Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Dec 1993

Vol. 138 No. 15

Irish Film Board (Amendment) Bill, 1993: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

A Chathaoirligh, is mór agam an deis seo a fháil chun an díospóireacht ar an mBille um Bord Scannán na hÉireann (Leasú), 1993, a oscailt go hoifigiúil anseo i Seanad Éireann agus tá mé ag súil anois le túairimí Sheanadóirí a fháil ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo.

Níl ach aidhm amháin ag an mBille seo atá ós comhair an tSeanaid inniu. Is í an aidhm sin ná méadú a dhéanamh ar an méid airgid — idir infheistíochtaí, iasachtaí, deontais, nó aon freagrachtaí eile — gur féidir le Bord Scannán na hÉireann a chaitheamh sna blianta atá romhainn. Is é an t-uasmhéid gur féidir leis an mBord a chaitheamh sa tslí seo faoi Alt 10 den Act um Bord Scannán na hÉireann, 1980, ná £4,100,000. Tá an t-uasmhéid sin bainte amach anois i mbliana, agus tá mé ag moladh don Oireachtas sa Bhille seo go n-árdofaí an t-uasmhéid seo go dtí £15,000,000. Má ghlacann an Seanad leis an mBille seo, leanfar leis an gcóras faoina gcuirfear an ciste airgeadais do Bhord Scannan na hÉireann os comhair na Dála gach bliain faoi Vóta 42 de na Meastacháin don Roinn Ealaíon, Cultúir agus Gaeltachta.

I am pleased to open this debate on Second Stage of the Irish Film Board (Amendment) Bill, 1993, and I look forward to hearing the views of this House on the future priorities and needs of the industry.

The purpose of the Irish Film Board (Amendment) Bill, 1993, is to increase the limit of the total amount of funds which can be expended by way of investments, loans grants or other liabilities, by Bord Scannán na hÉireann — the Irish Film Board — under section 10 of the Irish Film Board Act, 1980, from the present limit of £4.1 million to £15 million. I must emphasise to Senators in this context that the Bill before the House is enabling legislation which does not automatically give rise to Exchequer costs. However, in raising this limit on the amount of funds which the board can spend, the provisions of section 5 of the 1980 Act remain in force. Section 5 provides that "the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may from time to time make out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, grants to the board to enable it to perform its functions and to meet its administrative and general expenses". If Oireachtas approval is given to the Bill now before the Seanad, the effect of raising the limit of the amount to be spent by the board to £15 will be that, through the annual Estimates process, Dáil Éireann can vote moneys to the board annually — through the Vote for An Roinn Ealaíon, Cultúir agus Gaeltachta — up to this new limit. However, since the £4.1 million limit under section 10 of the 1980 Act has now been exhausted, it will not be possible to provide funds for the Irish Film Board in 1994 or subsequent years unless this limit is increased, as envisaged in the Bill before the House.

The House will be aware that I have only recently had the opportunity to come before this House — on 24 November to be precise — to discuss a motion on film and broadcasting in Ireland. I availed of that opportunity to place on the record of the House a detailed account of the range of measures which I had already taken to promote the Irish film and audio-visual industry which involved the re-establishment of the Irish Film Board, the enactment of new broadcasting legislation and significant tax concessions in the 1993 Finance Act last June. In the meantime, the Government has approved my proposals for the new Teilefís na Gaeilge service. Senators will be pleased to learn that I do not propose to take up their valuable time today in repeating my earlier contribution. Suffice it to say that the Bill before the House is a key element——

Wait for it, Senator Ross.

——of the integrated package of policy initiatives which I believe are necessary to place the industry on a sound footing, commercially and artistically. I can, therefore, confidently recommend the Bill to the House and stress the urgent need for its enactment.

It is no exaggeration to say that the Irish film and audio-visual industry has had a chequered history in terms of the policies which successive Governments have pursued to develop it. This history, frankly, has led to many disappointments and even failures, but remarkably, it has also left our country with the basic infrastructure for an industry still intact, in terms of management and financial expertise; experience with the complex regime of co-productions and the requirements of the European market in particular; a continuing wealth of creative and artistic talent in the preproduction, production and post-production processes of individual projects; an important film studio facility which exists at Ardmore, County Wicklow and a strengthening relationship between our national broadcasting organisation, Radio Telefís Éireann, and the independent television production sector.

The history of the creation of an Irish film industry perhaps began with the making of the first indigenous films by Denis Johnston and Tom Cooper in 1935, followed by a series of unco-ordinated developments. These included interventions by American film companies making films on Irish subjects; efforts at home to establish cinema newsreels, support documentaries and Irish language initiatives, most notably by Gael Linn, who deserve our gratitude for their marvellously evocative films such as Mise Éire and Saoirse; several efforts were made to place Ardmore on a sound commercial footing, involving State intervention in some instances; the establishment of Telefís Éireann in 1961; the Huston report on the film industry in 1968; the inclusion of film in the Arts Act of 1972, enabling An Chomhairle Ealaíon to promote low budget films since then; the establishment of Bord Scannán na hÉireann — the Irish Film Board — in 1980; its replacement in 1987 by a tax-based incentive for corporate investment in Irish film projects; leading us to the obstacles to the industry's commercial and artistic development which I, as Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, have identified and the measures which I have promptly put in place to address these obstacles. I intend to continue at the same pace. I will be delighted to tell the House later that a number of further initiatives may be taken in the course of the next couple of years.

The report of the special working group on the film production industry, which was submitted to the Taoiseach last Christmas Eve, played a pivotal role in highlighting the obstacles to the industry's development and, notably, in recommending the establishment of a dedicated film fund which would, in turn, be administered by a dedicated State agency. Since the 1980 legislation dealing with the Irish Film Board was still on the Statute Book, I decided immediately to reactivate the board and, with the broadcasting and tax measures, create a strong momentum which I am confident will serve at last to place this industry on a process of sustained development.

I had no hesitation in taking this course of action, instead of, perhaps, enacting legislation to establish a new dedicated State agency, because I have always felt that the first Irish Film Board was not treated fairly. I had a high regard for its performance and I believe that, in retrospect, the expectations for the first film board were probably unrealistic. It is now demonstrably clear that there was an over emphasis on the direct commercial aspects of the film industry, without having due regard to the significant spin-off advantages which it can bring to our economy in terms of employment creation and value added, not to mention the unquantifiable but equally important contribution which investment in Irish films can make to the flourishing of our culture and the telling of our story to a contemporary audience. Cultural rights have at their root recognition of the right to tell one's own story.

Senators should also be aware that, apart from supporting screen plays and film and television projects, the board also ran notable training courses, especially for producers, many of whom were later to achieve international acclaim. It helped in the establishment of a national film archive; provided a presence for Ireland at markets and festivals abroad; assisted Irish film festivals and events; and formed co-production partnerships and contacts with the international film sector.

In the course of its life, the first board supported over 25 shorts and documentaries and enabled more than 12 feature length films to reach cinema and television screens at home and around the world. It achieved an approximate 10 per cent return on its investment, raised the level of skills and employment, enabled new facility houses to contribute to the economy and gave a start to many careers as well as encouraging talent which is, happily, still with us.

The board was also involved in the early negotiations for Ireland's participation in the very successful MEDIA programme of the European Union. The significance of this was that, in what I might describe as the lean years for the Irish film and audio-visual industry from 1987 onwards, the MEDIA programme was, apart from grants from An Chomhairle Ealaíon and the Arts Council for low budget films over those years, the only source of direct funding to our Irish industry practitioners. Indeed, such was the dearth of funding for our practitioners at that time, they wholeheartedly became involved in the MEDIA programme, As a result, it is estimated that Irish projects and audio-visual professionals in this country received some £1.8 million in the form of loans and repayable grants from the programme in 1991 and 1992. At a time when none of the measures which I promoted was in place, Senators will appreciate this was a significant source of funding for our industry. Moreover, the success of this first major encounter with the European audio-visual industry prompted the Government to join EURIMAGES, the Council of Europe's co-production fund for cinematographic co-productions. EURIMAGES will have a budget of over £15 million next year and I am pleased to inform Senators that, since joining the fund in September 1992, three of the four Irish films which submitted applications for assistance have been successful.

As a follow up to the re-establishment of the Irish Film Board, I have taken steps to ensure that the considerable investment which the State is now putting into the Irish film and audio-visual industry — directly by way of seed funding and indirectly by way of tax concessions and programme commissioning by RTE and the new Teilifís na Gaeilge service — will be complemented by the activities of other relevant agencies in the semi-State sector. It is enormously important that all remaining obstacles to the full development of the industry be tackled over time. Among these remaining obstacles, I cite the absence of a film commission in the semi-State sector which would facilitate offshore and indigenous production companies; the need for new training strategies for the industry; the whole question of distribution of Irish films for Irish audiences, including metropolitan-regional imbalances; the promotion of Irish films abroad; and the question of the Irish language and film.

I am pleased to inform the House that I have secured nominations from the relevant Ministers and senior officials of the semi-State sector who will participate in a new committee established by the Irish Film Board under section 16 of the Irish Film Board Act, 1980. This committee will address the issues I have just listed, as well as other issues, over time. The committee is chaired by the Irish Film Board and comprises senior representatives of Radio Telefís Éireann, Údarás na Gaeltachta, An Chomhairle Ealaíon, the Industrial Development Authority, FÁS, An Bord Tráchtála and Bord Fáilte. My Department is also represented on the committee. It will serve to complement my own policy initiatives by monitoring the industry's progress and responding to its requirements over time. Most importantly, it will send out a strong message that this Government is in earnest about the future development of the film and audio-visual sector and that, for the first time in the history of this State, we are treating the sector for what it is — an industry in its own right which has now attracted an integrated package of incentives to ensure that it makes a significant contribution to the economic and social progress of the State. This committee, therefore, will act as an important proactive mechanism for the industry.

One of the more important subjects I expect this committee to address in the short term is the whole question of the training needs of the industry. I am setting out to achieve the creation of a new generation of Irish film practitioners who will work side by side with established practitioners and, I hope, secure a self-sustaining high level of activity in the industry for the future. It follows that we must now examine whether the existing training components of the industry — which are currently either industry led or involve educational courses in some of our third level colleges, with almost no direct involvement by FÁS — are sufficient to match the expected uptake in demand for skilled practitioners. I expect this new committee, which includes a representative from FÁS, to address this issue as a matter of urgency. Given FÁS's overall remit to assist in meeting the training needs of industry in general, I am hopeful they will be in a position to respond to this crucial aspect of the industry's future development over time.

Another important link in the chain of promoting the industry and monitoring its progress is now being put in place. The Audio-visual Production Federation of IBEC, in full consultation with my Department and the Irish Film Board, has devised an economic database. Information to be supplied by all practitioners in receipt of State support for their projects — whether in the form of direct film board assistance, section 35 finance or programme commissioning from either RTE or Teilifís na Gaeilge — will form part of the database. I warmly welcome this initiative and I believe it will represent an important instrument to illustrate to the taxpayer the return, in terms of employment creation and value added to the economy, which their considerable investment in the industry is making. Indeed, the economic data which this database will provide will be crucial for me in my ongoing discussions with my ministerial colleagues as the direct and indirect needs of the industry from year to year arise. I am preparing submissions.

I have concentrated my remarks so far largely on the recognition which this Government has placed on the potential for growth and employment which the art form of film now holds. However, Senators will be pleased to learn that I am not overlooking the fact that film is an important art form in its own right. Indeed, the centenary of the cinema will be celebrated throughout Europe during 1995 and 1996 in recognition of its past glories and achievements. Ireland will take part in these celebrations. The measure before the House in no way diminishes the responsibility of the Irish Film Board, under section 4(2) of the 1980 Act, to have regard to the need for the expression of national culture through the medium of film making, in so far as it considers it appropriate. In this context, I look to the board in its future activities to strike a balance between cultural and commercial aspects of film making and so create a fresh and vibrant synthesis in this long standing discourse. I should add that the special working group on the film production industry also identified the creation of such a synthesis as a key element of the new funding structures which they recommended in their report.

I believe it is also important to clarify for Senators what role An Chomhairle Ealaíon, the Arts Council, will have now that the Irish Film Board has been reestablished. Since the Arts Act, 1972, film had been included among the arts disciplines which An Chomhairle can address. Since then, An Chomhairle has played an important role in funding film related organisations in an effort to create a coherent infrastructure in the areas of exhibition, preservation, training, education, information and support for film-making of artistic value. This involved some £100,000 per annum to film makers on a non-repayable grant basis and approximately 12 awards were given each year.

I am pleased to inform Senators that I foresee no change whatsoever in the role of A Chomhairle Ealaíon in relation to film and film-making, notwithstanding the re-establishment of the Irish Film Board. An Chomhairle can be proud of the role it has played in such projects as the magnificent Irish Film Centre in Dublin and in providing funding for new Irish film makers for many years. It is crucially important, both from a cultural and an educational and training perspective, that the production of shorts and low budget indigenous films is supported and I foresee An Chomhairle Ealaíon continuing to play an important role in this area. The House can be assured, therefore, that the emphasis on the cultural significance of film making both under the Arts Act, 1972, and the Irish Film Board Act, 1980, will facilitate the achievement of an adequate balance between the cultural as well as the commercial aspects of the film making.

Before concluding I would like to refer to the GATT negotiations which were concluded last night. I have been amused by the fact that it is only in the past week or so that the media here have become aware of the critical issues at stake for the European audio-visual industry in these negotiations. I, on the other hand, have been articulating and developing my views on this matter since I took office both during the Danish Presidency and especially during the Belgian Presidency of the European Union when issues involved began to move to centre stage in the negotiations. That involved a combination of two fundamental issues.

The issue of culture, the right to make images and the right to have a plurality of image making, can be made concrete by the fact that 81.06 per cent of all images seen in Europe are sourced in North America. Some 91 per cent of films seen in Ireland and 93 per cent in Britain are sourced there. There is a domination in relation to the images available. The commercial argument concerns jobs in the audio-visual industry in Europe. Will these jobs be in Europe or in North America? People will know from newspaper reports the size of the balance; £3.66 billion comes from the US to Europe, while £288 million leaves Europe for the US. Senators will be familiar with arguments made in this regard.

I addressed these issues from a cultural and economic perspective during the Danish Presidency. We are indebted to a special seminar held during the Belgian Presidency at Mons. The position was concentrated and various countries took different positions, for example, the French position was strengthened. Ireland had already adopted a position in relation to State aid, plurality, dubbing European films in Europe rather than the US and the purchase of film rights both in terms of its cultural and employment aspects. It is an interesting concentration of European thinking.

Something which concentrated many of minds during the Danish Presidency was the fact that 72 per cent of images seen in Europe were sourced in North America and watched on machines which were 84 per cent sourced in Japan. European cultural space is in between. There is a strong cultural argument and an immense commercial argument because hundreds and thousands of jobs are at stake. This concerns not only cultural rights, but it also has an economic dimension.

Since taking office I advocated and supported in all relevant fora that European producers of audio-visual material should have adequate space for European programming on our television screens. One of the reasons for this was that our position was ahead of and, in some respects, different from the French position. The French position was based on an anxiety to preserve what is one of the surviving pillars of the European film industry.

We must maintain existing programmes, both European and national. We must support and develop the industry and allow flexibility so we can vary and develop these programmes as appropriate in the future. As Senators will know, there were three positions: exclusion, exemption and specificity. While it will be necessary to study the fine print of the agreement just concluded, I am satisfied on the basis of assurances given by the Commission to the Presidency of the European Union yesterday that, in the audio-visual sector, the agreement gives us complete freedom to pursue current and future policies in all areas of relevance to the industry and represents a satisfactory outcome to the negotiations for the industry.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that I have obtained Government approval to prepare and publish a Green Paper on future broadcasting structures and policy. Senators will be aware that. for some time, I have been undertaking a review of this policy. In view of its complex nature and the enormous technological advances which have visited broadcasting in recent years and can be expected in the future, I believe that the consultative process which is implicit in the publication of a Green Paper will enable me to arrive at the best conclusions for the future policy orientations of this important sector. This initiative is yet one more example of my resolve to address the needs of the film and audio-visual industry, as well as broadcasting policy in its own right, in a comprehensive fashion over time. Work on the preparation of a Green Paper will proceed in the months to come.

A Chathaoirligh, tá súil agam go nglacfaidh an Seanad leis an mBhille seo inniú. Tá mé sásta go gcabhróidh sé go mór leis an bhfeachtas atá fé bhun agam faoi láthair chun an tionscal seo a neartú agus gnéithe d'ár gcultúir a shlánú agus a thaispeáint do gach áird den domhain tríd an mheán cumarsáide tábhachtach seo. Dá bhrí sin, molaim an Bille seo go tréan don Seanad.

There is nobody in this House or in the country who does not wish the Minister well in his endeavours to develop a strong film industry. Indeed, we all appreciate the sincerity with which he approaches this problem. His Second Stage speech has shown energy and imagination in regard to where he wants to see the film industry in the future. However, he did not offer any specific or practical projections in relation to prospects for the film industry.

There is an acceptance among all parties that it would be healthy to encourage development of this industry if it provides employment and, what the Minister called, spin-off effects. While it is a "good thing" that its future is in doubt, we should not take it for granted that the film industry and the Irish Film Board which the Minister has re-established will be successful.

I would like to see specific projections for the future of this industry. As Members of the Oireachtas, we are entitled to those projections. We are being asked to extend the expenditure potential of the Irish Film Board by a massive amount. The Minister said — and this is cause for alarm — that the £4.1 million which the board was entitled to spend has been spent and he is asking us to authorise another £11 million while saying the Bill may not necessarily cost the Exchequer money and it will not until the Exchequer calls it in. We are entitled to know about what the Minister called an over-emphasis on commercial aspects. I think we are entitled to be told exactly what the commercial implications of this Bill are.

I would be delighted to give it in my reply.

Thank you, because it certainly was not in the Minister's speech.

I gave it in the Dáil yesterday.

Thank you, Minister, I look forward to your reply. I think we are also entitled to know what the Irish Film Board committee, which the Minister is setting up, is going to do. The Minister described it in rather vague terms when he said he was pleased to have secured nominations from various Departments to the committee. He went on to state that: "the committee is being chaired by the Irish Film Board and comprises senior representatives of Radio Telefís Éireann, Údarás na Gaeltachta....", and he went on to mention various other semi-State bodies. That sounds like a nightmare to me but probably sounds like paradise to the Minister.

The old disease is catching you.

The disease has caught me badly. While I accept the Minister and I would disagree on the great benefits of a super quango of extraordinarily able people from these nightmare-type bodies, I would like to know exactly what it is going to do. Its terms of reference are very vague. The Minister also said: "It will serve to complement my own policy initiatives by monitoring the industry's progress and responding to its requirements over time." He went on to say that the Film Board will send out a message that the Government is committed to the film industry. We know that, we do not doubt the commitment of the Minister and the Government to the film industry, that is why we are here today, but I cannot understand what this committee is going to do, apart from giving the impression of activity which is a permanent and disastrous feature of semi-State bodies.

The Minister might have been better off calling on the private sector to give advice and insist that commercial criteria are paramount. There is an enormous danger that the money we are talking about will be used for extremely patriotic and worthy objectives but will not do anything except create an artificial film industry. The Minister was loud in his praise of the last Film Board which was a failure. The last Film Board was set up, I think — and the Minister will correct. me — in 1982 and lasted five years until 1987.

1980 to 1987, and it produced Neil Jordan.

Unfortunately, the last Film Board was closed down in 1987 because it was judged by the Government of the day not to have given a return on the State's investment at the time. It should be pointed out that the great successes of the Irish film industry have occurred outside the period of the Film Board. Films like My Left Foot, The Field, and Hear My Song were produced without subsidy or advice from the Film Board, and these are Oscar-winning Irish films which have received international acclaim.

They were trained by the Film Board that you condemn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Ross without interruption, please.

Those films received international acclaim without direct Government subsidy or support. I am worried about the Minister's dislike of private tax incentives and his reliance on grants and loans.

It is the counterbalance the Senator is in love with.

He has to struggle to be consistent.

Section 35 was expanded in the last Finance Act so that the risk of the company could also be taken on by the risk of the individual, as the Minister is aware. I do not understand why, if he makes that commitment, he cannot give a greater commitment to tax incentives. Eat The Peach was funded under the BES as the Minister knows. Section 35 of the Finance Act has been used by companies in the past but the dangers of going two ways are that film makers will rely too much on grants, loans and the Film Board and too little on their own initiative. State support of this sort is very dangerous.

The Minister has already promised that a great deal of RTE's profits will go to the independent film producers. We are in danger of creating an artificial film industry which is not subject to serious commercial criteria but instead is directed by the Minister's enormous energy, enthusiasm and political views to which he has every right but with which I would disagree. In the end it will collapse under the same weight of semi-State inefficiency as the last board. That is the danger the Minister will have to accept. It will not be all plain sailing for the Irish film industry from now on.

The Senator is a Cassandra.

You cannot run an industry on socialist vision, unfortunately. It is a wonderful idea but it cannot be done.

Or run it on totally negative thoughts. Offer something for heaven's sake.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Ross without interruption.

Thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, I do not know how often you are going to have to say that.

As often as the Senator keeps saying silly things.

Let me say, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, I do not need your protection any longer. I will rely on Senator Magner's glass.

The Senator would make a great actor but he has the wrong script this time.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Ross on the Bill.

The Minister should recognise that other sources of funding are seeking homes for venture capital of this sort. There are banks with money to lend, and all sorts of organisations with hundreds of millions of pounds in venture capital funds, not only in Ireland but internationally. For some reason, however, they do not consider it worthwhile to invest in the Irish film industry and the reason is very simple: they do not think they will get a return on their money. This Bill, which increases the amount of money that can be spent by the Film Board, is the last resort of the Minister because nobody else will produce money for the Film Board. That is a caveat the Minister must recognise.

It is over-subscribed at the moment.

It may be over-subscribed but it is a caveat which must be recognised because the Irish film industry has not been able to attract capital in the past which the Minister's feels it has merited. That is the reality. We can have all the vision and ideas in the world to attract a certain amount of capital but we must demand a commercial return if the Minister is to get a successful Film Board. Its beginnings must be modest because the Irish Film Board has failed in the past. In future it must be subject to far greater and more stringent monitoring than in I the first five years.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire agus guím comhghairdeas leis i dtaobh an Bhille seo. Since I came into the Seanad I have never heard such negative thinking as the last contribution.

The Senator has not been here very long.

He has always been negative.

I have been negative for 12 years.

I am all for positive thinking and here is a golden opportunity. This Bill is to put the industry on a sound footing. It is an integrated package of policy initiatives that I welcome. The Minister spoke of the fragmented efforts and long history of events through which our film industry has gone. We have interjections here and there from American film companies and Gael Linn has also played its part in films like Mise Eire and Saoirse. These were very good films which attracted international attention.

Ardmore Studios opened in 1958 and Telefís Éireann came into being in 1961. This was at the start of the decline of the cinema. Nothing much happened in the industry between 1960 and the establishment of the Irish Film Board in the 1980s. The board did a great deal of work in that five years. It undertook a range of work and organised training courses. It enhanced our image abroad and was involved in partnerships with the international film world. It did a great deal of work in short films and documentaries and enabled feature films to reach cinema and television screens at home and abroad. I welcome the Irish Film Board being put on a sound footing. We must receive a return on our investment, raise the levels of skills, generate jobs in a variety of disciplines and enhance the image of Ireland at home and abroad.

The success of the Irish Film Board will be measured by increased employment and value added to the Irish economy. There is good economic justification for State involvement. We see this in the Cooper and Lybrand report referred to in detail by the Minister which says that for every £1 million spent on feature films and television programmes, 48 to 50 full-time jobs will be created in any given year. This is to be commended. We are doing research and our new approach to the industry is a step forward. The industry has earned a fine reputation abroad.

The Minister introduced measures in three key areas. He spoke about raising the limit of the amount which can be spent by the board and extending section 35 to individuals who will be able to spend up to £25,000 in film investment each year. He also talked about Teilefís na Gaeilge, which is a great step forward for our national language. These measures will tap the great reservoir of talent in the independent production sector. Through a series of Irish films which it made, this sector has received wide acclaim in Ireland.

The board should concern itself with making good films but we must also be concerned about marketing those films at home and abroad. The Minister may not have referred to this. We must make sure our talent is marketed abroad but there is nothing in the Bill about such marketing. We should look again at this area.

Access to international films in Ireland is very poor. We must get away from the mass culture of American films. The Irish Film Centre in Dublin provides an excellent service. However, it is almost impossible for audiences outside Dublin to have access to a wide range of world films. Those shown by the Irish Film Centre are accessible to film goers in Dublin and the Irish Film Board should ensure that people in country towns and villages can also see international films.

The board should concern itself with short films such as fiction and documentaries. This is the cradle of the industry where young people with talent can learn their craft with Irish short story writers such as O'Faoláin and O'Connor. RTE and the board should work together to encourage the making and marketing of short films and documentaries. This should be a key area for the board. There is great potential for co-productions between RTE and, perhaps, BBC Northern Ireland. The Minister should explore this possibility as part of the board's terms of reference. There is great potential and young talent in the country. Jobs can be created in the arts, the media, entertainment and broadcasting. This industry has the capacity for job creation in a great variety of disciplines. We have made a start with this Bill. The film industry has a great future and I commend the Minister for reconstituting the Irish Film Board under the chairmanship of Lelia Doolan.

Irish films such as The Crying Game and My Left Foot have gained a huge reputation on the world stage. Films like Into the West and Pat Murphy's Anne Devlin are of the highest quality. We must get our marketing skills right. We have the talent and the industry is well positioned to expand. Film making has enormous potential. However, our script writers and producers are, by nature, undisciplined people. I was not sure what the Minister meant when he referred to a database. Is this designed to monitor the talent available? The Irish Film Board, in conjunction with RTE, should maintain a tight structure because of the reservoir of talent which exists, otherwise it will not be tapped.

There are-signs that those engaged in film making are ready to meet the challenge provided by the board. I look forward to the industry's future development. In a few years it will be necessary to review the industry and the Minister says he intends to do so. It is a huge industry and will enhance Ireland's image at home and abroad and I look forward to future developments in it.

I welcome the Bill as a further indication of the commitment of the Minister to develop our film industry. There now seems to be a strong awareness by the Government of the importance of the industry, both from a cultural viewpoint and the important dimension of creating jobs. In relation to the former, I was interested in the Minister's remarks and had not heard that viewpoint before. I was impressed by the words the Minister used in relation to the Irish Film Board committee. He spoke about policy, monitoring and responding. It was a recognition the Government is in earnest and that the board intends to be proactive and involved in training. I welcome all this.

The State can properly do three things in relation to the film industry. The first thing it can do has been addressed in the Bill. It can, through the Irish Film Board, support the early development of film ideas by providing money at the crucial first stage. This is where film-makers find it most difficult to get support. Fortunately for the State, it is an area in which relatively little money can go a long way. The board's job is to bring as many ideas as possible to the stage where they are viable and can get the full scale backing necessary to be brought to full production. The State is a banker of first resort. Its involvement can open doors and lend credibility to the project. The board should support as many projects as possible. It should not support rubbish although it is not easy to know at the incubation stage what will be rubbish.

The second way the State can get involved is by creating a financial environment which encourages investment in film making and encourages people, regardless of whether they are Irish, to use that environment to make films in Ireland. Supporting films must be a notoriously high risk business. It would be hard to think of a riskier business. We tend to hear of the very successful films but not about those which bite the dust and never come close to covering their costs. For this reason alone the State should not be a major backer of films. It is too difficult to be sure of picking winners. The State can create a favourable tax regime which cushions the risk to the investor and makes it relatively easy for the film maker to raise money.

As in so many other industries, there is competition around the world. People will invest in films where they get the most favourable tax deal, which is sensible and prudent. In the same way as the IDA goes into the international market place for mobile investment and bids against the competition, we must create a competitive tax regime if we want to attract film projects and stimulate Irish people to invest in films. We have recently made some progress in this second area, which I welcome. It is obviously not enough to please Senator Ross, but it is a development in the right direction.

I am not sure if we have gone far enough to make a real difference. I am impressed by the story of the two Irishmen who returned from Canada in the 1960s and convinced the Government there were mining opportunities in Ireland. We all learned in school that there were no mining resources in Ireland as we were an agricultural country with no natural resources. They took advantage of a generous tax regime which did not cost us anything because we had no mining and the result was Tara Mines Limited and huge investment in mining, which I assume is now generating tax revenue. A generous tax regime allowed a business to be created out of nothing. We should further encourage a business which is tiny in Ireland compared to its potential.

Thirdly, the State can improve its welcome for incoming film makers, people who consider coming to Ireland to make a film or even part of a film. We must not forget we have two separate interests in this. On the one hand we want to encourage the making of Irish films by the growing body of competent Irish film makers while on the other, we want to encourage everybody else who considers coming to Ireland to make films.

Film making is the highest yielding tourism possible. The making of a film in Ireland pours money into the country because it is such an expensive process. It gives employment in the film industry itself, which is important, and scatters money around the economy. In tourism we rightly target convention and conference business because it brings in big money. However, people attending them spend nothing in comparison to what is spent in making a big film. We are not being sufficiently proactive in seeking film projects for Ireland or in smoothing the way for incoming film makers. It is not the job of the IDA or Bord Fáilte — I do not think it is anybody's job at the moment. Perhaps it will now be the job of the film board, which I know is in the Minister's mind.

There is a publicly funded office in every state of the United States, whose job is to attract film makers to that state and to help them when they arrive. I do not often go to the cinema but, being romantic, I took my wife to a film a couple of weeks ago. She thought I would be surprised there were talkies and technicolor nowadays, it is so long since I took her to the cinema. We went to Sleepless in Seattle, which was made in two cities. The end credits indicate that there were two huge film crews, one in Seattle and one in New York.

Anybody who sees that film would want to visit those cities, so I can understand why they invest in attracting film makers. Every state in the United States, of which New York is a good example, invests publicly funded money into attracting film makers for the money and employment generated during the making of the film and for the eventual tourism benefit.

Many other countries have followed that lead. It is now widely accepted that it is the role of the State to stimulate such business. It is a competitive business and we should go out there and compete. I am sure that is the Minister's intention. Films are occasionally made here but we have not reached out to develop this business. We have only scratched the surface of the potential which is there if we go about it in the right way.

Those are the three areas of film making in which I think the State should be involved. However, there are other areas in which the State should never get involved. It should never protect the film industry, despite the interesting figure which the Minister cited that 81 per cent of images in Europe are produced in North America. The State should nurture, encourage, support and even, to a limited extent, fund the film industry. However, it should never get involved with the film makers and their customers who go to see those films.

That is why the European position in the recent GATT negotiations — which up to now has really been the French position — is wrong. It is not in the best long term interests of the European film industry. Any attempt to interfere with the free choice of film goers or television viewers to choose their own entertainment is wrong headed. I say this despite the fact that I am concerned, like everybody else, about the North American domination of the world film and television industry. There is a cultural issue here which the Minister described well. However, it is not one which we can address through quotas or protectionism. We must leave it to the audience to decide and be customer driven in this, as in so many other areas.

What the French have done with their film industry should give us pause for thought. They have, behind a row of protectionist barriers, created a large film industry of unparalleled mediocrity. In Paris ten or 20 years ago I saw large queues outside cinemas, which the Russians filmed in !he early 1980s and showed on Russian television to prove there were food queues in Europe. We at the time had forgotten about cinema queues.

Those queues are not seen in Paris to the same extent now. We do not realise how poor recent French films have been. Few French films are good enough to merit being shown outside France. The vast majority are low budget pot-boilers with even lower production values. They find it increasingly difficult to get an audience even in their own country, despite the protectionist support. Audiences are voting with their feet and not watching the films made by big decision makers at a central operation.

GATT was yesterday afternoon's story. However, this is still highly relevant to us because we are part of Europe and, therefore, we should be playing a role in developing any future European policy on film making. I hope that in this debate Ireland will take the role of the free trader. I am getting off lightly using such a word when Senator Magner is here because he did not so generously allow Senator Ross to push for that direction. I hope we will strongly push the view that the best way Europe can support its film industry is by nurturing — not by protecting — it.

Rinne mé dearmad ar gach seanfhocal a d'fhoghlaim mé ar scoil ach tá cuimhne agam ar an seanfhocal "Éist le fuaim na habhann mar gheobhaidh tú iasc"— listen to the sound of the river if you want to catch a fish. That attracted me as a marvellous seanfhocal from a business point of view. In any business if one listens to the customers and the market place, one will catch a good fish. That is what we must do in this case. We must make sure that those in the business of film making listen to what the audiences want. The State should not be involved in film making but leave it to the risk takers and those who wish to please their audiences by giving the cinema going public the films they wish to see.

The way forward lies in projects such as the European script fund where a small amount of money has had a tremendous impact in nurturing good films. The way forward is not through protectionism because this merely underwrites mediocrity which, in this of all sectors, is certainly what we want to avoid.

Senator Quinn's contribution and his reference to the old adage about listening to the river is lost on Senator Ross because he would start from the basis that there are not any fish so there is no point in listening. There was a contrast between Senator Ross's contribution and the Minister's speech which, as Senator Ross said, was enthusiastic and visionary. However, Senator Ross then tried a little trick.

What would the Senator do without me?

He tried to portray the Minister as an enthusiastic visionary but highly impractical person. I have known the Minister for over 20 years and he is a hard-nosed political operator who is more than conscious of the fact that this is an industry. If we were talking about plastics, concrete blocks or Christmas crackers this morning this point would not arise but, because it comes under the aegis of arts and culture, it is said to be impractical. This seems to be the basis from which Senator Ross starts.

I agree with seed funding. There is a limit to the money requested however, it is not money which will be used tomorrow but money that may be available. Senator Ross is a broker and he knows all about making projections. It is not realistic to make accurate projections if one is unaware of how much money will be available to develop an idea. The Minister is trying, through Government investment, to put the industry on a sensible footing which will, I hope, make it viable and attract to this country industry such as that which Canada and Australia got down through the years and which created employment.

I want to address a different aspect of this by thanking the Minister in one instance and asking him for a favour in the next. I have had the benefit of assistance from his Department in trying to bring to this House some examples of paintings and portraits currently hanging in other places. I very much appreciate the assistance of Colm O'Briain in getting paintings from the Arts Council which will be hung in the restaurant in this House during the Christmas recess.

I often go to the visitors' room in the main hall to bring people into the House. There is not a single print or painting there, yet this is the first glimpse visitors get of our Parliament. There is nothing to display the cultural and artistic wealth of the country. With the Minister's active assistance, I hope, as Chairman of the Joint Services Committee, to address those problems.

Another point is relevant. Children came in here this morning and sat in the public gallery. Between 15,000 and 20,000 school children visit the House every year and are taken on a tour of the building, shown photographs and so on and that is the end of the tour. Under the auspices of the Minister's Department and with his active co-operation I want those children to come in here and see all the archival film that shows the foundation of this State, how this House came into being, who was in it in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s and the people who helped to found this State.

It will not require much money because there are many areas, meeting rooms, and other places where we could bring groups of school children. They will leave with a better understanding of the foundation of the State and its democratic institutions. I came here this morning because——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I ask the Senator to address his remarks to the Bill before the House.

It is about film, I am talking about using film for the benefit of Irish school children.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is about the film board and I think the Senator was straying.

If you cannot make the link between my comments and the Bill, that is your fault, not mine. An innovation of this kind in the House for school children would be an enormous benefit and we would have the queues that Senator Quinn spoke about, not in Paris but maybe outside the door here. This House must become more user friendly and one of the best ways to do it is to make it interesting. Schools will send their children here to see, on film, the foundation and institutions of the State. I ask the Minister publicly to support me in that request and thank him in advance.

Ba mhaith liom an Bille a mholadh agus mo comhghairdeas a ghabháil don tAire tuisc an Bille seo a chur ós ár gcomhair sa Seanad. This Bill concerns Irish life, how we can promote our country and create jobs. In the period 1967 to 1968 I lived in a part of the country which was dying because of emigration. Then Ryan's Daughter was made there and large amounts of money were injected into the economy of the Dingle peninsula. A village had to be built, people were looking for accommodation which was not there initially but created while the film was being made.

The film was seen in other countries and subsequently large numbers of people came to visit the place where it had been made. Everybody gained from the film in some way. If they were not working on the film, they were supplying produce to a guest house or a hotel. For the record, I was a stand-in for Robert Mitchum for a week in the film. I am still doing a bit of acting but in a different way. I worked on the film for nine months.

He was a stand-in for the body scenes.

I have a great and deep interest in the film. I have a half hour of old movies which I made on the making of that film. They are of historical interest. I have been asked many times to show them to people.

Show them to Senator Ross.

I could go back further to the making of The Dawn in Killarney. If those people had even the simplest camcorder at that time or a small percentage of the money we are talking about today to help them out in making that film what would it have meant? I do not agree with Senator Ross when he says that the old film board did nothing. Regardless of what the board did, arising out of their deliberations people entered the market because of the help they got from the film board.

Gabriel Byrne started in a simple little serial on television called Bracken and he is now an ambassador for the country. One could mention others in the film industry such as Noel Pearson. I do not want the Leas-Chathaoirleach to tell me that I should not mention the names of those who are not here but these names should be mentioned. The Field and many other films were made down through the years without help.

I do not mind if money is given to a private company that wants to make a film. We do not have the resources for making films in Ireland. If Senator Ross thinks there are millions of pounds available to invest in a film, I will give him and the Minister a film to invest in and much groundwork has been done on it. The late Donnchadh O'Malley's son bought the film rights of the book An tOileánach, and he resold them to an Australian company some years ago because he could not get anybody to invest in making the film. I was involved at the time and a man from home, Lorcáin Ó Cinnéide, is still pursuing the matter. If an English version of An tOileánach was made, it could be on a par with films like Gone With the Wind. It would be an epic, a fabulous film, if it was made in a proper fashion. I would not like to see a shoddy film made, I want to see a top class professional film with Irish actors and Irish people. However, if we need to employ outsiders I cannot see anything wrong with that provided it is done in a professional way.

The village on the Blasket Islands is in ruins. If a film was made, all the ruins would have to be rebuilt. Fondúireacht na mBlascaoid is trying to rebuild that village and, therefore, two things could be achieved simultaneously. A fabulous film could be made, employment created and all the houses on the Blasket Islands rebuilt. The Film Board should invest in it and if the film made a profit the Minister could ask the film makers to whom he gave the grants for something in return for his investment. It should not be all one sided. If Senator Ross knows people who have money to invest, I am interested in them.

Gregory Peck was asked whether he would play the part of the Islandman because he is a tall gaunt man, you could imagine him with the same black hat as Tomás Ó Criomhtháin. He would be perfect for the part and he is half Irish. I met Gregory Peck in 1950 and again in 1970, because his first cousin was my neighbour. If we want to trace relations in the film business, he was also a close relative of the famous patriot Thomas Ashe and Tom Crean who went to the South Pole, so I——

Why is he not on the soccer team?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Fitzgerald, without interuption.

I would have supported him. Perhaps the spending of money at times can be a little too narrow. I have no objection to big film industries coming in. People like Noel Pearson are needed to advise on the film industry. A film can create many jobs in on location; a crew can transform a place overnight. Éamonn De Buitléir, a former Member of this House, produced another film on wildlife recently. He has done a lot for the film industry and I do not know whether he gets help. There is plenty of talent in this country.

I hope the extra £14 million will be put to good use. There is a great future for the film industry but we have to shake the cobwebs off. We cannot adopt Senator Ross's attitude about this. He represents a part of Wicklow in which many films were made but I am not altogether in favour of making films in studio. I would like to see them made on location all over Ireland. I do not like studio films despite all the things that can be done with a camera nowadays. It is better to make them on location. I am not a film maker but I have a video camera and I had a movie camera before that and I take a deep interest in film making and how it is done. If it is done properly and money is spent wisely, it can do a great deal of good in publicising our country and creating employment.

I congratulate the Minister, he should not pay attention to the critics of Teilifís na Gaeilge who say he is spending too much money and that it could be done some other way. If that is the case why was it not done 15 or 20 years ago? It is being done now and the money will be well spent. The Minister should not pay attention to the critics. Is maith an tiománaí é an té a bhíonn ar an claí. I wish him every success and I support the Bill.

I am worried about standing up after Robert Mitchum's understudy, but I will do my best.

We will put the Senator in as Sarah Miles.

I will have to grow a few more inches first. I welcome the Bill which must be passed quickly because I understand that the £4.1 million given to the Film Board under previous legislation has already been spent. If we are to give it any money next year it is important that this legislation goes through.

The Minister said that he looks to the board to strike a balance between cultural and commercial aspects of filming and so create a fresh and vibrant synthesis in this long standing discourse. The two elements are the cultural and the commercial. Much of the emphasis — rightly — in the debate has been on the commercial side of film making, because anybody involved in the arts knows it is necessary to have commercial sense to sell the product and get it into the distribution networks to be successful. It is important, therefore, to be involved in Eurimages and that the committee the Minister is setting up involves organisations like FÁS, an Bord Tráchtála, Bord Fáilte, the IDA, RTÉ and so on. The commercial side is obviously important if our film industry is to be successful in the wider world.

The cultural aspect is crucial to the business. The Irish have made an extraordinary impact in the cultural area, particularly in the literary world where we have pushed out the frontiers of the use of language in a way which no other nation could claim. We have people like Joyce and Beckett who did more with the written and spoken word than writers in any other nation. Similarly in the area of drama we have people like Wilde and Shaw and poets like Yeats and many others since then who are acknowledged as geniuses. There is no reason this kind of tradition cannot be followed in the 20th century art form of film.

The Irish are probably particularly suited, as we have been to the written word, to the kind of speed of images needed in film. We are quick witted and quirky, we have the kind of outlook and characteristics that will — and already have — made us very successful. The two elements, the cultural and commercial, will intertwine very well when a decent amount of funding is given to our film makers.

The Minister, Senator Quinn and others touched on the area of European culture, the European dimension to film making and the dominance of America. Australia has begun to have a fairly strong role also in commercial film. There is a great diversity of cultures in Europe which has been very strongly maintained over the centuries and can clearly be seen in the difference between Italy, France, the Eastern and Northern European countries like Sweden and the far west of Europe. The difference in our cultures and the way we express ourselves has been clearly maintained despite the fact that we are a small geographic unit in comparison to the United States or Asia. Through film and supporting our own film industry we will be able to maintain our place in the European network of cultures. We owe that not just to our own country but to Europe and the world. I want to broaden the view of this Bill as it has those aspects which although difficult to define and to narrow down, are important to recognise.

The film industry is quintessentially creative. It is a modern art form which is vibrant, quixotic, ephemeral and quirky. It also has an element of the cut-throat about it. In many ways, therefore, it is ideally suited to the Irish character because we portray all these qualities and drawbacks in abundance. Last month the Minister, Deputy Higgins, detailed at some length the various measures which are being taken by the State to assist the film industry. The Bill, which is an addition to those measures, is welcomed by all sides with, perhaps, one notable exception. However, there always has to be somebody who is out of step with the rest of the world. I will not say any more as he is not listening to me.

A couple of speakers made the valid point that the State's role in the film industry must have a gentle touch. The State can only play the role, if I may use the Minister's phrase, of creating the right environment. Perhaps we have become economic environmentalists. The State cannot be directly and specifically involved in the creation of a film industry, rather, it can put in place factors and supports which will aid development. I see the State's role as primarily that of promoting development, and its function in doing that is quite limited and is a hard balance to find.

The Minister and other speakers mentioned past disappointments, which illustrate my point. They were in part related to the extraordinarily mobile nature of the film industry, its dominance by the United States, and the view it had of this country, which meant we were pigeon holed for a certain type of film investment from the international sector. That stereotype or pigeon hole attitude needed to be, and has been, broken, not by anything the State has done, but by the creativity of individuals.

When one looks at films such as My Left Foot or the film made recently by the BBC of Mr. Roddy Doyle's book, The Snapper, we see extraordinary examples of the celebration of human life and of the oddities and quirkiness of the Irish character. They portrayed the battle of a family in an environment with which most of us are familiar, not necessarily the glamorised environment we see in films. It is interesting that the breakthrough in the Irish film industry has been made because of an upsurge and an assertiveness of Irish creativity. We have broken that stereotype which did a lot of damage to Ireland as an international centre for film making.

We must accept that many of the policies and interventions in the past were misdirected and misplaced although they were well intentioned. What should we do? Senator Quinn made the point, and I agree with him, that we should focus primarily on the conditions. The film industry is an extraordinarily cost conscious industry. Since the making of Cleopatra, the first great film to go vastly beyond budget and bankrupt its studios, the accountant has played at least as strong a role as the director or producer or any of the creative talents involved in a film. From what I read accountants are creative in the film industry because some of the cinema blockbusters have yet to return profits and, apparently, this is something to do with the tax arrangements. We should focus on how we can creatively use tax incentives. There is a purist attitude that we should not do so. Ultimately, however, a pragmatic attitude is that it is better to have a proportion of something than to have all of nothing. We should look at the use of the tax incentives in the film industry to try to focus more production here.

Senator Fitzgerald made a valid point — and I know from the experience of Bray — that when a film production is in town, the range of people who benefit is extraordinary — from extras to the local shops and pubs. There is a major input to the local economy from any film, no matter what size the budget. We should also focus on facilitating film makers. Every American city of any great size — and most states — have film boards. They are not there to intervene directly but to make the film makers' passage easy. They are there to create the environment, to help organise outdoor shots and locations and generally to facilitate the film makers by putting in place supports from all statutory and private agencies. This is an important role the Irish Film Board could and should play. Perhaps we could go a step further. IBEC is examining this matter. There is a need, particularly for cities like Dublin and County Wicklow, and I am not just being parochial, which have great location possibilities to have a menu of supports in place to show to film makers and entice them to come here to make films by making the passage easier for them.

Again, I do not wish to be parochial, but although the Ardmore Film Studios is an excellent facilities studio it is, unfortunately, showing all the signs of decay. As we all know, its chequered history and multiplicity of owners have not been helpful. Anyone who passes the film studies, just off the Herbert Road in Bray, can see the signs of decay. It needs an injection of funding and if the State intends to give direct funding to the film industry, it would be prudent to investigate the capacity of maintaining, improving and upgrading the facilities studio already in place. A good studio with a wide range of facilities, combined with the talents that exist in Ireland, excellent locations and a relatively cheap film making environment, can help to attract films.

Let us return then to the question of how we mix all this together and use the film board as a way of attracting films. The facilities at Ardmore have been proven to be superb in the past. As Members know there is a threat to the studio. Planning applications have been sought for the back lot but it would be a tragedy to build over it. Some years ago there was an imprudent sale of the sets and property master's equipment, which I do not think raised any more than a couple of thousand pounds, and there was a loss of a good deal of our film heritage. I argue strongly that if we are looking for a place to invest, we should look there.

The dominance by the North Americans has recently come to the fore with the GATT negotiations. I enthusiastically supported the French view. They made no apologies for having an aggressive attitude towards defending their own culture through what they regarded as a strong medium. The rest of Europe has not given sufficient consideration to this matter. It is something which we need to examine and to continue to support as we have a unique mix of culture to offer.

The French have an interesting way of imposing tax on film and video and of using that revenue to invest in their film industry. It is something we should consider.

Finally, I wish to make a parochial appeal to the Minister. When the Film Board is set up it must have a headquarters. The Government had a policy of decentralisation. The Film Board headquarters will consist of two offices, a boardroom and a cleaning lady.

A cleaning man.

Two cleaning men. To indicate we are serious about preserving what is already in place serious consideration should be given to establishing the headquarters in Ardmore studios, not because it would be a major financial fillip but because it would make a statement about protecting an existing facility. I realise the Minister is creative and enthusiastic about his brief. I know he will forgive me for being parochial but there is a good fundamental reason to consider my suggestion. I am pleased to support the Bill.

I am aware that the House is anxious to hear the Minister's reply so I will just make a few points. First, like my colleagues on both sides of the House, I welcome this Bill. I also welcome the initiative being taken by the Minister in his new Department and the speed with which he has implemented many of the long held aspirations of people in the cultural and artistic area — a speed that has left many of us breathless. Long may he continue to do so. The artistic sector — especially the film sector — has been crying out for a coherent strategy to exploit this country's real talent in the creative and literary areas.

The aspects of the Film Board and its activities in the context of this Bill which I wished to discuss were mentioned by Senator Roche. One of the main reasons over 80 per cent of the world's film output comes from Hollywood is its extremely sophisticated infrastructure in that it has brought a sound business approach to an artistic medium. I note the Minister is anxious to strike a balance between the artistic and commercial merits of film. However, I hope this does not indicate the Film Board will favour the artistic and cultural aspects and perhaps forget we are living in the real world where commercial film, to be successful, must be accepted by the widest possible number of people. I know the Minister may not agree with my concept of exclusively chasing the audiences. However, the film industry is littered with pious aspirations and major movies which may have had enormous artistic merit and aesthetically beautiful to watch yet failed miserably in the commercial milieu.

I do not wish to be negative. There is now a real opportunity for the artistic talents to coalesce and provide a view of contemporary Ireland in the film and audio visual context to the world. Through the years the general public has voted with its eyes and supported home produced programmes. One need only look at the TAM ratings for any one week to find that Glenroe, The Late Late Show and many other in-house productions are way ahead of many of the American imports, despite the high production values of such programmes. The film industry in this country has lagged behind in that it has not identified and exploited this support among our people and those overseas who bought our television programmes. I am referring to Irish themes.

In more recent years the films that have achieved Oscar status, for example, My Left Foot, have been very Irish. That screenplay could not be transplanted to any location other than Dublin. The characters involved could not be seen as anything other than Irish. Contrast that with the Hollywood perception of Ireland as seen in Far and Away starring Tom Cruise which had elements of stage Irishness in it which I thought had gone out with the ark. In that respect, we should not only have a Film Board which acts as a facilitator to provide seed capital and to exploit the benefits from that in terms of in-house training and providing facilities for a new generation of film makers, we should also aggressively market our country.

Why is Toronto rather than American cities probably the most popular location for Hollywood produced movies in the North American continent? Obviously the city has been aggressively marketed as a location. Cost is also a major factor. Senator Roche was right in saying that an accountant's regime rather than an artistic regime rules among the bigger Hollywood production companies. However, the people of Toronto and the Canadian Government have obviously learned from their experiences. I am sure the Minister will remember, as I do, the short films by the National Film Board of Canada shown in the local cinema. They seemed interminable but sometimes were very entertaining; they were also informative. By the time I reached my early teens I think I knew more about Canada as a result of watching the short films made by the National Film Board of Canada than I did about aspects of my own and neighbouring countries. They have been in the industry for a long time and were obviously able to harness the experience they had gained during those decades to exploit the real advantages and opportunities presented in Toronto.

There are similarities in the Australian film industry. Not long ago if one were to suggest that a film from the Antipodes would be of Oscar standard, one would have been laughed out of court. However, there was a recognition by the Australian Government in the late 1960s and early 1970s — mirrored by the recognition the Minister is giving to the Irish film industry — that if all the component talents — literary, engineering, production and financial — were brought together and if there was encouragement at State level a viable and commercially successful Australian film industry could be the result. The result is there for all to see. Obviously location had nothing to do with the worldwide success of Australian films. They were as far off the rim as any country could be: next stop Antarctica.

Ireland is central; we are the interface between the North American continent and Europe. Therefore, we are ideally placed geographically to take advantage of the facility presented by the Minister under the second Film Board. The fact that the industries in Canada and Australia, which in their infancy were by no stretch of the imagination capable of competing with the best of Hollywood, are now challenging Hollywood and have produced films of not only great commercial value but of great artistic merit points the way for us. The Minister and his appointees to the Film Board will be well aware of the experiences in those countries, perhaps they are already learning from the experiences of those small indigenous film industries which have exploded on the world stage and are proving to be extremely successful.

I would like to see more films with Irish themes. We have not exploited our Irishness internationally to the extent that other countries have exploited their identities. When one considers the GATT negotiations and the fact that 80 per cent of films watched in Europe come from America, I can understand the uphill battle which the Minister and the Irish Film Board face in establishing a viable Irish film industry. When the Minister has the various components in place, I hope he will consider, perhaps as an extension to the Irish Film Board, the establishment of film agencies which will aggressively market this country as a suitable location. One should be able to go into the marketplace and say that Ireland is a place to which people should come because it has the infrastructure, in terms of production and artistic and literary merit, and a low cost regime. It also has a wonderful environment and it would be able to make world class films which would be commercially successful. We are on the threshold of something exciting and I commend the Minister for taking the initiative in this area. I welcome the Bill.

I thank the Senators for their contributions which reflected the influence of the cinema, or the picture house, in every Senator's life.

I will deal with the most practical matters which several Senators mentioned. It would be wrong to believe this is a vague area and I will clarify what I mean. After aviation, audio visual products are the second biggest United States export to Europe. Exports in audio visual products account for £3.65 billion, while computer related products account for £10.59. The imbalance is approximately 12:1 in film and it goes as high as 25:1 in some other products. I do not state this defensively, negatively or protectively. There is an immense space which can be filled with audio visual products. It is interesting that one country dominates and occupies over 80 per cent of the market. We are a country which speaks English and our products are made in the English language. We have a good production agreement with Canada and I hope to have good production agreements with Australia and New Zealand in the near future. We have immense opportunities in this regard.

We must return to the practical realities in case anyone believes they are vague. Last year I gave permission to the Irish Film Board to spend £1.5 million but it could spend only £945,000 because it was near the ceiling contained in a previous Act. It followed a regime of giving 10 per cent advances so that for every £10,000 it spent, £90,000 came in. The reality was that for £1 spent, £9 was secured from outside.

Coopers and Lybrand was one of the organisations which contributed to the working group on the film industry. Its figures showed that every £1 million spent on features and documentaries in the film industry produced 48 and 50, respectively, annual full-time job equivalents.

I have combined a mixture of different strategies to establish the generic side of the native industry which was to come through the Irish Film Board. We have a market which is unfulfilled in Europe and dominated by a North American source, a product which is suitable and the film industry is the fastest growing sector in the services sector in Europe. To say that one should not get involved in this industry because the banks do not have the nerve, is as sensible as flying to the moon. For every £1 spent, £9 comes in through the Irish Film Board. This produces the job numbers I mentioned.

Several Senators spoke about the effect of film expenditure in different parts of the country. As pointed out, when a film is being made, caterers, carpenters, electricians and the people — there are over 2,000 — who work as extras at different times in film making in Ireland benefit. It is diffused expenditure. Films were made this year in Counties Leitrim, Wicklow, and Kerry and Mr. John Sayle's film was made in County Donegal. The thrust of the Irish Film Board has been positive in this regard.

Section 35 changes at the other end were described recently by Mr. David Puttnam as one of the most imaginative packages available to film makers anywhere in the world. My information is that since last February we have taken in more money at that end that we did since 1987. A series of other things must happen in between. One considers training if one is building the employment between section 35 and the Irish Film Board hence, the idea of Teilifís Na Gaeilge, for example, which fits in with audio visual training and this means the jobs come together.

I refer Senator Ross to the Coopers and Lybrand report. Senator Ross's point is true in relation to risk-taking films, but it does not compare with some of the risks taken by those who bought shares on the Stock Exchange in recent years. Coopers and Lybrand suggested that 80 per cent of feature films and television programme funding comes from abroad. We should be clear about this issue and the changes when I examine section 35.

I have spoken to some local authorities about the advantages of location. This is about generating the greatest amount of added value in the economy. The money is coming from outside. It is working and will be a success. I will give people more details if they so wish.

We have had enough.

People are entitled to examine the figures. I will spend £16 million between 1994 and 1998 on the Irish Film Board. Some £13 million will be spent on funding the projects and £3 million will be spent on training. The £2 million I will spend in 1994 will produce £18 million from outside and it will have the capacity to create 1,000 jobs. Other Senators stressed, rightly, that we are not talking only about economics. There is also a cultural dimension. An unanswerable argument is that there is a future in audio visual, that we have the capacity for great opportunities and that we are now on our way to creating jobs in that area.

Without putting a tooth in it, let me state what those who counsel despair are saying, that the audio-visual jobs which should be in Ireland and Europe should go to North America because we have lost faith in ourselves. North America is delighted to take these jobs. This is an eccentric and cranky view and I am glad it is not a general one.

I mentioned that the Irish Film Board will spend £2 million in the coming year. Its objectives are to support 25 development projects and four to six production projects in 1994. This will rise to 30 development projects and six to eight production projects in the 1995-97 period. This is how the money will be spent to build a generic industry based on the talent, ingenuity, individuality and tenacity of the film community which continued when the going was not too good.

This industry is enormously attractive to young people, particularly school leavers who want to become involved in it. It would be ridiculous not to plan it in a practical way and, therefore, it is being carefully planned this time. That is why I referred in my speech to the database. I am accounting for every penny spent. Senator Ross mentioned that perhaps it was a flaw in that it was not attracting bank investment, knowing as he does, and as I do, the amount of risks taken by banks. There is a facility available to us now where there is a European source that will underwrite the risk of a bank investing in film so that their nervousness can be massaged to the point at which they may wish to invest in something like that. The Senator will be pleased to hear that, as mentioned, the film Eat the Peach received £100,000 from the first Irish Film Board and it is an excellent example of the board's capacity to support films in the modernist mode.

Regarding the emphasis which the Government is placing on films as an industry, I was asked about the proposed activities of the committee I have composed. One gets production going in the film industry and one then has to consider distribution. Distribution is not all about taste — it was never said that no citizen of the USA will ever watch a dubbed film — it is about much more. It is about the economics of distribution, monopoly and the absence of fair trade in distribution as about anything else. If one is serious about film one must consider not only production, but distribution and so on.

It is precisely to address all of these issues that I spoke of the need for a commission that would look after the whole question of the availability of Irish films. The practical tasks to be undertaken by the commission will include training. The feasibility of the commission will not stop short of facilitating foreign, indigenous productions, but will be able to tell people exactly what is available in different locations in terms of electricians, carpenters, caterers, accommodation and so on. We have started on this process and it is the kind of work that is very important.

Senator Quinn, in a thoughtful speech, is correct about New York and the practical arrangements both there and in many other cities. I am familiar with these cities and I agree with the Senator on how people go about selling their space as a location for film activity.

Senators will be pleased to note that the commission will also look at the regional distribution network for our films within Ireland. In this context Senator Ormonde asked about the availability of films in the regions. The Senator will be pleased to note that next year this is one the projects to be taken on by the Irish Film Board.

The commission will also consider the question of language and film and so on. It is a practical, deliverable agenda in which I have confidence. This is not an exhaustive outline of all the activities which the commission is undertaking.

Regarding regional distribution and availability, mentioned by Senator Ormonde, the figure that will be spent on this will be approximately £370,000 next year. On this point I was asked questions about the allocation of expenditure by the Irish Film Board. Approximately £370,000 will be spent on administration and approximately £2 million on capital expenditure. I believe this is modest and wise and the board will be thanked for it. In this respect I wish to pay tribute, yet again, to Lelia Doolan and the other members of the Irish Film Board who are making the board a success.

What we view is not a matter of accident; it is a wonderful expression of ourselves. There is nothing narrow, backward, or old fashioned about it as it is concerned with being positive and with living in an era of new technology. It is about being able to make products that we have the confidence to sell around the world without endlessly lashing ourselves that we are so small and hopeless that not even the banks have confidence in us. Such would be a message of despair to make Cassandra weep.

I have explained the purpose of the data base. To answer all those who wish to know where the money comes from, I am in the real world; I consider section 35 and am aware that there are different ways of raising finance. For example, if one makes a film in two tax years one gets two tax breaks. However, does this facilitate a person who wants to make a good film in one summer, or two less adequate films in two bad winters and so on? I continually consider section 35 to see how it can be further refined. The purpose of the data base is to ensure that the money that goes to, for example, Teilifís na Gaeilge, the Irish Film Board and section 35 is accounted for so that we know where it is going and what kind of return we can expect from it.

As I mentioned, Senator Quinn gave a thoughtful and valuable speech. The Senator made three suggestions and I disagree with him only on one. The Senator and I would be at one regarding the seed funding and I have answered the question in relation to the favourable tax regime. I have to see the refined figures yet, but, as I have said, I believe that we have taken more in since February than since 1987. It is an example of how it is working in each of its component parts. It is a success story and nobody can deny that in terms of the available facts.

Regarding incoming film makers, I agree with Senator Quinn. It is a function of the commission. However, I believe it is important that we know what is happening in the battle for distribution. It is not accidental, as I have pointed out, that we are in a time, for example, when film makers may have their film sold into a film bank. Take satellite and cable and conditions of monopoly and, for example, Mr. Murdoch's purchase of, I understand, the Asian Footprint. This was effectively accompanied by his purchasing 350 films made in Asia; therefore, no one can see an Asian film made in the last ten years without purchasing it out of a film bank. These are conditions of monopoly; they are not ones of free trade or anything like that, rather of straightforward distortion and abuse. In this context it is part of our own project to make and defend the capacity to provide alternatives.

Regarding the Irish Film Board, Senator Quinn raised a specific question on the proportion of the board's annual capital allocation which is designated to development funding. The figure is approximately 20 per cent and it is expected that 25 to 30 development loans will be made each year. This will address the issue of the young person who will be able to get a start from the Irish Film Board before finding it difficult after the exciting people who want to bank the film industry have arrived.

I have dealt with a number of Senators' questions in detail. However, let me assure the House that my approach to this issue is to offer accountability and transparency, because I believe it is an exciting aspect to job creation. I have welcomed, and continue to welcome, the emphasis placed by Senator O'Sullivan that this issue is much wider than economics. There is indeed a cultural dimension to it. I understand it was President Mitterand, when he was speaking about Portugal, who said if the Portugese listen to Bach and Beethoven, does one request them not to produce music? If the Irish read Proust, does one ask them to stop writing? There is such a thing as cultural pluralism and cultural values, and of defending the space for the assertion of the culture and imagination of one's people in conditions of the new technology.

If any Senators have any specific points which they wish me to answer in more detail, I will be pleased to do so. It is the approach of my Department to provide as much information as possible. I visited Ardmore a few weeks ago and it has benefited from the measures I have already taken.

I also listened with interest to Senator Mooney's remarks on the nature of Irish material. Needless to say, my dear friend here, Senator Fitzgerald, who is so much more experienced in the world of film and acting than I am, made some good points regarding the value in a local community of this kind of activity.

If one was to think of an appropriate activity which should be assisted by the State that is ecologically acceptable, that is diffuse regionally, that is close to the capacity of people, that has a background in it in terms of narrative ability and for which there is a scarcity in Europe that is being filled by people who are at a distance from our own experience, one probably could not come up with anything better than the film and audio visual sector.

I thank the Members of the House for not only the support they have indicated for the measures I have taken, but for their obvious, genuine interest and enthusiasm for making sure that we have an exciting film and audio visual sector in the future.

As it is now 1 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House today I must now put the question. The question is: "That Second Stage of the Bill is hereby agreed to and that the Bill is hereby agreed to in Committee and is reported to the House without amendment; and Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
Top
Share