Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. This has been a worthwhile debate. To those who criticised the motion as being a Trojan horse I say that if my colleague, Senator Thomas Byrne, had not questioned the relevant appointment a couple of weeks ago, we might not even be discussing it. I hope we will all learn from this matter. I certainly hope the Minister will learn from it. She has stated she has done so, which is welcome. If we were to proceed on the basis that we, as Oireachtas Members, should not question anything, what would happen? I recall that on the day on which the matter to which I refer was raised here on the Order of Business, the Leader indicated there was nothing to see. However, that did not prove to be the case. We all know that what happened in this instance was wrong, but it is done.

Let us focus on the arts and the commemorations. I am glad that Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh is present because he and other colleagues referred to the 1916 Rising commemoration. Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill requested a separate debate on the matter. We have already engaged in such a debate, but there is no plan or schedule in place. On Monday last I was the only Oireachtas Member from any party to attend a meeting in City Hall on the situation relating to Moore Street. Like many others in the House, some of my relatives were involved in the Easter Rising. The proposed commemoration must be inclusive, but I am somewhat concerned about what the Government means when it refers to "inclusivity". If it means inviting members of the British royal family to attend the commemoration, to do so would be wrong. If we do, we might as well invite the descendants of General Sir John Maxwell who was responsible for executing the leaders of the Easter Rising. We must be cautious because it is our commemoration. We commemorate the First World War, rightly so. Former Taoisigh and Senator David Norris want to debase and degrade the memory of the leaders of the Rising and I abhor this. However, those to whom I refer are entitled to their opinions. It has been suggested we commemorate John Redmond who sent hundreds of thousands of people - a large proportion of whom were slaughtered in the trenches - to fight for the British Empire on mainland Europe. That is fine. I do not agree that John Redmond, in particular, should be commemorated, but if that is what inclusivity involves, I will accept it.

I welcome the Minister's contribution, but it was short on content, detail and focus. The first legislative proposal she has produced is the general scheme of the national cultural institutions (National Concert Hall) Bill which states the board of the National Concert Hall must report to the Minister and take policy decisions from her "in such other manner and at such intervals at the Minister may direct". The proposed legislation is very strong on ministerial direction and does not even allow for criticism of the Minister or Government policy. If we want an arm's length approach - we do - then people's hands should not be tied behind their backs. The Minister should listen to the views of those in the arts and cultural sector. It is not just the major museums, art galleries and theatres which all do a fantastic job on which we should be focusing. We should champion the work of the Séamus Ennis Cultural Centre, the Millbank Theatre, Draíocht and so on because they all make a contribution. I think most Members would agree with me in that regard.

The situation which arose in recent weeks was extremely unfortunate. However, it was not my fault or that of my colleagues that it came to light. Should I be quiet and say nothing about it? If we want to debate appointments to State boards, etc., we can do so and fling mud at one another all we want. I was obliged to put questions to the Minister this evening because I had not obtained answers to the one I had asked previously. I am going to leave the matter at that for now because there seems to be no point in pursing it further, which is unfortunate. The Government stated it was going to operate in a transparent and open manner and do things differently. However, we cannot obtain answers from it.

I welcome the contributions made by all Members during the debate. The motion was tabled to highlight the position on the arts, funding for which has been dramatically reduced in recent years by the Government and that which preceded it. There is a need for us to refocus our efforts for the arts. If we were not to raise the issue of appointments to State boards - let us forget about IMMA for one moment in this regard - would it be the case that the Government could appoint whomever it wanted to whichever board it saw fit? If that is what has emerged from the current situation, good. What my party is seeking is a refocusing on the areas of arts and culture and for the State to get its act together in respect of the extremely important commemoration due to be held in 2016.

I wish the Minister luck. I hope matters improve for her and I am sure they will. She will obtain agreement from us when policies with which we can agree are brought forward. However, the first legislative proposal she has introduced - the general scheme of the national cultural institutions (National Concern Hall) Bill - falls way short of what is required. The proposed legislation will restrict and constrict activities in the sector as a result of the over-emphasis on ministerial direction.

I again welcome this debate. Anyone who peruses the text of the motion will see that it contains no criticism of the Government. Hence, no amendment has been tabled by those opposite. I would be happy if we could obtain broad agreement in the House to hold a follow-on debate with the Minister - without the necessity of tabling a Private Members' motion to facilitate it - in two or three months time in order that we might discuss the various aspects relating to the sector. I accept that the Minister will probably not want to see the inside of this Chamber for a long time to come, but perhaps she might see her way clear to return in eight or ten weeks.