I welcome the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, and members of the committee. In response to a query made by Deputy English yesterday, the committee will have to adjourn at 5.15 p.m. for a number of reasons and it will reconvene, if necessary, at 2 p.m. next Tuesday. I emphasise that members' contributions should be relevant to the amendment or section before the committee. I will not allow the same latitude as I did yesterday.
Arts Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 11.
We may not have many more Bills before us.
Amendment No. 29 in the names of Deputies Deenihan and Wall is not in order as it involves a charge on the Exchequer. As amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are consequential to amendment No. 29, they cannot be moved either.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
As amendments Nos. 30 to 33, inclusive, are related, they may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 7, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) The Minister shall consider the matter of regional representation when appointing the members of the Council.".
The Minister may be aware that people in different parts of the country were dissatisfied in the past because their areas were not represented on the Arts Council. At one time, no member of the council was from south of a line across the country. It seems that we cannot convince the Minister to create a council of 12 members, rather than eight, but I hope that regional representation will be taken into account when the members of the council are appointed. It is difficult to represent all parts of the country as each region consists of different counties - there are many counties in the mid-west, and the south-west is made up of counties Kerry and Cork. A person from one county may not be seen as representing the other. It is important that there is a distribution of people from across the country who can look after their regions.
In the 1980s, the Arts Council had a system of regional officers. Perhaps the Minister could look at the regions to which those officers were appointed. I realise he must appoint experts in the visual and performance arts to the board. I recommend that the Minister attempt to achieve a balance between regional representation and expertise.
With regard to amendment No. 31, it is important that the Minister is mindful of the Irish language when he is appointing members of the council. Some of them at least should be proficient in the language because it would be difficult to expect them to be very proactive with regard to Irish language arts if that were not the case. It is also important that there should be representation from Northern Ireland. There has always been a representative from the North on previous Arts Councils and it would be a good idea, if possible, to provide for that in the legislation. The person might be from the equivalent council in Northern Ireland, particularly as North-South relations are very strong in the cultural field. Both arts councils work hand in hand on a number of programmes and in this era of reconciliation, co-operation and cross-Border bodies, it would be useful to appoint a representative from Northern Ireland. People from the North have been appointed to the Senate.
I have concerns with regard to the number of members on the Arts Council. Appointing eight will make it difficult for the Minister to create the broad balance necessary to reflect the wide range of arts under the council's remit. Considering the number of representations that have been made to us, the Minister's job in that regard is going to be difficult. I ask him to consider providing in the committees section of the Bill to make the majority of appointments the responsibility of the Arts Council. The Minister controls the majority appointment of three as against two for the Arts Council. Is it feasible to provide for the three to be appointed by the council?
The cross-Border programmes have been very beneficial in terms of building relationships between the North and the South. I lend my voice to Deputy Deenihan's amendment which seeks to provide for Northern Ireland representation. I also ask the Minister to reconsider the appointment of eight members rather than 12 which will make it difficult to achieve balance.
I am slightly in favour of amendment No. 31 in the name of Deputy Deenihan. It is interesting that he uses the word "may" instead of "shall". If we accept the amendment, the wording should be changed to provide that the Minister shall consider the matter of Irish language representation. Section 28(5) provides that the council's staff must be sufficiently fluent in Irish and English. I know of no reason that provision should not be made in regard to council members. If people are not versed in the Irish language, simultaneous translation could be provided. That could be the way to amend the legislation.
No term of office is set down in the Bill for the chairman of the council. We are not told how long the chairman can serve, how often he or she can be appointed or whether he or she can be continuously selected. I do not know if that oversight can be corrected between now and Report Stage.
Whatever about balanced representation, everyone on the board, including the representative from the North - should there be one, should come from an arts background. Representatives should not merely be appointed on the basis of their geographical location.
Everyone will agree that the best people should serve on the Arts Council, which makes it essential that the Minister be in a position to make the right choices. Proposals that regional, Irish language, particular art form and Northern Irish representation should feed into the selection process are not compatible with how the council should develop. The council can never represent all relevant groups and, in many contexts, an emphasis on being representative can lead to council or board members seeing as their role the looking after of a given group or region. They might not, therefore, take an overview of circumstances and this would not be desirable. It is important that people from a given discipline take an overview in the way it is important that people from the regions look at things from the perspective of the country as a whole.
My emphasis is on choosing the best people. It must be open to the Minister of the day to appoint members purely on merit and ability to do the job without reference to other factors. I accept it is important to achieve some regional balance, but the council membership should not be allowed to suffer because of that. If persons from a given region are good enough to be appointed that is that. It is not desirable that choice should be restricted in the manner suggested. We should have as broad a spread as possible in so far as it can be achieved, but it would not serve the interests of the sector if we were to insert in the legislation restrictions on who should be a member of the Arts Council.
While I sympathise with the Minister's view, I ask him to give some form of expression to his positive disposition towards regional balance and the appointment of members from the North. The other aspect of the amendment refers to the 1951 Act which stipulated that the chairperson of the Arts Council be appointed by the President. In reducing the number of members of the Arts Council the Minister's proposals also refer to the original legislation. The new council will have eight members while the then council had seven. The reason the chairperson was appointed by the President was that politicians wanted to ensure that the council was seen to be as independent as possible and at arm's length from the political system. It would be a positive gesture to place the appointment of the chairperson in the President's hands. Legislation introduced in the meantime contains nothing to prevent this proposal, neither is there anything in the Constitution to prevent it. If it was right in 1951, it can be right now.
It would not be desirable for the President to become involved in the selection of the chairperson of the Arts Council. I have been relatively consistent since becoming Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism in terms of my appointments, which have to date been based on merit. If one considers my recent appointments, for example, to the National Gallery of Ireland, I think everyone will agree that Mr. Lochlann Quinn, Mr. Bruce Arnold and Mr. Anthony Cronin are eminent figures in the field of arts and paintings. I will ensure the Arts Council is populated by the best people, not by members of the Fianna Fáil Party. It would be fair if people were to differ with me and argue that my appointees are not the best people for the job, but there will be a good representation on the Arts Council. I have some people in mind at the moment, although not the full complement of the council. I am convinced it is important that discretion be left open.
I will withdraw the amendment and review it for Report Stage.
In case it appears discourteous, I have listened carefully to what Deputy Ó Snodaigh had to say. Appointments will be made for a five year term. The current position is that a person can be reappointed as often as one wishes. I am not sure this is such a good idea and, therefore, I would welcome members' views on it. In some organisations, for example, Horse Racing Ireland, there is a roll-over of membership and there is also legislation which forbids the appointment of members to certain boards beyond two terms. This is to ensure there is fresh thinking. I am open to suggestion on this interesting matter. I am not a great believer in the concept of longevity in the context of membership of boards.
Having selected the Arts Council, why would the Minister not allow it to appoint the majority of the people on the committee? Why does he insist on appointing three of its members?
Why does the Deputy want the Arts Council to do it?
My belief is that the people on the Arts Council have been appointed by the Minister specifically because of their knowledge and understanding of the arts. It is fair to assume that they, in appointing the three members, would have a broad insight into the range of arts required in these cases. While I accept the Minister will not appoint five members of his party, this is beside the point, which is that the members of the Arts Council, given the depth of knowledge they have in their own field and the arts generally, are capable of appointing committee members.
The difficulty with that proposal is that there would not be parity of esteem or equality. If some members of the Arts Council were to select other members, the latter could, in some way, feel beholden to those who appointed them. I want equality, I want all members to have the same status. I do not want a hierarchy, which would be inevitable if I acceded to the Deputy's request.
I have listened carefully to the Minister. I was previously in a position of appointing boards. All things being equal, my strong view is that ministerial appointment is the best way to proceed. If, for instance, one allows vocational nominations, one tends to get people who are good at getting themselves elected, rather than those with most to offer. With regard to the sub-committees it could equally be advanced that allowing the Minister to appoint the majority on the sub-committee could mean they will feel beholden to him. There is nothing personal in this remark. I am considering how the legislation will operate down the line. If, as happens in many organisations, the Arts Council is divided up into a number of sub-committees, an issue of people being beholden to others will not arise. The issue then is that the council as a body could appoint the other people rather than the Minister. I see much merit in that idea because the council will be in a position to define more clearly the people required, something which should not come within the day to day business of the Minister. The arm's length principle should apply. While I fully support the idea that the Minister should nominate all members of the Arts Council, his role should stop there and the council should decide internally who should be appointed.
The Deputy should note that no mention is made of the sub-committees in this context. We will proceed to these later.
While I do not wish to go over old ground, I agree with the Minister's view on the number of terms a chairperson should serve. As he pointed out, people can become lackadaisical. It is important one gets young blood with fresh ideas. Although we may not all agree with his selection as regards the list of names he read out, we must concede that they are eminent people. In light of the Minister's guarantee that he will choose the best people and ensure there is a regional balance, I have no problem with the proposal. As public representatives, we should remember that many of us will try to put pressure on the Minister.
Perhaps the Minister will introduce an amendment to prohibit Members of the Oireachtas from making representations on the matter.
There is no reference to that. It was unfortunate we did not discuss the issue of the number of members on the council.
We will not do it now.
Will the Minister revisit that?
We can revisit it. Perhaps there should be a roll-over of the committee. There is no such thing as an optimum number in terms of council membership. I am open to hearing suggestions on this issue. I would be pleased if Deputies put forward Report Stage amendments in this regard. The period of time spent on the council is currently ten years, which may be too long. Perhaps there should be roll-over membership after three years, for example. That is the case with some boards. I am also open to suggestions in this regard.
A number of amendments were tabled to change the board membership to 12.
If the Dáil comes to a consensus on the membership number and period of office, I am open to that.
We are restricted in moving this amendment, but may we move a similar one on Report Stage?
Once it is introduced on Committee Stage it is possible.
The Deputy is entitled to resubmit it.
What if it is barred today because of financial constraints?
Then it is not possible to resubmit it on Report Stage.
The Minister will then have to do it himself. Being a presidential appointment takes the appointment of the council chairperson out of the political sphere. As Deputy Collins mentioned, it may take some pressure off the Minister. Having said that, in the past the Minister of the day usually appointed the best candidate available. The one appointment for which I had responsibility as a Minister of State was to Bord na gCon. I appointed Paschal Taggart. I did not even ask him about his politics but it proved to be a good decision.
The Deputy had a very good idea.
I know the Minister will look at the matter in a balanced and practical way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 31 to 35, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
A number of interesting issues were raised during the course of the debate. One of them, which we did not get around to discussing because it was ruled out of order, was the gender quota for the council. The recommendation is for four men and four women, which we hoped to raise to six of each in the context of a 12-member council. As Deputy Deenihan pointed out, in regard to any change in the number of members, the amendment will have to come from the Minister.
Is the Minister seriously considering increasing the size of the Arts Council? In regard to the duration of council membership, some people continue to make a good contribution to a board for many years while others do not. A balance has to be struck. Two full terms is probably adequate for any member. It is necessary to have a balance in regional representation as well as in regard to the various branches of the arts, such as having a representative view in terms of the Irish language. It is my experience that many people who are inclined towards the arts also speak the Irish language. An amendment could be introduced to the effect that the Minister, when appointing the council, should have in mind a regional balance as well as a balanced spread within the various branches of the arts, in addition to a consideration in favour of the Irish language.
There has been quite a bit of representation on that.
We have discussed all the points made by Deputy O'Shea other than the question of the gender balance on the council. If council membership is increased to 12, it would automatically follow that the provision in regard to equality would also be implemented. It is important that we put this into the legislation because the experience has been that when it comes to appointments the level of participation by women is not always recognised. Sometimes they do not want to be appointed but the only sure way of improving the situation is by including a specified gender balance in the legislation.
I agree with the Minister's positive statement. He is currently presiding over Bord na gCon on which there is no woman representative, although there were three a few years ago. I am sure the Minister will rectify that. There are so many women participating in the arts that I expect the Minister will find it very easy to find six suitable women.
That is a good point.
I am against tokenism and quotas because of the belief that one should arrive at a situation on merit. Oireachtas Members received information today from the National Women's Council of Ireland. It appears that the Arts Council is the one organisation that has a majority of women on the board. I would hate to think the number of women on it would be reduced. There needs to be a degree of flexibility on this issue.
That is an excellent point, Deputy O'Malley.
It sounds like a takeover bid.
As a contributor to that gender balance in this House, Deputy O'Malley is right.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 8, subsection (1), line 18, to delete "stated reasons" and substitute "substantial reasons in the public interest, provided that as soon as practicable after such removal, a statement of such reasons shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas by the Minister".
We tabled this amendment because of the arm's length principle. This is not aimed at the incumbent but is a comment on the legislation. For instance, if the Minister of the day has a dislike of a particular person and wishes to remove him or her from office for improper reasons this would act as a safeguard to such a move. It is a protection for council members but it is also an indication of the arm's length principle between Government and the Arts Council.
I am advised by the parliamentary counsel that this is a standard provision in this context. It is reasonable that a Minister who makes an appointment to a statutory body may also remove that member, provided it is done in an open and transparent manner. The reasons must be specified under the provisions of the Bill, as it stands. I do not agree that it should be necessary to lay the matter before the Houses of the Oireachtas. No Minister will specify a frivolous or vexatious reason. To do so would cast a much worse reflection on the Minister in question than on the victim of such a decision. If the decision is stated unambiguously, no member of the Arts Council may then be removed because the Minister does not like the colour of his or her hair.
That does not address the issue. The amendment is to ensure that the Minister of the day cannot remove somebody from office for reasons over which he cannot stand. It would ensure that a Minister contemplating removing somebody from office for improper reasons would be held to account before the Members of the Oireachtas.
I am opposed to the amendment.
I withdraw the amendment, but I will reintroduce it on Report Stage. I ask the Minister to reflect on what he has just said because he is not considering the effect the amendment will have in terms of preventing unfair decisions to remove members of the council from office.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
What is the level of remuneration of members of the Arts Council? Is there any change contemplated in terms of the smaller Arts Council?
The chairperson of the Arts Council will certainly not be going to the races over Christmas on his salary. He gets £3,000 per annum. The members will not be going to the race meeting at all because they get absolutely nothing.
Do they get travelling expenses?
They do not get any remuneration.
What is the position in respect of the new Bill?
In the new Bill, section 14 sets out that the chairperson and the ordinary members will be paid such remuneration and such allowances for expenses as the Minister, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, may determine. While members of the Arts Council, particularly the chairperson, would not seek remuneration, they should be given some recompense. That is more or less standard across the semi-State sector. We will have to examine the issue and see what provision can be made. I am not talking about paying them a fortune. It is often forgotten that people who serve on State boards do a great deal of public service. It is sometimes thought they are delighted to be members of these boards, but they are actually doing the State a favour.
I accept the Minister's point. People obtain legitimate expenses in terms of participation on the Arts Council, but this is a new concept. Is it correct that the Department has not addressed the issue in detail, but that there will be remuneration introduced after the new council has been put in place?
I intend to introduce some form of remuneration for the chairperson and the members of the Arts Council as soon as possible after the legislation has been enacted. It will not recompense them in full. I imagine that the remuneration will be more or less in line with the normal rates in the public sector.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
An article in a newspaper, to which I referred when the chairman and director of the Arts Council came before the committee, stated that approximately 94 meetings - I cannot stand over this figure - had taken place between the council and committees of the council in the previous year. It seems that the period in question was particularly fraught. One cannot restrict the number of meetings. However, if the Arts Council is meeting too often people cannot always be present. Is there a reasonable number of meetings that should take place? If meetings are being held frequently, it leads to inefficiency.
Will the Minister take that on board for Report Stage?
I understand Deputy O'Shea's point. There should not be a need for 94 meetings. The best we can do is talk to the incoming council and the director. Normally, the council meets once a month, which is what is supposed to happen. The period to which the Deputy referred was fraught, but I do not see storms ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 10, subsection (1), line 14, after "Council" to insert "or a member of a standing committee established by the Council".
Section 17 states that where a member of the council is nominated as a Member of Seanad Éireann, elected as a Member of either House of the Oireachtas or to be a representative in the European Parliament or regarded, pursuant to Part XIII of the Second Schedule to the European Parliament Elections Act, 1997, as having been elected to that Parliament, he or she shall thereupon cease to be a member of the council. It is possible for a councillor or a Member of the Seanad to be a member of a standing committee. Why did the Minister not extend the provision to standing committees as well?
The Deputy is correct and we will have to make changes on Report Stage. I will consult the parliamentary counsel in respect of the amendment. Amendment No. 38 looks similar. It is a serious matter and I intend to make the necessary amendments. I thank the Deputy for pointing this out.
The provision could be extended to exclude from the council members who are elected to the European Parliament.
It already does so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 38 not moved.
Section 17 agreed to.
Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Amendments Nos. 39 to 41, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 12, subsection (1), line 7, after "by" to insert "law or by".
This amendment relates to disclosures of information. Section 20(1) states:
A person shall not disclose confidential information obtained by him or her while performing functions as-
(a) a member or member of the staff of, or an adviser or consultant to, the Council, or
(b) a member of a committee established under section 21 or 22, unless he or she is duly authorised by the Council to so do.
We are seeking to insert the phrase "unless the person is authorised to do so by law or by the council". Our thinking on this matter relates to the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, 1997. If a person has the authorisation of the council, or authorisation by law, then he or she would be within his or her rights in disclosing that information.
The next amendment relates to the Freedom of Information Act, 1997. It would ensure that the ban on giving information in this section would not interfere with disclosure of documents under the FOI. We want the Freedom of Information Act to apply to the new council and there would be no restrictions in that regard. The next amendment is to ensure the Freedom of Information Act shall continue to apply to the council. I do not think the Bill provides for that. These amendments are about the disclosure of information and preventing the council, for any improper reasons, from withholding information when it is sought.
The Deputy has made the point well. I acknowledge the objective of these amendments. The Arts Council is a proscribed body under the Freedom of Information Act. Section 20 may restrict the application of the Freedom of Information Act to the council and that is undesirable. I will look again at this and seek the most appropriate legal construction and propose an adjustment along the lines of the amendment on Report Stage. The Freedom of Information Act will apply to the Arts Council.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.
Section 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 12, lines 18 to 25, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"(1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 22, the Council shall establish standing committees on-
(a) the traditional Irish arts, and
(b) arts activities of local authorities.".
The major difficulty with the Bill is section 21. The council should have a standing committee on the traditional Irish arts, although this committee should not make recommendations on funding. Representations were made to us on this issue and the people we met feel the Arts Council has disregarded the traditional arts. The committee should have the right to make funding recommendations to the council. I hope the Minister will give an overview of what he believes to be the position regarding the traditional Irish arts. We have also received representations from the arts officers of local authorities and a standing committee is also necessary for this area. I do not see the need for another committee regarding innovation. That should remain within the remit of the Arts Council.
We have arrived at what Kelsen, the German philosopher, would have described as the grundnorm. This is a difficult area. The debate on the traditional Irish arts standing committee is quite simple. Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann has argued that it does not receive sufficient funding from the Arts Council and that the proposed standing committee would address this issue. Others in the traditional arts accept that point but oppose the standing committee because it would marginalise the traditional arts and lead to stagnation in the future. We have two conflicting arguments which, ironically, come from the traditional arts sector itself. It will be virtually impossible to ensure that the twain can meet.
Few would argue that traditional Irish arts have not received the degree of funding to which they are entitled. The sector deserves more funding. That is not to say that Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann is not funded because the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs funds it. In the past, the Arts Council has, in different guises, funded traditional Irish arts.
Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann has argued that there should be a standing committee with power to make recommendations on funding to the Arts Council. Any such recommendation would be powerful. Against that, the argument runs that this would create a council within the Arts Council, which would not be helpful. Those opposed to the standing committee say that if it is established it will marginalise the traditional arts and lead to their stagnation.
The element of compulsion may have militated against the Irish spirit but there has been an admirable flowering and growth of gaelscoileanna across the country in recent years which should be encouraged. In recent years the traditional Irish arts have flourished, not just at home but internationally. We have never seen a period in our history where the traditional Irish arts have been so admired across the globe. It has been heartwarming to see, for example, the success of Irish dancing. None of this occurred because traditional Irish arts were compulsory or because there was a standing committee because there is none. We must address why it occurred.
This is a young vibrant democracy with its faults but it also has much to boast of. Among those things of which it has a right to be proud are its language and traditional arts. Those opposed to the traditional arts standing committee make the point vehemently that this young vibrant democracy should be sufficiently assertive and sure of its place in the world to be able to ensure expression is given to traditional Irish arts without the necessity for a traditional Irish arts standing committee.
The standing committees would be in place for as long as the Arts Act. There is an argument that the proposed section, as it stands, is a rigid mechanism. Those opposed to any standing committee make the argument that in five or ten years' time, other issues than the three committees suggested here would become of more immediate importance and would be of greater relevance but there would be no provision for any such new standing committees. Under the legislation as it stands, the standing committee on the traditional Irish arts would be the only one with powers of financial disbursement and there are those who argue strongly that this should not be the case as it would place the Irish traditional arts in a different category to all other art forms. It is argued that it would not be right to ring-fence the sector in that manner because it would stagnate and ghettoise traditional Irish arts. It is important, whatever decision we reach, and we must reach one, that we avoid what happened to the Irish language in the past when it was marginalised from the rest of our culture. Whether I state specifically what I plan to do today is irrelevant.
The Minister has thrown in the ball.
I did not know the Minister played rugby.
The reason it is important is that there must be a serious debate in this committee to which I am prepared to listen and contribute before we reach a final decision. It is equally important that I point out the arguments.
The Arts Council has not developed a coherent policy on the traditional Irish arts. The other two standing committees have not been thought out as fully as might be possible, nor indeed have they been sought by any major or significant sector of the arts community. The proposed standing committee for artistic innovation, for example, seems to be relatively curious. I am not sure innovation can be discussed in a vacuum.
I concur with Deputy O'Malley's point that it is neither accurate nor constructive to place traditional and contemporary as opposites. Where does that leave The Chieftains, Riverdance, Martin Hayes or Sharon Shannon? There are solutions to this debate but they are difficult and could cause much controversy within the sector. Paramount in our considerations should be a workable and imaginative Arts Act for the next 20 years or so and it is in that context and spirit that we will approach possible solutions to the problems outlined. It is important that members of the committee have the opportunity to discuss this matter in its entirety and know the arguments. I have put forward what I consider to be both sides of the argument. I have also indicated that I am not happy with the legislation as it stands on section 21. As there should be change, let us discuss it constructively.
As in the best soaps, we have hit 5.15 p.m. and we agreed earlier that we would stop at this time. The committee will resume on Tuesday with good food for thought. We have heard both sides of the argument although neither "side" wants to be referred to as such. We will adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 17 December 2002.
What is the status of the communication we received from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources? It is a consultation paper on which observations are requested prior to 31 December 2002.
I will try to get that on the agenda for our joint meeting on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 and anyone who has comments on it can submit it to myself or the clerk.
Debate adjourned. The select committee adjourned at 5.19 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 17 December 2002.