This section should be opposed not least because of the concerns of staff about the rights of nominations to the boards and whether there will be worker directors. Will the Minister outline his intentions which might allay genuine fears regarding nomination rights to the boards? Will there be worker directors as in the case of semi-State bodies such as Telecom Éireann and CIE?
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: " That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
The amendments on staff representation relate to section 19. I have no problem taking sections 10 and 19 together. Is the Deputy talking about the membership of the boards?
Yes.
Amendments Nos. 14, 16, 20 and 24 provide for involving the staff of the National Museum and the National Library on their boards.
Deputy de Valera said that she felt it necessary to oppose the establishment of the boards. The concept of boards should have been taken decades ago because the basic recommendations in the Bodkin report, and all subsequent reports, go in this direction. Most, if not all, of the national museums and libraries in the developed world are run by boards under some form of legislative framework. While I commend the public service ethos of the Civil Service, some of the requirements involved are inefficient and inappropriate for the running of modern cultural institutions.
It is necessary to have a model which will enable the institutions to deal with contemporary and future conditions. It is not preferable that Ministers and civil servants should continue to be formally responsible for every artefact and book that is to be collected, loaned and disposed of, or that the strictest of staffing conditions should apply to the boards of these institutions. These institutions should have the option of being independent and flexible and that is why we are suggesting that they be run by boards.
Section 10 relates to the principle of boards. Section 19 relates to the membership of those boards. I tabled amendments Nos. 14, 16, 20 and 24 and Deputies Quill and de Valera tabled amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 17 to section 19.
My amendments introduce a novel and important measure to involve the staff of the museum and the library in their respective boards. As stakeholders in these institutions, the staff should be actively encouraged to make a direct input into the operations of the institutions. I indicated to staff that, as with other bodies under my aegis, such as RTÉ and Údarás na Gaeltachta, I would be prepared to appoint a person to the board who was nominated by staff. As in the case of other bodies I envisage this as an administrative rather than a statutory arrangement. Some staff expressed a desire that this be on statutory basis. While I am not convinced the statutory route is the best or only way to involve the staff interests in the operations of the boards, I am anxious to provide a structure which permits a staff member on the board on an ongoing basis. Action by way of legislation provides reassurance to the staff as to a commitment to a direct engagement in the longer term. This can only be to the mutual benefit of the staff and the boards.
My approach to staff representation is similar to that adopted administratively to the other bodies referred to and to that adopted in the Bill in respect of the RIA and the RDS. A panel of nominees will be provided from which the Minister will select one to serve in a personal capacity. Although I am happy to provide that one staff member should serve on a board, I would have serious reservations in providing more than that. The number of staff in each institution is less than 100 compared to RTÉ which has approximately 2,000 staff and one staff member on the authority.
While the amendments of Deputies Quill and de Valera also set out to provide a measure of representation, my approach to the issue addresses these concerns. I ask them to withdraw their amendments. I commend amendments Nos. 14, 16, 20 and 24 to the House.
I am worried that the provision of such boards under section 10 constitutes another administrative layer. Things are becoming so complex that this would not necessarily make matters easier for the institutions involved. Is the Minister prepared to revisit section 10 on that basis?
With regard to section 19, amendments Nos. 13 and 17 refer to the National Library and the National Museum, and both relate to the same subject. I have proposed that "2 shall be representatives of the staff" as opposed to the Minister's amendment No. 14 which proposes that "1 shall be appointed in accordance with subsection (6)". While I understand the boards are very different in composition and number, such as at RTÉ as the Minister mentioned, I still feel that if, as the Minister suggests, there is one representative it is likely to be the director or the person in charge. This is not to be taken as a negative reflection on those who hold such positions. However, I am trying to promote the principle of worker directors rather than only those who hold management positions. What I am trying to achieve is to have workers participating directly in the same way as they have been allowed to do in semi-State bodies which, as I am sure the Minister will accept, have been working extremely well. This would create further interest and commitment. I do not want my proposal to be seen as casting aspersions on those who hold high office in these institutions. I am sure the Minister will take this argument in the spirit in which it is made. That is why I suggest two staff representatives rather than one, as in the Minister's amendment.
I support Deputy de Valera's amendments.
On section 10, I see these boards as facilitating strategic thinking rather than being an additional layer of bureaucracy. I will deal with the other amendments when we come to the relevant section.
Question put and declared carried.