Two documents have been referred to the committee by the Sub-committee on European Scrutiny. They relate to the cultural programme 2007-13 and a programme of support for the European audio-visual sector, Media 2007. I am delighted to welcome an all-female delegation from the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, who will outline what is involved in the proposals and their implications. I welcome Ms Sabina O'Donnell and Ms Christine Sisk. They will make a presentation, which will be followed by a question and answer session.
Media 2007 Programme.
I work in the film area of the Department. We are discussing the new Media 2007 programme. This is the fourth such programme of European financial aid to the audio-visual sector and it is designed to run from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013 with a proposed budget of more than €13 million. The current proposal succeeds similar European aid schemes and it will the fourth scheme since 1991. The previous schemes were called Media, Media 2, Media Plus and Media Training. The current programme expires at the end of 2006.
The new proposal consolidates and improves on the earlier schemes and its effect is to assist audio-visual projects at pre-production and post production stages through a series of financial support schemes aimed at training, development, television and cinema distribution, technology-based pilot projects and festivals and markets. This programme is targeted at developing production companies in an integrated and holistic way, that is, from training through to development and promotion. Ireland has benefited from the previous programmes and it accumulated €20 million for development and television distribution, in particular. It is a highly complementary programme to the national supports in place. I will now comment on the specifics of the programme and its overall scope.
The document has three global objectives: to preserve and enhance European cultural diversity, obviously a European objective; to increase the circulation of European audio-visual works both inside and outside the Union — a major objective of the programme is to allow non-national audio-visual works to be seen and exhibited outside their own member state; and to strengthen the competitiveness of the European audio-visual sector.
The budget for the programme is approximately €1 billion. When one takes into account administration costs and so on, there is almost €970 million available for distribution. Approximately one-third of the budget is earmarked for development and training at the pre-production stage of projects. A little more than half of it will go towards distribution and promotion of the completed works. Getting one's works seen outside one's member state is a major problem. Approximately 5% of the budget is dedicated to pilot projects — experimental technology based projects which are targeted at digitisation. That is the broad thrust of the programme.
Members will note from the date on the proposal that it was published in July and is still at a relatively early stage of debate at EU level. At a preliminary discussion at the Council of Ministers last week the Dutch Presidency targeted two items for discussion among member states: whether the positive discrimination measures in the programme aimed at operators from markets with a lesser production capacity were adequate and whether the proposed supports for television broadcasters were adequate. There was a general exchange of views on the issue and general agreement with the Commission's proposals as set out.
Ireland has generally supported the thrust of the proposal which builds on previous programmes. We are pleased training and development and promotion are being combined into a more packaged and structured approach. We would have preferred a slightly higher bias towards development aid but that is a matter for further discussion down the line in the context of budgets.
The programme has significant potential benefits for the Irish audio-visual sector, particularly in terms of television distribution and for development. It facilitates and supports distribution, development, financial training, post-production and digital technology, which is obviously the future of a great deal of audio-visual work.
It is an interesting area though it is not new. Ireland appears to be getting a high percentage of the budget relative to the number of member states. Who delivers the programme on the ground?
Production companies apply for the funding on the basis of proposals from the Commission. The work in each member state is handled by a media desk, an office jointly funded by the member states and Commission, which facilitates applications from production companies here. It also facilitates the distribution of information and co-ordinates all the work related to the applications. There are quite a number of proposals each year.
I welcome continued development in this sector. I am not sure to what extent Nemeton, a company based in the Ring Gaeltacht in Waterford, has benefited under this programme. It is providing worthwhile employment in what is otherwise a difficult area to generate jobs of this nature. Nemeton undertakes work on behalf of TG a Ceathair and RTE. Has that company benefited under this programme?
What is the name of the company?
Nemeton.
I do not have the details of the companies with me but I will check it for the Deputy.
I presume the programme will operate through the Department.
Discussions on the policy-making aspect are handled through the audio-visual working group of the Council of Ministers which we attend. Implementation of the funding is operated through the Commission via the media desk in Dublin which is jointly funded by the Commission and industry in Ireland. While they operate the scheme and we have a very good working relationship with them, they are directly responsible to the Commission.
Thank you. I now call Ms Christine Sisk.
Ms Christine Sisk
I will introduce the Commission's proposals for the new programme for support of cultural activities at European level. The culture 2007 programme is a third generation Community supported culture programme. It is proposed to operate from January 2007 to the end of 2013. The proposal is to have a financial framework of €408 million.
The new programme will target organisations of all kinds involved in cultural activities in the broadest sense. It differs from the earlier programmes in that it will be able to accommodate multi-disciplinary projects whereas earlier programmes focused separately on different cultural sectors. Funding under this programme will be open to all sectors. Previously separate budgets were provided for different art forms.
The proposed programme has three specific objectives: to promote transnational mobility of people working in the cultural sector; to encourage the transnational circulation of works and cultural and artistic products, and to encourage intercultural dialogue. These objectives are to be pursued through supporting cultural actions which will receive 77% of the budget. Support for bodies active at European level in the field of culture will receive 10% of the budget and 5% of it will be given over to analysis, collection and dissemination of information.
The greatest proportion of the budget will be divided between what are known as co-operation vocal points, co-operation measures and special actions. Co-operation vocal points aim to support a network of at least six cultural operators from six different countries which will come together to establish sustainable foundations and work together on multi-annual activities and projects. They may get up to 50% Community support and may receive up to €500,000 per year for a period of five years. An example of such type of network organisation which covers many countries is Literature across Frontiers. Co-operation measures are intended to support co-operation actions through European operators and will involve four partners from three different countries. This support is for a maximum of 12 months and will not be less than €60,000 or more than €200,000. An example in this regard is the Dance Theatre of Ireland and Pan Pan Theatre which have been involved in creative works on a one-year project.
There is also a special actions category which is aimed at projects that are substantial in scope and scale, such as the European capital of culture which will take place in Cork next year. It will also include other elements such as awards and prizes for artistic achievements and co-operation with third countries. This proposal was also discussed at the Council of Ministers meeting last week in Brussels and was broadly welcomed by most member states. Ireland indicated at that meeting that we were happy with the proposed broad approach in the programme which will open it to all cultural fields and does not mention sexual priorities. Therefore, art forms will not be competing against each other. However, we expressed concern that particular cultural fields should not be disadvantaged by this approach and indicated that we would like to see minimum and maximum funding guidelines for the different cultural fields to be served by the programme.
The other area about which Ireland expressed concern at the Council of Ministers meeting was that Irish cultural operators have not yet got the capacity to initiate and facilitate the development of strong product partnership. Being on the periphery of Europe is certainly a disadvantage in this area. The same goes for many of the smaller member states, in particular the newer ones. In the interest of achieving broad co-operation at a European level, we sought that the minimum number of co-organisers be kept lower and more flexible. For co-operative measures involving large-scale networking, Ireland sought that the minimum number be three rather than four and that these be from three different countries. For co-operation on focal points we sought a broader range of co-organisers, with the minimum being brought down to four rather than six. The proposal has yet to be considered by the European Parliament and the budget is subject to agreement being reached on the financial perspective.
To give an idea of the scale of benefit that we have received under the current Culture 2000 programme, over four years Ireland has received support for 38 projects from a total budget of €10.9 million. As we have multiple partners at European level, it is difficult to say exactly how much of this came to Irish cultural operators. However, the real benefit is seen to be in the building of co-operative networks, developing sustainable relationships and reaching a shared understanding of our common European heritage.
Coming from an artistic background, I often wonder how something like this can be organised. The opportunity appears vast, but the budget seems quite small for the period, particularly if many people are going to access it. Take as an example that I want some instruments to start a band and intend linking up with a band in France or playing Hungarian folk music, which would increase the links between Ireland and Hungary and assist European cultural identity. Is there a limit on projects or their size? Could I do something in my home town or is assistance only available to cultural promoters or big organisations like symphony and concert orchestras or even Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann? Is assistance available only to big establishments or can individuals seek it?
Is it linked to the Arts Council or arts plans? Should such organisations not be the ones linking up with what is going on internationally rather than having us reinvent the wheel? Is there concern that there is reinventing of wheels and about how accessible assistance is to both large and small groups and how it is co-ordinated?
Ms Sisk
First I will explain about the Arts Council involvement. The Arts Council is what is called in European terms the culture contact point. If a small organisation wants to get involved in the European network, it contacts the international culture contact point in the Arts Council. When the Arts Council does anything involved in international fora it makes contact with interested people. The networks are well established before going for funding because the groups seeking funding must with their partners commit to 50%. Therefore, they need their relationships to be well established before they ever go for funding. For example, last year a Traveller group that got funding was linked with Romanian gypsies and various others.
The networking is there before groups look for European funding. The same is true for theatres. They work and attend different theatre workshops abroad. They make the links and then decide together to look for funding.
Is there adequate dissemination of the information on the availability of funding?
Ms Sisk
I think there is. The minimum funding is €60,000 per year and 50% of that has to come from the organisations. Therefore groups operating on a very small scale are probably eliminated by having to come up with €60,000. Ireland and the Commission have sought a smaller scale because of the nature of the business we are in on the periphery and because we work with smaller organisations. However, visibility is being pushed at a European level. Europe needs the programme to be visible at that level so it is not agreeable to pushing it down to smaller organisations.
I assume the Cork city of culture festival has already made an application and that an allocation has been earmarked for it. Is it well organised?
Ms Sisk
That is getting a very generous subscription of €500,000 and in the new programme that will be increased to €1 million. However, against the scale of what the Government is giving — €8 million — it is poor.
That was my first point. The budget is low. That may be a harsh statement but it shows where arts and culture stand in relation to international government.
I welcome Ms O'Donnell and Ms Sisk. As someone involved in a number of projects, I see accessibility as the problem with some programmes. People do not know about them. I am involved in a particular project with a European dimension, but this funding programme was never brought to my attention. I cite this as an example because I am someone trying to identify sources of funding for a project with a transnational element.
In general the members here, including Senator Ó Murchú, do not know about the availability of these programmes. I do not know who to blame for that. Perhaps we should accept the blame for not looking hard enough or not asking the right questions. Professionals operating consultancies generally know where the programmes are. The programmes are accessed by the few people in the know and they monopolise them. How is it proposed to promote this programme through the different channels so that people involved in the audio-visual sector here, where there are approximately 3,000 employed, can be informed about the scheme and its parameters?
The overall budget of the programme is €400 million plus for the whole European Community.
Ms Sisk
For the culture programme.
For how many years is that?
Ms Sisk
It covers from 2007 to 2013, seven years.
Does it start in 2007?
Ms Sisk
Yes.
Is there a current programme?
Ms Sisk
There is a current programme, Culture 2000, which will run to the end of 2006.
Has there been a big draw down on that?
Ms Sisk
There has. It is fully subscribed. Over four years Ireland has had 38 projects involved.
Yes, totalling €10.9 million. Is there any possibility we could be provided with a list of those projects?
Ms Sisk
Yes.
We would like to see what type of project qualifies. I see a tremendous opportunity in the area of subtitling. A large number of Irish video productions would appeal to European audiences if they were subtitled in the various languages. Will subtitling of video productions and DVDs receive major emphasis? A project must have four promoters from three different countries in order to qualify. Is that applicable across the board?
Ms Sisk
That is right across the board, yes.
That could pose a difficulty for some projects. We have a cultural connection with France and perhaps even Spain, but we may not have a connection with all three. Some projects would not qualify by virtue of the fact that three different countries must be involved. Could this reduced to two countries or is it too late to change the guidelines?
Ms Sisk
The matter of reducing the number of countries from four to three was raised at the Council of Ministers meeting last week. We appreciate that two countries is probably not in the spirit of the proposed programme in developing cultural networks but we would be happy if we achieved a reduction from four to three.
It is currently four countries.
Ms Sisk
Yes.
I presume the Arts Council will be the main promoter here. It is very important to emphasise to the Arts Council that this scheme should be well promoted and that all groups in the country should have access to it. It should not be just for those in the know. It should not be simply targeted at a small sector but should be open to all groups and communities.
Towns are twinned with towns in France in particular and perhaps in Spain. The number of town twinnings is increasing and the new accession countries are being included. It is very important that this scheme is promoted. What will be the envelope for Ireland and how much will this programme mean for the country?
Ms Sisk
There will be nothing set aside specifically for Ireland. It will be a matter of the Department receiving quality applications and hoping they are well received.
Who will decide?
Ms Sisk
A management committee decides and Ireland is represented on the committee. The committee meets and the decisions are made.
I echo what Deputy Deenihan said about the mystique or maybe non-accessibility attached to existing and previous programmes. It was perhaps more lack of awareness than difficulty of accessibility. Am I correct in assuming the Kaleidoscope programme required the involvement of three countries?
Ms Sisk
That is correct.
Will the new programme involve more countries, perhaps six countries?
Ms Sisk
Four for co-operative measures and six for networks.
Who is responsible for delivering on the co-operation focal points? Is it a matter for individual groups?
Ms Sisk
The co-operational focal point is in the Arts Council to which bodies would go to obtain information on the scheme and to network.
Is there an possibility that within the funding regime a facilitator could be paid for from among groups interested in working together? My point is that somebody is needed to progress an application. This person could point out the opportunities to groups. We often miss out on opportunities that could be very suitable to a particular group. It is necessary to enter into partnership with groups in other countries. Is there any method of funding somebody as a facilitator for a particular group or number of groups or must it all come through the Arts Council?
Ms Sisk
We fund an officer in the Arts Council who works full-time as the culture contact point and spends considerable time with groups teasing through and strengthening their applications to get them through the system. The difficulty lies in that there is no funding for the initial contacts for people to build up the relationships to a stage where they are happy to be co-organisers with another European group and that is a weakness in the system.
I welcome the delegation. As elected representatives it is our job sometimes to work with the grass roots and introduce them to various agencies. I do not wish to be derogatory but it is an area which requires more clarification. We pride ourselves on being familiar with the system. As my colleague, Deputy Deenihan stated, we find it difficult to grasp from where the funding comes and how it can be accessed. It seems to be, for want of a better phrase, a closed shop.
I would like to see a list of the 38 projects which have received the funding of €10.9 million. I am involved in a musical society in my own area. If somebody wants to travel to Germany or France with a production, is funding available? Does one begin by contacting the arts officer in the county council or should I contact the Department? How do elected representatives access the funding? Is funding available for smaller bodies such as a local group wishing to tour in Europe?
It states that the funding is available to support the transnational ability of people working in the cultural sector. I find it difficult to understand what this means.
Ms Sisk
The first port of call for anybody is the culture contact point in the Arts Council who will take people through the process, see if they can be fitted within the scheme and work where possible to involve them in a network where they would fit into the scheme.
Does the Department work closely with the arts officers in each county council because they are the link?
Ms Sisk
The Arts Council works directly with the arts officers.
Has that been done in the case of this programme?
Ms Sisk
The international arts desk in the Arts Council would be in contact with everyone. It has circulated this scheme and is involved in consultation on it.
I would like to see the Department working closely with the various local authorities because they all have arts officers. I am anxious that the grass roots should be contacted. Some Deputies and Senators have more or less stated that people in the know get the information. I accept the Department is doing its best to inform the various agencies but sometimes the information is not getting out to people. Groups may not be aware of the funding opportunities and initiatives available. I appreciate the work of the Department in this regard.
Perhaps the committee should issue a press release to publicise the programme and ask people to be aware of it from January. I see that there is an issue of needing to have €60,000 in one's pocket before getting started. It will therefore have implications.
Deputy Deenihan referred to accessibility in the audio-visual sector more particularly. I accept it can be a closed shop but the audio-visual sector is relatively small in terms of the overall market. The media desk here in Ireland has quite an extensive circulation and mailing list and keeps everybody in the industry very well versed in what is happening. The Irish Film Board is similarly aware of all the available funding programmes and it works in partnership with production companies. I accept that some people may not be aware. However, when money is on offer, people usually find out how to get to it.
They do not tell anyone else.
I emphasise the competitive nature of the funding available in that it must be matched by the production company. It is competitive. Not every application is accepted. We require quality applications as the Commission is becoming quite strict about the standard of applications submitted. We need the media desk, therefore, to help people tease out their applications. While the process is not especially complicated, it is detailed enough.
The Deputy mentioned DVD. There are proposals in the new programme to part fund subtitling. The issue of the circulation of DVDs has been taken on board and given serious consideration.
Are schools and colleges eligible to take part in the schemes? Is there an emphasis on the disabled and disadvantaged?
In all of the schemes or just the audio-visual ones?
In all of them.
In the audio-visual context, funds are targeted at particular aspects of project development such as the preparation of film, video, shorts or animation work by small production companies. While some funds are available separately within the programme for training, they are directed at film production training rather than at the primary or secondary education sector.
And third level colleges?
It depends on the course. The issue is evolving in the context of discussion on the proposal on how funds should be targeted. Funds are directed more towards film schools than at third level colleges. They are targeted at people at professional level who wish to upskill rather than at those in the education sphere.
Unfortunately, I am not well informed on the subject. Is it the case that if one is in film school, one will be funded, but if one is studying film as part of a third level course, one will be excluded?
That is still under debate. It is one of the areas being discussed by the group.
That would be wrong. There is a centre for the performing arts in Magee College in Derry, which affects me on the basis that many students attend from Donegal. The centre deals with film, drama, dance and music under one roof and is similar to the performing arts centre we have considered here. If people are giving a certain level of commitment to the study of film, it should not matter if they are doing so at a third level college. Sometimes the arts get caught in the same way. If one is in a particular category, one is excluded despite undertaking the same activity as another person who is not.
The Commission proposes to allow a class to travel to another member state for training purposes. The operation of the proposal has still to be clarified. It is under debate. I will take the Chairman's point into consideration.
Ms Sisk
Colleges have done very well under the current programme in terms of the arts. UCC's department of archaeology received €900,000 to fund its European archaeology archive. The National University of Ireland received funding to support its cultural heritage activity. The National Centre for Technology in Education and the University of Limerick have also done well under the current scheme and I see no reason they should not do equally well under the proposed one.
According to its terms of reference, the joint committee is obliged to submit a formal report to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I propose to report that we have completed further scrutiny and to lay before the Houses a transcript of today's proceedings. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The joint committee adjourned at 10.45 a.m. sine die.