Fiach MacConghail (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to pose a couple of questions on the Minister's contribution and then move to more specific matters.

It is interesting that the medium-term expenditure framework to which we are committed under the EU-IMF programme caters for fixed and binding current expenditure ceilings over a three-year period. Can this be seen as a positive development in the context of multi-annual budgeting? If it is such a development, will the savings that will accrue be rolled over? I am aware, from the agencies with which I deal, of the importance of factoring this in. If this is a positive, the Minister should accentuate it because it means that for Departments, the glass is half full rather than half empty. This will allow for more creativity, innovation and strategic thinking in a climate where resources have been reduced.

I acknowledge the establishment of the procurement programme and look forward to the appointment of the procurement officer. I also look forward to the reforms relating to whistleblowing and lobbying. These reforms are exciting, particularly as they are important in making the connection between the State, its citizens and the Government much more transparent.

I wish to comment on performance indicators. Such indicators are part of a natural, ordinary, day-to-day process which we must all undergo. My performance indicator is whether the plays, etc., I put on receive good reviews and whether the theatre is full. The Minister's performance indicator is whether he gains re-election when he goes before the people. It is welcome that performance indicators are going to play such an integrated role in the context of the public service.

There are two issues I wish to raise. The first relates to the public sector reform plan and, in particular, the Government's agency rationalisation programme. The second relates to the leader's allowance given to Independent Senators and Deputies under the Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) (Amendment) Act, 2001. I will deal with the latter issue first.

Will the Minister indicate whether he plans to amend the Act to which I refer in order that all Independent Members of the Oireachtas will have a statutory responsibility to provide detailed accounts of all donations and public funding they receive on an annual basis?

We asked the Minister, Deputy Hogan, for this to be included in a previous Act and he said it came within the remit of the Minister's Department.

Between 25 February 2011 and the end of December of that year a total of ¤656,134 was paid out to Independent Members of both Houses. I am one such Senator. I receive a monthly stipend of ¤1,948 and use it well to do research and support my work as a parliamentarian. I am not suggesting cutting it but I know the Minister has spoken publicly about clarifying the functions of this funding and said that it should be vouched. I would like to hear his view on that issue.

On Hallowe'en night, the Minister issued the Government decision on the rationalisation of State agencies. It is important to state I have no issue with the spirit of what he wants to achieve and I applaud him for the gains he is making and the leadership he is showing. One of his stated ambitions is to create a less crowded administrative landscape, resulting in greater democratic accountability, less duplication of effort and clear lines of responsibility for the citizen. Under the aegis of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht, Deputy Deenihan, and his Department a significant number of agencies and national cultural institutions have been under review. I will not go into all of them; suffice to say that the intention to rationalise them cuts across some of those institutions' very existence and independence. As the Minister has reported, considerable success in achieving increased efficiencies and shared services has been made. These include the Irish Museum of Modern Art, the Crawford Art Gallery and the National Gallery of Ireland. The process of consultation and co-operation between the Department and these cultural institutions has had a positive outcome and resulted in savings. I also note that the Heritage Council will not be abolished or merged into the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. That is great news and I thank the Minister for it.

That brings me to the Government decision on the abolition of the boards of the National Library of Ireland and the National Museum of Ireland. I know of the Minister's active involvement and interest in arts and culture. His valuable support of the Wexford Festival Opera is to be recognised. There is a strong and vibrant arts community in Wexford, not least stemming from the arts centre, as well as internationally well regarded writers such as Billy Roche, Colm Tóibín, Eoin Colfer and John Banville. I know the Minister met some of my colleagues involved in the National Campaign for the Arts recently. They were heartened and motivated by his interest in their area, for which I thank him. What I am concerned about is the lack of any public evidence as to what the cost savings or increased efficiencies might be from abolishing the boards of these two august and important national cultural institutions, replacing them with one joint advisory council and bringing both of those institutions under the remit of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. I am concerned about employees' being moved from public servant status to civil servant status and the lack of a governance or board structure to protect those institutions' operational, strategic and programme autonomy. I have no issue with board members' not being paid, as is the case for the board of the Abbey Theatre, but to have one board - or rather, an advisory council, which is of lower status - in charge of two completely different organisations and remits is troubling. Why are two independent statutory cultural institutions being absorbed into the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht? The only reason is to save money.

Will the Minister publish, if possible, the cost-saving facts and figures that led the Government to make a decision to abolish those boards? Both institutions bookmark this very building, Leinster House. I have no doubt that just as savings were achieved in respect of the Irish Museum of Modern Art in Kilmainham, the National Gallery of Ireland in Clare Street and the Crawford Art Gallery in Cork, our neighbours can find ways of saving money on security, storage, their finance departments and their human resources units while maintaining their statutory independence and protecting their programme independence. What is proposed is a dismantling of the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997 for no apparent published gain. As the Minister will know, it was the current President Michael D. Higgins, the Republic's first Minister with responsibility for culture, who sponsored and introduced this historic Act. On 27 June of this year in this House, the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, said to me and other Members: "Dismantling the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997 was never in my plan, nor was impinging on the arm's length principle."

I am happy to support the Minister in his drive for efficiencies and humbly request that he reconsider the dismantling of the National Cultural Institutions Act. I ask him not to introduce amendments to that Act and not to waste the time of the Seanad trying to argue the case in this respect, in order that we can protect two vitally important national cultural institutions. Yes, we should save money, but we should protect their independence.