Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Troy agus an Seanadóir Mac Conghail as ucht an rún seo a chur os comhair an dá Theach anocht.

Ten years ago, I travelled at Deputy Deenihan's invitation, to his home town of Listowel to see what a vibrant, community-based arts sector can do for a town's self confidence and identity, not to mention the economic benefits. The current Minister was central to that and has been involved in everything that has happened there since. That spirit is what we need in the Department now, particularly in the way this process is being handled.

Focusing on the amendment, I am concerned that its wording gives an example of where the Department is coming from concerning this process. It starts by noting the many successful initiatives by Ireland's national cultural institutions which contribute to the enhancement of our reputation abroad and among the diaspora. So say all of us, but if they are not broken why are we meddling with them? Why will we potentially destroy the creative spirit within the cultural institutions that has led to those successful initiatives?

The amendment welcomes the statement in the programme for Government that the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht will make strategic policy formulations the primary function of the Department with line agencies and bodies responsible for policy implementation. That seems to me to diminish our cultural institutions to the role of mere functionaries. Cultural institutions which foster arts, challenge debate and challenge legislators, are designed and dismissed as mere instruments of State, line agencies and bodies. This undermines a magnificent tradition that in some cases predates the origins of this State.

Those involved in those institutions fostered the ideal of having an independent State at a time when the people were not able to do so themselves. We celebrate the identity and memory of those people in busts and portraits in this Chamber and elsewhere in Leinster House. That is the spirit of thought, belief and creativity that will be undermined by the process now underway, because such institutions will be treated as line agencies.

The amendment does not answer the request in Deputy Troy's motion to publish the cost-benefit analysis. If this is the road the Department intends to travel, we should at least have a document available to explain the costs and benefits involved. As legislators, we have an interest in the arts sector through the length and breadth of this island. We could challenge and engage with such a document, using it to defend the values and standards of those institutions. The public may not actively participate in them or have access to them, despite the fantastic initiatives of recent years, but many people still hold them dear. Those who work in the cultural institutions are also held in high esteem because they stand up and challenge the country in many ways though creative talent, including new technology. However, all that will be undermined by this process.

Our galleries, libraries and museums are all different and have been deliberately constructed to highlight our cultural heritage, including literature. It is said that one pitch does not mean the same games. The Minister will understand that saying more than most. The same applies to our cultural institutions.

The absence of a cost benefit analysis undermines the extensive consultation process referred to in the Government's amendment. How could it engage in an extensive consultation process without first outlining to those in the sector, and those with an interest in it, the cost benefit analysis in terms of the consequences of its decisions? How can we, in the absence of such document, trust that the Department is taking the proper decisions? How can we believe that there are savings to be made? My colleagues referred earlier to the Canadian example. There are, doubtless, many more examples of where mergers and the undermining of institutions have led to higher cost. In the absence of a cost benefit analysis, we cannot judge or comment on that.

If the Department and those who run it have nothing to hide in terms of this process and if, as stated, this is in the interests of governance and public service reform and will support the curatorial independence of the cultural institutions, then the Government should undertake the analysis before making its decisions. It should, before making final decisions, allow consultation around what is contained in that analysis or other documents being used to guide this process. It should allow those in the Visitors Gallery and those throughout this island who are the foundation of the arts community to see the document which will influence their lives, careers and how they imagine this country in the years to come.

The Government amendment refers to the decade of centenaries, Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union and The Gathering. However, it commits members of the Government to support the undermining of the institutions that will be the flagships of that commemoration process, The Gathering and our Presidency of the Council of the European Union. If we proceed in the direction in which the Department is guiding us, those flagships will hit the sand and with them the aspirations and challenges with which they are supposed to provide us.

As well as undermining our national institutions the Government is dismantling euro by euro - let there be no doubt it, this is what is being done - the CE scheme structure in every county. The CE scheme and its predecessors were the basis on which many community arts facilities got their start. Many community art facilities which are now national and international organisations got their start on the back of an AnCo or FÁS scheme. New facilities will not get that start because of what is happening to CE schemes. While we are undermining these facilities nationally and locally we proclaim ourselves to be an island of scholars and an island of the art. We hold events such as the decade of centenaries and The Gathering and wonder why they do not reach their potential economically. The decade of centenaries has the potential to challenge the achievements of this State. If we undermine our cultural institutions in this way, these events will be nothing but PR spin.

The Minister set me on a road ten years ago, in respect of which, prior to that, I was relatively agnostic. While this is not an area in which I am particularly involved, I have opened my eyes to it. Last Sunday, the Taoiseach opened the new arts centre in Ballina, at which time he referred to this debate and the need for cost savings. While we are all agreed on the need for cost savings, this cannot be achieved in the absence of cost benefit analysis. As Deputy Cowen said, we are lucky that we have in place around the country an outstanding range of county arts committees and county arts officers such as Mr. Alan McCarthy in Mayo and Mr. Seán Walsh who, through a CE scheme and with community support, manages the Ballina arts centre, challenging those of us who live in the area to keep it going. That is what the arts is about. It is about challenge. If we undermine the independence of the arts community and of our cultural institutions which predate the foundation of this State we undermine their capacity to challenge at a time when more than ever we need to do so.

See this speech in context