Vol. 790 No. 2
6. Deputy Paul J. Connaughton asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in relation to the national raised bog special area of conservation management plan, the progress made to date on the formulation of the plan; when he expects it to be finalised; and the anticipated outcome of the plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4493/13]
31. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the progress that has been made in putting in place the national plan for special areas of conservation and turfcutters on the 53 bogs; if solutions have been found to all of these bogs at this point; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4496/13]
46. Deputy Martin Heydon asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in relation to the national raised bog of special area of conservation management plan, the progress that has been made to date on formulation of the plan; when he expects it to be finalised; the anticipated outcome of the plan to be; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4408/13]
52. Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in relation to the national raised bog special areas of conservation management plan, the progress made to date on formulation of the plan; when he expects it to be finalised; the anticipated outcome of the plan to be; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4520/13]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 31, 46 and 52 together.
Last April, together with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, I met Commissioner Potonik in Brussels where we secured his support for developing a national raised bog special area of conservation, SAC, management plan. This was in keeping with the recommendations of Mr. Justice Quirke following the Peatlands Forum and the motion agreed unanimously by Dáil Éireann on 7 March 2012.
The proposed approach to the development of the national plan is available on my Department's website. The plan will provide for the long-term protection of Ireland's raised bog SACs, address the needs of turf cutters and can unlock the flexibility available for dealing with the most difficult of bogs within the terms of the habitats directive.
Following a request for tenders, my Department is assessing proposals from prospective teams of consultants who will undertake the necessary scientific work to inform the future restoration and management of each of the SACs. Draft proposals for each of the sites will be discussed with affected landowners as part of this process.
The detailed exploration of relocation sites is a key element in progressing the national plan. In collaboration with the peatland council and with the assistance of Bord na Móna, my Department is actively engaging with turf cutting communities to consider how relocation can be progressed.
Some 766 applicants for compensation to my Department have indicated an interest in relocation. Arrangements for the relocation of turf cutters to non-designated bogs have been finalised or are close to finalisation for groups from four raised bog SACs. Out of the remaining 49 raised bog SACs, potential relocation sites have been identified for a further 31 SACs and work is ongoing on investigating these sites. Relocation is unlikely to be required or is likely to be on a small scale in respect of another 15 raised bog SACs owing, for example, to the small number of turf cutters who have been active on these sites. Options for the remaining sites are also being investigated. If, following an in-depth examination, there is a small number of SACs where there are genuinely no alternatives in terms of relocation, the national plan may, as I mentioned, be able to provide some flexibility in this regard.
I am determined that, in collaboration with the peatland council and local turf cutting communities, substantial progress will be made on the plan in the coming months. My Department has stepped up contact with turf cutting groups to seek long-term solutions for their bogs, in compliance with EU and national law. I hope the national plan can be completed by November in time to submit an application to the European Commission under Article 6(4) of the habitats directive prior to the 2014 turf cutting season, if required. However, the engagement and agreement of turf cutting communities with the proposed approaches will be essential in meeting this timeline and unlocking the potential flexibility it offers.
I am somewhat concerned that we may not get a decision on this time sensitive issue until November. How is the review proceeding with regard to national heritage areas, NHAs? A number of bogs in counties Galway and Roscommon have been designated as SACs or NHAs, but some of the issues arising in these areas will only be resolved through movement on the issue of NHA designation. Trust needs to be built among people on the ground who want to cut turf but are prepared to relocate. If the SAC management plan is to work, a management plan will also be needed for NHAs. I understand the Department is stretched for resources, but if we want to make progress in the next 12 to 24 months, it is important that the two reviews work together. On certain bogs in County Galway the only solution is a review of NHAs and a means of allowing turf cutters to move to these bogs. When can we expect movement on the review of NHAs? If the Minister wishes to consult people in these areas, they will want to ahve these issues addressed.
I thank the Deputy and his father for the work they are doing to solve this problem in their own area around Mountbellew. Considerable progress has been made in that area because of their leadership, although I recognise that further difficulties lie ahead which will need to be resolved.
SACs were designated under European law which was transposed into Irish law, whereas NHAs were designated under Irish law. There is a difference and I hope there can be more flexibility in respect of NHAs. Furthermore, we gave a commitment in the programme for Government to investigate NHAs with a view towards putting in place a management plan for them. I agree that the issue of flexibility in SACs may be determined in some cases by adopting a different approach towards NHAs. These issues are subject to ongoing consideration. Officials of my Department and the National Parks and Wildlife Service are working with communities around the country. The scientific process will commence shortly, but the entire plan is being actively considered. NHAs are also being examined. The issue of NHAs will not arise this year, but it will be important in the resolution of the SAC issue.
Will the Minister tell the House what he considers to be a realistic timeframe for the putting in place of a plan for the 53 bogs mentioned? Where relocation is an option, what does he regard as a realistic timeframe? In the event that relocation or compensation is not an option, does he believe compensatory habitats are an option? In the light of Article 6(4) of the directive, will his Department actively pursue the option of compensatory habitats where no other is available?
I acknowledge the responsible approach taken by the Deputy and her party on this issue. In my earlier reply I expressed the hope the national plan would be in place by November. That is a realistic goal. We were also dealing with this issue in 2012, but all of our resources were consumed in enforcing the law because otherwise the Commission would have taken us to court and Ireland would have faced huge fines, as we saw in the case of septic tanks. When the Commissioner visited Dublin - I know he also addressed the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht - he expressed satisfaction with the progress we had made and thought we were being serious about the issue. In the past we were obviously not serious, but we are now making progress. However, he warned us that if there was a reversal of the progress we had made, the position would be totally different and that he would have to take a different view. As he admitted, the issue of raised bogs and SACs was attracting more attention in the 27 members states than any other issue. Given that it is the most topical and hottest issue, it is important that we work together to resolve it. We have to find a solution because it will not go away. I have adopted an open approach for all parties and individuals from the turf cutters' and contractors' associations.
The question of compensatory habitats and relocation is being actively examined in conjunction with Bord na Móna. Of the 2,568 applicants for compensation received to date, 766 expressed an interest in relocation. A large number of those who received compensation and did not cut last year are anxious to continue cutting turf, as their fathers and grandfathers have done before them.
I thank the Minister for his response and concur with Deputy Paul Connaughton on the importance of having an overall plan for NHAs. I wish to raise my concern about the engagement at local level with my constituents in County Kildare and, in particular, the turf cutters associated with Mouds Bog which is an SAC. The level of dialogue is not what I hoped it would be ten months ago when we agreed a resolution in the Dáil. There is a considerable amount of local knowledge among turf cutters which can feed into this plan and I hope it will not be progressed in the absence of consultation. Perhaps, however, County Kildare has not yet been reached. Concerns have been expressed about potential flooding issues which have not yet been discussed with the turf cutters. One year ago reference was made to a potential relocation bog in Lattin, County Kildare, but there has been little dialogue on the issue since. There are concerns locally that it may not be a viable option, but turf cutters never received an opportunity to discuss the matter with officials. I ask that departmental officials engage in a proactive manner with Kildare turf cutters in order to tease out some of the issues arising.
I recently visited several contentious bogs and I am willing to visit the bogs to which the Deputy referred in the near future if he can get the other people involved together, as well as any public representative who is interested in finding a solution. I am prepared to do this in the near future if he wishes to arrange such a meeting.
We do not have as many people on the ground as we would like and it is a significant problem that we only have a small number of national park and wildlife rangers for the whole country. They have other work to do also with regard to compliance with other EU directives, such as the birds directive. Their resources are stretched, but I will convey the message that not enough dialogue is taking place in the case of Mouds bog so that dialogue will take place. My offer stands to meet the people who want to discuss the matter with me in the next few weeks.
I thank the Minister for the work he has done. He has been very generous with his time and has called to visit most of the various turf cutters around the country. With regard to a derogation, when Deputies Heydon and Connaughton and Conor Skehan, who has done Trojan work on this issue, went to Brussels, they informed officials there was a derogation in place from the last Government. However, while the last Government called it a derogation for ten years, Commissioner Potocnik was unaware of it. Will the Minister clarify whether a derogation was in place, whether it was an Irish solution to an Irish problem or whether it was sanctioned by Europe?
Much work has been done and I am delighted that many turf cutters have been paid. In my county, where the problem is serious, almost 800 turf cutters, from a population of 50,000, have been paid and will receive payments of €1,500 into their accounts for the next 15 years. This is tax free, index linked and they still own their bogs. Many of these turf cutters were considering relocation, but some have been given 15 tonnes of turf. We have gone a long way toward solving the problem. However, there are areas in other parts of my constituency, in County Leitrim, where they have NHAs rather than SACs. We need more consultation on the ground with regard to designating NHAs so that we can solve the issues within our grasp.
Another serious issue of which I am constantly made aware is the issue of commercial contractors. These feel very left out of what is happening. I realise times are difficult, but perhaps it is time to consider some formula for compensation to resolve their issues.
On the question of the derogation, apparently it was never approved by Europe, but the Government of the time said there was a derogation. When I inherited this challenge, the derogation was finished in the case of 31 bogs and last year it finished for the other 22. Therefore, there are no more derogations. The derogation was provided at a national rather than at a European level, and I am surprised it was not noticed by Brussels over the ten-year period. If the problem had been addressed between 1997 and 2002, we would not be discussing it now. It should have been addressed in an incremental fashion and there should have been the kind of widespread consultation we are trying to do now with the Peatland's Council and forum. There should have been more dialogue to try to resolve the matter.
We signed up to the European habitats directive in 1992 and transposed it into Irish law in 1997. We designated 53 raised SAC bogs and told Europe we would protect these bogs and there would be no more cutting on them, but that did not happen. That is the reason Europe was going to take us to court and fine us heavily. The fine is €25,000 a day with a major upfront fine. We have avoided that up to now and hopefully we can continue to work together for a resolution and continue to avoid it and in the process we can accommodate those people who want to continue to cut turf. The derogation did not derive from Europe and was not approved it. It came from national Government.
I agree with the Deputy that NHAs are determined by Irish law, so we have more flexibility on those. In the programme for Government we committed to setting up the Peatlands Council and to looking at the NHAs with a view to putting a management plan in place. With regard to the commercial contractors, I referred to these in a response to Question No. 6, earlier, and explained how they were compensated initially. Over €4 million in compensation was provided to commercial contractors.
There is an NHA bog, Hodgestown bog, in my area. It is important that the Department's officials engage with the bog owners there, who are willing to put a management plan in place. We come up against a stone wall at the end of 2013 and they would like to have something in place before that. They want to engage actively with the Department's officials and come to some agreement. They have a plan and perhaps some agreement could be made with regard to the management of that bog.
Does the Minister find it acceptable after 16 years of the Department and officials considering this situation, that out of 53 bogs they have only sourced four alternatives? The Minister has said it will be November before he has the plan in place. Will November also be the deadline with regard to turf-cutting on the NHAs? It appears it is a resource and manpower issue that is delaying a resolution of these issues. Is it not in the Minister's and the country's interest to acquire the additional resources from the Government to ensure these issues are resolved? For example, it only took a short time to make a decision on the children's hospital and surely the same could be done in this regard.
I welcome the Minister's admission that the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association, TCCA, and I have been right all along with regard to the derogation. I also welcome Deputy Heydon's admission that things are not going quite as sweetly as was suggested.
The most pertinent question asked here today was asked by Deputy McLellan, but it has not been answered. She asked how long it will take for this to be resolved. My information is that after 16 years the issue has not been resolved for any of these bogs. How long will it take to resolve the issue? The Minister mentioned that 2,142 people have taken compensation. Is he aware of the number of turbary right holders for those bogs? It is 9,000. If someone came to the Minister in the morning and said they were going to take his house from him but had found him another one, but he would only be allowed to own that new house for 65 years before it reverted to the State, would the Minister take that deal? I am not taking it.
In response to Deputy Lawlor, I would gladly meet the people he mentioned and would be happy to discuss their proposal. It is important that people be positive and co-operative towards finding a resolution to the issues. With regard to Deputy Flanagan's question as to how long it will take, I cannot predict that. I have been working on this issue for two years and we have made significant progress. I thank all those who have complied with the law and who made sacrifices to do so. I appeal to those who have not complied to realise they still have that opportunity. The last thing I want is to see them having to go through the courts on this matter. It has become a legal matter, which will bring challenges for people.
It is time to act.
I put it to the Deputy that there is more being done now than has been done in the past 16 years.
No one can deny that a really serious effort is being made now. My approach is an all-inclusive one. All of the relevant parties are involved in it. This is a European issue, rather than just an Irish issue. Deputy Naughten made a point about the number of officials on the ground. I accept that there is a resource issue here. This is a major problem. We are addressing it now, when we should have been addressing it for 16 years. We are trying to do in a small space of time what we should have been doing for the last 16 years. There is a resource problem. Our officials on the ground are really stretched. It is not easy for them. They are trying to close bogs that belong to people they know. Many of them are going through a difficult period of time in their own neighbourhoods. It is not easy for them. That should be respected.
I ask the Minister to wrap up as we need to move on to the next set of questions.
I was asked how long it will take. That will depend on whether people co-operate with it. If everybody works together, it can be resolved. I was also asked about the number of bogs. There are four bogs. I accept that there should be more bogs. Progress has been made.
What four bogs is the Minister talking about?
There are the bogs in Deputy Connaughton's constituency-----
That is not resolved. I have just come off the phone after speaking to somebody who told me that it has not been definitively resolved.
There is Clara-----
No deal on the land has been signed. It is important to state the truth.
I realise that this is a critical subject for a large part of the country.
The truth is vital.
The Deputy never told the truth in his life.
We need to move on.
He is not used to the truth.
No contracts have been signed.
It is very close to being done.
Deputy Connaughton has admitted that no contracts have been signed.
That sort of thing was around 80 years ago.
I will allow the Minister to have the final word. We will debate this again.
It may be in Deputy Flanagan's interest that no agreement would be reached.
What I have said is the truth.
Could I just mention that major progress has been made with regard to Clara bog in County Offaly?
Okay. Go raibh maith agat, a Aire.
Can I have the record corrected? No agreements have been signed.
Deputy Flanagan did not even put down a question.
That needs to be put on the record because it is important for the truth to be told in here.
We need to move on to Question No. 7.
No contracts have been signed. Put it on the record.
The Deputy is only happy when he is miserable.
No, not really. I am quite happy when I am right. However, I thank the Deputy for pointing out that there was no derogation.
That was mentioned to me several times last night.
The Deputy is a great help to his Minister.
Come on lads, try to pull together.
This is a serious subject. I know some people would like to make a joke or a political issue of it.
7. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the progress he has made in achieving shared services and board structures with the National Library and National Museum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4489/13]
8. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht if the proposed National Museum and Library Advisory Council will have any specific remit to develop the existing genealogical resources which exist across cultural institutions under its authority and beyond into a shared, centralised genealogical facility which may enable citizens and tourists to access all such available resources; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4258/13]
10. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the timeframe for his plans to merge the National Archives and the Irish Manuscripts Commission into the National Library; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4488/13]
17. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the reasons for his decision to remove the autonomy and independence from the boards of the National Library and the National Museum by merging them into an advisory council operating within his Department; if the savings he has outlined will be achieved in view of the fact that the members of both boards are now working pro bono; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4512/13]
22. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the way he intends that the National Museum and Library Advisory Council will adequately meet the needs of both the National Library and the National Museum in terms of fundraising, attracting philanthropic donations of works and day to day management of both institutions; the intended role of his Office in the functioning of the new council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4257/13]
44. Deputy Kevin Humphreys asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht if there is a timetable for the public service reforms to the operation of the National Library and National Museum; if he will consider a separate advisory council for each body with a statutorily independent director, in view of the fact that each will operate pro bono as currently proposed for joint advisory council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4267/13]
45. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht his views on the report commissioned by IMPACT in relation to the proposed merger of the National Archives into the National Library; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4264/13]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 8, 10, 17, 22, 44 and 45 together.
The Deputies will be aware that, as part of a range of reforms agreed by the Government under the public service reform plan, it was decided that the existing National Archives of Ireland, NAI, governance model will be applied to the National Library of Ireland, NLI, and the National Museum of Ireland, NMI. The National Archives Advisory Council will be retained, with a reduced membership operating pro bono. A single statutory NLI and NMI advisory council will operate pro bono in place of the existing boards. Overall board membership will be reduced by approximately 60%. It is anticipated that this model will achieve significant savings and increase efficiencies across the institutions. The NAI will operate, as it does at present, with a statutorily independent director and a similar statutory model will be put in place for the directors of the NLI and the NMI. The Irish Manuscripts Commission will be brought within the administrative ambit of the NLI.
The reform measures being undertaken by my Department with regard to the NLI and NMI will not remove the autonomy and independence of the two bodies. While it is proposed under the measures approved by the Government to replace the existing boards with an independent advisory council, the autonomy and independence of the directors of the institutions will be given a clear statutory underpinning. While there will be a pragmatic sharing of services, organisationally the NMI, the NLI and the proposed advisory council will not be within my Department. It is envisaged that the advisory council will have no role in relation to the day-to-day management of the two bodies but will specialise in fund-raising, fostering philanthropic relations and donations and providing advice to the Minister, including in relation to genealogy if considered appropriate. The advisory council will be appointed by me under statute. As I have said, the proposed model is similar to that already in place in the National Archives, the success of which has been widely recognised in this House and further afield.
I have already advised the House of the robust shared services model that will be deployed across the three institutions, through my Department in the case of corporate support services and by formal inter-institutional agreement in the case of operational services. Regular meetings have been taking place between my Department and the directors and staff of the relevant institutions in respect of these matters. Options relating to shared human resources, information technology and financial services are being examined at present. It is proposed that a number of measures will be implemented on an administrative basis, pending the enactment of enabling legislation. The institutions are developing the requisite agreement with regard to shared operational services. Significant progress is being made on the draft legislation required to bring the new arrangements into being. I anticipate I will be in a position to seek Government approval for the heads of a Bill in the near future.
The Deputies will be aware that overall savings of €20 million in enhanced service efficiencies and value for money were targeted in the public service reform plan. In that context, it is expected that savings of approximately €1 million will be made initially across the institutions involved in the reform programme which are funded from my Department's Vote group, with further savings to be identified as the various cost-saving measures are implemented. However, the real benefit from the rationalisation of State agencies will be a less crowded administrative landscape. This will result in greater democratic accountability, less duplication of effort and clearer lines of responsibility for the citizen. Finally, I should clarify that the report commissioned by IMPACT related to an assessment of an earlier proposal to merge the National Archives of Ireland into the National Library of Ireland. Such a merger is no longer proposed.
I thank the Minister for his response. I am conscious that a number of Deputies want to speak about this matter. It is with considerable frustration that we are returning to this issue today. I am sure the Minister is frustrated that this issue is not going away. Fianna Fáil is committed to the principles set out in the Arts Act 2003, which established the arm's length principle in legislative form. We are concerned that the slash and burn approach, which has not generally been a characteristic of the Minister's political approach, may well lead to the achievement of false economies. There is a risk that these changes will save little financially while delivering a major cost to the State in terms of its cultural institutions.
It is clear that the abolition of the boards and of Culture Ireland, so that these areas can be brought under the direct control of the Minister, is a departure from the arm's length principle. The Minister, Deputy Deenihan, is respected and trusted by people in the arts and heritage sectors, and rightly so. He will not always be the Minister, however. We cannot be certain that the person at the helm in the medium and long terms can be trusted to ensure the arm's length principle is observed. In the event of a Cabinet reshuffle, the Minister's important brief might be taken by someone in respect of whom we could not be confident that an arm's length approach would be demonstrated.
I do not believe for a minute that the Minister, in his heart, is committed to this initiative. I commend him on what he is doing in the area of the development of shared services. We should be doing the same thing in many areas of the public service. What procedures has he put in place to ensure the integrity of the National Library of Ireland and the National Museum of Ireland, as two separate and distinct cultural entities, will be maintained? What steps has he taken to that end?
The Minister mentioned a figure of €1 million in savings for the whole process. From listening to the Minister, it seems he is a bit tentative about this. In conclusion, I again make the point that when the possible savings are balanced against the very significant risk to these vital institutions, it is a risk that is not worth taking at this point.
I remind the Deputy that although he was not part of that decision, his own party proposed to merge the National Gallery, IMMA and the Crawford Art Gallery into one institution.
We never agreed it.
Heads of legislation were prepared. It also proposed to merge the National Archives with the National Library. I certainly did not go ahead with that proposal.
I listened to Members in the House and it came across strongly that people were very happy with the National Archives, the way it is governed and run and its independence. I listened to people and I adopted that same governance model for the National Library and the National Museum. In addition, I will ensure there is curatorial independence in the legislation I am bringing in, which we will all get a chance to discuss, and that this independence will be strengthened. At this time, the director of the National Archives would no doubt accept she has total independence in her job. All the director gets from my Department is co-operation and help. I certainly think this will work in the case of the National Library and the National Museum.
The Deputy referred to Culture Ireland. The new Culture Ireland has now been nominated and set up, and it actually had its first meeting yesterday. There is no change. It will still be at arm's length from me and the Department, and while it is chaired by an independent chairperson, it is more inclusive. For example, it includes the IDA, Tourism Ireland and other State agencies in order that we can maximise the opportunity to send people abroad to perform, supported by the taxpayer. I am convinced it will work.
I appeal to people to give this proposal a chance. We are looking for change. When this Government took office, we were going to be a Government for change. We have looked at many State institutions and we have proposed a lot of rationalisation, which will be applied. Apart from the National Library and the National Museum, the other cultural institutions were left as they were. They will be sharing resources, and I thank the Deputy for supporting that, but it was very much a minimalist approach.
I too have concerns that what we do should have an eye to the medium and long term rather than the immediate environment in which we find ourselves. What concerns me greatly is that the major focus of attention here is on cost-cutting and efficiency. While I do not have a difficulty with looking to achieve a more efficient service for people who use our cultural institutions, I am very concerned that what is done should be compatible with each of the institutions concerned. Some of what each of the institutions does as a core function is not completely compatible with the other institutions. There are real opportunities here if we can look at the governance of these institutions in the first instance and how the philanthropic side can be given an advantage. I welcome the fact that the National Archives and the National Library are not being combined. As an example, the Public Record Office in Belfast was to move from the Lisburn Road to the Titanic Quarter and was due to close for eight months. In that case, however, it was planned to resource those who might want to check records while the buildings were closed and a huge effort was made to digitise records. Not only was a fantastic new building opened in the Titanic Quarter, but it has the advantage of having all of the material digitised so that the service is much better both for those using the building and for those who do not have to use it because they can get the records online.
I wonder whether the Minister shares my concerns that, by looking only at the issue of efficiency, we are losing an opportunity to plan for the medium and longer term with regard to investing in our institutions. While I realise money is tight, some of this brings a return even in the short term. I cannot understand why there is not a user-based approach to the institutions and why it is exclusively, or almost exclusively, looking at saving money and efficiencies.
I am sure the Minister is well aware of the fact there has been near-universal rejection of this proposal by stakeholders in both institutions. Surely the views of those working in this area should be taken into account. Professor Diarmaid Ferriter and Dr. Pat Wallace have said it is a mistake, and Dr. John O'Mahony, the chairman of the board of the National Museum, has called it cultural cannibalism. People are under the impression that it is a bit of a Civil Service coup to deprive these institutions of their independence and autonomy.
With regard to the notion that we will save €1 million in costs, as other Deputies have said, the Minister himself does not even seem convinced that it might save that amount. I see that one of the reasons given for the move was that the State might be better at securing philanthropic investment. I would suggest that if the State can tap into philanthropic money, we should do so and use loads of it to help the vulnerable. However, I believe we should leave the arts to those who are best qualified. It is very important that their independence and autonomy is retained.
I do not know if the Minister has sat down with these people. I plead with him to reconsider the matter and to sit down with all stakeholders. Surely their views matter.
In response to Deputy Mick Wallace, there is general agreement within both institutions on this approach. The chairman of the National Museum obviously expressed his views. Professor Diarmaid Ferriter resigned from the board of the National Library but - this is something I welcome - he did not resign from the advisory council of the National Archives, so obviously that is an expression of support for that type of governance. That is the exact governance I am now putting in place for the National Library and the National Museum. I am convinced, in case anyone thought otherwise, that this will save money which we can then put into digitisation.
Deputy Catherine Murphy is well informed in this whole area and I value what she says. The point is that we have had to cut costs across all Departments. That is the position this Government was landed with, and we all know the country is challenged at present. However, what is happening here will, I believe, strengthen the cultural institutions. I notice that no one recognised the fact that last week I announced the biggest investment ever, as I understand it, in a national cultural institution in this country - that is, the National Gallery, which is 75% closed at present. This is a major investment that is good not only for culture but also for jobs, which are all specialist jobs. If people are insinuating that the Government is not supportive of culture, they should look at such examples.
With regard to digitisation, I agree with the Deputy.
We must conclude.
I will finish shortly. The National Archives, for example, digitised the 1901 and 1911 censuses. Through that, it has received over 700 million hits on its website, so there is real interest out there in archival material. The more we can digitise, the more we can reach out to our diaspora and others interested in Ireland throughout the world.
