asked the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism if he is aware of the difficulty being experienced by independently-owned cinemas in gaining access to first run films and of the sale of Rank circuit to a company (details supplied); if he is also aware of the monopoly situation in the distribution of first run pictures; and if he will outline the steps he proposes to take to see that a fair and equitable system operates in the distribution of motion pictures in this country.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Motion Picture Distribution.
6.
As the Deputy may be aware, the question of supply and distribution of cinema films in Ireland has already been the subject of a public inquiry carried out by the Restrictive Practices Commission under section 5 of the Restrictive Practices Act, 1972. The commission's findings and recommendations were that conditions in the trade were not such as to warrant the making of a ministerial order under the 1972 Act.
In particular the commission found that the major cinema groups and distributors were not party to any agreements designed to create monopolies in Dublin city centre. Neither did they find that the terms of rental applied to different cinemas by various renters, while varying in different locations and situations, were unfairly discriminatory. Furthermore, their examination of the accounts of the principal cinema companies did not lend support to a conclusion that terms had been unfairly discriminatory. In the circumstances, I do not feel that any further action is necessary in this respect.
As regards the sale of the Rank circuit, this proposal was notified to me under the Mergers, Take-overs and Monopolies (Control) Act, 1978, and I decided to refer it to the Examiner of Restrictive Practices for investigation. The examiner has now submitted his report to me and I will be taking a final decision on the proposal shortly.
Is the Minister aware that in the report of the Restrictive Practices Commission. 1978 — page 61, section 7, subsection (16) (2) — it was suggested that the independent city centre cinemas should enjoy a second run status at least on a par with suburban cinemas but that the renters are not prepared to accommodate themselves to that? Thus we have a problem. That report made a recommendation that has not been complied with. The major cinema groups and the distributors are virtually a monopoly. The examiner in the presentation he made to the commission said a monopoly existed but they did not uphold that. My other question related to the independent cinemas——
The trouble is that the Deputy is asking several questions.
I hope that if I get in with two supplementary questions the Chair may be more lenient.
For the benefit of the Deputy, I wish to point out that at least one of my illustrious predecessors, and perhaps more, ruled it is not in order to ask more than one supplementary question at a time. I am afraid I overlooked that ruling and I am thinking of invoking it.
As a part supplementary to the second part of the question, is the Minister aware that in the question of the take-over of the particular group of cinemas to which the Minister referred, the Independent Cinemas Association were in constant contact with the examiner but that he refused to meet them?
I am aware of the facts as quoted in the second half of the Deputy's question and I have expressed my concern to the examiner on that point. The reference to the report is not quite accurate. They said that although they recognised the difficulties the ICA should encourage ventures to promote experiments with concurrencies, particularly where there is a move-over and should also afford independent city centre cinemas second run status at least on a par with suburban cinemas if so requested by the exhibitor concerned.
Have they to apply that on request?
It is an encouragement.
Encouragement from the examiner of the Restrictive Practices Commission usually indicates that he is requesting them to do so. The Minister is aware that they are not complying with that and I should like him to take the matter up further with them. Is the Minister aware that, since the question was put down, another independent cinema has closed, the basic reason being the lack of access to marketable products? Would the Minister consider applying regulations in so far as they apply in the United Kingdom where the situation in regard to monopoly control has been stated in law and where distribution has to take place to independent cinemas four weeks after exclusiveness has been removed?
As I said, the commission recommended against making a mandatory order. They suggested fair practice rules and had a number of meetings with persons involved in the trade with a view to drawing up such rules. In the course of these meetings it became apparent to the commission that, as a result of their interventions and those of the examiner, arrangements had evolved which were working to the satisfaction of the greater part of those in the cinema trade. The commission, accordingly, announced in May 1982 that they did not intend to make these fair practice rules which would not have been statutory but voluntary. It might also be of interest to the Deputy and the House to know that an observer from the office of the examiner of restrictive practices now attends meetings of the product allocation committee of the Society of Film Distributors which is the body responsible for adjudicating on disputes in relation to film distribution outside Dublin. As far as Dublin is concerned, there have been complaints but the relevant authorities, the examiner and the commissioner, have not recommended any action to be made in regard to these complaints and they are the people who investigate in the first place. I am prepared, in the light of the concern expressed, to discuss the matter with the examiner and, if appropriate, with the commission to see if they have any advice to offer.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment the proposed amalgamation of Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.