Deputy Gemma Hussey has ten minutes remaining.
Private Members' Business. - National Film Studios of Ireland: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Kavanagh on Tuesday, 15 June 1982:
"That, having regard to the preservation of essential skills for servicing the film industry in Ireland, Dáil Éireann requests the Government to take whatever steps are necessary to maintain and develop the studio facilities at the National Film Studios of Ireland, Ardmore, Bray, County Wicklow."
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "industry" and substitute the following:
"and the proposed disposal of the National Film Studios of Ireland Ltd. by the liquidator, Dáil Éireann requests the Government to take all reasonable steps to maintain the studio facilities at Ardmore, Bray, County Wicklow."
—(Aire na Gaeltachta)
I said last evening I was very disappointed with the Government amendment to this motion, or perhaps I should say not so much disappointed with the Government amendment but at the Minister's remarks thereon, which surprised us all by giving no undertaking whatsoever about the National Film Studios, although we might have expected such, considering the wording of that amendment. Therefore, there is no question of this party supporting such an amendment, since the remarks made in its support contradicted its every word.
It is important to return to the paramount question, which is the retention of the studio facilities at Ardmore in Bray, County Wicklow. That is the basic question concerning all of us on this side of the House. The essential value of Ardmore is that it is a complex. Any film production benefits in an organisational and financial way from being able to control its operations from one base, where equipment, a preview theatre, post-production facilities, transport and so on are all provided on the one campus rather than being scattered in hotels, cinemas, depots and so on. The facilities at Ardmore Studios fulfil these requirements and, as we said last evening, it would be now an impossible undertaking to set about building that complex. The core of this problem is that the studio complex should be retained. However, I am not suggesting that it should be or must be retained at the previous level. We know there have been severe financial problems for the studios up to this. I believe it is advisable to re-examine the structure and running of the studios and to ensure that not only will the facilities remain open but that at the first possible opportunity they will be on a self-financing basis. I believe that can be achieved by establishing a system known as the four wall system, the studio facilities with a basic care and maintenance staff, including the vital technical staff and craftsmen involved in the studios to keep that complex open and running. The necessity for keeping the studios open on that system is agreed as essential by many people in the film industry, including many members of the new film board who make no bones about their views.
It was, to put it mildly, astonishing that the Minister failed to consult the new film board before announcing his decision to close the studios. I believe the film studios could be made self-financing in a relatively short time, given that the Minister has already announced his intention to write off the debts. If we ensure that the studio complex is retained for the Irish film industry we will have preserved an asset for the country and we will have redeemed a situation where those studios looked doomed to closure as new hope was starting for the Irish film industry with the foundation of the new film board.
I strongly urge the Government to withdraw their amendment to the Labour Party motion. I believe this is the best course of action and that the House will then be able to agree to the Labour Party motion and give its approval to a request to the Government to keep Ardmore Film Studios in operation as an absolutely essential asset to the growth of the film industry in the country. I hope the note of acrimony which entered into the debate yesterday can be forgotten, that we can see some reason now and agree that a decision that was made hastily and brutally can be rescinded because of the views expressed on all sides of the House and by the very many responsible people throughout the country who are concerned not only with the employment and tourism features of having film studios available in Ardmore but also with the establishment and growth of a real Irish film industry.
(Waterford): In sponsoring the amendment on behalf of The Workers' Party asking that the Ardmore Film Studios be taken into public ownership I would like to stress that the motivation of the Workers' Party in putting forward the amendment was not because of any rigid ideological or dogmatic attitude as regards the Workers Party's attitude towards the concept of State enterprise but because, having examined the situation and having had detailed talks with the workers committee involved in Ardmore our party are absolutely satisfied that there is a viable future for the Ardmore studios but only under the ownership of the State. Our amendment has at least the advantage of clarity over the motion proposed by the Labour Party and the amendment put down by the Government.
The motion and the Government's amendment are little more than pious platitudes expressing that Ardmore can be preserved in some shape or form. Our amendment calls quite clearly and unambiguously for taking the studios at Ardmore into public ownership. The main argument put forward on this occasion and on the first occasion this subject was raised in the House on an Adjournment Debate by the Minister was a financial one. The Minister cited the hardly comparable example last night of Bord Fáilte to show how unviable film studios are in terms of attracting foreign earnings to the country.
Ardmore film studios are not in the business of selling holidays. They are in the business of creating an Irish film industry. I believe there is a real future for the Ardmore film studios. There is an attempt now by the Government to scuttle the future of the film studios and of the film industry. The Minister claimed that the studios had lost £2.5 million up to the end of last year but he also admitted they have generated £12.5 million in foreign earnings. The Minister made a rather ridiculous comparison yesterday evening when he tried to equate the earnings by Bord Fáilte during 1976-80 when they generated £1,948 million in return for a State input of £69 million. He then turned around and he made a comparison that Ardmore film studios gave a return of only £12.5 million on an investment of £4 million.
Fóir Teoranta are continuously bailing out firms in the private sector. Could they claim that type of return in the interest of the economy? The figures for losses are inflated. This is because of back interest, which added £875,000 to the £2.5 million loss, 38 per cent of the total. If one examines the shabby manner in which the Government announced the closure of Ardmore studios, when the Dáil was in recess, it leaves a lot to be desired in relation to the attitude of the Government. Nowhere can this more strongly be applied than in regard to the workforce. They only received notice on the day of the proposed closure, which was a contravention, as was pointed out last night, of the Minimum Notices Act, the Redundancy Payments Act and the Unfair Dismissals Act. While accepting all these breaches by the Government I again recollect what I stated on the Adjournment Debate. Workers have come to expect this type of attitude and treatment from firms in the private sector but for a Government, especially this Government who are continually preaching to the workers the desirability of good industrial relations, to turn around and without any notice whatsoever to put these workers on the dole queue is an indictment of the Government and their attitude towards public relations. One wonders how seriously the Government consider the fate and the plight of ordinary working people.
Successive Governments have never bothered to introduce legislation to allow for directors on the board of Ardmore studios. This shows their lack of commitment to the film industry. If the Minister was aware of the real situation at Ardmore, he would never have stated in his defence of the closure, that the commercial film interests were boycotting and, to use his own phrase, hostile to the enterprise. On the eve of the announced closure, a public meeting was organised by the workers concerned and various public representatives from the area attended. The commercial interests involved in the film industry here also attended and they were 100 per cent in favour of the motion proposed at that meeting which was agreed unanimously. Not alone did the commercial industries support the maintenance of Ardmore as a viable operation but they believed it was essential for the future of the industry as a whole. That is a documented statement and has been presented to the Minister. I have a copy of the letter which was signed by the various interests concerned in the commercial side of film making here. Yet the Minister can say that the commercial interests are hostile to the concept of Ardmore studios. This is rubbish and is a statement which needs to be clarified.
Another aspect which needs to be highlighted is that, as far back as June 1981, the workers concerned were conscious that something was going wrong in Ardmore studios and they made a detailed submission to the then Minister, Deputy O'Malley, pointing out areas where restructuring was concerned, where savings could be made and where the industry could be made viable. After the closure they made various attempts to meet the Minister and were fobbed off continually. One wonders how the Government can remain so blissfully ignorant of the real situation in Ardmore.
Ardmore film studios are located in a highly desirable residential area. Is it the prospect of disposing of the 33 valuable acres on which Ardmore stands which has caused this apparent blindness on the part of the Government? I hope the Government realise the sense of outrage at their peremptory and precipitate decision to close Ardmore which has been expressed not alone in the film industry and in Bray but throughout the country. Members of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have uttered pious platitudes about saving Ardmore studios. I do not believe these pious platitudes are worth a hat of crabs. We believe Ardmore studios are worth saving and that is why we have tabled this amendment and why we are going to test the sincerity of the parties involved. We want to see how sincere these parties are in their commitment towards ensuring the maintenance of a viable, ongoing and desirable national asset in the shape of Ardmore film studios in public ownership.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the amendment before the House. Previous speakers have gone through the history of the studio so there is no need for me to repeat it. When one considers the quality of the product from Ardmore studios over the years, it shows what can be achieved by skilled Irish craftsmen and artists. Every Member of this House wants to see a film studio maintained. They are necessary for film making and it is fair to say that one of the reasons why this amendment has come before the House is that further money was not available from the public purse to keep the studios going. We are all aware that there is a statutory limit of £2 million on State guarantees to companies and the studio had reached the point where it was nearing that limit. Naturally, the banks would be unwilling to increase financial facilities without receiving further guarantees which would have to be financed from public funds.
Why did the previous Government not provide money in the Estimates which would have allowed the studios to continue? The amendment before the House is signed by the previous Minister, Deputy O'Leary and also by the former Minister for Labour, Deputy Kavanagh. If both of them were concerned with the industry and about security of jobs it would have been more fitting if they had put aside money so that the studio could have been maintained. The studio is an asset and I have spoken about the quality of their products. If we could link quantity with quality we might have a viable studio.
How does one maintain a studio? The amendment tabled by The Workers' Party wants to maintain the status quo. I do not know if the previous speaker had anything in mind with regard to where the necessary finance would come from in order to do that. That point was overlooked but nevertheless I accept he is genuine and that he wants to see employment within the studio and that it be viable. Film makers in general want to have a facility available whereby they can process and continue with their craft of film making. When one considers the location of Ardmore studios, situated near the countryside and also on the doorstep of a capital city, it offers a great deal by way of external and internal location. Furthermore, a very large force of skilled workers has become available within the locality because of the proximity of the studios.
Everybody wants to see the studio viable and nobody is happy with the loss of employment. We want to see a situation where continuous work is available. Over the years I have met various interests in the film business and I am concerned with and share their interest in seeing their industry develop further. Some time ago I met workers from the studio, who were themselves justifiably concerned that there was not sufficient action within the studio, that the situation as it was could not be maintained. I know the desire of the Minister to see that film studios develop, that they prosper and that we have sustainable viable jobs within the industry. I share that view.
The studios are an asset without question. It must be very tragic that they should close and one is shocked to feel that such a facility would not be available. I am confident that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will be able to ensure that the film studios continue in the area, that employment will be available to people who excel in their skills and have proved themselves to be personnel of ability. I hope that there will not be much of a time lag until the studio is operating at Ardmore.
By agreement, I seek leave of the House to withdraw the Government amendment in favour of the motion.
We are accepting that.
I understand Deputy Kavanagh will be concluding——
Let me be guided by the Chair. We are finishing at 8.30, if not earlier, and that is before the ordinary closure time for Private Members' Business.
Deputy Kavanagh will be called on at 8.15. I had intended to give Deputy Timmins an opportunity now of making his contribution and if there is any time left we shall consider the position.
I welcome the Government move to accept the Labour Party motion but I should like to take this opportunity to put a number of things about Ardmore Studios on the records of the House. In considering whether the National Film Studios at Bray should be closed or not it is necessary to do so from national and local viewpoints. We have always been renowned for having a culture which boasts a great tradition in the art forms. Currently, we are celebrating the great literary works of the internationally famed Irish writer, James Joyce. Cinema and television and the new age of video are all parts of the art form and as such we must consider their importance as much as our established literary talents. Cinemas and films have experienced great changes in the last two decades. The international cinema industry suffered with the introduction of mass television ownership, more particularly with the advent of colour television. Gone are the days when large movie moguls would invest large sums of personal wealth in both studios and films. Gone also is the tendency for several large studios concentrated mainly in the US and Britain to dominate production of films. The film world is now more interested in reality and there is a definite move away from the large studio sets towards location work. Because of this country's unique setting of both rural and urban landscape it has become over the years the venue for many popular films which use Ardmore as a base. Its proximity to Dublin and to Wicklow, the garden of Ireland, make it an ideal centre for location work. This unique blend should not be lost either to the national or international film industry. Allied to its valuable location facilities are the undeniable local techniques and technical expertise built up over the years and which can provide the type of service that international film companies require.
We are concerned that there has been a loss of jobs for the people employed there at a time of a high level of unemployment in Bray. While recently the figures at national level have shown a slight drop, at the same time the number unemployed in the Bray area has increased. The unique skill of the technical experts cannot at this point be utilised, and what is particularly damaging is the fact that future Irish talent in the film industry cannot have the opportunity of being trained on Irish soil. At local level there is shock among Bray townspeople that such a facility should now be removed from the town. Over the years the studios have become synonymous with the town, giving it a national and international reputation. There is concern about the loss of employment and there is lack of understanding in the town as to why the studios should be closed.
A further point requires to be made regarding the feelings of the people of Bray over the closure. Because of its proximity to the capital and the fact that a good many of its inhabitants worked in the capital it was always considered as a dormitory town. By many it was regarded as a distant suburb of the capital. That has changed rapidly in recent years because Bray has built up some basic industries and there has been considerable development in Bray itself and in north Wicklow. One of the developments was that Ardmore studios became the National Film Studios when taken over by the Government. When one looks at employment facilities in Bray one has only to recall that in very recent years the location of an AnCO training centre and a regional technical college was denied to the town despite the best efforts of local bodies and public representatives. Now the Government are going to remove a national institution from the town and as a public representative from the area I am naturally concerned that the Government are not displaying the same concern in the case of Bray as in other towns throughout the country.
From a national point of view let us examine the implications of the closure. Over the years there have been many statements by the Government to the effect that there should be a national film industry. The first positive step in this direction was taken by the Coalition Government when the then Minister, Mr. Justin Keating, set up the National Film Studios. It was only a start on the road towards an indigenous national film industry which would by its dynamic efforts attract the necessary investment to have a spin-off effect in terms of the economy generally and to foster individuals who would have the expertise to produce films of international repute without relying solely on foreign film makers to use the station. The recent success of the excellent film, Excalibur, serves to highlight the fact that such an aspiration is capable of being fulfilled.
However, the follow-up of the Government since that time has been sadly lacking, thereby denying the prospect of Irish film makers showing to the world what they can achieve in this art form. The Government have not alone failed to provide for the necessary progression of the industry but they have removed the industry from the bottom rung of the ladder. The fact that such facilities and expertise are being lost will be seen in hindsight as a retrograde step. I do not think that anybody is suggesting that changes were not needed in the operation of the studios but if radical changes were necessary could they not have been discussed with the people involved? Surely the same type of situation existed in respect of difficulties that arose in many other parts of Ireland.
Governments in many countries have taken action to preserve their film industries. In his statement last night the Minister indicated that the Government are dealing with this matter on the basis purely of economics and that because the Ardmore studios were not a viable proposition, it was found necessary to close them. But if one has regard to the statements of perhaps every Minister in the Cabinet from the Taoiseach down in the past few years, one finds that on many occasions they have accused members of this party and of Labour particularly, when in Government of only being interested in balancing the books. The Government tried to give the impression that they were the party who were interested in people and in humane actions so far as this type of situation was concerned. To disprove that, we need look no further than the statement of the Minister for the Gaeltacht yesterday in the House in connection with these proposals. What the Government have done has really been a case of balancing the books without taking into account the benefits that would accrue by way of the spin-off effects of having the studios in a viable position. However, I am glad that the Government are accepting the amendment tabled by the Labour Party. I hope that the Minister will consider the various proposals that have been put to him in this House in the past two evenings and that the necessary steps will be taken to put the film industry on a proper and viable footing.
I wanted very much to speak on this motion because, as the House may recall, I spoke at length on the previous legislation as it went through the House in respect both of the National Film Studios and of the Film Board. With due respects to my Wicklow colleagues I would not wish any impression to go from this House that Ardmore is the private property of the people of Wicklow. While many Wicklow people derive a good livelihood from the studios, the product is of essential importance to the rest of the community. Looking around at the people who are elected to this Chamber, it never ceases to amaze me how anybody, particularly on the Government side, could have the nerve to say that we do not have the capacity for a national film industry. If we were to transfer this operation to Ardmore we would on occasion have the capacity to make Dallas look like a rather boring serial. In that rather jocose comment is a recognition that there has been a film industry in this country for up to 50 or 60 years. The film industry will not be given a guarantee of existence simply by retaining the physical part of the Ardmore studios. As the debate on the film board would indicate, the industry depends on a lot more. In that context I am talking about an Irish film industry with Irish performers, writers, producers and people with the skills essential to provide the back-up services required but I would make the analogy of the Ardmore studios as an essential component to the Irish film industry in the following way. The existence of a printing press in a country is no guarantee of having a literature of that country but in the absence of a printing press, in the absence of facilities to produce and distribute a country's culture, there will not be a literature at all. In the period of colonial exploitation the Irish people had exactly that experience. Unlike most other peoples in western Europe, our culture is largely a vernacular and oral culture. The building component of it, a component that is manifest in every other European country is absent in Irish terms. This is because of the colonial oppression that took place from the year 1600 onwards.
Therefore, at the outset it should be understood clearly that the Ardmore studios are an essential base on which an Irish film industry can be constructed. Without the studios there will be no Irish film industry. That must be underlined frequently because if we accept that point of view and if the commitment of the State is towards an Irish film industry, what is at issue is the question of the way in which the studios are made viable and not whether they should exist. On behalf of Labour I welcome the decision by Fianna Fáil to withdraw their amendment and to indicate their support for the Labour Party resolution. I have the confidence of calling it a resolution because I believe that is what it will become.
The motion tabled by this party reads:
That, having regard to the preservation of essential skills for servicing the film industry in Ireland, Dáil Éireann requests the Government to take whatever steps are necessary to maintain and develop the studio facilities at the National Film Studios of Ireland, Ardmore, Bray, County Wicklow.
In the phraseology, "to take whatever steps are necessary", we are signalling clearly to the Government a degree of flexibility as to how the studios can best be maintained, managed and operated. We are clearly identifying that these studios are owned by the National Film Studios of Ireland. It is because that company is a publicly owned one that I suggest to The Workers' Party that their amendment to our motion is at best superfluous, or perhaps, they did not understand the context in which it was being argued, and at worst it is a cynical piece of political opportunism. Frankly, what we saw earlier today with the extraordinary anti-semitic bias in the contribution of the speaker on behalf of The Workers' Party in the Lebanon debate, leads me to fear the worst and to suggest that it is political opportunism. How can one take into public ownership something that is already in public ownership? What kind of nonsense, ideological or otherwise, is that?
They are right to use the phrase "public ownership" in another sense because what we have seen from the Government, the establishment and journalists of the establishment press, is a concerted attack on the concept of public ownership, on the concept of the State sector and on anything which the State secto-might do which in some way might be profitable. There is the most extraordinary belief, as I expressed earlier today in regard to the Dublin Port and Docks Board and the urban area development legislation, that somehow or other public ownership is automatically inefficient, that it is congenitally linked to inefficiency, in contrast to private ownership which, by definition, is always efficient and profitable. There are 150,000 workers unemployed at present and the vast bulk of them came out of the efficient, productive private enterprise sector. As a European Socialist party's slogan states: "if you think the system is working, ask someone who is not".
The Government are now accepting the terms of our motion and we accept the bona fides of that move because they did not have to accept it and they have the voting strength to reject it. The motion means what it states. I cannot help but notice the beaming smile of the Minister for the Gaeltacht. He is a good Deputy at giving additional and extended meanings to the English language. I want to put on record what the Fianna Fáil Government are committing themselves to do. They are going to accede to a request of Dáil Éireann to take whatever steps, not some steps, are necessary to maintain and develop the studio facilities of the National Film Studios of Ireland. If the retraction on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party by Deputy Ciaran Murphy is to be accorded the dignity of the House and to be taken fully and honestly as a positive retraction — I acknowledge the nod of the Minister for the Gaeltacht——
It was a nod up and down, not sideways, and meaning "yes".
It was a definite "yes". The first thing that should be done is for the Government to give new instructions to the liquidator whom they placed in on top of a publicly owned company to cease, with the explicit instructions which are effectively to liquidate the facility. The Labour Party, and the House, should be happy that tonight Parliament will decide to make a formal commitment towards Ardmore Studios and to the Irish film industry, by extension. In saying that we can only condemn the way in which the Government moved to undermine this industry and the manner in which the notice for receivership and the decision to close the film studios was taken in the first place. It was quite an outrageous piece of Galtierism and is something we should not see ever again in the way any Government operate. If a company in the private sector operated in anything like the same way Fianna Fáil would be the first to shout abuse about it. We do not see any distinction in terms of worker participation, industrial democracy or the rights of workers whether they are with a public or a private company. In this instance from the chief executive down to the person in receipt of the lowest pay or the most casual worker in Ardmore Studios they were all treated with utter contempt. On behalf of the workers I reject that method and say to Fianna Fáil, this is not the way to go about attacking the public sector or the sector over which they have control.
The decision of the Government to take "whatever necessary steps" indicates that some kind of finance will be required. Everybody concedes that there are major financial problems attached to the studio. If one analyses the accounts one will see that the problems do not relate to the operating costs in the main; they do not relate to the capital development programme because the assets, the facilities, are there; and they do not relate to the revenue accounts. There is the demand from the commercial sector of the industry, the TV commercials and so on, because 50 per cent of the production of Irish TV commercials is done either there or on location. Even allowing for the technological improvement in much of the camera equipment a lot of commercials by definition, because of the way they are designed, need to be prepared in the studio.
In those three areas of economic activity the studios can maintain a viable performance. Indeed, when they were under the caretaker control of RTE they did that. The problem relates to the way in which their capital equity structure is established and to the usurious rates of interest the banks are extracting from the public sector. It is part of the hypocrisy of the financial institutions and establishment here that on the one hand the kind of rapacious usurious activities of the banks can put at risk — indeed, they very nearly did so because they pointed the finger at the Minister for Energy and effectively forced him to close that industry with all the implications for the future of that industry and job security — the future of an industry because it was considered to be no longer viable. Yet, the same banking institutions can lend millions of pounds for property speculation on sites that have collapsed around their ears at St. Stephen's Green and elsewhere.
Bankers, at their annual dinners, talk about fiscal responsibility. The Central Bank has the nerve to lecture us, the politicians, about the careful management of State resources. As far as I know, the banks use the money of ordinary depositors. On the one hand, they can be outrageously cavalier in the manner in which they lend money for property speculation — there is now clear documented evidence of that — and on the other hand they put the boot in through the necessary channels and bring down a viable industry in every respect bar the usurious rates of interest and the way in which it was under-financed by previous Governments. They brought down not just a particular plant or studio but the foundations of a national film industry.
Who became the agents of the banks? The Fianna Fáil Party, a party who attempt to lay more claim to a commitment to the development of an Irish national culture as an integral part of national independence, as an essential part of the decolonisation process which cannot only be confined to economic liberation but also to cultural and spiritual liberation. That was the common bond among many people who supported the Fianna Fáil Party and their apparent support for the language. Yet, in one area going into the 21st century, the most vibrant area for cultural transmission, the audio-visual medium, they were prepared to destroy at base the potential for the dissemination and development of that national culture.
I would like to think, on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party and the people who support them, that that was an act of stupidity rather than malice, but the consequences if it had been allowed to go through would have been enormous. What Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis would support a resolution saying that we, the members of Fianna Fáil, undertake to dismantle the Irish film industry and its potential for the cultural development of the Irish people? Yet that was precisely what that Saturday morning raid on the Ardmore studios constituted. I am glad that the Fianna Fáil Party and Government have been obliged by the process of this House, by the debate within this House and by the representations of the trade unions, the film industry representatives and the people of Wicklow to think again in relation to the future of the studios. This is a good day for democracy here. I would like to think that it is the beginning of a good day too for the economic control of the assets of this country and a warning shot across the bows of bankers who apply totally different sets of criteria to different economic ventures.
In trying to point out to the Government the manner in which they might take whatever steps are necessary to maintain and develop the studios, I would say that the first essential step must be to reform radically the capital structure of the company and to eliminate the treadmill of interest charges which are accumulating and which if not dealt with will bury the company yet again in the same way as happened before. We and, no doubt, the workers of the company will expect that, whatever productivity arrangements are made, the Government will respond in return by providing adequate levels of equity capital for a vibrant, productive, wealth-producing sector of the public economy which has a capacity to extend beyond our wildest dreams, certainly beyond the dreams of our parents and previous generations, the dimensions and capabilities of an Irish culture and provide it in such a way that we can have a worldwide audience for it. That is not a grandiose claim for the potential of the Ardmore studios. The technology of satellites, video and the microchip in general will be in the 21st century what the paperback novel was in the post-war era. The quantum in terms of time will sandwich that to such an extent that the distance between now and the Gutenberg printing press will be equivalent to the next 20 to 30 years in terms of micro-electronic technology and the audio-visual industry. At the base of that are the Ardmore studios with their capacity and existing skills, and we were on the verge of killing all that here. On whose behalf? That of the anonymous directors of the AIB, the Northern Bank, the Bank of Ireland and those other responsible gentlemen who have financed dereliction and vandalism in the city of Dublin. What kind of nonsense rules this country? Let us hope that today has seen a bit of sense and sanity. On behalf of the Labour Party let me thank the Government for their decision to accept the wisdom of our motion.
My colleague. Deputy Quinn, has really concluded for me in his remarks but since I introduced the motion to the House I want to speak a few concluding words on it.
I was a member of a Government for eight months along with my colleague, Deputy O'Leary and we are two signatories to the notice of motion. We were accused by both the Minister and Deputy Murphy of signing a motion knowing that when we were in office we had not put money away in order to maintain the studios at Ardmore. The Minister must know and must have been told by the colleague whose place he is taking here tonight, the Minister for Industry and Energy, that in that Department arrangements were being made in the week the Government fell to set up a new board to run the Ardmore studios. There would be little point in setting up a new board to run the studios if the financial arrangements were not considered also at the same time. Time did not allow us to put that operation together. There was a change of government by the narrowest of margins, but let me say that during my time in office I attended 97 Cabinet meetings. I did not sit around then not taking decisions. We took decisions because we had to take them in view of the huge mess that we inherited and had to try to sort out in a very short time. To come here and suggest that every decision that had been neglected for the previous four years by the administration we replaced could be made by us in seven or eight months is a great compliment to the individuals who formed that Cabinet and endeavoured to do what we did in our very short time in office.
Certainly this is one area which for my part I would like to have seen concluded. Tonight I am glad to say that in the space of 24 hours the Minister has seen and accepted the wisdom of the motion and is now accepting that what we are saying to him is an argument. Perhaps I was harsh last night when I suggested to him that the Fianna Fáil Government over various periods in office had dealt my constituency many difficult and almost deadly blows, but that constituency had come back and indicated to Fianna Fáil time and again that they had better mend their ways in their approach to industry and employment in that constituency. When Fianna Fáil came into power their first act again was to close yet another industry in my constituency. They went beyond all one could take. I wanted to voice that feeling of great indignation on behalf of the people of Wicklow. The only thing that could be offered to the employment situation in Wicklow was yet another closure under Fianna Fáil. Something had to be done quickly.
I hope that in accepting this motion tonight Fianna Fáil have called a halt to their destruction of the industrial base of my constituency. I hope they are now turning back the clock to the period when the then Deputy Justin Keating brought in industries such as Noritake to Wicklow and expanded the industrial base. I hope we will see industries such as the film industry built on and expanded and that the wisdom of what we have done here in putting down that motion will be apparent. We will see, as I suggested to the Minister last night, that there is a base for a film industry under Irish control, in public ownership, run, as I suggested, by the Irish Film Board with RTE or with the IDA. There is no use in my repeating those suggestions. The object of this motion is not just to retain 50 people in employment at the ridiculous figure put forward by the Minister of £40,000 per job. I listened to the Dáil report on the radio this morning and it seemed that all that was said in this debate was that the Ardmore film studios would cost the taxpayer £40,000 per job. I thought I had explained at quite some length that in the making of a film anything up to 300 people could be employed and a great deal of spin-off employment is given to the hotel and catering industry and also to the tourist and transport industries. All this money was brought into this country and it was not simply 50 permanent jobs we were talking about in Ardmore but a great many more besides and not merely in Wicklow. The Minister himself suggested that they make films even in Mayo.
And very good ones on occasion.
And very good ones on occasion.
There is no shortage of actors there if the Minister's capabilities are to be taken into consideration.
I have performed with excellence on occasions. I accept the Deputy's gracious compliment.
I am glad that employment was given in Mayo and in Galway also.
We must return to Ardmore.
Deputies are welcome to come to see the splendours of the west at any time.
By flying into Knock airport.
I am sure the Chair will not permit us to discuss our holiday plans but I have been on holidays in Mayo several times.
The Chair would prefer if Deputy Kavanagh stayed around his own constituency at Ardmore.
I would prefer Ardmore and the people who work there to stay in my constituency. My colleague has dealt with the amendment tabled by The Workers' Party. We have already suggested the method by which the film industry could best be expanded. Obviously that is through public ownership. Purposely our motion was as wide as possible so that the Minister could accept it and deal with it through whatever form of public ownership he considered most appropriate. If he thinks that by accepting the Labour Party motion he can somehow slide out of his responsibilities towards the workers at Ardmore and tell the liquidator to break up the industry and sell off the property and the land, he will not succeed. We will be watching closely what happens and we will know what the Minister is up to if we see newspaper advertisements offering the land to speculators and planning applications being made for housing in the Bray area. We will be aware of what the Minister is up to and there are other levels of democracy at which people can operate.
The Deputy is at it again about what the Minister might be up to. I do not understand the significance of those remarks and the absent Minister will take great exception to them.
We want to see this motion speedily put into effect. The people who worked at Ardmore must be re-employed and the premises must be used as film studios. They can be used for the making of films, TV commercials and video films. They should not be used simply for the packing and despatch of video tapes. We want to see the studios developed on the basis for which they were created and used by the National Film Board. It is suggested that they should make four films a year. There is very little use in having aircraft if you have not an airport; there is very little use in having a film industry if you have not a film studio. We need studios in order to make Irish films. The Minister is very keen on airports and——
I have always been. I believe there is a fundamental need for the infrastructural development of this country.
So do I, and we do not wish to see the break-up of the infrastructure which already exists. What we have we hold.
I have already said how pleased I am that the Deputy supports the project to which he keeps referring.
At the outset of my speech last night I gave the Minister the opportunity to accept this motion and said that if he did so I would sit down and we would not waste the time of the House. The Minister did not take the opportunity then but I am glad he has now done so, 24 hours later.
It was not quite like that.
I welcome it now, belated as it is. I accept what the Minister has done.
It was an offer with conditions, but we will let the record show that.
I asked the Minister to accept the motion in the name of the Labour Party. Is that not correct?
We have withdrawn our amendment in favour of the motion.
That is what I asked the Minister to do last night.
I would ask Deputy Kavanagh not to invite questions from the other side of the House.
I seem to get them without inviting them. I accept what the Minister has done by his change of heart since last night. We will now be watching the developments at Ardmore.
I am glad to see that people from Ardmore studios are here listening to what the Minister has to say. He has accepted the Labour Party motion which was thoroughly explained by Deputy Quinn. This motion now becomes a resolution of the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
(Waterford): I move amendment No. 2:
To delete all words after "Government" and substitute the following:
"to maintain and develop the studio facilities at the National Film Studios of Ireland, Ardmore, Bray, County Wicklow, under public ownership."
Question put.
A division has been challenged on an amendment made by The Workers' Party. Will those supporting the amendment please rise?
Deputies Sherlock, De Rossa, Gallagher (Waterford), Gregory and Kemmy rose.
As there are fewer than ten members I declare the amendment lost and the names of the Members rising shall be recorded in the Journal of the proceedings of the Dáil.
Amendment declared lost.
Motion agreed to.