I welcome the Minister and her officials. Our purpose today is to consider Committee Stage of the Heritage Fund Bill, 2001.
Heritage Fund Bill, 2001: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"(f) any other gallery or museum or heritage institution in the State determined for this purpose by the Council;”.
When the Bill was debated on Second Stage in the Dáil, there was a general welcome for its provisions. It is a worthwhile Bill with worthy objectives. Any criticism would be that it took so long to introduce such a Bill in view of the number of artefacts and heritage items that may have already left the country. The passing of legislation will hopefully keep within the country many of the heritage items that come on the market. My main criticism is that the Bill centres on Dublin and that the five institutions that gain from its enactment are located in Dublin. They are the National Archives, the National Gallery, the National Museum of Science and Art, the National Library of Ireland and the Irish Museum of Modern Art.
The Bill is too centralised and ignores the aspirations and rights of institutions in other parts of the country such as the Crawford Gallery in Cork and the Hunt Museum in Limerick. Most counties now have museums and art galleries. In my own county, we have the Glebe Gallery in Gartan and the county museum in Letterkenny. These institutions have been left out and I suggest in this amendment that a number of galleries or institutions outside of the Dublin region should benefit from the Bill's provisions. We do not want everything centralised in Dublin but want people throughout the country to have access to works of art and items of heritage. It should not be one-way traffic to Dublin to see them; there should also be traffic from Dublin to other parts of the country to view items of national heritage.
Decentralisation has been official policy for a number of years. This Bill reverses that and the Minister should consider including some of the worthy institutions from other parts of the country in order that they may gain from this fund. I agree with the setting up of the fund and compliment the Minister on bringing the Bill forward. Like many of us, she represents a rural constituency but, as far as the Bill and its provisions are concerned, we are being left out. I suggest the inclusion of a number of institutions outside Dublin in order that they may gain from the Bill's provisions.
Deputy McGinley has explained well the thinking behind this amendment. I share the view that artefacts should not reside in Dublin alone and should be available to galleries and heritage centres throughout the country, particularly if the item has an association with a particular area. We are speaking of artefacts costing at least £250,000 and I realise there are issues concerning security and the climate and conditions under which they would be made available for viewing by the public.
I understand that existing forms of funding would continue and that this Bill only deals with objects costing in excess of £250,000. I support the idea of particular artefacts being made available at museums, galleries and heritage centres throughout the country. I look forward to the Minister's response and hope she will help us realise the ideal of bringing artefacts to local areas.
I thank both Deputies for their contributions. I cannot accept this amendment as it seeks to expand the number of institutions eligible to benefit from the heritage fund. This would dilute the beneficial effects of the fund towards the national collecting cultural institutions. The purpose of the heritage fund is to build up resources, which will be available exceptionally through the principal State collecting cultural institutions, to acquire critically important items of moveable heritage. Deputy O'Shea is correct in saying that we are talking about additional funding and it is not a question of doing away with the existing acquisition budgets. These budgets remain and I would point out that the moneys made available to cultural institutions over the past four and a half years have increased. This is an additional fund for the acquisition of special and significant artefacts, which may come on the market, that we do not wish to lose from the State.
Section 2 of the Bill provides a list of five eligible institutions which will benefit from the heritage fund. These are Ireland's principal collecting national institutions. As Deputy McGinley said, they are the National Archives, the National Gallery of Ireland, the National Museum of Ireland, the National Library of Ireland and the Irish Museum of Modern Art. Deputies will note that not all of the CNCI institutions are eligible institutions under the Bill. The beneficiary institutions are only those that are the principle collecting national institutions. Accordingly, I cannot agree with the proposal to dilute the effects of the Bill provided that the General Council of County Councils of Ireland or any other agency nominate three additional directors or chief executives to the council of the national cultural institutions. It must be remembered that this function being conferred by statute on the CNCI will be but one of its functions. It would be inappropriate, therefore, to have anyone other than the directors or chief executives of the national cultural institutions on the CNCI.
The CNCI, by its very definition, is confined, and properly so, to the directors or chief executives of the following national institutions — the National Museum of Ireland, The National Gallery of Ireland, the National Library of Ireland, the Arts Council, the Heritage Council, the Irish Museum of Modern Art, the National Concert Hall, the Chester Beatty Library, the National Theatre Society Limited and the National Archives. To attempt to expand the eligible institutions beyond these would negate the Bill's focused intention and, therefore, I cannot support amendments Nos. 1 and 11. The Deputies are aware that the council has been operating for some time and the national institutions, which have been working together, find it useful a tool because it is an opportunity to pool their knowledge. As national cultural institutions, they are the principal collecting agencies for the country.
I must correct a view expressed on Second Stage and again today by the Deputies opposite that the Bill is against decentralisation. I strongly refute the suggestion that this is a centralised Bill because my philosophy has always been one of decentralisation, as is the Government's. It is a matter of being giving further access and participation to those living outside the capital or other cities so as to diffuse access to arts and heritage venues. I did this through the 44 projects supported by what are now known as ACCESS grants. Turlough Park is an important move because it extends one of our cultural institutions to the regions. It is not just a question of saying that this is our philosophy but of carefully carrying it through in the Heritage Fund Bill.
We want to ensure the development of a loans policy. The National Museum's policy of lending artefacts to suitably equipped and staffed museums outside Dublin has worked satisfactorily for some time and is the right way to approach to this matter. Deputy McGinley referred to Donegal County Museum which, as a designated museum, may receive loans from the national institutions. People will not have to go outside their locality to view our marvellous heritage, particularly where it is relevant to their area. It is not a question of only making artefacts available in Dublin, which I would not advocate, but of making them available throughout the country which is now possible due to the increase in regional venues. The Bill does not promote centralisation; it provides an additional fund to acquire artefacts of national significance which may be viewed regionally in designated museums.
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. The first of the two amendments deals with qualifying institutions while the other concerns the membership of the council. Has the Minister covered amendments Nos. 1 and 11 in her reply?
Yes.
Membership of the council is Dublin oriented. Its members are all based in Dublin with the exception of the chief executive officer of the Heritage Council who is based in Kilkenny. With all but one of its ten members based in Dublin, the council is loaded in favour of that city. Deputy O'Shea made a valid point about association. If valuable heritage items of which we have many — the Book of Kells, the Ardagh Chalice and the Cross of Cong to name but a few — are found in Cork, Clare, Donegal, Kilkenny or Kells, and a suitable local institution is available, why should they not be placed there? The Derek Hill collection, which is in the Glebe Gallery in Donegal, if purchased with this fund, would have been moved to one of the qualifying institutions in Dublin which would have been unfair.
In spite of what the Minister eloquently stated, cultural centralisation is not too strong a description of this policy. I regret she is negative about it. She said there would be an expansion of venues and a loans policy, meaning that artefacts have to return to the qualifying institutions in Dublin. We remember the controversy over the Hugh Lane pictures and people's anxiety that they return to Dublin. The same will prevail in other parts of the country over items associated with a particular location. I am sorry the Minister cannot see my point of view.
I must clarify two things. The Deputy is discussing the membership of the CNCI which was established in 1998. He is correct in saying that up until our generation there was cultural centralisation in Dublin, but we have tried to change that and have gone a long way down that route with the ACCESS programme. We must recognise that over the years, national cultural institutions have acquired a great deal of knowledge and expertise which means they can pool their resources and advise the Minister of the day.
I agree with the Deputy that it would be unsatisfactory if all artefacts acquired under the heritage fund remained in Dublin. I have never said that. People who continue to say that this Bill is concerned with centralisation miss the point. Once artefacts can be properly protected, bringing them to accredited museums which fulfil security criteria will not pose a problem.
The CNCI's purpose is to offer advice on acquisitions of significant material. Artefacts of great importance can then be distributed to various locations throughout the country as long as they offer the proper secure environment. Donegal Museum, among others, fulfils that criteria. The excavated material from the Abbey River in County Limerick will go on loan to Limerick Museum later this year. The Derrynaflan Chalice was exhibited in Cahir Castle and Cork Public Museum in the mid-1980s. I am pleased to say the National Museum has arranged to loan the Derrynaflan horde to Tipperary South Riding County Museum in autumn 2002. We have an opportunity to distribute these objects and others of national interest throughout the country where they can be enjoyed by people in a different way than heretofore. Decentralisation is a key issue in all of this. Until recently, the cultural institutions were all based in Dublin but the National Heritage Council has moved to Kilkenny and Turlough House and Park is now a very important branch of the National Museum.
I am not so much concerned about the Book of Kells or the Derrynaflan Chalice traversing the country as I appreciate that particular care is required to transport them. However, objects such as Stone Age axe heads which are probably two a'penny in the bowels of the National Museum are just left there. When I was teaching, a young boy called Paul O'Neill brought a bag of peculiarly shaped stones into the classroom and, when I brought them to the museum, a Stone Age axe head was discovered among them. Carlow Museum is due to relocate to new secure premises in the near future and artefacts such as axe heads, which are not particularly rare, should be distributed to local museums such as this. I understand it is not possible to let rare and important artefacts float around the country but local artefacts, which may be of minor interest nationally but of great interest locally, such as the axe head found in Bennekerry and the Linkardstown tomb found in Carlow in the 1940s which I saw on display in the National Museum, should be exhibited in local museums.
Is the Deputy suggesting that the National Museum is hoarding artefacts?
I have heard there is a great deal of material in its cellars which is being preserved for posterity. If nobody sees it, it is not worth tuppence.
The Bill is designed to cover artefacts costing £250,000 or more.
I merely wanted to inform the Minister that I would like to see the Bennekerry axe head being brought back to Carlow.
The artefacts we are discussing here would cost in excess of £250,000. Where books, manuscripts or pictures are concerned, would the Minister consider making good quality replicas available which could be distributed to local museums, heritage centres and libraries, leaving the originals in Dublin?
I wish to associate myself with the points made by Deputies McGinley and O'Shea. The richness of our cultural and archaeological heritage is such that, as far as possible, it should be exhibited as near as possible to its original location. That would generate local interest and would enhance the tourist industry at local level. Many artefacts cannot be exhibited in the Dublin museums due to space constrictions.
Amendment No. 11 concerns the body which will be known as the Council of National Cultural Institutions and its membership. I acknowledge the commitment and expertise of all museum and library directors. The richness of our museums and galleries is a constant source of pride to us. While not wishing the membership of the CNCI to become too unwieldy, perhaps the directors or chief executive officers of the galleries and museums located outside Dublin could be nominated by the General Council of County Councils of Ireland in the interests of bringing a greater depth to the membership. The Hunt Museum in Limerick, which boasts a unique history and an endowed collection which was subsequently built upon, is evidence of an extraordinary sense of investment commitment in this area. Would the Minister consider locating a museum in County Clare focused on our national music which always seems to be marginalised and sidelined?
I, too, feel the membership of the CNCI is rather restrictive. There are excellent museums and art galleries in almost every corner of the country. It is a weakness in the Bill that membership of the CNCI, which will advise on acquisitions, is confined to the Pale. Many would give it a wider vision and an all-Ireland rather than a Pale perspective. I go back in history when I say that.
Only in a geographical sense.
Yes. Most local authorities have museums and cultural centres. The General Council of County Councils should nominate two or three people, who may be members of cultural committees in local authority areas, to this body. It would strengthen it and give it an all-Ireland flavour. At present the body is confined to Dublin. I hope the Minister will give this proposal favourable consideration as it will strengthen and widen the remit of the body.
Is the amendment agreed to?
I do not wish to delay the proceedings but Deputy Browne mentioned an issue with which we all agree. It is not included under the remit of this Bill but his point is a good one in that there are objects in the National Museum which would be appreciated were they to be displayed in some of the local accredited museums. While it would be for the National Museum to decide, I do not envisage there would be a problem in it dealing with such requests.
Deputy O'Shea suggested that replicas of books and artefacts could be displayed in local museums if it was not possible to display the originals. That has been done. The centres at Brú na Bóinne and Clonmacnoise have examples of replicas from excavations. It would be for the museums to discuss this matter with the National Museum in the context of their budgets but the principle has been accepted.
Deputy Barnes referred to the Hunt Museum in Limerick. I have visited it on a number of occasions and it is a wonderful museum. However, it must be realised that this legislation is not concerned with the establishment of the CNCI which was established in 1998 and has worked well. It engages in the pooling of information, joint marketing and shared IT and expertise. We are dealing with national institutions that happen to be in Dublin because of our history. Those involved in them happen to have the most expertise but there will now be great opportunities for the accredited museums in terms of lending policy. There are nine such museums and a tenth will be announced shortly. We are a little ahead of Deputy Barnes in that a centre has been built in Ennis which will open in approximately ten days. It will cover Irish and other types of music and will be both a national and international centre for music.
I will follow that with great interest.
The Deputy will be very welcome. We will be delighted to see her in Ennis.
How stands the amendment?
In view of the Minister's explanation that she will pursue a vigorous policy of expanding venues to ensure that every museum and art gallery which meets the requirements will be able to avail of some of these artefacts on a loan basis, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 6 is related to amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 7 is an alternative to amendment No. 6. Therefore, amendments Nos. 2, 6 and 7 may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, lines 42 to 47, and in page 5, lines 1 and 2, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) As soon as may be, but not later than 3 months after the end of the financial year 2001 and each subsequent financial year, the Minister shall—
(a) prepare, in the Irish language and the English language, the accounts of the Fund, and
(b) submit those accounts in those languages, to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit,
and the Minister shall cause a copy of an abstract in those languages of the accounts as so audited together with a copy of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas not later than 3 months after receipt by the Minister of that report.".
As I indicated on Second Stage, it is my intention that the accounts and the annual report will be produced in both the Irish and English languages. This amendment will give statutory effect to the proposal.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an leasú seo in ainm an Aire. Is Bille oidhreachta é seo agus is páirt thábhachtach dár n-oidhreacht teanga na Gaeilge. Ba laige mhór ins an mBille muna dtabharfaí aitheantas do theanga na Gaeilge ins an mBille agus nuair a bhítear ag cur na tuairisce bhliaintiúil ar fáil. Irish is an essential part of our national heritage and culture and it would be a weakness in the legislation if the Irish language were to be ignored. I welcome the amendment. The Department has long been contemplating publishing Bille na Gaeilge, an Bille teanga. We should not have to wait until that Bill is published and enacted before we meet our requirements regarding the Irish language but should be active on that front. In view of this, it is only logical and proper that there should be a version of the Bill in the Irish language and of the tuairisc bhliain tiúil .
I welcome this amendment in the context of the bilingual approach in the legislation. Will Bille na Gaeilge be enabling legislation and will its provisions apply to all legislation before the House? Will the net effect of that Bill be to provide that all legislation is language proofed?
Amendment No. 6 achieves the same result as amendment No. 7. I therefore welcome amendments Nos. 2 and 6 and, in so far as the Minister has addressed my concerns, I am prepared, with the agreement of Deputy McGinley, to withdraw amendment No. 7.
Amendment No. 6 is related to amendment No. 2, and amendment No. 7 is an alternative to No. 6. Therefore, amendment No. 7 cannot be moved.
Does the Minister's amendment achieve the same aim?
Yes.
Cuirim fáilte roimh na leasuithe agus táimid buíoch don Aire. Ba mhaith liom comhgháirdeas a thabhairt do na Teachtaí McGinley agus O'Shea as a gcuid leasuithe.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, subsection (5), lines 10 to 11, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:
"(b) by deposit of the moneys in a credit institution,”.
I would like an explanation as to why the deletion of the words "in a deposit account with any credit institution" would improve the section. Why is it necessary to delete the reference to a deposit account and to "any credit institution" as distinct from "a credit institution"?
This is a technical amendment which seeks the deletion of "in a deposit account". The reason for the deletion relates to the NTMA placing large amounts of money with through the inter-bank whereby market funds are placed by financial institutions with each other for fixed periods at fixed interest rates. As these payments are not deposit accounts in the conventional sense, the amendment was requested. It is a technical amendment to comply with the usual procedure.
I thank the Minister for that explanation.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 5 is consequential on amendment No. 4 and both may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, subsection (1)(b), line 29, to delete “£2,000,000” and substitute “ 2,539,476”.
The reason I tabled these amendments is that as of 1 January 2002, the legal tender in the State will be the euro, not the pound. The first £3 million will be paid in 2001 when the punt is still the legal tender. It is a technical drafting point but in the interests of accuracy the alternation should be made.
Aontaím leis an méid a dúirt an Teachta O'Shea. From 1 January 2002 everything will have to be converted to euro and it is a sensible and reasonable amendment. I hope the Minister will respond positively to it.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 relate to the introduction of the euro on 1 January 2002. I have sought advice from the parliamentary counsel in this regard and am advised that they may have technical legal connotations. Subject to any further advice I receive, I may give further consideration to the amendments between now and Report Stage. We still have to see the ramifications of the possible technical legal connotations.
On the basis of what the Minister said, I will withdraw the amendments at this stage with a view to returning to them on Report Stage when the Minister has had the benefit of further advice.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".
I have read the Bill and the explanatory memorandum carefully, and one thing that is not addressed is replenishment of the fund. There is provision to set up a fund that will amount to £10 million, but if that is used, as I hope it will be, to purchase appropriate artefacts, what will happen? Does the fund just come to an end if the money is spent?
It is a roll-over fund so it does not necessarily mean that what is available in the first year must be spent in that year. Provision is made for £10 million and if the money is spent before the time set out, the matter will be reviewed. It would be a question of replenishing the fund through the Estimates. The matter will be under review as the Bill sets out a very different approach. The fund is additional to the existing acquisition funds for the individual national institutions.
I am still not clear on this matter. Where is the provision for what the Minister has said? We can envisage a situation where at the end of the five year period the £10 million is spent, and as I read the legislation there is no provision to replenish the fund once that money is spent. The Minister said it is not envisaged the money will be spent each year as the fund builds up and I completely accept that, but I hope the fund will achieve its basic purpose, namely the purchase of appropriate and worthwhile artefacts of a value of more than £250,000 when they come on the market. In the likely event that at the end of five years, the £10 million will be spent, where is the provision for further Exchequer money to be put into the fund?
The Bill establishes the fund on a permanent basis, and the replenishing of the fund at any stage will occur through the normal Estimates process. In other words, it will be the responsibility of the Minister to ensure further moneys are put into the fund when it is depleted.
I do not want to labour the point, but the Minister is effectively saying it would be at the whim of the Minister, and in particular the whim of the Minister for Finance, to replenish the fund. There is no statutory obligation on the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands or the Minister for Finance in this regard. If the Minister decides it is not a good idea to put more money into the fund, the fund will effectively come to an end.
Ministers must always fight for a budget and some do better than others in obtaining financial assistance with the support of Government and the will of the Minister for Finance. It is up to a particular Minister how the funds in his or her budget are allocated. I recognised that the cultural institutions were doing extremely badly and over the past four and a half years we have increased their funding from a very low base. It is not just a question of the whim of the Minister for Finance but the priorities of the relevant Minister.
Would it not be prudent to guarantee a certain minimum level of funding in case a particular artefact or artefacts become available and the fund is empty? In such a case, the Minister may not be able to get through a Supplementary Estimate or other provision to acquire funds and artefacts could be lost for that reason.
That would have to be considered, at the time, by the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, the Minister for Finance and the Government. The Bill establishes the fund on a permanent basis and it will be up to the Minister of the day to convince the Government to support him or her to ensure the fund is properly financed.
I did not table an amendment on this particular issue because the Chairman, in his impartial role, would have ruled it out of order on the grounds that it would put a potential cost on the Exchequer. I am still not satisfied with the Minister's explanation. The fund should be maintained at a certain minimum level at all times, so that the Minister of the day, on the recommendation of the CNCI, could move quickly in terms of acquiring a particular artefact whereas having to go through normal processes at a particular time could mean that the opportunity to purchase could be lost.
The difficulty is on the financial side and the Minister has pointed out that it is a matter for attention in the Estimates in future. The Deputy has made a good point but, as the Minister said, the principle of the fund has been established. Perhaps the Minister would consider an appropriate amendment to provide for the fund to be maintained at a minimum level of £10 million for a certain period, if not indefinitely.
With respect, Chairman, that is not what I am suggesting. There should be some minimum level in the fund at all times. I do not suggest that it should be maintained at £10 million but there should be a working amount in the fund to respond speedily to opportunities that may arise.
I understand what the Deputy is trying to achieve but that is not how State finances have operated.
We should consider the Séadhna principle which some of us may recall from our schoolbooks. Séadhna had a deal with some source whereby, no matter how much money was taken out of a special purse, the same amount always remained inside. Perhaps the Minister could devise some arrangement of that nature, short of a Faustian approach.
I have advocated the establishment of this fund since my time in Opposition and I am pleased that it has progressed this far, with £10 million committed to the fund. I am disappointed that Deputies opposite, particularly Deputy O'Shea, do not seem to believe that with any other shade of political opinion in Government, there might not be the same approach or that the same level of finance might not be forthcoming. Perhaps he has reasons for lack of confidence in that regard and I am not speaking on his behalf — I am simply explaining the approach which is taken in these matters. It is up to the Minister of the day in any Department to fight for the funds needed for that Department and to disburse those funds in accordance with identified priorities. I was glad to have the support of my Government but I cannot speak for future Governments of other political persuasions, philosophies or complexions. I detect a slight nervousness on the other side of the table in terms of being unable to come up with the moneys needed for such a fund in the event of a change of Government.
We will look after that.
Is the Minister not confident that she will still be in Government?
I am sure the Deputy has confidence in her people, as I do in mine.
I will not respond to the Minister's somewhat mischievous speculation. I still maintain there should be a basic amount of money in the fund. The Minister of the day may lose a battle in relation to replenishing this fund and there should be a statutory basis to maintain it above a minimum level. That is in everybody's interest, irrespective of who is in Government and who are the Ministers of the day.
Deputy O'Shea has made a critically important point. On the basis of what the Minister said, the Bill will become obsolete when the fund of £10 million is exhausted. If the Bill is to continue to have some relevance, there must be some mechanism to replenish the fund, whether on an annual basis or otherwise. Essentially, if there is no money in the fund, the Bill is useless.
I must repeat what I already said. It can happen any time that a Minister may lose a battle with the Minister for Finance or within the Cabinet. The mettle of a Minister is tested by his or her ability to fight successfully for the required funding. That is part of the normal process of Government. It is a matter of having the determination to ensure that, having set up the fund, the necessary moneys are provided to continue to address the priorities of the Minister concerned.
The fund is initially being established for five years. In five years' time, Deputy O'Shea could be Minister for Finance and he could increase it to £20 million.
I appreciate the Chairman's kind remarks. My concern is that, on the basis of specified amounts being put into the fund over five years, it could be fully exhausted unless there is a statutory provision to ensure that a minimum level of funding is maintained in the fund, so that the Minister could respond quickly. I am putting this forward not to make a political point but in all sincerity in terms of the optimum operation of this Bill in the national interest.
Quite apart from this fund, it was always open to the Minister of the day to approach the Minister for Finance for specific funds to acquire any particular object of special national significance. That procedure could still be used in the event of an urgent requirement for funding. There is also scope for private contributions to the fund which is being established under this Bill and which will build up to £10 million over the next five years. The artefacts to be acquired through this fund would be of such significance that nobody would wish to see them lost to the nation. The issue must be viewed in that perspective and in terms of the opportunity for private contributions as well as the determination to ensure there is adequate State funding for this particular purpose.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, line 43, after "prepare" to insert ", in the Irish language and the English language,".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 5, after "as" to insert "Comhairle um Fhorais Chultúir Náisiúnta or in the English language".
I put down this amendment following representations from Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge. I am seeking to have the Irish title of the institute, Comhairle um Fhorais Chultúir Náisiúnta, inserted in the legislation. Again, this is in the context of what is intended in Bille na Gaeilge, which the Minister is due to bring before the Dáil in the new year. The amendment will give equal status to the Irish language in terms of the name of the institution.
The amendment should read: "In page 7, subsection (1), line 4 . . . ", not "line 5" after "as".
Within the brackets in line 5 is the phrase "in this Act referred to as "the Council". That is the "as" I have in mind for the amendment. The amendment is to be inserted after the word "as" in line 5.
I thought you wished to include it in line 4, which would have the desired effect.
My advice was to put it in line 5 rather than line 4.
I understand.
With regard to amendments Nos. 8 and 15 which seek the insertion of the title in Irish of the Council of National Cultural Institutions in Part 3 of the Bill, I will consult with the parliamentary counsel on the advisability of including this title at this point and consider the matter between now and Report Stage. With regard to Deputy McGinley's amendment No. 9, I wish to draw attention to the official translation given to the Council of National Cultural Institutions on the last page of the Bill which is Comhairle um Fhorais Chultúir Náisiúnta. Accordingly, I must oppose this amendment.
I will consult with the parliamentary counsel. Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge has also been in contact with me and we were able to proceed with the earlier amendment regarding the reports and accounts which was accepted by the committee. I look forward to coming back to this amendment and amendment No. 15 on Report Stage after I get further advice from the parliamentary counsel on the advisability of including the title at that point.
I will withdraw the amendments and return to them on Report Stage when the Minister will have had the opportunity to deliberate further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 9 is an alternative to amendment No. 8.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 5, after "Council')" to insert "or in the Irish language Comhairle na n-Insitiúidí Náisiúnta Cul túrtha".
The two amendments have the same objective, to have an Irish language name for the council. I went with the version that was submitted by Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge. I will not fight over whether it should be Comhairle na n-Insitiúidí Náisiúnta Cultúrtha or Comhairle um Fhorais Chultúir Náisiúnta. The latter is already mentioned in the Bill and I am sure it would satisfy the aspirations of Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge and every other Irish organisation. I am glad the Minister will consider it further between now and Report Stage.
I wish to give some free advice to the Minister. With all due respect to Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge, we should put Irish titles on Bills that people with reasonable Irish can pronounce. Comhairle um Fhorais Chultúir Náisiúnta is a difficult title for a body and it will never be used by anybody other than a Minister who will have to read it. Everybody understands the word "insitiúidí". The Irish names given to Bills should be user friendly. If we wish to encourage the use of the Irish language, there is little point in using unpronounceable titles that nobody understands.
The Minister's translation is legally correct while the other phrase is user friendly.
Can the Irish language not be used in a legally friendly fashion? Does it have to be either legally unfriendly or user friendly? The way the Irish language is battered and kicked around is unbelievable. It cannot be used in a way that people can pronounce it. I have a reasonable knowledge of Irish but I do not have a clue what Comhairle um Fhorais Chultúir Náisiúnta is whereas I have no difficulty understanding Comhairle na n-Insitiúidí Náisiúnta. Even English speakers would understand what it means. I appeal to the Minister, regardless of the advice she gets from the experts, to have some sympathy and to treat the Irish language with care and attention.
I agree with Deputy Browne. We got advice on the official translation. It is a legal translation which came from the Bills Office when we were establishing the CNCI in 1998. Unfortunately, legalities never seem to be user friendly, regardless of what language is used.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, subsection (2)(e), line 12, to delete “Officer”.
This is a technical amendment and relates to the exact legal title of the chief executive of the Heritage Council. The amendment seeks to delete the word "Officer".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 7, subsection (2), between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
"(k) the Directors or Chief Executives of three galleries or museums which are located outside of the City of Dublin to be nominated by the Council of the General County Councils of Ireland.”.
This amendment seeks to expand the membership of the CNCI. I cannot accept the amendment given the discussion that took place on amendment No. 1. There is no need to repeat my reasons for rejecting it.
I am disappointed the Minister cannot expand the membership to include other parts of Ireland. It is a weakness in the Bill. That is a pity because it is a worthwhile Bill. I support the establishment of the fund and what it will generate but it will be disappointing for other parts of the country that they will not have an input into this important council. The council has been established since 1998. It has been given the added responsibility of advising the Minister how to spend the fund of £10 million allocated in this Bill. I am concerned and disappointed that there will be no input from diligent workers in arts and heritage throughout the country. Will the Minister have another look at it between now and Report Stage?
I would be misleading the Deputy if I said that I would reconsider this matter. The CNCI is made up from the national institutions and forms a pool of expertise and knowledge. I set up the CNCI with the intention that it would give advice to the Minister of the day on what would be exceptional circumstances in acquiring exceptional artefacts. It is proper that it is the CNCI that will advise on these issues and that is why I have drawn it in to advise on the heritage fund and why it is mentioned in the Bill. The issue of how we manage the heritage fund is not a question of being exclusive. As a result of our history our national institutions have been centred in Dublin together with the associated expertise and it is a question of using that expertise. It is not a question of excluding anybody from the process for any particular reason other than that the pool of expertise happens to be within the CNCI as constituted.
Deputy McGinley was talking from the geographical point of view. Did the Minister consider including private museums for membership of the council?
We tried to adopt a practical approach in terms of advising the Minister on issues of national importance. It was important to set up the CNCI composed of those who have exceptional knowledge over the years since the foundation of their institutions and to set up a network of museums and further venues for heritage and the arts. I was able to do this because the Minister for Finance has been supportive of me in the wish to decentralise and we have been able to create a situation where we have 44 projects under the ACCESS scheme. We are all agreed that we should try to create as many locations of high quality throughout the country to provide access to our heritage. Advice comes from those institutions that have been there longest and have acquired expertise. We will ensure there is an opportunity for these artefacts to be seen in other locations provided the security and environment are adequate, as they are in the accredited museums I referred to earlier.
The Minister is making a case, as well as I did myself, for having people from outside of Dublin on the council. There will be a lending programme to institutions throughout the country, there will be communication with them and their advice will be sought. It would be logical if we had a number of them on the council and would add a new dimension to it. I do not understand why the Minister cannot see that it would add to the council to have two or three people who are involved with arts, culture and heritage outside of Dublin among its membership. It is a weakness that the Minister does not seem to see a way to expand the council. It is a ten or 11 member council and would not be too unwieldy if it were increased to 13 or 14. I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter between now and Report Stage.
I do not wish to delay proceedings but I am trying to be helpful to the Deputy. The heritage plan will soon be published. I am not in a position to go into it until it is published but it does give attention to the role of local authorities and our heritage. The Deputy's concerns may be answered in the plan and I ask him to be patient until it is published.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 7, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) A meeting may be conducted through the medium of the Irish or English language.".
D'iarr Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge orainn an leasú seo a mholadh. Is é atá á moladh ná go bhféadfaí cruinnithe a reachtáil tré mheán na Gaeilge nó tré mheán an Bhéarla. This is a simple amendment seeking that meetings may be conducted through the medium of Irish or English. There is no suggestion that anybody attending a meeting of the Council of National Cultural Institutions could be embarrassed by a lack of fluency in Irish or a lack of understanding of Irish or that they might be in the situation of not understanding proceedings. We are at a disadvantage because we are not sure what will be in Bille na Gaeilge but we expect that the Bill will apply to all State agencies. The word "may" is included here so that no hard and fast position develops where anybody could be embarrassed by or excluded from proceedings. It is important to state the principle and seek its inclusion in legislation.
Cuirim leis an méid atá ráite ag an Teachta O'Shea. Tá an leasú an-shimplí agus tá sé soiléir cad é atá i gceist, sé sin má tá fonn ar éinne ag cruinniú den chomhairle labhairt i nGaeilge nó i mBéarla go mbeidh deis aige é sin a dhéanamh. Nílimid ag iarraidh brú a chur ar éinne. Sin an nós a chaithfimid a bheith againn as seo amach, chomh fada agus a bhaineann sé le cur chun cinn na Gaeilge. Ní chuirtear brú ar éinne.
It is a national heritage Bill and language is a vital part of our heritage and culture. The amendment is reasonable in seeking that the meetings could be bilingual, Irish and English. We are on the cusp of having Bille na Gaeilge published and, in all probability, there will be proposals in that for what this amendment covers. The Minister should look favourably on this amendment which has my wholehearted support.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to legislate in detail on the conduct of CNCI meetings. Its members, who are wise and experienced individuals, should be allowed to agree their meetings and procedures as stipulated under section 10. There is no necessity for the amendment as only the administrators of the institutions make up the council, not the body of people to whom the Deputies opposite refer. Accordingly, I oppose it.
The only difference this amendment might make is that if all the members decided to conduct a meeting through the medium of Irish, they could not be prevented from doing so, which may be a legal issue. How will Bille na Gaeilge affect the language used to conduct meetings by State agencies?
It is not a question of preventing or making it difficult for the members to conduct their business in Irish. As I said, they are experienced individuals who ought to decide on their own meetings and procedures. If they wish to conduct meetings in Irish, they can do so. The public is not involved and we will not dictate the details of the council's meetings.
The amendment does not state that a meeting shall be conducted in Irish but that it may be. There is no compulsion. Many local authorities may conduct their meetings in Irish or English, as can committees and Houses of the Oireachtas. There is a cultural dimension in so far as the language and its role must be recognised. I regret that the Minister is not more positive. A person at a council meeting should be allowed to make a contribution in Irish.
I cannot understand the confusion. Both Deputies stated that they do not want compulsion but that Irish may be used if that is the wish of the members, which is the existing situation. The Irish language has a position in the Constitution which gives people a right to conduct business in it. I agree with the Deputies in saying there should be no compulsion but I believe that the opportunity to use Irish is there already.
The Minister did not respond to my earlier point. Both Deputy McGinley and I are operating in the dark because we do not know the provisions of Bille na Gaeilge and what statutory obligations it may put on State institutions or agencies. The legislation should be amenable to bilingualism and should promote the idea of holding meetings in Irish. We want to create a climate which fosters wider use of Irish. It does not meet the spirit of what Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge seeks to achieve, which Deputy McGinley and myself also seek.
No one has the authority to prevent any such body from conducting its business in Irish. Deputy McGinley and Deputy O'Shea want people to feel that they have the support to do so, but the existing position is that people, including the CNCI, may conduct their business in Irish. We are all, including the Deputies, trying to get away from compulsion and instead engender a love of the language.
It is almost negative to adopt a neutral stance over the Irish language, as the Minister is doing, because it starts from a low base. As Deputy O'Shea stated, to create the conditions in which people are happy to speak it, we must be more positive, which is what we are trying to achieve in the amendment. We do not seek to compel anyone to use it but its inclusion in the Bill would be a signal that it is fine to use Irish. I know it is in the Constitution and every State agency adheres to it, but the language is not actually being used. Given the arrival of Bille na Gaeilge, we should create a more positive atmosphere which remaining neutral does not do.
I listened to the Deputies and I know they strive to be as positive as possible and to strengthen the Bill, but the inclusion of "may" does not change the current position. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
I am prepared to withdraw the amendment in order to return to it at Report Stage. In the interim, will the Minister consider that a such reference to the language will help create a climate in which the council's members may be willing to conduct business in Irish?
I would be happy to consider the matter further prior to Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 38, after "member" to insert the following:
", or as Director, Artistic Director, Chief Executive or Director and Chief Executive Officer (as the case may be) of a body or institution referred to in section 9,".
This is a drafting amendment. Section 11 relates to the disclosure of certain interests by members of the Council of National Cultural Institutions. The parliamentary counsel advised that this is a standard provision.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 8, subsection (1), line 26, after "Council" where it firstly occurs to insert "(other than to a body or institution referred to in section 9 of which he or she is Director, Artistic Director, Chief Executive or Director and Chief Executive Officer, as the case may be)”.
Amendment No. 14 is a standard provision found in almost all legislation establishing statutory bodies. The members of the CNCI felt that some conflict could arise where, on the one hand, they were acting in their roles as directors of institutions and, on the other, were independently advising me on matters relating to the heritage fund. Accordingly, the parliamentary counsel suggested this amendment and also advised that this section of the Heritage Fund Bill would not apply where a person is authorised to disclose information to the CNCI.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
How did the Minister determine the fine and term of imprisonment under this section?
The parliamentary counsel proposed the inclusion of this standard provision.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
Title agreed to.