On the motion for the adjournment I have notice from Senator Jack Daly that he proposes to raise the following matter: the need for the Government to reverse their decision to abolish Bord Scannán na hÉireann, the Irish Film Board, in the interests of the Irish film industry. Senator Daly has given me notice that he wishes to share his time with Senator David Norris.
Adjournment Matter. - Irish Film Board.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Most film makers in Ireland are very distressed at the very abrupt decision to wind up the Irish Film Board, which has been enormously beneficial generally to the State over its five years of existence. During that time not a single independent Irish film was made without some, if not a large part of assistance, being given by the board. Despite the fact that it was a very small organisation with a very limited budget and a very small number of staff it proved to be one of the most cost-effective Government agencies in the whole State. It seems particularly foolish, even in times of economic cutbacks, to abolish an organisation which used their resources so productively and creatively.
The function of the Irish Film Board was to encourage the making of Irish films, by way of providing help at two vital stages in film production. There is no evidence that any substitute body or existing body could assume those duties. The Irish Film Board gave pre-production development money to people trying to initiate the making of films. This ensured that money was available in small quantities but, nonetheless, in a vital way provided encouragement and the financing of scriptwriting so that people who had projects to develop could find the funding to get film scripts written. On the basis of those film scripts they could look for large sums actually to make the film. All that encouragement in those small but very intelligently applied grants and loans which were made for the writing of film scripts led to the initiating of a large number of film-making projects.
Over the past five years many film makers were the beneficiaries. Certainly, two films made by Ciaran Hickey would not have been made without initial funding from the film board. When film production was completed, the board were able to provide assistance in the marketing of those films, in their promotion abroad and in introducing them to audiences so that in the past five years through film festivals and through other presentations of Irish films, Ireland acquired a reputation which it never had before as a successful film producing country. That that image which was hard won has been so successful can be vouched for by the fact that in travelling abroad the reputation of the Irish Film Board, of its chief executive and of its marketing executive are among the highest of any film producing country. They have done this on a limited budget but nonetheless with an application to promoting films which meant that Ireland, which has up to now never been known as a film producing country, has been recognised as being a successful film producing country.
Two worrying things have happened as a result of the winding up of the board. Having done away with the pre-production funding and post-production assistance, it makes it an awful lot harder to get a film initiated and promoted. Unless there is a great deal of publicity money available, which there seldom is, our film production will continue to be rather small budget productions. To do away with the Government agency which was giving the maximum assistance was a very foolish and a very disruptive thing to do.
The other worrying aspect is that we have in this Government agency an Irish organisation that makes decisions as to what films can be initiated and what steps can be developed here. What I fear now is that if we have to look abroad more and more for money the choice of what films should be made in Ireland will be made by people in London or New York. There is a danger of giving to outsiders the right and authority to decide what films we make about our own country and that is not a good thing.
The other consequence is that a Government organisation of this kind which has given one of the best images of Ireland abroad has now been done away with. Internationally, where most people keep abreast of other people's productive activities, the nature of the product is that it should be shown worldwide. Consequently, we would have an image abroad of a country which started a film industry but which industry has now been administered a rather wounding blow.
A friend of mine has just returned from the United States where there has been a European Communities festival organised through the American Government's Federal American Film Industry with showings in both Washington and Chicago. He heard tributes to the efficiency and ability of the Irish Film Board from many officials in the American film industry who over the past five years have come to learn what we can make in terms of films, what our output is and how efficiently we promote it. That image which we built in the past five years has been done away with and it was a very foolish and destructive thing to do.
I would like to pay tribute to the Irish Film Board as my colleague, Senator Bulbulia, did when speaking on the Finance Bill. It is important to place on the record of the House our thanks and appreciation to the chairman, the board members and the chief executive who have done so much to further the cause of the Irish film industry. Since the Irish Film Board was set up in 1981, ten Irish-funded feature films have been made here and two, "The Courier" which is being shot in Dublin and "The Reefer" which is being shot in the west, are currently in the course of production. They received grants totaling £300,000 from the Irish Film Board and their producers raised another £1.5 million, largely, I have learned, from British sources.
I would also like to mention among the first big successes Neil Jordan's "Angel" which was made in 1982. Neil Jordan has since become a director who commands worldwide respect. The question must be asked, how many other Jordans are out there dependent on help, support and practical props, such as given to film makers by the Irish Film Board? Many of us will have seen "The Country Girls" directed by Desmond Davis, "Anne Devlin" directed by Pat Murphy, "The Outcasts" directed by Robert Wynne-Simmons, "Pigs" by Cathal Black, "The End of the World" by Bill Miskelly and a rather well known one, "Eat the Peach" by Peter Ormrod.
It would be remiss if I did not mention that in 1936 the first film made in this country was "The Dawn" and that was made in Killarney by a man who died recently, Tom Cooper. It was made with the aid of voluntary actors and actresses. Nobody received a penny. It had props that were made up by the man who projected the films, Tim O'Sullivan, who fortunately is still alive and there are still people in Killarney who took part in the film.
It was a great example of what voluntary effort can do when that could be made in those times. It is a pity that has disappeared in Irish life because the first thing most people now ask before they do anything is, "What is in it for me?" I would like to pay tribute to all those people involved. "The Dawn" was shown in the United States and it got huge box offices throughout this country. It was shown in the UK a number of times. The film, I am glad to say, is still available and I hope it will be shown again because it showed what happened in Ireland in the troubled times. I do not think anybody, even with the most sophisticated equipment, could surpass what was done by that Killarney man and those Killarney people.
First, I would like to congratulate Senator Daly on isolating what is a small but extremely important aspect of our life, something which involves both our cultural life and our economic life. I would also like to thank him for his courtesy and generosity in allowing me to share his time this evening.
Senator Daly made reference to Ciarán Hickey, an extremely distinguished film maker of whom this country can be justly proud. I also have spoken to Mr. Hickey and I am well aware of the fact now that there is a considerable disadvantage built into certain provisions of recent Acts which abolish Bord Scannán na hÉireann. I say this because I initially welcomed the tax provisions entered into by the Minister with regard to the film industry. It was only after discussion with Mr. Hickey and others who are, after all, at the cutting edge of the film industry that I realised these were in the opinions of the leaders of the film industry virtually useless provisions for the reason so ably outlined by Senator Daly. You have a central provision granting tax incentives but these are absolutely useless. This is not my opinion; it is the opinion of a responsible, informed body of experts inside the film industry, the very people whom the Minister is intending to help. They are useless without the two props referred to so well by Senator Daly.
You must have some form of incentive for pre-production research and scripting. That prop has been knocked away. You must also have an agency with some degree of marketing capacity. That prop has been knocked away. These things together unquestionably render useless the provisions the Minister intends making in terms of the Finance Bill. I say this because having spoken to a number of my friends who are film directors who have just returned from America I can tell this House that they are most disappointed and disillusioned because they have recently done an extremely good job in the United States in collecting awards and prizes and they had arranged a coast to coast exhibition of Irish films in which they required the assistance of Bord Scannán na hÉireann. They come back to Ireland delighted with themselves and they find that this agency has been wilfully destroyed. The American connections have had to be informed that this projected showing of part of our Irish heritage has had to be abandoned. This is a great tragedy. I do not believe it is malicious and I urge the Minister to think again. Although we are in a period of financial stringency I would urge no Minister of this Government to take action that could not be financially as well as culturally justified. I have no doubt whatever that our film industry is an extremely valuable one. It can produce money and jobs in addition to being a most valuable and important resource in cultural terms because it concerns the creation of our own image abroad. It is very important that I echo what Senator Daly had to say here — that it is essental that we control the creation of our own national image in this country.
I would like to refer to what is with hindsight an ironic but still very important article which appeared in the Irish Independent of 19 June, 1987, shortly before the announcement of the abolition of Bord Scannán na hÉireann was made. A whole page is devoted in the most hopeful terms to the development of the Irish film industry. The first paragraph says:
Irish films are set for the big time. And in the last five years independent film makers here have been earning a growing reputation for our fledgling film industry.
It has been a gradual build-up. Since the Irish Film Board was created in 1981, ten feature films have been made here and 25 shorter films and documentaries.
This was before anybody suspected that the film board were going to be abolished. It is an unsolicited tribute to the value this country received from the Irish Film Board.
Another paragraph from this article says: "The crucial difference now is that the whole impetus for film making is coming from within Ireland from dynamic local talent." As Senator Daly said, the result of this decision of the Government is to remove that decision making process from Ireland. It surprises me very much that a party who compliments themselves so frequently and so fulsomely on being the Republican party should be content that the control of our image abroad should pass from this country to the financial centres of London and New York. The point is made in the article that the film board were able to provide the kick start with backing which allowed for funding during development and provided the money for Irish film makers to travel in order to drum up backing elsewhere.
I would like to draw the Minister's attention in, I hope, a non-contentious way to a letter which I have no doubt the Taoiseach has received and has given some careful attention to. This letter which appeared in The Irish Press of 3 July 1987, is an open one to An Taoiseach, Deputy Charles Haughey, on the demise of the Irish Film Board. It is addressed from Fergus Tighe of Cirius Films who, as the Minister I am sure is aware, has made a very fine film about the national sport of hurling called “The Clash of the Ash”. Mr. Tighe details how he worked in circumstances of great difficulty, on £30 a week dole money, until eventually he received some small encouragement from Bord Scannán na Éireann. This was sufficient to encourage and motivate him to provide a completed script for “The Clash of the Ash”.
This was only achieved because the crew worked for nothing, the equipment was mostly borrowed and I went into debt of £700, but I would have been nowhere without the Film Board's support. The short demo took a long time to complete because I had to scrounge around for equipment so long, but it was finished eventually and submitted to the Art's Council. They made a positive decision based on the Film Board financed demo and things were finally looking up or so I thought.
So he thought, and so he thought again, when he received praise and plaudits for this excellent film. Then tragically for a man like that with an investment of talent and emotional energy in the film board, the whole support of the State was effectively kicked away. I do not think this was international and I urge the Minister to think again because whatever about re-establishing the film board if the Government really care about the film industry these two essential props must be reinstated. Nobody really minds the name of the personnel. It is the function, and the function must be brought back if we are serious about a local film industry.
I worked in some small way with the film industry and believe absolutely that we have the capacity to produce films that will be of interest around the world. I would like to end with some of the questions asked by Mr. Tighe and I hope the Government will consider these questions and provide suitable answers to them. He welcomes of course, as I welcomed, naively it appears, the provisions of the Finance Bill. It is a very good idea but he also believes, as I do, that they need these extra props. He says:
How are we to avail of these incentives when the money to even write the script——
the split infinitive in this case is Mr. Tighe's and not mine,
——is now gone, along with the Film Board? Where are young film makers coming into the industry going to raise the 40% of the budget needed to avail of the tax incentives if they survive the penury of the writing stage? Where are we going to sell the films we do manage to produce and promote the idea of an Irish film without the Film Board's presence in the market place at international festivals?
The moneys involved were very small and they brought us rewards in financial terms, rewards, in terms of our image abroad. I strongly support Senator Daly's able advocacy of a measure that is not prodigal or profligate, but which can lead only to the nourishment and encouragement of a very significant but fledgling industry in this country.
I thank Senator Daly and Senator Norris for their contributions and the opportunity they have given me to clear up some misconceptions as to what the abolition of the Irish Film Board really means. I cannot accept Senator Daly's full analysis and, as I explain this, he will feel somewhat at ease.
I welcome the opportunity this debate gives me to rectify several major misapprehensions about the winding-down of Bord Scannán na hÉireann, the Irish Film Board. I would like to say quite categorically that any existing commitments that have been made by the board will be fulfilled and honoured. The chairman and the board have taken a much more positive view than what I have heard here tonight and, indeed, what many public commentators have said. Within the past two weeks the board members have advised the Department of the Taoiseach, the parent Department of An Bord Scannán na hÉireann, that they "wholeheartedly welcome the important initiative taken by the Government in the matter of film finance that will result hopefully in the securing of financial investment from the Irish private sector".
That will probably take care of a number of the points raised by Senator Daly and Senator Norris. There is a belief that because of the abolition of the film board the making of films and the initiation of the production of films will be taken from the hands of Irish people. The views expressed by the board should at least go some way towards easing the minds of Senator Norris and Senator Daly in that regard. While the board expressed some regret at the decision to wind down Bord Scannán na hÉireann the whole tenor of correspondence from the board has been positive and forward looking as to the appropriate role for the State in seeking to develop the Irish film industry. That role is to enable the development of scripts to the point where they can become the basis for a production and that takes care of one of the major planks and arguments that have been used both by Senator Daly and Senator Norris. I can reassure young film makers that they will still be able to get any available assistance.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that the Arts Council promote activities relating to film script development. The Council have expended close on £1 million in the period 1981-87 in film-related projects. It will be facilitated and encouraged to continue that work.
It has been alleged repeatedly in the media in the past two weeks that the decision to wind down the activities of Bord Scannán na hÉireann was taken in a casual way, without any serious investigation of the implications of the potential consequences of that action. This is simply not true and persons involved in the activities of Bord Scannán na hÉireann know it is not true. As long ago as 30 October 1984 when ministerial responsibility for the board lay with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the then Minister wrote to the chairman of the board requesting that they carry out a fundamental review of their effectiveness in achieving the objectives which led to the legislation establishing the board. It is clear from the official files that, in asking for that review, the former Minister for Industry and Commerce was seeking an evaluation of the role and effectiveness of the board in the period from its inception. In fact, the submission from the board, which was received two and a half months after the Minister's request was issued, was a review only in the sense of being a retrospective survey of their activities since their inception in August 1981. In short, the report prepared on behalf of the board simply failed to address their problems or identify their opportunities.
The level of public debate on this issue has not been helped by some extravagant claims as to the alleged commercial success of the various film projects funded by Bord Scannán na hÉireann. The accuracy of these reports is very suspect. The board were specifically asked after the submission of their review to the Department of Industry and Commerce early in 1985 to indicate the employment content of their projects and their prospective profitability in terms of their investment. They then had an opportunity to give a reasoned reply but failed to do so. Instead, they contented themselves with saying, and I quote:
One of the first policy guidelines adopted by the Board was that a project should give considerable employment, particularly in the creative grades,
They continued:
The evaluation of the success of the film is so subjective that it is difficult to apply a universal formula. Success may be financial, cultural or social and if success is measured purely in financial terms, it is apparent that the reward is insufficient on the majority of projects as evidenced by the lack of investors prepared to speculate funds.
That is where section 35 of the Finance Act should be of tremendous benefit to the film industry.
The House can draw its own conclusions as to why the board failed to quantify their achievements when asked to do so. As long ago as 10 March 1982 the board's chairman indicated that Bord Scannán na hÉireann did not see themselves as being in the handout business. Speaking at a public function, he then acknowledged, in the context of stating that he did not know any good feature films which were not made on a commercial basis, that the Government would not allow the board to throw away public moneys on loss making ventures. The fact is that only £67,400 has so far been repaid to the board of the approximate £2 million advanced as loans, not grants, and that the board have a policy of writing off each year 50 per cent of the token value of their loans. That is the fact, not, unfortunately, as Senator Daly suggested, that the board was very cost effective. To be serious and realistic, we must take cognisance of the fact that the film industry must be put on a commercial basis. While I accept what Senator Daly and Senator Norris say I feel that the investment incentives offered under section 35 of this year's Finance Act provide for the first time a suitable framework for substantial commercial investment by the private sector in Irish film production, with what we hope will be a consequent boost to employment in all sectors of the film industry.
Senator Daly also stated that no other body are able to take up the role of the Film Board. However, could I just state that the Arts Act, 1973, gave power to the Arts Council to promote the film industry? The council have done this expending, as I said, approximately £1 million over the last five to six years on film related projects. Section 35 of the Finance Act permits corporations — that is the important thing — to invest up to £100,000 each year in an Irish film production company or companies. That is another important point. Previously, only individuals received tax relief for such investment, that is the important difference.
I will make just one final point. Reports in the media greatly exaggerate the effect of the winding down of the operations of Bord Scannán na hÉireann. The points brought forward in much of those arguments have been selective and lacking in overall perspective. I will give a simple example. The entire capital budget for Bord Scannán na hÉireann in 1987 is £520,000, a small sum, as Senator Daly quite rightly said. Two weeks ago, RTE held a seminar for Irish freelance film and TV producers and offered them an opportunity to produce £1.8 million worth of programming in the coming year. There has been very little media comment on that fact. The combination of that offer by RTE, the new taxation framework for investment in Irish film production, the ongoing work of the Arts Council in relation to film-related projects including, I repeat, script development give grounds for every confidence in the future of the Irish film industry.
I hope that I have been able to some extent to ease the fears expressed by Senator Daly and Senator Norris. The points they raised will be conveyed to the Department of the Taoiseach who have responsibility for this industry. Like them, I congratulate the very many film producers who have given the Irish film industry a new eminence in the world of films but unlike them, I am confident that this new provision will help them to go on and will help the film industry to grow.
The Seanad adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 15 July 1987.