Amendment No. 9 is out of order.
SECTION 14.
Would it be possible for me to give my reasons for tabling this amendment?
When we discuss the section we will deal with the other amendments to this section.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 13, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Before making bye-laws under subsection (2) (d) relating to the fixing of charges in respect of entry to the Museum or Library (other than to any special exhibition or other event being held in the Museum or Library), a Board shall have regard to whether the proposed bye-laws would——
(a) enable the Board to provide an enhanced service to members of the public in Ireland,
(b) enable the Board to contribute to an increased interest in and appreciation of the collection of the Board by members of the public in Ireland, and
(c) provide a reasonable degree of access to the Museum or Library, as the case may be, without charge to members of the public in Ireland.".
This is a matter upon which I have deliberated since we last discussed it. I have tried to address our common concerns on the heritage. We are discussing amendments Nos. 10 and 11, and the Chairman has ruled on amendment No. 9.
The issue of general admission charges in respect of entry to the National Museum and National Library has given rise to considerable debate. I am pleased to be in a position to introduce further initiatives to ensure that the maximum amount of real public access can be secured should any general charge system be contemplated by the boards of the National Museum, National Library or National Gallery.
Deputies will be aware that, at present, the National Gallery could introduce charges, should it so wish, without consulting me. I have already provided that no general entry charges can be introduced by a board unless approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Short of an absolute statutory prohibition, this is the maximum regulatory protection that can be afforded. It recognises that, if it should arise, it would be a major policy issue that should be considered by the Oireachtas. In this amendment, I set out the criteria which must be taken into account before any such scheme could be introduced. Any scheme must enhance the quality of service to the public on a sustainable basis.
The Irish public must actively contribute to the level of appreciation of the collection concerned and there must also be a reasonable measure of free access for the public. These provisions ensure that the Bill's primary aims and objectives, to contribute to a widening and deepening of sensibilities in relation to the collections, are amply met. Elitism forms no part of the Bill so, if entry charges are to be contemplated, I trust the Oireachtas will not approve anything less than an ambitious programme to enhance and sustain inclusiveness.
I have explained at length to the Seanad why I am opposed to a statutory prohibition on entry charges. It would not serve the interests of inclusiveness in society but would give an excellent excuse for stifling genuine debate, permitting occasional platitudinous references to the public's right to predominate and contribute to a situation where the virtues of free access were preached but where little in the way of creation of real access was pursued.
I oppose Deputy de Valera's proposal for a statutory bar. In doing so, I oppose the stifling of an important debate on how our movable heritage might be shared by all. I explained in the Seanad that this is too restrictive for future boards. The Bill seeks to provide for the first time some ground rules and procedure by which real debate on the contentious issue of general entry charges can be conducted. There is no specified procedure setting out a framework for debate. As of now, I would be entitled in theory to introduce general entry charges on behalf of the National Museum and the National Library. The national galleries could do so without asking me. I do not warm to any suggestion that people's access to their heritage should be inhibited as this is a basic right of every citizen. That is why the ethos of the Bill is infused with the philosophy of access. We must try to balance that philosophy which is the primordial concern of us all while, at the same time, not pushing an excessive restriction on considering an aspect of general policy. The issue of access involves many factors and entry charges are but one of them, although an important one.
In taking a critical look at the proposal for a legislative ban on entry charges, I must ask whether it would necessarily and in all circumstances, now and for the indefinite future, save by change by primary legislation, serve the interests of access. I am not convinced that my reservations about general entry charges are so certain as to deny any possibility of a structure of general charges which would enhance real access ever being formulated.
Can anyone predict that only a negative impact is possible in all circumstances? What if the package of proposals we put forward showed that a general charging regime would be focused on the once-off visiting tourist rather than the citizen and that the resulting new resources created would be utilised to establish new education and exhibition facilities and outreach programmes as well as permitting the exploitation of the apparently limitless potential of interactive media? What if it could be shown that the new resources would be targeted at those who have never set foot in the National Museum, National Library or the National Gallery or have never showed any interest in doing so although the institutions have had free access for decades? Are we to exclude forever one avenue or means by which the breaking of intractable social barriers might theoretically be achieved?
The question of access is more complex than the single issue of an entry charge. I am opposed to any policy of charging which would conflict with the objectives of the Bill but I stand firmly behind policies which enhance the Bill's objectives and legislation which does not necessarily close off all possibilities of progress. I cannot support an amendment which seeks to deny the creation in statute of a pragmatic procedural arrangement securely established within a democratic framework. The approval of the Oireachtas would be necessary and, without predetermining the outcome, debate is warranted on the substantive issues at an appropriate stage in future.
The effect of a statutory bar would be to deny the possibility of debating the issue. The introduction of a blanket legislative ban does not serve the best interests of access to our national cultural institutions. What I have sought to do is to bring forward for consideration the conditions which would prevail before going to the Oireachtas which would then debate it; it would not be a decision taken lightly. This is the balance at which I have arrived.
I accept the Minister's principle with regard to the importance of free access and participation in our heritage. It belongs to us all and not just an elite. I tabled this amendment because it is worthwhile to carefully consider that principle.
I accept what the Minister said that, at present, admission fees could be charged without reference to anyone and that he proposes to ensure that such charges which are likely to be proposed could not be imposed without the agreement of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I understand what the Minister is trying to do but I propose that there would be no charge to the general museum or library and that a charge could be levied for special exhibitions separate from the general exhibition which should be available without charge. That is the spirit in which I tabled this amendment and to protect the continuation of free access.
I am a realist and know that everything costs money and that this situation might well have to be reviewed. I was interested in the Minister's point about a distinction between tourists and citizens. That would make for an interesting discussion and I might take the opportunity of raising it with the Minister after the committee meeting. He might consider my compromise suggestion that there would be no entry charge for the institutions generally but that a charge could be levied on special exhibitions.
I support the principle of maximum access at all times to the institutions for the greatest number of citizens and visitors. However, this issue should be debated in a summer school where five days would be given over to discussing it. I will not take that long to state my point of view.
While I take on board what Deputy de Valera has said, I support the amendment. We are legislating for the long term and I hope it will be good and will stand the test of time. I would not want to debar by statute any decision which a future board or Dáil would make in respect of entry charges. One principle I would like to see adopted from the outset is that young people, especially school children, would have free access at all times.
The Minister spoke of the distinction between the tourist and the citizen. I would like to make the distinction between the citizen and the consumer. My understanding of citizenship is that the citizen would like not only to have free access to these institutions but would also feel a responsibility for their maintenance, upkeep and extension and might like to make a little contribution by way of an entry charge.
I was brought up in an era when we had very little money for things now seen as essential but regarded in my household as optional extras. We always put the money away for paying rates etc. Perhaps it is because the school teacher can never be taken out of me that I worry about a generation of young people who have money for crisps, Coke and every conceivable type of drivel but consider it a burden to pay 10p for library membership. This gives a false sense of values. I see no business in upholding cultural institutions or paying for education unless it is possible to create values that instil citizenship in people.
The Minister is right to leave an opening for the time when it may be deemed prudent to have an entry charge in certain circumstances, although they must not be directed towards young school children; thereafter they should be encouraged to discharge their responsibilities when they become adults. Much money is spent on consumer items that are of transient value. I would not like to think that the next generation would not value our flagship cultural institutions and would not be prepared to make a contribution towards their upkeep. Good galleries have been starved with static collections because of lack of funding to purchase new paintings or artefacts.
Amendment No. 10, subsection (3) (c), should have the words "particularly children" inserted after the word "members". I will address this on Report Stage.
That would meet my reservation.
Amendment No. 10 (3) states:
Before making bye-laws under subsection (2)(d) relating to the fixing of charges in respect of entry to the Museum or Library (other than to any special exhibition or other event being held in the Museum or Library),. . .
I intend to include the words ". . .a special exhibition under the legislation could have a charge by appealing to the Minister. . . .". I am reluctant to interfere with an institution, for example, by direction that parts be free or charged. However, a special exhibition could be exceptional.
The wording of the amendment continues:
. . . a Board shall have regard to whether the proposed bye-laws would——
(a) enable the Board to provide an enhanced service to members of the public in Ireland,
(b) enable the Board to contribute to an increased interest in and appreciation of the collection of the Board by members of the public in Ireland [the words "collection of the institution" will be inserted instead of "collection of the Board"] and
(c) provide a reasonable degree of access to the Museum or Library, as the case may be, without charge to members [particularly children] of the public in Ireland.".
These criteria must be satisfied before the conceptual proposal could be formulated. Even then, it must satisfy the Minister and both Houses of the Oireachtas. It must, therefore, be a good proposal.
The provision will apply to generations not reared in the same tradition of prudence as Deputy Quill. It is a fair balance. I am sensitive to the distinction between the motivation of curiosity of a visitor, which must be handled with respect, and a deeper connection between a manifestation of a heritage to a citizen. To those who suggest that the market should define the policy of a board I reply that it needs these protections if we are to protect the principle of access to heritage of the general citizenry, especially children, the elderly and those not included in the economy, such as the unemployed. I have constructed the amendment in a way that will address these issues.
I trust that a new board will be given a certain measure of discretion. I would charge a board with the responsibility for developing, enhancing and introducing new ideas.
I have advanced amendment No. 10 as an alternative to an absolute prohibition into the future.
Amendment No. 10, subsection (3)(c), refers to the provision of "a reasonable degree of access". This appears to be ambiguous. What does it mean?
The text will improve when I amend it to include the words "particularly children", which I had originally included. The word "reasonable" was inserted to ensure that the part to which one has access is reasonable in scope. I also inserted the words "without charge" to clarify the free concept.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 13, lines 40 to 48, and in page 14, lines 1 and 2, to delete subsections (7) and (8).
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.