Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately, there will probably be a fair amount of repetition from all of us. The Minister could go back through the record and find these particular issues being brought up multiple times.

At this stage, it is a request from us that this particular issue be dealt with. We all want a thriving film industry. We see the benefits of the supports under section 481 but it is a huge amount of taxpayers' money that is provided to producers to produce, the intention being that we produce quality employment alongside a quality product and ensure that we have a sustainable industry into the future.

There are question marks over this, particularly from those who have approached us and work in the film industry. They state explicitly that there are numerous examples of blackballing, that is, if somebody is not particularly happy with conditions even after having worked for that production company for many years on many different productions, the designated activity company is created and the head of department, HOD, on the new production makes the call as to who is going to be on set. The determination can quite easily be made that, if someone is trying to vindicate their rights, they do not get the call. If this were any other industry, that situation would not arise. It is an outlier industry in that sense, and everything is one production at a time and the protections are not necessarily there. We have also seen an erosion of conditions and even the paying of expenses that occurred previously but now does not occur.

We have all spoken previously about the EU copyright directive. It is an absolute necessity. Irish Equity needs it. It does not make any sense for those involved, be it in writing or in creativity in general, if, following their works, they do not get the benefit of those works into the future through the payment of residuals. Last week, I asked whether anyone could imagine if Mariah Carey was not getting her residuals for a particular Christmas song or if George Michael, or, I should say, George Michael's estate at this stage, was not. With any major film, we think of the writers and the actors. Do we think that nobody would have bought into the idea of residuals? The fact is we are talking about a scenario where someone is basically being given an offer they cannot refuse to sign over those residuals.

We provide section 481 funding. We are talking about legislation as regards grants and loans. We need to ensure that we do the due diligence and we set up the framework because when we used ask these questions previously, we were told there would be a stakeholder forum, which there was, and that the outworkings of that would be that we would deal with these issues. That has not happened. The issue was brought up with the Tánaiste, who is the new Minister for Finance. Deputy Ó Snodaigh pulled his amendment on the basis that this would be an issue that would be looked at. That is something that needs to be dealt with because we cannot have it be the case that people cannot vindicate their rights, for instance, under the EU working time directive.

We have heard of multiple instances where conditions have got worse and the capacity and ability to deal with these are not there because of the outlier circumstances that exist in this particular industry. That is not to say there are not good producers producing good content and ensuring that they are providing their workers with rights but that is not the case across the board.

A huge amount of this has been gone through over and back, because we are constantly told about the industrial relations infrastructure. In fairness, the case that Deputy Boyd Barrett spoke about was a case where the High Court hammered the decision of the Labour Court and vindicated these people's rights by stating that, forget the ins and outs of DACs, they were employees of this production company. That is the shooting match.

We need to make sure. I am asking the Government, as it has the capacity to answer these questions, to use whatever means. None of us is particularly worried about what the means of enforcement are because we constantly get told that it should not happen through finances or taxation, as those are not the means by which you ensure that people's rights are vindicated. However, there are cultural tests and other tests in relation to section 481. It is fair enough that we have a proper system that allows for the testing of these particular issues where people's rights are not vindicated.

We need to deal with the issue of copyright and we particularly need to deal with the issue of crew so that their rights are vindicated.

Alongside blackballing, while everybody welcomes the idea of training within an industry, we are being told constantly that there has been a reduction in the number of professionals engaged in productions and that the number of trainees has increased. I understand the issue in relation to those trainees. They are looking to get into the industry. They are probably willing to go above and beyond and sometimes they will accept conditions that somebody who has worked previously for a company would not. It is obvious you are not going to accept less pay, longer worker hours or whatever the particular conditions are for no good reason. I would ask that we find a means of looking at this. I heard recently of an issue of a particular crew member trainee who was very happy to get the job, but whereas companies would previously have paid for accommodation or at least paid rates that covered it, that was not the case in this instance. We have heard of cases of people who, to ensure that they are getting work and to ensure that they are getting into the industry, are sleeping in their cars. That means we have an unsustainable system. I am not only looking at it from the point of view of a test on whether blackballing happens. We need to look into the ins and outs of how things have changed and the number of trainees versus the number of professional crew that are on particular productions.

We have to look at how conditions have changed over the years and we have to find a means by which we can ensure that people can access whatever resources they need from the point of view of vindicating their rights because, as we have explained, this is a very different industry and the producer and the employer have the means of hiding behind the DAC. The DAC is set up for every individual project. That may be for a film shoot. The DAC is set up and the producer takes down the money. We as the State provide the tax breaks, they get the money and then the DAC is created. The DAC technically employs people, but it is the producer. It is only a means by which they carry out each individual operation or television or film production. Afterwards, it disappears. Where do the rights and everything else go? When people have, under pressure, signed over residuals, when the DAC disappears, that right, the means and the ability to take down funding and take down those residuals still lie with the producer.

None of this is suitable in any way.

It has also been pointed to me that Screen Skills Ireland, a division of Screen Ireland, has been busy appointing trainees to film productions. It is a fair question, if it has the power to appoint trainees to productions, why it cannot appoint professionals as well? I get that we come into the Chamber and we repeat ourselves, whether on housing or healthcare. We almost have single transferable speeches. If anyone goes through the record, they will see the exact same points having been stated. We all want a thriving film industry that is sustainable. For that to happen, it must be ensured that people have their rights. We cannot have those in the industry, who are risking the industry, not providing those rights, hiding behind the technicality of the DAC and, beyond that, forcing those who expended creativity and did huge work to hand over the rights to that into the future. None of that is fair or correct. It will impact into the future in relation to a sustainable industry. We have all heard of reshoots happening, sometimes outside of Ireland, and one reason I was given was that there were productions with too many trainees, without those who had worked previously and been involved in many successful productions. Particular issues arose. There are protections for the employer, the producer, which do not exist for the employee and which exist in other industries, even in the gaming industry, which section 481 provides benefits to. Those who work for gaming companies are in a far better situation and have more protections than those in the film industry or those who have been blackballed and have not been able to work in the film industry.

See this speech in context