I propose to take the items on the agenda as they are listed unless any of the members wish to make a change. The first item is Commuity action in the cultural sector. Senator Mulcahy is Chairman of this Sub-Committee and I call on him to introduce this item.
Community Action in the Cultural Sector.
The members of the Joint Committee have had a copy of the draft report and can see that it covers a wide range of services and products. The cultural sector has a rather unusual title. It arises from the fact that a resolution was passed unanimously by the European Parliament in May 1974 calling on the Commission to put forward proposals. I would like to draw the attention of the Joint Committee to the fact that the Tindemans Report puts stress on culture as a means of arousing a greater feeling of belonging and solidarity among Europeans. We would all go along with that. This is something which a small country, regardless of its size and physical resources, can contribute to. In order to get the definition right the cultural sector is defined at the bottom of the first page as:
the socio-economic 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 also persons engaged in cultural activities, such as dancers and musicians. We are covering a wide range of products. The Treaty provisions cover this and they are seen as normal products in terms of freedom of movement and there is a provision covering national treasures.
The areas covered by the guidelines come under a number of headings. The best way is to take each area and then outline the Committee's views. As far as the Commission is concerned it has restricted itself so far in the cultural field to formulating ideas and carrying out a few pilot studies. If the guidelines which it proposes are approved by the Council then the various Community instruments envisaged in the Communication will be submitted to the Council as formal proposals. The issues raised here could give rise to action under a variety of headings as far as legislation is concerned. The headings we will look at are summarised on page three as: freedom of trade in cultural goods, combating thefts of cultural goods, freedom of movement and right of establishment for cultural workers, harmonisation of taxation, and so forth. There is harmonisation of laws on copyright and related rights and there is also a breakdown of where that applies as follows:
(i) the harmonisation 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.
The public lending right system is not applied in Ireland. There are also measures to improve the remuneration of authors, performers, play-wrights, composers, literary translators, sculptors, and painters and measures to encourage the work of craftsmen as well. That, obviously, has tremendous implications for us. We then have the social aspects, which are concerned with the adaptation of existing social security systems to the particular situation of cultural workers in paid employment.
Part II of the Communication goes into other possibilities of co-operation among Member States such as the preservation of the architectural heritage by promoting specialist training for restorers.
Other things are, the organisation of "European Rooms" in museums, exchanges between museums and so on. There is also the advocation of co-operation between the cultural institutes of Member States and the promotion of socio-cultural activities, which we are happy about.
As I have said, the first item in the Communication relates to freedom of trade in cultural goods. The Commission wishes to see the practice of exempting creative artists in the plastic arts from formalities when transporting their own works, generally applied and legalised. The Committee's view is that the reduction of administrative formalities in intra-Community trade to a minimum is an essential process in the development of the Common Market. We are advised that the simplification of procedures in connection with the movement of cultural goods across internal frontiers has particular relevance for Irish artists because an increasing amount of cultural activity here is organised on a 32-county basis. It was represented to the Committee that there is an urgent need for the simplification of procedures for the temporary import and export of cultural goods between the State and Northern Ireland. The Committee, therefore, believe that initiatives in this area are to be welcomed. Obviously, we are in support of any moves towards simplification of these procedures.
The next item relates to combating theft and fraud. The Commission suggest a number of possible measures to deal with that, one of which is the introduction of a voluntary record card system which would enable an owner in the event of theft to make the card available to the customs authorities and to the police. The Committee's view is that as far as harmonisation of law is concerned it is difficult to conceive what useful harmonisation the Community can undertake in this area. Quite apart from the considerable differences that exist between the laws of Member States, the question raises issues of property and general principles of criminal law. The Committee believe that so far as Ireland is concerned the matter is solely for the Oireachtas and they do not see how they have anything useful other than comment to contribute, at this time.
The proposed record card system would be useful in preventing fakes and assisting in tracing stolen works of art. We are informed that neither the establishment of the record card system nor of a national service as envisaged by the UNESCO Convention would present problems in Ireland, so we would go along with the card system.
The next heading is freedom of movement and establishment. This has extra-ordinary implications for the employed workforce in the EEC and it draws up the whole development of SEDOC which is about the freedom of movement of workers to various countries. SEDOC defines the rights of the host country in relation to workers, and covers sectors such as manufacturing, agriculture, construction, catering and so on. The Commission suggest that this system could be used in the cultural sector but recognises that this may present difficulties where personal rather than technical qualifications are involved. How does one decide on criteria for a personal as opposed to a technical qualification?
In this context the Commission mention training for young cultural workers. For obvious reasons the Committee gave quite some time to this aspect. Young cultural workers will be given an opportunity of undergoing training in Community countries other than their own, and we hope that our interests will be well covered now. The Joint Committee therefore has no objection to the extension of SEDOC but we would like to see it getting under way before it might be complicated by matters affecting the cultural area. We assume that Member States will be consulted in due course.
We welcome the proposal to give young cultural workers the opportunity of undergoing training in other Member States. The Committee are advised that Ireland is very badly served in respect of specialised training and education in particular areas of the arts. Dancing, choreography, acting, theatre-directing and film-making have been mentioned to the Committee as examples where few or no opportunities exist for training or education here. It is desirable that young workers be given an opportunity of serving apprenticeships with artists working in the plastic arts in other Member States. It would be of great value to a young Irish artist to work under the umbrella of a Leonardo da Vinci.
One of the pilot schemes which the Commission will be undertaking in connection with the proposed second programme will be in the cultural sector. The Committee trust that Irish workers will be given an opportunity of participating in this scheme.
The next area is harmonisation of taxation, which is very important. The Commission considered giving favourable treatment to foundations supporting cultural activities and they sent a memorandum to the Standing Committee of the Heads of National Revenue Departments on the elimination of tax barriers to the development of cultural foundations.
The next item relates to uniform VAT charges. There are suggestions about dealers' profit margins being the basis of assessment rather than the selling price. The report then goes on to talk about the taxation of cultural workers. The Commission suggest that in the taxation of cultural workers account should be taken of the irregularity of earnings. I am sure we would accommodate ourselves to that here. One day people may be making a lot of money because things are going well but the next day they might be out of work. We considered that taxable earnings should be spread so that the high earnings in an exceptional year are spread over a number of years.
The position in Ireland is summarised in the report. I should like to draw the attention of Members to the fact that exemption is given in respect of any profits arising, for instance, to an agricultural society from an exhibition. Various exemptions are already in operation here. There is provision in section 2 of the Finance Act, 1969, for relief from income tax in respect of certain earnings from original and creative works of writers, composers, painters and sculptors. To qualify one must be resident in the State. That scheme is well known. For the information of Members, and the convenience of others, paragraph 27 of the Report spells out how that scheme works and how the Revenue Commissioners determine claims by individuals. A "work" in this area refers to an original and creative work, a book or other writing, a play, a musical composition, a painting or other like picture or a sculpture. It does not refer to interpretative art.
The view of the sub-committee was that here the arts are funded mostly by the State. Foundations of the kind referred to by the Commission are almost non-existent and business sponsorship of the arts is negligible. This is something that the Joint Committee should draw the attention of business concerns to because we seem to be out of step with Europe in that regard. We believe that the extent to which the taxation system inhibits sponsorship of the arts merits serious consideration and would welcome particularly the suggestion that for the purpose of tax concessions the whole Community be treated as a single fiscal area. We propose to submit a separate report on the proposed Seventh Directive already referred to and two points not covered by that report have been brought to our attention by the Arts Council.
The Arts Council also believes that VAT should not be charged on individual sales of original works of art by artists or their agents. Instead the Council considers that the basis of assessment should be the agents' total profits and that the artist should be exempt. The Council also suggests that the casting of sculpture should be exempt from VAT and we recommend that these suggestions be sympathetically considered.
As far as taxation of workers is concerned, creative artists working in Ireland already enjoy concessions in advance of what is available in many other countries. Interpretive artists do not enjoy these concessions and we recommend that the Joint Committee support the proposal that the tax liability be spread.
The report deals next with copyright, related rights and the harmonisation of laws. It spells out the position as far as the Commission is concerned. There are problems about copyright. The report also summarises what the position is in relation to Irish law and states that our laws concerned with copyright and related rights are the Copyright Act, 1963, and the Performers' Protection Act, 1968. It was our opinion that the laws in question do not cover the manner in which copyright or related fees were to be collected and distributed. The laws are very general. In regard to non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality, it should be noted that the laws in question are drafted so as to follow the principles of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic works, the Universal Copyright Convention and the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations. Ireland has ratified the first two of these conventions, and has signed, but not yet ratified, the third. The practice is that conventions are signed first and then ratified by national legislation. Obviously, that affects us in relation to such things as cable television and so on. The granting of "national" treatment to nationals of other contracting states is a feature of these Treaties, and, accordingly, in principle, cultural workers from Community countries working in Ireland are not subject to any discrimination. The public lending rights system is not applied in Ireland.
It can be said that if Community legislation following the guidelines set out in the Commission's Communication emerges, a major overhaul of Irish laws in this area will be required. The Sub-Committee understand that the question of bringing Irish copyright law more into line with European norms is already under consideration. It is informed, also, that the Arts Council are preparing proposals to cover re-sale rights in the visual arts. We are in favour, in principle, of measures to ensure that creative artists and craftsmen receive adequate remuneration. In so far as the harmonisation of the laws concerning copyright and other rights are concerned we encourage the Commission to proceed with the work of harmonisation, formidable though the task may be. In the meantime we urge that the proposals under consideration for amending Irish legislation should be processed with all possible speed.
We considered the social security aspect also. Notwithstanding the material success of some individuals, the highest proportion of underprivileged, according to the Commission, is to be found in the category of workers constituted by cultural workers. That was a matter of great concern to us. It was suggested, however, that something immediate could be done in the matter of social security, an area in which we believe cultural workers are still often badly treated.
The Commission advocates the adoption of measures to increase the cover available to cultural workers against social risks. It was pointed out that this was one of the difficulties. The need to do so arises because many cultural workers are employed by more than one employer. Paragraph 38 of the report deals with the position in Ireland and I am sure most members are aware of our situation. As we point out in paragraph 39, self-employed cultural workers are eligible for certain cover but they are not covered for sickness, invalidity and old age insurance unless they were previously so covered as employees for at least three years. The State system of social assistance, however, provides protection for those not covered or inadequately covered by social insurance. Some of the benefits available under this system are unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans' pensions and old age pensions, which are administered by the Department of Social Welfare.
Self-employed workers are not as yet covered by the social insurance system but the question of providing social insurance cover for them is at present under consideration and a discussion paper on the matter was recently published. In the meantime self-employed cultural workers may qualify under the social assistance system. The Sub-Committee understand that the Arts Council are at present considering proposals relating to a pensions' scheme for artists, which we welcomed.
It was not clear to us what precisely the Commission has in mind nor what impact the measures it envisages would have on a unified system of social security such as applied in Ireland. We propose, therefore, to reserve comment until precise proposals for Community legislation emerge. In an earlier report the Joint Committee indicated their views on the proposed Council regulations relating to the application of social insurance schemes.
I should now like to deal with our comments on other matters such as the preservation of the architectural heritage. The Commission referred to the contribution made by the Community to the preservation of the architectural heritage by promoting training for restorers and aiding the development of new conservation measures. We give details of scholarships and of a new technique where nuclear irradiation is used to change the make-up of certain matter. The Commission also referred to cultural exchanges and concluded that the Community could contribute to their development only indirectly. Community patronage has been provided for a Community Youth Orchestra which is to perform in all the nine capital cities. We hope to see our Taoiseach, or ex-Taoiseach, conducting that orchestra some day. The Commission also believes that the Community could assist in the evaluation of more noteworthy cultural events. It suggested the idea of "European rooms" in museums with which I dealt earlier. I had an opportunity recently to go to a joint meeting in Haslett in a Flemish area in Belgium and I spent a day talking to people and viewing their folk villages. I see in that a tremendous opportunity for this kind of interchange.
Then the Communication mentions co-operation between cultural institutes—obviously that is important—and the promotion of social and cultural activities which could cover areas such as those of more co-operation between the mass media and in sport, and it mentions that the Community should commit itself to combating sporting jingoism. That is something that rang a bell for us in the Sub-Committee.
Our views were that while accepting that many of the suggestions made by the Commission are to be recommended, we share with the Arts Council their disappointment that the Commission does not see the Community adopting and promoting a precise programme of cultural exchanges. This should be spelled out; it is too general.
In the Sub-Committee's view harmonisation of law in the cultural sector would be facilitated and made more acceptable if associated with such a programme designed to disseminate among people a knowledge and appreciation of the various cultures within the Community. We can all appreciate here that the fact that Ireland had such an influence in Europe in the past, both in terms of language and education, means there is something here for the Irish group to support and become really active in.
There are a few specific initiatives in the field of cultural exchange which the Sub-Committee felt merited Community support. The national theatres of Member States could engage in an apprenticeship exchange scheme for young members of theatre companies in areas like acting, directing and stage work. Given that we are so active in these areas obviously this is a very important item. This would yield a lasting benefit in terms of increased cultural understanding.
Consideration could be given also to the establishment of a European theatre festival to be held in different venues every couple of years and supported by the Community. The Sub-Committee make these suggestions because Ireland has the longest—it says "largest" in the report—established national theatre of the EEC. This is one area which we see as providing an opportunity for cultural exchange in which we could participate fully.
The sub-committee were surprised to learn from the Arts Council that they were not aware of the scholarships open to architects, engineers, town planners and craftsmen to which the Commission refer. We trust that the Government Departments concerned will look into the matter and ensure that their existence is well and fully publicised and promoted.
I am sorry my summary has taken so long but it is a fairly long report, covers a lot of issues and could not have been summarised in a few casual words.
I thank Senator Mulcahy for a very comprehensive run-down on the contents of the report.
There are a couple of amendments to this report. Before we begin to deal with the amendments would anybody else like to comment on the contents of the report?
Might I ask Senator Mulcahy how the voluntary record card system referred to in paragraph 12 would operate; what would be the practical implications of such a suggestion?
It would mean that a particular good could not move unless accompanied by its card. It would be like the registration of a motor vehicle—that the card would have to go with it—that type of thing. At least I should say that is the way the Sub-Committee interpreted it.
There is reference in the report to harmonisation of laws in regard to disposal of stolen goods. I do not know whether Senator Mulcahy is familiar with the laws in any other country, but I presume that, in any country, it is a criminal offence to receive stolen goods. Is the Senator aware of any other laws that exist in other countries preventing easy disposal of stolen goods?
What happened in the sub-committee was that we felt that because we were getting into the criminal area it was a matter for another arena and that we were not really in a position to work that one out.
It is an excellent report and the Commission's proposals are good and useful. But I am disappointed that there is not some proposal for a general programme of education to endeavour to encourage an awareness amongst the population generally of the value of much of our heritage. I assume it comes within the ambit of the report.
In my part of the country concern has been expressed recently about the involuntary or sub-conscious destruction of ancient field monuments through, for example, land reclamation work carried out by farmers. Unfortunately, there is some evidence to suggest that it is being done with the knowledge of reclamation inspectors, that there are Department agencies involved in this. We have had the Wood Quay issue, which is something I do not want to go into here, but throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, there are many of these ancient field monuments, some of them not of any great significance but others that are. Again, unfortunately not all of them are documented by the Office of Public Works. I am disappointed there is not some proposal to acquaint people, particularly young people, with the value of these monuments to ensure that they will not be destroyed by reclamation work or whatever in the future; also to encourage people to go out and find out a little more about them and what they mean.
That is a matter for our Government and our approach to that with regard to procedures rather than to the EEC. If I might make a personal comment, I agree with Senator Molony that every attempt should be made to publicise their existence, to write them up and have them become part of this cultural exchange which the Commission Communication highlights.
I mentioned it only in the context of the EEC because of the proposals that are there for EEC subsidies or financial assistance or support for such a variety of things. It is something that must apply in all European countries and which has been overlooked here in the past.
I should like to follow that with a general comment. I can see the difficulty in compiling a report on Community action in the cultural sector. It is a very comprehensive report and a lot of work has has gone into it by Senator Mulcahy and his Sub-Committee. But I do not think we can dissociate ourselves from our attitudes to preserving our cultural heritage. Therefore, I think the Wood Quay issue is relevant.
I did not suggest it was not relevant. I did not want to get involved on it here.
That is an issue on which the Government appear to be prepared to consent to the destruction of a national monument. How can we build up standards of perception of the importance of other monuments and parts of our cultural heritage around the country unless we set a primary standard?
I can think of one example—again not to harp too much on Tipperary—but Holy Cross Abbey in Tipperary was, through local effort, restored. Indeed, it was made a feature of European Heritage Year. The fact that it received such international or European recognition certainly helped a lot. Obviously it has been a tourist attraction and has been of local financial benefit in that sense.
I agree with Senator Robinson that some effort should be made by us, through the EEC, because we seem to have failed in our national Parliament to be of assistance to our heritage in that sense. When the Commission are showing such interest in it it is something we should try to push to our advantage.
Before Senator Mulcahy comes in, might I end my contribution with a question to the Senator? Did the Sub-Committee who were considering this very broad area consider the possibility of having this report debated in either House? It seems to me to cover a very significant amount of ground, is of very real importance and is the kind of issue that does not come up very often in the present ways of having matters debated on a Bill or motion in either House. I wondered if this possibility had been discussed by the Sub-Committee. There is no specific inclusion of a call for a debate in the report so, as I understand it, it will not be debated in either House unless such a paragraph were to be included.
Might I put a question to the Senator? Before doing so I want to make it very clear that I do not feel any form of grudgery towards people who are tax-free—I wish them the best of luck; more power to them——
I wish we all were.
Yes, indeed. On page 11 of the report there is a paragraph devoted to the taxation of cultural workers. Could Senator Mulcahy give us a brief definition of "cultural worker"? Would that be a writer, dancer, singer, musician or who would be covered? Can Senator Mulcahy give the Joint Committee any idea of the level of income of some cultural workers, as we know them, now enjoying tax-free facilities? My information is that some of them are earning up to £4,000 per week and enjoying tax-free facilities. I am not opposed to it. Good luck to them if they can get away with it. Could Senator Mulcahy indicate what a cultural worker is? Has any research been done into the present income of those cultural workers?
I have not and the Sub-Committee did not. The definition of a cultural worker is brought out in paragraph 27 in terms of the product. The product defines the accepted cultural worker for the purpose of the tax concession. We did not go into that. This is a personal comment. I imagine that the spirit of the provision is to try to so arrange it that we can have in Ireland people at the top level in their field of cultural activity and, in order to do that, we give them some incentive and this is the incentive. I would let Leonardo da Vinci make a few million a year and I would do nothing about it. It would be enough just to have him in Ireland rubbing shoulders with other cultural workers who are developing in Ireland.
I would like to refer to Senator Robinson's appeal to have this matter raised in either House of the Oireachtas. This is not contained in the draft report. The report was circulated and people were given sufficient time to send in amendments. Unfortunately we cannot accept amendments at our meeting now.
Did the Sub-Committee consider this?
We did not.
Is it a specific amendment or is it adding a specific point? If I may be legalistic, I think it would be more a procedural point as to what we do with this report. It seems to me that it covers a very broad range of issues in the cultural sector which are significant in the European Community dimension, which I think is of less importance, and are certainly significant in the Irish dimension. We cannot debate them here because we are a committee on EEC legislation but they should be given an airing on the floor of either or both Houses of the Oireachtas where people could go more broadly into the position in Ireland.
When it comes to the legal aspects of our work I have, of course, to give way to Senator Robinson. It was Senator Robinson who said that such a mention would have to be made in the report before this could be raised. It is not contained in the report and we have passed the date for accepting amendments of any kind. It does seem to tie us up a bit if we have to have in the draft report mention of our intention to raise it in the Houses of the Oireachtas, before deciding on the issue when we meet as a Joint Committee like this.
I gathered from our agreement on this before that you, as Chairman, have the right to accept an amendment on the point if you want to. In the Sub-Committee we were so busy getting through the various documents that we did not take up that point. There was also a feeling that if every report that comes forward had this recommendation in it we might mess up the coinage. The view of the full Committee should be taken on something like that. Every Sub-Committee would love to see their baby getting a further airing. It is a good thing for the Joint Committee to take a view on this because there might be other reports which might merit getting into the queue.
There is one from the Social Affairs Sub-Committee which calls for a debate on the teaching of languages in schools. We have called for a debate in the text.
Does it start to overload us if be bring this one on cultural matters up as well?
In this particular case, since the Sub-Committee studied this question, the Arts Council brought out their annual report and a very depressing picture emerged of the way we support the Arts. That changes the picture from what it was when we were discussing this report. I would like to have this issue considered by the Joint Committee.
In relation to what Senator Hussey has said about the Arts Council, it has been made very clear by the Chairman of the Arts Council, Mr. Pat Rock, that they could not plan ahead because of lack of money, that the Department of Finance did not provide sufficient money to permit the Arts Council to explore other fields and extend their activities. In case a false impression is given of the report which Senator Hussey considers to be rather depressing, I consider that outstanding progress has been made by the Arts Council in comparison with the progress that was made in the past. They have done a very good job. I was encouraged by the report which mentioned future activities. I hope that more money will be provided for the Arts Council to extend their activities.
There is an important issue which was raised by Senator Mulcahy which has been glossed over. He suggested that it be left to the full Joint Committee to decide. I appreciate that many people have put a lot of hard work into those reports but Members, depending on how busy they are at any particular time, find it very difficult to read all the reports before they come to a meeting. It is only at a full meeting of the Committee that we can appreciate the immediate importance of a report. I do not know if Senator Mulcahy is making a formal proposal. If he is not I formally propose that the question of whether we propose that a report be discussed in either House of the Oireachtas be left to a plenary session of the Committee so that we can consider those various reports and we can decide which is the most worthwhile one to bring forward.
I support that.
That is my suggestion.
I agree with that view. It is not fair to the majority membership of the Joint Committee to have to have this recommendation incorporated in a draft report before a decision can be taken on whether we will seek to raise it in the Houses of the Oireachtas. If Members feel that a decision should now be taken in regard to this report I will accept that. If it is decided to look for a debate arrangements will have to be made for people to raise this matter in the Houses and speak to it when it is raised. It is Senators who have expressed the greatest interest in this. Is there a similar feeling about raising this matter in the Dáil? If so, what would be the arrangement?
We can amend the report.
Have we decided to consider whether or not each report should be raised in the Houses or do we wait until all the reports have been considered before we decide which will be raised?
If we followed that procedure it would mean that certain Members would have left by then. It is not easy to do that. We should look at each of the reports and make up our minds at each stage. We would have to amend the reports and incorporate this decision in them. That is a procedural requirement, as has been pointed out. We would have to incorporate that in this report before it would be accepted.
What are our terms of reference and to whom are we ultimately responsible? Is it to the Dáil?
The Dáil and Seanad.
Then it should be left to the Joint Committee to decide which documents should be discussed in the Dáil and Seanad.
That seems to be the general view.
I compliment Senator Mulcahy on the manner in which he has presented this report. I appreciate the amount of hard work and research that Senator Mulcahy and the Sub-Committee put into this.
In relation to taxation of cultural workers, the position in Ireland is that the income tax law provides for exemption from income tax in the case of certain bodies which could be described as promoting cultural activities. Despite the fact that they enjoy the exemption provided for in the laws, are they bound to submit any returns of their income, or are they also exempt from having to do that?
I do not know. As I interpret it, the Revenue Commissioners take account of propositions that come from these people about their work. I assume that, if they are resident here, they would have to make returns in the normal way.
We have spent as much time as we can on this report. We have two amendments here to deal with before we finish, but before we leave the matter of raising it in the Houses of the Oireachtas, we would have to have a specific undertaking from both Senators and Deputies to raise this, and an undertaking as to who would raise it and who would speak to it. Otherwise having sought to raise it, it would go by default.
I agree, but first of all we should have the formal amendment that, "In view of the importance of Community action in the cultural sector, the Joint Committee request a debate to take place on this report." We can decide either in the Dáil or in the Seanad or in both Houses that we should have a formal proposal to that extent. I have no doubt, as the Chairman said, that there would be a very full and interesting debate on it in the Seanad. The Chairman of the Sub-Committee, being a Member of that House, I am sure would move it in the Seanad, if called upon. We have not as yet had one of our reports debated in the Dáil because they have only just adopted a procedural order covering such debates.
I take it that it is accepted that we have arrangements made now that it will be raised in the Seanad?
It is a good idea to debate this report but are we satisfied that this report should take precedence over other reports? It is important that we clarify this. Deputy O'Keeffe made the point in relation to a procedural matter that we could decide at the end of each Committee meeting, having considered reports, if there is a recommendation that any report should be discussed in the Houses, that that report is to be discussed. It could be dangerous just to pick the first report we meet and say "That should be discussed".
I have a lot of sympathy with that. I suggest that we review the reports that have been agreed at the opening of each Committee meeting and decide which ones, if any, we would request for debate. That means that every Member would be present. Generally we would have a good attendance and people would have had a chance to think it over and discuss it.
That means that we would be dealing with reports one month behind. Is that agreed?
Yes, but the Order of Business in the Seanad at the moment is not that heavy, and there may be time to take a report like this. We should not pre-empt a decision.
The other possibility is that at the end of consideration of each report we could decide whether it should be put on a list for debate. All that would be left then for the end of the meeting would be to establish the priorities.
There is a flaw in this proposal as well because we have to incorporate in the actual report whether we are or are not going to request a debate on it. I can see the sense of leaving priorities to the end of the meeting but I am afraid that the meeting will be very depleted by that time, and the decision would be made by a very small number of people.
To be practical, we must take the decisions as we go along.
Yes, I think so.
Will we make arrangements to have this raised in the Seanad? I assume Senator Mulcahy will move it, and it will be discussed there.
I will move it.
Is anybody prepared to give a similar undertaking with regard to the Dáil? Or is anybody similarly concerned?
I am.
The Deputy will raise it in the Dáil. We will incorporate that decision in this report.
Paragraphs 1 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
I would now ask Deputy Quinn to move his amendments.
I move:
Before paragraph 48 to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
Community patronage has already been provided for a Community Youth Orchestra. In the Joint Committee's view this patronage should be extended to the theatre and the visual arts. The Joint Committee welcomes the suggestion that the National Museums of the Member States should establish "European Rooms". In this context, the Joint Committee suggests that Member States should facilitate each other in the return or exchange of historical objects that are central to their cultural and artistic history.
This and my other amendment could more accurately be described as addenda rather than amendments because they do not seek to change the text of the report in any way. The first amendment is to give some teeth to the idea of a commitment towards European culture and the idea of "European Room". The words were chosen reasonably carefully. The Sub-Committee suggest that Member States should facilitate each other in the return or exchange of historical objects that are central to their culture and artistic history. Within the Community of the nine and more specifically within the proposed enlarged Community of the 12 there are certain historical objects which are central to the cultural history of those states. If we are going to talk about a European culture we should take this opportunity to facilitate the exchange, return, loan or whatever final formula is arrived at.
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph 49 agreed to.
The second amendment is more specific and is self-explanatory. It does not need to be elaborated upon. I move:
Before paragraph 50 to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
The Joint Committee feels that measures should be introduced, with Community assistance, to ensure that new buildings normally used by the public make provision for the public display of works of art, such as sculpture, paintings, murals. A percentage of the construction cost, ranging from 1 to 3 per cent, should be provided for this measure and the cost should be tax deductible.
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph 51 agreed to.
I move:
After paragraph 51 to insert a new paragraph as follows:
In view of the importance of Community Action in the Cultural Sector the Joint Committee requests that a debate take place on this Report in each House. In this connection the Joint Committee refers to the Orders of Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann of 3rd May, 1978 and 11th October, 1978 respectively.
Amendment agreed to.
Draft Report, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered: To report accordingly.