Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Jul 1972

Vol. 262 No. 9

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - IDA Promotional Film.

93.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if the IDA have commissioned the making of any promotional film; and, if so, the cost of the undertaking.

94.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether the intention of sponsoring a promotional film by the IDA was communicated to any Irish film directors; and if so, with what result.

95.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if a director has been chosen by the IDA for making a promotional film; the method by which he was selected; and the steps taken to ascertain his previous experience in making this type of film.

96.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the factors taken into consideration in deciding between Irish and foreign companies when the making of promotional films is under consideration by State or semi-State bodies.

97.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the fee to be paid by the Industrial Development Authority for the making of a film on their behalf; whether the proposed director of the film has claimed to have directed other films and, if so, whether this claim has been verified; and whether his views on Ireland as disclosed in a magazine article (name supplied) in April, 1955, were taken into account when he was commissioned to undertake this work.

98.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether Irish film-makers were invited to quote for the making of a film for the Industrial Development Authority; if so, how their quotations compared with that of the person chosen to direct this film; and, if not, why.

With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98 together.

In having films made for them the Industrial Development Authority and other State agencies employ the normal commercial criteria with a view to getting a satisfactory product at the best price they can negotiate. Their actions in this field do not require prior ministerial approval.

I am, however, informed by the Industrial Development Authority that they have commissioned a film which is currently being made by an all-Irish crew on a budget with a maximum of £22,000, of which £3,841 is payable to Mr. Robert Emmet Ginna for his services as writer, director and producer; that Irish film makers and others experienced in the field were consulted by the Industrial Development Authority before they made their decision and that 12 films by Irish film makers were viewed by Industrial Development Authority executives; that they received and considered three script treatments by Irish script writers apart from the treatment submitted by Mr. Ginna; that the magazine article written 17 years ago by Mr. Ginna was not taken into account by them; that the considerations which influenced them in favour of Mr. Ginna were: (a) the film must portray technological aspects of modern industry and it was, therefore, necessary that it should be made by a person with knowledge and expertise in this field. Mr. Ginna, who has been involved in the film business for 20 years, has degrees in science and arts and has considerable experience in technical journalism.

The Industrial Development Authority satisfied themselves that Mr. Ginna was a film producer, director and writer of international experience, (b) the film is being made primarily for the American market with which Mr. Ginna is familiar. Mr. Ginna's association with the film will enhance the prospects of having it shown on American TV.

Is the Minister aware, when he says that three film scripts by Irish interests were considered, that Irish film makers offered films and were told not to do so. Is he aware of that fact?

Is he aware that the IDA stated that their decision was influenced by having seen two films which Mr. Ginna, they say, directed, but that, in fact, these were directed by Mr. J.D. Thompson? I have the authority of the British Film Institute for that. They also claimed that the reason for employing him was that he was a director of an NBC television series called "Wisdom," and the NBC say that the "Wisdom" series was directed by Robert D. Graef. They more recently said that Mr. Ginna actually did direct two films, these ones not having been directed by him at all, despite what they had said. The two films they now say he directed were "Assault on Antarctica" and "Eleven Against the Ice" but, according to the NBC, these films did not have a director, but rather the editing of camera work in the Antarctic. Is the Minister aware of these facts?

I am reasonably aware of all the facts. I have read the claims made on both sides. My information is summarised in the reply I have given.

The Minister will admit that in his reply he did not say that Mr. Ginna had directed particular films but the IDA did make that claim, which has since been shown to be incorrect. Does he think the matter should be pursued when claims were made and accepted by the IDA?

I have said that the authority satisfied themselves that Mr. Ginna was a producer of experience. In a previous reply I may have mentioned the fact that he had directed or produced a number of films.

It was stated by the IDA that he directed certain films which he did not direct. Does the Minister consider that that alters the position?

I have no evidence to indicate the films which the IDA said he did direct which it is now agreed that he did not direct.

If the evidence is given to the Minister by the people concerned will the Minister then reconsider the position?

I think the Deputy has me all wrong. In connection with my reconsidering the position, I indicated in reply to a question from the Labour benches that I, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, was not a bit happy with the situation whereby non-Irish people are used.

Would the Minister not agree that his Department might have directed the IDA to approach RTE, which is the only institution in this country which shoots millions of feet of film, which has the staff, equipment and laboratories and is more than capable of doing this work? It is inconceivable that we are not capable of doing that kind of work in this country. The RTE film department and the managerial side can assure the Minister that they could do a better job of filming Ireland.

The Deputy is getting into a wider field.

It is important.

One of the claims made is that RTE is allowing itself, in the commercials, to use material from outside sources which should be supplied here.

It has not much option.

If we do not get anywhere in this session I certainly propose in the next session of the Dáil to get ahead so that we can have a look at that aspect.

I will send the information to the Minister and when he sees these authoritative sources state that the information given was incorrect, will action be taken?

The Deputy will be recommending at that stage that I interfere with the autonomy of the IDA.

The Minister can get on to the IDA and ask them if they were misinformed. Is the Minister aware that the IDA stated in the Press that this film would be done by Windward Film Productions Ltd, which was described in The Irish Times of 6th July as a private company wholly owned by Mr. Ginna? Researches in Somerset House show that the company is owned by Robert Emmet Ginna (US citizen) and Edward Oldham and David John Shirley (UK citizens), and the IDA are misinformed as to the ownership of the company making the film.

I suppose there is a difference between 99 per cent and 100 per cent.

"Wholly owned" means wholly owned. Can the Minister state why the film is being made on the very expensive 35 mm. gauge when it is to be used for private showing, which requires 16 mm.?

That particular detail——

Yes, it is a detail.

£5,000 or £10,000 worth of detail, yes.

There are six questions and in none of the questions did the Deputy seek that information.

That information came to hand after I had put down the question. The Minister will look into it?

Top
Share