Tony Mulcahy (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

Recognises:

Ireland's obligation under Article 27 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: "Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits";

Ireland's national cultural institutions offer social, economic and educational opportunities that contribute positively to the lives of all citizens;

The many successful initiatives by Ireland's national cultural institutions which contribute to the enhancement of Ireland's reputation abroad and among the diaspora;

Welcomes:

The statement in the programme for Government 2011-2016 that the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht "will make strategic policy formulation the primary function of the Department, with line agencies and bodies responsible for policy implementation";

The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht statement of strategy 2011-2014 mandate "to foster, promote and support Ireland's world-class artistic and cultural strengths, at home and abroad";

Understands:

that the public service reform plan, published by the Government in November 2011 sets out a range of reform initiatives designed to reduce duplication, support the delivery of services to the public and puts in place the structures, processes, ways of working, technologies and capabilities needed by the public service today;

that the following five major commitments to change are enshrined in the public service reform plan:

placing customer service at the core of everything we do;

maximising new and innovative service delivery channels;

radically reducing our costs to drive better value for money; leading,

organising and working in new ways; and

strong focus on implementation and delivery;

that bodies listed in the public service reform plan include the Irish Museum of Modern Art, Crawford Art Gallery, the National Gallery of Ireland, the National Archives, the Irish Manuscripts Commission, An Coimisinéir Teanga, the National Library of Ireland, the National Museum of Ireland, the Placenames Commission, the Heritage Council and Culture Ireland;

that the institutions referred to are currently constituted in a variety of different structures;

and notes:

the vitally important social, academic, cultural, heritage, tourism, economic and artistic functions performed by Ireland's national cultural institutions, including in the context of Ireland's reputational recovery;

the importance of all our national cultural institutions in delivering a cultural programme in support of the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union 2013, the decade of centenaries, 1912–1922, and for the Gathering Ireland 2013 event;

the importance, furthermore, of periodically reviewing organisations, especially in regard to value for the taxpayer and efficiency of service delivery to the public;

the €47 million allocated to the national cultural institutions in 2012;

the continuing underlying growth in visitor numbers to the national cultural institutions;

the extensive consultation undertaken by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in response to the public service reform plan;

the Government's commitment that, in bringing forward any governance reforms that may be required to realise the goals of the public service reform plan, it will support the programming and curatorial independence of the national cultural institutions; and,

the Minister's intention to conclude his response to the public service reform plan as soon as possible and to consult with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in relation to bringing these matters to the Government.

I welcome the Minister for the debate on this important motion. It is important to address the issue with proper forethought and planning, the engagement of stakeholders and a clear strategy in mind rather than to let the situation fester any longer. While I admire the motion, the counter-motion goes as far as the Government can on the issue. In the public sector reform plan many of the issues covered in the motion are still under examination. The Government cannot commit to a particular stance on an individual institution while the examination is ongoing. To box ourselves in with hypothetical situations and to limit our options would be to shoot ourselves in the foot and waste the opportunity the examination and the report will present us with in due course.

We must examine the structures in place and determine whether they are fit for purpose. Chief among the challenges ahead is the need to raise and spend money. It is the case that several institutions with similar purposes need identical marketing departments, but they do not need to duplicate administrative functions. There seems to be room for economies of scale, on which I expect the report will comment. Let us make no mistake, however, as the Minister said, these institutions are world class exemplars of what they do. They rank alongside their international counterparts. They could do more with more money, but the funding challenges we face are significant. Unfortunately, no field can be immune in the budgetary situation in which we find ourselves. As such, we must find a way to rationalise savings, while impacting on neither output nor quality. One could ask whether it is possible to do this. I am confident that we can.

As I mentioned, one of the most straightforward ways by which institutions in the sector could become more efficient is sharing common functions. In that sense, it encourages me to see that the National Gallery of Ireland, the Irish Museum of Modern Art and the Crawford Gallery have made a proposal. This shows a willingness to engage that is, frankly, refreshing. While we all wish the cuts did not have to be made, the reality is that something must give. I would rather we received full and frank advice from the institutions involved. If anyone knows where we can find efficiencies, it is the people involved directly in the day-to-day running of the organisations.

Similar to the Minister, I cannot accept the notion that the mere examination of reform possibilities amounts to an attack on the cultural edifice of the nation, as some have cruelly suggested.