Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the names of Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Boyd Barrett, respectively, have been ruled out of order.

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

I am assuming my amendment was ruled out of order on the basis it goes beyond the scope of the Bill or something to that effect. I understand why, technically, this might have been ruled out of order. To my mind, however, it very much is, or should be, part of the Act this Bill is amending to make the grants and loans the Irish Film Board gives out for film productions far more strictly conditional on the film production companies that receive those grants and loans providing quality employment and training. They are not legally required to under the film board Act but, in general, it is the position of the Government, more via section 481, that public funding to the film industry should be conditional on the provision of quality employment and training.

In the case of section 481, public funding is legally conditional on the provision of quality employment and training. I know it is not the case with funding that is coming via the Irish Film Board. That is not written into law, as such, but I am saying it should be.

Not only should it be written into law, but we need to make sure it happens. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many who work in the film industry, that industry test, as it is known, is not being met. I am speaking slightly off the top of my head, so the Minister can come back to me on this. My understanding is that the EU directives governing state aid to the audiovisual industry say that the state aid is conditional on the meeting of the industry test and the culture test. I am all for giving more aid and support to the arts, film and culture, but I am also very much for the conditions of quality employment and training, and the building up of a real industry. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I think the EU directive refers to the need to create companies of scale. What is meant by creating an industry is that we create companies of scale and, in other words, we build up a permanent pool of skills to actually make an industry. That industry would have real jobs and, therefore, the people who work in the industry would have some level of security about employment, so it is not just a fly-by-night industry where nobody has any rights or entitlements, or security or certainty about their ability to work in that industry or have an income over the long term.

To my mind, the grants and loans are very significant. What this Bill is doing is raising the ceiling from €500 million, which we have nearly reached, to €800 million. That is a lot of money to be giving out. I think it is €490 million at present. If we add section 481, which is the other arm of the State giving money to the same film productions, probably over the same period, we are probably talking about €4 billion. It is big money, and there are some other streams of money as well.

As I said, I am all for that money and even more going in. However, I do not believe we have the conditions of quality employment and training, particularly in relation to the fixed-term workers legislation, where people have been working on successive productions over the years. Film crew of all sorts will work on successive productions, but for each production, a DAC, or designated activity company, is set up. The people who set up that subsidiary, and who receive the money from the Government, are from the producer company, such as Metropolitan, Element or one of those. It is a standing company, but it sets up different DACs for each film production. When the people who work on those multiple productions go in and assert their employment rights, they will say that they worked on the last production, the one before that and the one before that, and, therefore, they are entitled to work on the next one. However, if, for some reason, the company decides that it does not want them back because maybe they have been asking for their rights, giving out about the fact they do not get holiday entitlements or are involved in trade union activity, or whatever, it can decide that it does not want to employ them on the next production.

That has happened to many workers, who then take a case. They go to the WRC and say that the company, which gets money from the State, from the Irish Film Board and under section 481, had set up a DAC and employed them on multiple productions and, therefore, they are asserting their rights under law to, for example, a contract of indefinite duration. The company that gets the money from the Government for quality employment and training will say that they are not its employees, even though it knows them, and even though it set up all of the subsidiaries, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the company that gets the money for quality employment and training. It hides behind that DAC and says they are not its employees, even though they may have worked for the company for ten, 12 or 15 years. The company goes in and signs sworn affidavits to that effect.

At the WRC recently, a case was taken by stagehands, who won by establishing that the company cannot hide behind the DAC. The film producer company then went to the Labour Court to try to overturn that decision, and it succeeded. The stagehands then went to the High Court, which very recently made a ruling that said what the Labour Court had decided was ridiculous because it simply took the producer company’s word that these people were not its employees, and it never looked further into it, when, clearly, the producer company was the company that got the money from the State. Reference was made in the High Court ruling to the moneys received from the State as proof that the producer company that was denying the employment relationship is the recipient of an incentive from the State.

The State is involved here. I do not understand why the State would not clarify this issue. This has been going on for years, and multiple cases have been taken. The State could just step in and say that this is what it means when it gives the money, and that it is going to clarify that, in law and in legislation, this is what it means by quality employment and training. It means that the company the State gives the money to cannot hide behind a pop-up shop that it sets up when it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the entity that the State gives the money to. That is what I am asking. While the amendment has been ruled out of order, I would still ask the Minister to seriously consider it, although not for this Bill, because that is not going to happen.

By the same token, for the performers, writers, directors and others, their gripe also revolves around the DAC. If they want to work on a film and the producer has set up a DAC to do it, they are handed a contract to work on that film, and that contract states that they will sign away their right to future royalties to the DAC. In the past, actors, writers and performers would have received residuals - royalty payments - if the particular production turned out to be successful and did really well. However, the producer companies do not want to give the intellectual property rights to a share of future royalties. Instead, they want to say that they are giving the equitable remuneration that is required upfront. For the Minister to understand this, there is no way the producer company can say it is equitable remuneration upfront. How could it? It does not know how the film is going to do. It does not know if it is going to be played again and again or be a big success, and, therefore, be put out all over the world, on Netflix and the streamers, and be played in a lot of cinemas. How successful it is will determine how much money the film makes. However, if the actors are told they have to agree upfront to sign away their rights, and the company is going to pay them so much now, they lose out on all that downstream stuff.

Again, and this is a technical point, the rights for that film are signed over to the DAC. Where do those rights go after the DAC is wound up?

Who do they go to? As far as I know, nobody really knows. I bet the producer company the Government gives the money to knows, and its beneficiary.

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

They know where the single socks go.

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

Exactly. The actors, writers and performers do not know where their rights have gone. These are their intellectual property rights. Equity has been campaigning on this and is asking for contracts similar to the PACT Equity in the UK, where there are superior contracts. Often, a guff answer is given back by the producers, that the PACT Equity contract is an English agreement and not suitable to Ireland. That is just nonsense. This is what the actors want here. The actors, writers and performers are getting inferior contracts to their counterparts in Britain. Give them the proper contracts and end the use of buy-out contracts. End the situation where the producers the Government is giving money to are essentially blackmailing writers, performers and actors into signing buy-out contracts, because if they do not sign them, they do not get work. The net result of all of this is, if you do not do what the producers tell you, you do not get on the film, whether you are a member of crew, a performer or whatever. You are just blacklisted out of the industry, branded a troublemaker and do not get back in. The "You're never going to work in this town" stuff has to end.

That happens, just so the Minister knows. I went to the Labour Court with these people and I just could not believe it. The film production company that was funded by the State had this phalanx of lawyers, legal advisers and so on. It had all of the lawyers. In the case I went to see, two stage hands were faced with all of those people. How are they supposed to deal with all of them? Where do the film production companies get the money to employ all of these lawyers? The companies have no employees, by the way. They just set up DACs. That is the ask.

I am sure my colleagues Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Ó Murchú want to speak. I ask the Government to seriously do something about this.

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

I have already put some of this on the record, so I will not delay proceedings. We are dealing with film, which is an important industry in Ireland and we need to treat it as such. What we have done over the years, despite criticism, is to create, or recreate, a film industry that we hope will stand the test of time. In doing so, we have forgone a lot of tax revenue, which is what tax relief is. We have invested in the Irish Film Board and are today allowing it to expend more on projects. I do not think anybody has a problem with that purpose. Most of us have seen at least some of the fruits of the investment in recent years and have also seen the potential for further growth. That is why it is to the benefit of the Irish Film Board and the industry as a whole that we further invest and try to bed down where we have got to, continue to try to keep up with an ever-changing market, and identify the threats coming from AI and from other jurisdictions, including our nearest one, which has changed tax policies as well to try to reap some of the rewards.

In doing all of that, we also have to be mindful of problems that have been raised over time, not only outside of here but also in this House. Some of them can be addressed quite quickly and some of them are being addressed. It is not every single film company, DAC or producer that is trying to gain some advantage by abusing workers' rights, including their right to proper remuneration. That is why the message needs to go out. I will use this opportunity to try to ensure that the message goes out from us, who are setting the law, that you are not allowed to breach the EU copyright directive, you are not allowed to chance your arm. That message does not seem to always be heard - that you are not allowed to blacklist workers, you are not allowed to withhold funding, and you are not allowed to join the race to the bottom. At the end of the day, we want an industry that we are proud of, pays people well, and ensures they are employed and can take home not just the enjoyment they have from being involved in a film, but wages to pay the bills, especially as we face into crisis after crisis in terms of people's ability to have a disposable income.

That is why I have raised these issues over the years. I have also raised the issue of the regional uplift - the Gaeltacht uplift - and ensuring that we use the opportunity of giving tax relief so that more of the artistic endeavours of others in Ireland benefit from it. We have some of the best composers in the world, yet there are film companies, DACs, producers and others who are behind the films importing music or importing composers to come to Ireland to compose rather than us making sure that, in our cultural test for the section 481 relief, the best comes out.

Having said all of that, we are not as bad as we were ten years ago. There is an acknowledgement of the changes the Minister and others before him have made. Some of that is because, in fairness to people in this House, people get up and raise the issues. We have had the support of those involved in the industry. They have told us the truth and explained to us how the film industry works. That is why we supported the tax relief for the unscripted programmes and the additional funding for animation. I hope little things like those will continue to happen to address shortfalls or problems that emerge.

The European copyright directive was set in train, and I would have gone further than it, but at the very least should be used as a yardstick by which people's rights are not undermined and are not bought off them in the way they have been over the years, where people end up with no benefit whatsoever. Their work and identities are continuously used to make further and further profits for those who are behind this.

I will use the opportunity to say that, if we had the audiovisual levy, maybe the Minister would have an extra €25 million to invest every year without having to give a tax relief.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Deputy want to tax the television?

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

I will tax anything if it helps workers.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will remind Pearse of that in the morning.

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

You can, if it helps workers to get a better standard of life and if it helps Ireland through the crises that have come before us and face us into the future. That is why taxation is there, to ensure the tax is aimed at the right people - those who are making huge profits. That is why people are talking about the audiovisual sector. I will not go down that road, but it is vital. People say it will be passed on to those who are paying for these services in the first place. That has not been seen to happen in other countries, since the companies have so much money. I will not labour that point.

We need to ensure we get the best benefit from the legislation. There seems to be new legislation every single year, as we plug holes or as issues are identified that, if we make a small change, can benefit the industry as a whole. I have no problem with this legislation.

We should take the opportunity over the next year, if at all possible, to try to get legislation other than this very narrow legislation where we can thrash out some of the other issues, if there is a need, as others and I believe there is, to plug holes in areas that are causing angst among some and major hardship to people who are trying to be workers in the industry but who have been sidelined or blacklisted over years.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is an awful lot to respond to. I have had the opportunity in private to welcome him back but I want to sincerely welcome back Deputy Boyd Barrett.

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

Thank you, Minister.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have not had the opportunity to do so in the House since he returned. It is great to see him back. We never agreed on anything. I would hate to break the habit of a lifetime.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are not going to start, I take it.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is great to see him back and I hope he is recovering well. Best of luck to him. It is important to point out that the aggregate relates to the amount of money expended since 1980, a 45-year term. It is not that we are hoping to spend this money into the future; it is an aggregate. It is an issue that comes up with a lot of State agencies. It is clunky that they have to keep coming back to the Minister of the day to amend legislation. In this case, it is the Irish Film Board Act 1980. I agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh and I have plans to bring forward a Screen Ireland Bill at some stage in 2026 to take account of the fact that Screen Ireland bears no relation to what the Irish Film Board was like in 1980. Ireland is a totally different place now. Touching on what Deputy Ó Murchú said with regard to gaming, I will also include in the Bill specific references to gaming and animation.

The references the Deputies made to section 481 are matters for the Minister for Finance. Notwithstanding that, concerning the issues raised regarding the terms and conditions of employees, the industrial relations machinery of the State, whether it is the WRC or the Labour Court, does not discriminate on the basis of where a person comes from. Those avenues are available to people.

I want to be very clear. I have a very good relationship with Screen Producers Ireland and I know it will be watching this debate. If there have been issues raised, and I know these are firmly held views both Deputy Ó Snodaigh and Deputy Boyd Barrett have because I would have dealt with them previously on these issues and I do not for one minute discount them, but I know Screen Producers Ireland will take them into consideration. I will draw them to its attention when I meet it next. Organisations representing performers, writers, directors and composers have agreed with producers and published industry interim guidelines for producers, authors and performers in the Irish screen industry. These guidelines cover fair remuneration for them. That is important to put on the record.

Both amendments were ruled out of order. A lot of latitude has been provided. I do not propose to speak to the amendments other than to say it is my intention to bring a Bill before the House in 2026. This Bill before us is a technical and specific Bill around the aggregate amount of money. I will also be before the committee after Christmas. Deputy Ó Snodaigh and others know I am of a mind, when members of the Opposition bring up issues, to take them on board. I have routinely done that and will again in the future. I look forward to working with the committee after Christmas on that Bill and on the general issue with regard to Screen Ireland and the production of film in Ireland.

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

I do not know if the Minister has an answer to these matters and I would appreciate it if he would look at them. The aggregate is over a very long period but it is €20 million to €30 million a year and then another arm of the State gives about €100 million or more. It is a lot of money each year and it builds up. One point I will make, and the Minister really needs to consider it, is that for all that money added up over time, the State has nothing - zero. We have nothing. We do not own anything. That money has paid for one of the major film producer companies, which regularly goes across the table to tell its employees they are not its employees or makes people-----

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is not suggesting we nationalising the film companies?

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Minister, you can come back in later.

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

We used to own one third part of Ardmore Studios. I would be in favour of that.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Exercise some caution.

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

With the money we are investing, is it not worrying that, at the end of it, we have nothing? It is not just section 481. There was a slight batting off of the thing and saying this is section 481, and I understand this is the film board, although the idea that these two things are completely separate is a bit ridiculous. They both go to the same film producer companies. Every single film produced here gets money off the film board and gets money off section 481. The combination of State moneys is a significant fact. The films would not happen without that money. It comes from two arms of the State, but it is said this bit is not our responsibility and workers' rights are the responsibility of Department of trade and enterprise, apparently, so there are three Ministries and everybody is batting it off to everybody else.

I would like a response to the following at some point, if the Minister cannot give it now. Am I not right in saying that EU directives on state aid to the audiovisual industry, which includes money from the film board, say it is conditional on meeting industry tests? Those tests require the building up of permanent pools of skills and companies of scale. Where are the companies of scale? They cannot be companies of scale if they say they have no employees. The biggest companies in this country have tiny numbers of admin people. One, which has been in receipt of large amounts of money, recently sold a majority share off to another big international company, Element. After all that money we have poured in to create a company that still does not really have any scale but is one of the biggest we have, it has now sold, and I presume and am guessing pretty pennies were made there, although I do not know the exact figures on it. Specifically for the film board, does the Minister know what the recoupment rate is on that money? The aggregate, loans and grants over that period are just under €500 million, mostly in loans.

Does the Minister know how much we got back? Over time, the amount will go up to €800 million. Most of the arrangements are categorised as loans and the main recipients are the film producer companies I mentioned. There are about four that get most of the money. I understand that not every film will make money. In fact, in many cases we want to give money for productions that will not make money. I back that but the biggest recipients make money. We hear on the news all the time that they have got this or that award, so they must be making money. However, we do not get any of it back, even though we have given the recipients loans. Do we know what the recoupment rate is?

One of the film workers' representative groups, most of which have been blacklisted out of the industry and are fighting cases in the Labour Court and so on, produced a report a few years ago showing that, at that stage, loans totalling €176 million had been given and that the recoupment rate was €12 million, or less than 10%. The aggregate figure is now up to just under €500 million. If the recoupment rate is roughly the same as I have suggested, it is very low. I am not suggesting that every film has to make a profit. An Irish Equity representative said the most creative thing in the Irish film industry is the accountancy. It is a good line, is it not? The point he was making, which needs to be considered, is that the way we have managed to structure the industry is such that films are set up so that on paper they never make a profit. If they made a profit, they could have to pay somebody back or pay some tax, so they are set up in such a way that they never make a profit. I sharply distinguish between these and the small, genuine filmmakers who are inevitably not going to make money and struggle to get film productions off the ground. I am not talking about them. They need every bit of support they can get. I am referring to the big guys, who are clearly successful, and to where there are royalties that could be given to the actors. We do not know where the royalties go because actors are forced to sign buy-out contracts. These things need to be looked into.

I hope we and the Minister present will work in a joined-up way with the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment to stop the game of saying various things are the responsibility of various others. I honestly believe that under the EU directive, we are required to ensure the net result is a serious industry in which people have some security of employment and in which actors, writers and performers get proper remuneration, which they are not getting currently. I will leave it at that as I know we are running out of time, but I hope the Minister will seriously take the response on board.

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

I have one or two brief comments in response to what the Minister had to say. I welcome the fact that we will, hopefully within the next year, be dealing with a Bill that will cover gaming. The Minister should read the article in The Currency today about The Digital Hub, where many gaming companies had set up. Strangely, the agency is spending a lot of money on derelict sites even though it does not even control them any more. That is a separate issue from that of section 481.

Ultimately, because of the nature of these arrangements, the Department of Finance has to get some information from the likes of the Minister present and the Minister for tourism and industry. Several bodies need to feed in, so the Minister for Finance has never taken decisions on the film industry alone. It is the same within my party. I cannot just say we should have a lot of money spent on the film industry. Our finance representative, Deputy Pearse Doherty, would throw a wobbler if I started spending money in the way some have suggested. There is no magic money tree for the film industry. Section 481 is one aspect of this. I understand what the Minister is saying but at the end of the day the position is as described.

An organisation that deserves the Minister's help at the moment is The Complex. I ask him to meet the Minister for Finance as quickly as possible to address the funding needs of this arts complex in the heart of the north inner city. It is not even in my constituency. It does not represent-----

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not even in the Bill.

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

It is not in the Bill but this is where artists and authors come together. There is an eclectic mix there and it is where ideas come from. When others mentioned films, I was reminded of the old film “Poitín”. I do not know whether the Minister ever saw it. Maybe I am of the vintage to have seen it. It is worth watching if you want to see divilment in Cyril Cusack's eyes. It is absolutely brilliant. It was one of the first Irish-language films and it is worth watching. It is dated at this stage but shows that, even with very little money, what the Irish could do with imagination. We have seen that, and that is why I support this legislation and look forward to ensuring that, irrespective of the legislation that comes before the House on film and the arts, we try to get the best. Since Ireland is a small island, on the edge of the world in some ways, it has to invest in its artists. Artists, along with others, set us apart. We have seen this from the awards they have got. Whether it is the technical legislation before us or the forthcoming legislation, we have to ensure we get it right. Others are getting their act together, have seen the success here and want a piece of the cake. They would probably have all of the cake if they could. If we could concentrate on Irish film, the correctness of the culture test and workers' rights, it would be useful.

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

The Minister spoke about the industrial relations infrastructure but that has failed to deal with this matter to date. We have had numerous cases over and back. Like everyone else, I can accept that one aspect relates to the Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport, section 481 relates to the Minister for Finance, and another issue relates to the Minister for Enterprise, Culture and Employment; however, we just need to find a means to deal with the issues, be they related to copyright, workers' rights or blackballing. It is fair enough to say we want to see a sustainable and thriving film industry and that we should have something because we put so much money in through tax breaks and other means but, again, the DAC anomaly is different from what obtains in many industries. If the Minister could find a means of reviewing and solving these issues, such that we did not have to keep coming in here to raise them, we would be all happy enough.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not to labour the point, copyright and workers' rights are matters for the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment and section 491, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, is a matter in the first instance for the Minister for Finance, but it is my role as Minister for culture to convince the Minister for Finance to widen the role of section 481. In this regard the Department has been quite successful over recent years. Now, at the end of 2025, the Department has begun discussions on the 2027 budget. We have already started to examine the matter.

I do not disagree with much of what the Deputies have said. I am aware that Deputy Boyd Barrett's party is called People Before Profit but I do not believe there is anything wrong with films making a profit. The Deputy said we do not get anything back. The Government invests very heavily in culture, authors, literature and musicians but does not expect to own the copyright of the books. The investment in the film industry is an investment in the country as well.

These films are going all over the world and we reap multitudes of what we are investing in tourism, inward investment and everything else. You cannot buy the type of exposure that we are getting internationally for this. It is a lot of money, but in the scheme of things, based on what all Deputies, including Deputy Boyd Barrett, have said about the successes of Irish film over the last number of years, it is a relatively small amount of money that I want to grow. I am looking forward to working with the Opposition throughout 2026 in what I hope will be a year in which I will be able to bring forward a new Bill, the Screen Ireland Bill.

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

In the minute that is left, I want to make it absolutely clear that nobody here is saying it is about quantifying arts in terms of pounds and pence, or whatever the expression is. A lot of art has to be subsidised because it gives a big cultural benefit, but it should not be the case that people who work in the industry and are increasingly getting degrees, qualifications and all sorts of things have absolutely no security about the possibility of working in film production. I know it cannot be the same as any other job. Nobody is suggesting it should be, but there could be a significantly greater level of security and there could be a situation where it is not wide open for people to be victimised. At the moment, there is literally no protection against what Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú said, which is just not getting the phone call. It is as simple as that. You get the phone call or you do not get the phone call. There is no protection against not getting a phone call. That should stop. Similarly, there is no protection against actors, writers and performers having a contract put in front of them and being told to sign that or see you later. That should not happen.