Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order.
SECTION 1.
Amendment No. 1 is not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I am deeply disappointed at this ruling. I was informed only two minutes ago that this amendment was ruled out of order and would have expected to have been told much earlier. My amendment is fundamental to the overall working of this Bill when and if it becomes law.
The Minister stated in the memorandum to the Bill that it had no specific staffing implications. I find that very difficult to accept. This Bill will impose a range of additional duties on the staff of both the National Museum and the National Library. Both institutions are grossly understaffed and the museum has no proper management systems. This Bill will be a nonsense because neither institution has sufficient staff to carry out the new duties placed upon them by this Bill. I ask the chairman to reconsider the decision to rule my amendment out of order. Otherwise, what we say is useless verbiage; we will be enacting something that will not and cannot be implemented unless the staff shortages and proper management systems are addressed in advance of the Bill coming into operation. It is a useless exercise that draws all legislators into disrepute if we make law that cannot be satisfactorily implemented.
From time to time, it unfortunately happens that committee members can only be notified at the beginning of a meeting that their amendments are out of order. We try to eliminate this but at times it is unavoidable.
The Deputy's amendment clearly involves additional moneys which is always out of order. It does not matter if the chairman is the Ceann Comhairle or anyone else. That has always been the case for an amendment which might involve additional expenditure. The Deputy has scope to discuss the argument in her amendment but the amendment cannot be moved. She can raise those arguments in speaking on the section.
I support Deputy Quill. I referred to this matter on Second Stage. I said that the staff of the National Library and the National Museum are concerned at the explanatory memorandum which claims that no specific staffing implications arise from this Bill. This is the point Deputy Quill raised and I would have supported the amendment she put down.
There is concern in these institutions that more tasks are being given to those institutions by the legislation. They are worried they will not have the staff or funding to carry these out. I refer to the compilation of a register of cultural objects and the major changes in these bodies being charged with a range of services. The Heritage Council is charged with further responsibilities which would need further funding. I have pointed out that institutions such as these do not have the staff or funding to do their work as effectively as they wish and this amendment highlighted that problem. The memorandum to the Bill claims no staffing implications would arise therefore we are not talking about costs, although perhaps we should.
I fully support Deputy Quill's amendment and the committee should have the opportunity to vote on it.
I accept the ruling but I appeal to the Minister to take the spirit and substance of the amendment on board so we can discuss it again on Report Stage. I support the overall principles of the Bill and feel it is good legislation but it should not be brought into operation until the staffing levels of these institutions are attended to. That is what my amendment says.
Currently both institutions are severely understaffed. In the case of the museum, several reports have been carried out on staffing levels and management structures. The recommendations of these reports do not seem to have been taken on board by the Government. I regret that such reports have not been carried out on the National Library but we know it is grossly understaffed and that its opening hours are far shorter now than ten years ago, which is a cause of concern.
In respect of the museum, large portions of the collection remain uncatalogued and improperly stored because of the staff shortage. When the new legislation comes in, new duties and responsibilities will be given to the staff of the museum. For example, they will have to deal with export licences, to maintain a cultural register and other duties.
When the National Monuments Act, which I supported, was brought in, it extended the duties of the museum staff in connection with licensing but the number of staff was not extended. Now another Bill is coming in without any provision for additional staff. That is wrong.
If one looks at the management structure in the museum, there are four keepers who each manage a different division. We have Irish antiquities, art and industry, natural history and folk life. They are the four main divisions of the museum. No permanent keeper heads any of those divisions. The permanent keeper should be, and is, the manager of the museum. The permanent keeper manages and extends the collection and motivates and manages the staff. As I said, there is no permanent keeper in any of those divisions in the National Museum. There are two people who are acting keepers, though they are not getting the salary for that position. Two other posts remain vacant. There is no way, if this legislation is to gain the confidence of the museum staff, the electorate and the taxpayer, that it can be brought into operation until these issues in respect of the National Museum and the National Library — issues of staffing and management structures — are first addressed. When that is done, the Minister will be in a strong position to put the legislation into action.
On the question of procedure with regard to notification on out of order amendments, it would be helpful if the spokespersons were informed of these in advance. It is a pity that we only receive notification before we come to the particular amendment. I understand that it may not be possible to notify everybody but it would be useful to notify the spokespersons in relation to this and other Departments.
The Chairman will be aware that the way in which the committee organises its business is not a matter for the Minister. I have sympathy with the Deputies' points and I would like to respond as positively as I can in relation to some points that have been made in terms of the discussion of the sections. The issue is not a simple one. I am sure that all of the committee members present would agree that, for example, the issues in relation to the staffing of both institutions have not arisen recently.
Deputy Quill referred to a number of reports which are in the Oireachtas Library. Successive Governments allowed the National Library and the National Library to fall below adequate staffing levels. The explanatory memorandum states that there are no specific staff number implications arising from the Bill. However, there are staffing requirements which need to be addressed in any event. The memorandum clearly acknowledges that, irrespective of this legislation, the institutions should have an adequate staffing level. If that was, in fact, the case, the administration of this Bill would not be a problem. That is what the above statements, taken together, were intended to mean.
We now come to the principle of whether one should legislate and try to move towards a solution to these problems or should provide no legislation until a certain level of staffing and resources is reached. I believe that is a core issue and it is worthy of response. I concur with the Deputies who expressed dissatisfaction with the staffing levels of the institutions. I reassure both Deputies that such additional functions as I have set out in the legislation cannot come into being, as a requirement from the staff, until resources are allocated to the extent that any of the functions of the Bill require an extension of the work of the National Museum and the National Library. They can only be introduced as resources permit. The Bill is designed with this in mind. Each section can be brought into force separately. That is the way the Bill is structured. For example, an extension of mandatory deposit beyond books to other types of library material requires enabling regulations which can cover as narrow or as wide a range as required, according as resources permit.
On the general issue of staffing, I think the best strategy is the one which I have adopted and am seeking to implement through the Bill and through other initiatives designed to increase, over time, the resources of these institutions. Reference has been made to various reports including the Lord report, some of the recommendations of which have been implemented. Cataloguing is underway with special temporary staff in the context of Collins Barracks. The six posts which were advertised recently were priority posts, recommended by the interim board. The board also recommended autonomous status for the institutions, which is at the heart of this Bill.
There are two keeper posts in the National Museum, while two other keeper posts were suppressed in the early 1980s. I repeat that this occurred more than a decade before I assumed responsibility for this area. The two keeper posts are filled on an acting basis and are remunerated with allowances equivalent to full salary for the grades. It is because the person in question has not the requisite service in a previous grade that she has not been made permanent keeper; when she has the necessary service, she will become the full keeper. The other is because of secondment arrangements but all of the posts are remunerated on an allowance basis. It is not a point of contention.
It is the principle I am advancing.
If things were right, this legislation would not impose an additional demand. It is designed, by section, to come into effect as resources permit. In relation to such reports as I have responsibility for, we are making some progress and I would like to make more. However, if one were to wait until all staff and financial resources were at an ideal level before addressing necessary structural changes, a number of which were recommended by the Lord report itself, one might never address the required structural change. I envisage developments across a number of fronts, with the necessary structural changes, derived from good legislation and coterminous with the allocation of resources, being implemented.
There is no difference of views between us that the National Library and the National Museum should be properly resourced. I believe progress is being made. In the case of the National Museum, staffing resources have increased since 1993 by about 26 per cent and in the case of the National Library by about 10 per cent. These percentage increases are based on extraordinarily low figures. In addition to the six senior posts which have been the subject of the recent advertisement, 23 attendants will be recruited later this year for Phase 1 of the Collins Barracks. While I accept that I must fight for resources, it is unfair to say that no progress has been made and that one should not legislate to get structural matters right until all the backlog I have inherited is made up. I repeat that the base line is too low. I am not satisfied with the level of resources, in spite of the recent improvements, and I am not saying these improvements are adequate to make up what we all agree is an inherited backlog. I am not referring to any particular part of that inheritance but it is a fact that the staffing base of both institutions had been allowed to get too low.
In seeking to advance the legislation I assure the committee that the Bill was designed to be brought into effect as resources permit. For example, export licence functions can be delegated, in whole or in part, by the Minister who can vary age and value limits or confine categories to as narrow a range as can be dealt with by the administrative resources available. A similar flexibility applies in respect of the compilation of the register of cultural objects. In other words, I accept that one cannot carry out one's aims without the necessary resources but I do not accept a prohibition on proceeding with the structural changes.
I have confidence in the Bill. I am aware that many provisions may not be fully exploited at this time. I suggest that this should not be a reason for wanting to correctly express what is required as it would be more an acceptance of a counsel of despair rather than an assertion of what we must try to achieve. I am confident that the establishment of boards will be the catalyst that will permit the museum and library to fully exploit the facilities and enable them to meet the challenge they face in their remits. If the independent boards want to create grief for the Minister of the day, so be it. However, I do not believe we should delay the essential and necessary structural reforms until we have achieved the most desired waterline possible.
I would be the last to suggest that progress is not being made because that is not the truth. I am not the kind of politician who refuses to give credit where it is due. The development of Collins Barracks is a significant achievement of which a number of people, including the Minister, may be justly proud.
I am conscious that legislation is introduced which is not implemented. That kind of political approach discredits legislation and legislators. I am concerned at the Minister's statement that the Bill will be implemented by instalments. Is it correct to say that it will not be very effective? If everything goes according to plan when will the legislation be brought into effect? What provision has been made in the Department's budget for additional staff to be provided for both institutions? Answers to these important questions will indicate how successfully the provisions of the Bill will be implemented.
It is an exciting and landmark development that responsibility for the operation and administration of the National Library and the National Museum will be given to independent boards. However, I would be reluctant to hand them the poisoned chalice of having to assume responsibility for institutions that are almost collapsing for want of sufficient staff and management structures. We must address the existing problems.
I accept that the Minister wants to make progress on the legislation and we support him in an overall context. However, if we are discussing the need to put new structures in place for these cultural institutions, funding must be made available. Members are aware of the old adage that good legislation and good law must be enforceable. The Minister explained that, due to the present lack of finance, it would not be possible to enforce the legislation if it were enacted. Therefore, it is unsatisfactory to proceed in the way the committee is likely to proceed today. However, I understand the spirit in which the Minister is doing this and I accept that he wishes to make progress.
With regard to the implementation of the legislation following enactment, some elements in respect of indemnities and mandatory deposit can be immediately implemented. Deputy de Valera raised an interesting point in her discussion of the general principle which involves a sense of jurisprudence about the question of enforcement. Problems may exist with regard to what the Bill facilitates and makes possible. In terms of protecting the heritage of Ireland, which belongs to everyone, I intend that enforcement and aspects of the indemnity provisions will be rapidly implemented. If the necessary steps are taken, the board could be established before the end of the year. I am trying to be forthcoming and I have no doubt my statements will be quoted to me in the future.
Only on Report Stage.
It is an occupational hazard.
I will take a risk and state the board is there to develop and advise on policies. I appreciate the Deputies' comments about Collins Barracks. That project was blessed in some ways because it straddled the terms of office of two Governments of different composition, which is good. As regards structural funds, if I were indiscreet I might state that if I were required to have had the capital sums and current provisions into the future, structural funds would not have been spent in that way.
There was a view held within an institution which was derived, in turn, from the British Treasury that one should not stir until one had that which is capital and that which is current ad infinitum. I regard that as an excessively orthodox and conservative fiscal view. I was pleased that different Governments agreed with me that a short to medium term provision was sufficient and that things should be allowed to happen.
I am involved in discussions with the Minister for Finance not only in respect of the specific matters affecting Collins Barracks but matters which precede that project and involve a staffing component. For example, there is an outstanding staffing element on which I am seeking to make progress with the Department of Finance.
I will communicate precise figures to the Deputies in respect of my Department's budget estimates at a later stage because it would be easier to do so. The new posts which were recently advertised for staff in the National Museum will add £250,000 to the figure I will give Deputies. Increases in non-staff costs will be quite substantial because of the special work involved in managing the shift from one institution to another. I will arrange for the adjusted figures with the approximate additions to be sent to the Deputies.
Question put and agreed to.