Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are alternatives to amendment No. 13 and amendment No. 16 is related. Amendment No. 20 is related to amendment No. 14; amendment No. 17 is an alternative to amendment No. 16 and amendment No. 24 is related to amendment No. 16. Amendments Nos. 13 to 17, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 20 and 24 may therefore be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 17, subsection (3), between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
"(a) 2 shall be representatives of the staff,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 17, subsection (3), between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"(b) I shall be appointed in accordance with subsection (6),".
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 17, subsection (3), between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(d) Provision will be made for the appointment of a minimum of one staff member to each of the Boards.".
This amendment has already been discussed with amendment No. 13.
I am very serious about the appointment of a minimum of one staff member to each of the boards and I want that appointment to be put on a statutory basis.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 17, subsection (4), between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
"(a) I shall be appointed in accordance with subsection (7),".
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 17, subsection (4), between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
"(a) 2 shall be representative of the staff,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 25 are related and amendment No. 19 is an alternative to amendment No. 18; amendments Nos. 22, 26 and 28 are related to amendment No. 19; amendment No. 23 is an alternative to amendment No. 22; amendment No. 27 is an alternative to amendment No. 26. Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25 to 28, inclusive, may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 17, subsection (5), lines 29 and 30, to delete "The member appointed to be a member of the Board of the Museum by the Minister under subsection (3)(a) shall be selected" and substitute "The person appointed to be a member of the Board of the Museum under subsection (3)(a) shall be selected".
Amendments Nos. 18, 21 and 25 are drafting amendments. The amendments tabled by Deputies Quill and de Valera seek to provide that the nominations to the boards of the museum and library by the Royal Irish Academy and the Royal Dublin Society, respectively, should be provided by those institutions without a selection input by the Minister of the day, other than to refuse a nomination of an unfit person.
The general issue of nominating bodies and that of board members serving in a personal capacity is an important one. The provisions regarding the Royal Irish Academy and the Royal Dublin Society constitute a special case because of the legal agreements existing since the 19th century — from 1828 — and their long involvement in the governance structure of these bodies. While I have been happy to make appropriate provision for long standing involvements, I am generally reluctant to reduce the flexibility of the Minister of the day to appoint a board that would meet particular needs and requirements of that time.
My approach to the composition of the boards has a clear underlying philosophical basis — there must be structures in place to permit ready involvement by the public. Access at all levels, including the governance structures, to one's heritage is a basic human right of every citizen of the State. The principle encompasses not just a right theoretically understood, or held in practice by a few, but a right embedded in the minds of every citizen. As I have stressed in the debate on this Bill, the whole ethos of the Bill has been infused with the philosophy of access.
In proposing boards of the museum and library, I am proposing to provide that the Minister of the day — who is accountable to the Dáil, representing the public — will be responsible for appointing all the members of the respective boards and that such persons will serve in their personal capacities. Members will be appointed to the board from a particular background but their responsibilities will be public and will transcend the specific furrow from which they have come.
Another approach would have been to automatically appoint the nominees of cultural bodies, which would not have been as direct or openly democratic as a structure where any citizen, regardless of educational background or attainment, may legitimately aspire to give service on one or other of these boards. It is my conviction that the person in the best position to make the choice of appointment is the Minister of the day, taking into account all the various factors such as a person's service in a relevant cultural organisation. This stance is the furthest possible position from a policy of exclusion.
Given the long association of the RDS and RIA with the museum and library, I am providing that their role be reflected in nominating people to the board without compromising any basic principle — the Minister of the day selects the persons to be appointed to the board. This approach is acceptable to both bodies and has been agreed with them.
Accepting the Deputies' amendments could be construed as having less faith than I do in the democratic structures of the State or in the Minister of the day, from whatever party she or he comes, to act in the public interest. I commend amendments Nos. 18, 21 and 25 to the committee and I ask Deputies Quill and de Valera to consider withdrawing amendments Nos. 19, 22, 23, 26, 27 and 28.
I regret I cannot, under any circumstances, withdraw any of the amendments in my name. They were not tabled lightly and will not be withdrawn lightly.
This is, in many ways, a defining moment in Irish history. The Minister is putting in place two new State boards, not alone to administer but to act as custodians and developers of two of our flagship institutions into the next century. It is an exciting moment in the cultural life of this country. It is also a real and important opportunity for politicians to have the insight and foresight to harness to State boards people with an enormous amount of expertise and whose track record on protecting, preserving and propagating culture span more than 100 years and to hand over to those boards the day to day running of two of our flagship institutions.
This a very important time in the history of cultural life in this country. It is a time for politicians to stand back a little and not seek to excessively dominate the composition of those boards. That is what is happening in the context of the Bill and amendment No. 18 which the Minister tabled. The Minister is proposing that the nominating bodies, the Royal Irish Academy and the Royal Dublin Society, would select a number of persons and the Minister of the day would then exercise his or her superior knowledge and select one of the members of that panel to sit on the board. That in an insult. There is a presumption that, somehow, the Minister of the day has superior knowledge to these nominating bodies, that their selection is not to be trusted and that there must be a middle layer where the Minister selects one person from a list to be appointed to the board. That is an extremely patronising and backward step.
I am disappointed that a Minister who presents himself as an enlightened person, a mouldbreaker and a forward thinker, will fall back into the practice of having a stranglehold on appointments and that nobody will be appointed to these boards unless they have first been vetted by him. I would be doing less than my duty as a citizen of this democratic State if I did not utterly reject that kind of political interference, domination and cultural imperialism.
Will the Minister think carefully about what he is doing? Will he accept my amendments and trust the two nominating bodies in question — the Royal Irish Academy and the Royal Dublin Society — to make their own nominations? He can then exercise his power in appointing whoever they nominate. If they nominate someone who has no useful contribution to make to the workings of those boards, I have put an insurance clause in my amendment No. 28 that the Minister may refuse a nomination on certain grounds.
This a serious amendment which I spent hours thinking about. Will the Minister accept it and abandon what is the initial proposition? Will he give due recognition to the expertise of these nominating bodies, the work they have done and the contribution they have made? Will he recognise their judgment to present persons for his appointment who will serve the aims and objectives of the two new proposed new boards which will serve this country well?
Deputy Quill and I differ fundamentally on this issue. We have agreed this formula with the RIA and the RDS over a two year discussion period. I am not imposing it on them; they have agreed to it. Deputy Quill makes a point which deserves to be taken seriously. She sees ministerial discretion as a terrible culture of interference and arrogance, even cultural imperialism, in the fortnight in which the supreme leader, Deng Xiaoping, died.
I like a context for my argument.
There is a respectable difference between our two views. It is the ideological suspicion and the digressing view of the democratic process that the Minister who is nominated and voted to the Dáil has stood before the public, is in possession of a mandate twice over — first from the public and second from the Dáil — and has received a seal of office. Whatever people say about politicians, they are motivated people who, whatever their political party affiliation, offer themselves for election. This is an indication of the person's aspect of mind and their commitment to public service despite the will of the people changing from one period to another.
The Minister, instead of being a suspect source of opinion as to the membership of a board is, in a democratic system, a person with a greater mandate than anyone else. This is a fundamental point and I defend the right of the Minister. I am not suggesting in the legislation that the Minister indiscriminately picks anybody and nominates them to the board. On the basis of recognition of the historic contribution of the two institutions and a process of over two years of negotiation with them, they come to an agreement and provide names. The Minister will usually then assent to the names. What is at stake here is retaining the principle of ministerial evaluation. I defend that right of the Minister. That is why I cannot accede to Deputy Quill's amendment and why I have to advance my own.
I am not taking the right to appoint from the Minister. Democratic responsibility would continue to rest with the Minister if he had the good grace to accept my amendment. I am asking that the discretion of selecting a nominee be left with the nominating body.
The difference is a simple one of who is respecting whose discretion. In my proposal, the Minister has a curtailed discretion. He or she does not nominate indiscriminately from any pool of people. The Minister is already curtailed by the names put forward by the nominating institutions. On the other hand, Deputy Quill suggests that the nominating institution should produce any name and simply run it past the Minister, which would render the Minister's discretion nugatory.
That is an insult to the two bodies in question. They would not proceed in that manner.
The two bodies have agreed with me. We had more faith in each other than the Deputy has.
I do not agree with the Minister's views on this issue. He rightly said that politicians possess a mandate and I hope they continue to do so. I agree with Deputy Quill that the bodies should retain the power to nominate. It makes me shiver when I see the word "selected" in such circumstances. I do not believe that is the democratic way of approaching such an issue and it makes me look hard at a situation where boards are proposed. I am sure the decision has been taken by the bodies and the Minister in good faith. The principle of this issue has to be underlined and that is why I have put forward my amendment No. 23, which I think will be in line with Deputy Quill's views.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 17, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) (a) The person appointed to be a member of the Board of the Museum by the Minister under subsection (3) (b) shall be selected by the Minister from a panel of not less than 4 persons (of whom not less than 2 shall be women and less than 2 shall be men) who shall be nominated and, whose names shall, whenever so requested by the Minister, be submitted to him or her by the members of staff of the Board.
(b) The persons nominated by the members of the staff of the Board under paragraph (a) shall be such persons as are selected by those members in such manner as may be determined by the Minister after consultation with those members.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 17, subsection (6) line 34, to delete "member" where it firstly occurs and substitute "person".
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 17, subsection (6), lines 35 to 38, to delete all words from and including "selected" in line 35, down to and including "him or her" in line 38 and substitute "nominated whenever so requested by the Minister".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 17, subsection (6), lines 35 to 38, to delete all words from and including "selected" in line 35, down to and including "him or her" in line 38 and substitute "nominated".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 17, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) (a) The member appointed to be a member of the Board of the Library under subsection (4) (a) shall be selected by the Minister from a panel of not less than 4 persons (of whom not less than 2 shall be women and not less than 2 shall be men) who shall be nominated and, whose names shall, whenever so requested by the Minister, be submitted to him or her by the members of the staff of the Board.
(b) The persons nominated by the members of the staff of the Board under paragraph (a) shall be such persons as are selected by those in such manner as may be determined by the Minister after consultation with those members.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 17, subsection (7), line 39, to delete "member" where it firstly occurs and substitute "person".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 17, subsection (7), lines 40 to 42, to delete all words from and including "selected" in line 40 down to and including "him and her" in line 42 and substitute "nominated whenever so requested by the Minister".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 20 to 41, inclusive, agreed to.