asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will state the reasons advanced by the Cultural Relations Committee for rejecting the film "Portrait of Dublin"; whether the committee considered in detail, and accepted the shooting script of the film before commissioning it; whether the film was technically and artistically satisfactory; whether the committee exercised supervision at any or all stages of the preparation and production of the film; whether the film may be shown, if they so wish, by the Irish Film Society and other similar cultural organisations; and whether he is satisfied that the committee took all necessary precautions to ensure that no part of the £1,672 was needlessly or carelessly expended.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - “Portrait of Dublin.”
I understand that the Cultural Relations Committee approved the script of the film and was consulted at various stages during the making of it. When the finished product was shown to them, however, they decided that it was neither technically nor artistically of a standard suitable for exhibition under the committee's auspices. It is not considered that, in its present form, the film would be suitable for showing by the Irish Film Society or other such organisations. Various proposals were considered by the committee for revising the film but, as explained in my reply to the Deputy on 13th June, it has not been found possible to proceed with them.
The sum of £1,672 0s. 6d. represents the total actual expenditure incurred in making the film and was paid in respect of itemised accounts which were examined and passed in the normal way by the committee.
Is the Minister satisfied that the committee, commissioning and paying for a film which they cannot show, acted in a responsible way in view of their responsibility to supervise the expenditure of public money as conscientiously as possible?
Is it not a fact that this film dealt to a great extent with the position in Dublin as regards the unemployment problem and, as a result of its showing up the unemployment problem as being so serious and shocking, it would be better not to show it to the public?
In answer to the second supplementary it is typical of the supplementary questions which the Deputy puts and is equally inaccurate. In answer to the first supplementary put by Deputy Dr. Browne I want to say that this film was started away back in 1950. It was undertaken under the aegis of a very young Minister and I do not want to criticise him.