I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 9, after “music;” to insert “to change the name of Bord Scannán na hÉireann;”.
National Cultural Institutions (National Concert Hall) Bill 2015: Report and Final Stages
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 1.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“ “national venue” means the area occupied by the National Concert Hall at Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin and such additional or alternative venues as the National Concert Hall, with the agreement of the Minister, may determine from time to time;”.
The Minister and I engaged on this issue on Committee Stage and she understands what I am about. As I indicated on Second Stage, I am concerned that the Bill lacks vision and ambition for the NCH. If we believe the NCH is for all the people of Ireland, why is the Bill restricting it to a single national venue at Earlsfort Terrace? There is a compelling argument that, at some stage in the future, the NCH should be permitted to operate a number of venues, not just one in Dublin. The proposed amendment recognises the current home of the NCH, provides for alternative sites should they be required in future and, critically, allows for additional venues, be they on the western seaboard or in Cork, Limerick or Monaghan, where the Minister would welcome it.
Our experience from our direct engagement with the NCH is that it has strong sense of its purpose and a commitment to reaching out. One could not but be impressed by the work it is doing with the children’s hospitals. Why, therefore, would the Bill cut off the opportunity for the NCH to expand by identifying a venue somewhere else that could be an adjunct to what it does in Earlsfort Terrace? Although it may never want to do so, why would we not allow for the possibility? Given the manner in which the Government has trumpeted the success of the Limerick City of Culture initiative, some future city of culture might emerge. A particular venue could be developed and provide the platform that the NCH provides here in Dublin. If such a venue could augment the work of the NCH, why not allow for the possibility in the legislation?
A reference to alternative venues is unnecessary. The NCH can promote the performance of music at locations other than the national venue. My officials have discussed this with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Sections 7(b), 7(c) and 7(d) of the Bill include the possibility. We are not cutting off the opportunity for the NCH to perform outside the Earlsfort Terrace venue, and it operates many outreach programmes. I agree with the Deputy that we must move the national institutions, and the concert hall must have a regional impact. Section 7 includes as objectives of the NCH:
(b) in the public interest, to promote and support the performance, knowledge, appreciation, creation and enjoyment of music as an integral part of Irish life,
(c) to entertain, educate and engage the public through musical experiences, and
(d) to encourage and promote inclusivity, participation, creativity, experimentation and involvement in music through engagement with diverse individuals and communities as performers, participants, composers or audience members
The section allows the NCH to take the broader approach the Deputy mentioned.
While I am sympathetic to the Deputy's concerns about a reference to the location of the NCH in the building on Earlsfort Terrace, it has been the subject of ongoing discussion between my Department, the NCH, the OPW and the Office of the Attorney General, and a proposed amendment has been agreed. This clarifies the position regarding the location of the NCH, which shall be situated, for the time being, at Earlsfort Terrace in the city of Dublin.
As Deputies are aware, the National Concert Hall has been based at Earlsfort Terrace since it opened in 1981. To most people, the National Concert Hall and Earlsfort Terrace have been synonymous, particularly since the vacation of the site by UCD in 2007. The main issue for the hall in the short and medium terms is not its location. Of course it is in an excellent location. The main issue for the hall is how it can secure the necessary funding to secure its long-term future at its existing location and thereby maximise its potential as a centre of excellence for music and the performing arts. The security of tenure of the National Concert Hall at Earlsfort Terrace is seen as an important element in any case being made to all potential governmental, corporate and philanthropic funders in the years ahead. Rather than accepting the Deputy's amendment, I am proposing amendment No. 2a, which would insert the phrase "situated, for the time being, at Earlsfort Terrace in the city of Dublin" in section 5(1) of the Bill.
I have no problem with that. It makes sense. I would like the Minister to clarify one aspect of this matter for the record. I accept that the National Concert Hall can arrange performances around the country. That goes without saying. Can we take it from what the Minister is saying that this Bill will allow the National Concert Hall to acquire a venue somewhere else in the country and operate it as part of the National Concert Hall's remit? Perhaps that is what she is saying, but I am afraid it is not how I have read the legislation. I am not the Minister, however. I presume the Minister knows what she is talking about.
Yes. As I have outlined, section 7 of the Bill provides that the "principal functions" of the National Concert Hall shall be "to provide and operate, having regard to international standards and good practice, the national venue for the performance, appreciation and enjoyment of musical, creative, artistic and cultural activities including the promotion of concerts and recitals of artistic, educational and cultural value". Earlsfort Terrace is where the National Concert Hall's home is, but there is nothing to prevent it from having performances elsewhere or from moving around the country. The Deputy raised the question of whether the National Concert Hall will acquire properties elsewhere in the country at some point down the road but our focus has to be on where the hall is based at present. I know the National Concert Hall is very concerned to ensure Earlsfort Terrace is identified as its home. When officials from the hall go abroad to look for philanthropic funding, etc., it is important for them to be able to mention an address to show the people they meet that they are dealing with a permanent entity. We took legal advice on this matter. The National Concert Hall is satisfied that its requirements will be met if this amendment is made and the legislation includes the words "situated, for the time being, at Earlsfort Terrace in the city of Dublin".
The Minister is still not answering my essential question. I agree with what she is saying. Does the legislation as currently drafted preclude the National Concert Hall-----
-----from acquiring and operating on an ongoing basis a venue somewhere else in the country?
I apologise to the Deputy. His question can be answered by referring to section 5(2) of the Bill, which provides that the National Concert Hall "shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and an official seal". This section of the Bill also provides that the National Concert Hall has the "power to acquire, hold and dispose of land or an interest in land, and acquire, hold and dispose of any other property".
Okay.
So if it wants to acquire more property, it can do so.
Good.
I apologise for the confusion.
Well done.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2a:
In page 6, line 13, after " "NCH")," to insert "situated, for the time being, at Earlsfort Terrace in the city of Dublin,".
I have spoken on this amendment, which clarifies the issue.
Amendment agreed to.
As amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related, they may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, line 10, after "time" where it secondly occurs to insert "and subject to section 16".
The basis for these amendments is that it is normal and good practice in all democracies for strategic statements to be prepared by public bodies and submitted to the relevant Ministers for consideration and approval. The reasons for this approach are obvious: it enables the alignment of strategic plans from across different institutions; it avoids turf wars, which is something we are all anxious to achieve; it secures consistency with Government policies, priorities and funding; and it respects ministerial accountability to this House for bodies within the remit of individual Ministers. The Bill as it stands makes no provision for ministerial oversight or review of strategy statements. The Minister is basically a messenger. He or she will receive the strategy, lay it before the Houses of the Oireachtas and do nothing more. The amendments to sections 8 and 9 that I am proposing seek to address this pretty critical deficit. They will allow the Minister to meaningfully review strategy statements and where necessary amend them. However, this intervention is carefully circumscribed, as it should be. Basically, the Minister can only intervene where the strategy is in conflict with Government policy or is misaligned with that approved for other cultural institutions. Additionally, a Minister will be obliged to consult the board of the National Concert Hall where revisions are contemplated before amending a strategy statement. These balanced and sensible measures will protect the public interest and respect the National Concert Hall while upholding ministerial accountability to the Oireachtas. I would have been accusing the Minister's predecessor, not on a personal level, of pursuing a policy agenda that was allowing the Department to pull too much of the control over the cultural institutions back into the Department. While it is important that we respect the autonomy of our cultural institutions, we should not readily abandon the whole idea of ministerial oversight. I advocate these amendments to the Minister and ask her to consider them positively.
I have listened to the Deputy's concerns on this issue. Amendment No. 3 purports to link section 8, which deals with the independence of the National Concert Hall, with the statement of strategy provision in section 16. I take the view that section 8 is a strong and clear statement of the independence of the National Concert Hall. This is an important statement of principle for any cultural institution. Indeed, this provision came about because of concerns that had been expressed to the effect that the Bill was not sufficiently clear on this important point. I think the section should stand as it is currently and is best left unchanged. Therefore, I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment.
I do not consider that amendment No. 4 is necessary because I believe the principle of the independence of the national cultural institutions should be maintained. The statement of strategy will be a matter for the board, which is responsible for managing the institution and directing its operations. I do not want to impinge on the independence of the National Concert Hall, or any of the national cultural institutions, when it comes to artistic matters. The artistic programming will be an integral part of the statement of strategy. I want to strike the right balance between artistic independence and accountability to the taxpayer. I went back and had a look at the recommendations that were made by the joint committee. It came through very strongly in those recommendations that the joint committee agreed that for the avoidance of doubt, the arm's length principle with regard to artistic programming should be enshrined in this Bill.
Regarding head 9 of the Bill, the joint committee also agreed that for the avoidance of doubt, the arm's-length principle with regard to artistic programming should be enshrined in the Bill. I am happy with section 8, which deals with the independence of the National Concert Hall and states, "The NCH shall be independent in the exercise of its functions subject to such general policy guidelines as may be issued by the Minister to all national cultural institutions from time to time.". I am satisfied that the National Concert Hall will have to comply with policy as set down by the Minister but I want it to be independent in its artistic programming. I am happy that we still have sufficient control which is my reason for not accepting the Deputy's amendment.
I agree that there cannot be a situation where Ministers are interfering in the artistic or cultural role of any of these institutions. That is not what I am talking about. In fact, if the Minister was proposing that level of interference, I would be on my feet, criticising and opposing it. I am talking here about balance and specifically about the strategy statement. I am not saying that the Minister should interfere in the compilation of a strategy statement but that she, as a Minister accountable to this House, should be able to do a little bit more than simply receive the strategy statement and lay it before the Oireachtas. The Minister should not be powerless to even comment on such a statement. One assumes and hopes that there will never be a conflict between one cultural institution and another or between the board of the National Concert Hall and the policy of the Government of the day. However, the idea that a Minister would totally surrender his or her oversight role is going from one extreme to the other, from the vigorous pursuit of an arm's length policy, which we saw before, to a point where the whole idea of oversight is to be abandoned entirely.
I direct the Deputy to section 16, which deals with the statement of strategy and which says that the National Concert Hall "shall prepare and present to the Minister, in such format as shall be approved by the Minister, a statement of strategy." Perhaps that particular phrase will alleviate the Deputy's concerns somewhat.
The Minister of the day should have a good working relationship with the various national cultural institutions. Contact and discussions are ongoing and I do not expect a situation to arise where there would not have been some discussion and agreement on the strategy statement. I am also very conscious that the statement of strategy mainly relates to artistic matters and programming. In that context, I want to respect the independence of the National Concert Hall. The National Concert Hall obtains approximately 40% of its funding from the Government and the point has been made to me very strongly that it wants to maintain its independence. It is for that reason that I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 10, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
“(3) The Minister may, having regard to the policy of the Government and alignment with the strategies as approved by the Minister of other national cultural institutions, accept without revision or make revision to the National Concert Hall statement of strategy received under subsection (1).
(4) Where the Minister proposes to make revisions under subsection (3) to a statement of strategy he or she will consult with the Board before so doing.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 form a composite proposal and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 10, line 37, to delete “3 months” and substitute “6 months”.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 5 and 6 is to deal with a potential timing issue that exists between the time limit for the submission of the annual report in section 17 and that for the preparation of the annual accounts in section 26. The amendments will amend section 17(1) to delete the three-month period and replace it with a six-month period. That will align it more closely to section 26. The aim is to bring the annual report and the annual accounts into the same time limit period.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 10, line 38 and in page 11, line 1, to delete all words from and including “or” in line 38 down to and including in page 11 “permits” in line 1.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 12, after line 41, to insert the following:
“(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) the Minister may, with the agreement of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, delegate authority to the Board in respect of such and so many persons to be members of the staff of the National Concert Hall and the grading of such staff, having regard to the financial resources available to the National Concert Hall.”.
This amendment seeks to insert a new subsection (2) in section 19. The basis for this amendment is that the Bill, as currently drafted, is modelled on the strict staffing controls exercised by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on Civil Service staff numbers and grading. This is inappropriate and fundamentally deficient in the case of a State body which earns the vast bulk of its income from commercial activity - selling concert tickets and hiring out its premises. It is my understanding that up to 75% of the National Concert Hall's income comes from trading activity and it is a dangerous noose around the organisation's neck to tie it so closely to the practices and controls of bodies that are wholly funded by the State. The amendment I have proposed would enable the Minister, having due regard to the financial position of the National Concert Hall, to confer delegated authority on the board to manage its staffing affairs. This is not a carte blanche but a balanced proposal which retains appropriate ministerial oversight while enabling the board to staff the concert hall, having regard to its financial capabilities and trading needs.
This goes to the nub of the earlier conversations in which we engaged. The Minister says that she wants to empower, enable and facilitate the concert hall and its board to get on and do its business and I say that is a good idea. However, in terms of its staffing, the legislation as drafted does not appear to allow it to do that. I say that we need to have ministerial oversight but the Minister was not too enthusiastic about that a few minutes ago. I am now saying that we should empower the board to recruit the staff that the organisation needs and to appoint them at the grades it deems appropriate in order that the concert hall can function and be as commercially viable as possible. We should do that with the prudent degree of ministerial oversight that my amendment envisages.
The Minister has not accepted any of my amendments thus far. Indeed, one wonders what is the point of tabling amendments to any legislation if none of them are ever going to be accepted. I would argue that this particular proposal has merit and that the Minister should consider it and take it on board.
I have listened to the Deputy's concerns on this issue but I believe his amendment is unnecessary. This section is a standard one which reflects the approach across the public service. Following the ending of the public service moratorium on recruitment, staffing matters at the National Concert Hall can now be dealt with between it and the Department under a new delegated sanction arrangement.
This provides sufficient flexibility for the concert hall in regard to staffing. The subsection does not require amendment because it is a standard provision that applies to all public servants, and public servants make up the majority of staff at the National Concert Hall. The Department can deal with staffing issues at the National Concert Hall without interference from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
The strategy statement relates primarily to artistic programming and, as I made clear, I intend to allow the National Concert Hall to operate independently in that area. Funding for staffing and so forth is provided in line with public service staff agreements. If the board wishes, it may hire temporary or casual staff, which may be appropriate for the staging of events. It may also determine the level of payment for such casual staff, as they are not public servants. While I cannot accept the amendment, it should be noted that we were able to reach a compromise on a previous amendment tabled by the Deputy.
Deputy Ó Fearghaíl has two minutes to respond.
I would waste the time of the House if I were to speak for two minutes, as it is clear the Minister will not accept the amendment.
This is a missed opportunity. It is not acceptable for the Minister to argue that the National Concert Hall will be able to recruit a few casual staff to deal with circumstances as they arise, nor is it good enough that the dead hand of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will continue to be held over the NCH. There is a dynamism and phenomenal reservoir of ability available on Earlsfort Terrace and we should empower the National Concert Hall to do its business and develop. The legislation does not enable it to do so.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 21, after line 15, to insert the following:
"PART 7
MISCELLANEOUS
Change of name of Bord Scannán na hÉireann to Fís Éireann
39. (1) The name of the body (established by section 3 of the Irish Film Board Act 1980) the present name of which is, in the Irish language, Bord Scannán na hÉireann and in the English language, the Irish Film Board shall, on and from such day as the Minister appoints by order, be known, in the Irish language as Fís Éireann, or in the English language, as Screen Ireland.
(2) References in any enactment, statutory instrument, legal proceedings or any other document to Bord Scannán na hÉireann or the Irish Film Board shall, on and from the day appointed under subsection (1), be construed as references to Fís Éireann or Screen Ireland, as may be appropriate.".
Amendment put and declared carried.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.
Sitting suspended at 11.30 a.m. and resumed at 11.40 a.m.