Fiach MacConghail (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Normally I would agree with Senators Barrett and Ó Clochartaigh on this, but there are complications. Whether I like it or not - and I have seen it on both sides - to achieve the goals of any cultural institution, a good working relationship is needed between the chairperson of that institution and the Minister.

I welcome the National Cultural Institutions (National Concert Hall) Bill 2015. Sterling work has been done and the Minister displayed generosity and co-operation in allowing the cultural committee to deal with the Bill during pre-legislative scrutiny. Senator Ó Murchú and I are on that committee and we went through the Bill in detail, line by line. There were some problematic parts to it that were reworded and redrawn based on the evidence we received from independent witnesses. As it is my first experience as a Senator and as a legislator, I welcomed the opportunity to work under the newly reformed system of pre-legislative scrutiny. If the Minister is to introduce any further Bills, and the sooner the better, they should be brought straight to the committee, as it is a valuable process. It bring with it more expertise; it is open, and the Minister is open to it. It allows Bills to be looked at and shaken down regarding any potential ambiguities.I am looking at the complications. Will the Minister reassure the House that all appointments to the board are through the Public Appointments Service? I need confirmation of that. Will she also confirm that the chairperson, who will be an ordinary member, will go through PAS? I would like the Minister to clarify whether there will be a specific separate job description for the chairperson, as opposed to ordinary members, or whether she will recruit for all board members of the National Concert Hall and out of that membership designate one person as chairperson? If the chairperson were elected from among the members of the board, would the term of office of the chairperson be for the full term? We know from subsection 5 that the chairperson of the board holds office for five years, but section 6 breaks down the term of office of other members from three to five years, with three members serving for three years, three other members for four years and two members for five years. Would the term of office be problematic if we were to go down the route of electing a chairperson? Would that contradict the appointment process through which the chairperson will be designated? Let me put this question to the Minister. Under subsection 6, does the Minister or the Public Appointments Service designate which members serve for three, four or five years? I would like a response to that. We are talking about eight members. I presume the ninth is the chairperson. I am highlighting - although I completely accept the bona fides of my fellow Senators - that this amendment is problematic.

I am the director of the Abbey Theatre, which is a national institution. The chairperson of the Abbey Theatre was appointed by a Minister to a specific role and therefore I am assuming that the chairperson of each national institution will have a specific role and a specific job description and responsibility. I would like to understand the relationship between the Public Appointments Service process and the appointment of the designated chairperson, as proposed in the Bill. I wish to hear the Minister's views before I make my mind up on the proposed amendment.