Before we take up consideration of the amendments tabled for this Bill, it would be as well for me to indicate that amendment No. 4 is out of order because it does not arise out of the proceedings of the Bill in Committee. I would remind Senators that on the Report Stage certain amendments which have been tabled can he discussed but each Senator is entitled to speak once only in each discussion. Amendments No. 2 and 2(a), on the supplementary list of amendments which has just been circulated, and amendment No. 5 on the original list, are related to amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 6 is consequential on amendment No. 1. It is suggested, therefore, that amendments Nos. 1, 2, 2A, 5 and 6 should be taken together. Is that agreed?
Arts Bill, 1973: Report and Final Stages.
May I speak on the first item?
When it is moved. The scope of the debate is the amendments as they stand here. These amendments can be discussed and are subject to further amendment provided this is done in the proper fashion.
On a point of order, on the grouping, the ruling is that on Report Stage Senators are entitled to speak only once on each amendment?
Except for the mover of the amendment which is before the House.
By taking these five amendments together that means one gets an opportunity to speak only once on five amendments?
That is so.
The point I should like to make is that there are rather different problems occurring which require to be looked at differently and yet if the House agrees to taking these amendments together it will only give us an opportunity to speak once on everything. I do not envisage a long drawn out debate today because we had a very full and a very good debate on this Bill yesterday and I do not think we should go through all the points again, but as a humble Senator it would suit me much better if I could deal with amendment No. 1 and subsequently deal with amendment No. 2.
It is a matter for the House to decide. I must indicate to Senators that, if the amendments are not grouped, whereas there will be further possibilities for discussion in regard to the number of times a person may speak, the scope will be strictly limited on each separate amendment. The position will be that the matters discussed must refer only to the particular amendment. It is a matter for the House to decide which alternative it finds most convenient.
I see the problem but I do not see how there is any room for discussion on how many times a Member may speak. If we decide to take them all together he only speaks once.
I might point out further the interrelationship of these amendments is such that, for example, if amendment No. 1 were not carried in the House it would not be possible to move amendments Nos. 2, 5 and 6 which relate to amendment No. 1 because the decision of the House on the essence of amendment No. 1 would already have been made in the negative.
I think the general experience of the House has been that when amendments are interrelated like this even though we are on Report Stage—the same would apply to Committee Stage—it serves the convenience of the House generally to deal with them in the way which has been suggested. The Chair has given an indication that it is possible to deal with the amendments individually if the House so agrees.
The mover has the right to reply?
That is so. May I take it that it is the agreement of the House that amendments Nos. 1, 2, 2A, 5 and 6 be debated together?
Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, 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)
It is with very mixed feelings that I speak on this group of amendments. I feel rather like the labourer who came into the vineyard at the eleventh hour, not having had occasion to participate in yesterday's discussion led by Senators Robinson and West and to which the Parliamentary Secretary contributed.
I have read the reports of yesterday's discussion and I do not propose to add to them. I think the most useful thing I can do in the circumstances is to compare our amendments with the amendments now being put forward by the Government and to indicate my views on them. Before doing this I must say that I am grateful to the Government for having taken this matter seriously enough to introduce amendments at comparatively short notice. It enhances the credibility of the Parliamentary Secretary and it enhances the credibility of this House.
I find myself in a very difficult position. Basically I still prefer—I think it would be unnatural for me not to prefer—our amendments to those put down by the Government. On the other hand, I do not find those put down by the Government so objectionable as to call for their rejection out of hand. What action I will take on the vote will depend largely on what the Parliamentary Secretary says during the course of this debate.
There is one really substantial difference between the two sets of amendments. Our amendments would make it mandatory on the council to establish a number of advisory committees to deal with certain areas of the arts. In the discussion yesterday it was pointed out, quite rightly, that even though the original arts Council could have appointed all the committees they wanted to, since 1951 they have not appointed any such advisory committees. They have operated in a sort of self-sealing vacuum in the distribution of the resources at their disposal. The main difference between the two amendments is that where our amendment makes it mandatory on the council to appoint committees—it reads "shall appoint"— the Government amendment makes it quite optional for the Arts Council to appoint such committees. The wording of the Government amendment is "the Council may establish" any or all of the following.
This is not quite good enough. I should like to take it on trust. We should all like to take it on trust that the council, as soon as possible after their establishment and after the nomination of their members, will establish every single one of these committees, but there is no obligation on them to do so. We could very easily find ourselves in exactly the same situation as before in which all effective decisions are taken and any effective advice is tendered only within the framework of the council. It may be that writing this into the Bill in this way will jog the elbows of the members of the council. I certainly hope it will. I would regret that it has not been made mandatory on the council.
The second main difference between the two sets of amendments is in relation to the number of committees. We propose that six committees should be established. This has been reduced in the Government amendment to three. Furthermore, the number of areas of the arts which are included in these various committees has also to a certain extent been reduced. I tended to agree with some of the criticism that was made on the other side of the House about not having too many committees. I felt that six was the maximum that one should go to in setting up advisory committees. On the other hand I feel that reducing it to three is depressing things a little too much, especially when we look at the particular subdivisions suggested in the Government amendment.
According to the Government, two committees will each advise on three separate branches of the arts—one on painting, sculpture and architecture, the other on drama, literature and the cinema. The third committee are to advise on only one branch of the arts, music. This seems to me to be a strange division of responsibilities. I wonder whether it is based on any criteria that the Government may have in mind about the relative value of each of these branches of the arts, their relative popular appeal, perhaps even the relative amount of money to be dispensed between all the branches of the arts concerned. I hope this is not the case. Whereas many of the criticisms of the last Arts Council were to the effect that one particular section of the plastic arts was favoured more than the others, and that ill-advisedly, my criticism would be that too much money was spent on music by the last Arts Council. Too much money was spent on a form of music which has a very limited following and certainly not the type of following which would have entitled it to the money which was spent on it.
The second main difference between our sets of amendments is that our group of six committees has been reduced to three. I particularly regret the absence of a Finance and General Purposes Committee. This seems to me to be an essential for any organisation which are carrying on a form of activity with many different facets. We have a particularly useful example of this in the structure of the National Council for Educational Awards. This body, although their aims are in many ways different from that of the Arts Council, have to face many of the same administrative problems in that they have to deal simultaneously with many different things and at the same time to co-ordinate their administration at a pilot level. They have a Finance and General Purposes Committee. I would have thought that such a committee would be of particular advantage in the context of the Arts Council.
The other committee whose absence will be most keenly felt is the Committee for Art in Education. It has been stated before, and by people more qualified than I am, that we in the Republic are among the most visually under-educated people in Europe. The establishment of a Committee for Arts in Education would have been it if were properly done and if the right people were elected to it, absolutely vital in promoting, not just in the schools but in all forms of educational and para-educational activity, the type of consciousness of all the arts which is so lacking in many people in Ireland today.
On the three committees suggested by the Government there may well be people who are interested in painting in education, in sculpture in education and in music in education. I feel they will be swamped in these advisory committees and that they could do their work more effectively and more powerfully if they were made part of a self-supporting ginger group, a special advisory committee which would regard themselves as charged with the responsibility of starting almost from scratch in education in the arts and going on from there to build up the widest possible public and educational awareness of the importance of this facet of our lives.
Those are my two main objections to the list of committees suggested by the Government: first the absence of a General Purposes Committee and second the absence of a Committee for Art in Education.
There are no other very substantial differences between the two sets of amendments, but I should like to comment briefly on one or two matters which are included in the Government amendment. In amendment No. 2 A (4) we read:
In appointing members of an advisory committee the Council shall, so far as practicable, ensure that the committee is representative of the interest throughout the State in the branch or branches of the arts, as the case may be, in relation to which the committee is established.
I should like to question the words "throughout the State". I can see the goodwill which is built into this subsection. But the Government are not prepared to go the whole hog and suggest that people be elected to advisory committees by members of associations other than the Arts Council. In so far as it sticks to the principle of nomination, it is asking that the persons nominated should be as representative as possible. The words "throughout the State" might operate to exclude people from Northern Ireland, or even outside the State, whose experience and qualifications might be in every other respect particularly useful. I should not like to think that a piece of draftsmanship such as this, while well intentioned, might have the unforeseen effect of rendering such person's appointment open to challenge on the grounds stated in the Bill.
It does not exclude them: it simply stipulates that this must be done. It does not exclude others.
I know it does not exclude others, but if Senator O'Higgins is stating that a person who, to take a hypothetical example, might be experienced in a particular branch of the arts in Northern Ireland but might know nothing about what is happening down here, is eligible for appointment to the sub-committee under the subsection, then my objection falls to the ground.
My other question relates to subsection (6):
Where a person who is chairman of an advisory committee ceases during his term of office as such chairman to be a member of the Council he shall also cease to be a member of the advisory committee.
What about the position of a person who has to relinquish membership of the Arts Council because of pressure of commitments of one kind or another? Does this section disqualify him from being a member of any advisory committee? There may be circumstances in which persons might not have the time to participate at the higher level as full members of the council but would be invaluable as members of an advisory committee.
I would prefer to make it mandatory on the council to establish these and perhaps one or two other committees but my final attitude to the question of the vote would be determined by the interpretation placed on the Government amendments during the debate.
I should like to say a few words on this. Members on both sides of the House will have a feeling of satisfaction that the Government have introduced amendment No. 2A. Many of us from time to time have felt a sense of frustration in this House when we were battling to get a Government Minister or Parliamentary Secretary to accept a point of view which obviously expressed the wishes of the majority of Senators and we found that we were not able to make any impression. The Parliamentary Secretary who handled this debate yesterday is to be complimented for taking seriously the arguments which were put forward and reporting the position back to the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach, in turn, is to be complimented and congratulated by the House in meeting so generously the points of view which were expressed in the discussion yesterday.
I can understand Senator Horgan having an inclination in favour of amendment No. 2 as against amendment No. 2A because it was the amendment which he and other Senators proposed. It is natural, knowing the reasons why all the various subsections in his amendment were worded as they were and being fully aware of precisely what he and the other Senators who proposed it had intended achieving, that he should feel wedded to that proposal rather than the Government proposal. Senator Horgan will agree that the point of view argued by Senator Robinson and others yesterday has been, if not entirely met, then met to a generous extent by the Government amendment. The alteration in the structure which was recommended and argued here yesterday has, been accepted, at least in principle, in the Government amendment.
I take it that the Government amendment is not intended to be mere verbiage and, even though it is worded on a discretionary rather than on a mandatory basis, that the intention of including this new section in the Bill is that it should be acted upon. Admittedly it does not follow precisely along the lines of amendment No. 2, but when one considers the two amendments it may well be that amendment No. 2 as it stands would in any event be unacceptable. Possibly if Senators were insisting on the particular structure set out in amendment No. 2 it might be made workable by an amending of the amendment. As it stands it would not be workable. In the first place it is clear that amendment No. 2, in so far as it is intended to introduce new members into the committees, envisages a body or bodies comprising in all 54 new persons as against 24, which is effectively provided for in the Government amendment. I adhere to the view I expressed yesterday that the smaller the body we are dealing with the better and the more work will be done.
To a large extent, the object of amendment No. 2 could have been initiated by the council filling with their own members all of the six sub-committees proposed. I do not think it was ever intended that that should be so. It was at least conceivable that that would happen. Subsections (5) and (9) of amendment No. 2 are mutually exclusive. You cannot have both of them. Subsection (5) provides that
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.
There are only two ways. He is going to hold office unless he dies or resigns. At the same time in subsection (9) it says:
The Council may remove a member of a committee from office.
You could have under subsection (9) a member of a committee being removed from office, but under subsection (5) he could claim that he is still a member because he has not either resigned or died. Finally the original amendment No. 2, subsection (10), states:
Each committee shall have power to regulate its own procedure and business.
There you have the inherent danger that virtually uncontrolled discretion is given to what are in effect sub-committees of the council. I know the intention, and it is manifest in the break-up of the sub-committees and the particular purposes for which they are formed, is that they should deal only with matters for which they were established. At the same time under subsection (10) they would be given very wide and general powers not merely to regulate their own procedure but to regulate their own business. None of those defects appears in the Government amendment. I agree it does not go the entire way to meet what is contained in amendment No. 2 but it travels a very long part of the road. It clearly accepts in principle the proposals that were made. Possibly I am biased because I am talking from this side of the House, but I hope I would have said the same thing—and I think I did on some occasions—when I was on the other side of the House. I feel the Parliamentary Secretary and the Taoiseach are to be complimented on meeting the House as generously as they have done.
I indicated yesterday that I intended to support the amendments which were before us. I did so because I felt that the Bill as originally drafted had certain defects in so far as it had eliminated the power to co-opt people to the sub-committees and I thought it was unfortunate that this power had not been retained. I also indicated my support of the amendments because I considered that the machinery which existed in the amending Bill, which would entail appointing 16 people for five years with no changes, would be rather too rigid in that it would not permit new blood to be brought on the committee regularly. Consequently new ideas and new points of view would not be constantly introduced on the committee. On the other hand, I thought that the alternative which they suggested was perhaps too elaborate and too unwieldy and I foresaw that it might give rise to some difficulty if the amendments were passed. Nevertheless, rather than having the Bill as originally drafted, I indicated that I would support the amendments.
The Government have now proposed an alternative amendment which meets to a very large extent the objections in the amending Bill. It meets them in a way which is, if anything, an improvement on the amendments which were before us yesterday and which are still before us. The committees which the Government have suggested, the way in which they will be constituted and the fact that the chairmen of the committees will be drawn from the existing council is, if anything, an improvement on the amendments which we discussed yesterday. I find myself agreeing with the Government amendment as being a very serious and good effort to meet the objections we discussed yesterday. The amendments now suggested by the Government will give a council which will be able to do the job very effectively.
Of the two amendments before us, on balance the Government amendment meets the problem better than the one which we discussed yesterday. In saying that I should like to congratulate the movers of the amendments yesterday who were responsible. by their amendments, by the arguments which they put forward and the debate which resulted from their amendments, for the amendments which are before us today. I should like to congratulate them on having achieved what has been achieved in the sense that there are now two alternative sets of amendments before us, both of which would achieve a very useful purpose. In one way or the other we are going to get a very much improved council.
I should also like to commend the Parliamentary Secretary for reconsidering the position and doing so very quickly, and coming back with the amendments which are before us today. On balance, the Government amendments meet in a better way the objections which we expressed yesterday. I am inclined to support the Government amendment and I suggest to those who moved the original amendment that this is a very genuine and reasonable effort to meet the points they made.
In regard to the question of the word "may", which has been raised by Senator Horgan, it is a rather ambiguous and difficult word to interpret at times. In the context in which it is used in this Bill it is as good as "shall". I should be very surprised if, used as it is in this context, the council did not feel that they were in effect obliged to avail of the power that was given to them, and I should be very surprised if they did not avail of it and act upon it in future.
I must express my disappointment at the restrictive nature of the advisory committees. Subjects such as painting, sculpture, architecture, music, drama and literature form a very narrow basis for a definition of the arts. The cinema is a welcome addition to the list, but the amendment could have gone much further. I wish it had included a topic which I have mentioned previously and that is the circus.
The Arts Council and this Arts Bill are designed to promote the arts which are struggling, which cannot stand on their own two feet but which are highly desirable for cultural progress. At present the most widely practised artistic professional activity in this country—the circus—is on the point of extinction. There is no provision made in this Bill to give it a breath of life. To whom can these people turn to if the Arts Council do not take them under their wing? This is a very serious omission and I ask the powers-that-be to make some efforts to remedy it, before it is too late.
At present there are two family circuses in this country and they are being kept going by the hard work and long hours that these families are putting into their job. If they were depending solely on paid employees they would have gone out of existence long ago. I am referring to Fossett's and Duffy's. For a number of reasons, these people have found the going very tough. Modern innovations, such as television, have affected their receipts very much. They have received no concession whatsoever in the tax field, and this is one area in which they could be helped. They are not looking for handouts. In many artistic fields, such as sculpture and painting, the artists are receiving financial subventions to keep them going. The circus people are not looking for handouts. All they are asking for are concessions in the tax field which these other artists already have, such as those given under Deputy Haughey's very praiseworthy tax remission scheme. That does not apply to these artists—and they are supreme artists—and it should. On the other hand, they pay VAT of 6.8 per cent on their box office receipts. This percentage makes the difference between a make or break as far as their finances go. These taxes should he removed.
Some weeks ago Senator Mary Robinson threw up her arms and said: "If only the Arts Council could provide one van to bring around the artists' exhibitions to various points in the country, what a difference it would make. The whole country would have a chance of seeing the works of art of the painters, sculptors, et cetera.” This is exactly what the circus people have been doing for the past 60 years. They have been hauling dozens of vans around the country, so that the rural population can see the best artists in the world at a very nominal cost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have allowed the Senator a degree of latitude on an amendment which the Cathaoirleach has already ruled out of order.
Surely Senator Deasy is not talking on the amendment which has been ruled out of order. He is talking about the——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is a matter which did not arise out of Committee Stage.
I thank you for giving me that latitude and I hope that my plea has not fallen on deaf ears.
The word in this amendment which worries me so much is not the word "may" but the verb "advise". I was very sympathetic to the viewpoint expressed by Senator Horgan earlier when he suggested that the effect of the deletion of one of the committees he had proposed might be that the teaching function in the development of the arts generally might be neglected. It would help if there was an assurance given to Senators that "advise" does not mean merely a report on the decaying state or the non-existent state, for example, of painting, sculpture or architecture, or a mere report on the fact that the community has not facilities for education in relation to music. It would help many of us if we were assured that the term "advise" itself will be interpreted or used in the context of the development of all the arts.
I agree with what Senator Horgan has said. Probably as a nation there are many aspects of the arts which we have neglected totally in our educational structure. For a long time the opportunity available to parents for an education in the arts, including those mentioned in amendment No. 2A, was reserved for an elite. I am not so sure that the circumstances have totally changed. However, the specification of painting, sculpture, architecture, music and drama is somewhat of a reflection. A long time ago somebody said that if we had a humane and decent society all of life would be an art in itself. But in so far as we have decided to draw a distinction in our activities between what must be regarded as dreary work and occasionally useful recreation, it is probably useful to specify the activities. I have a great sympathy with the Senator who wants circuses included. All kinds of activities might be included.
My main reason for speaking is to agree with Senator Horgan that we must speak about the development of the arts. When the Parliamentary Secretary is replying, he might like to assure us that "advise" will not be used in the narrow sense of reporting on a neglected and decaying state of the arts, but would be used in the sense of drawing up imaginative proposals for the extension of education in all of the arts for the community in general.
I should like to join with Senator Eoin Ryan in welcoming the approach which has been taken by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Taoiseach to our efforts of yesterday. We had a very full and worthwhile discussion. The three Senators who backed the amendments and the Parliamentary Secretary worked hard. The Government have given considerable thought to their amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary has done what he promised. He has faithfully reported our feelings on the matter. This encourages people in the belief that the democratic process. which is one of give and take, in which people consider views put forward and take account of them when they are drafting or redrafting legislation, is working well. It encourages us to take part in debates in the hope that our efforts will be met by changes in the legislation.
There are many reasons why I believe that the Government's amendment No. 2A is a more workable amendment than those we proposed yesterday. It has, however, one regrettable feature and that concerns the word "may". The previous Arts Council had all the powers which are set out in amendment No. 2A, and it never used them. We discussed this matter at length yesterday and I do not intend to go over all the arguments again. If we are drafting legislation which will put into effect what seemed to be the wishes of the House yesterday, then the Government amendment is not strong enough as it stands. We have discussed this matter for long enough, but I do not think in a situation of this type moral pressure is enough.
Senator M.J. O'Higgins made this case so many times from the Opposition benches in the last Seanad that I am sure he will agree with me. I backed him up on many occasions when he argued that what were Government promises were of little value in legislation. What was needed was something written down in black and white; otherwise it was not legislation. Without wishing to appear mischievous I want to propose an amendment to the Government amendment No. 2A to state this matter clearly. I believe, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, that two amendments on the Report Stage are proposed verbally. It is quite a simple amendment.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Government amendment, No. 2A, is not before the House yet.
Perhaps the Leas-Chathaoirleach would direct me as to when I should propose this amendment. I do not intend to spend any further time speaking on the amendment.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When amendment No. 2A is moved.
The Senator should indicate what his amendment is.
The amendment I have is that line 3 of amendment No. 2A should be deleted and replaced by: "The Council shall establish the following committees".
In other words delete "may" and insert "shall"?
Yes, in principle. I do not wish to continue my discussion of the amendments. There is a good deal of merit in the Government amendments, particularly from the procedural point of view. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Taoiseach are to be congratulated on doing what they promised yesterday in a very short time and on really working to set good amendments. I do not necessarily agree with Senator Horgan in weeping over the demise of the Financial Affairs Committee, because finance will always be decided by the Arts Council. They will take the crucial decisions in matters of finance. There might be a group who would draw up a budget, but they would not make the final recommendations. There is a lot of merit in the Government's proposals provided they are amended in the way I have suggested.
I appreciate the constructive way in which the Government has approached this problem, and I am sure I can speak for Senator Robinson. I should like to make the amendment to amendment No. 2A when the time is appropriate.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being pressed?
Which amendment?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 1
Amendment No. 1 is linked in with the other amendments. The Government amendment meets the substantial case made yesterday which calls for a widening of the participation in the work of the Arts Council to include more people with specific expertise, perhaps a wider regional spread. The objections put forward yesterday to certain aspects of the amendments proposed by Senator West still hold.
In regard to making it mandatory on the council to appoint committees such as this, we must be prepared to allow the situation to evolve. We are setting up a new Arts Council. We will have new members who must, if we trust them, be given some degree of freedom in determining their method of working. If we tied them down by the words of a statute in relation to how they should constitute their advisory committees, we would be tying them too much. We could not foresee all the possible problems which might arise in the actual working of the council. For us to attempt to tie them down in an absolutely rigid way by the use of the word "shall" would inhibit the natural development of the work of the Arts Council, which I think everybody will agree will be a continuing progress. For that reason I feel bound to oppose the amendments proposed by Senators Horgan and West and propose instead amendment No. 2A from the Government.
Senator Eoin Ryan made a very valid point. The fact that we had such lengthy discussions yesterday followed by consultations with the Taoiseach resulting in the introduction of a specific amendment here in the Bill will be indication enough to the new Arts Council as to how the Oireachtas see their role. I am sure that they will meet the spirit of the debate here in the House yesterday and I am sure that Senator West is confident of that, too.
Senator West dealt with the point about the exclusion of the General Purposes Committee which was put forward by Senator Horgan. In regard to the Art in Education Committee it is the intention that education should be considered by each one of these committees and also by the Arts Council. Setting up an Art in Education Committee to deal with the educational aspects of painting, sculpture, architecture, music, drama and literature, would be cutting across the work of these committees in an unacceptable way and would create demarcation difficulties, because one would have to decide whether, in talking about a particular sculpture matter, for instance, the mounting of an exhibition, it was a matter of sculpture in the pure sense and therefore a matter for the advisory committee on paintings, or an educational enterprise in so far as it was an exhibition which members of the community would visit and thereby improve their educational standing. There would obviously be a difficulty in deciding into which category it fell and which committee should deal with it.
The points made by the Senators about the importance of education have been noted and will be dealt with. I should also like to refer to Senator Deasy's statement about the circus. I should like to say that his remarks on this matter will be brought to the notice of the Arts Council, and they will, when appointed, be able to take whatever action, if any, they feel appropriate. I think it would be wrong for us at this stage to tie their hands. We are setting up a structure, we are going to appoint competent people and presumably they will be able to make decisions which will be valid. I should point out that the lists of advisory committees contained here are not exclusively the Arts Council's. They can deal with many other subjects which are not contained in the list here. I do not think there would be any great difficulty if the advisory committee themselves were to deal with the subjects which did not come strictly within the terms of the committee set up. This may well be one of the advantages of the discretion which we are giving the council in regard to the setting up of these committees. If we were to make it mandatory for them arguments to set up committees with particular specified functions we might be going the opposite way to the intention of the Seanad in urging that new art forms should be considered in the most detailed way possible by the council or by their subsidiary committees.
I think Senator Horgan accepted that his reference to "throughout the State" was not exclusive and that we could appoint people from Northern Ireland should that be deemed desirable.
Subsection (6).
I do not think this situation is likely to arise. I imagine that there would possibly be a way in which the council could re-appoint that man to the committee. The idea behind the Bill—and this is written into it—is that there should be a balance between the arts. That would mean that on the advisory committee there would be a number of potential appointees to the central council representing particular art forms. If the Taoiseach, in appointing the central Arts Council, were to chose somebody who was already on the advisory committee, thereby making him chairman of the advisory committee, it would be a very small matter for them to switch around and appoint the man who had been chairman or a member of the council to sit on the advisory committee. I know that this does not completely meet the case but I feel that it goes a substantial way towards meeting it. I hope it will be acceptable to the Seanad. If the Seanad does not mind, I shall read the brief that was prepared for me in case there are some points which were not covered.
As I indicated on the Committee Stage yesterday, consideration would be given to the amendments which provide for a system of advisory committees for the Arts Council. I have been in consultation with the Taoiseach on this and I understand that in the framing of this Arts Bill generally some consideration had been given to the various ways in which some such system might be operated. It had been felt that there was a danger of creating a large and unwieldy system and of foisting it on a new and enlarged Arts Council. There was criticism here yesterday in relation to the amendment proposed by Senator Robinson and others. The feeling was expressed by several speakers that the system proposed was somewhat unwieldy and excessive and Senator Robinson accepted that hers was not necessarily the ideal scheme.
Nevertheless, strong arguments have been made for getting some sort of root system radiating out to the people from the Arts Council which would get in a wider range of views and ensure that these were drawn from the country as a whole. There was also emphasis on the need to give the council some discretionary powers in the matter of appointments. I think most of these requirements can be met in a compromise system of advisory committees in the amendment now circulated to Senators. It still leaves with the Taoiseach the power of appointing the 17 members of the council proper. On that point, I think Members have been unduly anxious in case it would be a body of retired citizens and that it would not have its quota of vigorous practising artists. There was also a fear that the council would become atrophied and stultified during its period of office. But five years is not an epoch; it is a reasonable period during which the council could appraise and assess the arts situation in Ireland, draw up a programme to meet it and see much of it on the way to fruition. Ideas expressed by Senators can, I believe, be put into practice by such a new revitalised committee and it can be the positive body which the House and the people require rather than a passive appraisal of applications for financial assistance. There is also the point that, at the end of that five years, when a new council is being appointed, some members can be reappointed sufficient to maintain a necessary continuity and there need not be the stark choice which some Senators have suggested of either a totally new council or a complete reappointment of the outgoing council.
The committee system which I am now proposing will allow the council to set up three committees in the three broad areas of the arts—the visual, the literary and the musical— and the council can designate from among its members a chairman for each of those committees. This would give, outside the council, 24 additional persons who could place their expertise and their advice at the disposal of the council. I think this is a reasonable balance to strike and provides a modest but potentially effective network to achieve what Senators have in mind. I commend it to the House.
Senator Horgan raised a point about music being allotted a specific committee. Expressing a personal opinion, I think music is very definitely distinguishable from painting, sculpture and architecture, drama, literature and the cinema, which all fit relatively easily into compartments. Music could not become compartmentalised in something else. All of us would agree that it is probably the most important art form in many ways. While accepting the Senator's point that perhaps it should not be interpreted in a too restricted way, there are many forms of music—and not necessarily just classical music— which have merit, and I am sure that the council will consider that point, too. I would repeat that it is important that we do not try to tie the council down too much.
If I may reply very briefly. I find that over the last hour or so I have been very skilfully backed into a corner and I now find myself in agreement with many of the points that have been made, both on the other side of the House and on this side, about the relative merits of the two sets of amendments. Anything which I say at this point is based on a broad acceptance of the Government amendments and a desire only to improve them. I agree with Senator Higgins that the wording of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) could have been improved to make it a bit stronger. I should like to see the terminology changed to read "a committee to advise on the development of painting, sculpture and architecture". These are only minor points and obviously they do not mean a great deal in the final analysis.
The second point of drafting which it occurred to me might be improved was in connection with the mode of establishing committees and of choosing their chairman. It is a fairly obvious interpretation of the Government amendments that the council shall not only nominate the members of the advisory committee but shall nominate the chairman of the advisory committee. There could, after all, be some ambiguity in this regard. I say that not to indulge in any kind of nit-picking exercise but merely to elicit the necessary assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that this is what is meant in order to obviate any possible doubt or confusion about it later on.
The other ambiguity arising under section 6 is—and I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary here—very unlikely to arise. I do not see much point in adjusting the amendment now to take account of it. The best we can do is to hope that it does not arise. I should like on my part to be as forthcoming as the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government have been and to accept the Government amendments in the spirit in which they were written. I do not think we can do more than that. I should like to repeat my appreciation of the seriousness with which the Government have taken this House and the opinions expressed in it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Government amendment No. 2A:
In page 4, between lines 15 and 16, to insert a new section as follows:
"(1) The Council may establish any or all of the following:
(a) a committee to advise on painting, sculpture and architecture,
(b) a committee to advise on music,
(b) a committee to advise on drama, literature and the cinema.
(2) A committee established pursuant to this section (in this section subsequently referred to as an advisory committee) shall advise the Council on any matter (being a matter on which knowledge and experience of a branch of the arts in relation to which the advisory committee is established has a bearing) on which their advice is requested.
(3) An advisory committee shall consist of a Chairman, who shall be a person who is for the time being a member of the Council, and eight ordinary members and, subject to subsection (7) of this section, the members of the advisory committee shall hold office for such term as shall be determined by the Council on the occasion of their appointment.
(4) In appointing members of an advisory committee the Council shall, so far as practicable, ensure that the committee is representative of the interest throughout the State in the branch or branches of the arts. as the case may be, in relation to which the committee is established.
(5) The Council may fill a casual vacancy occurring amongst the members of an advisory committee.
(6) Where a person who is chairman of an advisory committee ceases during his term of office as such chairman to be a member of the Council he shall also cease to be a member of the advisory committee.
(7) Each of the members of an advisory committee shall cease to hold office on the day which precedes the day on which the Taoiseach next makes appointments under paragraph 4 (1) (a) of the Schedule to the Principal Act.
(8) The Council may at any time—
(a) remove a member of an advisory committee from office,
(b) dissolve an advisory committee."
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
On amendment No. 2A Senator West indicated that he wished to move a verbal amendment.
I find that there is not a great deal of support for this. I still feel what I was doing was correct, but seeing the Government have been forthcoming I will not move the amendment. However, it is on the record, and I hope what will be done is what is set out here.
Amendment agreed to.
I think amendment No. 2A covers what is contained in amendment No. 3.
But not in the definition of the Principal Act, so it would have to be moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, after line 31 but in section 12 to insert a new subsection as follows:
"(1) Section 1 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion of ‘films' after ‘drama'."
In moving this amendment I would ask the permission of the House, if it is thought to be necessary, to amend the amendment to read "the cinema" instead of "films". If it is necessary to amend the Principal Act, this is the way the amendment should be moved. If it is not necessary to amend the Principal Act, I do not propose to move the amendment.
I am advised that it is necessary to amend the Principal Act. I am also advised that, if the House is agreeable, we can substitute the word "cinema" for "films".
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The proposal is to insert "cinema" instead of "films" in amendment No. 3?
I do not propose to speak on this amendment.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, not moved.
Government amendment No. 6A:
In page 5, to delete lines 32 to 36, and substitute:
6(1) A member of the Council, other than the Chairman, shall be paid out of the funds at the disposal of the Council, such allowances in respect of expenses as the Taoiseach, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, may determine.
(2) The Council may out of their funds, if they think fit, reimburse any member of an advisory committee established pursuant to section 11 of the Arts Act 1973, for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred by him as a member of the Committee.
Do I understand that the chairman may not be paid any money in respect of expenses? This seems to exclude him by implication. I would have thought it to be normal practice in bodies of this kind that a modest allowance for vouched expenses would be payable to the chairman.
Surely this is overcome by the fact that as a member of the council he will be entitled to expenses for work in connection with the council. The chairman is a member of the council.
So far as I know, the chairman referred to here in paragraph 6(1) is the chairman of the Arts Council and he is being paid an allowance anyway. What is provided here is that most of the members of the central council and of the committees would be able to get expenses.
So he is not being paid a salary? He is being paid an allowance?
Something other than expenses. He is being paid but not in the form of expenses.
Amendment agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 18th December, 1973.