whose agent can negotiate a better situation for them, in order to get a contract, they are handed a buyout contract where to get the job they have to sign away their right to royalties and residuals in the future. It is supposedly voluntary but the truth is that if they do not sign that, they will not be getting the job.

The Minister of State may have heard the phrase "You'll never work in this town again". There is a reason that is a familiar phrase to most people because it comes from showbiz. It was probably first heard in Hollywood or somewhere. This is a phrase that exists in the culture and arts, and film industry. It very much exists here. That phrase probably did not originate here - it probably originated in Hollywood or wherever - but it exists in reality here. If you do not sign that contract, you will not be working in this town again. It is as simple as that. Everybody knows it. It is the dirty secret but we do not acknowledge it. People are afraid even to speak about it because if they speak about it publicly, they may never work in this town again but everybody knows it. What are we going to do about it?

Given that the producer companies are getting all this money - as I said, I actively want us to invest in these areas - I believe we have to safeguard the rights of the talent. By the way, when I use the phrase "the talent", all of them are talent, including the guys who build the sets and paint the sets, the transport workers, right up to the actors, the make-up people and all the rest of it. Often a distinction is made between those in front of the camera and those behind the camera. I completely reject that. We need all these people and all of them deserve to be treated with respect.

In reality, the people who do the best out of it all are the producers. This may be a little sign of the way the industry is going. I do not want to sound too nostalgic but in the old days when the credits used to roll on films, we saw the names of the actors, the directors and the various crew people who made it happen. They were the most prominent things. Now, with an awful lot of TV and film productions, the most prominent things, often coming up first on the credits, are a long list of the names of the producers, the suits. The suits come up first. I think that is emblematic of what is going on in these industries. I went into the Labour Court with those stagehands. They had no legal representation at all. The film production company, which gets a lot of money from the Irish State, had a phalanx of legal advisers, experts, suits. Who paid for them to sit there and say to people they knew had worked on film productions funded by the State, "We have no employment relationship with you"?

I do not know how many times these things have been said to the Government. When are we going to end this situation? It is just not fair that film crews have been blacklisted out of the industry. It is not fair that actors, performers and so on can be told to sign buyout contracts and not get their residuals and royalties as they did once upon a time. I believe that situation has to end.

I want to speak about the culture test. Ultimately these things may be somewhat related. I may be going slightly more out on a limb. Some good stuff has happened in the last year, with a bit more money going to indigenous, small, young, new people and so on. I am very glad to see that and it is great to see the success, which shows what is possible. However, why is there not more stuff done about the incredible historic and cultural heritage this country has? A few weeks ago on an American streamer, I saw a feature film about Daniel O'Connell, which was dreadful. It was made in America with an all-American cast. It was absolutely dreadful. I was wondering why we did not make a film about Daniel O'Connell. Then I thought, where's our Gulliver's Travels? Where is our Draculaseeing as the book originated here? Where are our productions about Robert Emmet and the United Irishmen? Where is our film about Constance Markievicz? Where is all this stuff? I know we have produced some like "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" and "Michael Collins" but it is quite a while since we did any of those big historical productions.

I have run out of time. There should be more going in to celebrate our cultural heritage, our rich history and so on and some of the incredible cultural artistic talent that we have in this country than is currently the case.

See this speech in context