JOINT COMMITTEE ON ARTS, SPORT, TOURISM, COMMUNITY, RURAL AND GAELTACHT AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Oct 2003

Vol. 1 No. 13

Performing Arts: Presentations.

Chairman

Two groups will be appearing before the joint committee today, the Theatre Forum and the Screen Producers of Ireland. We shall take a presentation from Theatre Forum and later a presentation from the Screen Producers of Ireland which will be followed by a cumulative question and answer session. The joint committee is pleased to welcome Theatre Forum. I was able to avail of an investigation of theatre last night, Sharon's Grave, by John B. Keane. I am pleased the standard of production in Dublin is nearly as good as that in our new theatre in An Grianán, in Letterkenny.

I remind the delegation that members of the committee have privilege but that same privilege does not extend to those appearing before the joint committee. This is probably irrelevant in this case but it is said out of courtesy.

I invite Theatre Forum to make its presentation.

Ms Tania Banotti

I thank the joint committee for offering Theatre Forum the opportunity to make a presentation this afternoon. Theatre Forum is a relatively new organisation. It is the voice for the performing arts in Ireland and spans theatre, opera and dance. It is a large organisation from theatres such as the Abbey, the Gate, the Gaiety and Dublin theatres to the smallest theatres such as Balor Theatre in Ballybofey and the smaller arts venues around the country. We also count most of the arts festivals - the Galway Arts Festival, Kilkenny Arts Festival, Wexford Opera festival - as part of the membership. Part of the role of the organisation is to have an advocacy role and to lobby for improved funding and conditions. It is with that hat we are appearing before the joint committee.

I am accompanied by Mr. Johnny Hanrahan, artistic director of the Meridian Theatre in Cork and currently chairman of Theatre Forum and Ms Garry Hynes, artistic director of Druid Theatre and formerly artistic director of the Abbey Theatre. We are here to give the joint committee an idea of the cost of the performing arts this year and a sense of what we are pushing for in the forthcoming budget. There was a funding cut of about €4 million to the Arts Council budget this year which, although an infinitesimal sum in the overall public finances, had quite a devastating effect, particularly in the area of theatre and festivals. We will give some examples of that today.

As part of our pre-budget submission, which we are launching next week, we did an economic analysis of the sector. While we can stand over the cultural arguments without any problem there has been a perception among many public representatives as to the economic statistics. I propose to give the joint committee a heads-up with three or four interesting figures that may surprise some members in terms of the economic value of the arts. The turnover of the performing arts, including theatre, opera and dance, is reliably estimated at €116 million annually. Theatre Forum members employ 3,000 people full time and during peak periods in excess of that number. The cultural tourism generated by theatre, dance and arts festivals up and down the length and breadth of the country throughout the year, contributes a spin-off economic income of €206 million. The Galway Arts Festival alone generates no less than €11 million per year for the city of Galway in terms of hotel accommodation, restaurants etc.

The figures are often surprising even to Theatre Forum. Those figures can be contrasted with the stark finding of what is happening to companies around the country at present. They have battened down the hatches this year and tried to weather the storm. As one image has put it, they are burning the furniture in the back shop. Members may not be aware of that because they see the shop front. The situation is drastic behind the scenes.

The year 2004 is important for many reasons. Ireland will assume the Presidency of the European Union; it is the centenary of the Abbey Theatre and it is also the centenary of Bloomsday. It is time to properly fund the arts. That is us throwing down the gauntlet and saying many elected representatives are happy to celebrate the achievements of our theatre and film abroad. It is marketed by Bord Fáilte as an activity for which to come to Ireland. People like to claim great ownership of it and yet they have never been properly funded. It is time to change the mindset, not just to the governing parties but to all parties because we make a contribution that needs to be recognised.

In terms of the specifics for this year's budget, we are asking that the arts plan, which was submitted to and endorsed by Government, be funded at the level that was proposed. In other words, if we take 2003 as a blip year, as something from which we can recover, the funding for the Arts Council would need to be not less than €53 million next year.

There are two other issues we wish to bring to the attention of the joint committee and on which we can answer questions. I will not go into too many details. The first is the issue of multi-annual funding. Members may have read in the newspapers yesterday the report from the Irish Charities Board. In the performing arts sector we are not alone in joining with voluntary and community groups in looking at the issue of multi-annual planning, of giving companies the freedom of forward planning, both artistic and financial. This was proposed by the Arts Council, endorsed by Government and implemented to give companies a sense of what they would have over a three-year period. It would allow them plan, work on developing new writers and, perhaps, undertake more outreach work, more touring. What has happened is that the rug has been pulled from under our feet with the announcement from Government that because of the funding situation it will not be possible to engage in multi-annual funding. We are asking that the joint committee support the principle of multi-annual funding and that adequate resources be provided to allow the council to offer that to performing arts companies.

Before I hand over to Mr. Hanrahan I want to raise the issue of VAT on the earnings of foreign artists, and the Screen Producers of Ireland representatives are attending. Some members may be aware of this because it is an issue which affects a number of music festivals held throughout the country in that foreign musicians and actors coming here are subject to 21% VAT on anything they earn. While this is something that the large-scale commercial music promoters are in a position to pay, in effect it is proving to be quite debilitating for music festivals around the country, particularly those which are non-profit and are part of the subsidised sector of the Arts Council, to pay that 21% funding.

We understand there has been a decision by the European Court on a German case brought by an opera singer and we have made our proposals to the Revenue Commissioners that a solution be found in Ireland in line with that European Court judgment which is being implemented by other EU countries, namely, that organisations deemed to be non-profit and in the subsidised sector, which could be verified by the Arts Council, should not be liable to pay this 21% VAT.

We ask that the Arts Council budget for next year be funded at the level which Government had originally proposed - €53 million. We see the principle of multi-annual funding as crucial going forward and we ask that the issue of VAT on foreign artists working in Ireland be addressed by this committee and by the Revenue Commissioners. I will hand over to Mr. Hanrahan to continue our presentation.

Mr. Johnny Hanrahan

The very existence of Theatre Forum and our presence here demonstrates a trend which has been growing in Irish theatre and in the performing arts generally for at least a decade, that is, the professionalisation of our sector. That is no accident. It is largely due to a major realignment in the thinking at Government level on provision for the arts and the consequent significant raising of the level of funding with numerous positive impacts.

I wish to stress that we are not coming in here with our hands out holding the inevitable begging bowl. We want to acknowledge that there has been a decade of sustained growth, a sea change to a certain extent, in the way people perceive the arts and in the way the arts are practised here. This has been evidenced in the vast growth in output and in the number of companies, the range of functions those companies undertake, the international impact of Irish theatre and in the range of ways Irish theatre has advanced enormously over the ten years. It may appear churlish of us to say that cuts which may, in some respects, have appeared inevitable at Government level in a given year should have such a devastating effect on what we do. It is important, with the specific knowledge of the sector rather than a generalised rhetoric about the arts, for me to outline the reason those cuts are so significant and why something that is of infinitesimal value in absolute terms to the Exchequer has such a huge effect on a growing industry.

What I mean is that the growth that has been stimulated occurred on a few fronts, most notably - I am sure this is a great badge of honour in many of the members' constituencies - on the level of infrastructure. A large number of new buildings have been erected and they are the pride of many towns and villages throughout the country. These art centres function not just as spaces for performance but also as community centres, places for people to meet, social centres and methods of creating community bonding. They have been a huge step forward in a country that, traditionally, was vastly under-provisioned in terms of that type of activity.

The other aspect is that because of increased funding the position on the infamous hidden subsidy, whereby many people in the arts work for virtually nothing - in many cases they are working for nothing, relying on voluntary labour or on people who were pursuing activities which were unpaid - has changed because of a set of professional expectations which have come into being. Working people in the arts over the past ten years have professionalised in every way. They have established career paths for themselves and a set of minimum conditions that apply when something is properly funded. The situation that existed prior to this spurt of growth is not one that it is possible to go back to now. There is now an industry in place that needs proper support.

The other aspect is that there has been a big increase in managerial expertise in the industry. As areas have grown, management has had to grow also and the position currently is that many companies have taken on extra staff, have much greater overheads and are now in a situation whereby this year, when the cuts that occurred impacted primarily on our primary function - producing works of art - the number of productions, tours, outreach programmes and impacts we can have on the economy and on society at large have dropped while people maintain a certain basic level of functioning just to survive. The actual growth that has come about has limited our capacity to do what we exist to do.

Members will see in the handout distributed by Ms Banotti a list of impacts in terms of specific companies. Individually, they may appear to be not too serious in that one production was cut from a given company but that could be one of two productions that company may be doing during the year, and around the production there is a range of ancillary activities that take place as well. All of those activities are cut. The industry has contracted significantly and disproportionately, given the amount of money that has been cut from it.

That is the context in which we come before the committee. We would point out one vital fact which is that the cuts which occurred this year are either a blip or the beginning of serious regression in an industry which is offering huge potential and which, traditionally, has been vastly under-funded. It is only becoming an industry that can have major impacts in many ways. We outline those more fully in our budgetary submission. If the cuts are repeated in this year's budget, the impact on all of the investment various Governments have put into the arts over the past 20 years will be seriously compromised. That is the vital point we wish to make.

Chairman

At this point I would like to welcome the representatives of Screen Ireland.

Ms Garry Hynes

Sorry, Chairman, I am Garry Hynes from Druid.

Chairman

We will try to keep the submission brief so that we can have an opportunity to react to the other comments.

Ms Hynes

My remarks will be brief. As founder of Druid Theatre Company in 1975 I have been very much part of the process Mr. Hanrahan described. In 1975, there was the happy coincidence of an Arts Council which decided that the arts existed outside Dublin and sought to make a regional policy and a group of people in Galway founding a theatre company and asking for funding for that. From being the first professional theatre company in Ireland outside Dublin, we are now one of many. From having nowhere to tour to as an organisation, we now have many arts organisations and places to which to tour. There has been extraordinary growth. That growth has now been retarded. Druid has toured to the four corners of Ireland, almost to every constituency. We have created demands and expectations from communities and we now have to tell them that we cannot tour because we do not have any more money for touring and that there is no longer any specific touring funding. We have created demands and expectations for audiences in Galway, Dublin and internationally. We have been fortunate enough to be part of the process where the Irish arts are celebrated abroad. I have received hospitality in many embassies abroad, and I have been very happy to do so and very proud to be an Irish person in the arts.

The significant fact is that this cannot continue. There is a crisis in the making. This year, people are cutting jobs and productions. They are hollowing out their organisations from inside. They will do that again if the cuts continue next year. This committee, public representatives and Government generally will be facing real crises. Unless something is done now we are looking at bankruptcy, falling rates of employment in the industry and the destruction of the infrastructure of the arts, not just the individual companies.

As artistes, we are proud to be part of the culture of Ireland. We are celebrated by our politicians and our Government. We are part of the process of the EU Presidency and part of international relations with China. At all times we are celebrated but the fact is that the members of this committee, as public representatives, cannot continue to celebrate us on the one hand, for which we are grateful, while under-funding us on the other. That is what is happening. They are the people who will determine the cultural life of the children of this country. They will make the determination in terms of spending, getting the arts higher up on the agenda and helping us to properly resolve arguments about cuts in health services and education and not continuing to see the arts as something that has to come in last on that agenda. We cannot say, on the one hand, that the arts are central to our sense of our identity as Irish people and our culture while, on the other hand, say that we cannot spend any money on that area.

Chairman

I thank you. The theme is very much that we do not want to be victims of our own success. That probably applies to the film industry as much as to the theatre. Coming from a performing arts or a musical background I understand the difficulties that have been faced in the past but I also recognise that there has been a major move forward in the recent past. To get even a basic outline of the position of film in Ireland, and there have been massive strides recently, I ask Ms Egan to introduce her team. I ask you to remember that members of the committee have privilege but people appearing before it do not.

Ms Joan Egan

I am the chair of Screen Producers Ireland, which is the representative body for all television and feature film producers. Andrew Lowe and James Flynn, who are co-chairs of the feature film sub-committee of Screen Producers Ireland, accompany me.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before it this afternoon. It is timely that we should be here in 2003. A short time ago the Irish Film Board celebrated its tenth birthday and looking back to 1993, it was the time when we had section 35 and at that stage it was extended to individual investors. It was at the point when it was extended to individual investors that it began to have effect. It then became section 481, which we have all grown to know and love.

Film production took off in 1993 and today we can look at some spectacular successes, the latest being "Intermission", which looks like being the biggest box office success for any indigenous movie, taking €2 million at the box office in Ireland. The "Veronica Guerin" movie grossed €3.1 million and the "Magdalene Sisters" grossed €20 million worldwide and has also won the Golden Lion award in Venice. Jim Sheridan has been heard to say that that is the equivalent of an Irish league side getting to a world cup final, and we all know how we would celebrate that. The bunting would be out but bunting is rarely out for the industry.

I have been in the industry for all of the past ten years. In that time, since the tax incentives were in place, I have seen an industry grow from very small beginnings when major moviemakers came here. At that stage they would have to bring with them all the heads of departments. All the seriously well-paid jobs came in from abroad. Even at that, we could at best crew up one serious film. In the ten years the incentives have been in place, we have a very highly skilled workforce. We could now be involved in at least five major international movies and keep a number of other mid-range movies going at the same time.

Last week I enjoyed the privilege of visiting the incoming students at Dún Laoghaire Film School and they were buoyed up by the fact that the students who finished their college life in June were all working in the industry. The entire make-up class of 2003 is currently working on the "King Arthur" film. Those people are entitled to believe that this industry will continue for them when they come out of college at the end of their three or four years studying.

The film business in Ireland is a good news business and we would like to help the committee understand the reason it is so important to properly support this industry. There are many topics we would like to debate with the members including the Irish Film Board funding, examining RTE and its involvement in feature film post its licence fee increase and the beloved section 481. The status of section 481, however, or some other tax incentive is now so important to our survival that we have decided to focus our attention, and hopefully that of the members of the committee, on this single topic as it will be the deciding factor in either the death or growth of our industry. I will ask Mr. Lowe to outline the reason we are so passionate about the future of section 481.

Mr. Andrew Lowe

Members are probably aware that in the last budget, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, announced that he did not plan to renew section 481 on its expiry date of 31 December 2004. In that same budget speech he included eight or nine other tax breaks, all of which were property tax breaks. He stated that his general policy was to eliminate all tax breaks unless there were sound economic arguments for retaining them. In response to that decision, Screen Producers Ireland came together and formed a committee, together with RTE, SIPTU, Actors Equity Union and IBEC, in other words, a pan industry initiative. We commissioned an independent consultant to write a report focusing mainly on the economic arguments for having a film industry here because we felt the arguments made up to then had been mainly cultural ones that, while valid, were not the sort of arguments that cut ice with the Department of Finance. The report focused on the economic contribution the industry makes. Members will have received a copy of that report by now and I will speak briefly on its principal findings.

The most important point in the report is that there is a three to one return on the Exchequer's net investment in section 481. On the one hand there is a cost to the Exchequer of tax foregone on the scheme but on the other there is a benefit derived from the national economy through direct taxes paid back to the Exchequer, together with jobs created and added value in the economy. The important point is that section 481 more than pays for itself. It is not a drain on the Exchequer. On the contrary, it creates jobs and added benefit for the economy.

Ms Egan referred to 1993 as being a seminal year for film production here. Prior to that, film production had been patchy at best. Since 1993, with the re-enactment of the Irish Film Board and the amendment of section 35, production has grown on average 18% per annum over that ten-year period. In that time, the average number of productions has grown from six per annum in 1993 to 21 per annum today. It is now estimated that the overall turnover in production in Ireland for 2002 was €140 million. This is a significant industry. It employs 4,300 directly between feature film and television drama, not to mention other ancillary jobs in the wider audio-visual industry that, to a certain extent, rely on the existence of the film and television drama industry to sustain their own businesses.

Ireland has had extraordinary success. We have come from nowhere to being one of six key locations internationally for film production in a very short period. Our principal competitors in that regard are the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and, to a lesser extent, the Isle of Man and Luxembourg.

Ms Egan touched on the Dún Laoghaire Institute of Technology film course. Ten years ago there was not a single third level college place available for film and television drama. Today, there are thousands of students in full-time third level education and there is a real issue for those people as to where they go on graduation. What the report really focuses on are the successes that the industry has enjoyed over the past ten years. That success points to potential growth in the industry in the future. The projections are based on current activity and retaining the tax scheme with some amendments to it. The industry can triple its turnover in jobs over the next ten years.

To back that up, we examined two areas. We drew on case studies of the position in Canada, the UK and Australia. There are mature film and television drama industries in those territories which have been sustained by their respective governments over a long time. Tax incentives are in place in those territories together with a commitment from national broadcasters and national film agencies to develop their film industries. As a result the film and television dramas in those territories make major contributions to those economies. The UK has the most successful film industry outside America in terms of box office share in the United States. The UK sent a parliamentary committee to Ireland in 1995 to learn from our success. At that time the UK film industry was in the doldrums. The UK observed early successes in the film industry here, "Braveheart" being the most high profile success. Its parliamentary representatives came here and learned from our experience. Some four tax incentives were introduced in the UK for various aspects of film production, a significant amount of lottery funding was channelled into the industry and a new national film agency, the Film Council, was established, as a result of which the UK's film industry is booming. The industry has invested in infrastructure, new studios have been set up and they are chock-a-block with work. The most significant aspect of all that film production is that most of it is inward investment into the UK economy. We point to those territories as examples of what we could achieve here were we to continue to support and nurture our industry.

We also focus on some other industry successes that have been enjoyed in Ireland. We are acknowledged as world leaders in the software, biotech and pharmaceutical industries. Had anyone said 20 years ago that would be the case they would have been laughed out of court. A strategic policy by State agencies together with a sustained tax policy in the form of lowering the rate of corporation tax has enabled Ireland to become a world leader in those industries. Our argument is that the provisions of section 481 represent for us the support provided by Enterprise Ireland, the IDA and low corporation tax and that is why we need it to continue in place.

The nature of film production is such that low corporation tax is of no interest to a Hollywood studio when its people are deciding where to make a film. If one were to produce a $100 million film, one has no idea if there would be a market for it in terms of whether it will sell at the box office. It is a risky proposition. One is primarily motivated by considering where one can go in the world to try to reduce that risk. There are generous tax breaks for the film industry in the UK, Australia and Canada. The tax break for the industry here is significantly less competitive than the tax breaks in those territories. If we lose the tax break for the industry here, film producers will not come here; they will go to those other territories. The film industry is a cost centre activity and corporation tax does not come into it. Capital grants that Intel or Dell might avail of through Enterprise Ireland or the IDA are also not applicable. The nature of the film industry is such that a film company would come here for approximately nine months and spend some $40 million and then leave. Therefore, there is no investment in capital infrastructure as such. That is why we point out that the section 481 tax incentive is a specialised industry investment incentive.

Another finding of the report is that in the event of section 481 being removed and not being replaced by some other fiscal tax incentive, there would be an 80% reduction in production activity in the short-term. That might seem dramatic, but the majority of film and television drama production here is in the form of inward investment from the UK and the United States. To illustrate this point, I will ask Mr. Flynn to give a concrete example of a film that is currently being shot here.

Mr. James Flynn

I am involved in a film currently being shot here. The figures from a cost-benefit analysis of that production are staggering. The maximum that section 481 in terms of a production can cost the Exchequer is approximately €3.5 million because we have a cap on investment to keep down the cost of productions. Unlike here, there is not a cap on large budget productions in the UK. Therefore, the maximum exposure the State faces on an investment by a production here is €3.5 million. A project I am involved in, King Arthur, has located here and availed of the Irish tax incentive. At a maximum cost to the State of €3.5 million in terms of that production, the spend by that production company here in terms of employment, PAYE, taxes, non-recoverable VAT, hotel accommodation over a nine month period will be €55 million. That production company's PAYE bill of direct tax return will be €10 million. In any industry such investment figures are impressive.

One of the most successful Irish films of all time, "Veronica Guerin", cost the State the maximum level of €3 million, but it brought in approximately €17 million last year. It was a small budget film, but it yielded a €17 million spend in Ireland. Apart from the director and the lead actress, Cate Blanchett, the entire crew and cast in that film were Irish. That was a world-class film from probably the most successful Hollywood producer, Jerry Bruckheimer, which performed at the highest level and was fully staffed, crewed and casted by Irish staff with the exception of the lead actress.

Another trend that has developed over the past two or three years, in respect of which we face a possible lost opportunity, is worth examining. The way forward in the film business is franchise films. Films such as "Matrix" and "Lord of the Rings", which have repeat business, are being made. The film makers of the "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" carefully considered locating here last year, but due to uncertainly over section 481 it was difficult for them to plan ahead. There are other franchise films, where some three or four films might locate here and provide continuous employment. There is a potential missed opportunity in respect of that emerging trend, if we do not operate a measure that activates market investment and inward investment.

Chairman

Coming from an arts background, I am delighted there is so much happening in this area. When one thinks of the arts, one thinks of songs, the theatre, actors, actresses and there was reference to make-up artists, but one forgets that there are many more involved than those one sees on stage or screen. We have completed an arts report on art as a fundamental building block, which pertains to the lack of investment in the arts at primary school level. How will actors, actresses and musicians, the raw material with whom the representatives are working, come through? We have achieved a great amount in the arts despite a lack of investment at the early stages right through and we want people who are interested in the arts to become part of the audience. This committee is trying to raise the profile of the arts.

In regard to the issue of the €53 million funding from the Arts Council, we will fight that corner with the representatives. The Arts Council and the Minister responsible have been before this committee and we will probably invite representatives of the new Arts Council to come before the committee in the next number of weeks. With regard to multi-annual funding, no business or organisation can work without such a funding system in place and even county councils are calling for such system.

The two presentations referred to the 21% VAT and section 481. At one stage it seems that people were not taking the issue seriously and those involved in the industry had to repeat the economic argument that it is worthwhile investing in the arts. The economic argument is clear-cut. That makes our role as politicians easier when we go to the Department of Finance to argue on their behalf because everything comes down to the economic turnover and an investment of one and one in an industry yielding a multiple of three. Both groups are saying that an investment of one and one in the film industry will not only yield a multiple of three but possibly a multiple of ten or 11, and in that respect I am interested in such investment.

I will open the discussion to members of the committee who may wish to pose questions. A comment was made that people were able to use the funding available to employ more managers. I ask the theatre people to reflect on that and to comment on whether there is a danger - although maybe the industry here is too young in that regard - of having too many chiefs andlosing the Indians. That can sometimes be a concern.

Senator O’Toole

The presentations were interesting, informative and important. Finance and economic issues were raised. While we would be aware generally of the views, budget speech and statements made by the Minister, I was not aware of the deep impact on both sides of such measures. Perhaps we should invite in an official from the Department of Finance to explain whether the thinking we have heard is logically correct and accepted. If so, at least we would know the basis on which the Department will make a decision. I propose we have such a discussion at some stage.

Two main issues have emerged. As politicians we are required to have a certain element of cynicism; it is part of our self-protection and self-preservation.

Deputy Glennon

The Senator should speak for himself.

Deputy F. O’Malley

So we will develop it.

Senator O’Toole

It is hard to reconcile what the representatives have described as a highly successful film industry with that industry being desperately in need of State support. The representatives have not made that connection clear and I ask them to elaborate on it. How is that the case? I suspect I know why it is the case, but I would like it spelt out.

Garry Hynes made a strong point that we all celebrate the success that has been achieved. What is the ratio of State aid as against company generated income, commercial support, sponsorship or other income? The representatives may not have precise figures on that, but they might broadly indicate that ratio.

One of the big problems in our society is that the wealth creators, the entrepreneurs, are a dull shower of people with very little sense of creativity. That is my slightly biased view of the world. They are not the people with whom one would choose to go for a pint on a Saturday night. I am aware that the organisations are required to be entrepreneurial in developing their work. Is there any way we could tempt those dull, unimaginative people in the Department of Finance to consider that a link could be made between the creativity the organisations encompass and R&D in Ireland? Are there ways we can make stronger connections with that area? That is the button we would need to press on the groups' behalf, if we were to develop that area?

Chairman

I will take a number of questions together as they may be related.

Deputy F. O’Malley

I welcome the representatives of the two organisations. I do not have questions for them because I familiar with both organisations. Having worked in the arts I am a big supporter of this profession. The arguments made by the representatives of the two organisations are strong economic arguments. To those of us who are interested in the arts, the representatives are preaching to the converted. However, other people, who are not necessarily interested in them - not that I dare call the Minister for Finance a philistine, although this area may not be where his passion lies - tend to hold the purse strings. The Minister is interested in bottom line growth and jobs. The representatives of the two organisations have clearly made that argument. Investment in the arts is a long-term one and we are now beginning to reap the reward of the investment that has been made in them over the past 25 years. However, that growth and progress will be stilted going forward if we do not have a commitment, a passion and a basic strategy for developing the arts.

The Government should not go back on the arts plan, particularly in terms of multiannual funding. From previously working in this area in England, I am aware that no company can operate on a year-by-year basis. Growth happens when one has the scope to plan a little further into the future. Our committee should make a recommendation to the Minister based mainly on the economic arguments put forward because that is what will wash at the end of the day. The organisations should focus on that and shout aloud that argument in the run up to the budget because investment in the arts is long-term, and it is one we must make.

Senator J. Phelan

I welcome the representatives of the two organisations. I apologise for not being present for the start of the meeting, I missed the Theatre Forum's opening remarks. I agree with much of what has been said by the two previous speakers. Senator O'Toole's proposal to invite in an official from the Department of Finance is a good idea. I am struck by the weight of the economic argument in the two presentations. Deputy O'Malley was right in saying that is what will wash and it is the argument that we can most clearly hold up to the Government.

I was shocked and surprised by many of the figures and statistics given. I did not realise the full extent of the economic value of the arts sector to the country. If Government funding for the arts for the coming year will be at the level it was in last year's budget and the cutbacks will be continued, will many of 3,000 people employed in this sector lose their jobs? I am not seeking a specific figure, but in terms of the €206 million revenue that accrues from cultural tourism, would such cutbacks have a direct knock on effect and result in a tremendous decrease in that revenue?

What the representatives of Screen Producers said about the reduction that would take place in production if section 481 were removed particularly struck me. The figure quoted was 80%. Such a reduction would have a devastating effect on the numbers employed in the sector. I did not realise that some 4,300 people were employed directly in that sector. If section 481 is removed leading to an 80% reduction in production, what will that mean in terms of a decrease in Exchequer revenue and the numbers employed in that sector? I have been greatly impressed by the two presentations. I must confess that the extent of my knowledge of the theatre and cinema is merely sitting in a row of seats and watching the performance. I do not have an in-depth knowledge of the workings of those industries. I thank the groups for their interesting presentations.

Deputy O’Shea

Due to a clash in meetings, I regret that I was not present to hear the presentations. On the cutback of €4 million in this year's allocation to the Arts Council, that case has been well made to me by local organisations, and I am familiar with it.

On section 481, some of my colleagues in the Labour Party tabled parliamentary questions to the Minister for Finance yesterday and while I have not seen the replies, I understand they were quite negative. Deputy Wall is the Labour Party spokesperson on this topic and he is actively examining this issue. We were both in the same situation this evening in that neither of us could be present. The general point of making the overall economic case is important. It would be useful to quantify the net benefit to the Exchequer from the sector in terms of jobs, income and so on. I take it the sector is seeking exemptions from VAT. I was not clear on that point.

Senator Finucane

Both presentations were interesting. The speaker on behalf of the Screen Producers of Ireland said 1993 was a seminal year for the film industry. I presume that was when section 481 was introduced.

Mr. Lowe

It actually existed prior to that but it tended not to be effective. Therefore, it was seldom used.

Senator Finucane

Effectively, it has been in operation for ten years. How much revenue has been foregone in the current year as a result of section 481? My second question is for Ms Garry Hynes, who is well known in theatre circles and has done tremendous work. She spoke about theatre festivals and the impact on them of a cut in the budget. What contribution does private industry make to theatres and the arts? The reduction of €3.25 million is impacting on all these areas and if there is an economic downturn, many of the private companies who support the arts are probably cutting back too. The total amount might not be €3.25 million; it could be more. Has Ms Hynes any information on that?

I am particularly interested in the amount of revenue foregone. It has been properly quantified with regard to the number of people who work in the industry. There must be a degree of uncertainty for the 1,000 people going through college at present with the aim of working in the film industry in the future. They must be concerned about their future in that industry if section 481 is pulled back and if there is the anticipated decline in the number of jobs as a result.

Deputy Kelly

I welcome the Theatre Forum and the Screen Producers of Ireland. I particularly welcome Garry Hynes. We are honoured and delighted to have a world famous director before the committee. I heard her on the radio recently saying much of what she has told the committee this evening. She is doing plenty of rehearsing anyway. I am also glad of the opportunity to audition before somebody so famous. Ms Hynes has been to the Backstage Theatre in Longford on numerous occasions and the Theatre Forum should know that Mona Considine from the Backstage Theatre Group has been in touch with me——

Senator O’Toole

We do not need local politics.

Deputy Kelly

——a number of times about the present situation. I visit the theatre often and I was talking to her no later than today. Longford has a new 200 seat theatre which has brought new life and vigour to the town and brought the arts to many more people. The theatre has become such a part of their lives that it is unbelievable to think that ten or 15 years ago these people would have had no such involvement. We certainly support the theatre.

When funds are available there is no problem. However, everybody will know that the financial situation of the country depends on Exchequer returns and we must cut our cloth according to our measure. I have long been aware of the huge market that exists in Europe for plumbers, carpenters, set designers, producers, directors, lighting and heating technicians and so forth and I am surprised that we do not tap into that market. I mean no disrespect to anybody but I have seen local productions by the Backstage Theatre in Longford that are as good as productions anywhere in the world. They are fantastic from start to finish. Every member of the cast and the workers has a part in it.

Can the Theatre Forum explain what the difference is between the members and the associate members? Can touring not pay for itself given that world famous Irish people are performing? Recently people from the USA visited Longford. They did not intend to go there but they stopped on their way to another place and stayed the night to go to the Backstage Theatre. They could not believe it was possible to see such a fantastic show in a small country town such as Longford. I am curious to know if touring could pay foritself.

I welcome the representatives of the Screen Producers of Ireland. I am a great supporter of film production. Films are big business. Everybody watches them and everybody watches television. How can one get one's message across to the world if one is not on television? One regularly hears people talking about who they saw on television. It has a huge worldwide audience and it does a good job. People who are lucky enough to act have a huge advantage over the rest of us, especially those who are trained to act. It is a great advantage in any walk of life. In my political career until now, I have been at a complete disadvantage because I did not go to the same school of acting as some of the rest of the members.

Senator O’Toole

I believe this script is copyrighted.

Deputy Kelly

I am willing to learn.

Chairman

I am loathe to interrupt the Deputy but does he have another question before he finishes?

Deputy Kelly

On section 481, if it is only costing that small amount of money, why would its abolition be suggested? I would like to see the figures for that and the funding.

On tax breaks, most of the investment is foreign investment. Are Irish people availing of tax breaks in the film industry? We have heard about the successful films that made millions. Are there any other reasons, aside from section 481, for films being made in Ireland? What percentage is influenced by section 481 and what percentage is due to the other reasons? Every member of the committee supports Theatre Forum and Screen Producers of Ireland and we are not saying that just for the sake of it, as we sometimes do. We can see the huge advantage to our economy and our people. I wish the groups well in their continued good work and look forward to Ms Hynes propelling many more people to the top of the ladder on the world stage.

Chairman

I do not know if the Deputy was trying to get the artistic vote in Longford or auditioning for a part as an extra. The delegates can decide that themselves. I call Deputy Glennon.

Deputy Glennon

I thank my colleague, Deputy Kelly, for introducing a necessary element of comedy into the artistic presentation. It is nice to have a little balance.

I welcome both delegations. It has been a hugely informative and enlightening afternoon. My background is in the sporting area and I listened with a degree of embarrassment to the presentations, particularly to the figures and the sums mentioned. I have been made aware of the section 481 issue in the past few weeks by the effective lobbying campaign by the screen producers. I had not been aware of it previously. Equally, I had not been aware of the specific nature of the difficulties being encountered by the Theatre Forum. We hear about it but the arts sector tends to be a little like the farmers in that it is always looking for something. However, when the problem is laid out as specifically as it has been today, it is hugely impressive.

As I listened to both presentations I compared the figures mentioned by the delegates with the money invested in sport. I do not believe sport in this country generates the number of ancillary jobs mentioned in the presentations. I am delighted there is at least one journalist present at this meeting and I hope others are watching these proceedings because that message needs to be strongly conveyed. The delegates are probably victims of their own success in the relatively late development of the arts sector here. It was one of the items that was put on the long finger. There is ignorance among the general public about the arts and there is definitely ignorance among politicians.

Senator O’Toole

We have to represent that ignorance.

Deputy Glennon

That is the essence of democracy. Two powerful presentations have been made to the committee today and they deserve a far wider audience, no pun intended. One of my colleagues made a point earlier about the possibility of bringing in officials from the Department. That is something the committee should consider. Perhaps we should have a facility, when we know the nature of a particular presentation that is due to be made, to have the relevant official present to hear the presentation. That is something we need to examine. It would be better to have the relevant people listening to the presentation first hand at the committee. I do not know what the rules are about dialogue between the groups but it is something the members of the committee should discuss later.

I thank both groups for their powerful presentations. I wish them every success.

Chairman

All members of the committee have contributed to this discussion, which is an indication of the interest the delegations have stimulated. Deputy Kelly asked about touring paying for itself. RTE appeared before the committee on a previous occasion and complained that the orchestra would be the first thing to go because of cuts in RTE funding. I argued that 100 members of the orchestra should travel to Donegal and play one night but during the day break up into 33 groups of three people. Those groups could visit 33 primary schools, show the pupils a violin, clarinet or a flute and generally interact with the pupils. The 33 schools would get a benefit from it and some of the children would probably get their parents to bring them to the concert. The Department of Education and Science would be under some obligation to contribute something towards it but the concert should pay for itself in reaching out to the community.

Perhaps the same could apply to theatre. Theatre is something that happens in a building and sometimes it does not come outside it. Street theatre is often the best theatre. People do not often see it as real theatre but it is. I often wonder if the same thing could apply to the theatre. When a big production company visits an area, there should be some way of swinging the arm, as it were, and getting a member of the company to do an afternoon of horror movie make-up, lighting or whatever. Workshops for schools or after school activities could be important not just for the activity on the particular day but also because a child will remember forever the day the musicians or the film or theatre people visited. I still remember the day a secondary school pupil asked me to try to play the oboe. The children were surprised I could do it but they did not realise that I was a clarinettist. These visits have an impact and also create an audience for the future.

I am surprised the issue of insurance was not raised. The fact that the groups have come together as an organisation is important. The federation of Irish sports came before the committee at one of our early meetings. The groups said they were coming together to work and lobby together. Would it be possible for the small groups throughout the country, and this suggestion was made to the committee by Senator Ó Murchú, to come together and approach an insurance company with a cumulative application for insurance and would their cumulative numbers assist the insurance company in arriving at a more realistic price for insurance? The insurance issue seems to be the single thing driving the heart out of local community endeavours in theatre at that level.

I am sorry so many issues have been put forward in the questions but some of them are inter-related. If the delegates cannot answer some of the questions now, they can forward the information on paper later. We will need to meet again at another date to deal with another issue or aspect of it. This should not be the groups' one and only chance to change the world, as it were, before the committee. I can assure the groups that the members of this committee are anxious to work in support of their arguments.

Ms Hynes

I am heartened by the response of the Deputies and Senators. I feel a sense of connection, which is what we are looking for in terms of what we do and in terms of people understanding the difficulties. Often there is a sense of isolation, of not being listened to and not being understood. I thank the committee for that.

The chairman's suggestion about insurance is good. That proves the point about the issue of managers. This is now a highly sophisticated and structured industry and, like any industry, it needs to be effectively and professionally managed. It is strategies such as that which help us be not only economically efficient in what we do but also to reach out and to communicate with more people. When one hears the argument that there are too many managers in the arts and so forth, what one is hearing is the unfortunate cry of people who are seeing jobs disappearing and their salaries decreasing and who are responding to that in a natural way. However, the professionalisation of the arts, which has been encouraged by the Arts Council and which we have encouraged ourselves, is a critical element in protecting the future of the arts.

A number of interesting points have to be addressed so I will not take up too much of the committee's time. On the economic argument, I appreciate that the committee needs these facts and that the economic argument must be made and clearly understood. However, it should not look directly at the economics of the industry itself to understand its importance. Galway has been one of the most fortunate areas of Ireland in terms of not suffering during the downturn of the 1980s in the same way as Cork and other areas. It has been one of the fastest growing cities in Europe and I have no doubt that its growth has been propelled by the development of the arts in Galway. Our corporation and the officials urge people to come to Galway and invest in the city on the basis of the quality of life in the city. It has a theatre, an arts festival of worldwide renown, the Blackbox and music in every pub and every venue. We in the arts are aware that our work has been sold in order to increase Galway's wealth and income but we have not benefited from that. We have seen ourselves included in films that have sold Galway as a wonderful place, knowing that we are not paying people and that we are suffering at that level. The committee should not look just for the economic justification within our own industry - that is already there - but look at the broader picture.

I accept that the committee has a hard job to do and that it has to convince the Department of Finance but it should look beyond the economic argument. When we make arguments in civic life for the proper provision of health and education, nobody would dare argue that we should only educate or protect the health of those who produce the most. Health and education must be available to every citizen. Surely the arts must be available to every citizen also because we believe in the quality of life here and believe in protecting Irish culture and our way of life. Intrinsically, there is something of value in that.

Ms Banotti

I wish to answer Senator O'Toole's query about the level of State funding versus other funding. The answer is that it is a very mixed bag. For larger events such as the Galway or Kilkenny arts festivals, Arts Council funding may be as little as 40%, with the remaining 60% from a mixture of box office and in-kind sponsorship by embassies bringing over groups, etc. Sometimes, for the smaller companies and people at an earlier stage of development State funding is much higher. Certainly, all the companies are working on their friends scheme. The issue of local authority funding has been very welcome in the past few years and venues have been built. The problem is that now that these wonderful venues have been built, what work can go into them? We now find that less work is going into them so the venues are having financial difficulties. The answer to the Senator's question, therefore, is that funding goes from a high of about 60% of commercial money to much higher levels of public subsidy. It depends on the organisation and the theatre company.

We see two potential answers to the VAT problem. The first is that the Hoffman judgment, which has been sent around to all member states by the European Court, states that fees paid to non-established artists by not-for-profit organisations can be exempt from VAT. That is one solution. The alternative solution is that the Revenue Commissioners can exercise their discretion to apply the minimum limit below which the pursuit of a particular tax is not worthwhile. So, the Revenue Commissioners could apply a distinction between commercial promotions in the Point Depot, for example, where Eminem has performed, and the not-for-profit operations that would be identified and verified by the Arts Council. Those are the two solutions we see to the VAT issue, which is a pressing one. We need a decision from the Revenue Commissioners as soon as possible.

In terms of the difference between members and associate members, we have many people wishing to join the organisation who might come from the Gaiety School of Acting, for example, or a trade association, such as the Association for Professional Dancers. They would not be full members, therefore, but associate members in that they support the campaign but are not individual theatre companies or venues. That is the distinction we make between members and associate members.

We are part of the IBEC high level insurers group and we support their efforts in making representations to the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, and other Ministers. It is a critical problem. We can examine group purchasing schemes but that, of itself, will not be the answer. It is a concern and we should have raised it earlier.

Senator Phelan asked what the impact will be if we do not get the funding that has been sought. It is difficult to say what the fall in jobs will be within six months; it will often be a lot more insidious than that, in that festivals will get smaller, there might be fewer new pieces commissioned, and there will be fewer opportunities for younger people to enter the business. Obviously, jobs will be lost and there will be fewer productions, less touring and less work in schools and outreach programmes by the theatre companies because they simply cannot afford to do so. I cannot provide a figure on the direct loss of jobs but all of that will have a roll-on effect, in that the smaller the festivals are, the less people will come and the less productions there are in particular venues, the less they will be the hub for their community. It is an insidious kind of thing which has already started this year but will have a much more dramatic effect next year, if the cuts continue.

Mr. Hanrahan

Senator O'Toole mentioned the entrepreneurial approach to things and how that might be married with the kind of thing we do and the attitudes our members have. I would like to remind the committee of a letter that was signed by Garret FitzGerald and many other current or former European leaders over the past year, pointing out that culture is currently the single fastest growing and most important new wave of industry in Europe. We all remember a historical point when tourism suddenly became a major industry and the computer sector was pushed forward also. The film industry is an example of something that came from nowhere in the 1990s to have a very strong impact on society at large. In appearing before the committee we are seeking an act of leadership and a leap of the imagination. We could tinker with the details forever but there was a leap of the imagination some ten years ago from which we have all reaped the benefits.

There are two ways in which things can go now, one of which is regressive. The other is to take the potential - of which we are only scratching the surface at the moment - of the industry we are trying to create and make it into an industry of world-wide significance, which everybody here acknowledges it can be.

Chairman

We will go back to the screen producers now.

Mr. Lowe

I wish to address Senator O'Toole's questions. First, on the argument for providing a tax incentive for a successful industry, at the risk of repeating what I said earlier, the point about the film industry is that it is unique in how it operates. No other industry in the world that I can think of spends vast sums - hundreds of millions of dollars - on short-term productions without any idea of whether there is a market for the product. It is a highly mobile industry and is very capital intensive over a short period. As was outlined earlier, King Arthur is a $100-million movie, shooting over a very short period of time. By offering tax breaks, we are incentivising with a very small cost to ourselves. The sum of €3.5 million was mentioned as the cost of bringing in King Arthur. That sum is leveraging a spend in the local economy of €50 million. I cannot imagine any other industry where there is such a clear cut relationship between tax break and return - not over ten years but in a matter of months between offering the tax break and getting the return. It is a very big bang for your buck. The opportunity the film industry provides is recognised internationally and it is why the UK——

Senator O’Toole

What is the catch for the Department of Finance here? What are the figures?

Mr. Lowe

This may answer Senator Finucane's question about the figure for tax foregone. At the risk of blinding the committee with statistics, I can provide figures for the three years from 1999-2001. Those are the figures that the Department of Finance mentioned and with which we agree. The average annual tax foregone is €25 million through section 481. That represents individuals investing up to €31,750 who write off 80% of that against the marginal rate of tax of 42% and one arrives at an average of €25 million. Against that there are two things to take into account. There are €15 million in direct taxes that come from films. The only reason that films such as King Arthur are here is because of the tax break and they are paid directly back to the Exchequer. The tax foregone is €25 million and the direct taxes as a result of that marginal activity are €15 million, so the net cost to the Exchequer is €10 million. Against that one must ask what is the return on that cost of €10 million. The average annual payroll for that same period is €49 million. Against that, one has to allow for two arguments that economists apply.

Senator O’Toole

So the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, is getting a return of five to two?

Mr. Lowe

Not quite.

Senator O’Toole

He is on a sure thing every year.

Mr. Lowe

I would love to agree with the Senator but the counter argument, which we acknowledge, is that there is a certain amount of deadweight. That answers Deputy O'Shea's question about how many films would have been made here anyway, without the tax break. We estimate that 20% of films would have happened here anyway; they tend to be low-budget films that are primarily financed by the Film Board, RTE drama or the occasional film that will come in from abroad because it is set here or for other reasons. Therefore, one has to discount that element of the payroll. There is also the other matter of displacement, which is an economist's concept that states that if we got rid of this industry tomorrow a certain amount of these people would be redeployed elsewhere. Even allowing for both of those points; however, we were able to demonstrate that the net payroll is still €25 million plus applying a multiplier of €5 million that is accepted by the Department of Finance, giving a figure of €30 million, which is a three to one return.

The Department of Finance will probably say it does not fully buy that. We met the Department of Finance officials, however, and in relation to Deputy Glennon's question about having officials here, we have to put on the record that within ten days of receiving our report they courteously met with us and gave us a long time to discuss the report in some detail. So, they certainly have been open to discussing this issue. We came away with the impression that they were at the least open to reconsidering this question, which was somewhat encouraging. Going through the details, they did not necessarily buy a three to one argument but they certainly could not discount that it was two to one or 1.8 to one. The idea that there is a net economic contribution does not seem to be disputed.

There is another point, which I think is worth mentioning. We tend to focus on the bigger-budget American films because in some ways they are so clear-cut and dried, but the other important issue is the domestic industry. When one looks at the film industry from a domestic producer's point of view the reality is that one has this behemoth, which is the United States of America, and the rest of the world is trying to compete with the US film industry. Due to the way in which the industry is vertically integrated, it is difficult for anyone, other than the Hollywood studios, to break into their market. For that reason all our European partners follow the cultural exception policy, which is to provide state-aid for various films and other cultural activities.

When financing a French film, French producers can go to their national broadcaster, regional and local film agencies to finance at least 50% to 60% of their budget through those sources. As a result, there is a vibrant and successful French film industry. Ironically, it is a commercially successful industry because they have this national support that enables them to export their films abroad. It is the same in the UK where producers can go through BBC or Channel Four. Most other European producers can rely on such support. In Ireland, however, the only finance we have is section 481. One can go to the Film Board for a small development loan and a marginal production loan but the only finance we can bring to the table is section 481.

This comes back to the entrepreneurial question. If one had an opportunity to follow a film producer moving through the murky, high octane world of film finance, one would realise that there is no more entrepreneurial animal here than the film producer.

Senator O’Toole

I absolutely agree with that, although it was not the point of my question.

Mr. Lowe

I appreciate that. The truth is that producers work hard to bring finance into the country to make films here. The only thing we can really rely on is section 481. If that is removed it will kill us dead in the water. Senator Phelan was surprised by the number of jobs involved and I must admit so was I when we first sat down to look at this. The nature of film production is freelance; it is not like a full-time factory scenario. To illustrate the figure of 4,300, there are 970 people employed on King Arthur, which is one of 13 films shooting here at present. That provides a sense of what is possible. These are precisely the sort of jobs that Ireland should be seeking to attract more of because they are highly paid, specialised, highly skilled, and internationally tradable. I do not understand why the Government is not asking us how we can bring more of these jobs to this country, rather than talking about saving the Exchequer €10 million and doing away with the return of €30 million to the economy. We are right at the top of the food chain in terms of jobs in the future.

The freelance nature of the industry means that people working in it do not have the sort of security that people have in more traditional industries. To remove section 481 from them is not viable. If that happens we will see the more experienced and skilled technicians emigrating or working abroad, while the less skilled will move to other industries.

I hope I have answered Senator Finucane's question about the cost to the Exchequer. I take Deputy Kelly's point about cutting our cloth according to our measure but because of the figures I have outlined to the committee, ironically, if section 481 is done away with that cloth will shrink again. We pay our way and make more than a viable contribution through section 481.

I have partly answered the question of why film projects come here, other than through section 481. In talking about the dead-weight principle, we have identified the fact that 20% of the films would have come here anyway. Obviously, the reasons they come here include the locations for specific films that are set in Ireland, or the fact that some lower-budget films will happen here in any event.

Mr. Flynn

There was one question concerning section 481 as an investment incentive for Irish residents. It is only available to people living in Ireland and is capped at €31,000. That is the answer.

Senator O’Toole

There is no European problem?

Mr. Flynn

No.

Mr. Lowe

All European countries operate similar schemes. One other point that could be illustrated, and which is important for Deputies, is the regional development potential.

Deputy Glennon

I wish to interrupt briefly as I have to attend another meeting. May I formally propose that, as a matter of urgency, the committee requests the relevant officials in the Department to attend the committee?

Chairman

Yes.

Senator O’Toole

I second that proposal.

Ms Egan

I am heartened by the questions that have come from the group today. Earlier, the Cathaoirleach mentioned the schools situation and the work in progress to introduce writing and acting skills to young people. We are involved with the Ros na Rún project in Spiddal. We have 200 people working there on a full-time basis. They are bringing activity to that area during the winter when there would be no indigenous people paying the way or bringing in salaries. They are renting all the holiday homes when they are not being used by tourists off season. We have just gone into the transition year students' curriculum with script-writing as Gaeilge for those young people. We had a pilot scheme going in national schools and have now moved that up to secondary level. We are in year eight at the moment and have been given a contract to operate years eight, nine and ten. Year ten has been predicated on the fact that if section 481 is not available and goes, unfortunately, so will the project. In recent years, we have been buoyed up by the amount of training and the skills base that is there. We are now getting those people ready in the schools section, trying to tell them there is an industry to which they can contribute. They should be able to look forward in their last couple of years at school to doing something in this business. That is why I am passionate about trying to make sure that we can deliver on our promises to those young people.

Chairman

I thank the witnesses most sincerely. It seems that the Department of Finance is saying it will call your bluff, pull the rug and see whether you will survive. If you do survive they will say, "We told you so", but if you do not they will say, "We will start again another time". If that is the case, it has to be clearly stated and it applies equally to both groups. While our remit is primarily concerned with the arts, it comes under both the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, and the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue. We will touch base with both Ministers and we also need to meet with officials of the Department of Finance and the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, if possible. We will leave that in the hands of the Clerk to the committee.

The groups have presented your case very well. We will be meeting with the new Arts Council to put the case again. We have been building up a case in recent months but have been holding off because the new Arts Council was coming into operation. I feel you have a strong argument and you will know from what we are saying that we are interested. We are amazed at how much progress has been made and we do not want to slip back to the bottom of any queue. Ireland is in the top six countries for film production and we are high up on the list when people come here seeking our culture. You are preaching to the converted when you are talking to me. The reading, writing and arithmetic that will produce all the future entrepreneurs currently in primary school, will be enhanced by the provision of better arts facilities in schools. Our role is to keep that concept to the fore. We will keep banging the same drum in an effort to achieve what you are seeking, also. I will bring the meeting to a conclusion on that note. I can guarantee that we will present your case to all three Ministers, Deputies Ó Cuív and McCreevy and particularly Deputy O'Donoghue and we will strive to be successful in that regard.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.51 p.m.sine die.