Private Business. - Arts Bill, 1973: Committee Stage. – Seanad Éireann (13th Seanad) – Tuesday, 11 Dec 1973

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

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

An Cathaoirleach

The amendments in this Bill have a particularly complex relationship to one another. Amendments Nos. 2 and 9 are related to amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 8 is consequential on amendment No. 1. The suggestion is that amendments Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9 should be taken together and debated in a single debate, with the agreement of the House

Mrs. Robinson

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, subsection (1), before "and such number" in line 9 to insert "the chairman of each committee appointed under section* of this Act (hereinafter referred to as the ex officio members)” and to delete “sixteen” in line 10 and substitute “ten”.

(*new section proposed to be inserted by amendment 2)

I am grateful to the House for allowing these four amendments to be taken together because they are intertwined. One can approach the first amendment, taken together with the second, eighth and ninth, as an attempt to introduce the real element of representation of the arts which we feel is absent from the Bill. The first amendment to section 2 of the Bill will change the composition of the Arts Council and if this amendment were to be adopted section 2 (1) would read:

The Council shall consist of a chairman (subsequently in this Act referred to as the Chairman), the chairmen of each committee appointed under section—

The new section of the Act—

—of this Act referred to as the ex officio members and such number (not being more than ten) of other members as the Taoiseach shall from time to time determine.

The effect of adopting the first amendment would be that the Taoiseach would still appoint the chairman of the Arts Council. He would appoint other members of the Arts Council up to the number of ten. The six other members, known in the amendment as ex officio members, would be the chairmen of the committees which we would propose to insert under the second amendment. This would allow for the important element of democratic representation. When the Taoiseach introduced this Bill in the House on the 14th November he said, at column 13 of the Official Report:

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 in the various branches of the arts and more equitable geographical representation.

At that time I was critical of the fact that he seemed to feel that mere size would bring in this element of greater representation. What this and the other amendments propose to do is to incorporate into the structure of the Arts Council that degree of representation and balance between the arts. Allowing the Taoiseach to still nominate the majority of the members of the council will enable him to exercise a very broad discretion on the composition. It will also enable the development of a structural committee system and the ex officio membership of chairmen of those committees in the Arts Council, giving a healthy balance and representative element to the Arts Council as so formed.

Amendment No. 2 proposes to insert a new section before section 5 of the original Bill. This section will provide for the committee system. When speaking on the Second Stage of this Bill the Taoiseach mentioned the possibility that the Arts Council themselves could divide into sub-committees. He said that they could form perhaps three subcommittees. This is inadequate. We are talking about structure and representation and creating a balance between the arts. The really effective way to do this is to write into the Bill itself an appropriate committee structure.

On the Second Reading I made extensive reference to the practice which operates very successfully at the moment in the Northern Ireland Arts Council. The Northern Ireland Arts Council is set up as a company with its memorandum and articles of association. To some extent this committee structure is borrowed and adapted in statutory form, since we have chosen this method of composing an Arts Council. The committee system, therefore, is not totally drawn out of a void, out of what might be appropriate; it is based on the experience of a very successful Arts Council in the northern part of this country. It is a very good example of what we can learn from practical experience and a successful model in the North of Ireland.

The effect of adopting a committee system of this nature is that one would draw into the wider ambit of the Arts Council six committees consisting of nine members who would be part-time people with certain expertise in a particular branch of the Arts who would have a positive contribution to make. These committees would discuss and report to the full council on the particular area of expertise. These committees would appoint their own chairmen and these chairmen would be the ex officio members of the Arts Council. There would be a structure which would still be a structure by appointment because the members of this committee under the terms of this amendment would be actually appointed by the council rather than elected. Another possibility, if one really wanted to give them democratic participation, would have been to try for some sort of electoral system from panels representative of various groups of artists, such as the Union of Musicians, and the Institute of Architects of Ireland. By providing for a committee structure by appointment rather than by election one will get the broad composition. One is thinking now of 54 people involved in this committee structure representative of the arts.

In subsection (3) of the second amendment we set down the expertise which these people should have. We provide that in the selection of persons for appointment to a committee "regard shall be had to the person's attainments or interest in or his knowledge of the branch or branches of the arts within the responsibility of the committee or his competence otherwise to assist the committee". There is, therefore, a necessity for persons with certain expertise in a particular branch or branches of the arts or a particular contribution to make, in order that the person be appointed to that committee. There is also the fact that the committee have a democratic basis in that the committee shall appoint their own chairman. Out of this particular committee in whatever branch it may be, there will be a chairman appointed and that chairman will take his place as an ex officio member of the Arts Council.

It is appropriate to look at the subject matter of these various committees and to give some indication as to why these particular subject matters were chosen. The first subject matter is the Finance and General Purposes Committee. This committee is necessary, because involved very much in the successful work of an Arts Council and the successful promotion of the aims of an Arts Council under the Principal Act, the Arts Act, 1951, is the need for good managerial expertise, good financial advice, good budgeting and estimating of what the expenditure should be in the various branches of the arts.

Under section 3 of the Principal Act, the council have a number of specific functions. In these there will always be the necessity for expert management and financial advice as to how these particular aims relating to the arts can be carried out. As well as that, under section 4 of the Principal Act, the council may accept gifts of money, land and other property for purposes connected with their functions, but should not accept any gift if the conditions attached thereto are inconsistent with those functions. It would be the Finance and General Purposes Committee which would assess the merits of accepting a gift or not, and the appropriate way in which a gift could be allocated.

Under the Act of 1951 the Arts Council have a function to keep accounts of their income and expenditure and their accounts are submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Under section 7 of the Act they must make a report annually to the Government of their proceedings during the previous year, a copy of which was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. This would be very much the area of expertise of whoever was appointed on this Finance and General Purposes Committee. It would enable a much greater expertise to be called upon, because there would be nine members who would be part-time, unpaid, but who would presumably get their expenses. However, they would be able to bring their expertise to the Arts Council in ways which are not at all catered for in the composition of the 17 members appointed by the Taoiseach, except in so far as the Taoiseach may appoint one or two people with a certain financial expertise. But it is not at all the same as having a committee particularly related to that, whose members are chosen with that particular function in view, and who have the power to appoint their chairman as an ex officio member of the Arts Council and who have all the feed-in of managerial and financial expertise.

The second committee, the Arts Committee, borrows the rest of their terms of reference from the wording of the definition of the arts in section 1 of the Principal Act which reads:

The Arts Committee having responsibility for painting, sculpture, architecture, design in industry and fine arts and applied arts generally.

The next committee, the Drama Committee, has been extended here to include responsibility for drama and films. This again is part of the complexity of these amendments, that it would depend upon the possibility of a further amendment which is yet to be moved being accepted. If it were not to be, then this could be a matter of amendment on Report Stage. It would appear appropriate, if there were to be a special Drama Committee, and if we did accept that the arts included films as an art form, that this committee would deal with drama and films. Again, there should be nine members appointed with such expertise in this area of particular interest, electing their own chairman as an ex officio member of the Arts Council. The Music Committee would come next, then the Literature Committee, and the final committee, a committee for Arts in Education.

I was particularly struck, reading the Second Stage report of what Senators had said, by the emphasis that was placed on education and on the importance of bringing home to young people the relevance of art to their lives, of bringing the knowledge, appreciation and love of the arts into the schools and homes, of bringing young people to centres where they could see the artistic works of this country. This was a theme that ran through almost every contribution. In order to promote this in an active way, it is a far better composition to have a specialist committee devoted to art in education written into the Act. There are specialists in this country both in education itself and in linking art and education, and there is a whole unexplored field of how this can be achieved and of how the educational element can be explored and developed to its full.

None of this art in education element is built into the structure of the Arts Bill. It would be at the discretion of the Taoiseach that somebody who had a particular interest in art in education might at a particular time be appointed to the Arts Council. There would be no more guarantees than that, whereas by accepting this amendment we guarantee that there would be a specialist committee sitting on this question of art in education, and nine members with particular interest in this reporting to the Arts Council and their chairman sitting as an ex officio member of the Arts Council. The amendment goes on to set out the terms of reference of the members of this committee:

(2) The terms of office of the persons appointed pursuant to subsection (1) of this section on a particular day shall each simultaneously commence on such subsequent day as shall be fixed for the purpose by the Council (excluding the ex officio members) and specified in each of the appointments.

This provides that when the chairman has been nominated by the committee their appointment be fixed to run from a particular day.

Subsection (5) states as follows:

Every member of a committee appointed under subsection (1) of this section shall, unless he sooner dies or resigns, hold office until the beginning of the day on which the terms of office of the persons next appointed pursuant to the said subsection (1) are to commence.

Again, this is the normal form for such appointment.

Subsection (6) provides for a case of casual vacancy. It reads:

Where a casual vacancy occurs in the membership of a committee the Council shall, as soon as conveniently may be, appoint a person to fill the vacancy and a person appointed pursuant to this subsection to membership of a committee shall hold office for the remainder of his predecessor's term.

Since it is the council that would appoint the members of the various committees originally, it is the council that would appoint somebody to a casual vacancy. Once again, if I could call it a bias in these amendments, it is to allow the council, in so far as is possible, to appoint the members of the committee, to appoint their own chairman and to allow the council to appoint casual vacancies. This is a genuine attempt not to have the structure too dependent on the appointment by the Taoiseach and what might be Governmental appointments of that nature. It is a more secure and more acceptable structure that it be the council who would appoint to any casual vacancies.

Subsection (7) relates to the question that members of the committee would be open to re-appointment:

Every member of a committee whose term of office expires by effluxion of time shall be eligible for re-appointment.

This is necessary for a small country like Ireland. We are talking about people with an expertise and a contribution to make. They ought to be eligible for re-appointment. At the same time one would hope for a healthy turnover of the membership of these committees. Subsection (8) provides for the resignation of a member of the committee:

A member of the committee may resign his office as such member by letter addressed to the Council and the resignation shall take effect on being accepted by the Council.

Under subsection (9) the council may remove a member of a committee from office. Subsection (10) provides that each committee shall have power to regulate its own procedure and business. This will be the degree to which formal minutes will be kept, the relationship with the council itself and so on.

The various subsections—I appreciate that they have a certain complexity —show the structure of these committees. These committees are based on the principle of a more genuine form of representation, a more genuine balance between the arts. There is evidence in the Bill, in what will become the Arts Act, 1973, that there will be a genuine balance because the committees are so structured. There will be the managerial and financial expertise because there is a committee on finance and general purposes. There will be a concentration on art and education because there is a specialist devoted to this matter.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are consequential on acceptance of these two amendments because they provide for a vacancy occurring other than for ex officio members. This implies that the concept of ex officio members has been adopted. The ex officio member is the chairman of one of the specialist committees. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are consequential on adopting the principle of the committee system and adopting the substantial amendments to section 2 and inserting a new section 5 to that effect.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Before the Senator concludes, should subsection (5) of the proposed section 2 also not include the question of removal in subsection (9)? The proposed subsection (5) states:

I should like to support these amendments which are being taken together. As Senator Robinson has pointed out, the aim of these amendments is to broaden the base of the Arts Council and to set up statutory committees which will advise the council on specific areas of the arts. These councils will take their members from outside the Arts Council but they will be appointed by the council. Therefore, the council would have control of the committees. The committees are directly answerable to the council. The committee chairmen would be members of the council, ex officio.

The purpose of these committees would be to allow for the people throughout the country who are involved in and making their living from the arts to be appointed to these committees, not necessarily appointing them to the council, in order to give the Arts Council the benefit of their knowledge, expertise and experience. During the Second Stage debate on the Arts Council, several of the speakers suggested that the number proposed, 16 or 17, for the membership of the council was not sufficiently big to overcome the inflexibility involved. The Taoiseach in his reply—and it was a fair point—said that if the council were increased to 22, 24 or whatever, it would make the Council unwieldy and would put them in a position of getting above the number stipulated in Parkinson's Law, that no agreement would ever be reached by such an unwieldy body. This amendment gets around the problem because the number of the members of the council is unchanged and yet the council, by setting up these committees, are enabled to draw upon the pool of knowledge from a much wider area than their own particular one.

The amendments as proposed also give the opportunity for introducing new blood into the council at more regular intervals than those contained in the Bill, yet still preserving the essential continuity. One of the difficulties, as was pointed out at the Second Stage, was that if a council are appointed for a period of five years they tend to become somewhat of an in-group. By a system of rotation this problem would be obviated.

One could argue that the structure as set down in these amendments would not work because it is unwieldy. This is not the case, as Senator Robinson has pointed out, because it works very well in Northern Ireland. I made the point on the Second Reading speech that one hoped for close collaboration with Northern Ireland. There has in the past been close collaboration between the Arts Councils North and South. In the North they have a structure of this type. It works, so the argument to the contrary is invalid. It would work here.

Another argument might be that this is putting too much structure into our Arts Council—we are building in the structure. We make the mistake in this part of the country of generally not building enough structure into these official bodies which we set up. We allow them too much latitude. It is the function of the Oireachtas to build in the structure and say: "We want you to deal with certain areas of the arts in certain specific ways." These amendments, although they are complex, would achieve this end. Putting a structure such as this into the Arts Council will broaden their base; will allow them to have more contact with the outside world, will prevent them from becoming an "in" group and would give greater representation to the arts right across the board.

Dr. Martin

I should like to give my wholehearted support to the amendments under discussion and briefly to indicate an advantage in them which has not been mentioned by either Senators Robinson or West, although Senator West may have referred to the matter. The question of representation is one matter that is of very considerable importance. There is another question with regard to an Arts Council or any such body set up by the Government and that is that they tend to become automatic and routine in their procedures. I am a member of one body which shall be nameless. They are an admirable body in many ways and have to do vaguely with the arts. They are a Government-appointed body. They meet once a month. There are very eminent members, excluding myself. They consider various things that come before them which are largely the product of the postman. In other words, a great number of bodies and individuals make application to them for funds. They will sit down and say: "Right, we have a certain amount of money, we will give a certain amount to that, a certain amount to this and a certain amount to the other," where they think this is done equitably and wisely. I have the feeling, having served for a year and a half, that they are a committee without an enormous dynamic within themselves.

I think the Arts Council, as defined in the Arts Bill, 1973, would be subject to that disadvantage. After a while they would become a kind of routine body dealing with routine matters. The amendments set forth here by Senators Robinson and West would change that radically. It would mean that there would be a set of committees which, if well chosen, would contain within their ranks dedicated and dynamic people passionately concerned about furtherance of their particular art. Consequently, the agendas for the meeetings of such committees, I think, would not be dictated by the postman. They would be dictated by the convictions of the people on those committees. This is the element of representation that I would find attractive and admirable. These committees, which would be working extremely hard to further their own arts, would constantly be injecting energy and going out and seeking opportunities for extending the arts throughout the country. It would seem to me that the amendments proposed here would so transfigure the Arts Council that they would become something really powerful, fruitful and dynamic in the whole spectrum of Irish life.

Mr. Lenihan

Senator Martin has just made the point I was going to make. I could not agree with him more because, in my experience of administration and how it works, what happens when a council of this kind have been set up, especially when all the members are appointed by the Taoiseach of the day—I am not casting any reflection on him, although I regret the removal of the co-option principle that was there under the previous legislation—you tend to get a committee that are self-defeating in the sense that they are meeting as one body operating in a routine way and gradually their own bureaucracy is built up. There is no dynamic within a committee on a council of that kind.

There is much to be said for having committees within the umbrella of a council each germinating their own thoughts and their own ideas in the different spheres of the arts and culture. Each of these committees, coming up with their own ideas, germinating their own thoughts, pushing forward their own views under the various headings that are outlined here—painting, sculpture, architecture, drama, music, literature and art and education—are reasonable compartments competing for whatever resources are available from the State to the council and that the council may be able to raise on their own resources. If there is not this built-in what one might call creation of ideas coming up from these committees, if you do not have some dynamism of that kind built in, the structure will tend to atrophy and the Arts Council will tend to develop their own bureaucracy, as indeed to some extent they have developed over the years. They have done good work but not nearly enough. They suffer badly in comparison with the similar institution which exists in the North of Ireland.

One of the reasons for this is that they are just one council with one structure. The previous council suffered by reason of the fact that only one branch of the arts tended to be over-helped by them to almost the total neglect of some other branches of the arts. I will not go into this; it is a well-known fact and has been the cause of contention within the council in the past.

To that extent, the enlargement of the numbers to 16, even though I regret the deletion of the co-option system, is a help in that respect; the part-time chairman and the appointment of a director are a help, but in my view it is only nibbling at the problem. I appreciate that there are slight improvements. There must be a balanced representation between branches of the arts and that is written into section 2. This is all very well in its own way, but basically the Bill makes just minor improvements in an existing structure that have not been successful. They have done work but only up to a limited degree. A much more revolutionary attitude needs to be adopted.

I happen to know a bit about the background to this Bill because it was being considered by the previous Government, of which I was a member. I can say quite bluntly that nothing has been done with it since last February. That is a pitiful situation. Nothing has been done with that Bill: The Bill now before us is substantially the same Bill that was coming up before the previous Government. That is not good enough from a Government composed by men of repute and men who would, one would expect, have applied their minds to this precise area which is so funadmental in society today where people with a growing standard of living and a higher education are becoming more and more concerned with the quality of life and more concerned with the things that occupy leisure time and particularly things of the mind concerning the arts. Nothing has been done. There is nothing revolutionary coming forward and I support fully the amendments that have been put forward here by Senator Robinson.

The only way that real thought can be applied to the arts is to start competition among the various sub-committees within the overall umbrella of the council. That competition should be based on the germination of ideas. It is quite obvious that there will be ideas from the various committees that, taken in toto, will absorb much more than the budget which the council will have. I appreciate the limitation of resources, but at least when there is competition between the various branches of the arts for recognition in the hard practical form of assistance, financial help and advice, within their own committees, with vigorous chairmen competing for their slice of the overall cake that will be available from the State, this sort of competition will make the council apply themselves to the various branches and weigh the various cases put forward by the separate committees in the balance and therefore come forward, ultimately, in the allocation of resources with a balanced infusion of finance into the various branches of the arts.

I know there is nothing to stop this being done by way of ad hoc subcommittee arrangement within the existing 16. I appreciate that, but I do not think that goes nearly far enough. The only way to do it is to write it into the statute and to do it in the comprehensive way that will involve a really broad spectrum of the arts being included.

Amendment No. 2, to section 5, involves the six committees. This will ensure up to 54 people being concerned in this work. This is excellent. It is digging deep, to the very roots of the problem rather than having a small overall committee that would tend to become removed and to build their own bureaucracy. They would tend not to have ideas coming up to them and not to have any dynamics or improvement or innovation.

The Government should give very serious weight to the fundamental principle involved in these amendments. This has been the only attempt to grapple with this problem since 1951. All Governments are to blame for their neglect in this area. This matter should be looked at in a very dispassionate and fair way, because the budget allocation of £100,000 in the current year is so abysmally low for such an important area that it is indicative of an attitude of mind in our community which is in very sharp contrast to the attitude of mind shown in regard to this area in Northern Ireland.

While this Bill, which merely nibbles at the problem, makes very limited but welcome improvements, it is certainly no answer to a situation which needs surgical remedy. The principles incorporated in Senator Robinson's amendments go a long way towards devising something radical and setting up structures which, if supported financially, could provide a dynamic within the whole field of arts and culture in Ireland that would germinate the ideas and match the money available and so do something really revolutionary that is particularly needed in the society in which we live today.

Mr. E. Ryan

In speaking on the Second Stage I regretted two aspects of the Bill. First I regretted the fact that the co-option procedure had been eliminated and, second, I thought the idea of having 16 people appointed for a long period would lead to a certain amount of stultification and that after the first three or four years their thinking and ideas would get into a rut and no dynamic ideas would be coming from them. These amendments have gone a long way towards meeting these two objections. Certainly, as opposed to the old system where you had a limited number of co-options, you are now to have something like 54 co-options. This may be, from one point of view, too many co-options and perhaps a rather complicated system, but, it meets this objection. It certainly meets the second objection which I made because, with that number of people co-opted, you will certainly get a great deal of new ideas and a cross-fertilisation of thinking between the 54 people on the various committees.

I believe this amendment is an over-elaborate way of meeting the objections which have been raised to the Bill; but if the choice is between the Bill as it appears before us and the system which is proposed by the amendments, I would prefer the amendments. In a way, what is proposed is a little too elaborate and a little bit too inflexible because we will have people in separate compartments, and the idea of having a number of co-options, all of whom could deal with a number of different areas of the arts, might be a better one. However, there is a lot to be said for it. Even though I consider the amendments to be somewhat over-elaborate, I would be in favour of the Bill as proposed by these amendments and I will be supporting them.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr. Bruton)

Listening to the debate I gathered that one of the main preoccupations of Senators is that there should be a balanced representation on the council involving expertise in the various areas of the arts. I wish to point out that this is provided for in the Bill as it stands. Section 2 (2) (b) refers to one of the factors to which the Taoiseach must have regard in the appointment of the council, namely, the securing of a balanced representation as between branches of the Arts. I understand that the Taoiseach is at present working along these lines in relation to the appointment of an Arts Council consequent on the enactment of this statute. The three areas which he has in mind are music, opera and ballet on the one hand, drama and literature in a second area and a third area relating to the visual arts such as painting, sculpture and so forth.

Senators who are worried that this council will not have representation of all the important arts should cease to worry because the Taoiseach has provided for in the Bill, and has followed through in his appointment of the Arts Council, the principle that there be balanced wide-ranging representation in the council. One of the reasons why the Taoiseach wanted to get away from the principle of co-option which had operated in the past was that it tended to lead to a situation where there was a self-perpetuating council wherein the members co-opted people who had similar outlooks to themselves and, as a result, infusions of new blood did not take place.

If one were to combine the two sets of amendments—the set of amendments in relation to the appointment of a variety of committees combined with a system of rotation—you would be almost going back to the system which was, to some degree, inert in so far as you would never have a completely new council constituted and there would always be the tendency, as you are only appointing one-third new members at any time, to leave the existing sub-committees as they stood because at no time would there be a majority of newly appointed members who would be prepared to sweep the board clean in these committees. You could arrive at the situation where there would be this Arts Council establishment ensconced in these committees who were not as lively as they might be.

There is no way of getting away from the fact that in the final analysis the Government and the Taoiseach who appoint the council are representative of the people as a whole and representative of the consumers of art. No self-selected body, however reputable. can be truly representative of the consumers of art. They may be representative to some degree of the producers of art but may not be of the consumers of art. The Taoiseach, while choosing from people with expertise in appointing the council itself, exercised that function as the personal representative of the people as a whole and thereby ensured a proper balance between the interests of the consumers of art and the producers of art. That is a valid distinction.

Senator Lenihan has very rightly referred to the danger of creating a bureaucracy in the Arts Council. I would suggest to him, with respect, that this is precisely the result which might flow from the amendments in so far as there would be a central council responsible for the carrying out of the executive responsibilities of the council in conjunction with the director, plus a series of committees operating with, as yet, undefined functions in each of the different fields for which the council itself was, at the same time, centrally responsible. There would be certain difficulties in demarcation. There would be almost a bureaucracy set up to decide who should be dealing with a particular problem at a particular time. The Taoiseach's idea of a 16-man council who would make the decisions, would be representative and, at the same time, would be responsible for the decisions taken is a much better approach to the problem than having people who are merely there as advisers but who are not when it comes to the final analysis responsible for anything that is done.

If you were to have a situation where you had an advisory committee and another committee, the central council, actually responsible for the taking of decisions, there would be tension which would not be productive of anything more than mounds of paper and memoranda going between the central council and the advisers, who would not be responsible for the implementation of the advice they give.

For that reason it is better to have one council, which would not only be producing the ideas but also responsible for their implementation. There would not be any sense of inter-responsibility between these various advisory committees because they would each be operating in separate areas. There would be a genuine sense of inter-responsibility between the representatives of the various arts within the central council itself. We believe, therefore, that the central council of dealing with the problem of the Arts in this country.

Senators referred to the situation in Northern Ireland. I would point out that their system of rotation and appointments of committees springs from the different system of local government in Northern Ireland, where there is a system of rotation. In our system of local government we do not have a rotation of members. Therefore, the development referred to by Senators was an organic one in the situation in the North of Ireland. In our context it would not be organic development. To some extent it would be a new concept.

Senator Robinson referred to the importance of education. This is a pre-occupation which I am sure many Senators and, indeed, I myself would share. All I could say here is that this new council will take account of the points made by Senators in relation to the importance of education in the arts.

I wish to conclude my remarks by saying that the proposed amendment is considered to be undesirable. It envisages the setting up of a very complicated administrative structure involving in all 54 members of committees. It would require additional staff, as each committee would have to be serviced. This would result in greater administrative expenditure by the council. It is considered far better to allow the council as much discretion as possible in the methods they employ to carry out their functions and not to tie them to any particular type of system. It is open to the council to set up—this is a point I think Senators should take particular note of—ad hoc committees, or panels where necessary, to advise them. With membership increased to 17 it is unlikely that any branch of the Arts will be neglected.

The point is very valid that the council should be allowed to find the best method of working because, as Senators will no doubt agree, these people will have expertise and will themselves be tackling the problems. They will be able to decide what committees it would be appropriate for them to appoint.

The Attorney-General's office have advised that the council can request ad hoc committees to advise on matters relating to their functions. They could not pay expenses. This difficulty can however be formalised by the making of a suitable order under section 4(a) of the 1961 Act.

I think these are the main points one should make at this stage. The amendment is not acceptable.

Mrs. Robinson

I am very struck indeed and very much encouraged by the fact that all Senators who spoke in this debate on the amendment spoke in favour of it. Senators West, Martin and Lenihan, the Leader of the Opposition, and Senator Eoin Ryan spoke very strongly in favour of a committee system. I noted some points about the possibility of the present structure being over-elaborate, but there was a complete concensus on the part of those Senators who spoke that it is better to have a committee system structure with visible representation and expertise in the various branches, complete with the dynamism which this would produce.

I noted for the first time in any debate in which I participated silence from the opposite benches. I appreciate that silence. I appreciate the fact that no Senator will get up on his feet and oppose an amendment put forward in good faith, which he is obviously not prepared to oppose, and I take encouragement also from that silence.

I turn then to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. I know he is deputising for the Taoiseach here today, because the Taoiseach is unable to be here for this debate. I sympathise with his position, but that is no excuse for the feeble arguments against this amendment. If they are the arguments against it, then I am tempted to put it to a vote, because surely it must be carried by an overwhelming majority. It need not even go to a vote.

If I might pursue the points the Parliamentary Secretary made, he drew the attention of the Seanad to the fact that the Bill contains the elements of representation and balance. Subsection (2) of section 2, in regard to the selection of persons for appointment to membership of the council, says that regard shall be had to (a) the person's attainments or interest in, or his knowledge of the arts, or his competence otherwise to sit on the council, and (b) securing a balanced representation as between branches of the Arts. Of course, these two provisions would be there for the ten members appointed by the Taoiseach under the structure proposed in the amendment.

This is only a guideline for the person appointed. The method of appointment is still a completely secret matter. He is completely unaccountable to anybody. It is totally at the discretion of the Taoiseach to decide whether somebody has, in fact, attainments, interest in or knowledge of a particular art or competence to sit on the council. It is totally in his discretion as to what degree of balance is maintained between the arts. The process that is going on at the moment is a secret process of various institutions in the country, such as the Institute of Architects, writing to the Taoiseach saying "Please remember us and put some architects on it". An Taisce could write in. The Union of Musicians could write in. What sort of structure or real representation for people involved in the arts in this country is that? The maximum involvement we can give them is that they can write a letter to the Taoiseach and say: "Please remember us in your wisdom when you are appointing the 17 members of the Arts Council".

I think the amendment has the merit of allowing the Taoiseach to appoint ten members under those terms of reference, bringing in the two ideas of attainments or interest in a particular branch, maintaining a balance between the arts and, at the same time, giving a visible structure of representation.

I would not regard the Taoiseach as representative of me as a consumer of art. We come to the stage where representation means so little that we should abolish elections. "We have elected a Government who represents us for all purposes. Let them make appointments of every kind, local authority, and so on. They represent us as consumers". That is the weakest, most indirect form of representation one can envisage.

We are talking about an Arts Council, the role of art in our society, the involvement of people working in the various arts, the need to involve the public in general and the need for educating young people in the arts. This is a very complex and important area of our lives. We did not elect a Government to represent us in a monopoly way in this. We are a democratic country and we need democratic structures. This structure has only the most shallow form of representation in that the Government was elected for a political form of representation and has no particular expertise to represent us as consumers in the Arts and we should be demanding a structure of representation other than the Taoiseach looking into his heart and deciding on the 16 members.

I speak with feeling on this because we have been regarded from the outside as not being a very strongly democratic country. We are a highly centralised country. We do not have much devolution of power. We have many appointments made to various bodies by the Government of the day and a changing with the Government of the day. We must be concerned about deepening participation and democratic control here and about fixing accountability. A grave weakness in the present Arts Bill is that there is no attention given to this fundamental principle of democratic representation, since it talks only about representation by appointment in the most attenuated way.

We are told the Taoiseach is working along the three lines: first, music, opera and ballet; second, drama; and then a third area of the visual arts. If there were formal committees, even in those three areas, written into the Bill, and a structure for people who had particular expertise in these areas, it would be much better than having the Taoiseach operating in secret, as a result of people writing to him, operating in a way in which he is not accountable to either House of the Oireachtas or in any public way.

The Parliamentary Secretary criticised the former method of co-option to the council and stated that the present amendment, by combining the variety of committees and the system of rotation of members, would lead to a self-perpetuating council which would be inert or less responsive. I find this incredible, because the whole basis of the rotation system is to stop the Arts Council being what it has become: a self-perpetuating oligarchy. The Parliamentary Secretary thinks there is merit in having the Arts Council appointed en bloc for five years and then being either done away with entirely or reappointed en bloc. This is not a good method of appointing the Arts Council because there is not the continuity which is important in this area and there is not the possibility of new blood coming in other than once every five years.

If the Arts Council know that the whole Arts Council will come up for reappointment at the end of November in a particular year, for the six months before that no important decisions can be taken because there is a lame duck Arts Council which may or may not be reappointed. When the Arts Council may be reappointed en bloc, the tendency is to reappoint the whole council or to get rid of the lot and appoint an entirely new Arts Council, thereby losing the value of continuity. These arguments, although introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary at this stage, will be more directly relevant when we are talking about the rotation system.

There is no doubt that the amendment would introduce more flexibility and accountability into the council than exists under a system of appointment and removal by the Taoiseach. In that system there is no basis other than approval by the Taoiseach at his own discretion. I emphasise that I am not in any way making personal remarks about or implied criticism of the Taoiseach for the time being. I am speaking about whichever Taoiseach we have over the next 20 years, if we are in a cycle where every 20 years we get a new Arts Bill, which is the present plan. The then Taoiseach will have the power and the function of appointing the members to the Arts Council. That is the most stagnant form of composition one could imagine.

In referring to education, which the Parliamentary Secretary did with particular feeling since this is his own area of responsibility and of expertise, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that he had no doubt that the Arts Council were taking account of the importance of education in the Arts. No doubt it will go on the records of this House that the Arts Council will take into account the importance of education in the arts. They probably will, but that is not the sort of argument which has much weight. It is not worth the words being spoken. It is only an expression of views by the Parliamentary Secretary. There is nothing in the structure of the Bill which will ensure this; but there is something in the structure of the amendment which will ensure it. There is a committee dealing with art and education consisting of nine members who would be particularly concerned with how much one could extend this whole area and how one could involve young people in the arts, how one could bring to the schools an awareness and appreciation of the Arts and bring the school children to the centres where they can appreciate the various forms of art.

The Parliamentary Secretary made the point that the committee system would result in the creation of a huge bureaucracy, that it would result in a need for officials to serve these committees. I should like to argue about what one means by bureaucracy. The Arts Council, as a body of 17 members nominated by the Taoiseach, would be a bureaucracy in itself. It is not a very efficient way of proposing a bureaucracy. If one has a structure of six specialist committees, I would hope it would mean they would have to be serviced by a full-time paid official. That is the sort of expenditure on the Arts that one can see. It is not open to those proposing an amendment in the Seanad to incorporate this into the Bill because that would constitute a charge on public moneys. It is, however, a very valid gain from a committee structure that there should be paid officials to serve and back up this committee.

One can look to the example of the Northern Ireland Arts Council where they have assistant directors in charge and backing up each of the specialist committees. These are paid experts with a real knowledge of the field, who bring to it all the energy and enterprise of people who have no other particular concern and who have more time to devote to a particular problem because they are full-time.

The disadvantage of committees is that they consist of part-time people who have a lot on their hands. They must be serviced by full-time officials. One of the very important spinoffs of adopting this committee structure would be that, as moneys were available, the committee structure could grow to allow a paid official to serve on each of these committees and to build up an expertise. If, for example, we had a paid official specifically related to the Arts and Education Committee he would be able to visit the schools, provide liaison and arrange for exhibitions to move round the country to schools. He could perform a much greater function in this area than the Arts Council ever tried to perform to date. This is not an argument against the amendment but rather a merit in its favour.

Finally, the Parliamentary Secretary showed just how weak the argument against structuring the Arts Council with the committee system incorporated in the Bill itself is when he said it would be open to the Arts Council to form ad hoc committees. It was open to the Arts Council since 1951 to form ad hoc committees. To my knowledge a committee system was not formed, or if it was it had no impact. It is not adequate to allow the 16 members and chairman of the Arts Council to say “Let us form a sub-committee on something”. That sub-committee has no function, no statutory authority, no role to play, no visibility. If we had an Arts Committee, Drama Committee, Art and Education Committee, et cetera people would know that these committees existed. The artists working in that particular area, musicians, et cetera would contact the committee. There would be a dynamism there which would not exist if informal ad hoc committees were the best that could be created.

I was astonished when the Parliamentary Secretary criticised these committees as being merely advisory committees without responsibility for implementation. I cannot understand how he can make this argument because the value of these committees is that they can reach out into the community for the expertise. They can formulate advice in good faith. The chairmen of these committees are members of the Arts Council. Through their chairmen the committees participate in a collective decision. One would not want to see these advisory committees taking decisions because they would take them from too narrow a perspective. The Arts Committee would make a decision relating only to art. The Drama Committee would want to take decisions relating only to drama. The very fact that there is this direct liaison with structural involvement in the Arts Council, with chairmen participating as ex officio members, guarantees that there will be a balance between the Arts and that those with expertise will make their expertise available to the Arts Council—this is what the Minister was pointing out in the criterion set out in sub-section (2) (a) and (b) of the present Arts Bill—and will do so in a visible form.

It is insufficiently appreciated that, when we are talking about setting up a body and the structures of it, the vital element is that it be seen to be representative, seen to be democratic, seen to involve participation. We cannot depend upon the goodwill of the Taoiseach for the time being or the assurances of a Parliamentary Secretary on the record. The assurances are not worth anything. It is not enough to say "I feel sure the Arts Council will take into account the interests of the various art forms. I feel that the Arts Council will form ad hoc committees.” That is not meaningful to us as legislators. There should be the actual structure demanding these forms because they are being given statutory recognition. One gets the impression—and it is reinforced by what Senator Lenihan said—that this Bill was drafted in lonely isolation by some civil servant who was asked to come forward with the new Arts Bill, that no attempt was made to give it the broad basic representation that one would like to see and that we will now, by default pass this Arts Bill, 1973, in its present extremely limited and most unsatisfactory form.

All the Senators who spoke to these amendments spoke in favour of them. I am much encouraged by that. I hope that this will be noted. So far as those Senators who participated are concerned, they see the need for a better structure giving participation. I would not wish to regard the particular type of structure we have proposed as the best or only type of structure. But I would have liked to have seen, and should still like to see, a willingness on the part of the Government to consider the importance, in principle, of a committee system and a structure which reflected a balance between the Arts, which allowed participation by a number of people and which wrote into the Bill itself this real concept of true democratic representation, a concept which is completely absent from this nominated council we are being asked to approve. I have been much encouraged by the submissions made, and unless the Parliamentary Secretary can give an undertaking that the Government are willing to accept this type of committee structure or to bring in an amendment on Report Stage with the same principle behind it, then I feel this is a matter which ought to be put to a vote, because there has been the total acceptance by Senators who contributed of these amendments and, therefore, the implication that they have very real merit.

Dr. Martin

I see no reason on earth why this should not, be put to a vote. I was equally astonished by the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary on the arguments put forward. The merits of these amendments as against the merits of the original Bill are self-evident. The original Bill as it stands is merely a re-vamping of the old Bill. To vote for that and to insist that it is right is really to vote for apathy or routine or for a state of immobility and inertia—in fact to vote for the status quo. If I may use my earlier figure of speech, it is a vote for the postman. That Arts Council—and I know this from my experience in working on similar committees—will ultimately bed down into a number of all-purpose senior retired and semi-retired citizens meeting either once, twice or three times a month to consider an agenda which is largely composed by people who are writing in for requests for money, considering these requests on their merits, voting on the money and disbanding. It will be the kind of committee that has created a false facade of activity in Irish life for far too long.

This is an opportunity to do something radical, good and energetic about the arts. When we talk about the arts let us consider what we are talking about. We are not really talking about a number of senior connoisseurs coming home from their directorships of an evening and meeting for a few hours to discuss the relative merits of this, that and the other. The arts primarily draw their energy from a very large body of creative and committed young people —writers, sculptors, artists, stained-glass workers, poets and philosophers. These are people who are working on very strained resources, who are often very poor and whose wives and families are often very poor. They are contributing at the most vital and productive times of their lives to enriching the whole culture in which they live and in which we live.

Senator Robinson's amendment allows for a structure in which you will have a series of relevant committees on which such people as these could be represented. It would also provide for the kind of financial expertise which could be put at the disposal of the council in order to obtain money not necessarily from the Government but from outside. These would be committed committees. They would be deeply concerned with the arts which they themselves are practising.

There would be the further safeguard that these committees would be represented on the council itself, so there would be no question of irresponsibility. The council would have ultimate control. It would mean that the 54 people would bring about a diffusion of this interest, this concern, through the community, far greater than this appointed committee which is really paternalistically appointed and, in fact, paternalistically described in the words of the Parliamentary Secretary who said, "Oh, yes, they would have due regard for this, that and the other". Of course, they would have due regard for this, that and the other. But when we speak about "due regard" we mean passionate commitment to the Arts. That is what we have to recognise and that is what I should like to spell out, and that is what I should like to say is negated in this limp document which has come before the Dáil.

As distinct from the limp document, there is an extraordinarily promising structure put forward by Senator Robinson. I should like to see a vote on this because one does not know how many people are interested in it. A big number of people throughout the country are very interested in it. Many poor, struggling, hard-working artists, with a lot to contribute to the community, are interested in it. I would, therefore, ask Senator Robinson to call for a vote on it and see where we stand, whether we want to vote for routine and inertia and for the status quo, or whether we want to vote for a genuine championship of the arts within our society.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I should like to say a few words on this, partly in response to Senator Robinson's invitation, but, perhaps, Senator Martin might have got me on my feet, anyhow.

There is some misconception on Senator Martin's part as to what Senator Robinson's proposal is. I find it very difficult to understand his line of reasoning in relation to this amendment when there is apparently, either on his part or on the part of any other Senator who has contributed, no objection at all to the method of appointment of the council. I could understand—I do not say I would agree with it—an attack being mounted on this Bill by reason of the fact that the members of the council are to be appointed by the Taoiseach. I could also understand the argument being made, as it was to some extent but not pressed by Senator Robinson, that that is not democratic. I could understand the argument that there will not be a democratic council because the council will be nominated by the person who happens to be Taoiseach during the five-year period the council are to be nominated and new nominations made.

No. It would be ten plus the chairman of the committee.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I am sorry. I have taken this up wrongly. I am dealing with amendment No. 2. I accept that I should have dealt with amendment No. 1 as well.

You then have the position where, as Senator Martin points out, there is representation just through the chairman, but there is still no objection to the method of selecting the council. The council then appoint the sub-committees which would probably be a better description; they are supposed to function under the council. I cannot see how, if we are agreed that the council are all right and that the method of selecting the council is all right, we can describe the selection of sub-committees by the council, based on a statutory requirement, as something which is radical and energetic? The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out already that there is power for the council to set up ad hoc sub-committees. The objection to that procedure is—and Senator Robinson put it this way—that they would have no particular function, no particular role and no visibility.

If we are serious about the idea of having what I would describe as working committees, or working sub-committees, we should dismiss from our minds the attaching of any importance to the question of visibility. It does not seem to me that it matters two hoots whether a committee which are a working committee are visible to the public or not provided they are doing their work. There is no reason why an ad hoc committee established by the council would not do exactly the same work as one which the council are required to establish by reason of a statute passed by the Oireachtas. If it is conceded that the council have the authority to establish ad hoc committees, then all the power to carry out the functions proposed by this amendment is already contained in the Bill.

I understand that a person may take that view but the council might not exercise their power to establish committees under the various headings which are set out unless they are forced to do so by the Members of the Oireachtas by accepting this or some such amendment to the original proposals contained in the Bill. This may be so. I imagine that if the work which the council are required to do is work which needs to be done by sub-committees, work which the council itself is not capable of doing, the obvious way for the council to operate is by exercising their discretion to form ad hoc committees to carry out these functions. It is not necessary that this procedure should be forced upon them by legislation. If it is forced on them by legislation then it is a statutory requirement which must be carried out. I do not know the views of the Parliamentary Secretary and I understand he wishes to speak again. If this procedure were to be adopted I would not ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the amendment in the terms in which it is proposed. If the council are to be put under a statutory obligation to select sub-committees it will open up a wide area which must be considered, and examined, before that particular structural procedure which Senator Robinson has proposed should be accepted. I do not think it should be accepted in the form in which it is proposed here.

If we are to travel along the lines of trammelling a council by legislative shackles as to how they operate, we must go a lot further in definition than is done in this amendment. We talk in this amendment about a Finance and General Purposes Committee, a Music Committee, a Literature Committee, and so on. Literature would probably require subdivision many times before we would get a precise view of the work which the committee will be required to undertake. All these matters, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out when he was replying, are only on an advisory basis. The council need not accept the advice given to it by any of these statutory committees. Senator Robinson will correct me if I am wrong in this matter, but as I understand it, the council could even put their own members on each of the six committees. There is nothing in this amendment which precludes them doing this. If it was intended that this matter should be dealt with seriously and that we should have a body consisting of 54 members instead of 17, it would have to be spelled out in the legislation.

There are some other small drafting points that objection could be taken to in this amendment if it were being considered in the framework of the Bill. One objection, which I already suggested to Senator Robinson by way of interjection, was in relation to subsection (5) where provision is made that:

That does not make provision for the person who is removed under sub-section (9), nor does the amendment spell out in any of the subsections the grounds on which members of committees could be removed. It does not spell out whether removal is to be effected by a simple majority of the members of the council or whether— and this is a matter of some importance—there should be a statutory fraction, like a two-thirds majority or something of that sort, for removal of committee members.

Finally, the last amendment reads:

Each committee shall have power to regulate its own procedure and business.

If one is talking purely in terms of the conduct of the committee meetings, that kind of provision would probably be all right and would give the kind of elasticity which some people would properly regard as a virtue in dealing with committee work. However, it does not do this in so far as the sub-section goes. It does not spell out the fact that what the subsection is referring to is the meetings of the sub-committee but merely that each committee shall have power to regulate its own procedure and business. We are asked, not merely to set up various sub-committees, but, in subsection (10), to give them carte blanche as to what they will do. I am merely pointing these out as difficulties which I think immediately occur to anyone when the Government are asked to accept an amendment of this sort without any alteration or consideration other than what is given in the course of this discussion.

I want to express the view bluntly that I do not think there is anything sacrosanct at all in statutory committees as against any other ad hoc committee. The important thing is that the machinery established under an Act of Parliament should be machinery that is workable and should be machinery that Parliament as a whole has confidence in as the kind of machinery that will get the work which Parliament wants to see completed, done. That is so even at the cost of sacrificing—I do not wish to appear derogatory when I am saying this—what might appear to be the trimmings or trappings of democracy in the operation. There is no democracy in one individual having the selection of the entire council, but it is a practical way of doing this and that is why it is being done in this way. What would the alternatives be? How would we decide who would be entitled to elect a council of this sort? Naturally, even those Senators who are supporting this amendment accept that point of view and, consequently, they do not object to the appointment by the Taoiseach.

Mr. Lenihan

Up to ten.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

That is not a democratic process and certainly one could visualise other processes. There is not anything, to my mind, sacrosanct about having something written into this Act which will provide for statutory rather than ad hoc committees. It should be remembered that the people who are selecting the committees will be the people appointed by the Taoiseach, in the case of this Bill, in a practical way. They will be appointed on the particular basis which, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, the Taoiseach himself outlined when he was dealing with this on the Second Stage.

Dr. West

I do not think we are dealing with a matter of democracy which Senator O'Higgins seemed to think we were. I do not think the proposers of these amendments have an objection to the practical nomination of members to the Arts Council by the Taoiseach of the day. We are trying to overcome something which is a common experience in life. Senator Martin has outlined this experience, which is to be found right across the board. It happens in all committees in all walks of life in that they are appointed. If this committee according to the terms of the Bill is to be appointed for a period of five years they start off with a great bang, but they soon subside into dealing with the routine matters, which will be, in the case of the Arts Council, of sufficient financial complexity to keep them happy and they will feel they are doing a good job. This was the experience of previous Arts Councils. Deserved tributes were paid to them but, because of the structure, they ended up dealing mainly with the different financial applications for grants from various bodies and not dealing with the deeper matters which would involve looking at the whole policy in the arts of stimulation, of development and of education. That is why we are trying to write into the Bill a structure to ensure this.

Senator O'Higgins has said that there was no reason why they would not appoint these committees. It is human life that one does not go around appointing these committees. The previous Arts Council did not do much in the way of appointing committees from outside themselves. They may have had sub-committees of their own members but this is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to ensure that the Arts Council has a built-in dynamism, that they have ideas coming from underneath, that they have groups of people who are not on the council but who are represented by their chairman to provide this dynamism, that they will be constantly pushing material and ideas into the council through the chairman.

There is no question of enlarging the number of people on the council: 17 is the number, plus the chairman. The whole idea is that they will not just subside into a body considering grants from west Cork and east Cork and trying to balance one against the other and say: "We give £50 to this gang and another £25 to the boys over here." The whole point is that we want them to start looking at questions of policy and the way this happens is by getting this surge from underneath from the committees.

It is certainly my experience, it seems to be Senator Martin's experience and I would say it is a wide experience of human life, that, unless something is built-in, committees of this nature just subside into doing what they can do in the nature of deciding on the allocation of finance, something the Arts Council would be doing. Basically that is what they did over the last five years. What we are trying to ensure by these amendments is that this does not happen. It is not a question of democracy, but the fact is that, if an amendment along the lines of the one we are moving is accepted, there would be greater involvement across the board.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Senator West is making it clear that he is not committed to the actual wording of this amendment.

Dr. West

In what respect?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

May I put it this way? I could have sympathy with the idea contained in this amendment but, personally, I would feel strongly opposed to acceptance of an amendment spelling out things as precisely as this does. If we were to go on a committee basis it would be necessary to consider seriously whether a committee of nine are much too big, as I think so. We would have to consider if we would allow the situation where the council members themselves could be on all the committees, whether outsiders are required, but that is not spelled out. There are various other matters along that line that would have to be considered.

Dr. West

There are points of detail that would have to be considered. I am not disagreeing with Senator O'Higgins but I am trying to outline the spirit in which these amendments were made. Senator Robinson said in one of her speeches that she would be prepared to look at other similar types of structures. But they would have to be structures whose aim was to achieve what we are trying to achieve by means of these amendments. That is the point. I was trying to point out that it is not a question of democracy but any structure of this type would necessarily mean the involvement of people, not specifically on the Arts Council, with the matters which the Arts Council would be considering, because they would have the duty of feeding up their ideas and their deliberations to that council. This is the point about democracy. There would clearly have to be other people not on the Arts Council involved with the chairman on the council. I do not think the figure of nine is sacrosanct. I agree entirely with Senator O'Higgins, but it is a point of principle: are we going to let the Arts Council subside into the body which the last council subsided into over a period of five years or are we going to build in some structure which is designed to overcome that problem?

Mr. Lenihan

We should look at this matter in a totally dispassionate way because the question of the arts is one of the important growing issues in any civilised society to which we aspire at the present time. I remember a memorandum which was placed before the last Government in which all of the issues we are now discussing were put to us as a Government. It was one of the matters that was left over when the election took place and the incoming Government have taken section 2 in, as it were, of the whole matter to produce this Bill. I can say quite categorically that this Bill represents the very minimum advance that could have been taken by any Government, whatever the Government, on what was there in the form of the previous Arts Council. There are certain limited improvements. I welcome the idea of the part-time chairman with the ability, on the part of the council, to appoint a chief executive with the approval of the Taoiseach. I welcome the enlargement of the council as an improvement. That is about all I can welcome and it is minimal, to put it mildly.

Frankly, I am disappointed that these amendments have not been met in a more constructive and forthright manner, because this is a matter that is apart from any partisanship. There is considerable merit in writing these structures into an Act of Parliament. If you leave the council as it is, even though it is enlarged and with its enlargement there is a capacity to appoint ad hoc committees, you will find that this council like other councils before it will go along in the usual lax way that councils, no matter how anxious they are or how inclined they are to improve, tend to develop. The whole point about building in committee structures of this kind is that there is built in to these committees a capacity for improvements, for change, a dynamism to germinate ideas and to come forward with ideas that will be funnelled to the council from these committees, through the chairmen, who will be in effect ex officio members of the committee. Thereby you will have lively discussions at the council coming up from representative committees of the various branches of the arts forced on to the council, so that it does not atrophy, as tends to happen with councils, especially when they are there for five years, but is startled regularly into action by recommendations coming up from the committees through the chairmen. Speaking from the administrative point of view, this is the way to make things hum and make things work if the Government are serious about the arts and serious about making an improvement in their administration and in regard to the general social and human interest in arts within our community.

I should like to follow on Senator O'Higgins's intervention when Senator West was making his contribution and appeal to him and to the Government to have another look at this matter. What is enshrined here in broad principle in Senator Robinson's amendments is one of the options open to the Government to take. There is considerable merit in the broad suggestion embodied in the amendment. I agree that one can pick out drafting flaws in the amendments. Senator Robinson or any Independent Member of this or the other House does not have the draftsman's office available to them. There is no point in making a debating point about the flaws, but it is a well known procedure in this House and in the other House—I have often been at the receiving end of it —that if good ideas come forward in amendments and are incorporated in amendments and provided the broad principle—and there is a broad principle running through these amendments—is accepted by the Government, then perhaps the Government would have another look at these very constructive suggestions between now and Report Stage and come forward with amendments which would write in what has been said here by the Parliamentary Secretary would have been done at any rate by the council.

Ad hoc committees have been mentioned here. Ad hoc committees are all right. Every council and every general committee has ad hoc committees, but ad hoc committees are within the cosy structure of the overall council or the overall general committee. They do not come forward with anything revolutionary or anything that will stimulate or push the central committee or the overall council to any real effort or achievement. I see tremendous merit in having built in, in statute form, committees of this kind where you can have eight people in each case who are not representative of the central council, who will really pummel and work on each other and force the chairman to go back to his council with their ideas. This in turn will affect and infect with enthusiasm the other members of the council. With a broad range of 54 people spread over these committees it is ensured through this mechanism that the council will be as fully informed as is humanly possible of everything that is motivating people concerned with the improvement of the Arts within our community.

Leaving aside the flaws in drafting and criticisms as to numbers on the committees, surely there is tremendous merit in having a system of this kind built into legislation? The Parliamentary Secretary should go back to the Government and ask them, between now and Report Stage, to come in with their ideas on how such a subcommittee idea should be structured. I am not very enamoured of having a Finance and General Purposes Committee. I believe that is the type of committee work that should be done by the council, but I see a lot of merit in the other five subcommittees that are proposed. Four of the six subcommittees are certainly necessary. The Arts Committee should be separate; the Drama Committee, the Music Committee and the Literature Committee should all be separate. Perhaps the Committee for Arts and Education could be linked into the Arts Committee itself. A structure of four sub-committees might be better.

If the Government would acknowledge that there is considerable merit in the body of these amendments, serious consideration should be given by the Government to the principle involved, and if between now and Report Stage we could get an assurance that such consideration would be given to them, I feel, subject to what the proposers of the amendments say, that this would meet the view of some of us who feel very strongly about this matter. While I was a member of the Government I felt very strongly about it and I was totally for a structure of this kind. I believe very passionately in it. A structure along these lines will ensure that something will be done and that we will not just limp along with yet another Arts Council. We had the last Arts Council for 22 years. It has done a certain amount of limited work and I wish to pay due tribute to it, but the structure has been basically wrong. All this Bill does is to improve the structure very, very slightly.

There is nothing radical about it. There will be somebody else here in another 20 years proposing something more revolutionary and some other people in the Establishment proposing that we make slight improvements that will enable it to limp along a little more effectively for another 20 years. Now, let us get down to doing something. We have a Government composed of reasonable talents. They are there since last February and nothing has happened here with this Bill. I am not going to labour that point. Let us forget about that and let us try to do something now. Let us show the bona fides on behalf of the Government that they are willing to go some way to meet a very constructive and a very serious case that is being advanced here by the proposers of the amendments.

Mr. Russell

I should just like to say a few words on these two amendments. I am encouraged to do so by some of the contributions made from the other side of the House. First of all, I should like to make my position quite clear as regards the purpose of these amendments. I am completely in favour of them. The idea behind these amendments is excellent. Senator Robinson has made a very good case for the proposition to activate the main council into doing a lot of the things that were not done by the last council.

However, I think the proposers of the amendments are going the wrong way about it. First of all, you are going to create an enormous conglomerate. One point that was not mentioned in the speeches I heard here today is that the bigger this conglomerate or combines of committees are the more they will be centralised as most things are centralised, in the capital city of Dublin. I should like to see a smaller council or committee proposed here in the Bill that would go around the provinces. There are areas of art and culture, believe it or not, outside of Dublin, vibrant and living in the provinces, and they should be encouraged to feed up ideas to the capital city.

If we are going to create an I enormous collection of committees, 65 people more or less acting together —I shall have something more to say on this in a few minutes because I do not think they will act together—I see no hope whatsoever of drawing in provincial areas into the general scheme of encouragement of arts and culture. I agree most wholeheartedly with what Senator Lenihan said. Having regard to the changed circumstances, the growing interest in art and culture generally, particularly amongst younger people, the growing affluence in our society, the more time available for art and culture, this Bill merits the most serious consideration. The means of carrying out its purpose should be studied very carefully by Members of the Seanad.

I would have thought a more practical suggestion would be to increase the numbers of the council from 17 to a bigger number that would provide for the setting up of sub-committees to carry out the various aspects of art here mentioned in Senator Robinson's amendment. I would have thought that a more practical suggestion because, according to the amendment, these are not sub-committees. These are fully-fledged, independent committees with their own chairman and members and they will, according to subsection (10), have power to regulate their own procedure and business. I cannot see how you can have six committees operating and regulating their own procedure. I cannot see a collection of six, of these nine-member committees at the same time combining and working through a council. I do not think it can be done. I am not saying that because I want to shoot this amendment down. I am saying it for practical reasons and after considerable experience over a long number of years of committees of all sizes, shapes and kinds, I just do not think it can be done.

This proposal, to my mind, is completely negativing the very real reasons for its sponsors putting it down. The assumption of Senator Martin is, to say the least of it, rather unsound. Why should we assume that the Taoiseach, or any Taoiseach, should appoint 17 senile or semi-senile or semi-retired or fully retired persons to this Arts Council? Why should we assume that?

Dr. Martin

On a point of order. I did not use the word "senile" or any word that can be construed as senile.

Mr. Russell

Well, fuddy-duddies. The sense I got from Senator Martin's proposal was that if this proposal goes ahead as set out in this Bill we will have a committee of ineffective, retired people who just want to have an afternoon's chat together but that nothing effective, nothing vibrant, which I think was the word he used, or nothing really worthwhile would be done for the arts in this country. I think that is a wholly wrong premise. If you go on that assumption obviously we should not be talking about this Bill at all.

I should like to think that the Taoiseach, or any Taoiseach—it does not just pertain to the present holder of the office—will, in fact, do what the Bill says it proposes to do; that, in accordance with section 2 (2) (9) 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 between branches of the arts."

If the Taoiseach does what this Bill says he should do, you could have what the Senators on the other side of the House want, a vibrant, active council. I do not see anything in this Bill to stop a council setting up various sub-committees if they are so required. It seems to me that any council can do that; it does not have to be written into the Bill. I would agree with Senator Robinson. They should do it.

I agree with Senator Lenihan. To say the least of it, it is unnecessary to set up a Finance and General Purposes Committee. That is the sort of work that any council should be doing; that is one of the purposes for setting them up. Therefore, we could straight away delete one committee from this conglomerate. It is absolutely unnecessary.

There is a further point I should like to mention. Certainly since I came into the House there has not been much reference made to it. It is proposed to appoint a chief executive officer. If the right man is appointed—and we must assume that the right man will be appointed—he should be the dynamic force in this council. In other words, if we appoint the right people this Arts Council will be a success. If the Taoiseach does not appoint the right people, having regard to the requirements set out in this Bill and the need for an active and vibrant Arts Council, no amount of committees or sub-committees will change the situation. The more committees that are involved in this, instead of being active and doing work, the more they will tend to get in each other's way. Certainly this proposed council, with all its committees, to my mind, would become immobilised all right, but it would become immobilised here in the city of Dublin. No concern would be given to the art that is flourishing, perhaps unnoticed, in the provincial areas. I do not get up here to knock these amendments. I am completely in sympathy with their purpose, but I really believe that the proposals are going the wrong way about achieving it.

Mrs. Robinson

I should like to consider some of the points made in the contribution by Senator O'Higgins and Senator Russell. I think their attitude has been very open-minded on this. Senator Russell began by saying that he was in favour of the idea behind these amendments.

Mr. Russell

I finished on the same note.

Mrs. Robinson

Yes. In considering the contributions made by these two Senators, I would like to do it in the spirit suggested by Senator Lenihan. The debate in this House has shown that there is a very strong view on the part of the Senators who have contributed that there is merit in the possibility of a committee system. I would hope that the Government are sufficiently flexible to take note of this and agree to consider it. Perhaps there will be a concrete proposal on Report Stage. It is not a very constructive approach to put this to a vote in a negative way. It is a more constructive and flexible approach to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to report back to the Taoiseach on the debates which have taken place here, on the points which have been raised and to see whether on Report Stage it might be possible to scoop the best out of the contributions made and to come forward with a better structure for an Arts Council. That is the aim of the proposals and amendments, the aim of the Seanad in debating the Arts Bill.

I would be the first to admit that this structure we have proposed is by no means the ideal one which can be envisaged. A good number of the weaknesses that have been pointed to in the structure relate to the fact that we are introducing amendments to a Bill and that limits the extent to which we can propose an entirely new idea of a structure to the Arts Council.

Senator O'Higgins, while agreeing to some extent with a drafting point, said that he thought it wrong under subsection (9) of the second amendment that the council may remove a member of a committee from office. Under the Bill as it stands at present the exact same wording is used in section 12 (7) where the provision on page 5 of the Bill states, "The Taoiseach may remove a member of the Council from office". There is no security of tenure under the Bill. The Taoiseach appoints all 17 members and can remove them. He needs no excuse for doing so and they have no independent status under the present composition of the Arts Council. Our amendments to some extent relate to that structure and we can only make them relevant to it. If we go too far away from the structure which we are amending we are no longer within what is permitted on Committee Stage.

There were important points of principle put forward both by Senator O'Higgins and Senator Russell, and I should like to address myself to these. Senator O'Higgins stated that it appears that none of us has any objection to the method of appointment of the Arts Council, which is by nomination by the Taoiseach. He appreciated at a later stage that we are endeavouring to change this method of appointment; the Taoiseach would still have the power to appoint a maximum of ten members of the council but the other members ex officio would be appointed by the chairman of the committee under the committee's sub-chairman as proposed.

This was because we were to some degree limited by the overall nature of the parliamentary process. We were amending a Bill which related to the Principal Act of 1951. One cannot go too far outside that and still make relevant amendments and we accepted the reference in section 2(2) of the Bill that the Taoiseach would have regard to the person's attainment or interest in a particular art, and to a balanced representation in the arts, provided it was complemented by ex officio members chosen by the committee as established and representative in a particular way of the subject matter of those committees. This was a good compromise, and the Taoiseach could still appoint, using the criteria written into the Act, ten plus the chairman and the other six would come from the committee system. This is the liaison which would exist between the council and the committees.

There has been a great deal of exaggeration in relation to this committee structure. Senator O'Higgins was not present when I made this point in moving this amendment. We did not draw this committee structure completely out of the air. We had a good working model for it. The Northern Ireland Arts Council has far more committees than this. It has a total of nine committees, because it also has a Traditional Arts Committee, an Ulster Orchestra Committee, and an Interplay Theatre Committee, which are not mentioned here. Most of these committees consist of ten to 12 members. It is not an unwieldy structure; it is not creating an unreasonable conglomerate, because these are advisory committees of part-time people in the community who are experts in a particular area. Most of these Northern Ireland committees have 13, 11, 12, 11, 11, seven members. The whole structure is different, as the Arts Council there is set up as a company with its memorandum and articles of association, and to some extent this has the merit of flexibility.

The six committees, about which there is nothing sacrosanct, with the nine members giving an overall total of 54, is not nearly so large as the structure of the Northern Ireland Arts Council. It has the merit of the very criticism that Senator Russell was aiming at, which is the allowing of geographical participation. If you have an Arts Committee of nine members it must relate to art in a regional sense. A drama committee must relate to what is taking place in Galway, Cork, and so on. The same applies to music and literature. A committee system which does not extend its roots into the community would be unacceptable. Senator O'Higgins stated we ought to dismiss the idea of attaching any importance to the visibility of these committees. I disagree entirely. It is extremely important and significant that these committees should be visible.

Senator Martin referred to the work load of the Arts Council. They consider applications for money, submissions from various groups or individual artists throughout the country. These could be referred to visible committees, specialists in that area, for their views, not as a delaying process but as the people involved in the more general sense in that particular area. It is very valuable that they be visible because they would be there for approaches to be made to these committees, initially by the artists working in that particular branch of the arts and by businessmen who wish to make a substantial contribution to the visual arts as opposed to the arts in the more general sense. There could be a consultation to see how this best could be effectively achieved.

A visible statutory committee existing in advisory capacity is an extremely important contribution which does not exist at all in the present structure of the Arts Bill. This merit of visibility could also be a merit of geographical participation, of penetration and devolution within the country which cannot exist when you have an Arts Council consisting of 17 people. With such a council it is likely to be totally centred in Dublin, to be composed of people living in Dublin or there might be one or two west of the Shannon or Cork who in themselves would not have the possibility of truly representing regional interests and giving an outlet to artistic activity throughout the rural areas. Far from this structure preventing regional and geographical balance it would inevitably allow scope for it. We are not talking about an unwieldy structure; we are talking about a smaller structure than exists extremely effectively in Northern Ireland. We are talking about a democratic structure in a better sense than exists under the present Arts Bill. To that degree it would be slightly less efficient.

I was somewhat dismayed when I heard Senator O'Higgins say that he admitted openly that this part of the Bill as it stood sacrificed any trappings of democracy—I am quoting him— that there was no democracy in the system under the Bill but that this was a practical solution. This would seem to be the short route to dictatorship in the arts. Dictatorship is always more practical and efficient than democratic representation. If you are willing to sacrifice the trappings of democracy and participation you will end up very likely with a more practical, more efficient solution only it is not really what you want.

We want a solution of participation and involvement. The very fact that there are these special committees, that they reach out to the community, that they involve 54 part-time people with a genuine interest is important. That is why I am interested in bringing in amendments to this part of the Bill. I know people who are working in the various parts in the country and who are extremely anxious to be involved in whatever structure might be set up. I have no doubt that in so far as they would have any voice in it they would like to see the visibility of a committee structure. One must return to the principle of setting up these committees and to ask that this whole question be considered very seriously by the Government before Report Stage.

The Finance and General Purposes Committee, which are an adaptation of the Northern Ireland structure, would be an important complement to the other committees which are purely artistic committees. I would certainly bow to the greater expertise and the possibility of a greater examination which the Government would give if they were to propose a committee structure. One of the great merits of the Northern Ireland Finance and General Purposes Committee is the quinquennial estimates of expenditure over the next five years in the arts. That is a long-term view of the role of art in Ireland, a continual review and examination on the basis of how much public money we are spending, how much ought we to be spending, whether we are creating a proper balance in the arts, whether we are reaching out not just for Government patronage but for private patronage, does our Planning Act have written into it the possibility that a certain amount of money must be spent in the planning of any major projects, on the artistic works involved in these, can we learn from other countries on this?

We should have this sort of evaluation of the role of art and the general management of any money contributed to the arts. Therefore, I can make an argument for the proposal to have a Finance and General Purposes Committee. I can also see the merit of Senator Lenihan's point that this could very well be the hard core work of the council which ought not to be advised on this by a special advisory committee. That is the sort of debate that I should like to see here on the Report Stage on the basis of an amendment incorporating the concept of a committee structure.

I was in a way disheartened by the clear but frightening way Senator Russell reduced the Arts Bill as it stands to its essence. He said that, if we appoint the right people, then the Arts Council will be a success. This is not a comfortable reflection for legislators. I should prefer to say that, if we create the right structure, then we have a much better possibility of appointing the people who would be able to make the Arts Council a success. One of the reasons why the last Arts Council set up by the Act of 1951 have not been an unqualified success despite tributes paid to individual members is that they did not have the structure to make for a success. We must not rely on personal appointments from time to time by the Taoiseach for the time being as being the only way in which we can try to ensure the success of the structure. We must build in the bones, the committee system, the devolution and participation which will create success even if at certain points disappointing people get involved in the structure. The structure must be stronger than the people appointed to it. We must not rely on the nature of people who may be appointed from time to time to make a very weak and minimal structure a temporary success while they are involved in the particular structure of the Arts Council.

What I am trying to say is that I am more than prepared to adopt the approach suggested by Senator Lenihan that we would be prepared to withdraw the proposals in these amendments in favour of an undertaking by the Parliamentary Secretary that he would report to the Taoiseach on the consensus of opinion that the committee structure is a good one, whatever the difference about the composition of those committees, and that we might see on Report Stage whether this reflection resulted in a better structure for the Arts Council than is contained in the present Bill.

Mr. Bruton

I am prepared to accede to Senator Robinson's suggestion and report to the Taoiseach on what everybody would agree has been a very useful debate on this issue. There are two sides to this story. I will report both of them faithfully to the Taoiseach who will then be in a position to decide what can be done. Naturally I cannot give any undertakings in advance as to what we are going to do. This will have to be considered at a much higher level. I would merely reiterate what I said earlier that it is important to the interests of the arts in this country that we have an efficient compact body which get work done and that we do not tie them up with a tangle of talking shops which could slow up their executive work. This danger was very clearly highlighted by Senator Robinson when she admitted that these committees could and probably would involve the appointment of one man to deal with each of the committees. This would be a very desirable situation were it not for the fact that those people would have to be paid and their salaries would be diverted perhaps from being applied more directly in the interests of the arts into dealing with paperwork about the arts which might not necessarily be of immediate benefit to those who deal with the arts.

That is the one side of the story. The Senators have made another case very well and it is for the Government to balance one against the other and decide what can be done. I hope when the issue comes to the Report Stage that the Senators will adopt an open-minded approach on the Government's proposals, bearing in mind that their conributions here this evening will have been very fully considered before the matter comes back to this House on Report Stage.

Mrs. Robinson

I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for taking this attitude towards the amendments. It is most encouraging for the proposers of these amendments and for Senators in general, to have this attitude adopted. Without hesitation I should like, with the permission of the House, to withdraw amendments Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9 and to await the thinking of the Government on the full discussion which the Seanad has given to these amendments this afternoon.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 2 agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

Sections 6 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Mrs. Robinson

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, line 32, before subsection (1) to insert a new subsection as follows:

"(1) Section 1 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion of ‘films' after ‘drama'."

This amendment is proposed in order to amend the definition of the arts which is contained in the Principal Act, that is in the Arts Act, 1951. The amendment proposes to include films in the definition of the arts. The definition stands at the moment in section 1 of the Arts Act, 1951:

The expression "the arts" means painting, sculpture, architecture, music, the drama, literature, design in industry and the fine arts and applied arts generally.

That definition is also the definition for the purposes of the new Arts Bill and for the purposes of the new Arts Council, however composed. We would propose in the amendment to include films. I do not necessarily adhere to the actual form of the amendment, if the House would grant a certain indulgence in that respect. The amendment proposes that section 1 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion of "films" after "the drama". So, it would be "the drama, films, literature". It might be thought that it would read better and the idea is that films would be incorporated identically. It ought to be "the drama, films, literature, design in industry and the fine arts and applied art generally".

This is a matter which I raised on Second Stage and was mentioned by other Senators. It seemed wrong in principle and could be highly inconvenient to omit films from the general definition of the arts, particularly in view of the criteria in the Arts Bill of maintaining a balance between the arts, et cetera. I know that the Taoiseach mentioned this matter. In replying to the Second Reading debate, at columns 57 and 58 of the Official Report of the debate on 14th November, 1973, in this House, he said that reference was made by a number of Senators including Senator FitzGerald, to the fact that the cinema was not included. The reason for that was that a special Bill was introduced and was being circulated and that it was the intention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to bring in a new Bill. Then he said that in view of this he did not wish to include films.

This does not meet the real purpose of amending the definition. We are talking about the arts now and about the various art forms. It is incongruous and illogical that we exclude films, particularly because we are purporting to establish, hopefully, an Irish film industry and a concentration on that art form. Even if there are to be specific structures relating to the cinema, and even if there is to be an Irish Film Bill before us very shortly which deals with this, it should not be excluded from the definition of the arts for the purposes of what are the arts in Ireland, for the purposes of the structuring of an Arts Council, and particularly because a great deal of the activity in the arts may be interdisciplinary. It may involve very little to do with films and a great deal to do with one of the other art forms and be outside the terms of reference of the Arts Council without this amendment.

Dr. West

It is most important that this amendment should be accepted. It was stated quite clearly on the Second Stage debate by the Taoiseach, and emphasised by numerous other speakers, that the arts, as dealt with by the Arts Council and as envisaged in the drafting of this Bill, were not to be the property of the elite. The arts are for everybody. The film is an art form with a very wide audience. It is appreciated by cross-sections of the public and by people from all walks of life and of all ages. It is now agreed by almost every artist that the film is a very important art form.

People who go to the cinema will have noticed an important change in cinema fashions in recent years, that is, the movement away from the massive Hollywood production to smaller films made on limited budgets. Precisely because it is made on a limited budget and is a small film, it is made in different parts of the world and is made on location. As Senator Robinson pointed out, we are hoping to establish a thriving film industry in this country and we are led to believe that the Government intend to encourage this development. It is therefore most important that the film be an art form which will be considered by the council. It is also important that it be considered in detail by a committee set up in accordance with the previous amendment. It is right and proper that the film should be included in the definition in section 1 of the Principal Act, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept this amendment.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I understand the reasons for this amendment. However, it appears to me that films may not be the correct way of bringing it in. I suggest that possibly the Senators proposing it might have another look at this before Report Stage. "Films" on its own might be argued in court to be relating to X-ray films and that kind of thing. It must be tied to the cinema process and projection for definition purposes. I suggest that the Senators might look at it again.

Mrs. Robinson

I accept that. It might be more appropriate if the term were "the film", which would be much broader than "films". We would certainly be prepared to look at that and to bring in a more appropriate amendment on Report Stage.

I wish to refer to another matter in seeking to have this amendment accepted in principle and to improve on it on Report Stage. It is the fact that the Arts Council have the power and indeed the duty to maintain a balance between the arts. So, even if there is a whole separate structure relating to films, such as a Film Bill. and therefore there is a great deal of money put into an Irish film industry. this can be taken into account by the Arts Council in any matter relating to the film world. I do not think that it takes away from the compelling arguments for including it as an art form and including it in particular because there is a tendency in the arts towards an inter-disciplinary approach towards relations between various art forms. It would be an artificial omission not to include the film as an art form under the general definition of the arts as an amendment to the 1951 Act. If I can understand that this amendment would be acceptable in principle, then I would be very happy to have a look at the wording and bring in a better form of words on Report Stage.

Mr. Bruton

We will examine the idea behind Senator Robinson's amendment. She has admitted that it is not perfect in its wording. For that reason it would not be appropriate to attempt to change the wording of the Bill at this stage. Perhaps it would be better to look at it again on Report Stage. In general, the Government's reluctance on this issue springs from the fact that the film industry as such and the production of films would be aided by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That would be primarily his responsibility.

However, it is accepted that there could be occasions on which a new Arts Council would wish to assist not in the production of films but in film exhibitions or seminars on film appreciation or the production of material, books, literature and so on designed to foster a discriminating taste among cinemagoers. For that reason it would be best to look at the matter again on Report Stage, having noted the points made by Senators at this Stage.

Mr. Brosnan

Could the Parliamentary Secretary or somebody else inform me whether dancing and ballet, which I always understood were art forms, are included in the definition? There is no reference directly or otherwise to them in the Principal Act or in the Bill. There was no mention of them in the debate in the Dáil or in this House.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are speaking on amendment No. 3 to section 12.

Dr. West

Just a small point arising from the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. He mentioned that it was intended to introduce a Bill which would be within the ambit of the Minister for Industry and Commerce dealing with the production of films. This aspect of the production of films would not come under the Arts Council. I wish to avoid any confusion because the Parliamentary Secretary must be referring to the commercial production of films on a large scale. I would hope that the production of films by small amateur groups, which is taking place at present—these would be films not for commercial showing—would come under the Arts Council. If the Arts Council so wished they could grant financial assistance to groups of amateur film-makers. I know there are amateur film-makers who are involved in the production of films but only on a very limited scale. I hope when this definition is being redrafted for Report Stage that the production of films by amateur groups will be taken into account and so come under the Arts Council's survey.

Mr. Bruton

That point has been noted and will be conveyed to the people responsible for the drafting of the new film industry Bill. In so far, as it affects the Arts Council it will be borne in mind between now and Report Stage.

Mrs. Robinson

In view of the welcome attitude of the Parliametary Secretary on this amendment I would ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment and to reintroduce it on Report Stage, with better wording, in the hope of having it adopted then.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Mrs. Robinson

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, subsection (3) to delete "and in each fifth successive year thereafter", in lines 41 and 42 and after "persons" in line 44 to insert "and in each second successive year thereafter, appoint on a particular day not more than four persons".

This is an amendment to the proposed amendment of the Schedule to the Principal Act contained in section 12 of the Arts Bill. As this section stands in the Arts Bill——

An Cathaoirleach

Before the Senator proceeds, amendment No. 7 appears to be consequential on amendment No. 5. Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 might be debated together.

Agreed.

Mrs. Robinson

This would be an amendment to subsection (3) of section 12 which provides at present that:

the Taoiseach shall in the year 1973 and in each fifth successive year thereafter appoint on a particular day not more than 16 persons to be members of the council and the terms of office of the persons appointed hereunder on a particular day shall each simultaneously commence on such subsequent day as shall be fixed for that purpose by the Taoiseach and specified in each of the appointments.

However, it is an appointment by the Taoiseach of all 16 members for a period of five years and then they come up for reappointment or not at the end of that five-year period. Amendment No. 5 proposes to delete the words "in each fifth successive year thereafter" and to insert "and in each second successive year thereafter" appoint on a particular day not more than four persons.

Amendment No. 7 would delete "16 persons" and substitute "16 or four persons", as the case may be, as a consequential amendment. The idea would be that the Taoiseach would in each second successive year appoint not more than four persons. This would be a staggered method of appointment allowing a rotation of at least four members every second successive year. I apologise for the somewhat involved nature of this amendment, which is an amendment of an amendment. It can best be argued on the principle of having rotation of the membership of the council rather than a fixed total council appointed every five years. The actual period of turnover and the members of the council who would be changed successively are not as important as the question of whether we would adopt this principle of rotation rather than a rather static form of appointment every five years. The merit of having a system where four members of the council go out every two years is that it would allow for the two values of continuity in the arts council and new blood constantly appearing over a period.

The great defect in having all the members of the council appointed for a statutory period of five years and then all coming up for possible reappointment is that there is a tendency in these circumstances to reappoint the Arts Council en bloc or to bring in an entirely new Arts Council. We touched on this matter.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I thought that happened only in the Telefís Éireann Authority.

Mrs. Robinson

That possibly is a good example of it. The Arts Council during the past six months, or perhaps even longer, of their five-year existence were a lame duck Arts Council. They cannot be expected to engage in very dynamic projects or processes for the simple reason they may not consist of the same people. They may not be reappointed or they may be reappointed, and there is not the merit of having a certain staggered turnover as there would be if every two years four of the members of the council would come up for reappointment and might very well be filtered out and four new members brought in at that stage.

It is important that in talking about an Arts Council as representative of the arts we try to make the council as flexible in their composition as possible. We should try to have every two years the possibility of change in membership of the council so that we would not have the same council for a whole period of five years and then that whole council coming up again for either reappointment en bloc or refusal to appoint them and an entire new council appointed instead.

The great value of continuity is that the Arts Council will have taken decisions in relation to the various art forms as to on-going projects. There will be certain members who will know the basis on which those decisions were taken. It is bad to have to opt for an entirely new Arts Council at the end of a period such as five years where, because there was dissatisfaction with the operation of a particular Arts Council, new blood has swept in in a very arbitrary way losing the value of continuity and losing the expertise of a corps of members.

These amendments are related to the committee structure that we discussed and which will be considered again on Report Stage. If they can be combined with a committee structure, the members of which are appointed every third successive year, having ex officio members coming on the council every third year, this in itself is an element of new blood and we would have by far the most flexible composition. One of the great criticisms that has been made of the Arts Council as they are working at present is that they are not responsive in a sense to movements in the art world and that they are not sufficiently open to new blood and that there is not the possibility of a turnover of membership to the time span that would create its own dynamism.

I should like to ask on this occasion that since we are thinking of looking again at the idea of the committee system there might be a possibility at the same time of looking at this suggestion of a rotation in the membership, of a change in part of the membership every few years in order to preserve these two values of continuity and of new blood on the Arts Council.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

Dr. West

I think we are taking amendments Nos. 5 and 7 together?

An Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Dr. West

The idea behind these amendments was to ensure that the council in the form in which it is laid down in the Bill would not solidify over the five years of its existence and would be subject to regular injections of new blood. This idea has a great deal to commend itself and it would also help to overcome the criticisms of previous Arts Councils— as Senator Robinson has said they were either changed completely or they were reappointed en bloc—if changes were made during the first term of office.

If after, say, three years four new members were appointed it would ensure that there was new blood coming into the council during the five-year period and it would give an opportunity to bring in people whose interests would be responsive to new movements in the arts. It would also ensure that the opportunity was always available to the Taoiseach— again this would be a nomination by the Taoiseach—to see that the council were au fait with the newest art forms.

The art world is changing rapidly and is changing more rapidly now than in any previous era. It is important that the Oireachtas, which is setting up the new council, should try to overcome the faults which we have pointed out in the previous council. What we have tried to do in the Second Stage debate and in this Committee Stage debate is to ensure that the council which is now to be appointed will have a better chance to deal flexibly and completely and in a modern and up-to-date way with the arts. These amendments are designed to ensure that the council do not remain static, that there are regular injections of new blood and designed to ensure that the period of five years is not one in which the whole thinking of the council can solidify and become out of date.

Mr. E. Ryan

In speaking on the Second Stage, I advocated that something of this kind should be done. There should be a change of the council fairly regularly. It is undesirable that the same 16 people should be there for five years without any change. I suggested this kind of arrangement, so I certainly have no hesitation in supporting the two amendments which attempt to put such arrangements into operation.

An Cathaoirleach

When this amendment is disposed of it will be section 12 as it appears in the amended Bill that will be before us.

I understand the whole matter will come up on Report Stage again.

Mr. Lenihan

I should like to point out, as has already been said by Senator Robinson, by Senator West and by Senator Ryan, that the subsection appears to be over-rigid as it is phrased at present. I quote:

The Taoiseach shall, in the year 1973 and in each fifth successive year thereafter, appoint on a particular day not more than sixteen persons to be members of the Council, and the terms of office of the persons appointed hereunder on a particular day shall each simultaneously commence on such subsequent day as shall be fixed for that purpose by the Taoiseach and specified in each of the appointments.

This confines the system of appointment to a rigid system specified, first of all in 1973, and then specified in each fifth successive year thereafter. This appears to be a situation where all 17 members of the council would be appointed, remain there for five years and then come up again for re-election, or some for re-election and some not for re-election, in five years' time whereas the practice in all State boards, which is the nearest analogy I can take, is that the provision in regard to appointment of members to the board of directors or members of the council, or whatever it is, should be for not more than a term of years. In other words, if some formula would be written in where the Taoiseach, as the appointing Minister, would not be pinned down to the year 1973 and to every fifth successive year after that. That is the spirit of the amendment we are debating here and, indeed, the spirit of the subsequent amendment, No. 7. Amendment No. 5, which we are now debating, seeks to adopt a formula. where in every successive year not more than four persons would be appointed, thereby having a rotation scheme every second year within the period of appointment.

Either the way that is suggested in the amendment should be adopted or some method such as I suggest, where there is a period of not more than five years, rather than pinning down the appointing Minister to appointing the members of this council every fifth year automatically. It is far better that there should be such a system so as to bring fresh minds to bear on the problems connected with the arts. If necessary, in the intervening period, people can go off. This is all to the good. It certainly seems to me unduly restrictive and out of tune with the general practice in regard to appointments relating to such council or State bodies in general to confine the system of appointment rigidly to every fifth year.

There is a formula under which not more than five years is specified. This is the usual type of formula and meets the spirit of what is proposed here in the amendment. I see no reason why the appointing Minister should not appoint people for varying terms. They should be appointed for two years, three years or five years. I have appointed people on numerous occasions to semi-State bodies for various terms. I see no reason why this should not be done in that manner. It certainly is unduly restrictive. I suggest it is rather unusual that the Taoiseach shall this year appoint his 16 members and then that he is committed by this section in five years' time, and every five years in the same month, to appointing 16 more. This appears to be unduly restrictive and that is the merit of the amendment put forward here.

Dr. West

I should just like to say that Senator Lenihan understands the spirit of the amendment perfectly correctly. It is difficult in a five-year period to write into legislation how you can stagger the appointments without causing difficulties. But the whole aim of the amendment and the whole spirit of it is to ensure that there is not a solid block of 16 people there for five years. It is to ensure that there are people whose term of office comes to an end in the middle of the five-year period. Consequently new blood will come into the council during its period of tenure.

This is very important as it will ensure that it cannot be said: "Here are 16 people, however worthy, appointed to a position where their ideas are fixed, where things are not changing, where they are not taking new developments into account." The introduction of new members to the council midway through the period of tenure is an important principle. It is to be hoped the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary will take the same generous attitude towards these two amendments as has been taken towards the other amendments we have proposed, and that they will look at this problem of appointment and review the procedure before the Report Stage.

Mr. Bruton

I have some doubts about this amendment. It will take time for any council to get to know one another and each other's method of working and to get into a position where they work as a team on a programme which has been agreed between them. It would be upsetting for a council of this sort to have new people coming in every so often and where some of the members were known to be there for another few months only and then have somebody take their place. Their sense of identity with the other members of the council and their sense of working together would be impaired. The collegiality of the council would be impaired.

I am not speaking from any experience of the art world but from my limited experience of working on political committees of all descriptions. A committee of rotating membership raises doubts about workability. Senator Lenihan expressed support for the tenor of the amendment, but I do not think he really supports what the amendment is actually aimed at. While his anxiety was for greater flexibility, in reality the amendment as phrased could lead to greater rigidity in some aspects of the appointment in so far as the Taoiseach would be bound to review members' positions, and those members whose term was coming to an end would not know if they were to be re-appointed or not.

I ask Senators to reconsider this amendment very carefully. I am hesitant to indicate a preference for it at this stage.

Dr. Martin

The Parliamentary Secretary has made a very valid point there. The human difficulties spoken of are very real. When appointing members to such a council the Taoiseach would have to tell some of them they were being appointed for only two years, which would be discrimination and would make some feel second-class citizens, or else the Taoiseach would have to "drop the chopper" on them after two years and they would have to be given the nuc dimittis. A sense of insecurity would be there. The people involved would be giving their services voluntarily. The harmony and the collegiality of the council might be impaired by that kind of clinical rotational system. The ordinary process of nature would see to it that some people would retire through pressure of work, health reasons, et cetera. The spirit of the amendment might just as well be met if it were insisted upon that, as each person retired, he would be immediately replaced.

Mr. Bruton

That could happen anyway.

Dr. West

Perhaps we could insist that when members of the council reach the age of 90 years they should automatically retire. There is a point in Senator Martin's remarks. The problem of being members for two years would only arise at the outset. This is a difficult problem. From there on, people would have equal tenure. A couple of 88-year-old members could be appointed to start with and they would be sure to go after a few years.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

Not necessarily.

Dr. West

We will wait until Senator Halligan is 88 years before nominating him. I can see the difficulty, but the spirit of the amendment is designed to ensure that new blood comes in. It might not cause the problems of collegiality spoken of by the Parliamentary Secretary. Once one got over the initial stages people would be in for a full period and from there the problems would end. There would be problems at the start but the Arts Council would get frequent injections of new blood during the period of office.

Mr. Bruton

May I mention another difficulty which has occurred to me? As has been pointed out, the Bill provides that there would be a balance between the various art forms on the council. If the balance is established initially, and having done so you find you must drop some of the people whom you have appointed and who are part of that balance, then you automatically reappoint in their place people from precisely the same art form. But in so doing perhaps you pass over the next best man who might be in an art form already represented on the council. Alternatively, you would upset the balance of the council as between the various arts. For that reason also Senators should reconsider this proposed amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

Is amendment No. 5 withdrawn?

Dr. West

Given the guarantees by the Parliamentary Secretary regarding the other amendments, which he stated the Government would review, we will not press this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, inclusive, not moved.

Section 12 agreed to.

We will be sitting next week for two days.

Mr. Bruton

If the Bill were to be passed in the Seanad with amendments it would have to return to the Dáil. This would affect the sittings of the Dáil if the Bill were to be passed before the end of 1973. That is the difficulty.

Dr. West

Surely if the Bill was considered and the Report Stage was taken at the first sitting next week there would be no problem.

I have a proposition that the Report Stage be taken tomorrow.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 12th December, 1973.

Seanad Éireann debate - Tuesday, 11 Dec 1973

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

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Dec 1973