Richard Boyd Barrett on Film Funding: Demands Tighter Rules

Thanks, Chair. I welcome the opportunity to speak to this Bill, which, as I understand it, is about raising the aggregate figure that the Screen Ireland can give out, presumably because we are near the limit now, of 500 million. To raise that up to 800 million. I have long and repeatedly argued that we should increase the amount of money we put into artistic and cultural endeavour, generally, and into film. At one level, I welcome an increased commitment to support the film industry. But I also, as the Minister may know, and certainly officials in the Department of Art will know, have concerns about the conditions attached to that funding, and whether the requirements for state aid to the film industry, which are set down in EU directives, and indeed, you know, in the case of 481 are legislated for, that you have to fulfil certain requirements in order to receive state aid for film, the film, the culture and the industry tests, whether those things are being met. Now, there is no doubt, and many people have talked rightly about, you know, the huge talent we have, and the successes that we have seen in the film industry. And that shouldn't, you know, I don't think it is a surprise to anybody, because we know we have a tremendous pool of talent and creativity in this country, there is writers, actors, musicians, all the various, you know, the crew, all the various people who work in film, the enormous talent that exists, and it shouldn't be a surprise that given the right support, that they can achieve absolutely incredible things. And it is right to list out the successes and the awards that have been achieved. So I applaud all of that. But I am also concerned that while we need to increase the supports, that we are not meeting those tests in terms of the, particularly, the requirement for quality employment, quality employment and training in the film, in the film industry. And there's two sort of main dimensions of that that I want to talk about. First of all, there is the issue which is highlighted again in the High Court in the last few weeks. I am not sure if the Minister is aware of this, or the Department is aware of it, but the decision of Justice Gareth Simons, I think if I am pronouncing his name correctly, in the High Court, in a case taken by stagehands, who had worked in the Irish film industry. One of them, I was just looking through the details, I have not had time to look at all of it, and I have not read the full ruling. But the judge found in their favour against motions put by one of the major recipients of Irish Film Board grants and of section 481, one of the two biggest film producer companies in this country, Metropolitan Films. And similar cases have been, and I think are taken against the other major recipient, similar types of cases by people who'd worked on Irish film productions for Element Pictures, the other major recipient, because they're the two dominant. And there's a few others, but who are the major recipients of state support for the film industry. So the first thing I would ask the government, as I have done repeatedly, but just on this particular ruling, is for the Department of Finance and Arts. Finance is relevant obviously to section 481, not so much to the film board, but obviously the film industry benefits from funding both from the film board via the Department of Arts, and then both Department of Arts and Finance have involvement in section 481. But I would ask them to look at that decision made in the courts. Because it related to a case taken by stagehands to the WRC over the failure of the film producer companies, who get money from the film board and from section 481 to vindicate their rights under the fixed-term workers legislation. I don't know how many times I've explained that I've put in an amendment to this bill for the committee stage, saying that the giving out of grants and loans by the film board should be contingent. on very, very strict adherence to the obligations under fixed-term workers legislation, and that we don't have, as I certainly believe is the case, and that the case is taken by those stagehands, which have now been sort of, I mean just to try and summarise it, the WRC found in favour of the stagehands, the Labour Court then overturned that decision, but then it went on up to the High Court, and the High Court found set aside, well, essentially found in favour again of the stagehands. I don't think the Labour Court decision has been fully quashed yet, but the High Court did find in favour of the stagehands. And, of course, there's been many, many of these cases, and it revolves around the fact that state aid to film producer companies in this country is contingent to them giving quality employment training. They get the money because they're providing employment. But when people who worked on film productions made by those recipients, those film producer companies who get the money, when they take cases against their employer over, for example, not getting their employment rights properly vindicated, the film producer company who gets money from the state on the basis of providing employment, goes into the WRC or the Labour Court and says, I don't have any employees. It's the DAC I set up has the employees. So, therefore, I'm not really their employer. Now, that's sort of laughable. It's Russian doll sort of stuff. It's an abuse. Because, on the one hand, you get the money from the state on the basis of your crazy jobs. And on the other hand, when the people who you're supposed to be employing say, you're my employer, but you're not giving me my rights, you say, oh, no, I've never employed you. I have no employment relationship with you whatsoever. You work for a DAC. I might have set up the DAC, but that's not me. That's somebody else. Now, to me, that's an abuse. And it shouldn't be allowed to carry on. And we have to stop giving money to film producer companies who are doing that. And, you know, what is the sort of human cost of all of this is people who've worked for, in the case of that stagehand, 18 years in the film industry are essentially cast out of the film industry because they try and assert their rights. They're blacklisted. And they're left high and dry with nothing. And there's many, many of them, many, many of them, who would say they have been blacklisted out of the industry, having worked sometimes for 20, 30, 40 years in the film industry, left high and dry with nothing. Because the people who've employed them again and again and again hide behind these DACs, even though they're claiming large amounts of money. And when you look at the amount of money, Minister, just to think about this, if we've reached a limit of 500 million, so that's half a billion since this started that's been given out. And we're now going to go up to, you know, more than three quarters of a billion over the next few years. That's a lot of money. A lot of money. And then when you look at Section 481 or its predecessors, it's probably three or four billion. That's a lot, a lot of money. Now, I am in favour of that money being given out. But I am very concerned that we're giving out billions, but the people we're giving out to say we have no employees. Because the industry test, as required by EU law, is that we build up companies of scale. Companies of scale is the phrase I think is used in the EU directive. Now, how can you have a company of scale if you have no employees? If again and again and again, you go into the court and your employees come in and say, you're my employer. And you say, no, I don't have employees. I've never had employees. There are no employees. They're employed by a DAC that has now wound up. It's an abuse. It's an abuse. And it has to be stopped. It is completely unfair. So, hopefully I've tried to explain that. But I am saying that we need to make the giving out of these monies conditional on that abuse stopping and that the rights of workers are fully vindicated. Similarly, then, with the actors and performers, where the issues are slightly different, but it is to do with the use of buyout contracts. And again, you know, the officials will be familiar with this. The Minister, I know she's new in the job, might not be as familiar. But, once upon a time, actors, who, at the best of times, most of them have a pretty precarious existence, right, don't really know when the next job is coming up or the next paycheck is coming up. But once upon a time, they got royalties or residuals for previous performances they did on films. So, when films or TV things were shown again, they might get a small cheque, and it would have been a small cheque of a few hundred quid in the post, which would be very, very welcome, given that, you know, when you consider the billions we're talking about, coming out in Section 481 over these years, or half a billion now to go to three quarters of a billion from the film board, most of our actors, most of the people who work in the film industry live in poverty. They live in poverty. There's a few A-listers, but the vast majority of them are not A-listers, but they're absolutely critical to the existence of the industry where there's no jobs. An industry where there's no jobs. And very little infrastructure for all those billions, by the way. Where's our studios? We sold the last bit of it in Ardmore to an American company. So, where's our infrastructure for all the billions we put in? We don't have any. Where did it go? Who has it? For all those billions? To go back, I'm sorry, going off the point there, but for the actors and the performers, the writers and so on, those residuals are critical. But now, in order to get a contract, unless you're one of those A-listers where maybe your agent can negotiate a better situation for you, you are handed a buyout contract, where to get the job, you have to sign the thing, signing away your right to royalties and residuals in the future. And it's supposedly voluntary, right? It's supposedly voluntary, but the truth is, if you don't sign that, you won't be getting the job. And you see, there's a phrase, Minister, you may have heard, is, you'll never work in this town again. Now, there's a reason, that's a familiar phrase to most people, you'll never work in this town again. Because it comes from showbiz, it comes from showbiz, it's probably Hollywood or somewhere where it was first heard. But this is a phrase that exists in the culture and arts and film industry. And it very much exists here. That phrase probably didn't originate here, probably originated in Hollywood or wherever, but it exists in reality here. If you don't sign that contract, you won't be working in this town again. And it's as simple as that. Everybody knows it, everybody knows it. It's the dirty secret we don't acknowledge. People are afraid even to speak about it. Because if you speak about it too publicly, you may never work in this town again. But everybody knows it. So what are we going to do about it? Now, given that these producer companies who are getting all this money, and like I said, I want, I actively want us to invest in these areas, but I believe we have to safeguard the rights of the talent, right? And by the way, when I use the phrase, the talent, all of them are talent, right? From the guys who build the sets, paint the sets, the transport workers, up to the actors and the cosmetic people and all the rest of it. Because often there's a sort of distinction made, and I shouldn't be in front of the camera and behind the camera. I completely reject that. We need all of these people, right? And all of them deserve to be treated by respect. But really the people who did the best out of it all are the producers. I mean, one thing you make is a little sign of how this is the way the industry is going. In the old days, and I don't want to sound too nostalgic about the past, but in the old days when the credits used to roll on films, you saw the names of the actors and the directors, and, you know, some of the various crew people who would have made it happen. And they were the kind of most prominent things. Now, if you look at an awful lot of TV and film productions, what you'll see is the most prominent things, often coming up first on the credits, are a long list of the names of producers. The producers. The suits. The suits. Come up first. And that's sort of emblematic of what's going on, I think, in these industries, is that there's these people. Like, I went into the Labour Court. I went into the Labour Court with those stagehands. And they were there. They had no legal representation at all. No legal representation. The film production company, who gets a lot of money from the Irish state, had a phalanx, a phalanx, of legal advisers, experts' suits. Who paid for that? Who paid for them? To sit there and say to people who they knew had worked on film productions, funded by the state, we have no employment relationship with you. Now, I don't know how many times these things have been said to the Government. When are we going to end this situation? It's just not fair. It's just not fair. It's not fair that film crew can be blacklisted out of the industry. It is not fair that actors, performers, and so on, can be told to sign buy-out contracts and not get their residuals and royalties, as they did once upon a time. So, I believe that situation has to end. Very lastly, I just want to say on the culture test. And I do think, ultimately, these things may be somewhat related. I may be going slightly more out on a limb. And there's been some good stuff that has happened in the last year. There's been a little more money going to kind of indigenous, small, young, new people, and so on. I'm very glad to see that. And it's great to see the success. And it shows what's possible. But I also ask myself, you know what? Why is there not more stuff done about the incredible historical heritage and cultural heritage this country has? I saw a thing on an American streamer there a few weeks ago about Daniel O'Connell, right? A feature film about Daniel O'Connell. It was dreadful. It was made in America with an all-American cast. It was absolutely dreadful, right? But I was thinking, why didn't we make a film about Daniel O'Connell? And then I think, where's our goal of ours travels? Where's our Dracula, seeing as Dracula was produced here? Where's our productions about, you know, Robert Hamlet, The United Irishman? Where's our film about Constance Markievicz? Where's all the stuff, the culture test that we're supposed to be? Now, I know we've produced some, you know, big like The Wind to Shake, The Barley, and Michael Collins, but it's quite a while since we've done any of those big historical stuff. Anyway, I've run out of time. But I think there should be more going in to meet, you know, to celebrate our cultural heritage, our rich history and so on, and some of the incredible cultural artistic talent that we have in this country than is currently the case. That's currently the case. That's currently the case.