Vol. 167 No. 5
I move:—
(1) That the duty of customs on cinematograph films imposed by section 17 of the Finance Act, 1932 (No. 20 of 1932), as amended by subsequent enactments, shall not be charged or levied on any article imported on or after the 24th day of April, 1958.
(2) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
Will this be passed on?
No.
The Minister's statement in the paragraph in which he deals with cinemas and patent theatres, is that he feels "obliged to do something to help to preserve both the revenue from cinemas and theatres and the employment which they afford" and he has given a concession which amounts to £50,000. It is given by reducing the customs duty on films and by increasing the rebate on cine-variety in patent theatres. The Minister says he wants to preserve both the revenue and the employment which these establishments provide. I presume he has met the people from the cinemas and cine-theatres who are advocating this and perhaps he could say at this stage if they made any proposals as to how they intend to increase audiences, because if it is merely a question of this £50,000 being paid over to the cinemas and cine-theatres, the Minister will certainly not achieve the object for which this Resolution is designed, the preservation of revenue and employment? As Deputy Sweetman asked the question, I should also like to know if there is any indication that this concession will be passed on to the paying public?
The Minister will recall that some weeks ago I asked him a question in connection with the evasion of tax by exhibitors or cinema people where we had cases in the last few months of Irish films being shown by some cinemas down the country for months on end. We discovered that the same films were being shown night after night because the cinema people had found in that a means by which they could evade duty. In my opinion, that was a form of cheating on the part of the cinema owners——
I cannot see that this question arises on the Financial Resolution.
Of course, it does. It arises from the fact that the Minister agreed with me in the House that evasion was taking place. Now we find the Minister in the Budget is condoning that offence to a certain extent by allowing a reduction to the cinema people of £50,000 in connection with the removal of the tax on the importation of films.
It is usual to leave such matters over for the debate on the General Resolution.
I am entitled at this stage to voice my disagreement with the Financial Resolution. I suggest that the film industry in this country is in the hands of certain combines and these combines are controlled exclusively from outside the State. We have no say whatever with regard to the type of film shown in the country. We have no say with regard to the control of these films. At the same time arguments are put forward in this House that it is necessary to give certain favours to those outside this country who direct films on the basis that if we do not give them this remission there will be unemployment amongst the ushers and the employees in the various cinemas.
I want the Minister to show us how that unemployment position is likely to arise. He referred to other countries in his opening remarks. I presume he was referring specifically to Britain where the subject was discussed recently and where a certain reduction in taxation and so forth was given to the cinema people there on the grounds that television had interfered seriously with the cinemas and that the attendance at cinemas had been reduced through people watching television shows at home. The same argument seems to be put forward in this House, that the reduction in the attendance at cinemas has come about through the attraction of other forms of amusement.
The only form of amusement that has come into this country recently which I can think of is television and, so far, television should not be a recognised factor in the State because we have no television service of our own. I maintain, therefore, that it is premature at this stage to allow any reliefs to the cinema people on the basis of the argument that television has reduced the audiences at cinemas. If and when television is formally recognised in the State and set up as such in our country, then, and only then, are the cinema people entitled to put forward their case for certain reliefs through the Budget. At the moment I do not see how they can put forward any case in relation to television over which we have no control.
The Deputy is getting outside the terms of the Resolution.
If there was any money available for reliefs, instead of channelling it back into a so-called industry which is controlled by outside combines, it would, at this stage, be far more preferable to utilise that money for the setting up of a national film industry here and thus keep the money in the State.
This duty is collected by the rentiers who import these films and lend them to the cinema people throughout the country. Cinema people will get the advantage of this concession. They will get films cheaper than they got them before. The case made to me was that not only should this import levy be reduced but that there should also be a very big reduction in the entertainment tax. We could not afford that. We could only give them this concession. This will enable them to select better films in future and thereby give better entertainment and get bigger houses. If it has that effect we shall gain by way of revenue. It went down 7½ per cent. last year which meant a loss of £100,000 and it will be good business even to get back the 7½ per cent. It would be impossible to pass this on to the patrons. I think that they take in £5,000,000 approximately in a year and £50,000 could not possibly give them any advantage in that respect. It may be accepted, therefore, as being a method to enable the cinema owners to provide better entertainment.
I would agree that the Minister could achieve his object that way because the reason people are not going to cinemas so often is because the films are no good. If we get better films we may have better attendances.
Does the Minister suggest that we shall be able to get better films as a result of this?
They say that if they could afford it they would get better attendances.
But they have no control.
Yes, they have. Deputy McQuillan may be right in saying that some of the bigger houses are controlled from outside. It was the provincial men I met—mostly people who just own one house. They are not giving very much employment—three or four part-time employees. They are certainly in a bad way. I got the audited statement from these people. They found it very hard to carry on.
They did very well in the past 15 years.
They admitted they did very well in the past. I was asked whether I had England in mind in connection with the duty. Principally we had Britain in mind. They reduced the duty over two years, last year and this year, by more than two-thirds. They brought down the entertainment duty by 60 per cent. in two years. We are giving only a small amount.
