Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that Deputy Cowen is to move the motion. Is that correct?

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

No.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Deputy Boyd Barrett moving it?

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

Yes.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Good stuff. Over to you then sir.

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

I move:

That Dáil Éireann shall take note of the Report of the Committee on Budgetary Oversight entitled "Report on Section 481 - Film Tax Credit", copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 9th May, 2023.

Deputy Cowen sends his apologies but he was unavoidably detained. He also made the point that he has just recently been installed as Chair of the committee and that he was not around for the putting together of this report so he felt it was-----

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Boyd Barrett is the resident expert on this.

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

Hopefully, there are a few of us.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has been raising it often enough anyway.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a big thing to say.

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

Okay. Misled.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But that is the same thing.

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

I am just relaying what they told me.

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

I did not mention his name.

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

On the issue of the negotiation, what was told to the committee was not true. Is that better?

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In your opinion.

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

I am simply relaying what I have been told. The point is this needs to be investigated. That is all I am saying. It is an allegation but it needs to be investigated. The committee has gone as far as to write to the European Union to ask it to investigate the matter. The EU directive is clear on these issues, that under fixed-term workers legislation, there should not be the use of successive multiple fixed-term contracts. That is the whole point of the directive. Similarly, buyout contracts should be the exception, not the rule. They are the rule, however, in the Irish film industry and that means the benefits and profits that may derive from workers' performances and so on accrue to the producer companies and, importantly, the State gets nothing out of it. It puts in all the investment but it does not get anything from that investment.

As regards quality employment and training - I will elaborate on this in my next contribution - the committee was told the employment relationship does not survive the designated activity company, DAC, that is, the company that is set up for the purposes of a single film, even though the same producers are setting up successive DACs and the same workers are working in them for years but they never accumulate or have their rights vindicated in terms of their service to the industry. One can see parallels with RTÉ at the moment. We have been told there are 500 cases currently of people who have been working again and again for RTÉ and that these are instances of bogus self-employment, or that is being seriously investigated.

We are asking the Government to take this report and the allegations very seriously. This involves a lot of money. In addition, we are asking for the creation of a forum with all stakeholders and all Departments involved to objectively and independently scrutinise these issues. The Minister of State does not have to accept what I am saying. The forum, however, which was agreed upon after a committee recommended the same in 2014 but it never happened, should be established as a matter of urgency.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for bringing forward the motion. I watched much of the committee proceedings on this matter. I was interested in it. The Deputy and I share a constituency adjacent to where much of this work happens and many of the people who live in our constituency are involved in production or work in the industry. It is a matter of great importance to the Deputy and me. For that reason, I took an interest in the committee hearings on the matter, insofar as I could without being a member of the committee. I was interested in the range of producers' and workers' representatives who attended before the committee and gave different perspectives. I know the Deputy has a very strong perspective on the matter, which he just articulated. What happened at the committee was broader than the Deputy has depicted. It was a broader reflection of experience. Although the Deputy and I might have different perspectives on the matter, as we do on other things, it is important to say that in the interests of balance and reflecting the full report.

Both I and the Minister, Deputy McGrath, have read the report in full. It deals with a range of issues. It deals not just with the direct tax issue but also with questions relating to employment. My background is as an employment law solicitor and I am familiar with the fixed-term workers provisions in EU law and their application in Irish law. I am also aware of the complexity relating to multiple contracts with different entities and how that complexity can come into operation in individual cases. Such cases are to be resolved individually and they are not for me to address here, except to note the complexity of it and the difference between having a single entity and successive contracts and perhaps contracts with multiple entities at the same time as having successive contracts. That is a broad observation, however.

More broadly on the issue of the value to the State from this tax credit, I refute the Deputy's claim that the State gets nothing. When the State is deriving employment, it is getting something. When it is driving employment into different regions, especially outside Dublin, it is getting something. When it is finding ways to develop a resilient economy based in multiple sectors of employment rather than in single points of failure or an over-reliance on one sector, it is getting something in terms of building up its resilience.

The Government recognises the remarkable achievements of the screen industry to date and everybody who works in it, as well as the genuine economic and cultural impact it has generated domestically and internationally. Through the years, the industry has demonstrated adaptability, determination, resilience and innovation. The Irish skills in this sector have achieved outstanding international success in the past decade. In 2023, there was an unprecedented number of Academy Award nominations for Irish skills and people working in this field, including an historic Academy Award nomination for best international feature for the Irish-language film "An Cailín Ciúin". The global impact of films such as "The Banshees of Inisherin", whether one liked it or not, was supported by the section 481 tax incentive and has demonstrated the outstanding worldwide reach and influence of Irish stories on screen.

Major successful international films and television dramas have also been produced in Ireland. I experience great pride when I see Irish names on international films and recognise the contribution Ireland is making to the sector. Some of those productions demonstrate the cultural dividend in the Irish film sector, showcasing Irish skill and creativity while promoting Irish screen tourism on a global scale. In particular, the Irish animation sector has continued to go from strength to strength. In the past 15 years, Irish post-production and visual effects have become a leading hub for large-scale productions, underpinned by a highly skilled local talent pool of skills to call upon. Irish visual effects work is globally recognised and competes at the highest level internationally. That highly skilled workforce is important. It is important to protect and acknowledge it and generate an industry in which it will be capable of working for decades to come in a resilient way. We want an industry where people can train, develop skills and choose to continue to work in Ireland or take opportunities internationally as they may arise.

I hope Ireland’s unique position as an English-speaking European Union centre of excellence for screen production will continue to attract high-quality inward production activity, supported by the section 481 tax incentive. Much of the success the industry has achieved is the culmination of long-term investment in the skills of Irish people, but it is also the result of continued funding for Screen Ireland, as the Deputy stated, and the section 481 tax incentive for film and television production.

A cost-benefit analysis of the scheme was undertaken in advance of budget 2023, resulting in an estimated net economic cost for the year reviewed of €78.54 million. Although the cost-benefit analysis indicates a cost to the Exchequer, it must be recognised that the primary purpose of the relief is to contribute to the development, enhancement and promotion of Irish and European culture. Projecting the work of Irish productions to audiences around the world conveys the message that Ireland is a country with a rich history and a thriving cultural community. Recognition of these productions at a global level enhances Ireland’s international reputation as a location to live, visit and work.

This cultural dividend is of genuine benefit to Ireland, even though we can never really quantify it in an economic analysis of the scheme. The Deputies may be aware that last year’s Finance Bill provided for the extension of section 481 from its current end date of 31 December 2024 to 31 December 2028. That extension is, of course, subject to European Commission approval. Extension of the relief in advance of the sunset date demonstrates the Government’s commitment to the Irish audiovisual industry,and is intended to provide certainty regarding the future availability of the relief. That certainty will foster further confidence in Ireland as a centre of excellence for screen production because these projects are not planned year on year but on a much longer basis.

There are a number of recommendations in the committee's report to enhance the competitiveness of the credit, specifically with regard to the extension of the regional uplift and increasing the cap on eligible expenditure, which were very important and interesting. Regarding the regional uplift and the cap on eligible expenditure, these are budget items and the committee’s recommendations will be given due consideration in advance of Budget 2024. The regional uplift piece is particularly important and was introduced in Finance Act 2018, as a short-term, tapered uplift for productions being made in areas designated under the state aid regional guidelines. It is now in its final year of operation. The uplift was originally designed to provide an increased level of credit for four years, with 5% available in years one and two, 2019 and 2020; 3% available in year three, 2021; and 2% available in year four, 2022. The Finance Act 2020 then amended the regional uplift to provide for an additional 5% year in 2021 in recognition of the negative impact of the pandemic and the tapered withdrawal of the uplift then restarted in 2022 with a reduction to 3%, and now 2% in 2023.

With regard to the proposal to extend and amend the uplift, I understand that discussions before the committee highlighted some practical impediments to such proposals. The uplift received state aid approval on the basis that it was a short-term, tapered support, designed to stimulate the development of new pools of talent in the regions. It is not an EU regional aid but it uses the EU regional aid map for Ireland as a means to identify geographic areas in which the relief is available. The Deputy may be aware that a new, and geographically more limited, regional aid map for Ireland has been approved by the European Commission and it is expected that any further extension or amendment of the existing credit would, if granted state aid approval, be governed by this more limited geographic scope.

With regard to the cap on eligible expenditure, as Deputies are aware that cap was increased from €50 million to €70 million in 2016. It was considered at the time that the increase to €70 million struck an appropriate balance between providing a sufficient increase to attract big budget productions, while also being mindful of the possible cost to the public finances if a number of such films were to come to Ireland. As I have stated, as to whether it is now time to further increase this cap, and I thought the committee’s recommendation on this was very important this, will be a matter for consideration in advance of budget 2024. I believe that any amendment would also require state aid approval to come into effect. This again comes down to a cost-benefit analysis of what we think we might be able to attract to Ireland, the tax foregone and the balance struck therein which is a conversation the committee went into in some detail.

On the question of other elements of the committee’s recommendations such as employment rights, copyright, designated activity company, DAC lifespan and so on, many of the issues involved cut across the policy areas of number of Departments, in particular the Departments of Enterprise Trade and Employment, and Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sports and Media. There is particular focus on the areas of employment rights in the audiovisual sector and copyright protections for the intellectual property of creatives such as actors, writers and composers. Regarding employment rights, the Deputy will be aware that changes were made to the film tax credit to reinforce the requirement to adhere to employment rights legislation. As part of the cultural certification process, an applicant company is required to submit an undertaking of compliance with all relevant employment legislation. This commits applicants to compliance with all relevant employment legislation in regard to the film being certified. These conditions are to be met not just by the producer company but also, as the Deputy said, by the DAC that is required to be set up for each production to avail of section 481.

With regard to the recommendation to extend the life of DACs to three years post completion of a project, it should be noted that from a practical point of view, certain obligations remain even where a company is no longer active, including, for example, the filing of annual accounts. There is a question about the additional costs and how they might impact disproportionately on smaller productions and smaller DACs that were set up. They are more vulnerable in many ways than some of the larger entities. It is also worth noting that company law contains provisions whereby companies can be restored, including by the courts, in circumstances where there is a legal claim against the company. For these reasons, it is not clear that the proposal would deliver the desired benefit but it is a matter that will be kept under review.

With regard to quality of employment, Ireland has a very comprehensive body of employment, equality and industrial relations legislation, which offers the same protections to all employees legally employed under a contract of employment. All employers, regardless of sector, are responsible for ensuring that their employees receive all protections afforded them under employment legislation. The Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 provides for the improvement of the quality of fixed-term work by ensuring the application of the principle of non-discrimination, that is, that fixed-term workers may not be treated less favourably than comparable permanent workers. The Act also provides for the establishment of a framework to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts. We witnessed the particular question that arose in universities, for example, where someone who was working at the same entity year-on-year-on year. If an employee who commenced employment on a fixed-term contract basis on or after 14 July 2003 has had two or more fixed-term contracts, as everybody will be aware, the combined duration of the contracts shall not exceed four years. After this, if the employer wishes the employee to continue, it must be with a contract of indefinite duration, unless the employer has objective grounds for renewing the contract of employment on a fixed-term basis.

If a fixed-term employee feels that he or she is being treated less favourably as regards any conditions of employment than a comparable permanent employee or if he or she considers that he or she is entitled to a contract of indefinite duration and the employer refuses to concede this, it is open to the employee to refer the matter to the director general of the WRC.

In tandem with these legislative protections, there is also the opportunity for collective agreements as an efficient and effective way to improve and standardise working practices in many sectors. A modernised crew agreement was agreed and introduced in January 2021, which promotes good practice, regularises evolving work practices and provides for an industry pension scheme operating under the construction workers pension scheme. The agreement includes a monitoring structure to oversee the operation of the agreement and a commitment to developing the first work-life balance policy for the film and television industry. It acts as a framework for the industry, covering all crew grades except film construction, which I understand were subject to separate negotiations. Following the conclusion of those separate negotiations, last year Screen Producers Ireland and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, film construction group of unions secured a construction crew agreement. This agreement encompasses up to 300 construction crew in the independent film and television construction sector. The agreement provides for increased hourly pay rates and a range of other matters. Other important measures include sick leave, coverage for pension, other benefits for industry construction workers and the establishment of a new joint monitoring structure to ensure implementation. The introduction of these two industry agreements demonstrate that the Irish audiovisual industry is collaborative, and positive place to work, although I know Deputy Boyd Barrett takes issue with that in respect of the people he is representing.

As regards intellectual property rights, copyright is relevant for many workers in the film sector, including authors, producers, and broadcasters in addition to actors. I have been informed that Screen Ireland has engaged an independent facilitator to meet with key stakeholders, as the Deputy has alluded to, to understand the various perspectives of those concerned. Stakeholder meetings were held recently and the next phase will progress to group discussions. It worth noting that the relevant copyright legislation applies in any event.

Finally, the final recommendation of the report concerns a stakeholder forum. I might come back to that in my closing remarks but I think there is an overall question. The report was extremely balanced and reflected the multiple perspectives of the people who came before the committee during the hearings. There are multiple employee or worker and producer perspectives reflected. There is something of a balance between really genuinely creating a resilient industry that will stick in Ireland and will offer ongoing training and employment to anybody who wants to come into that sector to give them the opportunity to work within a really vibrant Irish industry and to give them a platform to travel internationally to the multiple other locations that are creating excellent film and television around the world. The best way to do that is to create a sector where there are multiple job opportunities; where employees have the opportunity to choose the type of structure they can work within; where they have the opportunity to engage with collective bargaining and where they are protected in that way. The report alludes to much of that but I hope the debate will as well.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to speak on this report containing the recommendations of the Committee on Budgetary Oversight because it is very important. The reports I have heard from workers are just shocking. There is clearly a problem owing to the exploitation of workers in the Irish film industry. It appears to be hidden away through dodgy financial and legal checks, but the bottom line is that there are thousands of workers in the country who are employed outside EU national law and who are without proper pay, conditions, benefits and recognition of service. They face blacklisting if they speak up about any of this.

I have heard reports of workers being blacklisted for making workplace injury claims, workers with 40 years' service being blacklisted and workers being blacklisted for attending Oireachtas committee meetings. In 2021, in the report on bogus self-employment, the Joint Committee on Social Protection recommended that the Department of Social Protection and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment develop anti-victimisation and anti-blacklisting legislation. This has not happened. The recommendation was made two years ago. This is a clear example of why anti-blacklisting legislation is needed. There is a massive chilling effect on workers' rights, pay, and health and safety if workers cannot raise their voices for fear they will permanently lose their jobs. Blacklisting does massive damage to workers' lives.

These are 1930s tactics that are being carried out through modern-day tax and company law. Workers have been fighting these tactics to suppress workers' rights since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We see in clear daylight what is happening. What companies with charity status are doing with taxpayers' funding is just not acceptable. The requirement under section 481 to provide quality employment and training and the industry development clause in the EU state aid rules are clearly broken if representatives of employers are saying at Oireachtas committee meetings and in the Labour Court and Workplace Relations Commission that the companies receiving the tax breaks have no employees, no buildings, no infrastructure and no camera equipment or post-production facilities, all despite their receiving over €4 billion in tax breaks through section 481.

I would like to refer to the report's recommendation on a stakeholder forum on workers' rights in the film industry. There is now evidence of cartel tactics being employed in the industry, and the relevant Department must investigate this. Over the past few weeks, we have heard of the ongoing problems owing to bogus self-employment in RTÉ. We have seen that workers' rights have been trampled on in the Iceland stores, where the workers were not paid their wages. This has been raised publicly in the Dáil and it was not followed up with any inspection. We have seen the same with the Debenhams workers and the security workers.

Now we have a report on the abject conditions of workers in the film industry. What is happening is just not good enough. I know some of the workers. They tell me what is happening in the industry and I believe them. Some of them are blacklisted and cannot get work. Whether it is through tax breaks or State funding, the companies are using taxpayers' money to make profits off the back of exploited workers.

Committee recommendation No. 4 states:

The Committee recommends that the term 'quality employment and training', in the context of the audio-visual industry, be defined.

That is really important.

Recommendation No. 5 states:

The Committee recommends that it is clearly established that producer companies who receive Section 481 on the condition of creating quality employment and meeting the industry development test must take responsibility for employees and acknowledge their employment relationship with film crew across different productions and recognise the accumulated service of all such employees as a condition of receiving Section 481.

Recommendation No. 6 states:

The Committee commits to writing to the EU commission requesting an examination of the use of successive use of Fixed Term Contracts for film crew working across multiple productions, where such crew never acquire Contracts of Indefinite Duration or any acknowledgement of their service, and whether this amounts to a breach EU Directives in terms of both the Fixed Term Workers Directive and EU directives relating to state aid for the Audio-visual sector.

Recommendation No. 9 states:

The Committee commits to writing to the EU commission requesting an examination of the use of 'buy-out' contracts in the Irish film production.

I strongly support the recommendation to have a stakeholder forum. There needs to be a genuine look under the bonnet to ensure our tax breaks and State funding do not just go into the pockets of those at the top at the expense of workers.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In 2018, some brave workers came forward and called out a lack of protection for workers in the film industry. They spoke in front of the Oireachtas committee at the time believing they would be protected and that their action would help to get the issue they were raising with the committee addressed. That those workers have not worked a day since in the industry – 40 have been affected – speaks volumes. It indicates that there is blacklisting. I have been assured over the years that this is not the case but the failure of those men and women to get work since speaks volumes. We need to ensure there is no blacklisting. I was the Chairman of the committee after the report was produced and was assured by the various stakeholders that there was no such thing as blacklisting, yet the people who put their heads above the parapet have not got work. That suggests something is wrong or rotten.

The key demand made at the time was reflected in recommendation No. 4 of the Joint Committee on Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht:

The Committee calls on the Irish Film Board to constitute the Board's Film Forum, with an independent Chair, in order to allow all stakeholders within the sector to meet and work together to develop mutually beneficial solutions for the industry.

Five years later, this same demand is included in the current report, which states:

The Committee recommends that the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media and the Department of Finance convene a stakeholder forum as a priority to discuss how to maximise the benefits of the Section 481 credit for all concerned stakeholders, and to facilitate best practice in employment rights, industrial relations, collective bargaining, address Copyright and Intellectual Property issues and any other relevant issues.

Key in all the demands is ensuring that everybody benefits across the board in terms of workers' rights and best employment practice, basically meaning that the industry should do what it says and what section 481 was meant to set out, namely the establishment of a grade 1, top-of-the-class film industry in Ireland.

I want to celebrate Irish film and have done so. I want to scream from the rooftops about all those in the film industry – the workers, actors, screenwriters and producers – and I will do so. Irish film has had much to celebrate in recent years, including this year. Tá jab iontach á dhéanamh acu agus tréaslaím leo, ach is gá dúinn déanamh cinnte de go bhfuil muidne agus na hoibrithe ag fáil an bhuntáiste ar chóir dúinn as an infheistíocht mhór mhillteach atá ag tarlú ó thaobh an cháiníocóra san earnáil thábhachtach seo. Infheistiú an-mhór atá i gceist. Táimid ag caint faoi na céadta milliúin euro d’airgead na gcáiníocóirí atá ar fáil le scannáin a dhéanamh tríd Fís Éireann, RTÉ nó TG4, agus Údarás Craolacháin na hÉireann roimhe seo. Tá an t-airgead á infheistiú againn. Táimid ag déanamh iarracht a bheith cinnte ach níl muid ag fáil an toraidh iomláin. We are getting some product for the investment by the State but not all of it.

There are two tests involved in section 481, one being the culture test, which means a production must be of importance to the promotion, development and enhancement of the national culture, including, where applicable, the Irish language. Earlier this year, we celebrated the success of the Irish film sector's Oscar nominations, which demonstrated to the world and us in particular the value of film in promoting Irish culture. My party and I believe passionately in supporting Irish culture and language through film, but we also see a role for the tax credit in supporting the economic and cultural benefits and the development of Gaeltacht areas, for instance, and parts of our country that have been left behind.

The Minister of State spoke about regional uplift, which is being phased out. There was a demand from the industry that the regional uplift provision be extended, given it takes more than five years to put in place exactly what was envisaged when it was introduced. There was also a request by TG4 that in the event of there being no further regional uplift, or even running side by side with such provision, that there be a Gaeltacht uplift. That was prior to "An Cailín Ciúin" getting the award nominations and doing so well across the world in the past year. Serious consideration should be given to continuing the regional uplift provision and-or a Gaeltacht uplift, particularly as the proof is in the pudding. A lot more can be done. However, delivering additional tax relief to film producers should only come with additional safeguards, which are those mentioned in the committee's 2018 report and its latest report.

The second test was the industry development test. The committee, during the course of its hearings, heard evidence of instances where the spirit of the test, particularly in regard to the quality employment and training requirement, has not been honoured in the industry. We need to ensure there is provision of quality employment and training. People understand that some of the employment in the film industry will be only on a short-term basis. They have always understood that. However, to be blacklisted or sidelined because they have raised issues about health and safety or the like is against the law in most other areas of industry of Ireland. It is strange that it continues in the film industry.

Issues were raised by members of the Irish Film Workers Association, as were raised by others previously, about people who were employed by the designated activity companies and were advised that due to the temporary nature of the work, they had insufficient recourse to employment dispute mechanisms. It was explained to the committee that the DACs are only required to remain in existence for 12 months following the completion of a project. If an employee of a DAC wishes to bring a case to the Workplace Relations Commission or the Labour Court, by the time such a case reaches the court, the employer or the DAC is no longer in existence. The Irish Film Workers Association representatives further advised the committee that due to the qualifying company or DAC having been the employer of the crew for the production, workers are unable to seek recourse from the production company despite that company being the beneficiary of the tax credit. Those issues can be addressed. The committee made recommendations, which we hope will see the light of day by way of provisions in the Finance Act or specific changes to the provisions for section 481 relief.

Issues were raised by witnesses from Irish Equity regarding intellectual property. They noted that in the same way the contracted crews are protected by a range of employment legislation, all performers and creatives are protected by the Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Act 2007 and the EU's directive on copyright in the digital Single Market. However, they noted that although productions must sign a statement to the effect that they will comply with the relevant employment legislation to avail of section 481 credit, the Copyright and Related Rights (Amendment) Act and the EU copyright directive are not specifically listed in that statement. Irish Equity highlighted the importance of these protections and advised that the real value of the film and television industry does not exist at that point of the production but is contained in the copyright and intellectual property of all parties contributing to the final product. The committee made recommendations in this regard that I endorse.

The PwC assessment in 2020 found that for every euro that is paid out under the section 481 tax credit, the Irish economy benefits to the tune of €3.50. If that is the case, we need to ensure its continuation and that everybody, particularly the workers, rather than only a few, benefit to the same tune. The State, because of that benefit, can put more pressure on those who are behind some of the blacklisting and the like. The key is the stakeholders' forum.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Committee on Budgetary Oversight for doing this work. I thank its members for allowing me to take part in some of the committee's deliberations. The committee heard from a considerable number of witnesses, including representatives of Screen Ireland, Screen Producers Ireland, the Screen Guilds of Ireland and the Irish Film Workers Association. John Arkins and Liz Murray were in the audiovisual room earlier to engage with a number of Oireachtas Members.

The recommendations that have been made are important. There is nobody who does not want to see the continuity of the Irish film industry. We all were delighted at the time of the Oscars nominations, before the ceremony rather than after it, with the recognition of the likes of "An Cailín Ciúin" and the "Banshees of Inisherin". All I can say is that we need to see things being done better and more quickly, and more of them. The whole purpose of the section 481 relief is that we have a sustainable industry. In considering what that looks like, we must take into account quality employment and training. That is the industry development test. Then there is the culture test. There must be some sort of layout in regard to how that looks.

The Minister of State is representing the Department of Finance and the line Minister. That is part of the overall process. We are discussing a tax relief, which is where the Department of Finance comes in, but the certification and sign-off come from the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Deputy Catherine Martin. The provision absolutely is cross-departmental. We need to get to grips with the question of how that certification occurs. Recommendations were made on the amount of the tax relief that is offered. Perhaps we need to look at instalments and all those various issues. First and foremost, however, the most important recommendation is that the two Ministries convene the all-important stakeholders' forum in which all these issues can be considered.

Given the week that is in it, we are all conscious of the importance of ensuring there is good governance, oversight and accountability of how public moneys are used. We need to do a deep dive. We have heard that from too many people who came before the committee and from others who are not willing to go in front of committees given what has happened to the likes of John Arkins and others, who would state outright that they were blacklisted. Others will refute that but if people have worked consistently in an industry and then suddenly, after speaking in front of a committee, they do not work again, everybody can work out what looks to be happening.

A number of people within the industry have spoken about how they are not particularly happy at times with the ratios of experienced workers to trainees, while recognising there is a need to have a throughput and that this is not necessarily great at times from the point of view of the sustainability of individual productions and the wider industry. People are very slow to bring those issues up because of the reality of how this works. There was mention of 1913 earlier. I do not want to be overly dramatic but the fact is this is an industry that is not like many others in the sense that people require a head of department to ring them and ask them to come in to do a particular piece of work. If a person who comes in front of a committee to discuss certain issues expresses the view, let us say, that the working time directive or whatever is not being applied correctly, I am fairly sure that person will not thereafter be getting that call from the head of department.

The tax relief is sought by a producer, who creates a designated activity company, DAC. People get the idea that it is a one-shot type of operation for an individual film. That company then disappears at the end. In fairness, the Minister of State spoke about our entire framework for protecting workers but, at the Workplace Relations Commission and Labour Court, the representatives of employers have said that these production companies have no employees and that the people in question were employees of DACs that have folded and are gone. We need to find a means to maintain the connection between the producer and the employee to ensure that workers have rights, that they stay in the industry and that this industry remains sustainable.

We have all heard stories of productions being made in this State and then having to be filmed again in other places. That leads to questions as to what exactly went on in those particular productions. Is it a case of too many corners being cut? The difficulty is that, if Ireland were to get a name for that, we would suddenly be in a completely different place. At this point in time, we have what is a relatively thriving film industry. We need to sustain it and to add to it.

If we agreed on nothing else, we should agree that we need a stakeholders' forum. The situation is no different from that of RTÉ. A deep dive, an inquiry or an investigation is needed. It is not about accepting what I or any of the other Deputies here say or what individuals have told us or various committees over the years; it is about looking at the facts. We are providing a great deal of State money. We want to ensure the sustainability of the film industry. Deputy Boyd Barrett made a fair point about the need to look at something to ensure long-term sustainability and to ensure that the State gets something to show for its investment. I accept that employment and sustainability are sound but, as I have said, we need that deep dive. In fairness, that could not be done by the Department of Finance alone because it relates to the film industry and how we ensure that industry is sustainable and that workers are getting their rights. We need that stakeholders' forum as quickly as possible. That is the whole point of the hearings we held and the recommendations we made. This cannot just be another report that lies somewhere because of cross-departmental difficulties. We put in various parliamentary questions and are sent from the Department of Finance to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and then to the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin's Department. That is something we cannot have.

We know that there are also wider issues with regard to Irish Equity and the EU copyright directive. We have heard testimony regarding buy-out contracts. It does not look like people have a whole pile of choice with regard to such contracts. As I have said, this is about long-term sustainability, workers' rights and ensuring that artists get the benefit of the work they have put in on a long-term sustainable basis. We presented what had been presented to us. Obviously, there are people who feel they have not necessarily got a fair run from the film industry, given these particular circumstances. Some of them have come to Oireachtas Members individually and others have come before committees. All we are saying is that there are particular issues here. Even if Screen Ireland, Screen Producers Ireland or others refute these claims for their own reasons, the fact is that questions remain. The only way to get the answers is to have that deep dive.

I request that the Minister of State engage cross-departmentally with a view to pushing forward and holding this stakeholders' forum so that we can have a means to carry out the necessary level of inquiry or investigation. We could then find the best means of offering section 481 relief. We want to see the audiovisual sector and film industry thrive but the section 481 relief now also relates to the games industry. We want the benefits for all of those involved at every level but we need fair play for workers. We cannot have people being blacklisted. The problem is that there are just far too many complaints. My fear is that we will not have a sustainable industry in the long term if we do not deal with these issues.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked for five minutes but I may wander a little beyond that if that is in order. It turns out I may have more to say than I originally anticipated, based on contributions from colleagues and the Minister of State's earlier response. One thing the Minister of State and her officials in the Department could usefully consider is directly engaging with people who work in the industry. She put on the record her own interest in the industry in her earlier contribution. On behalf of colleagues in Irish Equity, I made contact to request that the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, and her officials meet with Irish Equity representatives to discuss the recommendations of this report and aspects of the operation of the audiovisual industry. I am thankful that the officials in the Minister's Department have agreed to meet with those representatives to discuss the report and related issues. However, as colleagues have already said, a number of Departments have oversight of, and in interest in, the operation of this very vibrant and dynamic sector, of which we are all very proud. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has an interest from the perspective of employment rights. The Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin's Department also has an interest. In the context of the section 481 tax relief, it would be useful for the Minister of State and the officials in her Department to hear directly from those operating in the sector.

I know Deputy Boyd Barrett will not mind if I pay tribute to him for his initiative in driving this exploration of issues in this sector at the Committee on Budgetary Oversight. Although I am a member of the committee, I was not directly involved in many of the meetings, although I certainly had input in the process and have a deep interest in this sector. My own party is very closely connected with the development of the Irish film sector. Of course, it was Michael D. Higgins, our current President and the former Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, who was the first full Cabinet Minister to put such a great emphasis on the development of the Irish film industry, in the early to late 1990s, such that we can now call it an industry in its own right and in the truest sense of the word. One of those contributions was the creation of important tax incentives and supports to create an industry that had barely existed up until that point. The industry employs thousands of people across the country and its cultural influence has spread far and wide. It is something we all should value.

I was quite taken with something that Michelle Quinn of Irish Equity said at the committee a number of months ago. I am paraphrasing her contribution but she said that the Irish taxpayer was the most important stakeholder with regard to section 481. She, Irish Equity and others are absolutely right. This is a significant tax incentive and the relief provided to industry involves significant expenditure. It is important that it is properly managed on behalf of the Irish citizen and the Irish taxpayer. We cannot always say that every tax relief and tax expenditure is properly managed or that every one is properly and frequently scrutinised as recommended by the Commission on Taxation and Welfare in the context of a range of different expensive but important tax incentives.

It is important that we use our tax system to encourage and incentivise public policy initiatives that are considered important. I always say, and this should be of no surprise to anybody, that there should never be any significant tax incentives or cash provided to a particular sector or industry without conditions. That is bad public policy. It is even worse public policy when we feign or express disinterest in what happens with an industry that is generously supported by the Irish taxpayer, and for good reason. We understand why and we all support that. The question of support for a sector that is so important for us economically, socially and culturally is not at issue here.

Workers' rights have to be put at the heart of the continued operation of this incentive. As other colleagues said, Equity is concerned about the protection of its members rights to copyright and intellectual property, and how both are under threat from streaming services. That is a live issue. I say that as somebody with many friends and supporters who are actors and who work in the film and audiovisual sector more generally. I also put on the record, even though I am no longer involved, that I spent time as a director on the board of organisations making productions for the television and film industry and theatre companies. I have an interest in this from the finance side, the business side and from the point of view of the interests of those working in the sector.

Equity has called for compliance with copyright and intellectual property rights to be a full eligibility requirement for section 481. It has noted that Ireland is currently behind the curve in protecting those rights. That is an important point, because we should be striving to be best in class across the European Union in that regard.

As we know, Equity has said that buy-out clauses in contracts are routine in Ireland. That effectively means actors and writers, by dint of their circumstances, are often in a position where they often have to sign away their rights for a fee. The real magic for somebody who works in the sector, especially on the creative side, is the ongoing royalties and payment derived from their creativity and their work. That is where the real value is for many workers in the sector.

I will conclude with a couple of brief points. There is, or should be, broad agreement that the forum called for by many operators in the sector and successive Oireachtas reports should be established. I want to reiterate that. It has been resisted for many years. That forum should be considered in the interests of sustaining an industry in the true sense of the word, where skills are constantly updated and where education and ongoing professional development are a key feature. The message should go out from this Chamber unanimously, from the Opposition and Government, that the forum is a positive idea and something that industry and trade unions should get behind.

This is a really important piece of work. As the saying goes, it should not be left to rot on a shelf in Ministers' offices in the coming period of time. We have an opportunity to do some really important things for this sector and the people who work in it. Let us do it. Let us stop talking about it and let us action it.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On Deputy Nash's point, the Department has met with Irish Equity, Screen Guilds Ireland, Screen Producers Ireland, Screen Ireland and Animation Ireland on several occasions. The Department has reviewed the credit regularly under the tax expenditure guidelines. It was reviewed in 2018 and 2022. In 2015 it was restructured from an investor led credit to a corporation tax credit, following a review.

The point was raised about open calls. A new register has been developed for crews so they can register their availability for work and their skills, and more open calls are being used for staff productions regarding closed shop hiring processes. I want to put that on record. The other piece is on language, and terms like "blacklisting", "1930s tactics", and "1930s industrial revolution". From my perspective, we live in a country with an extraordinarily complex and advanced employment law architecture. That language is very much of that era, and is not relevant to the vibrant Ireland of today. Individual cases must be assessed through the Workplace Relations Commission. I do not think any Deputy in this House would like to undermine that, or in any way step away from the industrial and workplace relations architecture, which has been developed. It is really important that individual cases are litigated or assessed in that forum.

I recall reading quotes from workers' representatives, who spoke at the Select Committee on Budgetary Oversight and who spoke positively about the industry. I do not want to read those because I do not want any allegation that they represent this or that. In my constituency, I know and work with people who work in the industry, and I also have friends who work in the industry. They speak positively about it. I have constituents who work in it and who tell me they are happy with the environment as it is. They are happy working from project to project. They are happy with the opportunities it creates. I do not accept the picture that has been created today. I think it is perhaps one-sided and does not represent the complete suite of experience in the industry, and the working practices in the sector. I think in reality there is more nuance with what is going on.

I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett for bringing this forward. I reiterate that the recommendations outlined in the report cover a broad spectrum of areas that impact the audiovisual sector. On quality employment, Ireland has a comprehensive body of employment, equality and industrial relations legislation. All employers regardless of sector are responsible for ensuring their employees receive all protections afforded them under employment legislation.

What I never hear about is the risk employers or producers take in terms of financing and creating projects. I am not saying that one supersedes the other in any way. It is just that I do not hear that side of this articulated. Of course, there is nowhere to work unless people go out and try to create projects.

As I understand it, the international norm for this industry is to operate on a project to project basis. That is the result of the life cycle of audiovisual productions, in particular live action, encompassing concept development, pre-production, filming, editing and post-production. In an industry of that nature, quality employment for cast and crew does not necessarily mean continuous long-term year round employment with a single employer. There is rather a focus on a steady pipeline of work opportunities, skills development and career progression. That is where this tax credit is so important. It enables the development of an industry at scale, which gives people opportunities without difficulty to try, insofar as possible, to get the projects they want to work on at any given time in a fluctuating economy. That sort of resilience in a sector gives people the best possible opportunities. It also allows for maximum creativity, which allows people to move between different types or projects, whether international films, smaller indigenous productions or regionally focused productions to gain a wide breadth of experience and have a varied and stimulating career.

The nature of the sector was considered as part of the collective bargaining process. It is something different, and it is reflected in agreed pay rates and in the industry pension scheme, which operates under the construction workers pension scheme.

Training and skills will continue to develop and be a strong focus in the sector. The sector cannot continue to develop without it. It is absolutely essential and we want people to have the highest skills development possible. I understand the competency framework for crew developed by Screen Ireland in conjunction with Screen Guilds Ireland is providing a concrete system for section 481 skills tracking. Shadowing, training and access schemes for industry skills across the country are extending the reach of training and upskilling as part of the national training academy steering group's network.

It is also worth noting that a large amount of information is submitted to the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media as part of a section 481 application. That allows a thorough and in-depth examination by the Department of each section 481 application. A skills development officer is nominated by each production to deal with queries. That individual oversees the skills needs analysis process, the implementation of the proposed skills development plan and the recording of skills activity carried our during production. As part of the post project compliance report, a producer company is required to declare that all conditions contained within the section 481 certificate were complied with. They must then be able to provide evidence of compliance with the conditions of the section 481 certificate, including skills development and employment.

On copyright, I must again point out that efforts are under way to understand the issues from the perspective of the concerns of those impacted. An independent facilitator has been appointed to meet key stakeholders to endeavour to understand the issues of concern and this process is ongoing. Similar to the position of employment rights, the relevant copyright legislation applies in any event, whether or not it is referenced as part of the process for section 41.

Returning to the committee's recommendations concerning the enhancement of the credit, as I have said, these matters will be considered by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael McGrath, in advance of budget 2024.

Several Deputies asked me about the stakeholder forum. I said I would address this matter during my concluding comments. I can tell Deputies that the officials in the Department of Finance are discussing this with officials in the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sports and Media in respect of how to move forward with a recommendation. What is important is that anything created in this regard must be an opportunity to constructively address issues and will not be a forum for adjudicating workplace relations issues, because this would undermine the statutory process of the WRC.

I am aware this matter arose during the deliberations of the Committee on Budgetary Oversight twice in October 2022. I am also aware that in July 2018 the joint committee published a report relating to this issue. The joint committee called on the then Irish Film Board, now Screen Ireland, to constitute its film forum. I understand that efforts in this regard began in 2018 but that a difference arose between people in the industry as to what this forum would look like, what this mechanism might be and what it would do. It is important, therefore, that the officials in the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sports and Media can reflect on that engagement and work out how to create a forum where issues can be addressed in a collaborative way that does not step across any employment law architecture, which I do not believe would be permissible or necessarily helpful.

I thank the Deputies for the report and the debate.

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

To pre-empt everything I am going to say, I am personally and politically committed to public funding for the film industry and for arts and culture in general. I am one of the most vocal, although not the only one because there are many others, in arguing every year that we should put more investment into film, arts and culture. I will do it again this year. I am in favour of significantly increasing investment in the Irish film industry. To be honest, I think we could be doing much more with the talent we have here. This is at every level, including acting, writing, crew and set construction. Just name the area and I think we are bursting with talent here.

I do not think, though, that we are fully reaching our potential and this is because of what is going on in the industry. This is an industry where many people go into putting its productions together. Let us start with the actors, performers and writers represented by Equity. I think most people would accept this is a pretty important group in terms of the production of films. I honestly ask the officials to read what these people said about section 481 in the Equity submission. I will refer to a few lines from that submission. Reference was made to the exclusion of new and emerging independent producers and the concentration of industry power within a small number of players working against a competitive and innovative sector. Additionally, mention was made of potential abuse of the tax credit through a range of practices, including internal pricing and artificially depressed income strategies. It was also said that the flouting of national and international copyright legislation was creating an absurd situation whereby one arm of government was supporting organisations in breach of the State's own legislation.

This was the submission from Equity and this is serious. We do not have to accept that the organisation is correct, but, my God, we all have a responsibility to investigate this allegation. I am serious. If this were not true before this week, it is seriously true after what we have heard about RTÉ. Let us think about what it is that has generated the anger in respect of RTÉ. It is that huge amounts of public money were involved in instances of creative accounting. This was a phrase, by the way, also used by Equity. Its representatives said the most creative thing in the Irish film industry was the accountancy practice. This is what those representatives said. We have seen such creative practices in RTÉ as well. Let us look at the fury in this regard. I am honestly asking the officials and the Government to think about RTÉ. If this is happening, and I am not asking them to accept it is happening, we have a responsibility to find out about it.

This is because it is going to blow up in all of our faces if it is happening. We were asked again and again to investigate and we did not get to the bottom of this with independent, objective and forensic assessment of the claims and counterclaims, and of course there are claims and counterclaims. Let us make one point absolutely clear. I heard it being said that the forum cannot turn into an industrial relations mechanism and, therefore, we cannot have a forum. I have heard this being said. Let me make it completely clear that even the people who are saying they are being blackballed said today that they will deal with their own cases individually. They do not want the forum for that reason. They want it to deal with the systemic problems in the industry. That is what they said and they are dealing with their cases.

To inform the House, everybody who avails of section 481 must sign a declaration. I will let the Minister of State know about this situation. She should be aware of what is happening here. Some of these cases were taken to the WRC. The recipients of section 481 tax credits came in and said it was not them who employed the people concerned, but the DAC. The WRC did not know what to do with that situation and, essentially, said it could not hear the case because these people were not the employer. This was the outcome even though - this is the point - they came into the committee and said that although they were not the employer, they knew that the people taking the cases worked on the films where these recipients of section 481 had set up the DACs. Those recipients said they knew the people taking the cases but that they were not, technically, their employer.

This issue is going back to the WRC. It is important for the Minister of State to know about it. The people involved in this case went to the High Court recently. The judge there quashed the WRC ruling in respect of this case on the grounds that these people did not get a fair hearing. They did not get a fair hearing because the case was thrown out due to the representatives of Screen Producers Ireland, SPI, going into the WRC, representing the film production companies, to state that the people involved in the case were not employees. The SPI representatives then confirmed a point for me when I asked them about fixed-term workers. The Minister of State quoted the relevant legislation in this regard.

I asked them if they could produce one worker who had gained a contract of indefinite duration in the whole of the film industry funded by section 481. The representative told me it was not possible to do so because there is no such person. These workers do not exist. The SPI representative acknowledged the point being made by the Irish Film Workers Association and said the employment relationship does not survive the DAC. This means there are no jobs in the film industry after production has finished. There are jobs during the production of a film but then there are no jobs. People have worked for the same three or four producers for 25 or 30 years - or even 40 years as I heard of today - but the clock has gone back to zero after each production. The workers involved in the case I mentioned went to sign up for the next production but because they were insisting on recognition of service, they were told to get away. There was no pension and no recognition of service. They were just gone.

The point is that, systemically and structurally, there is nothing to stop this happening. Of course the people currently doing well in the industry are saying this set-up is fine. This will be the case until it is not fine for them. A certain group of people have had the courage, and they have paid for it, to speak about this. I am not joking when I say I am inundated with calls from people who are still working in the film industry and are afraid. They tell me I am right but that if people put their heads above the parapet, they will be out of the film industry. This is what is happening in this industry. We must do something about this situation. We must establish if there is creative accounting.

Again, one of the points made by the representatives of Equity was that it is in the interests of the film producer companies never to make a profit. If they did, they would have to pay tax.

They would have to return the loans to Screen Ireland, which they also get. The Minister of State can check the figures on this, but I think that there were €22 million in loans from Screen Ireland last year. Does she know how much was paid back? It was €1 million. That is the same pattern every year. The Minister of State should not get me wrong: film is not like business. I am not saying it should always make money. In fact, part of the whole point of public funding of filming is that sometimes it will not, but this stuff needs to be really monitored and it is not being monitored.

One of the other features that even RTÉ has acknowledged about the current crisis relates to silos. One bit does not know what the other bit is doing. This is what is happening with the Government's own oversight of this situation. The Department of Finance is in charge of this bit. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is in charge of that bit. The Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media is in charge of that bit. If you go to one bit, you are told: "No, that bit is their business". It is not integrated. This is why we need the forum, and we need a governance structure to get to the bottom of this because if you add up everything, this is about €150 million to €160 million a year, which is a lot of money.

We have these serious allegations about copyright directives. All of this could be invalidated if it is found that we are breaching the state aid rules. These are serious allegations. I appeal to the Government. It does not have to accept everything we are saying, or all the allegations, counterclaims and pros and cons, but could someone please look under the bonnet before we have an RTÉ-style situation exploding in our faces? Let us get to the bottom of it in a fair, honest, independent and objective way that cuts across the silos, and make sure it is not the case - sadly I think it is - that there is a small group at the top doing very well out of this. There are also a few people who are in with those people and it is fair enough if it is good for them, but then there is a load of other people who are terrified to say anything because they will not work again if they do. That is not a good basis on which to develop the Irish film industry, given what it could be and the huge potential that exists for the Irish film industry.

The very last thing I want to say is about owning stuff. We do not own anything. We own nothing. We used to own Ardmore Studios but we do not even own that any more. Most of the film companies do not own anything either, even though we have given them a lot of money to buy equipment. Where does the equipment go?