Committee on Budgetary Oversight debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jan 2024

Section 481 Film Tax Credit: Discussion

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I welcome: Ms Áine Maher, Dr. Dermot Coates, Mr. Pádraig O'Sullivan, Ms Tara Coogan and Ms Caroline Savage from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment; Ms Deirdre Donaghy and Mr. Ian Kavanagh from the Department of Finance; and Ms Mary Nash - for transparency purposes, I do not think we are related - and Mr. Anthony Donnelly from the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, to discuss the committee's recommendations on the section 481 film credit.

Before we begin, I will explain some of the limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards reference witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to the committee. This means that they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Chair to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or any official either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in the meeting. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

I invite Ms Nash to give her opening statement.

Ms Mary Nash

Good evening. I am a principal officer in the arts, film and investment unit of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. My colleague, Mr. Anthony Donnelly, is with the film unit. On behalf of the Department, I thank the committee for the invitation to discuss its section 481 report. I will speak briefly on some of the recommendations made, and I can expand on these later if members wish. My colleagues from the other Departments will discuss their areas.

Turning to recommendation 4, and these are in no particular order, this relates to defining the phrase "quality employment and training". In the context of the audiovisual industry, that phrase is wide-ranging. Regulation 3 of the 2019 film regulations allows for the "provision of quality employment, and training ... opportunities" as an option that can satisfy the Minister to allow for the issuing of a section 481 certificate. In practice in the Department, the provision of quality employment opportunities and training opportunities are separate determinants. Since 2019, to provide training opportunities, a skills development plan, tab F, must be provided in all cases and must contain minimum outputs and outlays. The provision of quality employment is addressed by requiring producers and qualifying companies to undertake to fully comply with all employment and other relevant legislation under tab M. In addition, the Department lays down criteria under the safe to create programme, with additional requirements being introduced this year, with the objective of eliminating damaging behaviours such as bullying, harassment, humiliation and victimisation from all creative workplaces and providing respectful and dignified workplaces.

In 2023, Screen Ireland commissioned the Cultural Dividend Generated by Ireland’s Section 481 Film and Television Incentive report. It was shared with the committee and I hope the members have had a chance to look at it. It sought to define quality employment. Interestingly, the definition of what constitutes quality employment or a good jobs is a growing but contested area of research. The term can be subjective and open to interpretation.

Recommendation 11 relates to accreditation in the area of training. As part of its role as the development agency for the Irish audiovisual industry, Screen Ireland builds links between industry and education to establish structured and certified work-based learning programmes for new entrants up to senior career progression levels. Rather than enumerate long lists of courses, which might bore the committee, I will give a recent example that will illustrate this context more effectively. Screen Ireland, in collaboration with Technological University Dublin, TU Dublin developed a new level 8 programme for screen professionals to gain accredited recognition for their skills learned on the job.,

Potential learners can gain entry to this programme via recognition of prior experiential learning, RPEL. This means screen industry professionals who have not had the opportunity to engage in formal study to level 7 and who can demonstrate that they have achieved comparable learning in the workplace are eligible for the programme. It is an 18-month taught part-time programme, with delivery being flexible to allow participants to continue in full-time work. The resulting degree, a bachelor of arts in screen industry practice will be comparable to other BA honours degrees in TU Dublin. It will be open to people across the screen industries and is not a professional or department-specific qualification.

Recommendation 14, then, speaks to stakeholder engagement. We are organising a stakeholder forum to be held in Dublin on 8 February. The configuration will incorporate a mixture of plenary and break-out sessions and workshops. The objective will be to consider the four areas identified by this committee, namely, to maximise the benefits of section 481, employment rights, copyright issues and other matters of concern to the film industry. Hopefully, some of the latter will be identified in advance. There will be a particular focus on ensuring that all stakeholders are given the opportunity to express their views and have their voices heard.

I turn now to an update for the committee on the latest metrics. In 2023, the Department issued 119 certificates to 75 companies. This brings the total number of certificates issued to 435 for the four years from 2020 to 2023, or an average of 109 certificates per annum. The 119 certificates issued last year included 25 for animation projects, 30 for feature films, 44 for TV drama and 19 for creative documentaries.

This overview touches lightly on a range of issues, but, as I said, Mr. Donnelly and I are happy to expand on any topic. I thank the committee.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach

I thank Ms Nash. I call Ms Donaghy to give her opening statement.

Ms Deirdre Donaghy

I am a principal officer in the Department of Finance with responsibility for business tax, which includes the film tax credit. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Ian Kavanagh, who has responsibility for the film tax credit in his role as assistant principal in the division. On behalf of the Department, I thank the committee for its invitation to discuss its report on the section 481 film tax credit, which was published in May last year. As the committee will be aware, we appeared before it on two occasions during its examination of the tax credit, and we also followed with interest the committee’s hearings with witnesses from a range of representative bodies in the sector.

The 14 recommendations contained within the report cover a number of themes and policy areas for which responsibility lies across a number of Departments that are present today, and indeed, recommendations for action by the committee itself. I will refer now to the main recommendations addressed to the Department of Finance and will be happy also to engage in more detail with committee members during the meeting.

Recommendation 10 proposes an extension of, and amendments to, the regional uplift. The uplift was available in the five-year period from 2019 to 2023. It was introduced as a short-term, tapered measure for productions being made in areas designated under the State aid regional guidelines, and its purpose was to support the development of new, local pools of talent in areas outside the current main production hubs.

As discussed with the committee in last year’s meetings, there were impediments to the extension of the uplift in its existing form. The relief operated by reference to the regional aid map applicable at the time it was introduced. A new regional aid map has since been agreed, covering a significantly smaller geographic area, so this would no longer be an effective mechanism to target the additional support at areas outside the existing production hubs. An alternative, objective geographic indicator has not since been identified, therefore a policy decision was taken to focus on supporting and enhancing the standard film credit, which it is important to note provides a significant 32% support for qualifying productions in all locations nationwide.

Therefore, and having regard to the committee’s recommendation 13, in budget 2024, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael McGrath, announced an increase in the cap on eligible expenditure from €70 million to €125 million. This increase is, of course, subject to European Commission approval. This process is already underway as the amendment was notified to the European Commission in December. Discussions before the committee last year included consideration of the Department's 2022 cost-benefit analysis of the film tax credit, including the information provided therein on the number of employments in productions supported by the credit, and the translation of this data to an estimate of full-time equivalent, FTE, employments.

In recommendation 12, the committee proposed that in future analysis, the Department should provide data regarding the number of individuals employed on certified projects and data on FTEs, excluding extras. We have engaged with colleagues in the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media in this regard, with a view to ensuring that robust data is collected from productions on these metrics for analysis in future reviews of the credit.

I will turn now to the committee's recommendations on issues relating to compliance with qualifying criteria, employment law and copyright law. Recommendation 1 proposed to reduce the proportion of the tax credit that could be claimed upfront in order to encourage compliance with the qualifying criteria. This would be a significant change to the long-standing policy approach to supporting audiovisual productions and could have a disproportionately negative impact on productions with more limited funding options, including small indigenous productions. There are substantial independent mechanisms in place to deal with issues such as breaches of employment rights or workplace health and safety concerns, more directly and more efficiently. Although policy in these areas is not directly within the Department of Finance's remit, the film tax credit is a key support to the sector. Its objectives are to act as a stimulus to the creation of an indigenous film industry in the State, creating quality employment opportunities and supporting the expression of Irish and European culture. I and my colleagues therefore meet with individuals from representative bodies across the full spectrum of the sector with a view to understanding the issues arising and to assist in finding pathways forward. This has been an ongoing process over recent years and has led to a wide range of actions including the introduction of the undertaking on quality employment and the requirement to provide a skills development plan for each project at the application stage. There has been significant progress in regard to the terms and conditions provided to film workers over the past number of years through various union agreements, including modernised crew agreements for film and construction crew. It is my understanding, from engagement with worker representative bodies in the sector, that many of the current issues could be addressed through similar agreements.

Recommendation 14 relates to the setting up of a stakeholder forum for the sector and as Ms Nash has mentioned, the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media is in the process of setting up this forum. Officials from the Department of Finance will take part in that process. It is important that parties on all sides of the issues being raised have the opportunity to enter discussions for the benefit of the Irish film industry as a whole. It is my hope this will be a constructive process.

I thank the committee for the invitation to appear today. I will be happy to engage with any further questions.

Dr. Dermot Coates

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members for the invitation to present to the Committee on Budgetary Oversight. I am chief economist with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I am accompanied by my colleagues, Ms Áine Maher, principal officer for employment rights, policy unit; Ms Tara Coogan, principal officer for industrial relations, workplace relations and construction contracts adjudication; Caroline Savage, assistant principal in the intellectual property unit; and Mr. Pádraig O'Sullivan, assistant principal in the economic and tax policy unit. On behalf of the Department, we welcome the opportunity to comment on the committee's report on section 481, film tax credit, as published last year, and the recommendations contained therein. The report and its recommendations have been assessed and reviewed by the relevant officials within this Department.

While decisions pertaining to design and operation of the tax credit fall outside the remit of this Department, a number of important areas are explored within the report, including employment rights, company law and the use of copyright within the film industry. I will strive to provide a high-level overview of these important areas in particular regarding recommendations pertaining to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

As for recommendation 6, the committee has committed to write to the EU Commission requesting an examination of fixed-term contracts for film crews working across multiple productions, particularly with a view to ascertaining whether there is a breach of EU directives in terms of both the fixed-term workers directive and EU directives relating to State aid for the audiovisual sector. As a starting point, Ireland already has a comprehensive body of employment equality and industrial relations legislation which offers the same protection to all employees legally employed under a contract of employment. All employers, regardless of sector, are responsible for ensuring their employees receive all protections afforded them under employment legislation.

The Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 transposes Council Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work. It provides for the improvement of the quality of fixed-term work by ensuring the application of the principle of non-discrimination. The Act also provides for the establishment of a framework to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts. Deputies will be aware that in December, the Workplace Relations Commission released decisions in respect of a sample group of complaints made by members of the film industry under this Act. Further cases are still in adjudication and as such, I can simply confirm the Department has noted the decisions made.

Recommendation 8 proposes that compliance with the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, as well as the EU copyright directive, should be a specified requirement in order to avail of the credit we are discussing this evening. I underline that copyright legislation applies in this instance as the rights of creators, including actors and performers, are protected by the legislation when their rights are transferred to another party. These rights apply whether or not the party to whom the rights are transferred applies for tax relief under this credit.

It should be recalled that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment does not have a role in the enforcement of copyright. Copyright legislation outlines the ways in which rights holders themselves enforce their rights, should they consider they have been infringed, and that neither the Minister nor his Department have any role to play in that process.

Recommendation 2 of the report refers to the six-month limit currently in place to submit a complaint or complain to the Workplace Relations Commission. While complaints to the commission should in general be within six months of the date of the alleged breach, provision already exists to extend the time limit by a further six months where, in the opinion of the adjudication officer, the complainant has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay.

I will also make additional remarks with regard to an ongoing assessment of working conditions in Ireland. As members will be aware, the National Competitiveness and Productivity Council, in its annual report for 2022, proposed that an assessment of the impact of cumulative measures to improve working conditions be undertaken. This assessment is currently being finalised by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in conjunction with the Department of Social Protection. It will examine a range of measures including auto-enrolment retirement savings, parents' leave, statutory sick pay, the introduction of an additional public holiday, the transition to the living wage and the introduction of remote working arrangements. It is important to note that these measures are being introduced by the Government on a staggered basis over a number of years. The Department is aware that while the introduction of these measures will deliver economic and societal benefits and improve working conditions, and in doing so bring Ireland in line with other advanced economies, the reality is they will also bring additional costs for some businesses, particularly in those sectors with highly labour intensive, customer-facing staff. This impact must be understood in terms of the differences across sectors and by firm size. The report will set out the impact and will be supported by substantive quantitative and qualitative evidence as received from both employer and trade union representatives. That report is currently being finalised. I anticipate it will be published over the coming weeks at the discretion of the Minister.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has no direct decision in the design and operation of the tax credit. However, the Department feeds into the review process for the scheme and other tax policy measures on an ongoing basis. Furthermore, the Department plays an important function in addressing issues related to section 481 relief, as outlined in earlier remarks, and remains committed to identifying and addressing issues of relevance.

I look forward to the discussion and we will seek to address any queries as they arise.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I thank Dr. Coates for his contribution and also the contributions of all his colleagues across the three Departments. They were very valuable. I will now open the meeting to contributions from members, following our usual rota. I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I thank the witnesses for the presentations. It is an area I have been interested in for quite a long time. Some of the presentations clarified some matters for me. I want to focus on the Department of Finance presentation because the opening statement refers to the introduction of an undertaking of quality employment. In many ways, that is key to some of the recent hearings and findings, one of which found that Metropolitan Films was not the employer but rather, the designated activity company, DAC, was the employer.

That raises the whole question which has been asked from the start, namely, who is the employer if the DAC only exists for a number of months and disappears? Where is the duty of care and who has it? Is it the company that benefits from the section 481 relief or is it the company that makes the film and disappears once its work is done? There is a question there.

On regional uplifts, identifying an objective geographical indicator was one of the recommendations and the officials said they have not been able to look at that. I do not know whether they looked at increasing the area limit from 45 km to 75 km or whether they looked at a different aspect. When I was in the Gaeltacht as part of work for another committee, those who worked in the industry there were looking to see whether instead of a regional uplift there could be a Gaeltacht uplift that would help the likes of a future "An Cailín Ciúin". I do not know if that was something that was under consideration when thought was being given to replying to the recommendation about the regional uplift.

The other questions I have relate to the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. Obviously, the stakeholder forum is to be welcomed and I will be interested in how that works into the future. It is something that was requested for years. The only way the section 481 tax relief works is that the Department also gives the cultural certificate. Is there a mechanism which ensures that certificate can be used to make sure the companies comply with Irish and EU copyright law? Is this the mechanism that could be used to ensure people are not being forced to sign away their rights? Can it also be used to ensure the blacklisting of crew and so on cannot happen? I am talking about making it so that if people refuse to do the buyout contracts, they still have to be employed. Is the cultural certificate the way we can ensure quality employment exists and the companies comply with additional criteria?

Ms Deirdre Donaghy

I thank the Deputy for the questions. Starting on the quality employment and the undertaking, as part of the certification process, the applicant company is obliged to submit an undertaking of compliance with all relevant employment legislation regarding the film being certified. These conditions are to be met by the producer company and by the qualifying company. There is the producer and generally there is a DAC that works on each individual project. My understanding is the workers are employed in the DAC as opposed to the production company, so the DAC is where that has happened, and what we have said at the previous meetings and I understand to be the case - I think this is being discussed in the Workplace Relations Commission - is that, first of all, employment law applies irrespective of whether the undertaking is signed as you cannot sign away those rights. The film sector is therefore subject to employment law in the same way every other sector. If there is an allegation of a breach of employment law, the remedy is to go to the Workplace Relations Commission or onward to the Labour Court, and we can see that is happening where there are allegations of breaches.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The company does not exist after a while and that is the problem. Who does someone go to then?

Ms Deirdre Donaghy

First of all, the company has to stay in existence for a length of time. The DAC itself obviously exists for the length of time it takes to produce the film, from preplanning through production to post-production and so on. Then it will remain in existence for at least a year following that. That is within the time limits to take anything to the Workplace Relations Commission. If it were the case that a company had been dissolved and issues were taken, there are legal remedies to reconstitute a company in the event there is a finding. That is always a possibility as well. As we said in previous meetings, it is within power of the Workplace Relations Commission under labour law that, on a case-by-case basis and subject to the conditions being correct, it is possible to look at connected employers. The DAC cannot be used to separate the producer or from one production to another production and another production, and where the conditions are met, it is in the power of employment law to look at that. These are the cases that are being taken at the moment. On the question of who employs, directly it is, as I said, the DAC, but then labour law has the power to connect employments where there are connected employments.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I thank Ms Donaghy.

Ms Deirdre Donaghy

The Deputy asked about the regional uplift and increasing the area limit. The way that worked was it was not a regional aid, as in an approved aid, but it used the regional aid map to identify the areas in which a production could happen that could then benefit from the uplift. It was fortuitous because, as it happened, the areas regional aid could not be provided to were the main production hubs around Dublin and Wicklow, so it worked very well as a way to identify areas outside the current main production hubs.

The second criterion the Deputy mentioned was the 45 km. That was a secondary one where each production claiming the regional uplift, which is intended to develop new pools of talent, had to be able to show the particular skills of the particular people it was recruiting were not available within a 45 km radius of the project it was claiming the uplift for. It would therefore bring in people to learn these skills and do this job with the hope they would transfer those skills within the area. That was the plan around developing the talent pool. The problem with extending the regional uplift is not the kilometre radius, because as the Deputy said it could be 75 km or whatever, but rather with identifying via the regional aid map, because following the introduction of the relief, a new regional aid map was agreed and it is much more geographically narrow. I think only about 15% of the country geographically is now identified as an area that can accept regional aid, so as an identifier that map would not be as effective because it would cut out large parts of the country that would say they do not have a film industry and that they should be able to claim regional aid. We have not found an alternative objective measure we could use that would be as effective as that old regional aid map was, so instead the policy decision in the interim has been to focus on the main credit because I reiterate it is available to productions anywhere in the country. The hope is that by supporting the main credit, enhancing it and developing those opportunities, that will help the industry spread more widely nationally.

The next area was the cultural certificate and copyright law. Similar to the employment law, copyright law applies irrespective of whether it is mentioned. I am very conscious copyright law is quite relevant to the sector because actors, musicians, writers and various kinds of people have copyright issues. We have also met different representatives, including Equity, the directors' guild and the writers' guild, to understand their issues. We have got a good understanding with them of what the issues are and the potential pathways in which they need to progress it. There is not a difficulty with copyright law as it stands.

The issue concerns an interpretation of what is fair and reasonable remuneration, how that is agreed between the various parties, and how one balances, for example, an upfront amount versus a tail payment. My colleague in the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media will say a little more about that. If I have missed anything or members have more questions, I am happy to reply.

Ms Mary Nash

In the screen industries intellectual property and copyright, and the assignment of rights, are particularly complex because there are so many creatives. Last year, Screen Ireland, which is the State body with responsibility for the development of the Irish audiovisual industry retained an independent facilitator to meet stakeholders to understand and discuss issues that have arisen since transposition into Irish law of the EU copyright directive. During the first phase of that process the facilitator held individual stakeholder meetings. There are seven groups involved in this process and the facilitator consultant met each of them. The process is continuing with a view to finding a common understanding and-or identifying potential clarifications that might be required.

As a collective, the industry representative groups have proposed the next steps. Screen Ireland has facilitated further engagement happening already in 2024 so the groups met again early this month. It is important to allow that process the opportunity to address some of these concerns. The seven organisations are: Animation Ireland, Screen Producers Ireland, VFX Ireland, Irish Equity - SIPTU, the Screenwriters' Guild, the Screen Directors Guild and the Screen Composers Guild. Engagement by the seven organisations is very heartening and constructive. The more time representatives of these groups spend together then the more they will get to grips with the process.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú took the Chair.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

Deputy Healy-Rae is next.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

Due to ethics and the general tone of this discussion I feel that I should declare that in the past I have benefitted from tax reliefs for having been the writer of books. It is right for me to put that on record when I am discussing these type of issues.

On the film industry in Kerry, I have worked very closely with numerous groups. Due to our beautiful location and the fact that Kerry is the nicest part of the whole world many people want to come to shoot films or parts of films there. I was very thankful to the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys, who was instrumental in ensuring the necessary licences were sanctioned to allow segments of "Star Wars" be filmed in Kerry. Everyone here knows the massive benefit that production was to my county and to this country.

In the past many more famous films were shot on location in Kerry. We have an awful lot of smaller groups who create films. We are all delighted with the headline groups and they are great. However, the majority of people might never hear the name of a film or never see one that is created by the smaller groups but these groups deserve support as well because they do great work in communities. Filming is an activity, an interest and a stimulating time for people who are interested in the whole world of arts, culture and heritage. Therefore, the sector should be promoted.

I am very grateful to a long-standing arts officer who we have had the good fortune to have had. Ms Kate Kennelly has been our arts and cultural officer for many years in County Kerry. She has done tremendous work with both small and large groups.

My interest is in the small groups. It is incredible the assistance that the local authority has been able to give over time in giving small grants. I am literally talking about a few thousand euro here and there but the difference that small grants make is frightening.

The one thing I want to emphasise to all of our guests is as follows. Again, the bigger stuff is great and is brilliant but I urge our guests to always keep an eye out for small productions and the small people who are involved. I know County Kerry but the other public representatives know their areas and the good work that is being done. In some ways, unless one is interested in the world of arts, one might not realise it was going on outside one’s door. There is a massive world out there, whether it is films, books, poetry or plays. Tonight, there are plays going on in different parts of this country but they are only small productions and there might not be 40 or 50 people attending but that is massive in their own areas.

I know we are very fortunate. The Carnegie Arts Centre in Kenmare was backed by politicians from all different backgrounds. The centre is housed in a small building but money was invested there in the past, which was money very well spent, and quite simply because the centre is being used an awful lot. Again, there are small productions or small plays, which are lovely to go to see if one has time. Many older or retired people, or people who might just have time, are able to avail of those types of services, and similarly in Killorglin. We have a drama group in Killorglin and it does tremendous work.

The message from Kerry that I would give to our guests is to always remember the smaller set-ups, venues and groups. It is not all about big money. A small amount of money at a critical time can make a difference to a production team as it would allow the team to go ahead and put on a film or play. It is even like the thing I referenced earlier. I refer to the people who write books. The amount of money involved is very small, yet it will give them encouragement. I refer to people who have a way, or a part-time way, of making a living. There is nothing in the world wrong with giving people who work part-time a tax exemption. Yes, of course, we have the headline people who sell thousands of books but that is a different story. However, I am talking about the smaller people and a tax exemption is a big help and encouragement.

I thank all our guests for being here this evening and commend them on the work they are doing. A pile of their work is hidden work and, as far as I am concerned, in the Ireland in which we live their work is very important. The functions our guests all perform in their different roles are very important and any way they can support the likes of what I have been speaking about is very welcome.

I want our guests to know that I am not being discourteous but I must ask questions about fishing in another committee room where officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine are participating in the debate. I thank all of our guests for being here.

Ms Mary Nash

I know the Deputy knows almost everything about Kerry but there is something that I am going to share with him that he may not know. The film “Poor Things” got 11 nominations and was directed by a man called Yorgos Lanthimos who made his name making a film called “The Lobster”, which was filmed in Parknasilla.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

That is right. It was in Parknasilla, yes.

Ms Mary Nash

I think that “The Lobster” was one of the first films by Yorgos Lanthimos.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I did not know that, and thank you.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

Does anyone else want to make any comment? Does nobody want to say anything nice about Kerry or Deputy Michael Healy-Rae’s books? No, and I ask the Deputy not to hold that against us. The next speaker is Deputy Boyd Barrett.

Deputy Boyd Barrett

I spent all of my summers as a youth in Kerry, Deputy Healy-Rae. It is a great spot and I could not agree with you more.

I thank all the representatives from the Departments for their contributions and for attending the committee. Regarding the WRC decisions, I do not know how much the representatives can express an opinion about these things, but I see them as a pretty damning indictment of what is probably the biggest recipient of section 481, namely, Metropolitan Films International. It is certainly in the top two or three. It confirmed what some of us and what representatives of the stage crew have been saying for four years. Metropolitan Films International admitted this before this committee. It is not just it, but all the others came in, such as SPI, and said they were employers. They told us they were doing this. They went into the WRC to say they were not employers, but they came before the committee and the Department said they were. Now we know the truth, which is that the people who were blacklisted because they asserted their rights under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Workers) Act were having their rights abused by Metropolitan Films International. This is in the public domain; I know the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach gets nervous when I mention names. This is very much in the public domain. We know all of them were essentially making the same case in case after case. In fact, from what I understand, the adjudicator who made earlier rulings has sort of acknowledged that she did not fully understand the issue. When more evidence was brought before her to clarify the issues, she stated that it was very clear to her that there were breaches. She said - and this is where we all come in - that the company that was in receipt of section 481 was hiding behind the designated activity company, DAC, and disowning its responsibility to employees. The adjudicator very clearly said that it was not on.

We have been saying this for a long time, as have the Irish film workers. Now, it has been confirmed by the WRC and that has very serious implications. The whole basis on which the money was being given to these companies was that they were going to comply with all legislation, including the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Workers) Act. Yet, a serious examination of the position the companies have taken prior to this has made clear that this is a systemic approach that the producers have adopted. They say, “Give us the money because we are creating loads of employment”. Then, they go into the WRC and say they are not the employers. They cannot have it both ways and the WRC has now finally called them out on it. Fair play to it.

I want to know whether there is a recognition of the seriousness of this. At one stage, I pressed the Minister for Finance and asked him what “quality employment” meant? I said that it at least means compliance with the law. He said “Yes”; it has to at least mean that. Frankly, it should mean more. It has to at least mean compliance with employment legislation and that companies would be penalised for not doing that. In fact, I think he went as far as to say - and we should check all this - that the money would be taken back if they were found to be in breach.

I think that is a fair assessment. We are speaking about the blacklisting of these people who lost their livelihoods after working for the industry for decades. They have now been vindicated and given a big award but, of course, they just wanted their jobs in the industry in which they had worked all along. I know there are limits to what officials, as opposed to what political people, can say, but is there a recognition of the seriousness of this? Is that the understanding people have gained from these rulings? What understanding have we gained from them? In the representatives’ understanding of the policy around section 481, what will now have to happen? If that is the case and if the WRC ruling is what it appears to be, what is going to be done about it? Will there be penalties? Will the money be withdrawn? One company has now been found out in regard to this practice and even cursory examination makes it clear they were all doing that. What are we going to do about it? That is my big question.

On the issue of copyright, I spoke with Equity, the Writers Guild of Ireland and the Screen Directors Guild of Ireland. I have not met with the Screen Composers Guild, but I think they are all on the same page. I had a meeting with one of those groups before the forum, but they are telling me a very different story. They want the UK agreement. They do not understand. It is a better agreement and a better situation. It formalises and puts structure on things, and it ensures compliance with the copyright directive. SPI said it is an administrative burden and that it is difficult to anchor in Irish law. The Minister said we need a specific Irish agreement because it is difficult to anchor Irish law, etc. In other words, we are hearing from the Minister what we are hearing from SPI. I would just like to know if the representatives have a sense of why we cannot just transpose the UK agreement. It is an agreement, it is a blueprint and it is actually being used here in some cases. However, by and large, actors, performers, writers and directors are not getting the benefit of it and, as I think all the representatives understand, that has to do with the downstream revenues. This is a matter of the back-end deal, as it were, which the buy-out contracts are robbing from our writers, actors, directors and performers. They are forced to sign it. They gave evidence on that. They are under pressure to sign contracts that are inferior to the UK agreement and they have asked for the UK agreement. I would like to hear about the Department’s thinking on those things.

I have one very last question on the forum itself. I am delighted it is happening; it has been a long time coming. Yet, I would like to hear more about how it will be constituted. I would like to propose to our committee, which is the committee that sought this, that it should be invited to the forum because, as representatives of the people and of the Houses of the Oireachtas, which fund the film industry, we are stakeholders too. The public and the representatives of the public who have sought oversight of this should be invited, so we can see how this is being resolved. Are there any opinions on that? Do we have to ask formally? Is there an understanding that that would be okay? Where do we see the forum going? I hope the forum is not going to be a one-day wonder or a box-ticking exercise, but that it will actually be an ongoing attempt to resolve these issues and ensure proper oversight of the public money that is being expended on the Irish film industry. I would be delighted if that was the case.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

Is there any representative in particular the Deputy would like to first address?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Some of it was to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, to hear what it thinks about the WRC ruling. The Department of Finance might have comments on this as well. The issue of the forum is mostly for the Department of culture, but I would like to hear from anyone who is involved. I assume all Departments are involved to some degree. There is also the issue of the copyright.

Ms Tara Coogan

In relation to the WRC decisions, we obviously do not have opinions on them. The decisions themselves stand. They are on record, and they are the findings of the adjudication officer, so we do not have any views. The only thing I would say, although I do not know what the situation is, is that they are obviously first-instance rulings, so it is possible that there could be an appeal.

I do not know whether there is or not. At this moment in time they are on record and they are in the public domain so they stand on their own words. We do not have any specific views on it. I will leave it to the Department of Finance to comment on whether it has any views on quality employment and that being a condition of a tax credit.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Is that coming from the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media?

Ms Tara Coogan

No, I am sorry, I am with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I am the WRC person.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I accept the answer but I will just ask a question. Who is actually responsible for ensuring there is compliance with the condition of quality employment and training and the declaration that all the film producers sign? There are Government statements to the effect that there would be consequences for people breaching the declaration and the conditions but it is not clear to me who is actually responsible. If Ms Coogan is saying they note the decisions, that sounds a bit like nobody is responsible, so I am just trying to figure it out.

Ms Deirdre Donaghy

There are two sides to it. First, the decisions are under employment law and they have consequences in that way. Then, more specifically to do with the tax credit, it is a condition of the tax credit that one signs the undertaking on compliance with employment law and so on. The legislation does provide for the credit to be withdrawn if there are breaches. It would sit between the Department of Finance and Revenue to do that.

I am not sure whether one calls them "decisions" or "adjudications", but regardless of the proper word, they have been issued, we are aware of them, and we are looking at them. I do not want to go into the territory of naming anything specific, but obviously there are some findings for and against each side. What we need to do is get the input from colleagues who are in the employment law area. The law specifically provides for there to be consequences in terms of credit being withdrawn if there are breaches. That provision is there for a reason, and the intention is that it will be used if there are found to be grounds for it to be used.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

If I can, I will just ask a follow-on question from that. The ruling is pretty strong. To be honest, I would say it would be pretty difficult to wriggle out of it. By the way, it does resonate with the points that our committee came up with in its report. Is there an acknowledgement that therefore there is a systemic issue that needs to be investigated? They had to go a long way and, as a result of all of this, that group of workers has not worked for four years now. Does every other worker who could fall victim to this have to go through the same process or is it Ms Donaghy's understanding that something might be done to prevent the other groups of workers having to go through the same hardship and nightmare?

Ms Deirdre Donaghy

If there is a finding that something is contrary to employment law, obviously that is something that should not be happening. I do not think the findings should be taken on their own as being indicative of a problem across the entire industry. I cannot extrapolate from that, as the situation has to be looked at, but what we have always said and what has always been clear is that the industry does work on a project-to-project basis. There is nothing in itself that is wrong with somebody having a fixed-term contract. However, employment law provides that if you have someone on successive fixed-term contracts, that brings with it more rights. As we have always said, that applies in the film industry to the same extent as it applies in any other industry. It is not special or better or worse in that way. The rights always apply. There may be instances where people are working and when they move from project to project, they may be moving from production company to production company as well, in which case the work is more episodic in nature, but if there are instances where people are working for the same production company there is the potential in employment law for that to be seen as linked. That is something that we have had an understanding of, and it has been established that employment law applies equally to the film sector as it does to any other sector.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Okay. I would just signal that it is very clear, because we heard about it at the hearings here. I asked SPI how many people in the industry have got contracts of indefinite duration under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act. I knew the answer, and it confirmed that none had. We heard simultaneous claims that it was giving quality employment and training to thousands of workers, according to SPI, and that there is a thing called "an industry", but it is one where nobody has a job. I suggest it is clear that there is a systemic problem and a systemic practice. I honestly think one would not have to look very far to see that what was the practice in this case is exactly the same practice that is being pursued by most of the big recipients of section 481. I do not think that is even a controversial thing to say, because they more or less gave us the evidence themselves.

Ms Deirdre Donaghy

The Deputy cannot pick on a contract of indefinite duration as being the one hallmark of good employment because I think that is not reasonable. If one is on a contract of indefinite duration and that work dries up and comes to an end, that does not mean one will work forever. One can be let go in the same way as anyone can be let go. Neither can one say that someone who chooses to work between different producers and is happy to do so, on different types of productions, for example, will never generate rights to a contract of indefinite duration because of the way he or she chooses to work, or that we are not going to regard him or her as equally worthy of protection, for example.

We must have an assessment of quality employment and training that is not only focused on one thing. When the circumstances of one's employment are such that one should earn a contract of indefinite duration, that should happen in the film sector in the same way as it does in any other sector. Equally, if one is working in that sector and one is, by choice, happy to work with different production companies on different projects, we must also make sure we have a system that allows for quality employment and quality training in that kind of way as well.

That is why there has been a very significant focus through the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media on skills development. For example, we have moved from focusing just on trainees to focusing on upskilling across a career. A big part for everyone, whether they are in a contract of indefinite duration or whether they are moving between productions, is that what is critical to the industry as a whole is the pipeline, because if work dries up in the sector as a whole, whether one is a permanent employee or a brand new contractor, there has to be a pipeline of work coming. All of those factors together have to be factored in to quality employment. We cannot just pick any one; we have to be conscious of all of them.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I have ploughed that furrow a good bit. I thank the witnesses for the answer but I am still a bit unhappy with how we are dealing with it. This is going to be looked at in the forum. There may be an opportunity to get some brief answers on the forum. Who can attend it? Is it open? Is there a possibility of this committee being represented? Could the witnesses also say a bit about the buy-out of contracts and comment on where that is at?

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

In relation to the forum, could we get the details such as the terms of reference, the timeline and what is planned? That will answer an awful lot of the questions we all have.

Ms Mary Nash

I will speak on the WRC rulings, without talking about any particular case. Where decisions involve a finding against a company, confirmation must be provided that the finding has been followed or an explanation given where a finding has not been followed. Essentially, when the WRC hands down a ruling, the company must come back to us immediately, number one, and tell us that this has happened in relation to all its projects. Then it must come to us and confirm that the finding has been followed. In that case, the Deputy knows what that is himself so I will not refer to it. They have to address the finding or complaint against it, or what the WRC says they have to do.

The forum will happen on 8 February in the Radisson Blu Hotel on Golden Lane, which is very accessible to everybody, in particular to people coming from the country.

It will start at 10 a.m. for 10.30 a.m. and will go on until late afternoon. We will try to ensure everybody who wants to say something gets to say it and their voices are heard. We invite anybody who thinks they have an interest or are a stakeholder in the forum. We have gone through all the stakeholder organisations and invited them. We have set up an email address, [e-mail], which I will send to the clerk of the committee. I think the best thing is if anybody wants an invitation, they should come to us and ask at that address. We want to do that because we want to capture everyone and not lose anyone. We want to see if people want lunch, what needs they have and all the rest, if that is okay with the Chair.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

Yes.

Ms Mary Nash

Deputy Boyd Barrett is already on the guest list.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I did not know.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

He is a very popular guy.

Ms Mary Nash

His office has been in contact with us.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

There seemed to be confusion about that but maybe that was at my end, so apologies. Thank you.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

Ms Nash is saying it is basically open but she is looking for people to pre-register by contacting this email address. I am aware the Department has sent out a number of invites to date. It is for anyone who has been in contact and believes they have something to offer. The big job is who chairs on the day and ensuring the forum gets through all of this.

Ms Mary Nash

We will have a professional there, hopefully. We will not just have everybody putting their hand up and then we run out of time. We will organise it so that everybody gets to feed into our workshop and feed back.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

That is just as well because Richard would not be as concise as myself.

Ms Mary Nash

Because it has been raised by a number of people, we will also have a suggestion box and an opportunity for people to come directly back to the email address if they do not want to say things in public or if they want to say it and put it into the suggestion box.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

I was going to ask about written submissions. Obviously there will be a timeline for those. I know I have taken over Deputy Boyd Barrett’s time.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

That is all right. Fire away. I have one follow-up question when Mary is finished.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

There is flexibility about time on the basis of the poor Chair and the limited number of people here.

Ms Mary Nash

We will address that timeline on the day. We are not inviting epistle-length-----

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

I understand that.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I know there is a blurry line between Departments and what they say because they are administering things and engaging in politics. I am not trying to be critical from a political point of view but I want to understand. A view has been expressed here and by the committee that there may be a systemic problem with buy-out contracts and the use of successive fixed-term contracts. Does the WRC ruling stand alone or does it prompt consideration by Ms Nash’s Department or by Departments that the suggestion of a systemic problem has now gained evidence, which has to prompt further investigation? Where is that at? Is that up to the Minister? Has it been said there is or might be a problem, or that the Department has to look at this and make systemic change if it turns out there is a systemic problem or systemic abuse going on? Who takes it a bit further?

With the use of buy-out contracts, where is that at? I think Ms Nash is more or less saying negotiations are happening, she is optimistic, people are talking to each other and it will resolve itself. That is not what I am hearing from the people who are forced to sign these buy-out contracts. That is not what they are telling us. I know there are limits to what she can say but I ask her to say as much as she can in response.

Ms Mary Nash

They are two separate things. The buy-out contracts are confined to that small group of people I mentioned who have rights to assign. It seems, with respect to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, to have emerged following the transposition of the EU directive into Irish law. The Screen Ireland process is trying to identify if there is an issue that needs clarification. We would like to see that process finished and see what comes out of it.

On the WRC rulings, the WRC is the arbiter of what is legal and what is not. We just say “You must obey the law”. If someone says the law is not being followed, I am not a legal expert. The WRC are the experts. When they rule or the Labour Court rules, we follow the process we have. Whether there is a need for further intervention via legislation or by changing guidelines is not clear yet.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

It is all to play for, as it were.

Ms Deirdre Donaghy

We have engaged with the Deputy over many years on this subject. It is an industry we spend a lot of time looking at. It is not a case that something needs to prompt us to take a look at it; we are very much engaged with the industry over the longer term. If WRC decisions establish an understanding, that can be helpful but, as Mary said, the law stands and must be followed in the sector.

Copyright is an issue that has come up recently and we have put a fair bit of effort into understanding it and meeting various groups. Most recently in December we met with representatives from Irish Equity - from the screenwriters and directors guilds - to understand. The Deputy referred to the UK agreement. That issue is specific to actors and would not resolve for the other groups. The UK PACT-Equity agreement is cited as a potential template. I understand it is used on many incoming productions, particularly the larger ones. I do not think it can translate directly because it is UK law as opposed to Irish law. Ideally, an agreement would be reached on similar terms, or whatever terms might be, that would be specific to the Irish industry. We have met with Equity on a number of occasions in the past year. There was a hiatus in progress due to one of the representatives being unwell but my understanding in December was the process was starting again. I understand from talking to Equity that the ideal outcome is reaching a specific Irish agreement. We encourage all parties to continue that process.

When it comes in, obviously, to my understanding, it would be specific to actors and we would still have issues for the other guilds or other creatives. Again, my understanding of the copyright directive is that it essentially provides the skeleton that says everybody must have the right - I am not sure of the exact wording - to fair and proportionate remuneration when they transfer their rights. The idea is that it gives people these overriding rights and then it is a matter for negotiation between the individuals concerned as to the specific terms. Then, there is a right of redress subsequently if it turns out not to be the case. The copyright provides that overarching protection, but it is the detail of it that does have to be agreed. Again, from talking to those bodies, they said themselves that what they need is to have an agreement with the producers here in Ireland that specifies the detail. We would be encouraging the parties to get involved in that. The process Ms Nash referred to is aimed at helping to establish if there are any kinds of impediments or any points on which there are differences of interpretation. It is hoped that will bring that forward but, essentially, it does have to happen and it has to happen by way of an agreement being reached.

Ms Mary Nash

In terms of the UK pact, it is quite clear. My Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment colleagues might explain that we cannot tell any organisation to sign an agreement. Does Ms Coogan want to come in there?

Ms Tara Coogan

Absolutely. Obviously, contracts are third-party matters and people must enter contracts voluntarily. A Minister cannot compel unless we have primary law or something suggesting that certain contractual terms need to be in place. That would be a matter for these Houses. Generally speaking, however, no Minister can compel anybody to sign a contract, even if the Minister is a party to the contract. Those are just general contract law rules. Contracts are really a matter for the parties who agree to the terms of that contract.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

As Ms Coogan said, however, if a Minister said that in order to get section 481 there have to be certain minimum requirements in contracts-----

Ms Tara Coogan

That can be provided for. Equally, we have introduced in Irish law, for example, in tenancy law, contractual terms that override contractual provisions and nobody can contract out of a statutory protection. Those are options and, obviously, a matter for these Houses.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

Go raibh maith agaibh. A huge amount has been dealt with already by this committee. An awful lot of the recommendations were on the basis that a significant number of people came forward and spoke about the film industry. We have all seen the positives of section 481. These may have been unintended consequences, but what we were told and what many people spoke about and put in the public domain during the committee hearings, and even before that, was the fact that certain people who highlighted particular issues were blacklisted or blackballed - use whatever term you want - and because it was a project-by-project type industry, it was possible to do that, whether it was the head of department who made the determination on who got called and whatever else. There was an element of difference for many other industries. People came forward to say they believed they should have been able to avail of the protections of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 and that was not the case. Whatever about a he said-she said-we said scenario, while there have been a number of findings regarding all those particular issues and a significant amount of money has been awarded, the fact is that the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, finding sort of reinforces what has been said. I am of the belief that there would not have been a stakeholder forum only that there is a belief that there is an issue and it needs to be addressed.

I will go back to the stakeholder forum. Obviously, it is a one-day event. The Department is allowing for written submissions. What is the timeframe with regard to that? How exactly is that going to be enacted? I would accept some element of what the Minister for Finance said in the sense that we will not be able to catch all the particular issues by using a tax code. However, I do think we need to have some element of protections. On some level, I am assuming that the same issues are going to come up at the stakeholders forum and on that basis, they have to be put on somebody's desk. Then, it is a matter of how we deal with it and ensure that the industry does provide for quality employment and training and creates something that is long term and provides the cultural dividend and all the rest of it.

We are also going to have to create a scenario, which I accept cannot be by ministerial decree, whereby we have frameworks and agreements, whether that relates to contractual issues or copyrighting or to crew contracts project by project. How exactly will this work as regards the stakeholder forum? There is not much point if people make fine points that are recorded somewhere and people write submissions and they do not go anywhere.

Ms Mary Nash

I will start by reminding the committee that the Government's policy for the audiovisual industry is set out in the audiovisual action plan. It is an all-of-government approach that has been implemented over almost the past five years now by the audiovisual action plan steering committee. That is chaired by our Department and is made up of all the Departments here plus many other agencies and Departments. That is coming to an end now. Therefore, we will be looking at how we will move forward with the next approach to a way forward for the industry. We obviously do not want to pre-judge what will come out of the forum, but we will be bringing it back and discussing it. It will probably feed into the new strategic approach to the screen industry.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

I get that we cannot make a determination, but we can probably take a guess about an awful lot of the issues that are dealt with here. Workers would have also talked about it being all well and good to use the protective employment legislation and the framework and the WRC to bring things to a conclusion, but that is not always necessarily very simple.

In fairness, one of the major findings was the fact that it was the producer who was the employer and not the designated activity company, DAC. We probably have to do a piece of work with regard to all of this. We have these recommendations - that is one thing - but we are going to have a stakeholder forum? On some level, we need to have some sort of actions from that and then we need it to be timelined. The whole idea is that on the basis of what has been said previously and the WRC, there do seem to be a number of issues that need to be addressed. In addressing those we will also benefit the film industry by the fact that we can have something that is sustainable and that protects the employees and all those other stakeholders involved. We all want more Cillian Murphys and more films to be produced here that hit the high notes, for want of a better term, but we also need to make sure that we look after everybody and that we can keep turning that over.

I assume I am not going to get that detail, but when is it likely? I imagine the Committee on Budgetary Oversight may have some sort of role. Would it be possible that it would be informed about the timeline and what is being proposed? At the minute, all Ms Nash is saying is that the forum is going to meet and that somebody is going to look at this and it may be built into their work plan. We probably need a greater level of detail than that.

Ms Mary Nash

As the Chair knows, anything that comes out of this that needs change would be a matter of policy for Ministers.

Yet, at the moment, I think we must have the forum, and that is what this committee asked us to do. We will have a report from that forum, and we can share it with the committee.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

That would have to happen. Without putting too strong a term on it, I cannot speak for this committee, except at this moment in time when I am the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach. It would not quite be a demand, but it is as close to a demand as I can make. That is necessary, and we need it to be actioned. We can all get into the minutiae, and we have dealt with all these issues on some level before. I am very glad the stakeholder forum is happening and many of the details on which we have spoken here and previously will be brought up at the stakeholder forum. We will then need to find a means of actioning them. I understand that it is not always easy. There may be a more elegant way of dealing with some of the means through which the Department thought it could deal with this and constrain it in specific codes in section 481. I also understand that there is all the other legislation, employment frameworks, etc. On some level, it did work in the WRC, but it took a long time, and we need to find a better means of doing this. Many people had to go through an awful lot of pain in their own lives because they were blacklisted. I think Deputy Boyd Barrett was correct when he said that these people did not so much want the moneys now as much as they wanted to actually have work at the time.

I will put another issue out there. Initially, we also spoke to those on film sets and crews, where there was a fear about the ratios of experienced staff versus trainees. These are matters of accreditation in the area of training, and quality employment and training. They said that on some level it all falls down, because as soon as a trainee gets beyond being a trainee, they suddenly face into not actually being employed. At times, consideration was given by a huge number of producers to operating an imperfect ratio. There were even cases on a number of films where they had to refilm certain pieces, etc. We cannot know for certain whether that was on the basis of those ratios. That filming was even done outside of Ireland when the majority had been done here. That worried me. We are back to defining the term “quality employment and training”, as well as “enforcement”, which I understand is not easy.

Ms Mary Nash

In the area of training-----

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

There is a vótáil in the Dáil on the Gas (Amendment) Bill 2023. I am not sure, but I think we can continue.

Ms Mary Nash

We completely overhauled the system of training in 2019. The system we now have has no comparison with what was going on before 2019. Every film of any large scale has to go to Screen Ireland with a training plan which will be scrutinised by the training division in Screen Ireland. It may come back and say, for example, they do not want any more hairdressers, but they do want production accountants or prop makers. Therefore, the training that is delivered is what the industry needs and what the participant workers need. In fact, our training is now so good that we are being told that all the other countries in the EU are commenting on how we have linked the training for the section to tax relief. They are asking us how we did that. We are now being held up as the exemplar for training.

I am using the word “training”, but I actually refer to upskilling, because it is lifelong learning. As I said in my opening statement, this is from new entrants all the way up to people who may already be good directors. They might shadow an international director such as Ridley Scott, if he comes here. The training is therefore very good. I can give the committee some examples of this in the study I referred to earlier. Part of it surveyed some of the crew. One survey had 413 respondents, 86% of whom said they had positive experiences where, during work, they received extra training or increased their skills. Therefore, we and Screen Ireland are quite proud of how we have changed training for section 481. Does that answer the question?

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

Look, we can get into the ins and outs of it.

Ms Mary Nash

Yes, but things did happen before 2019.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

Yes. We will not repeat everything we have gone through on many occasions before. Again, I hope this will be dealt with at the stakeholder forum. We are all very glad that the forum is happening. Beyond that, we are very glad that it will be open to everyone. We just need to make sure that everyone who needs to be there will be told beforehand. We must also ensure that anybody who wants to make a written submission can do so. This should also be follow-up with actions.

Without guessing, it will be very difficult to predict the issues that will come up. There is the WRC case, which found that the employer was not the DAC, but the producer. This is a matter of how we create an infrastructure and a means of ensuring that employment rights are in place. This is because the Department cannot make a determination in relation to crew agreements. I know there will be people out there who will have an issue with the crew agreements currently in existence. It is a matter of how we create a framework of protective nature so that these proper arrangements can be negotiated. We must also create a set of circumstances where there is no blacklisting. We need to find a way that is slightly more elegant than it taking several years to get through the WRC when there is an issue. In fairness to Deputy Boyd Barrett, he spoke about how this seems to be systemic throughout the industry.

That is not to say that this happens in every film production. However, it is a fact that this issue has come up as a recurring theme again and again. I will put this question to everyone quickly. I promise I will not have any follow-on questions, though I am not necessarily renowned for telling the truth. We must deal with those issues that are being put out time and time again. As much as possible, how do people see us dealing with them in relation to section 481? I would be delighted if someone could come up with a very simple, elegant method of doing this. Either way, we need a solution to this and we do not want to be speaking about this in another two, three or four years’ time.

Ms Deirdre Donaghy

The Deputy mentioned section 481. We will be participating in the forum. As the Deputy will have seen over the past five or six years and more, when issues have been identified and when we get grip on what issues there are, the Minister for Finance of the day has on successive occasions made changes where changes are required.

On the day, I will be anxious and looking forward to ensuring we hear from a broad range of voices. I say this because I am conscious that it is in the nature of any discussion to focus on the problems.

I would not like the committee to come away with the impression that the industry is entirely composed of problems. It is a very strong, creative and successful industry. The committee heard from representative bodies across the broad spectrum, including producers, Screen Ireland, Screen Guilds of Ireland, animation and all the other stakeholders in the sector. A broad range of views was expressed. We must always ensure we are listening to all those views and taking them seriously. It does not paint a picture of an industry that has endemic problems. Like every other industry, it has problems. Where problems are identified, action should be taken to address them. It is important, however, that we give a good reflection of the industry and recognise the things that people and the representative bodies in the industry have said are working well. We should consider how we can improve on them and make things better, but I do not want this meeting to focus purely on the problems and give a bad impression of the industry to a person who might be interested in training and taking up a job in it or what have you. There are many positives in the industry. We need to make sure we keep that in mind as well as identifying the problems and trying to address them when they arise.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

I get that. There is a significant level of positives. There are anomalies that are thrown up by the nature of the industry. That has created some sets of circumstances and difficulties. If they could be addressed, that would be beneficial to all and sundry and the industry itself.

Does anyone else want to come up with an elegant method of dealing with all the problems or will we leave it to the stakeholder forum and then follow up afterwards?

Ms Tara Coogan

It may not be appropriate for me to say this, given that I am with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, but we need to be mindful that this process relating to constitutional justice needs to be seen through. We do not know whether those appeals will take place or what their outcome will be. The case law is settled, however. There is a significant number of civil servants from various Departments in this room. That should say something about how seriously we are dealing with this issue. Obviously, we have to let the facts settle and we will deal with those matters then.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

I thought it was just to intimidate us.

Ms Tara Coogan

Never.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

It is coming down to the stakeholder forum. I am sure there will be many positives. If we can deal with the negatives, it will be happy days across the board. Does Deputy Boyd Barrett wish to come back in?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I understood from our guests that the forum is envisaged as a single-day affair. If it is to go beyond that, that will be up to the forum, the Houses, the Ministers and so on. That is as far as we have got. There will be this event and there will be a report. Is that an accurate characterisation of where we are at?

Ms Mary Nash

How does the Deputy see it, if he does not mind my asking?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

That is a fair question and a good challenge.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

Before the Deputy responds, we should be clear as to who is responsible and who is leading in respect of all this.

Ms Mary Nash

We have taken the lead. The recommendation refers to the two Departments but we have taken the lead on it.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

Ms Nash is responsible.

Ms Mary Nash

The lead in this really relates to all the organising. It is a big deal. Even getting a date was difficult as there are so many things going on in the industry. We had to turn down some requests in that regard. The organising of it is challenging, given the number of people who have to attend, including people from Wexford, Cork, Galway and Donegal. You cannot ask them to come up three or four times a year.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

That is a reasonable consideration. In establishing a forum where the different stakeholders come together and consider the problems, it should not be a one-off. Trying to get a balance between those two things is worth considering. I do not have all the answers, but I do not think everything will be resolved in a day. It would be a good step forward, however. We all need to think about how there could be a follow-on without dragging people to four meetings a year. I accept that will be difficult, but it could be done annually or there could be some kind of interim mechanisms to progress things that might be discussed or proposed or whatever. We will discuss all that on the day.

Ms Mary Nash

We will see how the day goes and gather the views of attendees. Towards the end of it, we may ask people if they considered it useful and to provide their thoughts on it. I have been involved in several similar events since the pandemic ended. Often, people very much wish to say their piece and have their voices heard.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I accept the point made by Ms Donaghy that there is incredible talent in the industry. Neither the committee nor any of the members are trying to talk down the creative ability and potential of the Irish film industry and all those who work down it. Far from it. We could bolster that potential significantly if we resolved some of these issues, however. I hope we are all on the same page. I think we are. We want to see lots of resources going into the Irish film industry to create employment, more films and a stronger industry, but there are legitimate questions, debates and problems that need to be addressed as part of that. It is to be hoped that we are taking steps forward.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú)

Yes, it is to be hoped the forum will be a real positive and we will find the mechanisms to address the necessary issues. Go raibh maith agaibh go léir. I thank the witnesses for attending the meeting. I apologise for any nuisance I may have caused. The committee stands adjourned until Wednesday, 31 January 2024.

The select committee adjourned at 7.37 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 31 January 2024.