Vol. 490 No. 6
5 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands the proportion of State capital funding for the arts allocated directly by her Department to or spent in Dublin, other major cities and provincial centres serving rural catchment areas; whether she has satisfied herself with these proportions; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [10606/98]
32 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands if she has satisfied herself with the proportion of capital funding provided directly by her Department for the arts allocated to provincial towns and areas; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [10605/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 32 together.
The capital funding provided by my Department in support of the arts is mainly through the cultural development incentives scheme — CDIS — which is part of the Operational Programme for Tourism 1994-9. The CDIS is primarily designed to assist the four main categories of the visual and performing arts — arts centres, theatres, galleries and museums. The Deputy will appreciate that all decisions taken in relation to the funding of projects under this scheme were taken by my predecessor. Of the total amount of capital funding allocated to the arts approximately 19.5 per cent of capital funding was allocated to Dublin, 22.5 per cent to other major cities and the balance, 58 per cent, to other areas. I am very much looking forward to the successful completion of all the projects which have been allocated funding.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I am standing in for Deputy Jim O'Keeffe who put down those questions and is unavoidably absent in defence of his country. Did the Minister give capital figures?
Yes.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Does that include buildings?
Yes.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): How much money is allocated towards the running costs of other arts centres, one of which is west Cork arts centre in Deputy O'Keeffe's constituency? There are more artists living in west Cork than elsewhere. Will the Minister give a breakdown of the 58 per cent of funding allocated to other parts of the country?
The CDIS funding refers specifically to capital funding. My Department does not provide funding for the running cost of those centres. The funding provided gives an opportunity to set up arts centres, theatres, galleries and museums. I hope this is a reflection of the arts plan in that it ensures the infrastructure is available. As Deputy O'Keeffe's question rightly points out, it is important to ensure such centres are available throughout the country and not just in the more populated areas. I share that view, as did my predecessor.
There are 39 projects under the CDIS funding. In addition, an allocation of £1.8 million has been approved for the development of additional gallery space at the Crawford Municipal Art Gallery in Cork. That figure is included in the proportion for cities other than Dublin. The following allocation of Structural Funds under the Operational Programme for Tourism has been made in respect of a number of national cultural institutions: the National Museum, Collins Barracks, £29,850,000; the National Gallery, extension to premises, £7.5 million; Irish Museum of Modern Art, additional exhibition space, £1.5 million; the National Concert Hall, provision of a second auditorium, £1.6 million; and the Chester Beatty Library, relocation of collection, £3 million.
I can provide the Deputy with information in respect of the 39 projects. However, it might shortcircuit matters if he required me to communicate the information in writing. I have it to hand if the Deputy desires to see it.
The Minister might circulate that information to Members on this side of the House. In his former capacity as Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins lit a beacon in this area for young people. He did an enormous job in a short period to promote an appreciation of the nature of art in its broadest sense.
The Minister did not refer to the mid-term review of the operational programme. What is the position in respect of this review? Is it true that the Minister promised to allocate funding for the International Folk Centre, Ennis? The excellent scheme operated by the former Minister, Deputy Higgins, under the capital programme was transparent. It established a new structure for arts facilities throughout the country in terms of exhibitions, participation, innovation and imagination. However, in the old scheme which applied to community centres, where assistance was given under the auspices of the Department of Education, committees broke their backs to put facilities in place. There was no follow-on mechanism to ensure that they remained alive. Is there a programme to oversee the operation of these centres and how will they be funded in future?
Following the mid-term review, funding from Europe is now in place. One example of a facility which has benefited in this regard is the Linen Hall Arts Centre in Castlebar where Mary Farrell and her staff have done a tremendous job. What plans does the Minister have to enable these centres to operate properly in future so that young people can gain an appreciation of art in its broadest form?
The CDIS funds will be exhausted in 1999 but Members can rest assured that my Department will fight to ensure that further funding will be forthcoming in the year 2000. I hope that such funding will be secured because it has proved of tremendous assistance to arts infrastructure throughout the country.
As a result of the mid-term review of the CDIS funds, it was important to ensure that those projects on the list complied with the various conditions — one of which was that they would be able to complete the work before the end of the current operational programme in 1999. It was never intended that these funds would be allocated in respect of the operational costs of the centres. As already stated, the intention behind the funding was the establishment of an infrastructure. It was the responsibility of the community, individuals or committee involved with the centres to ensure that this would remain an ongoing concern and it was taken into account when deciding whether projects would be included on the initial list for funding.
Opposition Deputies tabled a number of questions regarding individual centres and projects which might have been included on the initial list but which were not given funding because they could not comply with the conditions. One of those conditions stipulates that projects should be supported by, for example, a county council to ensure its viability. If such support was not forthcoming and the centre failed, the money spent from the CDIS on that project would revert to the EU at the expense of the Exchequer.
The conditions were twofold: first, to ensure fairness for all, namely, when the conditions were complied with the money would be forthcoming; and, second, to ensure that if this was not so the money would be made available for projects which could be completed in 1999. With regard to the operational costs of the centres and their future, it is the responsibility of those advocating and supporting the projects to ensure they are sustainable.
Deputy Kenny referred to a project in my constituency, the proposed folk music centre in Ennis, which is dear to my heart and which, unfortunately, did not receive the support of the previous Government for inclusion on the list for CDIS funding. This project was on the books for a long period before the break-up of the previous Administration, when there was no movement in respect of funding for it. On assuming office I stated I would revisit the file because the project is of particular interest to me. I have been working assiduously with members of the county council, the urban district council and the local committee run by Joe Malone.
Good.
We are working together to see how best to develop the project. All moneys from the CDIS funds had already been committed before I entered office and I was not in a position to use such moneys. Unfortunately, it appears that the project did not rate highly on the previous Government's list of priorities. If it had, the project would been allocated a share of the funds.
The Minister said that on three occasions.
Is she criticising the original system of selection?
I am criticising the fact that the Deputies opposite made no commitment to ensure that moneys would be earmarked for this project.
There is still no music in Ennis.
I will do everything possible to assist this project. A meeting of interested groups recently took place in the constituency and they are very positive with regard to the work being carried out in respect of the project.
The Minister should be positive like Padraig Flynn and state that the money will be made available.
Will the Minister provide funding from her Department's budget?
Such funding was not made available by the Administration in which the Deputy served as a Minister of State.
Will the Minister deliver on her promise?
The advocates of the project will have access to a more sympathetic ear now that I am Minister. I am doing everything possible to find the funding to encourage the development of a folk centre in Ennis. I made a commitment in respect of this project on assuming office. It is rather disingenuous of the Deputies opposite to bluster about this project——
The Minister has been blustering for almost the duration of Question Time.
Broken promises.
——when Deputy Carey, as former Minister of State at the Department, was aware that the people of Ennis, County Clare, wanted to see it come to fruition.
I was aware of it.
What did the Deputy do about it? Precisely nothing. I intend to do differently.
Many references have been made to the "previous Minister".
The current Minister ran the Deputy down on three occasions.
As my original question dealt with the Operational Programme for Tourism, will the Minister indicate whether — in the period from 1999 onward, during the next period of structural funding — her Department will be seeking a separate operational programme? I am grateful for the figures provided in respect of the distribution of CDIS funding which I primarily allocated, namely, 19.5 per cent for Dublin, 22.5 per cent for other cities and 58 per cent for the remainder of the country. That contrasts with what has been often stated. Will the Minister agree that those figures could be easily distorted by adding the capital expenditure on the major cultural institutions. I am glad she did not do that and that she separated them. I differ with the Minister on the third point. Will she agree that what she calls political verve would in fact be political interference with the selection process that was independent of the Minister?
Correct.
The Minister has acknowledged there was a procedure in place for evaluation, financial viability and regional balance. If it concerned a museum that was for the Heritage Council and it was an art gallery, that was for the Arts Council. Are these figures relevant? The Minister told me I did not have any enthusiasm for this project, but is it not the case that it would have required me to deliberately put the project above others that had come through the evaluation process?
An interference with the system.
Perhaps someone would explain to me the difference between political verve and political interference? If I were doing it, it would be political interference but when the Minister is doing it in Ennis it is political verve.
I deliberately separated our national institutions from the 39 projects which were seen as separate. I wish to be fair to the Deputy and I think he acknowledges I was fair in giving those statistics. We all know that statistics can give a different complexion and I wish to give an accurate description of the case.
With reference to the operational programme, the Deputy is correct that the CDIS funding will run out in 1999. I intend to fight for funding and I will not be too worried, nor I am sure will the Deputy, about the mechanism that is put in place as long as it is one we can use in a similar way to the CDIS funding. The CDIS funding was particularly helpful, coming under the Operational Programme for Tourism. We are talking about issues of cultural tourism. That is our strength, as I mentioned in an earlier question today. The fact that the European institutions, and indeed the European Regional Development Fund funding, has put 1.5 million ecu aside to promote and market our centres, which have a strong cultural element, augurs well for funding from the year 2000 onwards.
With regard to the CDIS funding and the case raised by Deputy Kenny, there is a selection process. However, a number of projects have been submitted and it is for the selection process to decide on those matters. I would be interested to know whether that project featured even in phase one. If the CDIS funding was not available for the folk music centre, the previous Minister, and indeed the previous Minister of State, had the opportunity of using other Exchequer funding to ensure the project would come to fruition. There was no commitment in the CDIS funding nor in Exchequer funding for such a project.
The point about a separate operational programme is that the mid-term review was conducted under criteria specific to tourism. The advantage of having our own operational programme is that it would be entirely in terms of the criteria for arts and culture promotion. Does the Minister not see significant merit in allowing the existing projects that were submitted but not successful to run on, with adaptation, to save time and trouble and to facilitate drawing down money? Perhaps the Minister could tell me which heading in her Department she sees as directly funding capital programmes outside the major cultural institutions.
With regard to the type of funding that will be available in 1999, I understand the distinction the Deputy is making, particularly in respect of arts promotion. I am interested in finding a heading that will be most appropriate to draw down funding, and I am working towards that. It is important that there would be such funding because every Deputy in this House, regardless of his or her political opinion, knows there are a number of such centres and excellent projects throughout the country. Some of those have not made it to this list and the people involved were disappointed they were not selected, but that selection took place before I took office. I do not see any reason these projects cannot be resubmitted under any new proposal for consideration, and I hope they will be.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): A total of 58 per cent of capital funding is currently spent in rural areas. That is understandable because Dublin has been catered for over the years. To counterbalance the view that all the funding for the arts goes to rural areas, will the Minister give the figure for the overall running costs of the arts throughout the country?
The question of running costs for these projects does not apply. As I explained in reply to an earlier supplementary question, the CDIS funding referred particularly to capital expenditure and it was to set up that infrastructure. I share the Deputy's concern that when we are talking about cultural facilities we must also talk about facilities for everyone and the importance of access and participation in the arts. That cannot be done unless the infrastructure exists for people to take part in those cultural activities.
In regard to the running costs for the national institutions, that is a more detailed question. I can get that information for the Deputy and send it to him.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): It might give a better balance.
