Vol. 309 No. 10
I move:
That Dáil Éireann pursuant to the Order of the Dáil of the 11 October 1978, takes note of the Report of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities on the Commission's proposals on Community Action in the Cultural Sector, which was laid before the Dáil on the 8 November 1978, and which contains a request for a debate thereon.
I should like to point out to Deputies that on this motion Deputy Quinn, as proposer, will be given 20 minutes. The Minister will be given 20 minutes and each Deputy contributing will have 15 minutes.
This opportunity should not go without all of us in the House recognising that it is a historic occasion in the Dáil, though not in the Oireachtas. This is the first report of the Joint Committee—an all-party committee representing all parties in the Oireachtas, and the Independents—to be debated here or presented to the Dáil. The Seanad has debated two such reports, one on youth unemployment and one on the EMS.
Lest the full membership of the House have forgotten, the Joint Committee members are not people who are occasionally taken from buses in Luxembourg or who disappear until they have to come across here from Kildare Street, sometimes in the rain, for divisions: the Joint Committee are a working party of this Parliament and not some extension of the Brussels bureaucracy.
I have the honour and the duty today to present to the House this report of that committee. The fact that we are talking about the cultural sector does not indicate any political priorities as far as the Joint Committee are concerned. Rather does it indicate that the two previous reports which we processed could not be debated in the House because the Standing Orders of the Dáil had not been amended to take account of such reports as this coming before us.
Recognising the fact that this Parliament is slowly but surely dragging itself into the 20th century, we have made progress to the extent that the first Joint Committee produced 59 reports for this House and the other House, not one of which was debated or reported to either House in the last Oireachtas. Therefore, in fairness to the development of modern parliamentary democracy, the records would be bereft if these points were not put on the record.
I wish to clarify my own position and that of the other members of the Joint Committee. The role of any member, irrespective of the side of the political divide he or she may come from, in the context of presenting such a report, is a political role but not a partisan one. Therefore my presentation will be a political but not a partisan one. I will move quickly through the document.
This is an opinion of the Joint Committee on a document produced by one of the members of the EEC Commission, Mr. Vouel, at the request of the EEC. The reference number of the document is R/2982/77. It was produced at the end of last year and it was presented to the EEC Economic and Social Committee for internal comment, and simultaneously sent out after EEC processing to all European Parliaments, including our own. The Joint Committee, on behalf of the Oireachtas, undertook to review the document and to comment on how we see it as affecting Ireland. The report is entitled "Report on Community Action in the Cultural Sector", and some definitions are in order as to what we mean by "the cultural sector". I will be referring to the report from now on as "our report". Our report defines it, using the same definition as the Commission, as "the socioeconomic whole formed by persons and undertakings dedicated to the production and distribution of cultural goods and services". The sector covers not only cultural activities such as drama and painting, and cultural products like books and sculpture, but persons engaged in cultural activities, such as dancers and musicians.
There are other areas of cultural activity which are not included in the report, not because they are not deemed to be cultural activities but for other reasons as perceived by Mr. Vouel and his colleagues. I refer specifically to the cinema industry and television, which are major areas. The Commission were charged with seeing how that sector of European activity can be brought into the framework of the Treaty of Rome, and how those aspects of the cultural sector can be harmonised in accordance with the political objectives of the Treaty of Rome.
The report falls into two parts, the allocation of work and the description of how the cultural sector performs as laid out in my earlier definition. The first part is related to how the Treaty of Rome can be applied to the cultural sector—how the provisions of the free movement of goods and services can be applied specifically to the cultural sector, and which areas have got to be identified, and how the objectives of the Treaty of Rome can be implemented. We have identified these in our report as follows:
(a) Freedom of trade in cultural goods,
(b) Combating thefts of cultural goods,
(c) Freedom of movement and establishment for cultural workers,
(d) Training periods for young cultural workers,
(e) Harmonisation of taxation in the cultural sector by
(i) the removal of tax barriers to the development of cultural foundations and patronage
(ii) the setting up of uniform VAT rates for cultural goods throughout the EEC which should be kept to reasonable limits, and (iii) the removal of discrimination in the taxation of cultural workers,
(f) Harmonisation of laws on copyright and related rights by
(i) the harmonsation of wide areas of copyright to ensure that cultural workers would have the most favourable treatment to be found under the existing laws of any member state.
(ii) Community-wide operation of a public lending rights scheme,
(iii) measures to improve the remuneration of authors, performers, play-wrights, composers, literary translators, sculptors and painters as well as to encourage the work of craftsmen,
who, in my personal view should be called "craftspeople". Finally the social aspects:
The adaptation of social security systems in the Community to the special problems of employed and self-employed cultural workers.
They are the areas that have been identified by the Commission, and which we support, which can be integrated readily within the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. There are clauses within that Treaty which can be applied readily to all of those sectors. I will not go into the details of how they will be applied because we are at an early stage in this entire process. That is the scope of the document in that area. It is the specific application of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome to that area of the cultural sector.
In response to the communication provided by Commissioner Vouel, the second part of our report relates to the broader aspect of the consolidation of European culture. On behalf of the Committee I should like to talk about the framework of thinking that permeates this area. It is true to say that the Common Market is simply that. It has been described by other people as a community of merchants rather than a community of people. Since the development of social objectives, notably at the Paris Summit of 1972, has given a new horizon to the European Community, the narrow limitations imposed by the Treaty of Rome have broadened to take on a wider perspective than that of the creation of a European community. Within that objective the question of a European culture and the promotion and strengthening of a European culture has a major role to play.
The second part of our report and the second part of Commissioner Vouel's report talks about measures and recommendations of a general nature which do not necessarily fall within the context of the treaty of Rome but which certainly fall within the objectives of the EEC as of now, measures which should be looked at and which, hopefully, could be implemented in the near future. It would be dishonest to describe it otherwise, because in the process of decision-making we are a long way from the stage when any of these proposals will become EEC directives. Any talk that gives any other impression only serves to devalue the role of the Community in that regard.
What areas are we talking about when we talk about the broader aspects of European culture? First, the preservation of the architectural heritage by the promotion of specialist training for restorers and nuclear conservation techniques. Second, contributing to the development of cultural exchanges involving the evaluation of cultural advance, the organisation of European rooms in museums and exchanges between museums. Third, co-operation between the cultural institutes of member states. Finally, the promotion of socio-cultural activities at European level.
The Joint Committee have reviewed the aspects in relation to the first part of the document and have made a number of recommendations. We believe that these points are the best position that can be adopted at this time by an all-party committee of this House. We have added a number of proposals to the second part of the report, but before I deal with them one point should be politically underlined: as far as the Joint Committee are concerned, people involved in the cultural sector of this or of any other member state are, as the report states, cultural workers. They should have the same rights and obligations as other workers. The cultural worker community or the artistic community in either the plastic or performing arts has for many years sought that status. To the extent that the views of the Commission go a long way towards giving effect to that aspiration, we understand that the proposals to harmonise legislation and the treatment of cultural workers with regard to, say, social security have been welcomed by the trade union interests involved and by the Arts Council, who have a statutory obligation in this field. The proposals made by the Commission and the proposals on which we are commenting have been welcomed in principle by those who are directly involved in the cultural sector.
Time keeps me from going into detail on these matters, but the essence of what I am saying is correct. What have we said in extension to that and what have we said in regard to the overall aspiration of strengthening European culture? Two things have emerged which are of direct interest and relevance to this House. The first is that we are anxious to promote cultural exchange within the nine member states. As this House has the distinction of being the first parliament in Europe to fund a State theatre, we are particularly anxious that State theatres, such as the Abbey Theatre, should be able to participate in a programme of cultural exchange with their sister theatres in the EEC. To flesh this out it is envisaged that it would take the form of either directors or back-of-stage front-of-house personnel, as well as actors, participating on an exchange basis in productions in France, Germany and elsewhere, with the declared objective of strengthening European culture by enhancing the understanding within each member state of the culture of other member states. We are not seeking the lowest common denominator in terms of European culture. On the contrary, European culture can only be fully understood when the individual richness and value of national cultures which make up the nine member states is fully appreciated and understood by all. There is a certain tendency to feel that Europeanisation means some kind of levelling down and, therefore, the reduction of national individuality. On the contrary, the theme of this document and of our report is that you could only start to talk of a European culture in realistic terms if you talked in terms of consolidating and improving national cultures.
The Deputy has three minutes left.
There is no such thing as a European culture without the national cultures that go towards making it up. On that very point it was suggested in our report that we would vigorously promote the idea of European rooms in our museums, that some space should be allocated within national museums which would be devoted to a common understanding of European culture. As an extension of that point, the Committee saw fit to include in their report the suggestion in the second part of the Commission's recommendations that some means should be found whereby artefacts belonging to the cultural heritage of a member state, which for reasons of history are now located in another country, should be returned to their places of origin if they were central to the understanding of that culture.
Let me be explicit. If the Ardagh chalice happened to be located in the National Museum of Denmark largely through the enterprise of some Viking many years ago and if it were considered by all and sundry to be an essential component of understanding Irish Celtic culture, then within the context of this report there would be some mechanism whereby that artefact could be brought back to this country. The same process would apply in relation to the artefacts of other countries. This policy will not really take effect for four or five years and in the case of the enlargement of the Community the implications could be very beneficial for countries such as Greece and Portugal.
The document from the Committee declares that in the narrow confines of the Treaty of Rome there are areas in which the provisions of the application of the principles of free movement of goods and people can now be applied specifically to workers in the cultural sector. These are identified quite clearly and have, in principle, the support of the Arts Council, those involved in Irish Actors' Equity and the Musicians' Federation. In the second part there are aspirations to giving tangible reality to the ideal of the creation of a people's Europe rather than a merchants' Europe and culture is as much a part of that as any other aspect of life. European culture is built on the solid foundation of the enrichment and understanding of national and regional cultures. There are more nations than states within the EEC. There are proposals which must be seen as generalised proposals which suggest that certain measures could come from the Commission as recommendations to national parliaments in order to give flesh and blood to the idea of a European room. The Minister of State, whose presence here is much appreciated, has specific responsibility for museums and would be capable of responding to that proposal.
It gives me much pleasure to be here on behalf of the Committee and to present in a political but non-partisan way the opinions of the Committee to the House.
It is a pleasant occasion and a welcome change to rise here and say I am in almost total agreement with the speaker who traditionally, and for reasons which I cannot always understand, would be described as being on the other side of the House and in opposition to me. Perhaps on this very important topic we should set a headline which might be copied when other matters are being discussed. We would then be practising the true spirit of democracy, of debate and of conference where we all assemble, each gives expression to his thoughts and we are all prepared to depart the scene with the essence of the collective and collected contributions.
The attention which the Joint Committee have given to the Commission's report on Community action in the cultural sector is most welcome. It is indicative of the growing interest in increased cultural contact between EEC countries which follows from the closer relations between them in other areas. In his 1974 reports on European identity, Mr. Tindemans, the distinguished former Belgian premier, laid special emphasis on the need to make all people throughout the Community aware of our common heritage. It must be accepted that most of the day-to-day activities of the Community tend to be of a technical nature and the man in the street and the lady also can be sympathised with in feeling removed from the Community. People are inclined to accept that what is happening in Europe has not any vital relevance to them. It is not surprising, therefore, that the European Parliament requested the Commission to prepare this report. Very little is said in the Treaty of Rome about culture as such. The Commission's suggestions relate mostly to the application of provisions of the Treaty to the cultural sector, namely, the people involved in the production and distribution of cultural goods and services. The Commission state that the cultural sector is not in itself culture so that Community action in this sector does not constitute a cultural policy.
Here I would presume to say to Deputy Quinn and the other members of the Committee that were I a member of the Committee I do not think I would approach the report entirely from a viewpoint of trying to find weaknesses in the Treaty of Rome on which I could work for the advancement of culture. Rather I would take the opportunity of having it conveyed to member states that in the introduction and in the treaty there were certain omissions and shortcomings and it is tragic that the very important matter of culture was neglected to such an extent. I do not have to remind the House or anybody of the expression "not by bread alone".
On my excursions into Europe of late I have detected among people a certain envy on their part of the Irish way of life and of our traditions which, for one reason or another, have given us the opportunity of continuing to hold dear matters which are not always economic. It is unfortunate that we are now in a situation where one would think we could view culture only as an adjunct to economic or other considerations and not for its own sake.
I know that the members of the Committee must operate within the confines of the regulations which govern us, but it is a pity we are not maximising the lead which has been given in their definition of the treaty and their interpretation of the treaty as quoted by Deputy Quinn. I hope the Committee will continue to operate from that point of view. Naturally we would be concerned to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by the treaty. As I have said earlier, we should remind all concerned of the inadequacies and shortcomings of that treaty in that it seems to regard culture as something which might be attended to when everything else is satisfied, but as not having the importance which, fortunately, we know it to have in the lives of every human being.
Deputy Quinn referred to my responsibilities in the matter of museums and other centres in this city. Latterly I have been applying myself to an examination of the situation so that I can accommodate all the interests, the cravings and the views of all the people of Ireland in relation to the centres. If we are truly in earnest in what we say and in our concern for the man in the street, including all the people, the time has come when museums and art galleries must go to the people rather than the people coming to them. We cannot continue to treat these centres as areas of scholarship and research. They must be put to the use for which they were intended but which is often overlooked, that is, providing enjoyment, entertainment, study and interest for the people whose property they are.
Unwittingly at times we are inclined to assume when we mention the word "culture" that it pre-supposes a certain élitist interest. In every walk of life there are people who remind me of the Irish seanfhocal: Is fánach an áit in a bhfhaighfeá gliomac. People living in what are described as corporation estates have a very deep and active interest in symphonies, in art, in drama and in literature. Perhaps this is the fallacy in the approach of the EEC. When they have economic or other problems, they are not interested in matters cultural. They forget there is a balm and a soothing process they can enjoy which could help them to overcome their problems.
We should never overlook the perpetual craving and longing on the part of all the people of Ireland and of other countries to pursue matters which are not solely of the body or cold economics. I agree generally with the views expressed in the Commission's proposals and in particular with the reference to simplifying procedures for cross-frontier movement. Having regard to our special position, there is no need to elaborate on that.
I want to mention also the reference to improved opportunities for young cultural workers to undergo training in other EEC countries. I should like to give expression to a personal opinion. The report seems to treat that aspect as if it were solely for the benefit of the cultural worker whether he be dramatist, dancer, writer or sculptor. We must also bear in mind the enrichment to the culture of another country from the input of visiting workers. Apart from the benefit to the artist, we must also highlight the desirability of having this mobility so that all the individual cultures could benefit from it. We are moving towards the ideal of the different elements improving the totality of European culture.
If we are to continue in the magnanimous attitude which invariably arises when one is discussing matters of culture, and if we are thinking in terms of the European scene, and if we claim to be speaking in deference to the European culture, notwithstanding our membership of the Community we must be mindful of the fact that in Europe today there are countries and cultures which are not part of the Community. It would not be in the true spirit of culture, to say the least of it, if we were to think exclusively in terms of the Nine, or Ten, or Twelve. We must think in terms of the total European culture. We must accept that, even though other countries are not members of the Community, they have a very significant contribution to make in the matter of European culture. We cannot dismiss them because they do not enjoy membership of the Community. There are Nordic countries with whom we have a very definite relationship in the matter of our heritage who are not members of the Community. There are central European countries from which our Celtic heritage really springs who are not members of the Community. We must remind ourselves that we in the Nine are not the sole custodians of the great European culture. We must have consultations with other countries and provide the necessary liaison so that all can join in that to which all claim to aspire.
Deputy Quinn, Deputy Keating and I enjoy membership of a cultural committee of Dublin Corporation. I was very pleased some years ago when we were able to assist Nora Lever in bringing a Dublin group to a drama festival in Brussels. Certain commercial concerns helped in that production, "The Importance of Being Ernest". Students from St. Brigid's School in Finglas in my constituency were selected to go to Belgium last year to take part in a choral festival. They acquitted themselves very well and won one of the few medals presented. I mention this to remind the House that we have indigenous cultural movements. I am not one of those who would dismiss it as a folk culture.
There is an obligation on us while funding the Arts Council and other agencies—where we see the people themselves as we have for instance in Siamsa i gCiarraí and in Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann which are volunteer movements, expressing an interest in any aspect of our culture and our heritage—to immediately give recognition to that and to nurture it and to foster it. While here we are speaking in terms of what might come from Europe from the top down we must never forget that all the while there are efforts being made in certain parishes, in certain counties, in certain regions by the people themselves to identify with certain aspects of our traditions and of our heritage. There is an obligation on us, not just in the interests of the people themselves, but in the interests of the spirit of what is being discussed here, to foster those movements in every way possible.
I wish to refer again to my viewpoint that, although we will feel constrained, we should not accept the constraints of art trying to find in the Treaty of Rome accommodation for the position which we know culture should have. We accept these constraints at such times as we have to because we cannot operate outside the provisions of it. But we should disregard them forthwith I suggest. This would be in accordance with expressions of concern made by heads of State at meetings recently about the position of culture. We should be giving the lead to Europe in trying to rectify the omissions of the Treaty of Rome in this respect.
Under the exchange which has occurred under the Commission which has been set up, the European Foundation, we are involved in the youth orchestra and I read in today's paper that at the moment auditions are taking place. I would hope that many of our young and talented musicians will find a place in this orchestra. That alone is not sufficient for me. It is only part of what I would regard as a token of the association that should exist between this country and all other European countries in the matter of the arts, the performing arts, the visual arts and anything which is connected in any way with the great European culture of which we are all the proud inheritors.
It is heartening that an Irish national parliament has an opportunity to debate the issues implicit and explicit in the document put before us. Indeed our thanks to the committee for drawing our attention to the many important issues underlying its submission. It is heartening in particular for an Irish Parliament because no one really needs to spell out the outstanding contribution which this nation has made to European culture long before the concept of European culture and European cultures was commonplace and commonly talked about. Therefore the trail-blazing tradition in that area should not be lost and it is right and fitting that this country should lay emphasis on the question of culture in our community. Although we may on occasions refer to culture and discuss it in a fairly sympathetic manner it is important that we stress that culture is not, as some would seem to have it, merely a peripheral area of part-time interest indulged in when the mood possesses one or when it is fashionable and popular. If we are going to talk truly about culture then we have got to talk about it as being a system of ideas, of thought, of outlook, of modes and values which permeates our daily work, our daily life and our environment in all its facets. It begins in the home and works through the school, through the work place, through the place of leisure and through all levels of life. Sometimes this vision of culture as being an all-pervasive dimension is not sufficiently appreciated. Accordingly it is heartening that the report of the all-party committee does clearly try to be very comprehensive in the proposals it sets before us. Nevertheless it could be said that in certain areas, allowing for the fact that the committee had to take its fount of inspiration from the Treaty of Rome and was, if one likes, extracting under the general aegis of the Treaty of Rome for the points it puts before us, there are other issues with wider international implications beyond mere EEC limits of cultural matters which should be stressed.
The question of the youth orchestra to which the Minister of State has rightly drawn attention is one. There are other areas. It would be most fitting that the EEC dimension be crystalised most clearly in relation to matters of tax, to legislation governing workers' rights and so on but that the culture should not recognise any national boundaries. It is a movement with a sense of international identity which transcends mere geographical boundaries. That point should be made because it is important and we have much to learn from cultures and groups and bodies outside the EEC as well as those from within Europe. It is also very important that young Irish people should have the benefit of gaining knowledge and inspiration from other cultures. I would like to think that we could work towards a situation where, as part of the curriculum in our schools, every child would be enabled to visit other countries. I admit that in the present economic climate that may be difficult but it is an aspiration towards which we should aspire. As an offshore island off an offshore island off the coast of Europe I strongly feel that we suffer deprivation with regard to understanding and appreciating the contribution which other cultures and other communities can give us and which we can give them. Therefore any move which tends to focus our attention and our minds on other nations, on other cultures and on the finer aspects of these peoples is a good thing. Accordingly it is useful to have the opportunity of looking at the sort of suggestions which the Joint Committee have put before us.
I mention the word education because I frankly believe that so much of what will be right about the future of this country will depend on what we do right in our classrooms and not merely in our classrooms but in the areas of education which I believe will be more and more outside our classrooms, in areas which will become perhaps increasingly unstructured but which will nevertheless be educational. I would include here leisure activities and informal education of a nature which we are going to have to discuss more and deal more with than we have been doing so far, if we accept the thesis of some that the classroom is perhaps not a very natural educational forum.
The points which the committee put forward relating to the advantages which we have to gain by close attention to tapping the well-springs of other cultures can find an appropriate and important response in our educational system, both formal and informal. I would like to think the Minister of State—and I notice he will certainly be ready to accept the suggestion—would give some consideration to some sort of curriculum reform or review which might include greater emphasis on these areas. I would like to think that the Minister of State would consider some sort of curriculum reform which might include greater emphasis on those areas, because the traditional curriculum has not dealt with culture in any real way except as a subsidiary subject.
I know that laying emphasis on culture today, particularly with the increasing economic and monetary emphasis of our daily concerns, is a slightly hazardous business. Nevertheless, if we believe that culture is fundamental to our well-being as individuals and as a nation, it cannot be ignored. It can only be ignored at our peril. The growing emphasis in the context of international unemployment, the need to strive towards monetary achievement and the almost enshrining of monetary self-sufficiency as a core value in our social system does a disservice to the emphasis of what might be called the softer areas of civilisation. That is a loose interpretation of what a culture could be, but it would be very sad if culture were to be put into this backwater on account of the day to day striving to fill the stomach and not just the soul and the mind.
I am conscious that to a degree parliaments and people see discussions and debates on culture as something which is pleasant to indulge in but which has a certain amount of double-thinking about it. Recommendations such as those contained in the document before us will fall on barren soil unless they are pursued and implemented in legislative terms where necessary, but certainly by some sufficiently strong-willed group. One way of achieving progress in this regard is to make a particular body responsible for making progress in regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the committee and the Commission and for reviewing progress on a regular basis. Otherwise, there is a danger that, having chatted generally about this we will just allow the Committee to continue their work in a nebulous way without getting to grips with the day to day issues of what culture means in the life of our people, whether that be the issue of the alleged growing export of national monuments or the concern of the people about the preservation of a site like Wood Quay. A document such as this can only be fruitful if it can bear meaningfully on such day to day issues.
We are all equally guilty of this double thinking, but it should come to an end. That can be done by ensuring that those proposals and ideas are reviewed after six months or 12 months by a group of people who can come to us and say: "This much progress has been made." There should be no second place given to matters of culture. I appreciate the political problems of a cultural programme. It seems to me that courageous politicians who seek to extend the frontiers of cultural experience could very well find themselves being sacrificial lambs, because there is a train of thought in the political philosophy which says, if it is a question of changing modes of thought or producing long-term results, then it is not really the kind of ground which political parties involve themselves in too readily. The reason is that there is not an obvious, tangible result to display to the average interested electors within the cyclical election system. Therefore, one runs some risks.
We should be clear about this. If we are to make progress in those areas it must mean commitment now of manpower and financial resources for gains which will not be immediately evident except with regard to the working conditions of what are called in this paper "cultural workers". A major impact on our society, on our way of thinking—the kind of cultural prevasion fundamental to the work and thought behind this paper—will take some time to achieve. Politicians should not be afraid to take up this challenge. They should not be afraid to say to people that short-term wants certainly have a place but that long-term needs in areas like this, and in other areas which need commitment now for gains which are not immediately obvious, are matters which politicians and Governments must pay attention to. If that kind of courage permeates the work of Governments and committees, such as the committee which produced this document, I believe that their efforts will be crowned with success. I would be concerned in case we found ourselves in a year's time discussing a similar document with as many aspirations and high hopes but with little achievement in the meantime of the results of this paper.
The points put forward in part I of the communication of the Commission deal with the application of the provisions of the EEC Treaty to a number of headings. I believe that very few of us would disagree with the appropriateness of each of these proposals. The difficulty is in their implementation. Some of those areas I believe will find a more ready response in us than in others. The movement of goods and the freedom of trade is a matter which is fundamental to any growing international and mutual appreciation of the cultures of various nations. We must welcome any move which breaks down the barriers of inhibitions in this area. I know that the Government at the moment have a very impressive exhibition on display in the USA. This is a pioneering effort and the kind of work which sets a very good headline and is a symbol of the spirit embodied in this paper. I hope that the proposals for the growing freedom of trade in this area are satisfactorily implemented.
There are other aspects of this paper which are very important and could do with further attention. The question of the employment of cultural workers is of immediate concern to many people. The idea of the artist in the attic and the writer scribbling fine books but only being appreciated posthumously is something we should dispense with. We should deal with cultural workers, artists and creative people of all types, more flexibly. We have got to be able to tell those people that they are making a valid contribution not just to the peripheral areas of our activity but to the central areas of what makes us great as a nation or not so great. It is time to try to compensate for the omissions of the past. I know of some people who have striven for years under the most arduous conditions to produce works which are as important as the works which are carried on in many of the industrial centres, which are very generously aided by the State. This dichotomy should not exist.
It is important to stress one matter in connection with our membership of the EEC in the course of this debate. Since we joined the Community, debates here and outside concentrated in general on the material aspect of our membership. For the past few months we heard a lot about the new European Monetary System and the ad-This debate concerns another aspect of our membership, the cultural aspect. If the Community is to become a full Community there will have to be greater cultural co-operation between the different members. If European union is ever to be achieved aspects dealt with in this report will have to be given greater prominence and member states will have to make available greater financial aid for this purpose. We have our own culture which binds us as a nation and makes us distinct from others.
The direct elections to the European Parliament should help in this regard. As a member of the Joint Committee I met other European parliamentarians in Brussels and discussed various problems affecting member states. That was a worthwhile exercise. The report is a practical one because it covers a wide range of subjects and puts forward good suggestions to encourage greater cultural activity. It states that, notwithstanding the material success of some individuals, the highest proportion of underprivileged according to the Commission, was to be found in the category of workers constituted by cultural workers. As I said before about other workers, while the air is beautiful its nutritional value is nil. A cultural worker who might be the greatest painter in Ireland cannot survive unless he is properly remunerated. If that does not happen he must find another source of income.
I should like to deal with taxation aspects dealt with in the report. As a result of the Finance Act, 1969, cultural workers here are in a privileged position because there is relief from income tax in respect of certain earnings from original and creative works of writers, composers, painters and sculptors. Since that Act was introduced people have expressed the view that it should never have been brought in. I do not agree because it has put us in a special place. We are ahead of many other countries in that we help those who are gifted as writers, composers, painters or sculptors and the Minister responsible for introducing that provision is to be congratulated. The Revenue Commissioners have been liberal in their interpretation of what constitutes a creative work of art and that has encouraged many artists and writers to live here.
However, there are other aspects of the income tax code which could be altered in order to encourage those in the cultural sector. The question of irregularity of earnings come to mind. In this regard we made the suggestion that earnings be spread over a number of years. The report also deals with the question of detecting theft and fraud. The Joint Committee suggested the introduction of a record card system which would enable an owner in the event of theft to make the card available to the police and custom authorities. That would be a worthwhile step. The Joint Committee also suggested the harmonisation of national laws relating to the disposal of stolen cultural goods. They felt that the proposed record system could be useful in preventing fakes and assisting in tracing stolen works of art.
The Joint Committee, on the question of copyright and related rights, suggested harmonisation of the laws of member states in this regard. Unfortunately, the sponsorship of cultural and sporting events here is done mainly by the State and the suggestion was made that our tax laws be amended to allow companies who sponsor such cultural events a concession. We felt that if that occurred we would have greater sponsorship of such events. We also dealt with exchanges between members of the Community of works of art and people. We asked that more be done in this respect and that the Community give greater financial incentives. The Commission put forward many practical steps and the Joint Committee considered ways in which we could implement those suggestions. It is a great change in the attitude of the House that more than an hour is being devoted to a matter concerning culture rather than spending all the time debating money matters. I welcome the report and I am glad to have had the opportunity of contributing to it.
This debate affords us an opportunity to discuss a subject which unfortunately does not engage the time of the House to any great extent and, regrettably, this debate on culture had of necessity to be left over until this Thursday evening.
As one who is not a member of the Joint Committee I came to the House in the hope of listening to and learning from those Members who are on that Committee, but I am a little disappointed that there has not been more participation by those Deputies who are on the Committee and who could have educated us as to the requirements in the cultural sector. Reports of this kind tend to be elaborate and detailed and, apart from being somewhat difficult to assimilate, are time consuming from a Deputy's point of view. That is why I had looked forward to the House being given at least a brief outline of what is involved.
Under the various headings the report gives us an assessment of the communication sent by the Commission to the Council 12 months ago with a recommendation that the Joint Committee endeavour to report back. I am surprised to find how advanced we are here. Deputy McCreevy spoke specifically of the reference in the report to the harmonisation of taxation in the cultural sector and was able to pinpoint the advance made by this country in 1969 when the then Minister for Finance offered special tax concessions to people engaged in cultural activities. In addition there are the social aspects and in this respect I would refer to the communication from the Commission to the Council in which attention was drawn to the fact that cultural workers as such throughout the nine member states are at a tremendous disadvantage vis-á-vis any opposite number and that they are among the lowest paid people in the Community. Our social services system overcomes the type of differentiation that is referred to in this overall report. I am very disappointed at not being able to get enough information here this evening, but in a way this is what led me to read the specific recommendations of the Joint Committee.
Under another heading in the communication certain recommendations were made in relation to taxation and on an overall basis in relation to VAT. The Joint Committee suggest that the Commission should be more active in promoting specific cultural exchanges between member states. I understand that the reason given for this activity being minimal up to now is that there is not provision for it in the Treaty. The Minister of State at the Department of Education referred to this and said that for too long concentration had been on the monetary aspect. Therefore, there is a need for the Nine to build into the Treaty some means of overcoming that tendency. However, I gather that a certain amount of progress has been made during the past 12 months because the European Foundation, to which the Council agreed in April this year and which is shortly to come into existence, is likely to provide more scope for cultural exchanges in the future. In addition, there is the EEC Youth Orchestra which is perhaps the most outstanding practical example of cultural co-operation at Community level so far. As the Joint Committee suggest, we have a responsibility to follow up that sort of activity. If we have a cultural fame it is in the sphere of the theatre. We should concentrate on endeavouring to work towards a joint theatre. The EEC Youth Orchestra is funded jointly by the Nine. This orchestra have been acclaimed greatly for their performances in the nine capitals.
The Committee's suggestion regarding Community patronage for the theatre and for the visual arts generally should be followed up by us. The Minister of State commented on the suggestion that there be a European Room at the National Museum. We should concentrate, too, on exchanges of members of national theatre companies and on European theatre festivals and we should encourage the display of art works in public buildings.
Reference was made to scholarships for persons involved in architectural restoration and preservation work. I was not aware of there being scholarships of this nature but I note that paragraph 47 of the report reads that:
While accepting that many of the suggestions made by the Commission are to be commended the Joint Committee shares with the Arts Council its disappointment that the Commission does not see the Community adapting and promoting a precise programme of cultural exchanges...
This is a matter also that we should concentrate on. If we were to do nothing else during this debate but to draw attention to the absence of information in this regard who would have done a good day's work. In paragraph 51 the Joint Committee express their surprise on learning from the Arts Council that they were not aware of the scholarships available to architects, engineers, town planners and craftsmen to which the Commission referred in their report. The Joint Committee express the hope that the Government Department concerned will look into the matter in order to ensure that information about these scholarships is available to all concerned.
Possibly, one of the reasons for the lack of information in this sphere is that there has not developed yet a proper system for the dissemination of this type of information. It may be very difficult to find a single source from which such information can be gathered but, regardless of which Department are involved, we have the responsibility for collecting such information and ensuring that it is passed to the people who are interested.
I was rather proud as an Irishman when I read in the overall report about the harmonisation of taxation and the complaint that the arts as such were overtaxed. This Joint Committee report, on page 11, paragraph 23, stressed the fact that the Irish income tax laws provide for exemption from income tax in the cases of certain bodies who could be described as promoting cultural activities and it goes on to deal with those bodies. It would appear that all over the European scene that type of facility is not available and we are very much ahead of the rest in that regard.
The Minister of State has two minutes.
In section 2 of the Finance Act, 1969, we took another great step forward in the creation of that tax relief. Europe is now ten years behind the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, in asking the other eight member states to provide those facilities. It was a move that was heavily criticised then, and still is. I am pleased to find Deputy Quinn, representing the Labour Party, encouraging us not alone to continue with that but suggesting that Chancellors of the Exchequer of the other eight countries unify and fall in behind the present Minister for Social Welfare in this regard.
To put the record straight, there is no definite right of reply in this type of debate, but as there are five minutes left the mover of the motion may avail of them if he so wishes. Under no circumstances are we creating a precedent. If the time allowed for this motion were used up there would be no reply. Deputy Quinn has five minutes.
I should like to reply briefly to some of the points that concern this House now. I will start where the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach left off.
A precedent was indeed set in 1969 and the person who set it now has an opportunity to enlarge upon it. I will take the position of cultural workers in the social welfare field as an example. If a cultural worker is employed by a State organisation like the Abbey Theatre Company and becomes unemployed, because he has regular employment he qualifies for pay-related benefit. If, however, he is not in such a category, and the majority of cultural workers here are not, he does not receive pay-related benefit. The social welfare system here is very ambiguous on the status of cultural workers. In fairness to all parties involved, the position has not been ignored and there are people directly studying the matter in the Department, in the Arts Council and in the trade union movement.
I should like to think that the concern for those members of the cultural sector who are in the minority position of being able to pay income tax would be joined to a concern for the majority of such people who constitute the worst section of any work sector in the Community. I am glad to say that there has been consensus on the overall aspirations of this report. In so far as there is consensus the opportunity for this House now would be to identify the areas within that consensus upon which we can move speedily and directly. The lead has been set by Deputy McCreevy, as a member of the Committee, and reiterated by his senior colleague in the Fianna Fáil Party in the area of the treatment in taxation terms and in social welfare terms of workers in the cultural sector. I hope that we will give a lead in advance of any directive from the Commission in extending to all workers in the cultural sector the generosity that was extended to the minority workers in the cultural sector who had problems of surtax in the past.
Cultural workers, like any other workers, not only want to be well, reasonably and regularly paid so that they do not have to maintain some kind of romantic fiction, but also, like the rest of us, they want to retain some kind of control over the work produced by them. In so far as the Community are moving along the road of industrial democracy, the principles of industrial democracy apply to workers in the cultural sector. Workers who produce material which is recorded, or put on tape want, not a veto, but some say in the way and the location in which that material is used or shown. It is not of much consolation to workers in the cultural sector who form some part of the international trade union movement to find that material which they have provided and been paid for is subsequently put on film and used to fill the gap when their fellow cultural workers in another part of the community go on strike for legitimate trade union reasons. It could be argued that they are being used to break pickets. The democratic right of cultural workers in terms of controlling their material is another aspect that concerns this House at this time.
In conclusion, I share part of the concern of the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach with regard to the response of members of the Joint Committee in not actively participating in this debate. However, it is Thursday afternoon and this has been for many people a busy week. I would like to thank the staff of the Joint Committee who helped us in preparing this document. I thank also the Arts Council and Irish Actors' Equity, who have come to us with some observations on this point, for their assistance. I also thank the Minister of State at the Department of Education for coming here and speaking on this. There is no disagreement in general terms about the importance of culture. Some of us, however have a statutory responsibility, by virtue of the democratic decision of the people of this country, for implementing cultural policies. In the context of this report I ask the Minister of State at the Department of Education to have due regard to the proposals concerning a European room, museums and exchange of artefacts. I hope that he will at some stage either communicate directly with the Joint Committee on what progress, if any, can be made on the comments made by the Joint Committee.
