Seanad debates

Wednesday, 27 June 2012

National Cultural Institutions: Motion

 

5:00 pm

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Seanad Éireann recognises:

Ireland's obligations 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 do offer social, economic and educational opportunities that can 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; and

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 and for the Gathering Ireland 2013 event.

That Seanad Éireann 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".

That Seanad Éireann notes:

that the public service reform plan, 17 November 2011, addresses a wide range of issues such as: implementation of shared services models for HR, payroll, pensions; evaluation of new business models for the delivery of non-core services; reform of public procurement processes and property rationalisation; and reducing costs, addressing duplication and eliminating waste to support job creation;

that under the public service reform plan bodies to be rationalised, amalgamated or abolished in 2012 include the Irish Museum of Modern Art, the Crawford Art Gallery, the National Gallery of Ireland, the National Archives of Ireland, the Irish Manuscripts Commission, An Comisinéar Teanga, the National Library of Ireland and the National Museum of Ireland;

that under the public service reform plan, candidate bodies for critical review by the end of June 2012 include the Chester Beatty Library, the Placenames Commission, the Heritage Council and Culture Ireland; and

that all national cultural institutions understand the need to reduce budgets; show value for money; and support the need for the implementation of a shared services model under the public service reform plan.

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht:

to publish the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht's response to the public service reform plan, including the cost-benefit analysis and projected savings;

to undertake a consultation process similar to the process on the new human rights and equality body, thereby establishing a working group, including representatives of the national cultural institution affected by the public service reform plan and the public; calling for submissions to assist the discussions of the working group; publishing the report of the working group; presenting the Minister's plan to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht;

to realise the aforementioned commitment in the programme for Government, by establishing a policy and research unit within the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, in order that annual qualitative and quantitative research can be carried out to increase our understanding of the public value of the arts; and

to protect the "arm's length principle" between the national cultural institutions and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht by retaining independent boards of directors; appointing board members on a non-remunerated basis; publically advertising the position of director of the National Museum of Ireland; the director of the National Archives of Ireland and the CEO of Culture Ireland.

I welcome the Minister to debate the motion as proposed by the group of Independent Senators. This is a timely debate, one in which I support the Minister and the Government in highlighting how we can enhance, protect and sustain the role of culture and, in particular, the national cultural institutions in the Republic. Therefore, I propose the motion which Senator Jillian van Turnhout will second.

There are a couple of issues I wish to highlight. I am director of the national theatre, the Abbey Theatre, one of Ireland's national cultural institutions. When the Taoiseach appointed me to the Seanad a little over one year ago, I knew my role as director of the Abbey Theatre, my role as a citizen and my role as a Senator would add to the challenges and the opportunities I would have in contributing to the debate and the public policy remit of the Seanad.

The reason the motion is before the House is that there has been no meaningful public consultation; there is no other reason. National cultural institutions belong to the citizens of the Republic who have a right which has been denied to them to have the important reform process discussed in public. With the motion, I could have stayed quiet and said nothing. The funding for the Abbey Theatre comes from the Arts Council and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. My relationship with the Minister and his Department has always been cordial, professional, supportive and beneficial to the arts in Ireland.

The Taoiseach has empowered me to speak on issues about which I care and know. I have heard with disquiet that there have been concerns expressed about my contribution to this debate. I take my position as director of the national theatre extremely seriously and I am totally committed to it, but I also have the right and the responsibility as a citizen and a Senator to engage in a debate about which I am passionate. In his speech in the Dáil last night the only national cultural Institution the Minister singled out specifically in terms of funding was the Abbey Theatre which received €7.1 million a year from another national cultural institution - the Arts Council. We have also received a grant from the Minister's Department this year for the removal of asbestos and to meet capital costs. I am indebted to the Minister whom I thank on behalf of the board of the Abbey Theatre.

I support the Minister's vision and work programme. We are in difficult financial times, but our approach to all sectors of society needs to be carefully considered and judged before we consider dismantling or restructuring the way we work. I wholeheartedly applaud and thank the Minister on behalf of the arts community and the public who have access to the arts for the funding he has managed to obtain. A cut of only 3% is a remarkable political result.

There is a need for a more extensive debate on the governance and policy for the arts sector; perhaps there is a need for a Green Paper on the opportunities and challenges facing the arts in the 21st century. The Minister has been in the job for the past 16 months and we have yet to hear his vision of how we should embrace, use and support the arts in the new era in the Republic.

In the programme for Government it is clearly set out that the Department will take a lead role in "making strategic policy formulation the primary function of the Department, with line agencies and bodies responsible for policy implementation". When the Minister examines his Department's strategy statement arising from the programme of the Government commitment, he will note that the mandate "is to foster, promote and support Ireland's world-class artistic and cultural strengths, at home and abroad". In order to achieve the strategic policy formulation goal, the Department requires an arts policy unit with dedicated research staff who can commission and analyse data, surveys and research material.

As a founding member and proud supporter of the National Campaign for the Arts, I know that one of the emerging aspects of our research work is the lack of data on levels of cultural participation, cultural consumption patterns and barriers to increased participation. Arts and culture support tourism, create jobs and enhance reputation, but how do we measure the role of the arts and culture in our citizens' lives? Do we know, on a regular basis, how many of our citizens engage or have access to the arts and is there a better way for us to inform policy for the arts? I notice that on the Department's website there is very little data and research available to us on these issues.

We need to move beyond the economic, the consumer and the marketplace and to accept the public value of the arts, the role of the citizen and the place of the arts in our society. I am happy to volunteer to support the Minister in this, as is Senator Marie Louise O'Donnell, who could not attend this afternoon.

The Minister is part of a Government that agreed on the public sector reform plan last November. He also has all of Ireland's cultural heritage and institutions available to him within his ministerial remit. It was a lost opportunity for him between November and now not to address the economic challenge as a way to debate in public and to consult in public how these institutions could react, change and develop under the public sector reform plan. It was a lost opportunity for the Minister not to take a lead on this so that the citizen and the taxpayer could contribute to the debate. This was done in other Departments quite efficiently. The reason independent Senators are moving this motion is that the Minister's Department's actions will have an adverse impact on the quality and rigour of the output of the institutions which will ultimately have an impact on audiences. No board or cultural institution is above review or examination with regard to the efficiency of service delivered to the public. That includes all the cultural institutions listed in today's motion. No board or cultural institution is above the delivery of the efficiencies and shared services that will give better value to the taxpayer. A review is good, providing it is open, transparent, meaningful and complete. Has the Minister commissioned any cost-benefit analysis or seen any reports on the potential savings of any of these proposed mergers or amalgamations?

The Minister has stressed the need for reform and review. All organisations are open to that, but international precedents show repeatedly that a well-structured efficient board is an essential part of an organisation managing and achieving significant reform. Ireland does not have a good history of effective board governance - we need only look at our banks - and this is an opportunity to address this in a positive way, to look at the full potential a board can play not just in fund-raising, but in supporting an organisation to meet current challenges and manage a process of reform. Tomorrow, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, will launch a new Government code of governance to charitable and voluntary organisations. Central to the code is that all organisation have a board to comply with governance codes.

In his contribution to a debate in the Dáil last evening, the Minister stated his commitment to the independence of the cultural and programming aspects of the institutions. That, however, does not go far enough. The independence he looks for is achieved by an independent board. I know that as director of the Abbey Theatre and I knew it as director of the Project Arts Centre. This is the reassurance we are looking for in our motion today. The Government's amendment to our motion does not guarantee to the House that the Minister will not repeal or seek amendments to the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997.

Culture Ireland has been one of the success stories of the arts over the last five years. It has worked tirelessly and imaginatively to support the Government in enhancing Ireland's reputational recovery abroad, and this is acknowledged in the Government amendment to the motion. This is a body which had a board and a director and worked well within the Minister's Department, but it was by-passed recently when the Minister appointed, without competition, a director of this body. Perhaps the board rubber-stamped this, but there has been no public comment from it. There is now an impression, which I know is not the Minister's intention, that the arms-length principle of Culture Ireland is well and truly broken. In our motion this afternoon, I call on the Minister to publicly advertise the positions of director of the National Archives, director of Culture Ireland and Director of the National Museum of Ireland. The Government amendment does not go far enough in this particular regard. The only way to support programming independence is through good governance, and that means independent boards who appoint independent directors. This, in turn, will support the work of artists and archivists and the citizens who benefit from it. It is on this basis that I continue to propose our motion.

Photo of Jillian van TurnhoutJillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is my honour to second this motion, initiated by our independent group. I wholeheartedly endorse everything my colleague, Senator Mac Conghaíl has said.

I come to the motion from a different point of reference. In recent years, I have developed a keen interest in researching my ancestry. Through this hobby, I have had the pleasure of using the National Archives of Ireland, the National Library of Ireland and the genealogical records put online by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

In preparing to second the motion I did my own research, so it was with surprise that I read the contents of the Government amendment. The Government "notes the extensive consultation undertaken" by the Minister. I found it extremely difficult to find evidence of this consultation and can only conclude that it happened behind closed doors. This is regrettable. We are talking about our national culture and our national cultural institutions. We all have ownership of them and any proposals in their regard surely warrant an open, transparent and inclusive consultation process. An example of such a process is included in our motion but it has not been taken up in the Government counter-motion.

There is a feeling of déjÀ vu in the air. In his budget speech of 2008, the then Minister for Finance, the late Deputy Brian Lenihan, announced that the Government had decided to proceed with a wide range of amalgamations of State agencies, including the merger of the National Library of Ireland, the National Archives of Ireland and the Irish Manuscripts Commission. The proposal was subsequently dropped. This self-same action was included in the Government's public service reform plan, published last November, which stated: "Merge National Archives and the Irish Manuscripts Commission into the National Library while maintaining separate identities." Yesterday in the Dáil, the Minister said he was considering a range of options for the National Museum of Ireland and the National Library of Ireland, including streamlining and moving some support functions back into his Department.

From my reading, a merger is proposed but the institutions will all keep their own identities. Lest we forget, eight years, between 1997 and 2005, were spent moving the library out of the Department, including transferring staff from the Civil Service to the public service, and now we are talking about moving some of them back in again. I have often heard of moving deckchairs on the Titanic. This really sums that up.

From my experience and research, the roles and functions of these State agencies are completely distinct. I am focusing my intervention on the National Archives of Ireland, which is situated within the Minister's Department, with statutory independence. The National Archives of Ireland is legally charged under the National Archives Act 1986, and the significance and importance of its functions in the interests of democracy, transparency, truth and justice cannot be overstated. We know how essential court and other archival records are to clarifying the State interaction with the Magdalene laundries and to other bodies of inquiry and redress. As we enter a decade of sensitive commemorations, how we understand our history is critical, and I am well aware that the absence of factual material can often distort it.

From my experience of researching my own family history, I knew the story of how my great-aunt fled Ireland with her two year old child in 1929, abandoning her husband and her ancestral home in County Clare. By researching in the National Archives of Ireland, I found District Court records of how my great-aunt tried, on several occasions, to seek the court's protection from her husband, who assaulted and abused her. When she could not get remedy from the court, she was left with no alternative but to escape to England. When I shared this with her daughter, who is now in her 80s, I cannot put a price on the relief, understanding and closure these archival records provided. To understand and interpret our history appropriately we need to ensure that our archival material is properly stored and easily accessed.

I cannot stress enough the link between transparency, justice and proper record keeping. No one in this Chamber needs to be reminded of the serious, and in some cases fatal, consequences of our historically poor record keeping. Only last week, we received the report of the independent child death review group. Other reports, such as the McEntee and Barron reports into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, illustrated the failure to keep adequate records. In years to come, when historians try to understand decisions taken today and in recent years in matters such as planning, where will the records be? Who will be preserving them? What are we doing to review the National Archives Act and to address its deficiencies, such as records of State agencies and electronic records? I am genuinely concerned. No doubt the Minister will confirm the value he places on the National Archives, but I am saddened to see that the evidence is to the contrary. The financial allocations to the National Archives between 2005 and 2011 showed a dramatic reduction in funding which is now back at 2005 levels. The Minister is well aware of the concerns expressed about storage, access, humidity control and conservation at Bishop Street, despite the best efforts of staff. The National Archives has a staff of 47, of which 14 are archivists. In addition, there are six vacancies due to the moratorium, two of which are for archivists. There is also the critical position of director. I note that in many countries of similar size with a comparable volume of records the staffing levels far outnumber ours. For example, the National Archives of Scotland has 160 members of staff, of whom approximately half are archivists, while at the Danish National Archives there are 261 members of staff, of whom approximately 88 are archivists. I also look with envy at the completion of the PRONI building in Belfast which was delivered on time and under budget last year. I note its location in the Titanic quarter of Belfast and the clear link drawn with culture and tourism. Instead of moving deckchairs, should we be discussing our vision for protecting our cultural heritage?

This Saturday, 30 June, marks the 90th anniversary of the destruction of the public records office in the Four Courts. On that fateful day 1,000 years of Irish cultural history literally went up in smoke and vanished without trace, yet to the surprise of many, given the financial position at the foundation of the Irish Free State, one of the first acts of the new Government was to rebuild the public records office. What clearer signal could there be of the priority given to our cultural heritage in the 1920s? If the proposed merger is to succeed as set out and the consequences are as many as I fear, I wonder how kindly historians in 90 years time will review our decisions today. I ask my colleagues to stand and be counted and let the record show that they supported the motion.

Photo of Tony MulcahyTony Mulcahy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I never said that.

Photo of Tony MulcahyTony Mulcahy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also refute the idea that other parties would not have done the same in similar circumstances. While there is a need to cut costs, on the one hand, there is also a need, on the other, to secure private funding from elsewhere and to put together programmes that will encourage philanthropy from new avenues. As the Minister outlined, we have seen great success, with the National Archives managing to secure €250,000 for a particular project. I would like to see more of this. It is my sincere belief that if we present compelling propositions, we will see the private sector step in to support the great institutions. However, no matter what are the recommendations of the report or what way a programme of savings is put together, the Minister has delivered one message loud and clear, namely, that curatorial independence will remain, that there will be no orders from the Department that a particular exhibit must be purchased or that a specific selection of books must be put on display. I share the Minister's intention that at the end of the process the cultural institutions will emerge stronger and be able to weather any storm.

It can be easy to forget about all things other than numbers and to view the world through the prism of a balance sheet. To do so is both short-sighted and unwise and in that sense, I am heartened to see that the Minister has taken such a balanced approach and worked so hard to engage with all stakeholders throughout the process. Nevertheless, while I ultimately admire the thrust of the motion proposed, for the reasons outlined, I must support the counter-motion.

Photo of Labhrás Ó MurchúLabhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is mian liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire, agus tréaslaím leis na Seanadóirí neamhspleácha as an rún seo a chur os ár gcomhair. Cabhraíonn sé i gcónaí a leithéid de rún a phlé mar tugann sé seans dúinn uilig ár dtuairimí agus ár dtaithí a gcur ar fáil eadrainn féin. Is é mo thuairim go bhfuil gach duine ins an Teach seo taobhach agus cabhrach le haon rud a bhaineann leis an gcultúr agus leis na healaíona. Is mar sin ar chóir é a bheith.

I welcome the Minister who has always been available to us when issues relating to his portfolio arise. We have had him in the House to discuss the decade of commemorations and the arts. I found this helpful because sometimes we all tend to work in isolation. The Seanad is the ideal forum in which to have a discussion such as this. We should look at the broader picture as we see the arts and culture today. We all accept that they are important to the quality of life and the morale of the people, as well as to the image of the country abroad. All of us are aware of how we have delivered in that regard. The status we have as a small country internationally is amazing. The arts and culture have been central to it.

I have seen the Minister travel the length and breadth of the country to attend all kinds of events – small, big and international. He has always had a ready ear to listen to anyone with a point of view. That is consultation with the grassroots. I have seen this being delivered on organically and subsequently evolve into policy. I hope that will never change because if that consultation with activists in a cultural and artistic sense does not continue, we will have lost an important conduit in terms of the overall policy that will eventually be developed.

I am pleased the Minister has acknowledged the importance and excellence of the national cultural institutions because there is no doubt that they are one of the main conduits for the image of the country abroad, but they also give a certain motivation to the people. I refer, for example, to schoolchildren visiting one of the institutions, academics and other participants. It it important that there be such a forum and focus.

I hope we will not have an acrimonious debate. I hope that it does not harm the unity and cohesion that has existed in the arts and cultural world to date. We each have an opportunity to engage on this issue and I hope that we can get back onto even ground. We are all Irish and committed to our cultural and artistic identity. Any contribution that we make in this debate should have that intention.

I compliment the two Senators who have spoken. Senator Mac Conghail stated that he had always found the Minister and his officials to be professional and helpful, which has also been my experience through the years. Speaking as Fianna Fáil's spokesperson on the arts, it must come as something of a surprise that I am praising the Minister or his Department, but some issues are above politics. This happens to be one of them. It is above party considerations.

The national cultural institutions should not feel aggrieved in any way, as it would be wrong not to acknowledge them for their work. We have been particularly lucky in the calibre of personnel that we have succeeded in attracting, Senator Mac Conghail being an example. His vigour and vision have made a major contribution to the Abbey Theatre. For this, I salute him. The theatre grew out of the same renaissance as our Independence and our individuality as a people.

We are facing economic challenges. If any public figure does not start by acknowledging these, it will create a difficulty and send us down a cul-de-sac. Each Department is facing identical challenges. I made this point when the Fianna Fáil Party was in power. It is easy to make arguments knowing full well that the resources are not available to respond 100%. When the Minister sits down at the table, I hope that he will have listened to my comments.

Given the motion's origins and the experience behind it, this is probably one of the Chamber's best debates. The Minister has the vigour to make the strongest argument possible on behalf of arts and culture. Had this debate been held 30 years ago, the man or woman on the street might not have been on our side. I do not mean this in a derogatory sense. Interestingly, they are on side with what we are trying to achieve now.

It should not be argued that arts and culture do not put bread on the table. The opposite is the truth, as their economic value is beyond question. Senator Mac Conghail referenced his background. Three all-Ireland fleadh cheoils in Cavan will have delivered €120 million to the region by their end, the VAT derived from which will be approximately €30 million.

Arts and culture are the essence of the Irish as a people. Is it not funny that we fall back on them in challenging times? Good hurling, football and soccer teams lift our spirits. These are the people who will help us to rise each time we have a problem. When one visits the museum to study our history, the Abbey Theatre to watch a play or the fleadh cheoil to play music, one is seeing what we are as a people. This is important. The Minister should put these arguments to the Minister for Finance or whomever is making the decisions. I hope that today's debate will not be concerned with vested interests or what we are seeking individually, but with everyone working together towards a common goal. Ní neart go cur le chéile. The strength we can have by being united is exactly what the Minister needs and nothing that might detract from it will help us, as financial decision makers could perceive divisions. We are depending on the Minister to pick up the ball, run and score. He needs all of the support we can give. That these arguments are coming from Fianna Fáil may be surprising, but I dearly love everything that we do from an artistic and cultural point of view.

Each of us has had the opportunity to visit China or Japan, countries of 1.3 billion and 100 million people, respectively. Given the fact that we are a young and small nation, we are always overawed when the Japanese or Chinese people whom we ask about Ireland generally refer to our arts and culture.

There is a time for closing ranks, unity and positive focus. I am not against debate or differing opinions, but confrontation spills out and might distract us from our common cause. I would love it if there was no amendment to this motion and if we could agree a single motion that the Minister would convey to the decision makers.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

May I share two minutes of my time with Senator Moran?

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House and this opportunity to debate the motion. I thank Independent Senators Mac Conghail and van Turnhout and the rest of their group for moving it. As colleagues will be aware, we held a similar debate on 7 June. It was a debate on the decade of commemorations. Many of us raised the important role to be played by the national cultural institutions during the coming decade. We referred to the critical issue of the independence of those institutions. I welcomed the Minister's response, in which he spoke in support of the principles of autonomy and independence.

I am glad the amendment to the motion emphasises the Government's commitment to introducing governance reforms with a view to supporting programming and curatorial independence. I am sorry that the amendment could not go further. I hope that the Minister will address some of the matters raised by the Independents, for example, their concerns regarding the appointment of directors to a number of the institutions in question.

The key point is that no Senator is against governance reform. Everyone understands the need for a review of governance structures if we are to ensure that all of our institutions, including those under discussion, are run in the most effective way possible and continue to make a significant contribution. The national campaign for the arts provided an excellent briefing. The Government's briefing acknowledged the significant economic, social and cultural contribution made by the arts to our society. We all share a voice in this regard.

There is no disagreement on the need to maintain a review. The institutions have been forthcoming in terms of making proposals for governance reform. In the Dáil, the Minister referred to the galleries' practical proposal on the sharing of back room services. However, it is key that there be rational, evidence-based cases for potential governance and structural reforms. A controversy has arisen, in that people working in the arts were fearful of forced mergers or amalgamations of institutions. This would not make sense or save money. The international experience is that mergers and amalgamations do not save money. They require long-term planning, investment and clear business strategies. While the national cultural institutions recognise the need to cut costs, they believe that this can be done in such a way as to preserve their independence and autonomy.

Labour is conscious of the legacy of President Michael D. Higgins, one of the Minister's predecessors. He introduced the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997, which set up the framework for many of the institutions currently under discussion.

Senator van Turnhout or Mac Conghail referred to Culture Ireland. There is a particular concern about Culture Ireland and it is worth saying that the body has played an important role in promoting Irish arts internationally. The issue of the director of Culture Ireland has been raised in the Independent Senators' motion. A number of issues have been raised that might be dealt with in the debate but we all agree about the need to ensure the most effective possible structures for the institutions that are so important to promoting our culture here.

Photo of Mary MoranMary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House this evening and congratulate the Independent Senators and Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú on their contributions. We should all feel honoured by the contributions to the arts and our country, and I know Senator Ó Murchú in particular has been involved with traditional Irish music. As a former teacher of music, his work is widely known and appreciated in the music field. Senator Mac Conghail has done outstanding work in the Abbey theatre.

From a Labour perspective we must consider the amendment put forward. It is clear from the contributions in this debate that we are all acutely aware of the immense importance of the arts in the cultural life of the country. Ireland can be justly proud of our long history of cultivating support and promoting the arts, and we all recognise that even in times of economic downturn, maintaining this support is essential.

We have seen that this sector is expanding, providing employment, attracting investment, raising our country's profile abroad and bringing tourists to our shores in significant numbers. Senator van Turnhout mentioned the Titanic Quarter and I visited it last Saturday. The cultural and tourist opportunities it has provided are immense. The Government is committed to supporting the Irish national cultural institutions and acknowledges the tremendous work that has been achieved. It is also committed to implementing public service reform as outlined in the programme for Government, and there can be little doubt that the sharing of services, such as information technology, human resources, marketing and procurement will lead to savings and efficiencies. We are the custodians of our heritage and have a duty to ensure the millions of people home and abroad who want to immerse themselves in our heritage get the service they want and deserve.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am also very happy to welcome the Minister and his officials, whom I recognise, to the House. I have dealt with the Department over many years. This Minister is appropriately placed, and I have known him for a long number of years, as we have shared an interest in various cultural issues. There is naturally a particular Kerry emphasis, which is perfectly appropriate, as my focus is on Dublin and I speak about Joyce or Bram Stoker quite often. The Minister has really helped to put on the map people like George Fitzmaurice and although John B. Keane did not need to be put on the map, the Minister has underlined the fact that he was there. There is also our mutual friend, Mr. Brendan Kennelly. There is goodwill from the Minister, who is in a difficult position. In parlous economic times, human rights and the arts are almost invariably the first two targets, leading to this difficulty.

I recognise that this House sometimes echoed to the voice of Senator W. B. Yeats, one of our greatest poets. The motion is sponsored by Senator Mac Conghail, who has played a significant role in the Abbey Theatre. It is a dreadful and appalling building but he showed real artistic imagination in turning the dreadful gallery around and putting in a fully raked theatre. We are graced tonight by Ms Rosaleen McDonagh, who is a writer, wheelchair user, Traveller and sometime contestant for the university seats here. In one way she is kind of a hated rival but also a very good friend.

It is very important to recognise the practical significance of the arts. During the presidential election I quoted from time to time from a survey which emerged at the time from a Scandinavian university. That indicated the critical impact of community involvement in the arts in terms of mental health and well-being, demonstrating a saving to a country's exchequer because fewer people needed to use mental health resources. The issue should be grounded in the issue of mental health and well-being, and the arts are needed more than ever at this time, when people are depressed generally by unending bad news. Hollywood cinema boomed during the Great Depression and the same is happening today.

I attended a very well orchestrated briefing organised by Senator Mac Conghail and briefing notes from the National Campaign for the Arts were presented. It was fascinating material. Some 57% of the adult population attend the arts, with 1.2 million people regularly engaged in creative artistic activities. Attendances have increased in the theatre by 8% and at exhibitions by 11%. This suggests the activity is not elitist but deeply ingrained in the spirit of the Irish people. The national cultural revival, led by people like Yeats, predated political nationalism and helped create the movement. Cultural nationalism came first and political nationalism was inspired by it.

Some 111,000 participants attended 592 events nationwide as part of the Bealtaine festival. I have mentioned well-being, and research by Professor Semir Zeki, professor of neuroesthetics at University College London, indicates that viewing a work of art creates the same chemical response as love, putting chemicals like dopamine into the brain. It is a very good activity.

What strikes me about the motion and amendment is that there is one area of disagreement. The difficulties are indicated with the resignation of Dr. Patrick Wallace and Professor Diarmuid Ferriter from their respective positions. Those serious events must be taken account of. The first part of the Independent Senators' motion is inarguable and the Minister practically repeats it word for word. The Minister would like to have the work welcomed, praised and cherished. The Senators also note certain facts before the bitter disagreement becomes evident in the final four paragraphs. The motion asks "to publish the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht's response to the Public Service Reform Plan, including the cost-benefit analysis, and projected savings", which would be very helpful.

Amalgamation of the national library and archive was attempted in Canada, so there is a precedent. The Canadians believed it would save money but it cost 50 million Canadian dollars. A cost-benefit analysis would be very important in this respect, as is the arm's length principle. Artists can be difficult people politically, as it is their role. Plato kicked them out of the republic because they were unreliable. He called them liars. Picasso got it right when he stated that art is a lie that reveals the truth. Politicians do not always like the truth being revealed and we must have the arm's length principle so that we are immune from censorship and interference. I do not believe this Minister would do such a thing, but there could be difficulty later.

The motion further asks "to undertake a consultation process", which would be important. I have always found the Minister to be open and helpful but it can be unhelpful to be given the impression that decisions are taken at Cabinet before a consultation process is complete. The retention of independent boards of directors is absolutely necessary. These people are mostly unpaid so there is no cost cutting in getting rid of them. Some are paid, but in Eugene Downes of Culture Ireland, we got a terrific deal. I know the Minister's commitment; why would I not? I am a fellow traveller. Did I not travel down with him in his splendid motor car to Kerry to Féile na Gréine in Tech Amergin? That festival is in difficulties, as the Minister knows, and I know he will do what he can to assist it. We saw at that festival that the spirit of art and féile includes that idea of generosity of spirit. Pauline Bewick, the artist, was there, one of the greatest Irish artists. She has been extremely generous in giving to the community works of art of enormous value.

Even at this stage, there should be some negotiation between representatives of the two sides, just to look at those final four paragraphs. That is all that separates us and they are negotiable. I salute my colleagues among the Independent Taoiseach's nominees for having put this motion forward. They argued it vigorously, as is their right, but they argued it in a way that was not antagonistic and the questions they asked must be answered. This Minister will, I believe, answer them. It is a difficult time but Seanad Éireann would give the Minister the support and backing he knows in his heart he has, and it would be great if we could get a combined resolution. He will have a battle with economics.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is unique in my 30 years in national politics for both Houses to debate an issue simultaneously. It is even rarer for the same issue to come up in Private Members' business, so it is a first. I compliment and congratulate Senators on raising this issue. We live in a democracy and must listen to each other and to constructive criticism. This is what makes our democracy so strong. I am delighted the debate is taking place in both the Seanad and the Dáil. It is good for the arts. I recognise that the Taoiseach appointed these Senators to the Seanad and gave them the freedom to say what they want. The Taoiseach deserves recognition for that. I am delighted we are all part of this debate. The Senator accuses me of having no vision but I-----

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would not accuse the Minister of that and I offer him my support.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator should read his script.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach does not deserve a compliment if he has appointed them to the Titanic, if he carries out his plan to abolish the Seanad.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have had a vision for the arts for many years. It did not start yesterday. Rather than having one of these academic visions, I have a practical vision. In my town, when I realised we had some great writers there who were not properly represented, I decided to go ahead and set up a literary centre for them and to honour them in other ways, such as with documentaries for RTE. I have a vision that might differ from the intellectual or academic vision but it is practical. Like Senator Norris, I was impressed by Tech Amergin and my vision is for the arts in the whole country, not just in Kerry or Dublin. Unfortunately in the past, the vision of policy in this country was not geographically inclusive. People throughout the country are entitled to access to quality performances in good venues, whether they are in Donegal, Clare or Dublin.

It is to the credit of both Houses of the Oireachtas that they have found common purpose in prioritising the national cultural institutions this week and I am pleased to be here to address the House on this issue. It is my fourth time in the Seanad since becoming Minister and I have always found the debates here to be informed, compelling and insightful. I spent four years in the Seanad, from 1983 to 1987, and sat with people like our current President, Michael D. Higgins, the current Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, and many others who made it in politics afterwards, including the former President, Mary Robinson. There were some interesting debates on the arts back then as well.

My starting principle is that the periodic examination of organisations, especially those receiving money from the taxpayer, is a healthy and necessary exercise. This should be done at all levels of Government. While I am in this position, I want to make them better and for them to give a better service to the community, the taxpayer who funds them and the consumer. The Government recognises this principle and the taxpayer deserves nothing less than our acknowledgement of it.

The public service reform plan published by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, against which backdrop this debate is taking place, aims to deliver enhanced public services. The plan notes that shared services can potentially transform the competitiveness of State bodies and that sharing functions like human resources, IT, payroll, procurement and other services will yield long-term savings.

Institutions funded by the taxpayer, through my Department, are part of the public service reform plan. Our arts and culture define us as a nation; they are what set us apart. They differentiate us in a world of growing sameness. They are our badge of honour, our greatest ambassadors, and their reputation has endured and grown when our reputation in other spheres has been diminished. They have contributed a great deal in the last four years to repairing a tarnished image of us worldwide, especially in New York, Europe and elsewhere.

This Government is hugely supportive of our arts and of our cultural institutions. Since the downturn, very significant cuts have been made to our arts and culture budgets. In 2012, as Minister, I ensured the reduction in day-to-day Exchequer funding for our arts and our cultural institutions was the smallest reduction since 2009. I do not put this forward in any way as a point of self congratulation, I am simply reiterating that the funding for these institutions has never been more difficult.

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I compliment the Minister on that.

6:00 pm

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Considering the way in which we address that funding challenge for the future cannot be avoided and we are determined to work with our cultural institutions in this challenge. The process of reform in which we are engaged is not about diminishing them, it is about the long-term survival of these institutions. In this challenge, they must work together, share common operational services and draw on shared support services. Our national cultural institutions are capable of doing that.

When I first came to this House as Minister last September, I said that my objective in Government is to make the arts and culture part of our national script, to make them a central and essential part of the narrative about the character of a new, different, changed and better Ireland. That remains my objective. Of the many things we excel at in this country, the arts are foremost. In fact, our arts and culture practitioners are world class. As I said previously in the Dáil, however, one of the things we could do better is to have a calm and level-headed debate about the future direction of institutions that are funded by the taxpayer and are in place to serve the nation.

I know these institutions well. I have engaged with them throughout my life.

These cultural bodies, which hold, protect and manage important collections of art, literature and diverse artefacts on everyone's behalf, are defining components of Ireland's academic, cultural, documentary and archaeological heritage. They steward our history, witness our present and have educational value.

My door is always open to those who wish to share their views on the future direction of these institutions, and on our arts and cultural policy more generally. It is a matter of great regret that some chose the megaphone instead of that door. Some recent commentary has suggested that I am planning to dismantle the organisations. Let me assure the House that the Government is planning no such thing.

This debate has not been helped by speculation. The debate in the Seanad has had a different tone generally than that in the Dáil last night. Dismantling the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997 was never in my plan, nor was impinging on the arm's length principle as it applies to the Arts Council. If one pores over the record from 2003, one will note I argued for hours to protect that principle. Senator Fiach Mac Conghail was adviser to the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue. I am very conscious of the freedom and independence of our national cultural institutions. Undermining the curatorial and programming independence of the national cultural institutions was never in my plans, and our counter-motion confirms the Government's position in that regard.

My Department funds these institutions, not as much as I would like but as much as I can. This year, eight core institutions, including the galleries, museum, library and archives, will receive more than €41 million in total. This is approximately a third of the arts, culture and film budget of my Department.

Senator Mac Conghail should note I did not single out the Abbey Theatre last night. As he knows, the theatre's funding comes from the Arts Council. Therefore, it was only fair to mention how we fund the national cultural institutions I have listed.

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister did not mention them all, in fairness.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I mentioned that the Abbey Theatre got extra funding. I did so to emphasise the type of funding being provided to cultural institutions. The Abbey Theatre will receive more than €7 million, approximately, a ninth of the current Arts Council allocation. I am making the point that the taxpayer is providing substantial funding for the cultural institutions.

I said last night that our institutions are world class at what they do. They rank ahead of many illustrious international peers. More could be done with more money, but the funding challenges I face in my Department are significant. I sometimes go the National Museum of Ireland or the National Library of Ireland, particularly the former because it gets a higher footfall, and I see visitors really enjoying our artefacts. I often ask visitors what they think of the museum and they state they are fascinated by it. They state their experience there is as good as they would have in any other part of the world. We should be very conscious of the treasures of the country and the richness of our artefacts and archeological heritage, as displayed in our museums and national cultural institutions generally. What I want to ensure nowis that Ireland's national cultural institutions can optimise the funding they receive from the taxpayer and be equipped to deal with the range of issues that will arise in the future.

One of the obvious ways in which we can help the institutions to work in a more effective, efficient and co-operative way is to encourage them to share common services. Many of the institutions have individual marketing and human resources departments, while institutions also purchase services such as security and insurance which may, if pooled, drive down total expenditure over time. This is common sense, pure and simple.

The three main galleries - the National Gallery of Ireland, the Irish Museum of Modern Art and the Crawford Gallery - have put a detailed proposal together on how support and operational services can be shared, and this is being considered at present. The remit and independence of each of these institutions would not change under these proposals. The National Gallery of Ireland would continue to show historically important artwork while the Irish Museum of Modern Art would retain its focus on contemporary work. The institutions concerned would, of course, continue to decide what to exhibit and where to exhibit it.

There has been much recent commentary about the National Library of Ireland, the National Museum of Ireland and the National Archives of Ireland. The latter is part of my Department and always has been. It is working very efficiently and effectively.

When it was announced there would be a review, the Secretary General of my Department set up a review unit and approached the matter very seriously. The unit has consulted all the organisations and individuals. The staff in question are those who have been in constant contact with the organisations for years. They are the staff who gave them funding and grants over the years. Those who say there was no consultation are incorrect because there certainly was. Saying there was none is absolutely unfair on the officials in my Department, who have given so much to the arts over the years and whom the Senators know. The consultation has been extensive and intensive.

The National Archives of Ireland is headed by a director with statutory independence and is advised by a voluntary board whose members offer their time pro bono. Under this structure, it does excellent and independent work. The National Archives of Ireland, of all institutions, has pioneered onIine developments, including its award-winning digitisation of the 1901 and 1911 census returns. The organisation raised €250,000 from philanthropy in the past 12 months to fund a digitisation project, and this ought to be recognised.

The National Museum of Ireland and the National Library of Ireland, which have been in existence since 1887, worked in a similar way until 2005. I am considering a range of options for these institutions, such as whether the sharing of support functions can streamline how they operate or whether they would operate more efficiently if these support functions were delivered by my Department, which already manages human resources functions for other institutions, such as the National Archives of Ireland, for example.

I want to examine the governance of institutions and consider how boards or advisory groups might perform a more outwardly proactive and international role in terms of fund-raising and philanthropy. Having collected a lot of money for cultural projects in the United Kingdom and United States over the years, possibly up to €500,000, I note there are considerable opportunities. I would like to see our cultural institutions reaching out to a diaspora that would connect with our national treasures. Senator Mac Conghail has been doing so for the Abbey Theatre-----

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With the Minister's support.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----and there are efforts to reach out involving the National Concert Hall and proposals to make connections in New York. There is certainly significant potential and our national cultural institutions will have to reach out to realise it.

In an era of diminished State funding capacity, it would simply not be right of me to ignore the examination of existing structures to see whether they are suited to the realities of 21st century arts and cultural funding. Where institutions are funded virtually 100% by the taxpayer, the Government has a responsibility to subject them to periodic review.

Much of the commentary in this House and outside has focused on the curatorial and programming independence of the institutions. There is no question of their being undermined. More commentary suggests that I have not consulted relevant parties. I have addressed this already. There has been ongoing contact and engagement with the cultural institutions since the Government published its public service reform plan last November. That contact is continuing. I met the chairmen of all the national cultural institutions, along with the Arts Council and Culture Ireland, to discuss these issues and hear their views.

Some have said I am against open, competitive recruitment processes for directors of the institutions. I want to nail this on the head. Since I came to office, we have recruited new directors at the National Concert Hall, the National Gallery of Ireland, the Irish Museum of Modern Art and the Arts Council, all through open competitions managed by the Public Appointments Service. We are in discussions with the service on the appointment of the next director of the National Museum of Ireland. Never before have so many directors been appointed in the same year. We have managed to recruit some top-class young people with international experience who will make a major contribution to the national cultural institutions.

I give recognition to those who have retired. Senator David Norris mentioned Dr. Wallace who retired; he did not resign.

I ask those who criticise to look at my record in this matter and draw their own conclusions. I do not accept that examining the possibilities amounts to an attack on the cultural infrastructure of the nation, as some have suggested. In fact, the idea that any organisation or institution should be, or consider itself to be, above examination for reform is unhealthy and a recipe for a bad deal for the taxpayer. These institutions are the cultural heartbeat of the nation, the stewards which care for a resource which is literally priceless. I want to ensure they work in the most effective and efficient way possible and that they can cope with the challenges they will face. It is my intention that following this process our national cultural institutions will emerge stronger and have a more certain future in order that for coming generations they can continue to preserve our past and inform our future.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail made a point about Culture Ireland. A new director has been appointed; the board has made and announced the appointment.

Reference was made to Mr. Eugene Downes by Senator David Norris.

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about competition? The post of director of Culture Ireland was not advertised externally. That is what we were looking for. It was done internally. He is a civil servant.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not a full-time position, in other words, it is temporary. It will be advertised like other jobs.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is welcome. I thank the Minister for telling us.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The person who has been given the job is someone who was in that position for many years, knows the process well and the procedures within Culture Ireland. One could not find a better person to do the job. I have experienced the efficiency of the person who replaced Mr. Downes, Ms Christine Sisk. She is a top class civil and public servant.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sure the Minister wishes to pay tribute to Mr. Downes also.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am doing so. Mr. Downes was excellent. It was unfortunate that, because he was on contract and of employment law, we were not able to retain him. He has a major role to play in the arts and I hope he will continue to play it. Obviously, it would have been advantageous to have him in the position for Ireland's Presidency of the European Union, especially because of his vast number of contacts all over the world, including in New York, the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe. He is a major asset to the country. It is unfortunate, as I said, because of his contractual arrangements and employment law, we were not able to keep him on.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sure that in some of the special matters involved, including the Ireland's Presidency of the European Union, the Minister will be able to find a role for him.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope he will play an important role here in the future.

I reiterate that I did not single out the Abbey Theatre. I was not in any way singling it out because of Senator Fiach Mac Conghail's association with it.

I am delighted Senator Jillian van Turnhout received such satisfaction from the National Archives of Ireland in tracing her family tree, etc. The National Archives of Ireland is a part of my Department which has been really criticised.

Photo of Jillian van TurnhoutJillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is recognised and acknowledged. It raised the issue of under-resourcing.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the context of what is happening, it seems as though, if the Department has any connection with a State institution, there is something wrong with it. I realise they must have independence, but, eventually, ithe Department provides the funding and also gives advice and help. The National Archives of Ireland is a good example of a body in which there is an independent director and advisory council.

Photo of Jillian van TurnhoutJillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Which is currently vacant.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regarding the council of the National Archives of Ireland, I say to Senator Maurice Cummins and confirm that I was delighted that Professor Diarmaid Ferriter after he had resigned from the National Library of Ireland had stayed on in the council of the National Archives of Ireland.

For all those who were appointed to the National Library of Ireland by the previous Minister, former Deputy Mary Hanafin, in August 2010, she pointed out in her letter to them that their appointment was for five years or subject to amalgamations or rationalisations. Those who took on the appointments knew exactly what the terms were.

Capital funding for the National Archives of Ireland rose last year. That was one of my agendas.

Photo of Jillian van TurnhoutJillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was for damaged buildings.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Funding was increased this year. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, and I went to the National Archives of Ireland which had a problem with the roof which we tried to solve. My officials are working closely with it to try to find a solution.

Photo of Jillian van TurnhoutJillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are also significant storage issues.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I know too well. It was a pity, when we had so much money in the country with which we did not know what to do, that all of these challenges were not faced. Obviously, there was the lack of a vision, to which Senator Fiach Mac Conghail referred.

The proposer and seconder of the amendment, Senators Tony Mulcahy and Ivana Bacik, expressed strong views. Senator Ivana Bacik, especially, expressed her views to me and I will have further conversations with her. Senator Mary Moran only had two minutes in which to contribute, but she certainly raised important issues.

Senator Labhras Ó Murchú and I have known each other for a long time. He had a vision for Comhaltas which, more than anyone else, he has achieved. He had to fight to get support for the organisation during the years. I remember the 2003 Bill in that regard. It is now paying off in a big way, not only from a cultural point of view but also from an economic point of view. One can see the spin-off in what is happening in Cavan and the increased interest in Irish music all over the country. At one time it was not cool; now it is very cool such that every youngster in the country wants to be able to play an instrument. I acknowledge the role Senator Labhras Ó Murchú has played in that regard. I thank him for his balanced contribution in which he was not political or anything like it. It is a pity some of his fellow party members in the Dáil did not consult him before they spoke last night.

I hope I have mentioned and thanked all of the Senators who spoke. In this House we can formulate an arts policy. I have my own vision, but none of us has a monopoly of knowledge or wisdom of the arts. Anyone who thinks he or she has will be disappointed because there are many who have much to contribute in different ways, both at a practical and an intellectual level. They include those from an academic background but also from a performing background, be it in the visual or performing arts. We all have something to contribute in our own way. None of us is a total expert. I look forward to the rest of the debate, which will inform me and a broader audience.

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tá fáilte roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach. Tá lúcháir orm a bheith anseo tráthnóna le cupla focal a rá ar an ábhar thábhachtach seo. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a thabhairt dos na Seanadóirí Neamhspleácha, the Independent Senators, for tabling this important motion. We are living in constrained economic times. Sometimes, however, society must weigh up what it believes in and where it has come from to ensure we do not abandon our ethos, culture and identity, in other words, who we are as a people. I have the utmost regard for the Minister and I do not propose to fall out with him.

Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú summed up the issue well when he noted the purpose of this debate was not to make political points but to discuss an important aspect of Irishness and who we are and where we come from. As a small country on the periphery of Europe, what sets us apart from our nearest neighbours across the water is our cultural identity, namely, our language, dance, song and music, as well as our cultural institutions which are headed up by people of world renown, including Senator Fiach Mac Conghail who moved the motion. It is important to make this point and recognise the work of all those engaged in a voluntary or professional capacity in the arts and heritage sector. They encapsulate what it is we want to promote in terms of being Irish, including our culture and heritage, both in this State and on the island, for the benefit of Irish people and those throughout the world who have Irish links. Cultural tourism is a major element of this work. Regardless of where one is in the world, when people hear one is Irish, they tell stories about Riverdance or visiting the National Museum or one of our theatres in Dublin.

The Minister is in a very important Department and plays a major role at Cabinet level. At a time of recession and economic challenges to the Government, it is tempting to pick the low-lying fruit. Sport and the arts are sometimes considered areas where money can be saved, but this is not always the right thing to do. We should not always view everything in an economic context or tick boxes for the purposes of reducing expenditure.

My party supports the Minister in his endeavours at Cabinet level to protect the independent status of the national cultural institutions, which was first recognised in the Arts Act of 2003. We are almost ten years down that road. It was important to provide the institutions with independent status and a separate identity, latitude and freedom from party politics and ministerial and departmental interference, although "interference" may be too strong a word. This independence has served the country well in the past decade.

I do not support the proposal to merge An Coimisinéir Teanga with the Office of the Ombudsman. None of these organisations should be merged. Individuals from the arts, culture and heritage sectors have pointed out such mergers have given rise to additional costs in other countries. In the case of Canada, for example, the exchequer incurred additional costs of €15 million. While merging organisations may look well and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform may argue it will save money, this approach does not always work. Before pursuing this option, all potential mergers, whether they have been announced or may be planned in future, should be the subject of a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. International best practice suggests we should maintain the independent identity of institutions that are vital to the State, not only in these times of economic challenges. In ten, 20, 30 or 40 years, when some of us will be long gone, these institutions must work for our people to protect national identity and cultural values and safeguard our cultural future. This is the approach advocated in the motion and I commend the Independent Senators on identifying it.

The Minister referred to Professor Diarmaid Ferriter who resigned from the board of the National Library of Ireland in protest at the manner in which the cultural institutions were being treated. Notwithstanding the Minister's argument that consultations are taking place, as the motion correctly notes, the arts, heritage and culture sectors do not believe it is sufficiently meaningful. Perhaps the issue could be revisited.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That perception is unfair to the staff of my Department who have worked with the individuals in question for years. I acknowledge, however, that it is the impression people would get from reading the newspapers.

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Having spoken to representatives of a number of the organisations in question, it is certainly the view they are expressing. When my party was in government I challenged Ministers on this matter and insisted consultation was not meaningful enough. I ask the Minister to reflect on the matter.

While I do not like to attach a value to the arts, the sector supports approximately 80,000 jobs and contributes approximately €4.7 billion annually to the economy. If one downgrades or undermines the arts, which I am not suggesting is being done, including through the merger of key organisations, it will have indirect knock-on effects on the economy. We must avoid such a scenario.

I had hoped the motion would either secure all-party support or the Government parties would at least approach Independent Senators with a view to formulating an agreed wording for the motion that could have been acceptable to all Senators. No one wants to vote on issues of cultural significance or, for that matter, related to sport, about which I know a little more than I do about the arts. Unfortunately, while we do not want to vote against what the Minister is doing, in light of the concern expressed by the sector, we are obliged to support the motion.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House for this important debate. It is part of our make-up and psyche that we all share such an enthusiasm for the arts. Our cultural institutions are of major importance to our national heritage. I have great time for the Independent Senators and salute everything Senator Fiach Mac Conghail has done in the Abbey Theatre. The Abbey has put on great shows over the years and we are proud of it. However, I find it amusing, if not rich, that the Independent Senators have tabled this motion. I was interested to hear the Minister put on record both in the other House and again in this Chamber this evening how much the Abbey is receiving. It is important to note it is in receipt of one tenth of the Department's capital budget and one ninth of the Arts Council's budget. I am sure the Independent Senators recognise the huge goodwill the Minister has for the arts. While I accept everything that has been said, especially by Senator Ó Murchú, Members should be closing ranks. In this Minister, they have a man who is a safe pair of hands and who has operated with an open door policy at all times.

As for curatorial and programming independence, he has guaranteed it. He merely is talking about back office administrative functions in this regard, and there can be economies of scale in respect of human resources, information technology, payroll and procurement. There is no harm in any of that and great good could emerge in having a pooling of resources. One cannot escape the fact of the nation's finances, which is the reason I agree so much with Senator Ó Murchú. One must be careful as there is such a tremendous image abroad for which these national cultural institutions are in their own way responsible. If I may joke slightly about it, the Minister would not drop the ball, and I salute that. Members are aware of this man's commitment. They all wish to optimise funding and all are aware of the severe difficulties we face. There is nothing to fear, once we steady ourselves, as the Government is managing scarce resources well and will continue to so do. The Minister continues to be completely open and again gave a guarantee in this regard this evening. While I was saddened that Professor Diarmaid Ferriter chose to resign from the board of one institution, as the Minister noted he has remained on the board of the other, which is good. People of his calibre should continue to make themselves available and should be prepared to enter into consultation.

Many worthwhile and sensible points have been made in the Chamber this evening-----

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Did I make any of them?

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Steady on.

Photo of Brian Ó DomhnaillBrian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Kerry jersey is on.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sure the Senator did. I must apologise to the Senator as I missed the beginning of his contribution. There was something of a cock-up with regard to the starting time but perhaps that was my fault. It certainly was not that of the Senator. I have no doubt the Senator made some good points.

However, I revert to basics. I do not wish to labour this point because the Minister's heart is in the right place. He seeks to optimise the funding but because the Government is paying out so much more money than it is taking in, it must be extremely careful. Moreover, he who pays the piper must have some say with regard to calling the tune because in this case, that is the taxpayer of Ireland. The Government must be very careful in this regard and the Minister is being more than careful in how he is balancing things out. He is a safe pair of hands who lives and breathes the arts. As all Members opposite accept this point, I repeat it would be a pity for a division on this matter to be necessary and I certainly hope there will not be one. The perception abroad regarding some of these points is completely inaccurate, and in fairness to Members on the other side, I believe they recognise this. Consequently, I appeal for common sense and for Members to allow the amendment to go through. Senator Norris noted earlier there is little between the respective positions, perhaps a few words or a few paragraphs. While he made a few brief points, I do not have to hand the notes I made on them. However, he noted Members were aware of the Minister's commitment and that little separates them on this issue. Consequently, I plead with Members to accept the amendment and to avoid a division.

Photo of Katherine ZapponeKatherine Zappone (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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?

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assure Senator Zappone that I have made no proposals to Government yet. I have not finalised my position. It is too early to accept the motion because we have not yet determined what we will do. That is the reason I cannot accept the motion. I included elements of the motion in the amendment in recognition of it.

Photo of Sean BarrettSean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister. When he spoke about fellows who dropped the ball, the phrase occurred to me was to be careful what you ask for because you might get it. If one was afraid of the fellow in one corner-back position, there was an even tougher fellow over in the other corner and one could end up in a worse state.

The Minister referred to what went on in the years in which the money was all spent. I refer to an bord snip nua. I previously used the proper English language title which nobody uses any more. I will claim a grant from the Arts Council for that. An bord snip nua tells us that between 1997 and 2009, the number of higher grade civil servants rose by 82% in numbers compared with 27% on average. That is what happened. A massive bureaucracy grew up during the period. I refer to page 12 of volume one of the report of an bord snip nua. The pay level due to benchmarking at those top levels meant that we ended up with senior civil servants and Governors of the Central Bank being paid far more than their international comparators, including the former Taoiseach because his pay was linked to that of higher civil servants. Builders, bureaucrats and bankers are the ones who got us into this mess. Whether Senator Mac Conghail can run a matinee on a Wednesday in October is not going to solve those problems and we must face up to them.

In the Book of Estimates for the current year I note that the programme expenditure was down by 9%. That is correct. We are in difficulty. Everyone must participate in the solution. However, the administration budget only reduced by 2%. The total budget went down by 9% and administration went down by 2%, but most of the items in the administration budget went up. My unweighted average for the five of them is that they increased by 63%. A total of 23% more was spent on travel and subsistence, training and development expenses increased by 67%, postal and telecoms increased by 10%, offices expenses increased by 26%, and policy reviews and value for money increased by 14%.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If Senator Barrett would allow me to interrupt, as he is aware, my Department was a reconfiguration of previous Departments. Because of the reconfiguration, the figure in the Estimate does not reflect the amount spent in the Vote on administration. I explained that when I was doing the Estimate before the committee. Senator Barrett is correct in what he says but there is an explanation for it.

Photo of Sean BarrettSean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Go raibh maith agat, a Aire. That is what the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, must address. He referred to low-hanging fruit. I think much low-hanging fruit hit him on the head. The pattern of increases in non-pay administration budgets is evident right across the board. The Minister and his Cabinet colleagues must come to terms with that. The administration, as published, is €36 million. That is the equivalent of the cost of five Abbey Theatres going on administration. We must question that. It is a problem in the health service as well, the massive growth of bureaucracy as against front-line staff. We have a problem in that regard. It is important to diagnose what got us into the mess. Whether we get rid of people who serve on a board voluntarily or who have offered to serve for free will not solve the problem, which is layers of bureaucracy. The problem is Sir Humphrey, not the front-line staff. I accept what the Minister said about the need to correct the numbers but they apply across the board. People looking in on the administration from outside wonder if a so-called capture has taken place, that the radicalism the electorate chose when it changed the Government so radically has not altered the permanent Government. The nature of bureaucracy is that it likes to expand the budget, expand its influence and grow even when the overall activity in the economy is contracting. That is a serious danger.

Another point on how bureaucracy behaves is exemplified in the McLaughlin report on local government. I have discussed it with the Minister's colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, and the Minister of State at the Department, Deputy Fergus O'Dowd. In the moratorium period in local government the number of directors reduced by 7%, clerical and administration staff reduced by 4%, professional and technical staff by 3.7% and outdoor staff – those who do the work – reduced by 13%. We do have a problem with bureaucracy. I hope that in tackling it we do not damage the vital front line and that we take into account what reaches through to people in the art galleries and theatres. The bureaucratic side has done remarkably well to escape so lightly to date. We must not allow it to continue to escape by endangering the cultural activities the Minister, I and everyone in the House value. A new emphasis is needed the next time around on budgeting because bureaucratic costs do not produce anything. They are inputs and overheads. We are all interested in directly productive cultural activities, including all the work the Minister did himself for cultural activities in County Kerry such as raising money abroad.

The situation is echoed in local government, the health service and in universities. If we keep going, there will be a small number of people giving lectures but there will be an increased number of strategic managers watching them give the lectures. The Government must get a grip on the problem. The emphasis should be on people who put on performances, shows and exhibitions in galleries which people attend in large numbers. Bureaucracy got off very lightly in the previous Book of Estimates.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is welcome to the House. I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate. It is always good to have a debate, although there are serious issues at stake. It is worth saying, if I might shamelessly talk about Yeats Day for a moment – the Minister and I had the pleasure of being part of the inaugural launch of Yeats Day in Sligo two weeks ago - that in the current times when things are difficult and there is not much money, it shows that with some creativity and a small amount of money, much can be done to tap into what we have talked about as our identity and culture. As Senator Zappone said, it is in our hearts and souls and sometimes we are touched by it. On the day when we started to celebrate the legacy of W.B. Yeats, we were able to do so with the participation of the national cultural institutions, which were holding hands, so to speak, and at their best. The National Gallery, the National Library and the Abbey Theatre were in Sligo, on the ground, sharing the moment and proving that even in straitened times there is great creativity and enthusiasm for the arts. We should not forget those moments because they are the things we work towards. I am sure that when Senator Barrett talks about bureaucracy, he means inefficient bureaucracy as opposed to bureaucracy per se, because we need people to do that work, the stuff one has to churn through to create a commemorative day, week, event or matinee. Without the bureaucratic input, there is nothing else to see on the outside. I am sure Senator Sean Barrett was thinking of inefficient bureaucracy as opposed to bureaucracy in general.

I understand why the Minister is not in a position to accept the motion. I respect that, too. As Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill and others said, we do not want to be in disagreement here. We all value our national cultural institutions because they are the tangible, concrete manifestation of our artistic and cultural endeavour. They are where we keep our connections with our ancestors, history and past, with whom we were and, therefore, with whom we are, and where our dreams and concerns for the future find a home. They bind us together and are vital to our well-being and sense of identity. We need our national cultural institutions, but not more than ever before. We always needed them. We now need them to be underpinned by independence, while being able in a cut-throat commercial world to do business. That is the reality.

I welcome the Minister's absolute commitment to the curatorial and programming independence of all the institutions. That is something he never had any intention of touching. It is important, in this context, that he make that clear.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That point is very much respected.

Photo of Susan O'KeeffeSusan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I believe the Government is as committed as the Minister to the ongoing independence of these institutions. From conversations I have had, that is what I understand. Independence does not have to be the sacrificial lamb of reform, nor should it be. The public service reform plan is one of the planks of reform that will continue over a period of time. It is part of the jigsaw puzzle of reform. The public - that is, you and I, voters - wants to see a better, more efficient, more cost effective and more productive public service, as do public servants themselves. That is a win-win. The plan is unlikely to be perfect or get everything right first time around. It can, however, establish shared work practices, what the Minister calls the shared services model, for human resources, payroll, pensions and other services that are duplicated. That sounds easy to say. In fact, it has rolled off our tongues several times in several ways. It will, however, bring enormous difficulties and challenges for the people and the range of national cultural institutions involved. The acknowledgment by national cultural institutions that this is the direction in which we need to go is important. They recognise the need to get value for money. Bringing them together to work towards that end is a big achievement. It is something we should recognise and commend because it will be difficult. Making the changes happen will involve obstacles, problem solving and trust. We talk blithely about change, but it is incredibly difficult and a slow process. To have walked this far already is a great achievement.

The Minister is committed to improving customer service and working in new ways. These will be vital. The world in which the national cultural institutions are operating is changing and they must move and change in that changing world to compete, stay open and survive. The public, of which we are part, and the public service, of which we are also part, do not want to see any of our great institutions diminished. Reform always has a dangerous edge to it. We know the concept of giving an inch and having a mile taken. In this debate we are saying there need to be inches and inches, but we do not want to go the whole mile. I ask that the national cultural institutions keep their independent boards and their arm's length relationship with the Department. That is not maintaining the status quo. Instead, it could turn into the robust system of governance the institutions will need to ensure they become stronger, more in charge of their own destiny and responsible for keeping the doors open, finding new ways and adapting old ways to fund their existence and keeping and protecting the cultural legacy that we, the people, have entrusted to them, which responsibility I know they take seriously.One size does not fit all. I understand the Minister and his Department are looking at all available models and, perhaps, at ways to adapt them to make hybrids of what is in place. We know there are benefits to having a robust, thriving cultural economy. That is what we are trying to achieve. This is critical for tourism and inward investment. It is also critical for our own identity. The changes that will be driven by cost efficiencies must be made carefully and slowly because so much - so much that I know the Minister values - is at stake.

I am sure this conversation is ongoing. Perhaps some of the public consultation model about which the independent Senators spoke could be looked at and might help all of us because we have a shared interest.

7:00 pm

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fáiltím roimh an díospóireacht faoi chúrsaí ealaíne. Tá sé iontach tábhachtach. Is breá an rud go bhfuil an t-Aire anseo inár measc arís. Tugann Sinn Féin tacaíocht iomlán don rún atá á chur ar aghaidh ag na Seanadóirí neamhspleácha agus fáiltím roimhe. Tá súil agam go mbeidh sé in acmhainn ag an Rialtas tacú leis an rún go hiomlán mar atá sé, mar sílim gur cuireadh ar aghaidh é le dea-mhéin agus ar mhaithe leis an rud ceart a dhéanamh.

Many years ago Oscar Wilde defined a cynic as a man who knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. I am sure the Minister is surrounded by cynics, although I do not contend he is one, rather he is the opposite. However, they are plentiful. If Oscar Wilde was alive today, he would probably describe Chancellor Angela Merkel as a cynic. I am sure there are many others throughout Europe who do not realise the value of the arts and culture, particularly in the Irish context. I imagine Ireland has more artists per capita than any other country because we cover so many disciplines, from literature to dance, theatre, music and so on. That is probably true and we will contend it is until someone tells us the opposite.

The debate has gone in the wrong direction. The Minister has said his starting principle is to examine organisations, especially those receiving money from the taxpayer, and that this is a healthy and necessary exercise. That is the wrong place to start. Earlier we had a debate on our natural resources, including oil and gas. We should turn this debate into one on our natural resources. The arts are probably one of our best natural resources. The debate about funding would then centre on how to support that resource. How do we support artists and the people with the creativity, genius and ingenuity to create art that is different from anything else in the world? How does this enhance us as a community, a people and a state? What are the benefits and dividends that ensue from it?

I have a bugbear about the way the arts are measured. People in the arts community have always felt a need to justify ourselves to those with a bums-on-seats mentality because that is what the Civil Service has asked us to do. It is what the funders, the cynics, have asked us to do. We have to justify everything in those terms. We need to stand up and say the arts deserve to be funded. Arts activity is worthy of being funded in its own right. Conditionality should not be imposed on someone funded as an artist in residence, for example. An artist in residence should not be obliged to do workshops in schools. An artist in residence should receive stand-alone funding. However, I accept that we must have some measurement in order to stave off all the cynics around us.

How do we best enhance the arts and how do we use them? They can be a catalyst in bringing us out of an economic downturn. Very little capital investment is needed for an arts project. The Galway Arts Festival, the film industry and other arts projects have shown that the multiplier effect of investment in the arts is massive. The comeback from arts activities, in direct taxation and the spend in the local community, is massive. We need to make that argument. To use football parlance, the Minister has gone in with the hard shoulder on a number of occasions to defend the arts, but in a football match of 70 minutes a player has to keep on doing this. The Minister is going to have to keep doing it to defend the arts. We need him to go in with the hard shoulder and tell the cynics to back off the arts. He would have our full support in doing so. He would also receive cross-party support.

To keep the cynics happy, one must recognise that expenditure in the arts sector alone amounts to €1.8 billion and that 26,590 people are employed in the arts, all of whom are paying tax as employees. This is of huge importance. Moreover, the creative industries themselves are worth €5.4 billion to the country and employ almost 100,000 people. That is neither a small nor an insignificant number of people. As Senator Norris noted earlier, 57% of adults or almost 2 million people are arts attenders and 1.2 million people engage in artistic or creative activities. Consequently, we certainly have the requisite number of bums on seats for the size of our nation but my point is this should not be the only measure.

The Minister and I both attended a recent event organised by him in which he toured the country to talk to people involved in the arts. It was very good and there was a fantastic engagement in the Town Hall Theatre, Galway. One suggestion made at that meeting was the Government should consider having an artist appointed to each State body. That is a really good and clever suggestion. First, for an artist who is fairly hard up, there would be a stipend that certainly would add to his or her income. However, it would be crucial to bring such creativity into the decision making of the State and this should be done at all levels. Artists tend to think differently and creatively and to look at other ways of doing things and I believe people have become highly blinkered in their thinking. One must recognise the work of the artist as being important in its own right.

Tá súil agam go mbeidh an tAire ábalta labhairt faoi Ealaín na Gaeltachta and I hope the funding available for that body can be continued, as it is very important for Irish language arts. Moreover, the inclusion issues of geography, social inclusion and access to the arts for people from all spectrums of society are very important. Sinn Féin supports the four main thrusts outlined by Senator Zappone and the wishes of the independent artists are pragmatic and clear. I will conclude by quoting Oscar Wilde, who wrote "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars". I believe the Minister and Members are looking at the stars but they must convince a great many more people to do so.

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To paraphrase Phillip McMahon, who wrote "Alice in Funderland", we are all in the gutter but some of us are looking up at the Spar.

At the outset, the Minister should be under no illusion but that all Members are here to support him without question. However, what is vital in our community, of which the Minister is a part both as a Minister and in respect of his role and the work he has done in Listowel, is that a good and vibrant debate is really important. Lots of disagreement is important and he should not feel discomfort in any way, because it is better to have such a debate in public. This is the problem that has been encountered heretofore.

I assure the Minister that under no circumstances am I impinging on, or impugning, the reputation, skill or expertise of the Minister's officials. As for Niall Ó Donnchú, assistant secretary of the Department, who is sitting behind the Minister, and all his officials, I know them, have worked with them and went shoulder to shoulder with them through many wars. I acknowledge publicly that Members on this side - certainly the Independent group of Senators - are not criticising the civil servants. The Minister must be made aware of that.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, they are not.

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They seek the flip side of this, namely, the public consultation side. This is the reason we drew an example from what is being done by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter. The public must be a part of this debate, and as there was no airing, it was our responsibility to come to the Seanad to deal with that lack. Incidentally, utterly unbeknownst to us, Fianna Fáil tabled a Private Members' motion in the Dáil. As for the idea there was synchronisation, it is a complete coincidence because the Independent Members have their shift in Private Members' business, as does Fianna Fáil. I reassure the Minister there was no-----

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is no problem. The Independent Senators provided a fine audience for them but I was delighted.

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, we provided a fine audience because we care and that is really important. I could have sold tickets last night in the Gallery and there would be more tonight.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It certainly was a big audience. As no interest is evident from the Gallery most of the time-----

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is right.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----last night was very interesting.

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is eating into my time now.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I apologise.

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is all right.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator is sharing time.

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is really important the Minister knows that.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator and the Minister are fighting over the ball.

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I get criticised every single day by 492 people who come to the Abbey Theatre, on a full house, and I simply must get used to it.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In fairness, I have been involved in politics for 30 years.

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, I make the point in that spirit. I have one further issue in respect of Culture Ireland. Christine Sisk is a person I know well and with whom I have worked well. However, I query and question the procedure for public appointments and I have a right to so do. The person who is in place pro tem may well apply for the job. I know she did not apply for the job and I would encourage her in this regard. At the same time, however, that job should be publicised. The Minister's contribution also mentioned the director of the National Archives, but that position is vacant at present. We have an acting director, not a director, of the National Archives and that position should be filled.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That process is-----

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One minute remains to the Senator to conclude the debate.

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the one minute remaining to me, I strongly believe there are only words in the difference between what the Independent group seeks and the Government amendment. There are two issues I wish to tease out with the Minister within that minute. First, when he has made up his mind, can he publish his response to the public sector reform plan and put it into the public domain before it goes into the process in the way his ministerial colleagues in other Departments have done?

Second, the Minister's speech indicated clearly he has no intention of dismantling the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997. I note this and accept it is very close to what the Independent Senators seek. I absolutely agree with him, notwithstanding the periodic review of each and every cultural institution or body, that one must look for value for money and for efficiencies, but also and more importantly, for governance. While the aforementioned 1997 Act protects the governance, the Minister has every right to look for value and to investigate whether they work well, and indeed the Minister appoints them. The Minister said that dismantling the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997 was never in his plans. If I can accept that as what the Minister is saying to me, I would consider that to be a sine qua non in terms of the arm's length principle.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator, we are into overtime.

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to be fair and clear to the Minister. Will he publish his response to the public sector reform plan before it goes into the Government circle?

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will give the Minister a minute before putting the amendment to the House.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to clarify this point.

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is important because in the spirit of what Members seek, those are my two question.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, it pertains to Cabinet confidentiality and I could not. However, I can revert afterwards-----

Photo of Fiach MacConghailFiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not a question of Cabinet confidentiality. If the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, can do it, so can the Minister present.

Photo of Pat O'NeillPat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sorry, Senator, the Minister to conclude.

Photo of Jimmy DeenihanJimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The proposals I will make will be made in the Cabinet and the Cabinet will make the decision. As I am only making the proposals, I cannot publish the proposals I intend to make to the Cabinet. As the Senator is aware, that is not procedural and I cannot do that. However, I am prepared to return to this House afterwards to discuss the actions that were taken, whatever they may be.

Amendment put:

The Seanad Divided:

For the motion: 25 (Ivana Bacik, Terry Brennan, Colm Burke, Deirdre Clune, Paul Coghlan, Michael Comiskey, Martin Conway, Maurice Cummins, Jim D'Arcy, Michael D'Arcy, John Gilroy, Aideen Hayden, James Heffernan, Imelda Henry, Lorraine Higgins, Caít Keane, Denis Landy, Marie Maloney, Mary Moran, Tony Mulcahy, Michael Mullins, Susan O'Keeffe, Pat O'Neill, Tom Shehan, John Whelan)

Against the motion: 15 (Sean Barrett, Thomas Byrne, David Cullinane, Fiach MacConghail, Marc MacSharry, Paschal Mooney, David Norris, Trevor Ó Clochartaigh, Brian Ó Domhnaill, Labhrás Ó Murchú, Mary Ann O'Brien, Averil Power, Jillian van Turnhout, Diarmuid Wilson, Katherine Zappone)

Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Susan O'Keeffe; Níl, Senators Fiach Mac Conghail and Jillian van Turnhout.

Amendment declared carried.

Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."

The Seanad Divided:

For the motion: 25 (Ivana Bacik, Terry Brennan, Colm Burke, Deirdre Clune, Paul Coghlan, Michael Comiskey, Martin Conway, Maurice Cummins, Jim D'Arcy, Michael D'Arcy, John Gilroy, Aideen Hayden, James Heffernan, Imelda Henry, Lorraine Higgins, Caít Keane, Denis Landy, Marie Maloney, Mary Moran, Tony Mulcahy, Michael Mullins, Susan O'Keeffe, Pat O'Neill, Tom Shehan, John Whelan)

Against the motion: 15 (Sean Barrett, Thomas Byrne, David Cullinane, Fiach MacConghail, Marc MacSharry, Paschal Mooney, David Norris, Trevor Ó Clochartaigh, Brian Ó Domhnaill, Labhrás Ó Murchú, Mary Ann O'Brien, Averil Power, Jillian van Turnhout, Diarmuid Wilson, Katherine Zappone)

Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Susan O'Keeffe; Níl, Senators Fiach Mac Conghail and Jillian van Turnhout.

Question declared carried.

Photo of Denis O'DonovanDenis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Due to the enthusiastic exuberance and bilocation of one Senator, who happened to vote in two seats, the result is to be amended to read: Tá, 25; Níl, 15. When is it proposed to sit again?

Photo of Maurice CumminsMaurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.