I again welcome the Minister and his officials. I intend to complete Committee Stage this afternoon. We had reached section 21 on Thursday.
Arts Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 21.
Debate resumed on 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.".
-(Deputy Wall).
I apologise to the Chairman, members and committee staff for my inability to be here at 2 p.m. The Cabinet meeting ran late and by the time we got the message here the select committee had adjourned. I am thankful that everybody agreed to return at 3 p.m. I apologise, again, and will try to ensure this does not happen in the future. I hope everyone understands me as I have a dreadful cold. It never rains but it pours.
It may be of help to summarise my position on section 21. Last week I explained that I believed the existing text needed to be changed. There is a strong belief within the traditional arts sector that the traditional arts have not fared as well as they deserved in terms of Arts Council funding during the years. The virtual unanimity of this belief strongly suggests that there may be some validity to it, although the Arts Council may take a different view. The council could have awarded more funding to the traditional arts, but that is a personal view. It is independent in the exercise of its functions. It is also said by those involved in the traditional arts sector that the position will not change simply because we have recognised that matters have not been as they should, but that change in terms of mechanisms and structures is needed.
Members will be familiar with the approach proposed in the Bill, which is to require the Arts Council to set up a number of standing steering committees with a standing committee on traditional arts having the function of making funding recommendations for the sector. However, strong objections have been raised to this approach. At a general level, there is concern that permanent standing committees of this kind are too inflexible and that they effectively would set in stone the priorities of the council for the future in order that it could not adapt or adjust to the normal, organic development of the arts sector, in which the council operates in the absence of amending legislation. Concerns have also been expressed about the effects of this kind of arrangement on the council. At a more specific level, there is a great deal of concern within the traditional arts sector that the Bill's current approach could move the traditional arts out of the mainstream, that they could be virtually ghettoised. It could certainly create a rift between traditional practitioners and others.
Since taking up the arts portfolio, I have met many individuals and groups and carefully weighed the various considerations that need to be balanced in order to find a solution. My conclusion is we should avoid, if at all possible, setting up any permanent independent or quasi-independent structures within the Arts Council which might have implications for it. While change may be necessary, it is far better that it should come from within the council. In the new regime proposed it is accepted that the traditional arts is an area that needs attention and that other specific issues in the arts may need to be addressed in a special way as a matter of priority from time to time.
The matter of arts and education has been identified during Dáil debates and on Committee Stage as an area which requires specific attention. However, given the evolving nature of the arts, these priorities will change over time. The legislation must have the flexibility to respond coherently to changes in context. I intend, therefore, to seek the approval of Government to introduce an amendment on Report Stage that will deal with these issues.
It is my intention to produce a format that will allow specific areas of policy to be given prioritised consideration from time to time but in a way that can take due account of changes in circumstances. While I have made it clear that I see an overall policy role for the Minister of the day, I accept that the Arts Council should have a statutory right to be involved in the formulation of these policies. The precise wording would also have to be cleared by the parliamentary counsel. Assuming it proves possible to devise a legal construction that meets these concerns, it is my intention that the first area to be dealt with in this context will be that of the traditional arts. I will also be giving prompt consideration to addressing the area of arts and education in this context.
Given that we were discussing amendment No. 42 to begin with, I will allow Deputy O'Shea or Deputy Wall to comment first.
I accept what the Minister says about the problems section 21 will create. I would appreciate the Minister's giving us a copy of his speech in order that we can have an overview of what he was saying. This will change the whole format of the Bill. What he is suggesting seems a logical approach which takes into account the contentious nature of the issue which my colleague, Deputy O'Shea, and I have pointed out from day one. The Minister must have time on his side. Does he believe we should wait until this is sorted out before proceeding with the Bill? We must also deal with many other motions relating to other committees. Would it be an idea to give time to the Minister and the Department at this stage to investigate these problems in order that we can have the full Bill in front of us as we debate it rather than bits and pieces?
If we were to defer consideration of section 21 until we knew its precise formulation, there might be a problem if members did not agree with the eventual result. The difficulty is that I cannot change the legislation without discussing it with the Government. It is not within my power to bring forward an amendment at this point without the approval of the Government because it would result in a substantial change to the legislation. I propose that we proceed with the rest of the Bill.
I am sure the Minister's officials intended to advise in that direction also. As it is obvious the Minister intends to change section 21, there is no point in moving any amendments to it.
The option is there for the Minister to withdraw the amendments and retable them on Report Stage. It gives you something to argue at Report Stage if you do not like what is there.
Of course. There are minutes and the Chairman might give us an opportunity to refer briefly to them. For example, I have an amendment down on education which might give us that opportunity.
I am glad the Minister singled out education, as the traditional arts in education is paramount in any future wording he will propose. On a broader issue, there has been a major change of Government direction in this Bill. There was a period of three or four years consultation on the previous Bill and section 21 of this Bill has created a major division among the traditional arts groups from various different backgrounds, as we have witnessed over the summer months. Were these problems not foreseen before the Bill was drafted? Surely if the Minister was not comfortable with this section, his predecessor should not have been comfortable with it either. Obviously the civil servants who drafted the original Bill are still there and advising him to change, or is it just coming from the Minister?
Different ministers view things differently. If Deputy de Valera was here she would make a very cogent argument for her view of the legislation. I support her legislation in broad terms. We would differ on this section. Any amendment has to go back to the Government, which has to consider it in the light of discussions which I have had with various groups and individuals and in the light of submissions which have been made to the committee. It is not unusual, as Deputy Deenihan knows, for the same Minister to change legislation in the course of its passage through the committee. It is quite regular for a Minister to make substantial changes to legislation having listened to various points of view.
It is important to point out that the fundamentals are not very different, in terms of how I view traditional arts. I have stated categorically that I believe the traditional arts deserve more funding and that there should be a coherent policy. That is not far removed from the intention of Section 21, whatever about the construction of the committees. How one wishes to proceed is a question of interpretation. I may have one way of implementing the same aspirations as Deputy de Valera; she may have another. It is the Government's decision, after I have reported on all of the consultations and meetings which I have had and the discussions which the committee has had here with various groups.
I welcome what the Minister has decided to do about section 21. My initial reaction on reading the Bill was that perhaps the necessity for section 21 was obviated slightly by section 22. I welcome the opportunity to have that redrafted because, as the Minister said last week, as it is currently constituted it does not provide the necessary degree of flexibility for a Bill that may be on the statute book for the next 30 years. I intend to write to the Minister on the issue and I accept his proposition that the traditional arts need to be recognised.
The terms of reference will be crucial in how we frame the legislation. We do not want to be too dogmatic. We need to have a degree of flexibility for a period of time so that the Arts Council can recognise that priority must be given to a certain area. That can be a changing priority, whether it is traditional arts, arts in education or the whole area of community and voluntary education and amateur work. We have all been on the committee when submissions were made and want to recognise that there will be a time in the future of the Arts Council, as it evolves under the new legislation, when it will want to look at the area of amateur and voluntary community activity to decide if it should be prioritised. The Minister's proposal to look for help from the committee in framing the legislation is most welcome because we all have the same interests at heart. We want redress for areas which have been neglected.
There may also be an increased role for the committee system in helping the Minister arrive at decisions. I am only learning, and perhaps it is not appropriate for the committee to involve itself in policy. At the same time, it is a process by which the council, the Minister and the committee are subject to public scrutiny. I will write to the Minister.
I broadly welcome the line that the Minister is taking here. There is a mechanism whereby, on Report Stage, certain sections can go back to committee. That may be a mechanism to deal with this situation to a certain extent. We have some amendments down, for instance on how the committees are composed. These are more meaningfully debated in the context of the Minister's new draft. That may be a way of solving the situation in which we find ourselves.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 12, subsection (1), line 19, to delete "3" and substitute "4".
I have made a point about the seismic shift in policy. I have been dealing with Bills for some time now but this change in policy is fairly dramatic. The amount of discussion which has taken place is good in one sense, because it focused people's minds on the lack of provision for the traditional arts, but it also created a rift between the traditional arts groups. I hope the two sides which have been created will come together with officials from the Department and reach a compromise. I have received two proposals, one from each side, as I am sure have other members of the committee. Perhaps they have already been presented to the Minister. There does not seem to be much difference between them. I hope the Minister will be able to bring both sides together to come to an agreement on the best proposal for the future of traditional arts. I would not be happy if there was just a committee appointed for the traditional arts. There is one there already within the Arts Council which has been sitting for about three years and has had no effect. I appeal to the Minister to put something very strong in place for the traditional arts, which influence the arts in rural Ireland and are moving out to all parts of the country. The traditional arts are even flourishing in urban areas. There must be more financial provision to support this initiative.
I proposed the establishment of a standing committee on education. There should be major emphasis on the arts in education. In 1960 there was report on design in Ireland by three Scandinavians. They stated that Irish schoolchildren are, visually and artistically, among the most undereducated in Europe. The position has improved since then, but the last report of NAPD on arts in schools showed there is a major neglect of music, particularly at leaving certificate level. Up to 25% of boys' schools and 8% of girls' schools make no provision for art. The need for a strong educational element in the proposals is important.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 44 not moved.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 12, subsection (1)(c), line 25, after "innovation" to insert "and the individual artist".
I argued that the Bill should be called the Arts Council Bill. There is no mention in the Bill of the individual artist and that is why the amendment contains a reference to artistic innovation and the artist.
It is important that reference should be made to the needs of the artist in any arts Bill. In most Bills, the artist would be at the centre. An education Bill would refer to teachers, but this arts Bill makes no reference to the artist. Many artists, in both the performing and visual arts, are on the breadline and some are on social welfare. There is no commitment to support these people.
A composer who was previously, but is no longer, supported by the Arts Council made a submission to the committee. He pointed out that one of the ways to sell our music abroad is through strong indigenous composition from Irish composers. He felt he was not being supported in the Bill because there was no reference to the artist. The report, The Creative Imperative, published in February 2000 by the Arts Council, stated that the artist feels isolated at times and is dependent on his or her family and social welfare. There should be reference to the artist and support for him or her.
Young actors are forced to go to Britain to train. There is a proposal in the Bill for the establishment of a school of the performing arts. Such a school will receive little support and not just from the Arts Council. This goes back to fostering the talent that exists. The narrow elements of arts policy in the State have neglected artists, including traditional musicians. Traditional musicians have not received much support in the past. The major deficit that is not addressed in the Bill is the lack of a mechanism to look after an artist's interests.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 46 not moved.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 12, lines 26 to 32, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) A standing committee established under this section shall consist of such members of the Council appointed by the Council and such other persons (if any) appointed by the Council as the Council may decide.".
The key requirement for those in the traditional arts is to get a better balance. I am committed to achieving that and it should be possible. I have heard the views of both sides. It is a matter for the parliamentary counsel to draft the words leading to the implementation of the intent. There is no fundamental change to the section. We are simply changing the mechanics.
In response to Deputy Wall, we will be able to discuss the substantive changes to section 21 in committee because it has not yet been discussed. I do not want to go into the other amendments because I cannot accept any of them when we are changing section 21 itself. I have explained already that this is not an Arts Council Bill. It is important, as Deputy Deenihan pointed out, to have the emphasis on the artist but the parliamentary counsel does not insert words for the optics; such words must mean something. I am satisfied that the Bill is well-rounded and I will introduce the new section 21 at the earliest possible opportunity in the new year.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 48 to 51, inclusive, not moved.
Section 21 agreed to.
Sections 22 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 30.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 16, subsection (5), line 15, to delete "at" and substitute "immediately before".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 31.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 16, subsection (1), line 41, after "notice" to insert ", whilst recognising the independence of the Council in its function under section 24".
There is a contradiction between section 31 and section 24. Section 24(2) states "The Council shall be independent in the performance of its functions under this section." Section 31(1), however, states:
The Minister may, by notice in writing, require the Council to produce to him or her, or such person as may be named in the notice, all such books of account, records or other documents (including documents stored in non-legible form) relating to the Council as are specified in the notice.
Those documents could be, for example, applications for grant aid, and in some ways that could infringe upon the independent decision making of the Arts Council in the allocation of funding. That is why it is very important to insert this new wording. It would mean that the Minister cannot ask for application forms submitted by various organisations. This is very important, irrespective of who the Minister may be. If, for example, the Minister, before any decisions were made, asked for applications because of representations made to him or her, it would undermine the whole objective of section 24. The amendment will not change things radically, it will merely underline in writing the independence of the Arts Council provided for in section 24.
This section relates to the examination of the council's accounts. There is no implication or possibility that the provision could infringe the council's independence in principle. There could be circumstances, however, where it may be valuable to examine details of any category of the council's expenditure, so I cannot accept the amendment. There is no question of changing any of the records or accounts, it is just a saving provision.
Is the Minister saying he will accept the amendment?
No, I cannot, because it would mean the Minister could not look into something that might require to be looked at.
Yes, but it leaves it open to a Minister in the future to interfere with the allocation of grants. Section 24 protects the Arts Council from any interference in determining the recipients of grants. It preserves the arm's length approach in terms of the allocation of funding. My interpretation, however, is that section 31 is in conflict with section 24. It is something the Minister might ask his officials to look at for Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 31 agreed to.
TITLE.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 3, lines 10 and 11, to delete "HERITAGE, GAELTACHT AND THE ISLANDS" and substitute "SPORT AND TOURISM".
This is a technical amendment to take account of the changes in ministerial portfolios since the Bill was drafted.
Some of us made the point on Second Stage that the switching of the arts from the Department of Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands to that of Arts, Sport and Tourism in some ways took the focus off the arts. The arts are now part of a whole different setting, and there are people who are concerned that the arts may be very isolated alongside tourism and sport, which are both very big components of the Department. I understand the Minister also has responsibility for Bord na gCon and the horseracing board. The arts are now set alongside some very high profile sections of the Department, and they sat a lot easier alongside heritage, the Gaeltacht and the islands. It is very important that the arts are kept to the forefront of the Department at all times, as I am sure the Minister would agree.
The Minister will have an opportunity to respond if we agree to our work programme. He is only here to deal specifically with these priorities.
Yes, but I would like the Minister to refer to that point.
I do not see any reason why the arts should be isolated.
It is important for the Minister to say that.
The Minister and Deputy Deenihan mentioned dogs and horses. It is only right to put on record that the last Minister gave a commitment in committee and on the floor of the House that a certain amount of the money allocated to Bord na gCon would be given to the Irish Coursing Club.
I think we have absolutely gone to the dogs at this stage because this is getting back to——
This is on the record, as the Minister knows.
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.