Richard Boyd Barrett Opposes Family Home Tax, Critiques 481 Relief
Richard Boyd Barrett argued against a family home tax and criticised how property tax treats owner-occupied homes and multiple rental properties. He also raised concerns about the 481 tax relief for the film industry, saying it has not delivered the intended quality employment and training in many parts of the sector.
Opposition to family home tax
Barrett said the central injustice is that the property tax does not distinguish between someone’s family home and investors who own multiple properties to rent out. He reiterated his party’s continued opposition to a family home tax, arguing that owner-occupied homes should be treated differently from revenue-generating rental properties.
Concerns about 481 tax relief and employment
He thanked the minister and officials for engaging on the 481 tax relief but warned the relief has not achieved its stated aims in many areas of the industry. Barrett said the relief was intended to support employment and training, but in practice the jobs and training have often not been of the quality intended, with animation cited as a partial exception where companies of scale provide greater job security.
Use of SPVs undermining workers’ rights
Barrett outlined how Irish producer companies often set up SPVs - special purpose vehicles or designated activity companies - for each production and then deny employer status when workers assert their rights. He warned this practice prevents workers who repeatedly work on productions for the same producer from accruing legal protections under laws such as the fixed term workers act and can leave them vulnerable if they seek to organise or apply working time protections.
Examples and immediate consequences
He pointed to current media reports, saying a Vikings sequel being produced in Ashford, County Wicklow, illustrates the issue, and named Metropolitan World 2000 and past productions as examples where workers have been employed film after film but remain insecure. Barrett described how workers can be excluded from future productions if they press for rights, leaving them without continuity of employment or accumulated protections.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
The two things is the problem because there clearly is a difference between having a home now whether you just want to use wealth to describe it which you live in and you know you've worked hard to pay for because you need it to live and there's only a few ways you can get an affordable roof over your head in our society and somebody who has a second, third, fourth, fifth, tenth, hundredth property that they can rent out and generate revenue on I mean these are two very different things but you don't treat them differently from the point of view of the property tax and that's the problem so that to me is the injustice and that's the reason why we will continue to oppose a family home tax maybe that's the better way and that is the way we put it indeed when we campaigned on it is to oppose a family home tax which is I think what this tax is. where stands amendment 29 deputy by Barrett? pressed pressed it should have been a power of it is ta ta it can you have this meal? meal meal shielding going case culture? question is lost sadly it is asking all right you have another chance amendment 30 deputy by Barrett to move deputy sorry yes my brain is addled at this stage yeah yeah this is my last amendment you'll be glad to hear minister and this is one where we have a bit more common ground you'll also be aware and I want to start by genuinely thanking the minister for engaging with me on the issue of the 481 tax relief for the film industry and the extent to which it needs to and should and is required to indeed contribute to the creation of quality employment and training in the film industry and to develop that industry. and as the minister knows and I had and I want to thank his officials that were sitting there as well for engaging with us and they have responded to some of the points that I have made largely on behalf of those who have worked in the industry many of them most of them for many decades who believe that while you know investment in creating employment and training and and of an industry in this country is a good thing and that we should do more of it that it hasn't actually had the desired effect that it should have and that the employment and training hasn't been quality even though that's what the intent of the relief is. in the particular parts of the industry and I have as the minister knows and I have as the minister knows and as the official knows drawn it you know it is a good thing and that it hasn't actually had the desired effect that it should have and that the employment and training hasn't been quality even though that's what the intent of the relief is. in particular parts of the industry and I have as the minister knows and as the official knows drawn you know distinguished between things like animation where it really has and where you have companies of scale where people have secure jobs have income security and so on and indeed where as a result of that the Irish animation industry really is boxing you know at the very highest level on the international scene and is really going for from strength from strength to strength but that sadly has not been the case to the same extent that's not to say there haven't been you know successful productions there have been many successful productions but it the provision of quality employment and training has not been the same and as a result there's you know quite a quite a debate controversy to put it mildly going on in the industry about this now I won't recapitulate the whole debate but really As I said to the minister when we met earlier on to discuss this I hope that's okay to say The problem is that the film producer companies who apply for the relief are then denying that they are the employers and the way they do this is by for each film production the film the Irish producer company sets up an SPV Special purpose vehicle or a designated activity company that isn't really a company it's just a financial instrument it's an accounting tool for that particular production But when workers attempt to assert their rights as employees the Irish producer company who applied for the relief which is conditional on the provision of employment and training says to the employee I'm not your employer The SPV is not your employer the SPV is your employer the SPV only exists for the film and then it's gone and then the same producer company makes another film sets up another SPV but it's a different employer even though it's the same employer This is the problem This is the problem and it means that people who worked on film after film after film for the same producer and the same recipient of 481 are not accumulating the rights that they have under law particularly under the fixed term workers act which is precisely meant for the It's precisely meant designed by the European Union and enshrined in Irish law to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't happen And just to sort of concretize this and it means that those workers are completely vulnerable completely vulnerable there's absolutely nothing to stop vulnerable there's absolutely nothing to stop the film producer saying well yeah you've worked for me on three or four films before you've got awards you've got credits as many of these workers have but we're just not taking you on the next film we're just not doing it because you asked for the application of the organization of workers working time act in terms of hours of work breaks or whatever we think you're a bit just too you know you're asking for too much you're a troublemaker so we're going to not employ you on the next production and literally as we're speaking that's what's happening in on RT News tonight you will see if you look at the internet entertainment section reference to the sequel for Vikings being produced in Ashford I think County Wicklow now people who worked for that producer company Metropolitan World 2000 who produced Vikings before it Into the Badlands before that I think Penny Dreadful and I can go through the list and if you went to those productions and looked at the credits at the end and looked at who were the stagehands who were the construction grade people who were the drivers and so on and looked at those previous productions and then see how many of them are on this new one when those credits roll and at the moment the answer is very very few very very few because they have already contacted this film company and said listen we worked on your last few productions we're hoping we'll be working on these ones and they're being told no you're not and it's so coincidentally some of those people or their associates are people who went to the joint Oireachtas committee on arts culture and heritage discussing this issue about I don't know it's nearly two years ago now where they made allegations about the failure of the producer companies to vindicate the rights of workers and fully apply the law in terms of bogus self-employment in terms of fixed-term workers act in terms of other employment requirements and it is many of those people are people associated with those people who now will not be allowed on to that production that is in the news tonight and I don't think that's acceptable I think that's not acceptable and I have to say I've had a sympathetic ear from the minister in this regard and from his officials but I really hope that we will design the public support which you absolutely need in this industry in such a way that that cannot happen and that workers will not be displaced who ask for their legal rights thank you minister
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
