Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Dec 1997

Vol. 153 No. 6

Irish Film Board (Amendment) Bill, 1997: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (Miss de Valera)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to open the debate on the Second Stage of the Irish Film Board (Amendment) Bill, 1997. I look forward to hearing the views of Senators on the performance of Bord Scannán na hÉireann/the Irish Film Board in recent years and on the future priorities and needs of the industry in general.

This is a short Bill involving only three sections. Nevertheless, it is a very important Bill if Bord Scannán na hÉireann/the Irish Film Board is to be empowered to continue its activities in the years to come. There is also a degree of considerable urgency attaching to its enactment, because failure to do so within this calendar year would preclude me from advancing all of the £3.721 million capital funding at the board's disposal this year under subhead 2 of my Department's Vote. In effect, it would mean that £401,000 of this £3.721 million could not be advanced to the board this year.

Section I of the Bill is designed to give the Irish language title of the Irish Film Board/Bord Scannán na hÉireann the same prominence as its English language title in future legislation. The section addresses an amendment tabled by Deputy Michael D. Higgins at a meeting of the Select Committee on Heritage and the Irish Language on 10 December last, at which the Committee Stage of this Bill was discussed. I was happy to enter into a constructive dialogue with the select committee on Deputy Higgins' amendment and to accept the thrust of that amendment. However, the advice available to me suggested that the amendment tabled by Deputy Higgins was not the correct way to address the matter. Therefore, section I of the Bill represents an amendment tabled by me and accepted by the select committee which meets the objectives of Deputy Higgins' amendment in full.

In providing that the Irish language title, Bord Scannán na hÉireann, should have the same prominence in law as the Irish Film Board, I am pleased to inform the Seanad that this, in any event, merely reflects the practice of Bord Scannán na hÉireann/the Irish Film Board since its re-establishment in 1993. The board is immensely proud of its Irish language title and positions it above the English language version in all its publications and letterheading. Moreover, when the board attends film festivals abroad, the Irish language title retains the same prominence on stands and in printed material which is distributed. I am also happy to inform the Seanad that oral and written queries can be, and are, dealt with efficiently in both the Irish and English languages at the board's offices in Galway.

Section 2 proposes to amend section 10 of the Irish Film Board Act, 1980, which sets a limit on the aggregate amount of loans, investments, grants or moneys provided by the board, together with the aggregate amount of principal and interest which the board may be liable to repay or has previously paid on foot of guarantees for the time being in force. The original limit provided in the 1980 Act was £4,100,000. This limit was increased to £15 million under the Irish Film Board (Amendment) Act, 1993, and this Bill proposes to further increase the limit to £30 million.

By way of explanation of section 2, it is standard practice that under their legislation, non-commercial State bodies operate within a limit on the amount of loans, grants, etc. which they can issue. This figure is increased by the Oireachtas every three to four years under amending legislation and this process rightly provides the Oireachtas with an opportunity to discuss the activities of such bodies and their sectors. The Seanad last had an opportunity to discuss the affairs of the Irish Film Board during the course of the debate on the Irish Film Board (Amendment) Bill, 1993.

I emphasise that the increase in the limit on advances proposed in section 2 does not bestow an automatic right on the board to obtain additional funds. The amounts to be allocated to the board each year will continue to be decided in the annual Estimates for my Department, which must be approved by the Dáil. Accordingly, the amendment proposed in section 2 is an enabling provision only in order to ensure that the board can receive and allocate the resources which will be provided by the Dáil in the coming years. I emphasise again that the amendment is necessary. The annual allocations provided to the Irish Film Board since 1993 have almost exhausted the limit of £15 million provided under the Irish Film Board (Amendment) Act, 1993.

The capital provision for the board for 1997 is £3.721 million. If expended in full, this provision will bring the aggregate amount of loans, investments, etc. provided by the board to more than the current statutory limit. Therefore, the approval of this House is required to facilitate the urgent enactment of the Bill so that the full capital allocation of £3.721 million for the board can be advanced by me within this calendar year. In this regard, Senators will be aware from the Order of Business of a motion later today seeking the concurrence of Seanad Éireann, pursuant to Article 25.2.2 of the Constitution, in a request to the President to sign this Bill on a date which is earlier than the fifth day after the date on which the Bill shall have been presented and I would appreciate Senators' support for this motion.

The final measure proposed in the Bill and contained in section 3, deals with the officers and servants of the board. These provisions, which propose to amend section 27 of the 1980 Act, are designed to bring the Irish Film Board's provisions in this area up to date and into line with statutory provisions applicable to other non-commercial State-sponsored bodies.

By their very nature, non-commercial State-sponsored bodies have an ongoing dependence on grants-in-aid from moneys voted in the Estimates each year, so I believe Senators will fully accept the rationale behind these provisions. Section 3 relates to the number of persons to be appointed as officers and servants; their rates of remuneration and allowances for expenses; the terms and conditions of employment with the board; and the grades and the number of persons in each grade. It provides that the board's decisions shall be subject to the consent of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and the Minister for Finance.

The purpose of these provisions is, principally, to ensure that the board does not, without due approval of the two Ministers, take decisions which could have cost implications for the Exchequer or be contrary to Government policy on pay and conditions in the non-commercial public sector generally. In order to give full effect to the objective of section 3, two further general provisions are included. These involve a new section 27(a) and require the board to have regard to any nationally agreed guidelines and Government policy on remuneration, allowances for expenses and conditions of employment in determining these matters and to comply with any directives from the two Ministers in regard to these matters.

This debate provides Senators with an opportunity to review the activities and performance of the Irish Film Board since the last time a Bill came before the Seanad in 1993. The Irish Film Board was re-established in April of that year as one of a range of innovative strategies which had been introduced by the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government to develop our film and television production industry. These strategies included amended broadcasting legislation to ensure an annual increase up to 1999, in commissionings by our national broadcaster, RTÉ, from the independent production sector; a major extension of the section 35 tax incentive for investment in film and television production; the establishment of Teilifís na Gaeilge, drawing a significant proportion of its programming from the independent production sector; and a more active participation by the industry in funded activities from abroad under the MEDIA I and MEDIA II Programmes of the European Union and the Council of Europe's co-production fund, EURIMAGES. Moreover, the establishment of STATCOM — the committee of senior officials of all State industrial, marketing, broadcasting and cultural promotion agencies which is chaired by the Irish Film Board — commenced the important process of addressing the remaining obstacles to the full development of the industry in a focused and concerted fashion.

However, the Seanad had little to review when a Bill of this kind last came before the House in 1993, since the board only commenced its operations that year. This debate offers real opportunities for a review of the activities and performance of the board since 1993, a period in which the Irish Film Board played a central and highly important role in the significant developments which have occurred in our industry over that period.

The broad function of the Irish Film Board, as set out in section 4 of the Irish Film Board Act, 1980, is to assist and encourage by any means it considers appropriate the making of films in the State and the development of an industry in the State for the making of films. The board exercises its function mainly by the provision of development loans and production loans for film makers.

Feature film development loans are intended for research, development and feasibility studies, up to a maximum of £25,000, and are repayable on the first day of principal photography. Of the 98 film projects which have been offered development funding by the board since its re-establishment in 1993, 17 have progressed into production. This creditable ratio of one in six compares favourably to other European film funding agencies which achieve an average ratio of one in ten, and to the Hollywood hit rate which is one in 15.

Feature film production loans are usually in the range of 10 per cent to 15 per cent of the overall budget of a film and the board is required to operate under an upper limit of 15 per cent of the film's budget. The board also offers production loans to a small number of ambitious documentaries each year, with an emphasis on feature length documentaries with potential for theatrical, festival and television screening.

The production loan is offered on the basis of either repayable loan or equity participation. Since its re-establishment in 1993, the board has recouped more than 20 per cent of its total capital investment in the first four years. By international standards, this recoupment level is good. It greatly exceeds the returns of other national film funding agencies, such as that of the Australian Film Commission with returns of 9.8 per cent, the British Film Institute with 5.7 per cent returns and the Council of Europe's film co-production fund, EURIMAGES, with returns of 2.8 per cent.

Other developmental but highly impactful interventions which the Irish Film Board is undertaking in co-operation with other bodies include: the "Short Cuts" series of five to six short film dramas per year, which is co-funded with RTÉ and places a welcome emphasis on emerging non-established film makers who would hopefully use the experience as a springboard to take on feature length projects — the fourth series of "Short Cuts", with 150 applications, is currently being selected; the new "Oscailt" series of short dramas in the Irish language, co-funded with Teilifís na Gaeilge; support for six creative animation projects under ten minutes in duration each year under the "Frameworks" scheme, which is co-funded with RTÉ and the Arts Council — the third series of "Frameworks" will shortly be advertised; and "Real Time", the scheme for cinematic one hour dramas which is co-funded with RTÉ and which, unlike "Short Cuts", is open to established film makers.

The sizeable number of development loans offered by the board to date, 98, and the fact that by the year's end the board will have offered 44 production loans, funding 44 new Irish feature films and series, is an indication of the sea change that has taken place in the Irish film industry in the last few years. Apart from the significant economic and social benefits which the board's assistance will bring to local communities, I wish to place particular emphasis on the cultural significance of these developments. It means that, in a short space of time, the board will have facilitated the telling of 44 Irish stories through the most powerful medium in the world and, therefore, will have contributed greatly to Irish cultural expression through this medium.

There is more good news concerning the impact of the production loans offered by the Irish Film Board to date. Of the 44 feature films and series which the board has assisted, 34 of them had Irish directors and 25 had first time Irish directors. Irish people are, therefore, gaining more access to the key film functions which determine what images of Ireland and Irishness are translated onto the screen. For the first time in a long time, Irish audiences are and will continue to be able to see images of themselves, their aspirations and apprehensions, which have been largely crafted by Irish people in front of and behind the camera. Equally importantly, these images of Ireland and our society are increasingly obtaining international exhibition windows which will sensitise new audiences to contemporary Irish life. The critical developmental role which the Irish Film Board plays in support of the industry must be emphasised and welcomed.

With regard to the funding sources for the activities of Bord Scannán na hÉireann, I warmly acknowledge the fact that the capital funding of the board is supported, up to a maximum of £13 million, under the Operational Programme for Industrial Development 1994-1999. Seventy-five per cent of this funding is provided by the European Regional Development Fund, with the balance being provided by the Exchequer. Moreover, the same operational programme includes a further provision of £2.58 million in European social fund support for training for the industry, the Exchequer component of which is provided under my Department's Vote via the Irish Film Board. These training funds are administered by the National Training Committee for Film and Television, now to be known more colloquially by the title “Screen Training Ireland”. They are being topped up by a further £250,000 per annum from FÁS, subject to demand, as well as by a new traineeship scheme for the industry which is currently in development and could involve up to a further £2 million in FÁS resources when initiated.

The significance of the strong European Union support for the activities of Bord Scannán na hÉireann and towards film training is the fact that it represents a strong acknowledgement by the Union of the contribution which the European audiovisual industry is making to economic and social development in the Union. I welcome this acknowledgement.

I was pleased to be able to announce during the Second Stage debate on this Bill in the Dáil that I am moving to implement the two commitments in relation to the industry which are contained in this Government's An Action Programme for the Millenium. These two commitments relate to the establishment of a Screen Commission for Ireland and the establishment of an industry think tank to draw up a ten year strategic plan for the industry.

The primary function of the Screen Commission for Ireland will be to promote Ireland as a location for film. While my predecessor announced the establishment of such a commission on 4 June last, the preferred method of funding which he chose for the commission meant that no funds were at his disposal to proceed with its establishment at that time. The preferred method of funding was recoupments on loans advanced by the Irish Film Board since 1994. However, since these recoupments, now cumulatively amounting to £800,000, represent repayments from EU supported capital provisions under the operational programme, the approval of the European Commission is required for their use. I have been endeavouring to secure this approval for some months and it was conveyed on 6 November last, although it is not operative until 1 January next. I am still awaiting formal written confirmation from the European Commission in the matter.

In the meantime, I have recently met representatives of Film Makers Ireland, the Audiovisual Federation of IBEC and the Irish Film Board to discuss their priorities for a screen commission. I propose to conclude my consultations on this issue when I meet RTÉ shortly and, now that I have secured the funding source from the Commission, I expect to be able to make a definitive announcement on the establishment of a screen commission for Ireland soon afterwards.

I also propose to announce my proposals for the establishment of an industry think tank soon. This body will be assigned the task of drawing up a ten year strategic plan for the industry and I view its establishment, as provided for in the Government's programme, as a crucial input to the next phase of the development of the film and television production industry. Critically, the emergence of a ten year strategic plan will address the medium term priorities of the industry and will avoid any tendency towards short term solutions for what is a highly complex and rapidly changing industry.

I refer again to the urgency attached to the Bill. If it is not enacted in this calendar year, the £15 million limit on the amount which the board can advance under the Irish Film Board (Amendment) Act, 1993, would be reached and I would be obliged to withhold £401,000 of the £3.721 million in capital funding allocated to the board in 1997. Senators will agree that this would be a retrograde step and would interrupt the momentum the board has created in promoting the indigenous industry.

I therefore request the support of Seanad Éireann to pass all Stages of the Bill today. I also seek the Seanad's prior concurrence, pursuant to Article 25.2.2 of the Constitution, in a request to the President to sign the Irish Film Board (Amendment) Bill, 1997, on a date which is earlier than the fifth day after the date on which the Bill shall have been presented to her. I confidently recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Coogan

Ba maith liom comhghairdeachas a ghabháil don Aire faoin mBille seo. I welcome her and compliment her for increasing the limit on the total amount of funding which can be expended by the Irish Film Board on loans, grants and investments from £15 million to £30 million. This is a welcome and substantial increase on the 1993 level when £4 million was allocated. This side will have no difficulty agreeing to the Minister's request to take all Stages of the Bill today on the basis that the legislation is urgent and the funding must be available as soon as possible. Under Article 25.2.2 of the Constitution, the President can sign the Bill earlier than the fifth day after it is presented to her and the money can be allocated. This side intends to ensure that the Bill receives a speedy passage today.

It would be remiss of me not to compliment the Minister and her party for introducing section 35 in 1987. This played an important part in the development of the film industry. However, prior to her contribution in the other House, the Minister brought extracts of her speech to the editing or cutting room of the industry, thereby diminishing the role of former Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, and also, sadly, the former Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins. He had a starring role in the previous Government, but that has been slightly diminished by this Administration. While he is not an extra, his role should be recognised.

Deputy Higgins deserves recognition and congratulations for his work during his term of office as Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the imaginative and committed manner in which he supported the film industry. He dragged it from the doldrums into the 20th century. He is particularly deserving of praise for the way he responded to the misinformation published by the British press regarding the changes in section 35. It said that these changes were dramatic and no funding would be available. The Deputy and his former Department and officials should be complimented for ensuring that this rumour was scotched because it could have had a dramatic and bad effect on the film industry if it had been allowed to continue to run.

It is better that no party seeks the higher ground regarding who should or should not receive accolades for their contribution to the film industry in recent years. As one who believes in the philosophy of nothing ventured, nothing gained and its cousin, the old adage that one must speculate to accumulate, an investment in the film industry will in time pay dividends not only in financial returns, but also in enhancing, disseminating and protecting Irish culture. As the bard said: "Art which raises nature to perfection itself demands the passions of the elect who expect to win". If we the elected feel passionately enough about the future of the industry, we will ensure its success in the future.

I welcome any proposals which increase the limit on the total amount of funds available to the Irish Film Board. Nevertheless, the public will demand that their money is not spent on projects which have no hope of success or do not bring a return. They will accept projects that will to a degree enhance the image of art. This does not mean every project should be a commercial success, because that is not possible, but rather that a project seeking public funding will be vetted to ensure that it will give the best possible return either financially or culturally to Ireland.

In terms of the work of the Irish Film Board in recent times, there have been some failures, but also some remarkable successes. I am glad the Minister referred to the 20 per cent return on investments. This is a marvellous figure worth highlighting. A recoupment of over 20 per cent in four years indicates that the board is responsible in the manner in which it carries out investments. In comparison to other countries, it should be commended for the level of return on its investments.

The board should also be commended for co-funding the very successful film school held in Galway which covered marketing and distribution. This was extremely beneficial to those who attended. I also commend the board for its support of television dramas, such as "Amongst Women" and "Falling For A Dancer", and series, such as "Hoodwinked", "Harvest Emergency" and the award winning "Dear Daughter". Irish films supported by the board have won audience acclaim at world festivals. Bord Scannán na hÉireann supported three of the last four films to win the prestigious San Sebastian film festival award. Such achievements internationally for a country the size of Ireland are unprecedented and deserve acknowledgement. For example, at the Cherbourg British and Irish Film Festival, "The Last Bus Home" was voted best film.

The extraordinary number of 44 major films and series made in Ireland with the assistance of the Irish Film Board would be remarkable in their own right if they had taken place on the west coast of the United States of America. The fact that they took place in Ireland stands to the credit of all those involved in the primary focus of the board of supporting Irish productions and Irish writers and directors and assisting in the development and production of indigenous feature films. The board should be commended for including animated feature films and series in this year's projects which would be eligible for production and loan finance.

Another recent advance of the independent film and television industry is the establishment of Teilifís na Gaeilge in Connemara. While a substantial number of people were sceptical about the creation of Teilifís na Gaeilge, it has been established and is in operation. It is part of the media landscape and I wish the "Oscailt" scheme, aimed at the production of Irish language short films, every success in the future. Regarding making Ireland an attractive centre in which offshore companies can produce, I am interested to know the Minister's opinion of the recommendation in the report of the special working group on film production that the IDA should be involved in taking a proactive role in attracting offshore companies, in the same way as it successfully attracts other industries to Ireland. Perhaps financial incentives, such as the 10 per cent corporation tax rate, or the incentives which attract overseas companies to the Irish Financial Services Centre in Dublin could be used.

We must recognise that competition with other countries, such as Great Britain, for outside investment exists. The British are today discussing a Bill relating to the lottery and they may invest more money in their film industry. They may recognise the contribution of the Irish Film Board, through Government investment, and decide that it is critical for them to do the same. This will create more competition for us. We must find ways to ensure that investments are attracted to Ireland. One of the difficulties in this regard is the perception of the high cost of the Irish labour force. This is also true of other industries.

To combat it we must ensure that the skills available are of a high standard, and to do that we must ensure that education in production, screenwriting, lighting and other aspects of the film industry is available. Institutions teaching these skills should have technology that is up to date. In this context, the Minister should ask the Minister for Education and Science about the £250 million he is to spend on new technology. Some of that money should go to colleges and other institutions involved in teaching film skills so that their equipment is brought up to date. That would make Ireland attractive from the skills perspective, even if the cost of labour is high.

I am glad the Minister mentioned the screen commission. She was asked in the Dáil why this had not been established, and I am aware that the previous Minister put the concept forward though he had not put funding in place for it. I am delighted that the Minister will put the screen commission in place and make finance available for it. This should be done as soon as possible as Bord Scannán feels it is being undermined by the commission not being in place. I commend the Minister also on the think tank and hope this matter is concluded as soon as possible.

We commend this Bill. I thank the Government for the increase and I am sure we will get a good return on it.

Mr. Mooney

I welcome the Minister on her first visit since being appointed. I am confident it will not be her last. I remember as a child going to the cinema in Drumshanbo. It was unusual for a small town of the time in that it had a cinema. I remember that short films, usually travelogues, preceded the main features. These were made by the National Film Board of Canada and seemed to be the only short films available to cinemas in Ireland. Even as a small child I often wondered why there was no Irish film board.

Mrs. Ridge

The Senator was an advanced thinker.

Mr. Mooney

It is interesting that it has taken so long to structure the film industry here. We have a proud cinematic tradition that goes back to the very beginning of film and those at the cutting edge of film development in America were Irish. While a significant amount of film was produced here from the 1930s to the 1950s, we did not structure that industry until the late 1970s and 1980s. Our present movement towards structuring the industry is to the credit of previous Governments and the Minister will continue that momentum.

Ireland is now a premier location for film makers and production of film due in large part to the excellent work of the Irish Film Board. It is difficult to imagine this country without such a statutory body charged with developing an Irish film industry, yet a previous Government abolished the Irish Film Board in the 1980s. I became a Senator around the same time and am proud I recorded my opposition to my own Government's decision at that time. I found it incomprehensible, even though there were reasons for it.

Happily, we live in more enlightened times and with the re-establishment of the Irish Film Board in 1993, Ireland entered an exciting era in the world of film. The international success of feature films such as "Braveheart" is an example of the huge benefits that can accrue to the Irish economy as a result of a positive, proactive approach to the industry. However, has the Minister been able to establish exactly how much money has been generated in the economy, not just as direct investment in film but as ancillary benefits?

In the same year that the Film Board was abolished, the then Government introduced perhaps the single most innovative piece of legislation since the tax exemption for artists in 1969. I refer of course to section 35 of the Finance Bill, 1987. It is ironic that the same man, then Taoiseach Mr. Charles Haughey, introduced both pieces of legislation. He will earn a special place in our history for them, though he was also responsible for abolishing the Irish Film Board. The initiative taken by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds and his then Minister for Finance, now Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, in re-establishing the Film Board coincided with the appointment of Deputy Michael D. Higgins as Ireland's first Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gealtacht. Deputy Higgins's legacy to the development of artistic and cultural activity in this country is for historians to analyse, but it would be churlish not to acknowledge his central role in encouraging artistic and cultural expression to a plateau never experienced in the State.

The appointment of Deputy Síle de Valera to the newly titled Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands has been universally welcomed. As Seanad spokesman on arts and culture during the Minister's tenure as Opposition spokesperson, I came to respect her commitment to the arts. Now that she is in a key position it is obvious from her short time in her new job that Ireland is fortunate in having someone of her calibre, expertise and dedication in what is traditionally an area of low priority for Government, though not for this one.

This debate is another stage in the ongoing story of the Irish film industry. Through this Bill the Minister proposes to increase the limit on the total amount of funds which can be expended by the Irish Film Board in investments, loans and grants for film production from £15 million to £30 million. The Bill also provides that all decisions relating to employment on the board shall be subject to the consent of the Minister for Arts, Culture, Gaeltacht and the Islands and the Minister for Finance. Despite initial misgivings about what I perceived as the heavy hand of Government, I welcome this provision. This board has been autonomous because it has kept its distance from Government and is very effective. However, film is a risky business by its nature. It is possible that in future the board might lose its perspective and feel that a particular project would be wonderful or that it needed to send people chasing around the world for commissions. That casts no reflection on the current board or future appointees, but this is important legislation.

The film board's remit is wide-ranging. For example, it supports creative animation through the "Frameworks" scheme. Since the demise of the Sullivan Bluth Studios there is now a pool of animation designers in this country who continue to be encouraged by the board. It is sad that what was to be termed Disney West did not survive here. The Sullivan Bluth studios provided some excellent animated films which were critically successful. Huge numbers were employed by the studio at one stage. However, the expertise and skills created during that period are of ongoing benefit to Irish film.

The "Frameworks" scheme is a joint enterprise with the Arts Council and the Northern Ireland Film Council. This scheme, as well as the "Short Cuts" series, to which the Minister has also referred, renewed the Film Board's partnership with the independent production unit in RTÉ. Another new drama initiative with RTÉ, entitled "Real Time" was introduced in 1995 to provide for the funding of a number of one hour dramas in the tradition of "The Clash of the Ash", "Ball-room of Romance" and, more recently, "Bally-seedy". This was a very powerful production dealing with an emotive period in our history which some might suggest should never be reopened. The fact that we can look at events which took place during the most traumatic period in the birth of our State shows a maturity in our nation.

Could the Minister urge the Film Board or the independent production unit in RTÉ to search for indigenous stories for film production? Comparison with the BBC may be unfair but that corporation has reflected British history in a most stimulating and enjoyable manner and has managed to adapt the classics of English fiction — particularly the novels of Jane Austen and George Eliot — to film. We have a wealth of stories of a similar ilk and yet we do not seem to have grasped the nettle. A certain number are coming on stream but we do not see enough of them. Why have we left it to other countries — and I think again of the United Kingdom where a series on the career of Charles Stuart Parnell was produced — to produce adaptations of events in our history? We have had excellent interpretations of our history - for example, of the Treaty negotiations — but we may be pursuing subject matter which we think will suit an international market when we should concentrate on projecting a better image of ourselves. RTÉ, for example, heavily hyped the recent gangster drama, "Making the Cut". That drama could have been filmed anywhere in the world. It happened to have Irish actors but the story line would have been at home in New York or Los Angeles. This was protrayed as a very significant drama breakthrough. I do not suggest that it was wrong to do this series but the money and resources that went into it could have gone into an intrinsically Irish story with an Irish setting and with an Irish philosophy and ethos.

This Bill's proposal to increase significantly the financial base of the Irish Film Board heralds an exciting new era for Irish film makers. Some idea of the important work of the Film Board can be gleaned from the list of titles funded by the board since its re-establishment in 1993. Among them are the current Stephen Rea movie, "A Further Gesture", now on release internationally to critical and commercial acclaim; the powerful "Some Mother's Son", which, despite the vicious propaganda of some right wing British newspapers, was a commercial success and brought a rare and dramatic insight into one of the most traumatic periods in recent Irish history — the hunger strikes of 1981. I urge people to see that movie — it is available on video — and not to listen to the propaganda that suggested that it glorified the IRA. It is a powerful film which looks at the position of the mothers of two hunger strikers. Many Irish people who know little about the hunger strikes would find this movie an education as well as an entertainment.

The most succesful gangster movie ever produced in Ireland, "I Went Down", has won a number of international awards. It would not have seen the light of day without funding from the Film Board. Unlike "Making The Cut", "I Went Down", is an Irish gangster movie. Its setting, the cast and the story line are Irish. You are left in no doubt that this film was made in Ireland.

There are, of course, many other activities in which the Film Board is involved, notably, EURIMAGES founded by the Council of Europe and which provides production finance for co-productions. The development of an ethnic Irish film industry in the European context is a significant antidote to the Hollywood cultural invasion and the success to date of the Government's film policy disproves the argument that European cinema — and particularly Irish cinema - cannot compete with the Americans.

Despite criticisms of the changes in section 35 of the Finance Act last year, the Irish film industry has not suffered unduly. In the tax year 1994-5, section 35 attracted a total investment of £82 million in the Irish film industry from 7,300 investors. This figure had fallen to £15.4 million from just 35 investors in the year 1996-7 and coincided with the introduction of a new tax relief scheme for the film industry in the UK and the establishment of the new Northern Ireland Film Commission. Although these initiatives can be expected to have some impact on Ireland as a preferred location for film makers, the industry here is in a robust condition. In the year to date a total of 11 feature films have been produced and this figure compares well to previous years - nine in 1993, six in 1994, 11 in 1995 and eight in 1996.

Changes to the business expansion scheme by the Minister for Finance in the recent budget reducing the amount for any one project to £250,000 should encourage more venture capital into the Irish film industry and the 80 per cent incentive under the section 35 provision should prove an attractive option for those wishing to minimise their tax liability. In this regard I ask the Minister to look at the risk factor that is traditionally associated with investment in film. Can the Minister reassure the House that her Department will take every step to ensure that those investing in section 35 films will receive the fullest protection within the Minister's limited remit in this regard? I am especially concerned about the criteria laid down in regard to those who come looking for certification. There has been one scandalous experience where investors lost several million pounds through getting involved in a very shaky deal. This case involved a woman who went around this town projecting an image of credibility. I am sure that if the Minister is faced with this lady in the future she will take a close look at the provisions for granting certification.

As the Minister stated at the presentation of the 1997 Jesuit Film and Video Awards to young Irish film and video makers recently, this is an exciting time for film production in Ireland. For an industry which at the start of the decade seemed in terminal decline we have witnessed an unprecedented upturn in levels of production which has been driven by a real renaissance of indigenous Irish production.

The range of strategies which the Minister is putting in place, including the provisions in this Bill, should ensure that Ireland's young film makers will enter a buoyant industry when their time comes. I particularly applaud the requirement that film projects obtaining section 35 assistance should include a number of trainees and since 1994, 760 trainees have been involved in film projects certified by the Department. I look forward to hearing more good news from the Minister about the Irish film industry and I hope that when she obtains the Oscar, which she will no doubt be entitled to by the end of her term of office, she will find a small place for myself in the penthouse suite of the Beverly Hilton in Hollywood for the presentation.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Dr. Henry

I would like to share my time with Senator Ridge. The Minister has come with such good news and such a splendid speech that I feel we should ask the Leader to ask the President to sign the Bill early so that we can all go home in a good mood for Christmas.

The Irish Film Board is doing a very good job in leading the industrial side of the film industry. It is nice to hear tributes paid to the former Minister, Deputy Higgins, for the amount of work he did to improve the situation over the last few years. While the big budget Hollywood blockbusters get notoriety in the newspapers it is excellent to note the number of Irish films which have been made, be they long or short. The film board has done a great deal to encourage Irish film makers to become more active in trying to secure co-producers in Europe and in encouraging them to get the co-operation of people from around the world. It is important that the Irish film industry gets into the mainstream of the film business.

The Northern Irish film commission has recently been reorganised and refinanced with money from the British lottery. There is great scope for co-operation with film makers there. I understand that such co-operation does not preclude us from our entitlement to seek EU funding. It also represents a good mechanism for encouraging co-operation on the island. Some of our stories are joint stories which need to be explored.

Money is not the only commodity which is needed for the film industry. We have no shortage of talent, which is the other required commodity. We appear to have actors, actresses, directors, producers and writers in great abundance. It is also interesting to note the rapidity with which we have been able to produce artists for the animation side of the industry.

The importance of music to the industry is often forgotten. People now make a living from writing, producing and performing music for films. This has given great encouragement to our musicians. There appears to be talent in abundance.

Some time ago criticism was made of our shortages on the technical side. However, these deficiencies are being remedied by the national film and training committee, which appears to be doing excellent work. It will ensure that we do not have to import expertise, as happened in the past. In addition, we apparently have an enormous number of experienced back-up staff involved in the production of sets, costumes and so on. Every facet of the film business appears to be covered.

This is a very high employment industry and I often wonder if we realise the numbers employed, not only within the industry but also in the ancillary services. It is hard to walk around Dublin on occasion without tripping over cables and encountering coffee being dispensed from vans to the stars and the lesser beings producing films. The areas by the Grand Canal around Ringsend appear to be popular locations.

Concern was expressed about the possibility of Ireland becoming an excessively expensive place to make films. We must watch this to ensure that we are not seen as expensive. The last British budget introduced major changes in the tax incentives for the making of films in Great Britain. We must be careful that we do not lose our competitive edge. The payback rate here of 20 per cent is exceptionally good. The Australian film commission is widely praised, yet it only gets a return which is half of ours. In view of this, the film board can be justly proud of what it has managed to do. It is proper to increase its remit.

Our films are very important to us. They tell our stories and provide us with the possibility of bringing them abroad. The reception of Gerry Stembridge's film "Guiltrip" is an example. In addition, Paddy Breathnach's film "I Went Down" sold very well internationally and has won awards. We also have tremendous short films which have been broadcast on television, both at home and abroad.

It is important that we also produce dramas which look specifically Irish. I was very disappointed with the portrayal of Waterford in "Making the Cut". It was depicted as a city from anywhere. This may have been necessary for international sales but I am not sure it is right. It may have been better to have depicted something more specifically Irish.

The same argument applies in the case of classics such as the novels of Jane Austen. How well would "Castle Rackrent" be received? The adaptation of "The Irish RM" was incredibly popular internationally. In view of this, the production of films which are specifically Irish may be a better way to proceed than trying to make something which could be about anywhere. Perhaps the film board could discuss this with film makers.

The national broadcaster invests money in the production of a number of films. However, the funding provided by Channel 4 to co-productions here is probably far higher. It has put huge investment into Irish films, such as Cathal Black's "Korea", which did incredibly well. The more the national broadcaster can do for the film industry the better. Even if it is not making films it is very important that it should broadcast them. Perhaps the most important films they should broadcast are those associated with Northern Ireland because they often show how ridiculous our prejudices are.

I regret the disappearance of small independent cinemas because in parts of the country people are being deprived of the opportunity to see the kinds of films which they showed. The big ten screen complexes often only show the Hollywood blockbusters for commercial reasons. While specialist films are shown in the Irish Film Centre it does not mean that people from around the country can see them.

Has the Minister considered the possibility of investing in a cinemamobile? There are a number of them in France and one in Scotland. They can go to small towns and set up a 100 seater cinema in approximately 30 minutes. They would be able to bring Irish films to the people if they are not broadcast sufficiently on RTÉ. They cost approximately £500,000 and the running costs are usually very low because they are mainly self financing. During the celebrations marking the first 100 years of cinema one toured the Border counties. It mainly showed films to schools.

It is important for Irish films to be seen at home and abroad. They are incredibly popular from Japan to the US to Russia. Apparently the Irish Film Institute continually gets requests from festivals throughout the world to send them Irish films. A big festival is being held in Brussels in January where tributes are to be paid to Neil Jordan for his work. In what better medium can we display our culture and our music? It is the most important art development of this century.

It is also important that we see films about the cultures of other countries. The recent racist statements are to be regretted. It would be a good idea if we had the opportunity to see films from other parts of the EU, eastern Europe and Africa and to attend exhibitions associated with them. The Irish Film Centre tries to hold such exhibitions but it lacks resources to take them around the country. This should be addressed because people should not be obliged to travel to Dublin to see them. A film about another country may only be half the story because the discussion of the history of the country can be very important in reducing prejudice.

Young people should be exposed to important films because they help them develop an understanding of other countries. It is interesting to note how important film has become in the education curriculum, both in art and English. The cinema is also an art form which young people have no difficulty in criticising; they do not find it intimidating. It is important that people develop a sense of criticism to ensure standards are maintained. The public must be educated as well as film makers so that we will have a vibrant indigenous industry. Another important aspect of educating young people and children is to teach them that technology can be used for all sorts of good and bad purposes. Interactive media are entering all our lives and we have easy access to a bewildering range of material which we must be able to assess.

The Film Archive needs much better funding. There are some important films of which only one copy was made, for example, "Ann Devlin" by Pat Murray. The archive is important for the preservation and conservation of older material. However, we must also be able to ensure the films being produced at present are properly archived.

I commend the Bill and the Minister's work in this area to the House.

Mrs. Ridge

I thank Senator Henry for sharing her time. I welcome the Minister and express my appreciation of the contributions of Senators Coogan, Mooney and Henry. I will indulge in the usual generalities about welcoming the phenomenal growth in the Irish film industry. When I was young our film industry consisted of showings of "The Quiet Man". I am glad we have now moved onto "The Commitments", "Hear My Song", "Into the West", "Far and Away" and "I Went Down", about which everyone is talking.

Film making has placed Ireland under the international spotlight, leading to increases in tourism and foreign investment. However, I have a small worry that people who have seen some of the newer films will expect to see horses in Dublin flat complexes. A number of State bodies deserve credit for the recent success of our film industry — the Arts Council, Údarás na Gaeltachta, RTÉ, the IDA, FÁS and An Bord Tráchtála. Obviously, the Irish Film Board has played a huge part in encouraging film making in Ireland by providing investment finance and loans for producers wishing to use Ireland as a location. The funds made available to the Irish Film Board are well spent. I do not have the slightest difficulty with Bord Scannán na hÉireann receiving equal treatment in this regard.

I welcome the Bill. The proposed increases in the limit of the amount of investments, loans and grants which the board can provide are essential to the continued success of our film industry. We have already promised our support and we welcome the proposed amendment which gives the Government a say in the appointment of officers to the board and the rates of pay. While it is important for the board to have a major degree of independence, it is equally important to have some controls over the spending of public funds.

It is reassuring to know the board was not involved in the famous "Divine Rapture"— which became the divine rupture — fiasco of Roger Corman's tasteless Concord productions. Perhaps the board should examine proposed productions on the grounds of quality and taste before funding is provided. It is important to encourage young film makers and those making low budget and unconventional films. However, the national ethos and what audiences want to see should be to the fore rather than catering for the quirky and kinky aspects.

I welcome the proposed commission and the Minister's think tank. However, will she consider the concept of a rotating fund for Bord Scannán na hÉireann similar to those provided for other State development companies? I support the Bill which I hope will be signed soon by the President.

Miss Quill

I welcome the Minister and the Bill. I am happy to see her in her present position. We soldiered together as Opposition spokespersons in the last Dáil and I can testify to the fact that she has learned her trade and is well positioned to become a very effective Minister for Arts, Culture, the Gaeltacht and the Islands. She is the second such Minister and I wish her well. I also pay tribute to the first Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins, who, with his own flair and style, did enormous work in the development of art and culture.

This is simple enabling legislation which has won the support of both sides of this and the other House and it will be widely welcomed by all those involved in the film industry. It proposes two changes, the first of which is to raise the ceiling from £15 million to £30 million. That is a major vote of confidence in the capacity of Bord Scannán na hÉireann to invest such sums of money and a recognition of the necessity to occasionally alter such ceilings. The second proposal is to reorganise the staff of the board, which I support.

The Minister said she welcomes this opportunity for Members to pay tribute or pass judgment on the work of the board.

Debate adjourned.