Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Nov 1973

Vol. 76 No. 1

Private Business. - Arts Bill, 1973: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Taoiseach

The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide for a restructuring of An Chomhairle Ealaíon. The 1951 Act provides for a director appointed by the President, six ordinary members appointed by the Government and five members co-opted by the ordinary members. The post of director is part-time and, in addition, the director acts as chairman at meetings of the council.

The Bill provides for membership up to a maximum of seventeen 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.

The Bill creates a new post of chief executive officer to be known as the director. The present arrangement under which the functions of director or chief executive and chairman are performed by the one person is not, I think, the best way of achieving the purpose for which the council was established. The Bill provides, therefore, that the new director will be appointed by the council, subject to the approval of the Taoiseach and, as chief executive officer will be responsible for advising the council and implementing their decisions.

Sections 6, 9 and 10 of the Bill contain the usual provisions relating to Oireachtas membership and a superannuation scheme for the staff of the council.

A provision in section 11 of the Bill enables a local authority to assist the council or any group organising an exhibition or other event whose effect would be to further the aims of the council in the advancement of the Arts. This provision is designed to encourage the development of artistic activity in areas of smaller population and to assist in decentralising activity in the Arts.

In addition to setting out the procedure for appointments to the council, section 12 clears up a doubt which had existed earlier as to whether the council can assist certain types of artistic activity outside the State and, in particular, in Northern Ireland.

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 re-appraise the structure of the body. I would like to take the opportunity of thanking all those who gave of their time and expertise as members of An Chomhairle Ealaíon in this period, in particular the last director, and chairman, who has carried a heavy burden for many years now. It is largely due to his efforts and those of the present staff and members that we can go on to what I hope will be the next stage in our development of the Arts in Ireland.

Over those 20 years or so we have seen marked advancement on the material side in Irish life. It is important that we should ensure that, in the things of the spirit—in music, drama, literature, painting, sculpture and all the other spheres of artistic endeavour—there should be encouragement of a corresponding development. With increasing prosperity and increased leisure-time, this is essential to the well-being of the nation.

There is a danger that many people may regard the Arts as the preserve of a privileged coterie. We must actively promote and encourage a wider approach than this: a philosophy that art, in all its forms, is a means by which a fuller and more satisfying life may be achieved by the people at large. We must teach the young the value of developing their talent not only as a means of creating beauty but also as a means of expressing their creativity and feelings. We must emphasise to parents the need to foster this talent, as they see it emerge.

In all of this, the State has its role to play, not only through its educational systems, but through a body such as the council which will be its channel of assistance, providing priming finance, under-writing artistic ventures, organising exhibitions, which will create interest in the Arts, and generally acting as the vehicle of State patronage for them.

On this question, I would not like it to be taken that the council should replace existing forms of patronage. Many Irish companies have an honourable record of patronage towards Irish art and I hope that in the future years more firms who have prospered and seen their material wealth grow in our environment will consider this form of patronage. Understandably, their primary concern will be publicity and prestige but, whatever the motive, the effect on Irish artists can be of great value if their work is commissioned or bought or if bursaries, fellowships and similar endowments are provided by Irish commerce. For its part, the Government will ensure that when it comes to the annual division of resources at budget time the needs of the Arts are given their due place.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Eoin Ryan

I should like to welcome this Bill in so far as it showed in the first place that the Government have shown at an early stage their interest in the Arts and their concern that the Arts should be developed and encouraged. It is a reflection on all of us that when we see a Bill being introduced dealing with the Arts we immediately feel this is something we should be enthusiastic about. It is a reflection on our society because generally speaking the establishment—I do not mean this particular establishment but the establishment generally —have not devoted as much attention to the Arts as they should have. We are consequently very glad to see anything in the nature of an Arts Bill coming before the House. This was the initial reaction of members of the Dáil and Seanad when this Bill was introduced.

The Bill tidies up a number of things which needed to be tidied up. It contains a few useful provisions, in particular that dealing with the powers of local authorities. I must confess that it is a rather disappointing Bill in the sense that it is not comprehensive. It does not do much more than the original Bill. It only made a few relatively minor changes. It would have been much better if the Government had waited a while, possibly brought out a White Paper dealing with the position of the Arts generally, and subsequently introduced a more comprehensive Bill. One cannot help suspecting that this Bill was introduced somewhat before its time and in its present form because of the shortage of Bills that were available and because the Government were anxious to introduce some Bills in the early stages of this session and consequently they hurried this Bill forward without giving sufficient time and thought to it.

The method of appointing the members of the council under the provisions of this Bill is a change from the original Bill which provided for six ordinary members and five co-options. Now the 16 members of the council will be appointed by the Taoiseach. Whereas one cannot be dogmatic about this and say that the old procedure was necessarily a better one. my own view is that there was a good deal to be said for the system under which the council were allowed to co-opt a number of people to join them on the council. Possibly the ratio between appointed members and co-opted members was not the ideal one but, nevertheless, the idea of co-option was a very good one. It may be difficult for the Taoiseach and the Government to discover the really useful people who could act on a council of this kind.

No doubt, they will immediately think of the obvious people for such a council. Sometimes only those who are intimately involved in the Arts and in the various branches of the Arts will be aware of people who are not in the limelight, who are not in the public eye, but who nevertheless could play a very useful part in this sphere. Co-option would allow those who are initially appointed to select people, who possibly, would not be known to the Government and who would not be in the public eye, capable of playing an important part in the Arts.

I know I may be told that this idea of co-options is not normally used on State boards and that most other boards function very well without having the power of co-option. It is true that what is being done in this Bill is in no way different from the position in relation to most State boards; nevertheless, the initiative was taken in the Act of 1951 to give power of co-option. It was a good provision and it is a pity that at this stage it has been dropped.

With regard to the appointments and to the number, it is proposed to have 16 members, who will be appointed for five years. The position would have been better if the Taoiseach had given himself power to appoint the various members of the council, that is to appoint, say, one-third for two years, one-third for four years, and possibly one-third for a longer period. If we are going to have a council of 16 members, all there for five years, before the end of four years they will have made their contributions and will have run out of new ideas; in effect, they will have got into something of a rut. It would have been better if there was a procedure whereby members would be appointed for varying periods; consequently there would be a constant supply of new blood and of new ideas giving a more dynamic and imaginative approach to the problems and to the work of the council.

What is probably the most disappointing part of the Bill, although it would not necessarily form part of the Bill, is that there is no firm commitment to increase funds for the work of the council in the future. Up to the present, the council have been getting an amount of money which was clearly inadequate for the aims and objectives of the council. I am well aware that money is always scarce, that the Minister for Finance has so many demands on the public purse that it is difficult to find the extra money. Nevertheless, if there is a new Bill with a new approach, and if the Government are going to the trouble of introducing new provisions in relation to the Arts Council, then one would have hoped that there would be a firm commitment to additional funds for the council.

It is rather disquieting that the suggestion has been made that the money now being devoted to the theatre, such as the Abbey and the others, will probably be put under the control of the Arts Council so as to enable them to disburse that as well as the allocation to the other arts. As things stand at the moment, in rough figures, there will be £100,000 available for all the other arts and something like £400,000 for drama. Inevitably, there will be members of the Arts Council who are not particularly interested in drama, who will be enthusiastic about music, literature or some other branches of the Arts. They might consider it to be most inequitable that drama should be getting comparatively so much and that the other branches of the arts should be getting so little. There will be the temptation for the Arts Council, if they are confined to a global figure of £500,000, to nibble away at the money which is available for the theatre and to use some of it for the other branches of the Arts. This is something which is quite understandable, but it would be most unfortunate as far as the theatre is concerned. We all have our own bias in this regard, just as I suggested that certain members of the council will have their bias or their enthusiasm.

It would be most unfortunate if the new procedure which is envisaged of handing over the entire sum to the Arts Council, led to the position that the theatre was to get less than it is getting at present. This country has a very special interest in the theatre. From the artistic point of view, we are better known for our theatre, our plays, our playwrights and even for our players than we are for any other branch of the arts. Consequently, it is a branch which needs very heavy subsidy, and it would be very unfortunate indeed if there was any drop in the subsidy which is given to the theatre at present. It is a real danger which one can see in the situation which is envisaged, and I hope that some steps will be taken to ensure that, on the one hand, there are additional funds for the other arts, but that under no circumstances will there be any decrease in the amount made available to the theatre.

Section 11, which provides for local authorities assisting the Arts, is an excellent provision and is to be welcomed without reservation. It is particularly good that the local authorities are authorised to assist not only functions which are promoted by the Council, but any function by any person organising an exhibition, or other event, the effect of which would, in the opinion of the authority, stimulate public interest in the Arts, promote the knowledge, appreciation and practice of the Arts, or assist in improving the standard of the Arts. It is particularly good that the function or the exhibition need not necessarily have the support of the council, that the local authority can use its own discretion if some local exhibition is one which they think is worthy of support. I welcome the provisions provided by section 11. There are many enabling sections in many Acts which are rarely used, but this is one which I hope will be used widely throughout the country. Members of the House who have any authority or influence throughout the country should do everything in their power to ensure that the local authorities avail of the power which has been given them under this section.

In regard to the provision in the 1951 Act which relates to the acceptance of gifts by the council, perhaps the Taoiseach in replying would be able to give us some information about the extent to which this profusion has been availed of by people. It is referred to in the annual reports but could he comment in a general way as to whether the council feel that this provision has been of substantial benefit to them and, in particular, as to whether anything could be done by the incoming council to make this provision more widely known to people who might avail of it and to encourage them to make gifts to the council? My impression is that this provision has not been used very much. The total amount raised in this manner has been very small. A good deal more would be made available to the council if some effort was made to bring the section to the notice of people who would avail of it. The incoming council should make a special effort to ensure that this section will be availed of more in the future, as a result of which more money would be raised.

The Government, in the 1951 Act and in this Bill, provide money, encouragement and so on for the Arts Council to stimulate public interest in the Arts, amongst other things. Yet successive Governments have done very little in other spheres to stimulate public interest in the Arts. For instance, the Government is the biggest builder in the community; yet the buildings which have been built by successive Governments have not been outstanding as works of art. They have not provided for works of art in the way of sculpture, pictures and so on, or ensured that every important building would have something of this kind as a matter of course. This situation is regrettable. Unless the tone is set by the Establishment, by the Government of the day, unless the example is given by the Government, then the Arts Council will find it very difficult to "promote"—as the original Act said—"the knowledge, appreciation and practice of the Arts".

I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the existing members of the Arts Council, to the men who have served on that council since it was first set up in 1951. They have made a very valuable contribution to the promotion of the Arts. I hope that the example which they set will be followed in the future.

Finally, I should like to make a comment on the drafting of this Bill which can be the subject of very considerable criticism. Without going into details on this stage of the Bill, there must be a better way of setting out what was intended in section 12 of the Bill than what has in fact been done. As I have on many occasions suggested in this House, Acts should, whenever possible, be consolidated. In other words, when an amending Bill of this kind is introduced, it should, if possible, be one which will consolidate and include the earlier Acts. This is often very difficult, because there may be numerous Acts going back over 10, 15, 50 or 100 years. This is the ideal kind of Bill and opportunity for consolidating the Act. The 1951 Act was a comparatively short one. The changes which have been made, although they are not very extensive, are rather complicated. Certainly to read section 12 of this Bill and to try and relate it to the 1951 Act is a very difficult task, even for a person who has some training in law.

For the layman who wants to look at the Bill and the original Act together and try and find out what provision there is for some matter, it would be virtually incomprehensible. It is a great pity that the opportunity was not taken on this occasion, which would be an ideal one, merely to repeal the 1951 Act and re-enact it with the amendments suggested in a new Act dealing with the Arts Council which would contain everything concerning that council in a simple way. It is too late to make the change now, but I have made this plea on many occasions in the past about many Bills and I repeat it on this occasion. This was a particularly apt kind of Bill in which to do it. I am sorry it was not done.

Mrs. Robinson

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.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I should like to speak about this matter and avoid seeming pretentious. It is difficult to make a case for the support of the Arts by the public. If some aspects of the exercise were considered by us would it not be easier to make a case and give some sense of satisfaction to the administrators and the makers of decisions to give their support? To anyone who has studied the relationship of art and politics anything I say will seem repetitive of opinions which have been expressed through many generations. Nonetheless, perhaps they have not been repeated often enough recently. The concern and interest of specialists in any particular art form must primarily be in the technical ability of the artist in the work he is doing. The minds of people whose skill and training is in a particular art field may not move easily or sympathetically to the consideration of the effect of the work socially and politically.

From the point of view of the artist with regard to any work of creation, whether it be specified in the Arts Bill or as referred to by the Taoiseach today—for example, the arts of music, drama, literature, painting, sculpture, or ballet—the artist will be interested in his work. That is the end of the matter for him. One of the justifications for public support of art is to enable the artist to express himself to his satisfaction in the medium which he chooses to use. There is a tendency for it to be left at that, because the artist who is skilled in his art is not necessarily the man who can philosophise about the relationship of his art to society. There is the danger to which the Taoiseach referred today that as a result of this people tend to regard the Arts as the preserve of a privileged coterie. We know there is no activity of life which is more studded with snobs and cods of one kind or another, whose very presence puts one off all collaborating with them.

I am reminded of a prayer of Teilhard de Chardin where he asks that our works be saved irrespective of our intention with regard to them. Whatever one's intention when doing something, the technical constructive self should in some fashion ultimately be redeemed. I thought that an interesting understanding of the mind of the artist. To go back to the very beginnings of the thought on this, anyone interested in the welfare of the State must primarily be interested in education. I do not mean education in the sense of people learning lessons or developing particular skills; I mean the whole business of communicating knowledge through the influence of person on person, in particular of parents on children. I have in mind the whole business of forming character and giving knowledge or discipline to the mind. This is the general matter of education.

One cannot justify the expenditure of public money, and, as I would urge and hope, the expenditure of increased public money, on the Arts unless we fully understand their educational value. Education is not merely the development of the person in self-expression; it is teaching him to receive an inherited tradition and making him capable of being a full and happy member of society, co-operating with society, helping it and taking help from it. We should assist art in its most general sense and look at the reasons for doing so. The Taoiseach referred to one today in his speech when he said that, with increasing prosperity and increased leisure, art was essential to the wellbeing of the nation. I agree, but perhaps what lies behind that must also be said: the old Thomistic position that no man can live without pleasure. Those are the words of a saint according to the Christian church. No man can live without pleasure, and a man deprived of the pleasures of the spirit goes rapidly to the pleasures of the flesh. His words remind me also of the late Dr. Oliver Gogarty who defined culture as being the art of idling gracefully. The Government ought to be concerned to teach the people of Ireland how to idle gracefully and not shamefully and disgracefully, which they will do if they are not taught otherwise.

Mrs. Robinson

Will they do this by example?

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

This will be among the modes of education. Happily so far I have been saying these pretentious things in not too heavy a vein and I hope I have succeeded. When you start to talk about the purgation of the emotions I am reminded that Freud's great discovery was the essential and vital role of the sublimation of the emotions in preventing human disorder. I strongly urge on the Seanad the view that here was a great mind of the 20th century who made a scientific discovery which supported what was a philosophical view held two and a half thousand years ago. What I am trying to say is that we do not take a large enough view of the importance of drama, poetry and creative work. Have you ever seen how children respond to stories? If you read stories to them they are immediately interested. Here is a creative work. It may be popular fiction. We tend to think too much of the Fine Arts and take an insufficiently broad view of all those ranges of human activities which are themselves artistic. In the case of a really good sportsman who is playing a game well, with agility and action because it is all in proportion, his medium is action and is a form of art.

We have come to take too narrow a view of art and to lessen our enthusiasm because we take too narrow a view, for the usefulness of supporting the activity of people like the Arts Council. Relaxation is recreative. It not merely relieves you from work but it also relieves you from the alternative to work, when you are no longer able to work—the only thing you might think of doing is having a drink —and it relieves you from dullness and boredom. These are all frustrating and bad for people, bad for their effect on society and bad socially.

I would argue that a view of art we might take is that we are engaged here in a type of training that is not a moral one, but to teach any man the practice of any discipline is itself a good thing to do. For example, people argue that in regard to the theatre everyone brines his burden of disordered passions to the theatre and gets rid of them there. In viewing Macbeth, for example, he is able to understand the dangers of excessive ambition and search after power: he relieves that element in his own nature by seeing it presented to him in dramatic form in the creative work of that great poet.

I am sorry for that kind of guff as a preliminary. While I did not want to say a word of it, I felt that I would be lacking in courage if I did not.

Now I should like to refer to a few items in this Bill. Perhaps I could give the House figures, some of which are relative to a few points made by Senator Mary Robinson. The Arts Council have a provision in the current year— the figure I have is £100,000—and Senator Robinson has given an account of the wide achievement of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, which I understand to have been successful. The provision from the State for 1971-72 for that council was £260,000. In addition, they got £12,750 from local authorities. It is fair to say that out of that £260,000, they bear the burden of the Ulster Orchestra, which amounted to £103,000 in that year. The cost of our orchestra is borne in the RTE expenditure. Even taking away that figure, when you consider their population is half of ours and that their region is one-sixth of our territory, it is a very much more ample contribution than ours.

In Northern Ireland the Arts Council —I am now not speaking of voluntary workers—have employed 22 people, whereas we have five. How can we compare the achievement of one with the achievement of the other? We cannot. Admittedly, we are in this prudent business of distributing scarce resources. I would argue strongly for the importance of a more ample provision, even in the context of the countless demands that need to be provided for. I shall give another figure to give an idea of the weight the Arts Council are carrying, if anyone tries to measure their performance with the performance in other countries. Scotland, with a population of 4 million, and Wales each get £1,200,000 for their Arts Councils, that is 12 times what our Arts Council get. Therefore, we are really talking about incomparables if the finance cannot be changed.

The provision in regard to local authorities is very valuable, encouraging and worthwhile. I hope it leads to the sort of thing that I believe has developed all over Britain, where the local authorities have found it to be good business to work in with the appropriate Arts Council, by having drama or music festivals and art exhibitions. They make these contributions because it is rewarding to the community which is providing the subsidy in question, and with the skill of those at the centre is made the best use of.

I should like to draw the Taoiseach's attention to what has been made known to me for his consideration. One of the reasons why the British Arts Council in recent years have been so very successful is that they were under the chairmanship of Lord Goodman, who made a real bound forward for the British Arts Council. In addition, it was helped by the direct personal interest in it of a politician who was given the task of being responsible for what they were doing, and that was Miss Jenny Lee. As a result of her direct interest, the Cabinet were always in the position of knowing what they were regarding as important, and were made to understand the reports more directly. I believe this to be a matter of observation which is historically true with regard to the British Arts Council and I thought it a point worth making.

I hope that Senator Robinson was not objecting to the abolition of the power of co-option. It is an entirely welcome development. People who are co-opted in a situation of that kind feel they owe their positions to the people who co-opted them and they vote accordingly. If the appointment comes from the same source of authority, there is more likelihood of a genuine expression of view by the individual members of the Arts Council.

I am in complete agreement with the proposal to distinguish the chairman from the chief executive. This has been found to be a good thing everywhere. The appointment of the chief executive presumably would be in consultation with the Government. I do not know what the contemplated structure on that is, but these appointments are all important for the future success of the Arts Council.

Because I know all the people concerned, I do not think it would be correct of me to make much comment about the actual performance of the Arts Council to date. However, I felt there was an excessive interest in the acquisition of paintings and insufficient emphasis on the financing of exhibitions and the subsidisation of music. At the same time, I felt I might have been unfair to the Arts Council in what was in my mind to say. I made this point to the secretary and I asked him to tell me what they were doing at the moment. Just as Senator Robinson read you out what they are doing up in Northern Ireland, I will read you out as quickly as I can what I am told they are doing down here.

By the way I only asked, this was my point, for information about the projects outside Dublin because I thought the others would be known. They are supporting the Cork Ballet Company season. They are assisting lectures in ecclesiastical arts in Limerick, Kildare and Carlow. They have arranged an exhibition by the Crafts Council of Ireland in Toronto. They have arranged a stamp exhibition in Cork, an amateur dramatic society, plays at the Yeats Society, lighting for the Ballyshannon All-Ireland Drama Festival, performances of the Dramatic Society of Churchill College, Cambridge, in Cork, more assistance to the Kilkenny Magazine, Kilkenny Literary Society, an Irish magazine, Saltar, in Cork, publications of books and so on. This gives an idea of the range of their interests.

Some of these projects could give rise to criticism because their first obligation, in the context of Ireland, our state of knowledge, degree of education and interest and so on and the prejudices to be overcome everywhere, is to maintain and increase standards.

I should like, finally, to say that it is very unfortunate, and to me, like Senator Robinson, totally inexplicable, that the cinema was omitted from one of the sections in 1951 when its artistic significance even in the narrowest view, —anyone who thought about it for a moment would realise that in the general view it is an art—would have been known. I should like to see it included among the functions provided for the Arts Council in this Bill if it is possible.

Cáit Uí Eachthéirn

Is mian liom fáilte teoranta a chur roimh an mBille mar tá an Bille féin ana theoranta, agus go deimhin is beag an difríocht atá idir í agus Acht 1951, agus ba cheart Bille i bfad níos leithne, mar a dúirt an tSeanadóir Robinson, a bheith os ár gcomhair.

My welcome for the Bill is very limited because the Bill is limited and not very different from the 1951 Act. Surely in the past 22 years a lot of water has flown under the bridges of art and so much light has been thrown on the field of art to make the Government give us a far more comprehensive piece of legislation in 1973.

There are however a few sections in the Bill which I should like to welcome. The first one is the enlarged membership. This provision will help us to get many more people involved in the Arts Council. I hope the different strata will be represented. I also welcome the provision which allows the county councils to co-operate in the field of art, although I feel sad that the co-operation will be very little, because the only field related to art included in county council business is our contributions to public libraries. When it comes to the estimates meeting it is one of the most difficult in which to get any increase. If we could do something which would encourage our local authorities to take more interest in art, it would be a great step forward because unless we stimulate an interest in art at the local level there is very little hope for it at the higher level.

I also regret that the amount of money being provided has not been increased. There could be a greater contribution seeing that there will be more money coming into the kitty this year as a result of our entry into the Common Market, the saving of £80 million from the farm subsidies and also from the increased amount from VAT.

There has always been a great history of art in Ireland. If we look back at the early centuries, we produced some of our most beautiful works of art. We can look with pride and pleasure on our Book of Kells, the Ardagh Chalice, our beautiful stonework in the stone crosses, archways and also our woodwork. Our sad history afterwards cut off much of our contribution to the visual arts but there was one contribution which could never be silenced, that of our voice in music, drama and literature.

In the past 50 years it must be admitted that there has been a substantial increase in our output in the art world. This was due to the peaceful situation in this part of the country and, secondly, to our more affluent society. The greatest shot in the arm which was given to art was the setting up of the Kilkenny Design Centre. It was very sad that we had such atrocious standards of design up to then. Were it not for the Swedish report and investigations made by that team into our standard of art and the pressures brought by the Irish Countrywomen's Association, we might still be minus such a centre.

We have a long way to go, however, towards giving much of our output an Irish flavour. We have not given an Irish dimension to many of our exports. Until such time as we do, these exports will be only a pale reflection of goods in other countries. If we are to survive and keep our identity we need to pay far more attention to giving an Irish dimension to our exports. Surely it is this dimension which our writers have which has made them so popular not only in considering ideas from an Irish viewpoint but also from our Irish-English idiom. Our painters have given an Irish dimension to all their paintings. They have incorporated in their paintings the moods of our Irish skies and climate. The same can be said of our musicians. They have blended our sadness and our gaiety in their works. All these forms of art have won fame because of the Irish dimension. This is only right because we have much beauty in our scenery and it should find expression in every work we produce.

The Taoiseach has rightly said that many people regard the Arts as the preserve of the élite special few. That is the reason why we should do far more for our young people in order to give them more training in art and to let them see that art plays an important part in everyday life in every man's life. It is reflected in the clothes that we wear, in the way they are cut, in the colours and in the workmanship. The same goes for the houses in which we live. They can be works of art or monstrosities. Also the furniture and the household effects which surround us can be either works of art or monstrosities. Everything that we hear and see should appeal to the artistic in us if we have received a foundation of artistic appreciation in our schools.

This is one reason why I would hope that the Department of Education would become more interested in this field. There are some teachers in our primary and secondary schools trying to instil an appreciation of art who have never had any training in this field themselves. They cannot, I feel, but be doing harm to the younger generation. That is the reason why I do not think we should have amateurs in the field of art in primary, secondary and at adult level in rural Ireland. We should have trained teachers of art at all these levels. It would be money very well spent if we had an art teacher in every parish in the country. I hope that the Department of Education can do something about this.

I should like to take an opportunity at this stage to congratulate all those who have given us works of beauty in any field of art. They are working under desperate conditions. They are working in a community that is not very much art orientated. They have an up-hill fight and they are to be congratulated for their courage in keeping on the good work. Another group to be congratulated are the Celtic group who are fostering child art, The Irish Press for its Writers' Page and those who promote festivals and exhibitions throughout the country and those who offer sponsorship to those festivals. Also, we should not let this occasion pass without paying tribute to Deputy Haughey for being the first person, as Minister for Finance, to give some thought to those working in such difficult fields, and for giving them a tax remission. Some new angle should be thought out in this because otherwise people with very limited incomes would find it very difficult to invest in things of beauty.

I think it was Senator Ryan who said that there should be a percentage of the cost of all public buildings and office blocks set aside for some artistic investment when these buildings have been finished.

Finally, we have to admit that we still lack an enlightened attitude in this country towards art and that we need a much broader base at local level and a much greater appreciation of art before we will have any flourishing whatsoever and before we can encourage those who have ability in that field to spend their time leaving us and giving us all these pleasures that they do in painting, drama and in films. The point that I am leaving the Taoiseach with is that more and more effort should be made to give us in rural Ireland genuine art teachers and not people who just have a smattering of it and have never had any training, so that the base will be broadened and that we will see in the not too distant future a much greater flowering of the great artistic tradition for which this country was famous in the Golden Age.

Mr. Harte

There is just one brief point that has me a little bit concerned but before I go into it I should like to say that the idea of the Bill is to extend the powers and functions of an Act that was introduced in 1951, more than 21 years ago. The point is whether the Bill actually goes far enough to do this job. One of the main features of it is that where the scope of it has been widened in the sense that people will be appointed from a very wide strata of society, it is indicative that the Arts Council in their present form will be improved and the purpose for which they were established can be realised.

The main thing is that the Bill has been introduced by the Department of the Taoiseach. What better guarantor could be given to the population of the art world than the Taoiseach, guarantor that the Act as it is meant to function shall function? If the situation is that co-options are no longer to be made, then when the Taoiseach makes the appointments under the microscope of everybody in the artistic world, he can be held responsible for their deeds. People will have an opportunity to bring in any proposals they think fit.

I do not think that one can set objectives when drawing up an amending Bill like this. A lot of creative ability cannot be used. It is not as it is in the industrial world. Targets or objectives cannot be set. Therefore, the scope of an amending Bill on this subject is bound to be limited. The good thing in it that I see from a trade union point of view is that, without having to negotiate, somebody will, under section 10, as soon as the Act is passed have to

submit to the Taoiseach a contributory scheme or schemes for the granting of pensions, gratuities and other allowances

and fix retirement conditions and so on. In keeping with that I have no doubt that consultation will take place with Actors Equity and other trade union bodies, such as the Federation of Musicians, that would be involved. I am a little bit concerned about the meaning of section 2 and I trust that the Taoiseach when winding up the debate will clarify for me subsection (2)

In the selection of persons for appointment to membership of the Council regard shall be had to—

(a) the person's attainments or interest in or his knowledge of the Arts, or his competence otherwise to assist the Council.

(b) securing a balanced representation as between branches of the Arts.

The point I am endeavouring to make is that a balanced representation of people who have an interest in the Arts would be people who work in a certain environment and who, if they do not have a say on the Arts Council, may lose control over their own particular environment. They may have access on a consultative basis, but I think that full participation is required in the sense that they will be able to put points of view forward to the Arts Council that will enable them to control the pace of change that might take place as a result of the new amended Arts Council, and as a result of the wider powers that they are being given and the wider areas of activity that they will eventually develop with that reservation; I would welcome the Bill.

Professor Quinlan

I wish to join with other Senators in welcoming this Bill which is a non-political measure. The greatest hope contained in it is the implied promise by the Taoiseach that greater funds will be made available to the Arts Council in the future. What funds we have spent on the Arts Council are very paltry compared to those spent elsewhere. Now that we are in an affluent situation we should greatly accelerate the contribution to the Arts Council. I wish to pay tribute to the work they have done in the past with such meagre funds. The appointment of a full-time chief executive officer is long overdue.

I am not happy with the proposed composition of the Arts Council. There is a principle involved here; it is the principle of shared responsibility between the Government and the community. This shared responsibility must surely show itself by the Government not seeking to make all the appointments. In other words, we should bring in the very valuable principle used in the past of trusting other bodies. It was quite commonplace in old legislation that any board established would have, in addition to members appointed by the Government, members that come from other sources so as to give the board an independence of the Government of the day. That principle has been whittled away over the last 20 years. This is regrettable.

The present Bill seeks to remove the element of co-option which was a source that had some genesis outside the Government. I can understand the criticism voiced by Senator FitzGerald regarding co-optees. They might feel they were beholden to those members who had co-opted them. From my experience of bodies where co-option was used—in the governing body and in the senate of the university, et cetera—I do not think co-optees felt in any way beholden to the body that co-opted them. Indeed they always gave very full and generous service.

I would ask the Taoiseach to have another look at the composition of the membership between now and Committee Stage. It might be possible to designate the presidents of certain institutions—such as the Institute of Architects and some three or four other bodies—as ex-officio members of the Arts Council. This would have the merit of bringing in some members who did not owe their position on the Arts Council to a Government nomination and it would also bring an element of newness into the body. The presidencies of these institutions usually change every couple of years and it would result in—if you had four ex-officio members of the council of 16—a turnover of four positions every few years.

I sympathise with Senator E. Ryan's concern in trying to break the automatic election patterns of the five years selection; in other words that some members should be in for two years while others would be in for five years. That seems fine in principle but it is very difficult to implement. Some type of an ex-officio membership would achieve the same purpose and do it in an easier way administratively.

Now that it is intended to give greater funds to the Arts Council we hope it will take a greater interest in some of the neglected facets of art. Particular mention has been made here of the architecture of our public buildings. I do not think the Arts Council has concerned itself with this matter in the past and, indeed, it is hard to see how it can contribute very much to it in the future but I would hope that it would take on the role of a critical watchdog on behalf of the Arts and on behalf of the cultural values of the community in general in assessing new public buildings.

Our standards have deteriorated greatly in this respect. There is too much "penny wise and pound foolish" in the designing of our public buildings. This is apparent even to the extent that the features of these new buildings do not compare with the old ones because they are regarded as being too costly. This is borne home very forcibly to me in regard to educational buildings because penny-pinching has reached the stage where we are forced to erect buildings that will create an eyesore in 40 or 50 years' time. We look back in envy at the great buildings that have been entrusted to us from the past. Take, for instance, the university buildings. We can be proud of our quadrangle building in University College, Cork, which was built over 140 years ago and those who will occupy it in 100 years' time will be equally proud of it. It is a building that will last.

The pressures from the economists today—such as the cost per square foot—preclude leaving anything for posterity. I hope the Arts Council will interpret its mandate to include architecture in the definition of the Arts contained in the 1951 Act and, thereby, conclude that it has a mandate to play a really critical watchdog role regarding the erection of new public buildings.

I should like to commend very strongly the work being done by a voluntary group—An Taisce—in this regard. I would suggest to the Taoiseach that he should recognise their great work by including a member of that organisation on the board of the Arts Council. I know An Taisce work is a little peripheral to this but it has tried to preserve our environment and the beauty of our inheritance. After all, basically that is what the Arts Council is trying to achieve.

I understand that on Committee Stage we may be able, by discussion, to broaden the composition and method of appointment to the Arts Council so that we can involve more people in the work of the new Arts Council.

Mr. Deasy

There has been difficulty in defining the scope of the Arts and I should like to mention one which has not yet been mentioned. It might commonly be called the poor man's idea of artistic entertainment in this country. Unfortunately, it is now on the point of extinction, I appeal to the Taoiseach to consider it when he is reconstructing this new Arts Council. I am referring to the circus. For many years we have had a few of these groups—for instance, Duffy's and Fossetts'—but they are on the point of going off the road now. There is a variety of reasons for this. One is the advent of TV which shows continental circuses with which it is difficult to compete. There is then free school transport where children are collected punctually at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, thus depriving the circuses of their matinee audience and, finally, the greatest scourge of all— taxation.

These people may not be regarded as artists by musicians, painters and sculptors, but they are artists and they have not been exempted from income tax as were those referred to by Senator Aherne. Circus people pay every possible type of tax there is. They pay full road tax on the vehicles for hauling wagons, et cetera. They operate for only six months each year and each day they operate they may only travel an average of ten or 12 miles. Yet they pay the full yearly taxation. On the Continent and in Great Britain these people have a special tax rate which amounts to about £25 per vehicle per

All these factors add up to a serious financial dilemma for circuses. As a result the standard has dropped. I appeal for the allowance of certain exemptions to these people. The acrobats, the contortionists, the jugglers and those who handle the animals are artists in the true sense of the word. They deserve some concessions just as much as painters and writers. I ask that the Arts Council take them within its ambit, and give them a sympathetic hearing. It is the only type of artistic activity ever seen by people in rural areas.

We, as politicians, have something in common with them. Nearly all the time we are clowns. At other times we are jugglers or contortionists. Every day in the week we walk the tight rope and if we slip we are thrown to the lions.

Dr. West

I should like to welcome the Bill and the Taoiseach's involvement in it as a sign of the Government's serious intention regarding the Arts. As the Taoiseach stated in his address, it is time after 20 years to look at the performance of the Arts Council, to examine its functions and to see how it can be strengthened. Government support to the Arts has stimulated interest and widened the public knowledge of what is going on. It has succeeded in helping the artists individually in their sometimes perilous occupation as true artists interested in art for its own sake and not in receiving financial reward as the first criterion of excellence. The Government's promise to look at the funding of the Arts Council and the composition of the Arts Council, as set out in this Bill, is encouraging.

I welcome, in section 12, the clear statement that the Arts Council will be able without equivocation to help the Arts in Northern Ireland. The previous council had many contacts with Northern Ireland. As far as artists are concerned, there is no Border. The mutual co-operation between the Arts Council and its Northern Ireland counterpart has been of great benefit to all. I am pleased to see this in the Taoiseach's address.

I also welcome section 11 of the Bill, which in a sense allows a local authority to act as a local Arts Council. Local involvement is essential. One of the main functions of An Chomhairle Ealaíon will be to strengthen the position of the Arts in the provinces. Local authorities will assist in the artistic development in their own areas. This will involve the people in an essential and important way. The spending of local authority money to stimulate art in a particular region will help to involve the people living there. This is a good thing and should show considerable benefit throughout the country.

Various speakers have referred to the functions of the Arts Council. One of the problems is to balance the claims of the different branches of the Arts. There are about five main branches—the theatre, the literary arts, the visual arts, music, and architecture. The Arts Council have always been able to make recommendations as to planning permission for important buildings. I am not sure how many recommendations they made in the past or how many of these recommendations were looked at, but important planning applications came before the Arts Council for their consideration. It is important that there should be architects on the new Arts Council. There should also be an expert in Celtic art, which is our heritage. It would be appropriate to have representatives from the National Gallery, the museum and also perhaps from the National College of Art.

In his concluding remarks the Taoiseach might refer to the relationship between the Arts Council and the National College of Art. As we all can see on entering Leinster House, there are still considerable problems in the National College of Art. The Arts Council could help to resolve these problems and could provide a solution which would be satisfactory to the students, the teachers and perhaps even to the Department of Education.

As Senator Quinlan has said, there is an argument for increasing the size of the Arts Council because it is not just sufficient to think of the Arts in Ireland as based in Dublin. This council will have the important job of stimulating the Arts in the rural areas. Deputations will have to be sent to the rural areas to look at the prospects to see what can be done and, in particular, to deal with applications from the different parts of the country. This will be one of the functions of the new Arts Council. If this is to be done in a serious way these deputations will have to include members from a cross-section of the various branches of the Arts which I have mentioned.

One problem that will impinge upon the new Arts Council is the great lack of proper exhibition halls, or halls of any nature, which precludes exhibitions of paintings, sculpture, theatrical performances, musical performances. This generally stultifies the development of art in the rural areas. I should like to see in the budgeting provisions for this council a capital as well as a recurrent section. One of the things the council will have to do is start some capital work and provide suitable halls or theatres in the regions which manifestly cannot afford them from their own local authority budgets. I should like to see capital grants as well as grants for current expenditure being considered by the council. This all hinges on generous Government financing of this council.

There is also the problem of the second national theatre. I am not sure how advanced the discussions are on the proposals for a second national theatre but it would seem crazy if such a theatre was based in Dublin. Dublin already has the Abbey Theatre. I hope in our efforts to spread things evenly around the country that the second national theatre would not be based in Dublin. Its job will be to perform in the provinces. The Abbey does this to a limited extent now. I do not think this is satisfactory.

In the case of my own city of Cork, when the Abbey Theatre came to perform this summer they performed a play directly contrary to the advice given to them by the director of the Opera House. The Cork Opera House lost a packet as a result. Local feelings and local advice have to be taken into account. I hope the Government will see their way to basing the second national theatre somewhere other than in Dublin. It is very important that the Arts Council should be seen to deal with development of the Arts in the whole country and not just inside the Pale. If one looked at the amounts of money distributed in previous years one would see that most of the money goes to artists or to artistic development inside the small region surrounding Dublin. I hope this will be conclusively changed by the new council.

With the job that has to be done and with the pressures that will be on the new council, it would be well to increase the membership from 16 to 20 or perhaps even to 24. I would agree with Senator Quinlan that some ex-officio members should be added to the present upper limit of 16. If the council is to fulfil its role for the country as a whole it will have to send teams of people to deal with the problems in the various regions. Representatives from the theatre, the visual arts, music and perhaps an architect would be required to visit a north-eastern region, a north-western region and a south-eastern region. If this work is to be done properly, it will put severe strain on the personnel envisaged in this Bill.

I should like to see the Taoiseach considering extending the number of people on the council so that they could make an impact, could be seen to travel abroad, could go and talk to the people in rural areas, and find out the problems there. There is no question but that the people in rural areas will respond very vigorously to some help and stimulation from the central body. The artists themselves —and there is no mean artistic endeavour in these areas—will welcome the chance to talk directly to the members of the council without always having to trek to Dublin. There is a very good argument for extending the proposed numbers of the council as set out in this Bill.

As the Taoiseach has said, it will be incumbent on the council to actively promote and encourage a wider approach to counterbalance the theory that is sometimes held that the Arts are the privilege of small groups. One of the most important tasks of the council will be that of public relations. This is an area where the previous Arts Council could, with a great deal of justification, be criticised. For example, when the Arts Council holds a meeting and decides that certain moneys should be granted to various individuals or bodies, a list of the grants made should be issued to the Press. We have to show the people that the money which the Houses of the Oireachtas vote for expenditure in the Arts is being spent in the right way. The way to do this is by public relations. I feel that the last Arts Council paid no attention to this side of the work. There are many members who are extremely good at this sort of thing.

The Arts Council should concentrate on showing to the public that they are getting value for their money in promoting the arts. The way to generate public opinion is to do this. It is necessary to say to the public "This is what the Arts Council have done over the last 12 months. We have given you value for your money. Will you support us in asking the Government for an increase in next year's budget?" This is the way to approach the problem. Do not do things behind corners or under the table. Let us have it all out in public. Let us have the grants stated clearly and specifically to the papers and let us see where the money is going and who is getting it. This will stimulate discussion and interest and will make the public aware of the fact that the Government are taking a real and active role in the promotion of the Arts, which is very welcome and important. There are many ways in which the money can be spent, particularly on capital as well as current items.

I hope that this will be set out and that the council will make their deliberations absolutely clear for the public. Discussion in the Press and other media of these grants to various artists for artistic endeavours will be welcomed. For example, RTE could take a leaf out of the book of some of the British companies in the discussions on the Arts. A great deal has to be done in stimulating the public's interest right across the board. When this Bill becomes an Act and when the council gets going I hope they will be given every support by the Government to fulfil their very important function of stimulating the Arts throughout the country.

The Taoiseach

First, I should like to thank Senators for the co-operative manner in which they have dealt with the Bill and to express appreciation of many useful and interesting contributions. It is obvious that Senators have given a good deal of thought to this. Many of the comments indicate not only the interest that Senators have personally in it, but also the fact that they have studied the particular piece of legislation and have expressed their approval, disapproval or reservations, as the case may be.

This legislation amends the earlier Act. While there has been some criticism of the fact that it was not the occasion for introducing a completely new Bill, the reason for that is mainly that Bills are drafted by the draftsmen and the practice has been to introduce at stated periods or intervals consolidation legislation. I noted with interest the suggestions that a new Bill would have been more satisfactory but, rightly or wrongly, this is the procedure that is being followed. When Senators or Members of the other House make recommendations of this kind, they will obviously be considered in the future. However, the procedure apparently is that the draftsmen draft the Bill, and then at a later stage the consolidation measure is introduced.

The suggestions and criticisms that have been made have centred mainly on the format of the Bill and the procedure adopted, as well as the question whether the measure is comprehensive enough. The idea behind this Bill is different from the earlier Act in that it recommends and includes a new Comhairle Ealaíon, consisting of 16 members and a chairman. That is the maximum number. The idea behind that was to get sufficient people appointed to the council, so that they could, by themselves, divide up into sub-committees. It has been suggested that the council might even be bigger. Most Senators will recognise that, if it is made too big, it is highly unlikely to reach any decisions. In fact, 17 people meeting regularly is a very large number. Seventeen members meeting regularly as a single body might find it difficult to reach decisions on a number of matters.

The idea, therefore, is that the council itself should decide to appoint sub-committees, on the assumption that, say, five members would be appointed if it is possible for the council to split up into at least three sub-committees. It might well be that it would establish more than three. The intention was that the council would be so formed as to provide a balance between the visual arts—drama and literature, music, opera and ballet. The persons appointed would be appointed for their knowledge, experience or contribution in these fields.

So far as I am personally concerned, and so far as the Government are concerned, the intention would be to look to the various interests in order to select persons qualified to make a contribution. The suggestion was made that the selection should be on a regional or geographical basis. I think that is a mistake. You cannot select people on the basis of regions or geography. It may be that highly suitable people are resident in all four provinces or county areas, but to set out to select people because they are resident in a region does not necessarily mean that the best qualified people would be appointed.

On the other hand, as Senator West remarked, it is important that the Arts Council, in doing its work, should involve itself in the activities all over the country. What we set out to do in this is to select people representing the various interests I have mentioned from as wide a spectrum as possible. We hope that in doing that we will get people who have and can make a contribution.

Senator Quinlan made a suggestion that bodies should be designated and that the nominees of particular bodies would be so appointed. Experience has shown—certainly with other State bodies or statutory undertakings— that the most satisfactory way, with all its defects, is appointment either by the Government or by the Minister. It can be changed and at regular intervals. Most people recognise that it is a mistake to continue on any public or statutory body persons indefinitely or that people should be under the impression that, once appointed, they more or less remain there for life.

In no sense reflecting on people who have served on these bodies, it is important that there should be a change, and this is irrespective of whether there is a change of Government or of a Minister. Most people have a particular contribution to make and it is most likely to be made within a limited period. I have had representations made to me by a number of directors or appointees to statutory State and semi-State organisations, expressing the view that their experience is that, if they or others are left too long, they cease to have the necessary incentive or enthusiasm, and that whatever contribution they find it possible to make has already been made. To that extent, the idea is a five-year term.

Of course it is conceivable that it might not be for the full five years and it is quite possible to appoint some for one period and some for another. Here again, most people who have had experience on any of the statutory boards find that, unless the board is reappointed or comes up for appointment in toto—the individual or individuals who come up in the ordinary way, say, company directors under the Company Acts retire at an annual meeting and they rotate—an individual feels singled out if he is not reappointed. The reappointment of the whole board or the council, as the case may be, avoids discriminating against an individual.

So far as the amount of money being made available is concerned, it is always the case that the demands exceed the funds available and the amount of money being spent by the State on art in one form or another is quite considerable. It is not as much as many of us would like to see; but, at the same time, allowing for heavy demands on the Exchequer for a variety of causes and different ministerial responsibilities, the contribution made in respect of the Arts is quite considerable. A number of subsidiary bodies under different Ministers such as museums, galleries, Radio Éireann orchestra, libraries are financed separately and cultural activities are involved in one way or another with a lot of this work, so that the sum mentioned of £500,000 is not the total contribution or expenditure. A number of these other bodies are administered separately.

It was suggested that organisations should be represented. It is not correct to say that organisations represent artistic views. They represent the interests of the members, which is in many ways a different thing. The individuals concerned may have strong artistic views or have an individual contribution to make, but it is essential that what one should try to do is to get a council which will cover all arts, as widely as possible, and entrust to that council the responsibility for policy.

In practice, it is the procedure of the council to prepare estimates and furnish them to the Department and to get agreement, as far as possible, on the amount sought. On the other hand, as Senator Harte rightly remarked, art is not like industrial production or an economic scheme. You may project what you will spend, but do you spend it merely for the sake of spending it? It does not mean that it will be a contribution to art. It is essential to get a broad-based council and let them decide to adopt the modern approach of programming ahead. While the annual estimate deals with what the Arts Council spend, it cannot be measured in the same way as an economic project or a project of a particular kind which can be measured in £.s.d.

It is important that we approach this matter in the broadest possible way and give the greatest measure of freedom. If artists—using that description in the widest sense—value one thing more than any other it is their independence, their freedom to decide and liberty from any form of restriction, indeed, State restriction. It is a fact that the greatest achievements in art in the world were achieved without any State assistance, achieved of course in different circumstances; but the people who contributed most to literature, painting, drama and so forth, did so almost entirely, certainly in the past, without State assistance. The circumstances have changed and the community now recognise that there is an obligation to be involved. Senator FitzGerald was quite right in saying that we must include the younger people and this is to a very great extent a matter of education. We want to stimulate an interest in the community and, if we can establish this through the work of the Arts Council, then the effort will have been worthwhile.

This measure follows the earlier one which has been in operation for just over 21 years. Some of the remarks which were made about the activities of the Arts Council were important and some of the Senators were very generous in their praise; but, as Senator West said, it is important nowadays to use public relations, and probably that is one of the areas to which the Arts Council may not have paid sufficient attention.

Reference was made by a number of Senators, including Senator FitzGerald, to the fact that the cinema was not included. The reason for that is that a special Bill was introduced. It was actually circulated but not proceeded with, and on the dissolution of the Dáil it lapsed. But the Minister for Industry and Commerce is at present preparing legislation which will provide for the establishment of a film board. It is the intention to empower that board to make loans and grants for the production of films. The Film Finance Corporation is a subsidiary of the Industrial Credit Company and it was established some years ago to assist the production of films. As is not unusual in that sphere of activity, the company lost a considerable amount of money and although still in existence it has not carried on any activities for some years. As well as that Bord Fáilte gave grants to the Cork Film Festival and also paid outstanding debts which the festival incurred in earlier years. A further debt was incurred this year and Bord Fáilte have undertaken to clear it. Because of this and the experience to date, and the fact that legislation is being prepared to deal with the establishment of a film board, it was not specifically included.

This Bill also clears up the doubt that the comhairle will have the power to assist in undertakings in the North of Ireland. There has been a great deal of useful co-operation on a two-way basis between the Arts Council and other bodies in the North of Ireland and that it is proposed to continue. A change is proposed in section 13 to amend section 12(1) of the Principal Act and this enables the comhairle to extend their activities there.

There were some other points mentioned and I hope to deal with them specifically on Committee Stage Again I should like to thank the Seanad for its cordial reception of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for next sitting day after Thursday, 15th November, 1973.

Business suspended at 6.15 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.