I find myself in the position of only being able to give a most qualified and indeed watery welcome to this Arts Bill. It is the Arts Bill, 1973. If we pass it, it becomes the Arts Act, 1973. It amends, and is read together with, the Arts Act, 1951. Are we in a cyclical development, so that the next Arts Bill will be in 1995? If so, then I think I cannot really welcome this Bill at all except in so far as it gives an opportunity in both Houses to talk about the Arts. We must talk about the Arts not as something separate from ourselves but as an integral part of our lives, something which concerns us and not something which concerns a remote and rather strange section of our population who dapple in the Arts or try to make a living out of them.
I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach himself chooses to steer this Bill through the House. It is very gratifying that he could have decided to appear regularly in the House and as an independent Member may I say his presence is much appreciated by the Members of the House.
However, I quote from his Second Reading speech:
The Bill provides for membership up to a maximum of 17, including the Chairman. By increasing the membership it is hoped to provide for a greater representation of the various branches of the arts and more equitable geographical representation.
It is on this point that I would express my most fundamental criticism of the Arts Bill. I would have a completely different concept of representation. I believe that representation is essential in a democratic state but that such representation must be achieved in a democratic way, through structures that reflect the views of people working in a particular area. with knowledge of that area. We cannot really use a word like "representation" when what we really mean is that the Taoiseach will look into his heart and nominate 16 persons.
I know that the Taoiseach has said during the debate on this Bill in the other House that he would invite representations from various bodies and I am aware from my own knowledge that these representations have been made. They have been made by bodies such as the Institute of Architects, the Federation of Musicians and associated professions, and, I would hope, other groups representing artists in the various branches of the Arts. I do not dispute the Taoiseach's goodwill in trying to come up with an Arts Council of 16 members, plus a chairman, which would be, in his personal view, representative.
This is a very thin concept of representation. I believe it is not adequate for the society which we are trying to create in this State. We call ourselves a democratic State, we talk about the increased need for participation by the people, yet we are in the process of passing a Bill which has no representative structure in it, under which sole power of nomination lies in the hands of the Taoiseach and which ultimately depends on the goodwill of the Taoiseach for the time being in giving representation to the different branches of the Arts with regional balance. There is no check on this. There is no comeback on it. There is no way of disputing it. The Members of this House or the other House cannot comment on it. The people who are so-called representatives have no way of influencing the situation bar sending a letter to the Taoiseach saying: "We hope that you will take our views into consideration". That is merely a veneer of representation, inadequate for a democratic state and it is, I think, a fundamental weakness in the present Bill. It is one which I take so seriously that I cannot share Senator Eoin Ryan's attitude in putting forward his own criticism that it is too late now. I do not think that one can take this attitude. It may be, in one sense, too late radically to change the structure of the Arts Council in this Bill but it is certainly not too late to try.
This House can consider amendments to the Bill, and I certainly propose to put forward amendments which will try to illustrate how a representative structure may be created and how we can have real representation and balance between the artistic forms in this country and also regional, and geographic balance, not because the Taoiseach will exercise his discretion in the matter, but because the structure itself is there; because there is a healthy reflection of it, because there is participation, because there is the need to have accountability back to the grass roots.
What we have at the moment and what we have had in the previous Arts Council is a hierarchical structure which is not responsive and which is not accountable. I regret very much that the opportunity has been lost to change the structure and I would hope, by introducing amendments at Committee Stage, to try to persuade the Members of the Seanad that it is important to create the representative structure in a real sense that we can look upon as constituting an appropriate and proper Arts Council. Again, the Taoiseach, in his Second Reading speech pointed out that:
It is over 20 years since the idea of an Arts Council was launched in this country and it is right that after such an interval we should reappraise the structure of that body.
I would submit that we must go much further than reappraising the structure, particularly when this reappraisal of the structure has resulted in the substitution of such a poor alternative structure. We must look at much more than the structure of the Arts Council. We must look at art in Ireland, the role of the Arts Council in Ireland, the way in which they have either tried to achieve or failed to achieve the various objectives in the parent Act setting up the Arts Council. Here, one must refer back to the provisions of the Arts Act, 1951, to see what were the functions of the Arts Council, which are set out in section 3 of that Act. We have made no attempt in this Bill to enlarge on these functions or to create new facilities or a more dynamic and creative role for the Arts Council.
Section 3 provides for "the stimulation of public interest in the Arts". These are enabling functions. There is no duty on the Arts Council, except in rare circumstances. It would be appropriate to assess to what extent the Arts Council have done this. They have done it in relation to certain areas in a rather disjointed way. It often depends on the actual personal composition of the Arts Council. It depends on the people involved what emphasis has been put on a particular art form. Public interest in certain artists has certainly been promoted. One wonders to what extent there really has been a general stimulation of public interest in the Arts.
The second function of the Arts Council is "to promote the knowledge, appreciation and practice of the Arts,"—knowledge through education, appreciation through bringing the people to see and witness the various forms of art. What links have the Arts Council in an educational sense? What regional structures have they? To what extent are they actively performing this function in a way which makes us feel that they are discharging satisfactorily their role under this heading?
The third function is to "assist in improving the standard of the Arts". Again, in what way are they applying themselves in a specialist way to improving standards? They buy works of various artists. Do they, in general, lead to an improvement of the standard in Ireland in the various forms of art?
Fourthly, there is the function "to organise or assist in the organising of exhibitions, within or without the State, of works of art and artistic craftsmanship." I would maintain that they lack the basic facilities for this sort of activity in many ways. They lack the most basic of all facilities for anyone who wants to mount an exhibition, that is, an adequate van to transport the materials for the exhibition. This may sound to be a very simple matter, but one of the great costs for any artist who wants to mount an exhibition is the travel and transport costs involved. If the Arts Council had at their disposal a properly equipped van, then we might have a positive contribution to assisting exhibitions in this country, be they exhibitions of the Arts Council or exhibitions of individual artists with the practical assistance of the Arts Council.
Section 3(2) provides:
The Council shall advise the Government or a member of the Government on any matter (being a matter on which knowledge and experience of the arts has a bearing) on which their advice is requested.
They have a rather weak advisory role if their advice is requested. They have no statutory right to be consulted in legislation such as our planning legislation. They have no hard role here. It is merely a weak advisory role if anybody chooses to consult them.
Section 3(3) reads:
The Council may co-operate with and assist any other persons concerned directly or indirectly with matters relating to the arts, and the assistance may include payments by the Council upon such terms and conditions as they think fit.
This type of provision is so vague that I must pay tribute to the members of the Arts Council, who have so ably discharged this function under such vague terms of reference. There are no real criteria set out there. There is no need to project ahead, to plan and to show in what way they will spend the moneys allotted to them. In spite of the serious criticisms which I make of the structure and the functions of the Arts Council, I pay tribute to the personnel involved who have coped with this structure. It is not their fault that the Arts Council have not performed a better and more central role in discharging their functions.
Section 4, paragraph (a), allows the Government to enlarge on these functions.
The Government may from time to time by order confer or impose on the Council such additional functions as the Government think proper and specify in the order, and any order made under this paragraph may contain incidental and supplementary provisions as the Government think necessary or expedient for giving full effect to the order.
The excuse for not rethinking the functions and the role of the Arts Council could be that the Government can, from time to time, supplement these functions. Any order made in this way will come before the Houses of the Oireachtas, where it can be looked into. Firstly, this section has not been used as it might have been and, secondly, we have an Act of Parliament before us. It is better to have the substantive provisions in the parent Act, if this is possible, rather than as a matter of delegated legislation where there is no possibility to amend and where the wording is extremely vague.
Section 6 of the Arts Act—I am still talking about the Arts Act of 1951, because I want to emphasise that this Arts Bill of 1973 does not improve the radical defects in the 1951 Act, which had good qualities but after 20 years we have surely learned what the defects are and should have tried to improve them—relates to the accounts and the audit.
The Council shall keep accounts of their income and expenditure in such form as may be approved by the Minister for Finance.
There is no duty on them to prepare estimates. This is in sharp contrast to the position, for example, of the Northern Ireland Arts Council. They must prepare detailed estimates of their expenditure and are now preparing them on a quinquennial basis, planning ahead, projecting for the Arts for a period of five years and managing, in fact, to project that the expenditure in relation to particular art forms will have to be radically increased because of increased activity. From that one can assess the role of the Arts Council. One can also see a developing situation. There is a possibility of further public moneys being voted to specific projections and planning.
That is the approach on which we should insist in relation to the Arts Council and not this keeping of accounts "as the Minister for Finance approves" which results in very nominal accounts submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General. There is no effort here to use the accounting system for the purpose of planning and projection with estimates of future expenditure. Section 7 shows that the Annual Report, as far as the statute is concerned, can be, and is, minimal.
The Council shall present to the Government annually a report of their proceedings during the previous year, and a copy thereof shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
Other Senators and I tabled the reports of the Arts Council from year to year for the purpose of trying to have them debated. We have been less successful than we hoped but we have seen how minimal is the information contained in them, how very little explanation there is of the policy behind what the Arts Council are doing, of their terms of reference and of how they evaluate themselves.
We must do more than the Taoiseach suggested in his opening statement. We must look at more than the structure; we must look at the performance, in terms of the functions of the Arts Council over the last 20 years and we must analyse the various defects in the 1951 Act. We must then either have a substantial amending Arts Bill or, as Senator Ryan suggested, bring in a new Bill altogether. I may be optimistic in thinking that even at this stage one can bring in amendments, but I propose to change radically the structure of the present Arts Council, to insist on a better accounting system and to write in a structural representation which will make this a Bill adequate to last for the next 20 years, which will probably be the cycle before we have another Bill.
It is proposed in this Bill to change the membership of the Arts Council, to enlarge it and to have the 16 members appointed by the Taoiseach for a period of five years, which is renewable. Almost every writer on this proposed composition of the Arts Council—a number of Deputies and Senator Ryan have spoken on this— are critical of this five-year appointment with a possibility of renewal. This is not a good system for bringing in two useful values into an Arts Council—new blood and continuity. Here is an Arts Council which will last for five years and will probably be renewed in bulk. This is an unwieldy and unsatisfactory structure. It also leads to people having their terms on the Arts Council renewed regularly so that they become permanent members. This excludes the possibility of having new blood on the council. It would be much better to have staggered resignations from the council in order to have continuity and at the same time allow for new members. It would also be useful to have a break in service for people on the council. If they served a maximum of five years they should then have a year's break. There should be a staggered resignation every two or three years to ensure a changeover of membership.
A person should be off the Arts Council for one year before he offers himself for re-election. That would give an opportunity for a turnover for new blood. However, we have not got too much expertise and, therefore, we must not arbitrarily close out people who have a useful role to play. A one year gap—which is the practice in Northern Ireland—would be very useful.
A further weakness in the proposed Arts Council is that it is composed of 16 members, nominated by the Taoiseach, representing a balance in the Arts and a geographical balance. These part-time members of the Arts Council have not a specialist structure in which they can operate. Do they meet in an afternoon at 3 o'clock and for the first 20 minutes discuss music, for the second 20 minutes discuss visual arts and for the next 20 minutes another subject? How do they divide their time? Where is the possibility for them to form committees and delegate to these committees the real work to be done? That is the only way in which you can get true consideration of the different art forms and a true balance in representation of the Arts.
I submit that unless there is a composition of the Arts Council which allows for specialist committees of this nature these specialist committees should be written into the structure of the Arts Council and not in an enabling provision which may never be exercised—there will not be the balanced representation of the Arts for which the Taoiseach is hoping. The Arts Council in its membership of 16 will be clumsier and less effective in addressing itself in a balanced way to the various arts than the present Arts Council.
If one looks at the composition of the existing Arts Council one can make serious criticisms about it as a structure. I am not making personal criticisms of the human beings who compose the present Arts Council; I am speaking about its structure. It is seriously defective and this Bill will not cure these defects. It is Dublin-orientated and has no regional representation or regional development built into it. It has no specialist committees dealing with the various branches of the Arts. Therefore, it is forced into this narrow hierarchial structure, where it will often depend on who is the director or the chairman where the focus or particular emphasis will be over the next few years. There is no provision for the change of personnel on the Arts Council in a staggered way which would allow for new blood and continuity. They do not produce estimates of expenditure which would allow an assessment of what the planning of the Arts Council would be.
One can contrast this structure with that of the Northern Ireland Arts Council. It is relevant that we do so. We should look at that body, examine how it is structured, and see if we blush with shame, as I submit we do, or whether we can match it and be proud of our own structure.
The Northern Ireland Arts Council has a president, vice president and a board of 13 which is expandable to include the chairman of the specialist committees. What are these specialist committees? First, there is a Finance and General Purposes Committee. This committee prepares the detailed estimates of expenditure, plans and projects over a five year period. They can look for and get information about what financing will be available in each of the branches of the Arts so that there is equity and justice between each branch.
Then there are the various advisory committees. There is the Art Committee consisting of 12 persons. The chairman of this committee, Miss Cruickshank, is now resident here and Director of Fine Arts in Trinity College, Dublin. She is a useful informal link between the Arts Council in Northern Ireland and Dublin. The other members of the Art Committee include education, there is regional representation and hence it is a committee specialising in the Arts which is representative in the real sense. This is a part-time committee which has the essential back-up service of a full-time assistant director. It is not sufficient to have specialist committees without a back-up service of full-time paid officials at a senior level who have an expert knowledge in the area.
There is a Drama Committee consisting of 11 members. There is a Music Committee, a Literature Committee, a Traditional Arts Committee and a Management Committee. There are committees relating to special activities such as the Ulster Orchestra and the inter-play theatre committee.
Finally there is something we do not see at all in our own Arts Act, 1951 or in the new Arts Bill, and that is an Arts in Education Committee with a special education officer whose role is to liaise with schools, to encourage knowledge of what is happening in the schools and to encourage exhibitions to be held in the schools. We have none of these possibilities in the structure which is proposed in this Bill.
Apart from the board on which the chairmen of these specialist committees participate, and the existence of these specialist committees, both in an artistic sense and also in a financial and managerial sense, there is the assistance of adequate professional full-time staff. There is a director, an assistant director relating to art and film, an exhibitions officer, an assistant director in relation to drama, an assistant director in relation to literature and education, an assistant director in relation to music, an assistant director in relation to exhibitions and an accounts officer. This is a professional back-up structure of experts who know what the position is, who are full-time, who are paid a proper salary, reach out to the community, into the various art forms and who know the problems they have and the way in which art can be brought home to the community.
There is also, in that small portion of our country, a large number of honorary local secretaries of local committees. I will read the list of towns where there are local secretaries. It is very interesting to list them: Antrim, Armagh, Ballycastle, Ballyclare, Ballymena, Ballymoney, Bangor, Carrickfergus, Castlederg, Coleraine, Cookstown, Downpatrick, Enniskillen, Hollywood, Kilkeel, Larne, Lisnaskea, Londonderry, Lurgan, Magherafelt, Newcastle, Newry, Newtownards, Omagh, Portadown, Portrush and Portstewart. In each of these towns there is a local committee with a secretary; there is liaison with the Arts Council. This encourages joint activity and sponsored activity. Another structure at the regional level is the Regional Art Groups, the Mid-Ulster Group and the North-East Regional Arts Group. They have a regional function and are in close liaison with the local committees.
That is what we mean when speaking about balanced representation in a geographical sense and balanced representation of the Arts. We have not remotely approached that in this Bill. I do not propose on this Second Stage to dwell any further on the points I have made as many of them can be better made when addressed to specific amendments on Committee Stage.
I should like to make a final comment which may have been considered already. There may have been an answer to it of which I am unaware, although I read the Official Report of the Dáil debate on this point. In the 1951 Act there is a definition of what is meant by the expression "The Arts". Section 1 provides:
the expression "the arts" means painting, sculpture, architecture, music, the drama, literature, design in industry and the fine arts and applied arts generally;
Should this section of the 1951 Act be amended to include films? We expended a large amount of public money in acquiring Ardmore Studios. We are talking about setting up an Irish film industry. In 1951 there may have been some doubt about films being an art form but there is no doubt about this in 1973. We ought to include films in the list of what we mean by the Arts.
This is a very disappointing Bill for anyone concerned about the role of the Arts in Ireland. The structure is inadequate for true representation in a democratic sense. The functions of the Arts Council have not been assessed as to whether they were performed adequately in the last 20 years and no attempt is made to improve the structure. There is only one way one can try to drive home these arguments further and hopefully secure the acceptance of some change in the Bill and that is on foot of a considerable number of amendments which try, to write in this representative structure, the balance between the art forms, the visible representation and the necessity to prepare detailed estimates so that we can evaluate the performance of the Arts Council.