Katherine Zappone (Independent)

It is great to have the Minister in the Chamber and I will welcome him by responding to some of the points he made. I reconfirm the welcome by the Independent group of Senators to the artists, archivists and members of the National Campaign for the Arts. I am pleased to support this motion tabled by Senator Mac Conghail and Senator van Turnhout. While I am not an expert in this field, at the outset I acknowledge the courage of my colleague, Senator Mac Conghail, in particular. It is not easy to be a voice of dissent. At the same time, I acknowledge the Minister's robust, straightforward and honest-speaking way of responding in this Chamber and in the Dáil. He is right that it makes for a good practice of democracy.

Before coming to a couple of the points made by the Minister, I wish to echo many of the sentiments expressed by Members that the arts are the soul of our nation. I speak about this from the perspective of someone who could be described as Irish-American Irish. While I was born in the United States, my ancestors are Irish. I recall coming to this land and hearing for the first time poetry spoken in Irish by Nuala Ní Dhomhnaill, which was extraordinary. Moreover, it was when I first saw Brian Friel's play "Translations" on the stage of the Abbey Theatre that I finally copped on to what it meant, that is, to the importance of the Irish language, the stealing of that language and the meaning of the language as part of the cultural identity. As for the archives, I also recall that extraordinary feeling as an American Irish person, learning about my great-grandmother and where she was born and seeing the records with my mother, who has since passed.

The arts are the soul of the nation and, therefore, Members wish to support the Minister in his vision and the making of an arts policy that enables and encourages the freedom, creativity and critical engagement with what is happening politically, economically and socially, as well as in the rebuilding and reforming of the Republic. Again, I think of that tradition Senator Mac Conghail is carrying on so ably in the context of his work. However, and Senator Ó Domhnaill and others also spoke about this, Members also seek a policy that provides arts to enable the nourishment of the meaning of life, of right living and of relationships characterised by well-being, as well as to remind one always of the "something more" and of the need to go beyond, about which Senator Mac Conghail spoke. Consequently, Members seek a policy that is about neither the acts or programmes that represent the censorship of the past nor the benign neglect to which Fintan O'Toole referred.

However, what are Members asking for? I will be succinct, as a few other Members wish to contribute. What is the difference between the Independent Senators' motion on one side and the amendment and the Minister's arguments on the other? I wish to appeal to that common sense for which Senator Paul Coghlan has asked Members. Is there still time to ascertain how Members might come to a common perspective in this regard? What is the difference between the motion and the amendment? On first reading, not being an expert, I noted many similarities. However, one difference, to which the Minister did not refer, pertains to whether he would be willing to publish his response to the public service reform plan. He spoke about the plan and his response to it but the call of the Independent Members is for that response to be published. He spoke at length about the consultation process back and forth and because I have not been as close to it as have others, I wish to respect the points made by the Minister.

Senator Ó Domhnaill spoke about a more meaningful or at least a form of public consultation process, and Members on this side were trying to call for a process that they perceive as being public. In this context, they tried to put forward a constructive example, as such a process currently is under way in respect of the merger between the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority of Ireland. I have monitored that issue closely and refer to the process of ongoing requests for submissions from the public and to a working group engaged in taking them in, reviewing and putting out. I was present for the speech given by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, yesterday at the launch of the last annual report of the Irish Human Rights Commission. He referred to the working group's report that made recommendations for the merger of the new body. He indicated that it did draw on public consultation and for one of the first times perhaps the Government accepted all of the recommendations for the heads of a Bill. It shows what public ownership can be as a result of that type of process of consultation.

Is the Minister finished the consultation phase or is there more public consultation that could take place? He referred to the Government's commitment to a strategic policy. We are offering it as an example of a way of implementing the commitment. I did not hear the Minister refer to that.

In trying to understand the differences between the motion and the amendment, we are seeking independence in terms of governance. The Minister refers to independence in terms of programming and curation. There is a difference of emphasis. Will the Minister respond on the issue of the independence of governance?