I wish to share my time with Deputy McManus.
Adjournment Debate. - National Museum Dispute.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I wish the Minister, Deputy de Valera, the best of luck and good fortune in her ministry.
The issue of the National Museum concerns me and I do not want to go over old ground. It is important we have a national museum of the finest type available to all of the people, for the presentation of our heritage and past, for educational, social and accessibility purposes.
One of the key objectives of the report of the Interim Board of the National Museum of Ireland presented to the then Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, in May 1995 was to preserve and make accessible the portable natural and cultural material heritage of Ireland, to communicate to the people and visitors to Ireland a vision and understanding of that heritage and to act as a major educational resource. I support that strongly as a former Minister for Tourism especially given the level of visitors to the National Museum in Kildare Street and the Natural History Museum. These institutions run more than parallel to many other international museums. In that sense, the National Museum should be one of the finest.
One of the key objectives of the former Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht's strategy was to oversee the development of capital projects for cultural institutions, including the National Museum facility at Collins Barracks. The Minister knows what is happening. There has been a 33 per cent decrease in professional technical staff since 1975, the Department of Finance's review of museum staffing needs has been suppressed, the recommendations of international museum consultants have been ignored to a large extent, there are no keepers in the museum's curatorial departments, there have been no substantial promotions for 20 years and 60 per cent of curatorial staff act in higher grades without promotion.
The Minister raised these matters in the House on 8 April and was replied to by the then Minister of State, Deputy Carey. On that occasion she asked: "Will the Minister of State agree that the nub of this issue is that the jobs were advertised by the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht before consultations with the union were completed? Will he also accept that this is yet another example of how cultural institutions have been treated shabbily by this Government, they are obviously not a priority with the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht?" The matter is now the Minister's responsibility. She spoke to representatives of IMPACT prior to her appointment. She should meet them again because they are prepared to work out a compromise. Following a meeting with them she should meet the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and find out why the required staff are not being appointed. We are talking about highly trained professional staff whose morale is low.
I sent a person to the museum today to get an objective visitor's analysis of what has taken place. That person told me that what has been completed has been done very well. The media displays, the musical instruments and CD ROMs are first class, but the project is far from complete. There are numerous advertisements for the Fonthill Vase, but the vase is not on display. There are 30 empty display spaces, 526 unlabelled items and five prepared but empty rooms.
Following the Minister's meeting with representatives of IMPACT and the Minister for Finance she should prepare a structured and strategic plan for the development of the National Museum, which has consequences for the £5 million development in Castlebar. The Minister can be assured of my co-operation because we should be proud of our heritage. We want the developments at Collins Barracks and in Castlebar to be to the forefront of museums internationally.
I, too, wish the Minister well. I have no doubt she is committed to her portfolio, but tragically she has failed her first real test. This must be embarrassing for her, particularly as the dispute could be easily resolved. The indications are that for a cost of £20,000 per annum great progress could be made. It must seem extraordinary to the public that museum staff should be treated so shabbily.
The opening of the Collins Barracks museum should have been a great occasion, but it was a showcase for Government intransigence. The abortive opening by the Taoiseach sent out a loud message about the Government's failure to deal with what was a manageable dispute, but has become a major embarrassment for the Minister. The opening is reported to have cost £70,000, but I am not sure if that is the correct figure. This has had an impact on those who are committed to the museum and who want to be on good terms with the management but cannot because of the way they have been treated.
I am concerned about the role of the Minister for Finance in this matter. He is responsible for the logjam. He has adopted a macho attitude to public sector workers and wants to make a case of this small number of museum staff who, if the matter were resolved, would not create a precedent for any other section of workers. It would not have the same knock-on effect as a large group of workers. These workers have a legitimate case. They have been treated shabbily. They want to see the dispute resolved properly and fairly. I hope the Minister will call on the Taoiseach to deal with the situation in the Department of Finance because the problem seems to be there.
I thank both Deputies for their good wishes which are much appreciated. I look forward to future discussions with both colleagues and with many others which I hope will not only be fruitful but enjoyable.
I am acutely aware of the seriousness of the dispute in the National Museum, and I share the desire of both Deputies to reach a practical resolution to ensure that the museum is in a position to tackle the many challenges that lie ahead at this key time in its development. On my appointment as Minister, I inherited a situation of industrial action among the professional and technical grades in the museum. The origins of this dispute go back over many years. For example, the museum was particularly badly affected at curatorial level by the voluntary early retirement scheme in the late 1980s. This has served to slow down the normal train of promotion within the museum. It was an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of this scheme when posts, particularly at the top of the promotion chain, were lost, and it permeated down to the recruitment level. In a relatively small staffing structure such as the museum, this problem was accentuated and the staff could see little career prospects over the foreseeable future.
The staff in question, many with long service in their recruitment grades, have given exceptional, dedicated service to the National Museum over the years, especially in recent times with the exciting development of the Collins Barracks project. In addition, the requirements of a modern museum necessitated skills in areas not provided for in the museum in the past. Skills in disciplines such as conservation, marketing, information technology, etc., were required especially at this time when the museum was expanding given the development of the new facility at Collins Barracks, and staff with these skills were recruited.
IMPACT, the trade union involved, sought a structure which involved promotion for a number of their members. While much of the discussion has focused on the case within the museum, all claims for promotions and additional staff within the public service must be considered in the context of the wider public sector pay and staff numbers policy, under which museum staff have benefited.
The assertion in publicity material that a significant percentage of curatorial staff of the National Museum are on allowances for higher duties has been frequently used as an example of the neglect of the museum. I would regard the payment of additional remuneration to any staff where it has been established that the person in question is carrying out either higher or additional duties as being a positive sign of recognition that where additional remuneration is warranted, it should be paid.
Some of these staff are being compensated for performing a range of additional duties temporarily, for example, in the preparation of the Collins Barracks development. In the case of one of the acting keepers, the individual concerned does not yet have the requisite minimum service to be substantively promoted to that grade. What I am attempting to stress is that there are genuine reasons behind each "acting-up" or "ex-gratia” payment being made to staff in the museum. Far from it being a negative feature, it should be regarded as a positive measure.
Despite the industrial relations problem in the National Museum, I am continuing to try to find a resolution. It saddened me, and I know it was a source of great sadness for those involved in the demonstration to whom I spoke at the time, that the opening of Collins Barracks, which should have been a joyous occasion for everyone, was overshadowed for those who had put so much effort into the preparations, whether it be the staff of the museum, including those who are now involved in the dispute, the Caretaker Board, under its able chairperson Barbara Nugent, management of the museum, or the staff of my Department and the Office of Public Works.
While I accept that the inaugural exhibitions are not fully complete due to the industrial dispute they still provide an enjoyable visitor experience. I am confident that when the dispute is resolved the Collins Barracks project, both the first phase and subsequent ones, will be recognised as a major landmark in the development of our cultural heritage.
Notwithstanding the difficulties that surround this dispute, I have assured the staff and I am assuring the House that I am doing everything possible to resolve it so that we can get on with the work that is so necessary to develop the expanded National Museum and the presentation of its wonderful artefacts to the public.