Committee on Finance. - Arts Bill, 1951—Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION I.
In the absence of Deputy Ó Briain, I move amendment No. 1:—
In line 16, to delete "the Council" and substitute "An Comhairle".
I think the general intention of Deputy Ó Briain was, at least, to concede to those interested in the promotion of this general idea, from the point of view of the assistance that might be given to activities in the Irish language, and to assist Irish writers and dramatists, perhaps, that in accordance with the practice up to the present, the title should as far as possible be in the Irish language.
If Deputies will look at this amendment, they will, I think, agree that it would be wholly unacceptable and quite wrong to put it in. The suggestion is to delete the words "the Council" and substitute the words "An Comhairle". This is a definition section and it is not carried down through the rest of the statute, and everywhere you find it you will have it "An Comhairle" should do this or should do that. I suggest that this amendment, together with some of the other amendments in Deputy Ó Briain's name, would make a very patchwork performance of this Bill and it would really, perhaps, make it ludicrous. I hoped to meet what I thought was behind Deputy Ó Briain's mind in putting in that the name of the Arts Council would be An Comhairle Ealaion or, in English, the Arts Council. I took the precedent of that from the Constitution.
May I suggest to the Deputy this consideration, that apart from legal considerations and matters of draftsmanship, this Bill is being enacted in the English language? This arts council will have a very considerable amount to do with foreign councils of a similar sort. Arts councils are known, not merely in England, but in France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Holland and other places very interested in art. They will have to have communication with these arts councils and arts council is much nearer to their language than trying to put the Irish language into a foreign language. I suggest it would be much more appropriate if you have it the way I have suggested. From the point of view of this amendment, the words "An Comhairle" there would be nonsense. It would be ridiculous to have one word in Irish carried down and no other words carried down.
We already have Córas Iompair Éireann and Bord na Móna; they have Irish titles and they seem to be able to carry on with these titles successfully. Then you have an organisation like the Electricity Supply Board and if the Irish title had been used to describe them from the beginning they would probably have been known by the Irish title as they are now known generally by the English title. I think that would be the point of view of the Gaelic League people.
I strongly urge that this amendment should not be pressed, even from the point of view of the Gaelic League people—at the same time giving them full credit for their intention to do something for the Irish language. In my view—and I say this with all sense of responsibility—these suggestions have quite the opposite effect. They have had the effect— and I have had experience of it—of causing mockery in getting the right effect from the peculiar pronunciation of these words, and generally sneers on the language, thus causing very serious damage to the language.
Mr. de Valera
While the views expressed by the Taoiseach have a certain amount of substance, there is an opposite point of view, namely, that the introduction of the words does help to familiarise people with the language. Córas Iompair Éireann has been instanced. That phrase rolls off the tongue of quite a large number of people who would not otherwise accept it at all. We use the word "Comhairle" every time we address the Chair. Every Deputy, whether he knew Irish at any time or not, very rapidly gets accustomed to it. As far as the objection, that the word will not run right through the Bill consistently is concerned, it is easy enough to make the consequential amendments.
As far as the use of the title abroad is concerned, that is important. Admittedly, there will be a connection with similar organisation abroad, but we very often get communications from people and societies abroad and we have to try to know what is the meaning of the titles that they use and we very quickly discover it. I know there are objections such as the Taoiseach has instanced but, on the whole, we ought to tend rather to the introduction of words in Irish where we can. It is patchwork—I am quite willing to admit that—but is not it better for us to begin a letter with "A Chara" and end it with "le meas" than to use the English forms? Of course, it would be very much better if we could have it the other way, if the substance of a letter were in Irish and the introductory and concluding phrases in English but, until we reach the stage in which the letter as a whole is written in Irish, why not introduce it in this way, as is done in the case of street names, or other short phrases? I think the Taoiseach ought not to turn it down without giving it some further consideration. I know he is anxious to get the Bill to-day and that he has very little time, but I would urge that the other side of the question should be considered. I appreciate the side that the Taoiseach has put up.
On this particular amendment, perhaps we travelled a little wide. I think that the particular amendment, to call the council "An Comhairle" is quite inappropriate, because nobody but people reading the Bill will look at it or use it. It is on Section 2 that we might consider using it. I suggest that this amendment should be withdrawn and that it should be left as "the council". It is a matter of legal drafting and legal definition to carry it right down through the whole thing. If I may put one point, Section 5 says: "there shall be paid to the council...." If that becomes "there shall be paid to an comhairle", should you use the dative form?
Mr. de Valera
You would have to use the nominative or accusative form right through.
That would be simply ridiculous.
Mr. de Valera
On this particular amendment, I do suggest that if you say "the council", why not "the arts", why not anything? Why not do the whole thing in Irish, and not in bits?
Mr. de Valera
It would be very much better if we did.
That is so, but as we are not doing it on this particular amendment——
Mr. de Valera
One of the reasons why people press for words like this is that, if you do not use them, it is the English form that will be used universally and the alternative in Irish will not be used at all.
That may be so but may we consider this section and go on to the second section? It is a legal definition. From a drafting point of view, it will be necessary to put it into every single section hereafter.
Mr. de Valera
From that point of view, I do not think that even what is desired to be done will be achieved, other than making the thing look ridiculous.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:—
To delete line 18.
This is merely to take the Minister for Finance out. He is put in subsequently in other parts. I think Deputy de Valera mentioned the fact that putting the Minister for Finance there seemed to give a general air to the whole Bill, on which I agreed, and I agree to take it out.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Tairgím leasú 3:—
In sub-section (1), line 21, to delete "or (in the English language) the Arts Council,".
Ba chóir, is dóigh liom, glacadh leis an ainm seo, ainm Gaeilge amháin, gan bacaint leis an mBéarla, sa chás seo, pé'r domhan é, cosúil le Córas Iompair Éireann, nó Dáil Éireann, nó Seanad Éireann, nó Oireachtas Éireann, agus a lán de na téarmáí eile, Ceann Comhairle, Leas-Cheann Comhairle, atá i ngnáth úsáid anois i measc an phobail agus ag Teachtaí Dála, fiú amháin daoine atá dall ar Ghaeilge ar fad. Tuigeann siad na téarmaí sin agus ní usáideann siad a mhalairt. Ba mhaith liom go leanfaí an úsáid sin ar gach aon rud oifigiúil a chuirimíd ar siúl mar seo. Tá téarma eile, Bord na Móna, atá i n-úsáid. Ní chuimhnítear in aon chor ar an mBéarla úsáid agus tuigeann gach éinne é agus tuigfear é seo leis. Molaim go n-úsáidfí an téarma, "An Chomhairle Ealaíon". Molaim an leasú.
I hope the Taoiseach will see his way to accept this amendment, at any rate. It is only an extension of a usage that is quite commonly in operation already.
I have indicated the sort of objections that could be made to this. There is an objection on the ground that it is a body that will have contact of a close character and, I hope, very frequently with foreign organisations of a similar character. In the case of a recent organisation that was set up by this Parliament, the Irish News Agency, there were amendments put down or suggestions made that the Irish appellation should be used and, because of the fact that it would have such international contacts, it was not pressed. I put this in for the same reason and, as I said earlier, I adopted the precedent that there shall be "a body called an chomhairle ealaíon, or (in the English language) the arts council" from the Constitution, as an appropriate way of meeting the matter and a way that I thought would suit everybody's point of view. Undoubtedly, there will be, as I said earlier, a certain amount of derision and a certain amount of consequent harm to the Irish language. I do not want to press that very strongly, but I can assure the House that it is very, very widespread.
Mr. de Valera
There were considerations of a very different character in the case of the news agency. In this case, if the Irish name were used, there would be nothing to prevent the council from putting underneath the English translation. If there was some guarantee that they will use that as the official name, then you could authorise them to use the other as the equivalent in English, that if they use the Irish title at the top in any of their communications, they can, if they want to, put the English underneath as a translation, making it obvious—in brackets or in some other way, indicating that it is the English equivalent of the title.
Very well, if there is any very strong view, I will not press it.
Mr. de Valera
I want to assure the Taoiseach that I appreciate to the full the considerations that he has mentioned. There are, unfortunately, people who find it very easy to sneer at things like that. It is a handy way for them to give vent to their general dislike of the language, and one has to guard against that. On the other hand, we cannot allow people of that sort to determine our action.
The real reason that I wanted to put that aspect is that "arts council" is known abroad in art circles and it would be more convenient to have the English title "the arts council" for that reason. Normally, on notepaper and everywhere else, it would be "An Chomhairle Ealaíon."
I suggest to the Taoiseach that that would apply only in connection with, say, England and America. In the case of France, Italy, Spain or many countries on the Continent that have greater traditions as far as art is concerned than either of the other two countries, it would be a matter of indifference whether the title was in English or Irish. I think the Irish title would be more distinctive as far as these places are concerned.
Very well, if you want it.
Mr. de Valera
May, I take it that the Taoiseach will accept the Irish title? May I add that, in the case of the news service, there was a question of telegrams, and other messages. That was the special consideration in that case, I think.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (1), to delete lines 18 and 19 and substitute "moneys provided by the Oireachtas a grant of such amount as the Taoiseach, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, shall determine."
Deputies can see the purpose of this amendment, I think, fairly well. In other words, the Taoiseach has pretty well the control of the money and gets nominally general financial control. It will be observed that the ceiling of £20,000 has gone. It may be possible to get more than was originally anticipated. What you get now is whatever amount the Taoiseach, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, determines.
Mr. de Valera
Is that quite correct? This is money provided by the Oireachtas and, therefore, it is determined each year.
Of course, to such amount as the Taoiseach, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, shall determine.
Mr. de Valera
It would have to be voted each year, of course, but the amount that will be submitted to the Dáil will be determined by the Taoiseach, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance.
Mr. de Valera
I was reading it somewhat differently. I took it that a certain amount would be voted annually for the use of the council. Suppose, then, there was a certain sum in the hands of the council and that a demand was made for a grant for some particular purpose within the general scope of the Bill and within the general purposes for which the money is voted by the Dáil, then the amount would be determined by the Taoiseach, with, as it is now, the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. My objection to the Minister for Finance coming in is simply that I think that when the Taoiseach would do anything he would be doing it in the name of the Government as a whole. I have the feeling that it has to be taken for granted that a person in the Taoiseach's position would have consulted the Minister for Finance and the concurrence is, therefore, a limited one. If the Taoiseach could say: "Very well, I am acting for the Government as a whole and this grant is given with the concurrence of the Government as a whole," it would be better. I do not think it is at all necessary to put in the words "with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance". I am anxious to see that the Taoiseach's position as Taoiseach is maintained. I do not like to see a provision for concurrence with a colleague with whom the Taoiseach, I take it, would be in almost day-to-day consultation.
Naturally the Taoiseach would not do anything without consulting him. This is merely to keep a sort of general control in the Department of Finance.
Mr. de Valera
This is the beginning of something which I for one do not like. We have not had it so far.
Certainly I thought it was not the beginning of something that I should like to see—a shaking off of the shackles of the Department of Finance.
Mr. de Valera
The Taoiseach represents the Government and the only way in which you can get the Taoiseach in in the long run——
Then we shall let the Taoiseach determine the amount.
That means that the amendment is amended by deleting the words "with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance".
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (1), line 25, to add "for Finance" after "Minister".
In the definition section the expression "the Minister" has been deleted in order to put in the words "Minister for Finance". This is a consequential amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In sub-section (2), line 28, to insert "for Finance" before "may".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
The following amendment in the name of Deputy Ó Briain appeared on the Order Paper:—
In line 40, to delete "the Arts Act" and substitute "an t-Acht Ealaion".
There is some doubt about this amendment.
I was going to suggest that it was out of order.
I would not like to rule so drastically. It is usual to have Irish interpretations given to terms such as "An Stiurthoir" but this section provides the short title as the basis for its citation. If there is a translation the Constitution provides that it shall be in Irish or English. If the title of the basic Act is in Irish how will you translate that title into English? The matter might be, I suggest, referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I suggest that the amendment might be withdrawn. It is introducing an extremely awkward precedent for other Bills. It will give the Bill an Irish title and it will cause some embarrassing comments in regard to the Irish language.
The matter might be referred to the Committee on Procedure.
I just wanted to be consistent, but if it means any particular difficulties I would not be inclined to press the amendment. Táim sásta é a tharraingt siar. Beidh lá eile ag an bPaorach.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section put and agreed to.
SCHEDULE
I move amendment No. 8:—
In paragraph 2 (a), line 49, to delete "the director" and substitute "An Stiurthoir".
This is giving effect to the same principle as that contained in amendment No. 3. As it is a new body, it is desirable to introduce these terms more generally than they have been used so far. I think this term "An Stiurthoir" is the one generally used to denote in Irish the type of person the director would be.
I was prepared to move amendment No. 8a. which I have circulated and which reads:—
In paragraph 2 (a), line 49, to delete "the director" and substitute "An Stiurthoir, or (in the English language) the director,".
I think that the title which I suggest would be much more appropriate. The director will be in constant touch with his counterparts in countries throughout Europe. The title Director of a Gallery is one that is world-wide, and it is essential that we should keep in line with the directors of other galleries. Deputies will note that we have a number of other titles in English in the Bill. We have terms such as "Minister for Finance" and "Comptroller and Auditor-General." I do think that if the word "director" is given in the Irish language, it will give rise to the sort of abuse, if you like, to which I have already drawn attention. I can see the type of thing "An Stiurthoir" will be called. I can see the derisive turns that will be given to it. The principal ground on which I would ask that the amendment be not pressed and that my own be accepted is that the term "Director of Gallery" has a world-wide connotation in America, Europe and elsewhere.
The Taoiseach is rather too sensitive about the sneers. We know the quarters from which those sneers have come and will come.
They have been coming all through the years. They have been coming for a considerable time, but, nevertheless, progress is being made and a young generation is growing up now. Some of them have already reached manhood, and they will know all about these terms. I want to direct the attention of the Taoiseach to the point I put about European contracts. I suggest that the Irish term would, perhaps, have more significance for Europeans than the English word. The amendment which the Taoiseach suggests is going a little part of the way. As he has expressed a wish to have that, I suppose I am being rather soft in saying that I am prepared to accept it.
I take it, then, that amendment No. 8a is being accepted?
Mr. de Valera
In so far as any words expressed here would be an indication of our wishes, I think we ought to make it clear that our wish would be that, where there is an alternative title available, the Irish one would be used, except there is some very special reason for using the English one.
Amendment No. 8, by leave, withdrawn.
I take it that amendment No. 8a, in the name of the Taoiseach and as circulated, is agreed to.
Agreed.
Mr. de Valera
May I ask another question in connection with appointments to be made by the President? Under the Constitution, any function or power given to the President by law is exercised by the President on the advice of the Government, so in this case, I take it, this is simply leaving out a thing which is put in very frequently.
Mr. de Valera
I do not know. It is better than the custom that has obtained up to the present. There is only one thing and it is this: it takes some time for the public to realise when appointments are made by the President that, in fact, the determination of the person to be appointed is not made by the President but by the Government. In other places, where a practice of a similar sort obtains, it is well known that this is the position, but with us it may not be so well known. There was, therefore, the excuse, for some time at any rate, of putting in, where appointments were being made by the President, the additional phrase "on the advice of the Government". If we are going to initiate a new practice now of omitting that phrase, I do not object to it, but I think it is well that the public should really understand what happens.
Tairgím leasú 9:—
In paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (1), line 7, to delete "the President" and substitute the words "an t-Uachtarán".
Molaim an leasú so. Is dócha go bhfuil deacharachtaí sa scéal seo leis. Níl fhios agam cad tá le rá ag an dTaoiseach ina thaobh.
I think that this amendment, if not illegal, would be quite out of line with the Interpretation Act of 1937, which was enacted following upon the enactment of the Constitution. In effect, this amendment would mean nothing. The Interpretation Act of 1937 was passed, as its Long Title says—
"to make ... divers provisions in relation to the form, operation, and interpretation of Acts of the Oireachtas and of instruments made under such Acts".
There are a number of phrases defined in the Interpretation Act for the purposes of interpretation, and these definitions bear upon and give the necessary interpretation in statutes and in other documents. The words "the President" are interpreted in the Interpretation Act of 1937 by a special section as follows:—
"The expression `the President' means the President of Ireland and includes any commission or other body or authority for the time being lawfully exercising the powers and performing the duties of the President."
That is a shorthand way of saying that wherever you see the words "the President" in a statute hereafter it means and includes those matters.
Tá go maith. Tarragaídh mé siar é.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In paragraph 8, sub-paragraph (1), line 26, to delete "the Minister" and substitute "the Taoiseach given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance".
I suppose that in this amendment, as in amendment No. 4, we will have to delete the words "given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance".
Agreed.
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In paragraph 8, sub-paragraph (2), line 32, to delete "Minister" and substitute "the Taoiseach given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance".
I take it we will follow the same procedure in this as in the preceding amendment by deleting the words "given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance".
Agreed.
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill."
On that question, I should like to refer to paragraph 4, which deals with the appointment of ordinary members. If it is desired to make a change at any time in the personnel of the ordinary members, it would, I think, be more convenient if they could retire in rotation, say, two every year or two every two years, rather than that they should retire together as the proposal is here. There might be other advantages also. Under the present arrangement, you would have to wait a long time before you could bring in some new opinions or some new views, if that were thought necessary, to be heard on the council.
This procedure follows some precedents that exist in recent statutes where similar provision had to be made. For instance, the wording of this paragraph 4 follows closely on the wording of the corresponding provision in Section 6 of the Racing Board and Racecourses Act of 1945 relating to members of the Racing Board. I thought that, if the Opposition had any strong views on this matter, they would have put down an amendment.
Mr. de Valera
On the Second Reading, I think I suggested to the Taoiseach that he might consider the question of numbers. I do not know if he did so.
I did, but I did not think there was any reason for changing it. I thought that, if the Deputies opposite had any strong views, they would have put down an amendment.
Mr. de Valera
My only wish was that the Taoiseach would give it consideration. If there are five or six groups who should get representation, my view is that the representation is safer when there are at least two from each group, for the reason that, if you have two from each group, you will get as a rule some divergence of view. The same question may be approached from a slightly different aspect. Individuals take slightly different views of things and it is always safer in a case like that not to have just one source of contact between a group and this arts council. However, I do not know enough of the details to know whether there is very much point in that. I admit that there is still a chance by way of co-option, but the co-options I think ought to be used rather to bring in exceptional people who may not come in in the ordinary way as representing groups. There is also the fact that the members are not to be paid. It is not easy to get a quorum with a small membership, so that you will lose nothing in a case like this by having about 12 regular members and five or six co-opted. The real value of co-option will be to bring in some outstanding individuals whose aid they might wish for. If I were doing it, I would double the number and, instead of six, I would make it 12.
The council will consist of 12 members, six ordinary members, five co-opted members, and the director.
Mr. de Valera
I am sure the Taoiseach sees the point I have been trying to make. I do not see that you will lose anything by doing what I suggest. It is not a body from which you will want quick decisions. It will be a consultative body. There is advantage in a multiplicity of counsels. You will not have a top-heavy council by any means if you have, for instance, a total membership of 17, that is 12 plus 5, or even 18—12 plus 6.
If the Deputy wishes, we could change the word "five" into whatever number he likes. I personally would prefer it as it stands until we see how it works. Twelve is rather a big number.
Mr. de Valera
The Taoiseach knows what he has in mind. I am sure he has planned all this matter out. He knows the number of groups which should get representation. I think the ordinary members ought to be of a representative character and that the co-options ought to be there to allow some people of very special ability or talent or importance to be brought in. How many groups have we? We have sculpture, painting, music, literature and architecture. If you have five groups, in my opinion two representatives from each group would not be too large.
You have 12 members altogether. I am afraid a body of this kind would become top-heavy if there were 12 ordinary members instead of six, five co-opted members and a director. It would become unworkable.
Mr. de Valera
I do not want to press my point.
As a compromise, I suggest nine and seven.
It is not a matter on which I have very strong views, except that I think it would become a public meeting probably when a number of groups get together, artistic people being rather temperamental, as we know.
Mr. de Valera
If this were a council of action of any kind, I would agree that the smaller the number the better. You would get action from a small number. If they had to take quick decisions or anything like that, I would be all for a small number. But I would like to have two representatives from each group in order that you will not be getting just one man's point of view. People may represent groups, but they represent their own particular view in the first instance. However, I do not want to press the point.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.
