asked the Taoiseach in the light of the decision to wind down An Bord Scannan, when a suitable replacement will be provided; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Film Industry.
2.
In introducing the Second Stage of the Irish Film Board Bill on 15 October 1980 the then Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism stated explicitly that investments by the Irish Film Board should be made by reference to commercial criteria and that the Irish film sector would sooner or later have to finance its activities entirely from its own resources rather than from State support. He suggested in that context that it would be appropriate to review the progress of the board after three or four years. Between 1981 and end 1986, the Irish Film Board advanced £1,842,118 by way of loans to film makers. Repayments to the board on foot of loans over the period 1981 to end 1986 have amounted to only £54,383. It is clear, therefore, that the board did not succeed in developing the industry on a commercial basis. It is for that reason that the Government decided to wind down the affairs of the board and adopt the alternative strategy to develop an indigenous film industry as outlined by me in response to Question No. 47 on Wednesday, 14 October 1987.
Will the Taoiseach not agree, from his vast experience of the Irish film industry and other industries, that this industry is not alone in not meeting its potential by way of returning to the Exchequer the investment that was made in it? If that is so and in the light of what he has said, that would not be enough to justify the winding down of the Irish Film Board, as he has so done in recent months. Does he not think that there is a future for the Irish film industry in this country and that its potential in future will not be met in the manner in which he outlined by way of response to a question that was put down last week by Deputy Michael Higgins. Would the Minister not agree that, in line with the emerging philosophy of the present Government, one single State board entrusted with the development of any industry, especially the film industry, would be the proper vehicle for the fostering of the Irish film industry at this time, and not the ragbag of agencies he now has drawn on for the financing of the film industry?
Of course I have a great interest and belief in the future of an Irish film industry. But I do not think anybody, particularly a member of the Progressive Democrats, could be prepared to stand over a situation where the film board would grant £1.8 million with practically no return. They gave £1.8 million of taxpayers' money for making films which were not commercially viable. None of us would wish that situation to continue. The Government have introduced an important tax incentive in the Finance Act, 1987, which, in the view of the most progressive people in the film industry, was what was needed. The Deputy should be prepared to see how that major tax incentive works before seeking any other measures of support.
Do I understand the Taoiseach to say it is all right to give away taxpayers' money through tax incentives but not to give it to the film industry in the form of grants? What return will the taxpayer receive in the form of dividends from the tax incentives? Is the Taoiseach aware that it is common cause on both sides of this House that the film board, as previously constituted, were not fulfilling their commercial role? But is he aware that the board were reconstituted by the previous Government and, as a result of that, much more commercially-oriented people were put on the board precisely to achieve the objective that we agree should be sought, and that it is rather premature to cut the board off at the knees, so to speak, just when this new commercially-oriented board were getting into their stride?
I would not accept that. The board had plenty of time between 1981 and 1986 to do the job for which they were established. Everybody admits that they did not do that job. The Minister, when introducing the Bill in 1980, clearly indicated that the Board should be looked at after four or five years to see if they had succeeded in doing their job.
That was what was done when the board were changed.
My understanding of the position is that there was general acceptance, even among some of the people the Deputy is referring to, that the decision we took was the right one.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply, I would like to ask him the following supplementary. Where does he envisage pre-production finance for film making coming from — and I do not think he can fob us off by saying that the Arts Council will be able to provide seed money? Would he further agree that it is a very crude criterion to use to say how much money has been advanced by way of loans and how much has been repaid? Would he like, for example, to tell the House how many films have been made through the activities of An Bord Scannán providing seed money, the initial finance?
Finally, is the Taoiseach aware of the number of signatories in the international and national film making community who are at one in saying that a body such as An Bord Scannán should be in existence? I ask him to tell us as well in relation to what he has mentioned in his reply, the tax incentive that arises under the 1987 Finance Act, how people are going to get as far as that? Would he not agree that if there is no funding to initiate films, there will be no commercial films against which the tax incentives can be claimed?
The Deputy's questions are over long.
We could have, at any time, a debate on the film industry and how best an Irish film industry could be fostered. All we are concerned with in this question is the activities of one particular board. The argument for ending the remit of that board is unanswerable. They did not develop an indigenous film industry and they were responsible for disbursing, without any particular benefit, £1.8 million of taxpayers' money.
Accepting that there will be no future direct money from the Exchequer for the film board, however regrettable, would the Taoiseach reconstitute the board and allow them to hold on to any future revenues from their previous investments provided they were otherwise funded by the industry and other private sources? Will the Taoiseach say if any provision has been made in his Estimates or any other Estimates for the commitments already entered into by An Bord Scannán to the extent of £200,000 and as promised by the Minister of State in the Seanad in July of last year?
We are making arrangements to ensure that all commitments entered into by the board will be fulfilled.
This is another "back of the envelope" decision by the Taoiseach.
That was a silly remark.
A very true remark.