Richard Boyd Barrett: Demands legal conditions on film funding

So, yes, I'm assuming my amendment was ruled out of order on the basis that it goes beyond the scope of the bill or something to that effect. So, technically I understand why this might have been ruled out of order, but to my mind it very much is and should be part of the Act which this bill is amending to make the grants and loans that the Irish Film Board give out for film productions, to make those grants and loans far more strictly conditional on the film producer companies who receive those grants and loans, providing the quality and employment training, which they are not legally required to under the Film Board Act, but in general it is the position of the government, more via section 481, that public funding to the film industry should be conditioned, well in the case of section 481, it is legally conditional on the provision of quality employment and training. Now, I can't imagine, even though I know that's not the case with funding that's coming via the Film Board, that it's sort of written into the law as such, I don't think it is written into the law, but I'm saying it should be, it should be written into the law. And that not only should it be written into the law, but we need to actually make sure it happens, because in my opinion, and in the opinion of many who work in the film industry, that industry test, as it's known, is not being met, is not being met. And I also think, and again I'm speaking slightly off the top of my head, and the Minister can come back on this, but my understanding is that EU directives governing state aid to the audiovisual industry, say that that state aid is conditional on the meeting of the industry test and the culture, and the culture test. Right, so you're not supposed to get, now I'm for giving aid, of support, you know, more to arts, film, culture, I'm for that, but I'm also very much for the conditions of quality employment and training, and the building up of a real industry. I think the EU directive, but again the Minister can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the EU directive, refers to the need to create companies of scale. Right, so you actually have to, you know, what they mean by creating an industry, is that you create companies of scale. In other words, that they have, you know, you're building up permanent pools of talent, I think that's another phrase that could be used, or skills, permanent pools of skills, to actually make an industry. So in other words, that there is real jobs, and therefore that the people who work in the industry have some level of security, about employment, and it's not just a fly-by-night industry, where nobody has any rights or entitlements or security or certainty about their ability to work in that industry, to have an income, and so on, over a long term. So, to my mind, the grants and loans, which are very significant, because what this bill is doing, is raising the ceiling for 500 million, half a billion, which is the aggregate that will be given, has, we've nearly reached that, we're just under 500 million, but we're going to go over it, so it's going up to 800 million, and that's a lot of money to be giving out. By the way, Minister, 400 and something, 490 million, I think, 490 million. And then, if you add to that Section 481, which is the other arm of the state giving money to the same film productions, that's probably over the same period, you're probably talking about 4 billion, right? It's big money. And there's some other streams of money going as well. Now, like I said, I'm for that money, and indeed, even more going, but I don't believe that the conditions of the quality employment and training, particularly in relation to fixed-term workers' legislation, where people are working on successive productions over the years, right? So you have film crew of all sorts who will be working on successive productions, but because for each production a DAC is set up, a designated activity company, the people who set up that subsidiary and who receive the money from the government, the producer company, that is a standing company, right? Like Metropolitan or Element or one of these, they're a standing company, but they set up different DACs for each film production. But when the people who work on those multiple productions go in and assert their employment rights and say, I worked on your last production, I worked on the one before that, and I worked on the one before that, and therefore I'm entitled to work on the next one, if for some reason the company decides, oh, we actually don't want you back, because maybe you've been asking for your rights, maybe you're giving out about the fact that you don't get, you know, holiday, holiday entitlements or, you know, or you're saying, you know, you're involved in kind of trade union activity or whatever, we decide, we don't want to employ you on the next production, and that has happened to many workers and they take cases. When you go into the WRC and you say to the WRC, that company, which gets money from the state, from the film board and from section 481, employed me, they set up a DAC that employed me on multiple productions, and therefore I'm asserting my rights under law, for example, to a contract of indefinite duration. The company who gets the money from the government for quality employment and training says, you're not my employee, even though they know them, even though they set up all of the subsidiaries, their wholly owned subsidiaries of the company that gets the money for quality employment and training, they hide behind the DAC and they say, no, you're not my employee, even though you may have worked for them for 10, 12, 15 years, right? And they go in and sign sworn affidavits to that effect. Now, in the WRC recently, a case taken by stagehands, the stagehands won in establishing that they can't do that, they can't hide behind the DAC. The film producer company then went to the Labour Court to try and overturn that decision and they succeeded. But then the stagehands went to the High Court and the High Court very recently has made a ruling where the High Court has said it was ridiculous what the Labour Court decided, because they simply took the producer company's word for it that these people were not their employees and they never even looked further into it, when clearly the producer company was the company that got the money from the state. And there was references made in the ruling by the High Court to the monies that were received by the state, right, as proof that the producer company that was denying the employment relationship is the recipient of an incentive from the state. Okay, so the state is involved here. Now, what I don't understand is why the state wouldn't sort of clarify this issue, because this has been going on for years, there's multiple, multiple cases been taken. And the state could just step in and say, well, this is what we mean when we give you the money, and we're going to clarify that in law and legislation, that this is what we mean by quality employment and training. We mean the company we give the money cannot hide behind a pop-up shop that it sets up when it is wholly owned subsidiary of the entity we give the money to. So that's what I'm asking Minister, that's what the amendment which has been ruled out of order, but I still would ask the Minister seriously consider it, not for this bill so much, because that's not going to happen, but that you would seriously consider that. And by the same token for the performers, the writers, the directors and the others, their gripe, but it revolves around the DAC as well, is that if they want to work on a film, and the producers set up a DAC to do it, they are handed a contract to work on that film. And on that contract, it says, you will sign away your rights to future royalties to the DAC. So in the past, actors, writers and performers would have got residuals, royalty payments, if that particular production turned out to be successful in the future. You know, it did really well. But the producer companies don't want to give the intellectual property rights to a share of future royalties. Instead they want to say we're giving you your equitable remuneration, which is required, up front. Now the thing is, just for you to understand Minister, there is no way the producer company can say it is equitable remuneration up front. How could they? They don't know how the film is going to do. They don't know if it's going to be played again and again, if it's going to be a big success, therefore it's put out all over the world, it's put on Netflix, it's put on streamers, it's you know, played in lots of cinemas. So how successful it is, it's going to determine how much money that film makes. Right? But if the actors are told, you have to agree up front to sign away your rights and we're going to pay you this much now, you lose out on all that downstream stuff. And again, and this is a kind of technical point, the intellectual property, the rights on that film are signed over to the DAC. Where do those rights go after the DAC is wound up? Where do they, who do they go to? And as far as I know, nobody really knows. I bet you the producer company that you give the money to knows, and is probably a beneficiary. They know where the single socks go. They know exactly. But the actors don't know where their rights have gone. The actors, the writers and the performers don't know where their rights have gone. But like, they are their rights, their intellectual property rights. Okay, so the ask here, Minister, from, and Equity have been campaigning on this, and they are asking for contracts similar to the Pact Equity in the UK, where the superior contracts, right? Now, often there's a guff answer given back by the producers, oh yeah, listen, Pact Equity is an English agreement. It's not, you know, it's not suitable to Ireland. That's just nonsense, right? That's what the actors want here. And they are getting inferior contracts to their counterparts in Britain, the actors, the writers and the performers. So give them, give them the proper contracts and end the use of buyout contracts. End the situation where the producers you are giving money to are essentially blackmailing writers, performers and actors into signing buyout contracts. Because if they don't sign them, they don't get work. And that's, and this is the, like the net result of all of this is, if you don't do what the producers tell you, you don't get on the film, whether you're a member of crew or whether you're a performer or whatever, you're just blacklisted out of the industry. You're a troublemaker, branded a troublemaker and you don't get back in. And that has to end. The kind of, you're never going to work in this town stuff has to end. And that happens, Minister, just so you know, like there's lots of people, these people who are in front of the, I went in with them into the, into the labour court and I just couldn't believe it, you know. This phalanx of lawyers, legal advisors and so on with the film production company that is funded by the state. And all the lawyers and, you know, two stagehands in the case I went in are faced with these people. How are they supposed to deal with all these people? Do you know, and where do they get the money to employ all these lawyers? Companies that have no employees, by the way, because they don't have employees. They just set up DEACs. So, um, yeah, that's, that's the ask, Minister. Um, I'm sure my colleague, Angus Osnody or Rory of America wanted to speak, but I would ask the government to seriously do something about this. Thanks very much, uh, Count Corley. There's an awful lot there to respond to, but can I say at the start, I'm, um, I know I, I, I had the opportunity in, um, in private to welcome him back, but I, I want to sincerely welcome back, um, Deputy Boyd Barrett. I haven't, uh, had the opportunity in the house, um, since, uh, he returned and it's great to see you back, Deputy Boyd Barrett, um, myself and yourself never agreed on anything. Um, so I'd hate to break the habit of a lifetime, um, but it is great to see you back and I hope you're recovering well and best of luck to you. Um, you know, some of the issues that you raised there, um, are just in relation to the aggregate. I think it's important to point out that the aggregate relates to, um, the amount of monies that have been expended since 1980, which is a 45-year term. So it's not that we're hoping to spend this money into the future. It's an aggregate. It's, it's, to be honest about it, look, it's, it's, it's, it's an issue that comes up with a lot of state agencies in terms of, it's a kind of a clunky thing, really, that they have to keep coming back to the Minister of the Day to amend legislation. Um, and in this case, it's the Irish Film Board Act of 1980 and I agree, uh, with Deputy Osnoddig and it's actually something that I have planned to do is to bring forward a Screen Ireland bill, uh, at some stage in 2026 to take account of the fact that Screen Ireland bears no relation, really, to what the Irish Film Board was like in 1980. Ireland is a totally different place now. Um, and, uh, you know, getting, touching on what, um, Deputy O'Murrock who said there with regard to gaming, uh, I will be also including in, uh, the bill specific references to gaming and specific references to animation. Um, I think the references that you made, um, deputies, with regard to Section 481, uh, are matters for the Minister for Finance. Um, and notwithstanding that, uh, you know, the issues as well that have been raised with regard to the, uh, terms and conditions of employers, like the, uh, industrial relations machinery of the state, whether it's the WRC or the Labour Court, doesn't discriminate on the basis of where a person comes from, and those avenues are available to people, uh, as well. Just as well, uh, you know, I want to be, be very clear, like, I have a very good relationship with Screen Producers Ireland, and I know that they'll be watching this debate, and I also know that if there have been, uh, issues raised, which I, I know both, uh, Deputy O'Snodig and, uh, Deputy Bide Barrett, because I would have dealt with them previously on this issue, like, these are not issues, and, uh, I don't for one minute discount them, and I know that they're firmly held views that you have, uh, and I know that the Screen Producers, uh, will take them into consideration themselves as well, and I will draw them to their attention when I meet them next. Um, but organisations representing performers, writers, directors, composers, um, have agreed with producers and published industry interim guidelines for producers, authors, and performers in the Irish screen industry, and these guidelines cover fair remuneration, uh, for them, so, so that is important to put on the record as well. Both of the, um, uh, uh, um, amendments, uh, Count Corlea were ruled out of order, and I think a lot of latitude has been provided this evening. I don't propose to, to, um, to speak to the amendments themselves, other than to say it is my intention to bring a bill, uh, before the House, uh, in 2026. This is a very technical and specific bill around the aggregate amount of money. I will be before the committee as well, uh, after Christmas, uh, and Deputy O'Snodig and others know that I, I am of a mind uh, when, uh, members of the opposition put down issues to take them on board, and I, I have routinely done that and will do again in the future, and I look forward to working with the committee on that bill and on the general issue with regard to Screen Ireland and the production of film in Ireland after Christmas. So, good morning. Thank you, Sarah. Uh, Deputy Boyd Barrett. Yeah. Yeah. Just one other thing. I don't know if the, if the Minister has an answer to it. And I appreciate that you, you will look at these, uh, matters. Um, but just, just be clear. I mean, the, the, the, the aggregate is, yeah, it's over a very long period of time, but it's a 20 to 30 million euro a year. And then another arm of the state is giving about a hundred million, or it's probably more than that now, a hundred million, right? So it's a lot of money each year, and it, it builds up. And one point I make, and I, I really think you need to consider this, is, for all that money added up over time, the state has nothing. Zero. No, we've nothing. We don't own anything. Right? Now, that money has paid for, for example, one of the major film producer companies who regularly goes across the table to tell their employees they're not their employees, or it makes people, well, we used to own a part of Ardmore Studios, one third of it. I, I, so I would be in favor of that, right? But, no, no, but I, I'm just saying with, with the money we're investing, isn't it a bit worrying at the end of it, we've nothing. Right? I mean, because the whole point of, and it's not just section 481, I know there was a slight batting off of the thing and saying, well, this section 481, yeah, so this is the film board. I understand that. Although the idea that these two things are completely separate is a bit ridiculous, because they both go to the same film producer companies. Every single film that's produced here gets money off the film board, and it gets money off section 481. Right? And the combination of state monies is a significant, in fact, the films wouldn't happen without that. Right? Without that money. And it's coming from two arms of the state. So they're kind of, we pass it off to this, you know, this bit isn't our responsibility. And the workers' rights then is, is the trade and enterprises responsibility, apparently. So there's three ministries and everybody's batting it off to everybody else. But to repeat, and I would like a response at some point, if you can't give it here. Am I not right, let's put it this way, am I not right in saying that EU directives on state aid to the audio visual industry, and that includes money from the film board, is conditional on meeting industry tests. Right? And those industry tests require the building up of permanent pools of skills and companies of scale. Companies of scale. Where are the companies of scale? They can't be companies of scale if they say they have no employees. Right? And they have tiny numbers. The biggest companies in this country have tiny numbers of admin people, and one of them that has been in receipt of large amounts of money recently sold a majority share off to another big international company element. Right? So after all that money we've poured in to create a company that still doesn't really have any scale, but it's the biggest, but one of the biggest companies we have, they've now sold, I presume, pretty pennies were made there, I'm guessing. I don't know the exact figures on it. And, and here's something very specifically for the film board, minister. The recoupment rate on that money. Do you know what it is? So if we're up to say, aggregate loans and grants over that period, of just under 500 million, most of it is loans. How much did we get back? Do you know? Because now over time it's going to go up to 800 million, and a lot of them are categorised, most of them are categorised as loans. So loans, and the biggest recipients of them are those film producer companies I mentioned. Because there's about two to three, maybe four, who get most of the money. Like the small production companies, I understand small, you know, not everything is going to make money. In fact, a lot of stuff we want to give money that isn't going to make money, and I fully am back that, right? But when you're talking about the bigger companies who are the biggest recipients of this, they make money. We hear about them on the news all the time. Oh, they've just, you know, they've got this award, they've got that award. So they must be making money. But we don't get any of it back. We don't get any of it back, even though we've given them loans. So do we know what the recoupment rate is? Because the last time one of the film representative, film workers representative groups, most of whom have been blacklisted out of the industry and are fighting cases in the Labour Court and so on. But a few years ago, they did a report. At that stage, loans totaling £176 million had been given out, and the recoupment rate in that period was £12 million. Less than 10%. Less than 10%. Now, we're now up to just under £500 million on that aggregate figure. If the recoupment rate is roughly the same, that's a very low recoupment rate. Very low recoupment rate. Now, as I said, I'm not suggesting that every film has to make a profit. But it was one of the one of the representatives, the actors, equity representatives said the most creative thing, this is a good line, the most creative thing in the Irish film industry is the accountancy. Good line, isn't it? But the point he was making is, and I think this needs to be looked at, that the way we have managed to structure the industry is that films are set up so that on paper, they never make a profit. They never make a profit. Because if they made a profit, they might have to pay somebody back, or they might have to pay a bit at tax. So they're set up in such a way that they never make a profit. Now, like I said, I sharply distinguish the small, like genuine film filmmakers who are, you know, inevitably not going to make money and are struggling to get film productions off the ground, right? I'm not talking about them. They need every bit of support that we can get. But the big guys, who are clearly successful, and where there is royalties that could be going to the actors, going back to the actors, but we don't know where the royalties have gone. Because they've been forced to sign buyout contracts. So these things need to be looked into. And I just hope, Minister, I hope that you and, you know, we'll work together, let's put it that way, with the Minister for Finance, and with the Minister for Trade and Enterprise Employment, in a joined-up way. And stop this game of, oh, that bit's their responsibility, that bit's their responsibility, that bit's their responsibility, and have a joined-up approach to this, and say, because I think you're required to do it, honestly, under the EU directives, have a joined-up to make sure that the net result of it is a serious industry where people have some kind of level of security of employment, where the actors, writers, performers get their proper recompense, you know, their proper remuneration, which currently they are not getting. So, I'll leave it at that. I know we're running out of time, but I hope the Minister will seriously take those points on board. Thank you, Gordon. And again, not to labour the point, look, copyright and workers' rights are a matter for Minister Burke. And Section 481, you're right, Deputy Sosnodig, is a matter in the first instance for the Minister for Finance. But look, it's my role as Minister for Culture to convince the Minister for Finance to widen the role of Section 481, which the Department has been quite successful over the last number of years, and which we've actually began discussions within the Department now, at the end of 2025, for the 2027 budget. So, we've already started looking at it. Look, there's a lot of what the deputies have said, I don't disagree with. You know, I know the party is people before profit, but I don't think there's anything wrong with films making profit, Deputy Bide Barrett. Well, I don't think there is. And you know, to say that we don't get anything back, like the government invests very heavily in culture and authors and in literature and musicians, like we don't expect to, you know, own the copyright of the books. And you know, this is an investment in the country as well. These films are going all over the world. And we reap back in multitudes of what it is that we're investing in terms of tourism and in terms of investment and everything else. You can't buy the type of exposure that we're getting internationally for this. And yes, it is a lot of money. But in the scheme of things, based on what all deputies, including yourself, have said about the successes of Irish film, in particular over the last number of years, it's a relatively small amount of money that I want to grow. And I'm looking forward to working with the opposition, as I say, throughout 2026, in what I hope will be a year that I'll be able to bring forward a new bill, the Screen Ireland bill. And I look forward to that, Ciancola. Ciancola. Any further offerings? Oh, okay. Minister, I just want to make it absolutely clear. Nobody here is saying it's about quantifying arts in terms of pounds, money and pence, or whatever that expression is, right? And very much a lot of art has to be subsidised because it gives a big cultural benefit. But it shouldn't be the case that people who work in the industry and now increasingly are going and getting degrees and all sorts of things and qualifications have absolutely no security about the possibility of working for film production. Now, I know it can't be like the same as any other job. I know it can't be the same as that. Nobody's suggesting it should be. But there could be a significantly greater level of security. And there could be a situation where it is not wide open for people to be victimised, right? At the moment, there is literally no protection against what Rory Omercu said is not getting the phone call. Just not getting the phone call. It's as simple as that. You get the phone call, you don't get the phone call. And there's no protection against not getting the phone call. That should stop. And similarly, there's no protection for actors, writers and performers having a contract put in front of them, sign that or, you know, see you later. Right? That shouldn't happen.