Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Jun 2012

Vol. 770 No. 2

National Cultural Institutions: Motion (Resumed) [Private Members]

The following motion was moved by Deputy Micheál Martin on Tuesday, 26 June 2012:
That Dáil Éireann:
— endorsing the positive contribution that a thriving arts and culture sector makes to Irish society as a whole;
— acknowledging the value of our cultural heritage;
— recognising the impact on the economy and jobs of our wider arts sector, contributing €4.7 billion to the economy and directly and indirectly supporting 79,000 jobs;
— noting that in the period 2005 to 2010 alone more than €1.1 billion was invested in the sector;
— highlighting that these funds facilitated a transformation in our national, regional and community arts and culture infrastructure, performance venues and film and television production capacity;
— recognising the need to protect and promote our cultural heritage as we approach the centenary of the 1916 Rising;
— accepting that there should be a consultation process with the national cultural institutions before any changes take place in their governance structure as a result of the public service reform plan;
requests that a cost-benefit analysis of proposed changes to the sector be published;
agrees that independence and autonomy of this sector is crucial, that political interference should be avoided and that the "arm's length" principle should remain;
accepts the necessity for an independent recruitment process for the CEO vacancies in some of the national cultural institutions and that these positions should be filled without delay;
acknowledges the detrimental effects the proposed mergers of cultural and arts institutions would have on our cultural infrastructure and heritage; and
rejects:
— the proposed merger of the Irish Museum of Modern Art, the Crawford Art Gallery and the National Gallery of Ireland;
— the proposed merger of the National Archives and the Irish Manuscripts Commission; and
— the proposed merger of the National Library and the National Museum.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
“endorses the positive contribution that a thriving arts and culture sector makes to Irish society as a whole;
acknowledges the value of our cultural heritage;
recognises the impact on the economy and jobs of our wider arts sector, contributing €4.7 billion to the economy and directly and indirectly supporting 79,000 jobs;
recognises Ireland’s obligation under Article 27 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: ‘Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits’;
notes the many successful initiatives by Ireland’s national cultural institutions which contribute to the enhancement of Ireland’s reputation abroad and among the diaspora;
welcomes:
— the statement in the Programme for Government 2011 - 2016 that the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht ‘will make strategic policy formulation the primary function of the Department, with line agencies and bodies responsible for policy implementation’; and
— the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht’s Statement of Strategy 2011 - 2014 mandate ‘to foster, promote and support Ireland’s world-class artistic and cultural strengths, at home and abroad’;
understands that:
— the Public Service Reform Plan, published by Government in November 2011, sets out a range of reform initiatives designed to reduce duplication, support the delivery of services to the public, and put in place the structures, processes, ways of working, technologies and capabilities needed by the public service today;
— the following five major commitments to change are enshrined in the Public Service Reform Plan:
— placing customer service at the core of everything we do;
— maximising new and innovative service delivery channels;
— radically reducing our costs to drive better value for money;
— leading, organising and working in new ways; and
— strong focus on implementation and delivery;
— bodies listed in the Public Service Reform Plan include the Irish Museum of Modern Art, Crawford Art Gallery, the National Gallery of Ireland, the National Archives, the Irish Manuscripts Commission, an Coimisinéir Teanga, the National Library of Ireland, the National Museum of Ireland, the Placenames Commission, the Heritage Council and Culture Ireland; and
— the institutions referred to above are currently constituted in a variety of different structures; and
notes:
— the vitally important social, academic, cultural, heritage, tourism, economic and artistic functions performed by Ireland’s National Cultural Institutions, including in the context of Ireland’s reputational recovery;
— the importance of all our national cultural institutions in delivering a cultural programme in support of the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union 2013, the Decade of Centenaries, 1912 – 1922 and for the Gathering Ireland 2013 event;
— the importance, furthermore, of periodically reviewing organisations, especially in regard to value for the taxpayer and efficiency of service delivery to the public;
— the €47 million allocated to the National Cultural Institutions in 2012;
— the continuing underlying growth in visitor numbers to the National Cultural Institutions;
— the extensive consultation undertaken by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in response to the Public Service Reform Plan;
— the Government’s commitment that, in bringing forward any governance reforms that may be required to realise the goals of the Public Service Reform Plan, it will support the programming and curatorial independence of the National Cultural Institutions; and
— the Minister’s intention to conclude his response to the Public Service Reform Plan as soon as possible and to consult with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in relation to bringing these matters to Government.”

- (Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht).

We resume with Deputy Clare Daly, who is sharing time with Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett and Maureen O'Sullivan.

The starting point in this discussion must be that the arts are not a luxury which can be easily dispensed with in times of economic crisis. Rather, they represent a crucial part of our cultural identity and a key lever in terms of exploring and developing the creative talent and potential of all of our citizens. It could be legitimately argued that supporting the arts is even more important in times of austerity, in order to give people an outlet to develop their potential. We see the benefits and value of that in programmes run for young people, for elderly citizens and for troubled teenagers etc. There are unquantifiable results to these which bring a huge saving in terms of the health budget, mental health budget and the general well-being of society. In that context, we cannot see this discussion solely from the point of view of financial cost.

It is part of the problem with the McCarthy report that discussion on these issues takes place against the backdrop of threatened serious changes to arts policy. In that sense, I support the purpose behind the motion, namely, to ring-fence some of the fundamental principles regarding arts policy in general and funding. I wish to put on record the importance of the "arm's length" principle remaining and the necessity for cultural institutions and the Arts Council to get on with their work without political interference. We need only pick up a newspaper to see the importance of impartiality, particularly when we see what private ownership of the media has done in terms of distorting public opinion. In the matter of the arts, the independence and integrity of our cultural identity is critical.

On funding, Arts Council funding needs to be secure. However, there is a case for looking at how it is disbursed and for examining the role of local authorities and local authority arts officers and directing funding to them. These people are at the coal face and know what is going on, but they have not been receiving funding, rather the opposite. In fact, arts programmes have been diminished. If we are serious about developing the arts, this is where it must start. We have seen good projects, like the Over the Edge workshops that take place in Galway which are part funded by the Arts Council and Galway City Council, developing poetry workshops, publishing new poets and bringing development in that regard. While there is a basis for some streamlining, this should only be on the basis of the funding being ring-fenced.

The Arts Council has a role to play in continuing to support independent publishers. These play a vital role in terms of developing and publishing new writers, but they do more than that. They have brought and promoted Ireland's arts agenda abroad. Culture Ireland has played a successful role in that regard, in conjunction with publishers like Salmon Publishing and others, which have brought creative writing out of this country to workshops and facilities in America and Australia, which have generated revenue when these people have returned and have developed the arts abroad. For all sorts of reasons it makes sense to ring-fence this in order to secure independence and funding.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the vital importance of arts, culture and our heritage. Arts and culture are not optional extras and should not be measured by financial or economic metrics. It is not too grandiose to say that arts, culture and heritage are what make us human and define us as creative beings. They are what separate us from every other species on the planet. Treating arts and cultural institutions like just another quango or as just an opportunity to cut costs, threatens the essence of what we are as human beings and is misguided. This is even more true at a time of recession.

It may be of interest to the Minister to know that the first theatres in ancient Greece began in healing centres and it was from this that we got the term "catharsis". Theatre was about therapeutic healing and it was from that theatre developed. Never has that role been more important and necessary than now when we are faced with a huge economic recession. This recession resulted from straying away from human priorities and focusing purely on economic and financial interests. This has led us to the current impasse. Faced with this situation, there has been a significant return to the arts. More people are visiting galleries and museums and more people are getting involved in poetry and visiting the theatre. Therefore, the last thing we should be doing is making cuts in the culture area or to cultural institutions.

This error is repeated in the Government's motion, in that all the language is the language of corporate and commercial speak, such as "customer service", "service delivery channels", "reducing our costs", "better value for money" and "implementation and delivery". That is not the language we should use to talk about the arts, culture and heritage. They are not about those things, nor should they be. It is a tragedy that we ever have to charge for access to the arts, culture or heritage. With regard to the institutions the Minister proposes to merge for cost-cutting purposes - treating them like quangos - access to them is free. Therefore, the proposal to merge them on the basis of achieving short-term cuts is a grave error. As somebody said in a meeting on this issue yesterday, it is like saying we should merge the FAI, the IRFU and the GAA, because they are all sports that use a ball. Of course, they are distinct sports and should not be treated and lumped in together as if they are the same on the basis of cost-cutting.

These proposals are more galling because all of this cost-cutting is being done to bail out bankers. I will finish by citing the poet Bertolt Brecht who said the crime of robbing a bank was nothing compared to the crime of owning one. He was right. It is a tragedy that our society, our arts, culture and heritage should face cuts in order to bail out the bankers and bondholders who brought our country and Europe to the sorry pass it is in now.

We continue the debate we started on priority questions and I thank the Chair for the meeting I had with him. Any organisation or institution worthy of its name will regularly examine and analyse what is going well and the areas in need of reform. Our cultural and artistic institutions do this regularly. Their point is that they do not want change just for the sake of it. In general, the artistic and cultural organisations have been working well. If the car is going well, why tinker with the engine?

These proposals were first made in an interdepartmental report in 1974. The proposed amalgamations were rejected then on the grounds that there were distinct differences in the disciplines involved, there were serious problems with space for amalgamated entities, there was no indication of money savings and because the National Archives had statutory standing. Those reasons are still valid. All are agreed that a sound and thorough cost-benefit analysis is vital. Also vital is real and meaningful consultation with the bodies involved. The Minister said he has an open door for anyone who wants to come and speak to him on this issue. It is vital that all the boards are independent in order to ensure proper governance. They must also be expertise-led, and board members must have real experience in the arts and of maintaining budget discipline. The current boards have been doing well in this regard. I have an issue with regard to the payment of expenses for board members, but I am aware that many of the members of these boards have waived expenses. All the institutions agree with the shared services notion, but they want the principle of "arm's length" kept intact. They have already been coping with cuts. Putting culture under one rule is dangerous, just as putting the media under one hand is dangerous.

Mention has been made of Canada. It is the only country where national archives and libraries have been amalgamated, but considerable funding was invested in that.

I am not being political when I highlight that the concerns expressed in the motion correspond to measures promised in the budget of 2009 by the party then in government. I raise this because at the time I was wary of the proposals and I would still be wary were they to be introduced as fashioned at that time, that is, without any real public consultation, any cost benefit analysis or any functional rationale for the changes. The debate is timely and I am glad that a public consultation process is ongoing. I urge the Minister to ensure it will be a real public consultation process and that there will be an opportunity for the artistic community to respond to any proposals before they are set in legislation.

I welcome the Minister's statement that the Government has committed to programming and curatorial independence, whatever reforms are brought forward. The absence of this is a real fear of the artistic community, a fear I share. It is the fear that the freedom and independence traditionally held by these institutions would be taken from them upon being absorbed into the Department, a move seen as the kiss of death to creativity. Changes to boards and changes to terms of reference and administration can have the same effect and I urge the Minister to be cautious in how he proceeds in this regard.

One thing this country has got right is support for the arts. A small but significant investment has leveraged considerable creative activity and audience participation, which is equally important. There is a considerable payback for the taxpayer's investment. I acknowledge that some of the artistic community take the view that we should not discuss the effect that we have abroad by driving inward investment and artistic tourism. These people maintain that there should be art for art's sake in Ireland but I disagree because an internationally successful and cultural and artistic image is good for our economy. Through music, literature, dance and film Ireland, as a small and remote island in the world, can communicate its sense of identity to the rest of the world. Projecting a positive identity is important not only for our economy but for our sense of self worth. We need only recall the desolation we felt as a nation only some years ago when the international media referred to us as the economic basket-case of Europe. At that time the only good news coming from Ireland was from the artistic community and its successes. We all basked in these successes and they reinforced our sense of national self worth.

Success is fragile and I put it to the Minster that we tamper at our peril with structures that have allowed the arts to thrive in Ireland. The Minister is correct to state that no organisation or recipient of taxpayer's money is above examination or reform. The institutions involved have brought forward ideas to save money and improve their activities.

The artistic community is not inflexible or resistant to change. On the contrary, it is one of the drivers of change in society and the challengers of the status quo and when it expresses reservations about change we should listen to what it has to say. Naturally, we all recognise that there must be savings, changes to back-room services, sharing of services and so on. There should be more outward-looking boards as well and perhaps the organisations should be somewhat more commercial. This much is accepted but I put it to the Minister that it should be sacrosanct that the artistic and cultural instructions maintain their independent and freedom, especially from political interference.

I am fortunate to represent the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny and to have held the position of chairperson of the special policy committee on arts, heritage and tourism for several years while a member of Kilkenny County Council. For this reason alone I am a major supporter of the arts. Of all the sectors in society in Ireland today, the arts, culture and heritage sectors are the only sectors that have never let us down.

I have become aware of the significant position that Kilkenny holds in the national heritage and cultural areas. I am proud of the fact that Kilkenny has earned the accolade of the cultural heart of Ireland and the home of heritage due to its legacy from the former Minister and now President, Michael D. Higgins. He initiated the decentralisation of the Heritage Council to Kilkenny some years ago. I have seen at first hand the good feeling that comes from this sector. The arts and culture sectors are unique not only because of their employment creation potential but because of the sustainability of such employment and what it generates for local communities and economies. Any amount of statistical information shows how the creative industries benefit economies and communities. For us, the arts is like money in that it is not everything but it is everything else.

People who work in these areas have proven to be progressive thinkers. This is why I am eager to participate in the Private Members' debate brought forward by Fianna Fáil. I note, however, that we are having this discussion as a result of Fianna Fáil's maladministration while in government, to which the previous speaker referred. It is entertaining that after one year in the Opposition benches, they appear to have all the answers.

Having worked in the cultural sector I have watched with interest the development of the national cultural institutions over the years. I advise caution in making any material changes to these institutions because of the considerable investment in skills and funding that the people have contributed. The public reform plan 2011 proposed to merge the Irish Museum of Modern Art, the Crawford Art Gallery and the National Gallery of Ireland while retaining their separate identities.

Several employees working in the visual arts attended a public forum organised by the Irish Museum of Modern Art in 2009. It featured speakers involved in similar amalgamations elsewhere. The general consensus was that merging institutions did not bring about the desired result. Given other circumstances I would agree with such a statement but the fact is that we are now living in difficult times. All Department must introduce reform mechanisms to retrieve savings. The country has been forced into an environment in which competing interests are vying for limited, scarce resources and we are all left between a rock and a hard place. We have been forced into a position today whereby our heritage is competing with the rights of those on social welfare, the demands of those in desperate need of medical care and assistance and the rights and obligations we have towards our children in respect of education, transport, special needs and other resources. This is a difficult position to be in. I have always been a great advocate of the arts and I note the Minster has said that his door is open. Last night the Minister stated that some recent commentary has suggested that he was planning to effectively dismantle these organisations but that he was planning no such thing and nor was the Government. I thank the Minister for that assurance.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. The point made by Deputy Ann Phelan was significant. It was news to me to hear that Kilkenny is the cultural heart of the country. Cork was the European capital of culture in 2005 and it was a remarkable year for the city. I echo the point Deputy Phelan made about our cities, that is, culture is of great importance to the regions of our nation. Unquestionably, the capital city has contributed a great deal to the sector as well.

When people think about our country, our rich culture and tradition of music and art come to their minds. We are fortunate that the Minister understands the significance of these institutions. The recent donation of one of the country's most significant art collections to the Crawford Art Gallery in Cork was well received and a signal that culture spreads across our island.

Fianna Fáil's motion tries to erase the 14 years that party spent in Government. We are in difficult economic times and Ministers are forced to investigate reform and cost saving measures not only in the arts but also in our hospitals, the Garda and social welfare system. Nobody likes to speak about cuts or cost savings in the context of the arts and culture but several key cultural organisations have themselves suggested areas which could be streamlined while maintaining services and allowing people to enrich themselves through the cultural experiences our country offers. Some of the most important participants in this process are our local authorities. I encourage them to continue to provide funding for arts officers because cultural funding at local level provides some of the greatest benefits. This is an area which needs to be monitored by the Government.

More work can be done to develop a legacy from our significant investments in arts and culture, such as the capital of culture in 2005. Too often we call a halt after holding an event but there is potential to develop legacies from many of our cultural activities. I understand a major programme is planned for the Presidency of the European Union in 2013. We need to work towards securing a legacy from these events.

I welcome the opportunity to debate Ireland's cultural infrastructure and the importance of our cultural institutions. As someone who has been immersed in cultural life both professionally and as a citizen, I value the key role that cultural institutions play in helping us to present various manifestations and expressions of our identity and our Irishness. They are often the first reference point for visitors to this country, particularly those who are interested in our history and culture and they also help us to project ourselves to the outside world.

I remind those who have mobilised around the subject matter of this debate that rationalising the management structures of certain institutions is not the same as interfering with the arm's length relationship that we all cherish. It would be foolhardy of any Government to interfere in the curatorial and decision making independence of our cultural institutions. This is a direction that would not sit easily with me. However, there are ways in which the operation and management of these institutions can be reformed without compromising their autonomy.

Certain institutions connected to the arts merit the type of attention our cultural institutions have attracted from the Minister and the cultural sector in the context of this debate. I am sure others in the sector are as concerned as I am at the evisceration of a host of regional theatre companies through the unceremonious withdrawal of their core funding. This is not an abstract or academic point; it affects real people. Working artists and administrators are now facing an uncertain future. The net effect of this type of decision is to centralise professional theatre in selected areas and call into question the commitment to the regions. I trust that the arts sector is as disturbed as I am by this worrying trend and that everybody who campaigns and cares for a viable and professional arts sector will take as strong a stand on those grievous issues as they have done in respect of our cultural institutions.

We saw in a recent debate on "The Frontline" that some people in our society see little value in spending public money on the arts. In the context of current fiscal challenges it is not difficult to see how spending on the arts or overseas aid can be open to suggestions that we should cut funding, particularly when they are placed alongside cuts in education or health. However, the arts and heritage sectors in Ireland play an important role in economic growth, with arts and culture contributing 7% of total GNP and 8% of total employment. From this perspective, the State's contribution to the sector is money well spent.

I was reassured by much of what the Minister had to say in his contribution last night and most of my concerns have been put to rest. The Government's reform plan is essential for reversing the damage caused by the previous Government but it should not be seen as an opportunity to sacrifice a critical sector of Irish society for short-term expediency. As the Latin aphorism states, ars longa, vita brevis, which means life is short but art is eternal. We owe it to future generations to pass on our heritage and enrich our history and past. To this end I am glad to see the Minister is confounding his critics by demonstrating his understanding of the importance of the individuality and independence of those who are involved in the arts and heritage sector, while at the same time seeking value for money in the context of shared resources such as human resources, payroll and insurance. This is an approach I have often spoken about in a past life.

My concerns about the sector are not addressed by this motion or the proposed amendment. Individuality and independence are essential for the arts because they create the right environment for creativity and vitality. Our arts and heritage sectors are kept alive and connected to the regions through small local arts and drama groups. The recent approach of the Arts Council betrays a worrying lack of accountability and is damaging the industry by creating the impression of a closed circle. I ask the Minister to investigate the issues raised by my colleagues as a matter of urgency. The arts community needs to focus on issues which are perhaps closer to home and therefore more difficult for us to address in the context of this debate.

Our efforts should be on corroboration involving all stakeholders and I am delighted the Minister has announced that his door is open to suggestions for the effective delivery and nurturing of arts, culture and heritage in this country.

Our arts and artists are this country's greatest ambassadors. Literature, poetry, plays, painting, theatre production, film and music making, whether traditional or classical, foster our native creativity, encourage and strengthen our sense of unyielding humanity and draw visitors from all over the world.

In my constituency of Galway West the artistic expression of our culture, led by a vibrant and unique community of creative minds, has given Galway an identity and soul of his own. The Cúirt International Festival, the Galway Arts Festival, the Galway Film Fleadh, the Stirling Sessions and the Galway Jazz Festival, among many others, are but the organised expressions of that ethos. Is mór an trua é nach bhfuil níos mó ama agam chun labhairt faoin bpáirt tábhachtach atá ag an nGaeltacht sa chultúr seo.

The arts sector contributes millions of euro to the economy and supports thousands of jobs.

The Galway Arts Festival has an economic impact of some €17.5 million, with almost two thirds of those attending shows staying in private accommodation. It has a major impact on the tourism sector and on employment. It is vital that the Government continues funding for the arts that is targeted towards well thought out and practical programmes that deliver.

I pay tribute to Galway City Council and its arts office. The council contributes a major amount of money to recognise the contribution of the arts. I pay tribute to the late Mr. Mike Diskin, former manager of the Town Hall Theatre, who played a major role in the development of community arts in Galway. I would like to see another useful debate on the value of the arts and where it is going. The economic impact of the arts is plausible and must be recognised but we cannot view the arts purely as a commodity, something on which to put a price. When I was a councillor and my predecessor in the Galway West constituency was a Deputy, I spoke with Michael D. Higgins about the cost overrun of the Town Hall Theatre. He told me it was never intended to break even or make money. It was meant to be a town hall theatre in which people could watch plays. If that requires a subsidy, so be it because arts and culture do not come cheap. Regardless of money, we must say that the arts are important and need public subsidy.

Our approach to the arts could be broadened. This could be a good debate if we had more time. I refer to the work of Mary McPartlan, who works in NUI Galway developing a programme to introduce arts into other disciplines such as engineering and medicine and more concrete subjects. The value of the arts in terms of creativity and opening people's minds to alternatives and different ways of doing things is a skill and a gift. We must broaden art beyond something that is in an art gallery or theatre. It is something within us all. I ask that the individuality and independence of the cultural institutions is maintained. It is extremely important and is vital to their survival.

I am glad to speak in support of the Minister. I listened to what he said yesterday and I was more than happy with his contribution. The continuation of funding for the arts is vital. The potential for ways to improve ourselves, to create jobs and to bring the country out of recession is clear in the tourism area. Some weeks ago, we brought the British ambassador to Cashel to see what the area had after the Queen's visit last year. The ambassador and people with him were amazed at the hidden gems in the area and what we could do in a place like Cashel. There is great potential for tourism and investment around this country. It applies to every village around Ireland. There is potential for job creation. In light of the potential for employment, funding needs to continue in the best way the Minister can provide in these circumstances.

Some counties, including South Tipperary, were slow in appointing arts officers. The benefit of such an appointment when the person is committed, supportive and helpful is great value for money for South Tipperary County Council. The council was the last local authority to make such an appointment but it was a great investment. The tourism potential of the arts, the events organised and the ideas of our young people are considerable. We may need a debate on how to put together a package on the job creation potential for the arts but there will be no argument on investing in it. I support this idea because there is positive potential in it. There will be great benefit if we support it and stick together.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion although I did not feel comfortable at first. It is not an area to which I am accustomed, unlike my esteemed colleague Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy. I am familiar with her work in County Offaly and her contribution to the arts. I thank Fianna Fáil for tabling this motion.

I decided to meander out of the House today and familiarise myself with places I do not usually go to. I went to the National Gallery of Ireland and re-familiarised myself with the beautiful Caravaggio painting. I encourage others to do likewise. I also went to Anne's Lane and a wonderful photography exhibition of the work of Willie Doherty from the Bogside in Derry. He is an international photographer with an exhibition of black-and-white photographs taken 30 years ago at the height of the Troubles.

There is a role for the arts and I try to say that as discerningly as I can. In the course of debate in this country over the past five years the impression is sometimes created that we almost live inside an economy. Sometimes we get institutionalised by this mindset and in this context the role for the Members of this House is to reach out to the arts. The arts are already reaching out at community grassroots level such as the Earagail Arts Festival in Donegal. The Galway politicians mentioned the formidable Galway Arts Festival. I refer to community arts and photography, through Willie Doherty, who is reaching out as a talented photographer. He is reaching out to communities.

In order to bring about the reconciliation we all aspire to in Northern Ireland, we must reach out to the arts. The arts have done tremendous work. If I speak on behalf of an artist, I will completely undersell his work. However, Willie Doherty is trying to reach a true understanding of what happened in Northern Ireland over the past 30 or 40 years. We must get to the bottom of it and appreciate that there will be scars. I encourage people North and South, Members and those outside the House, to view the powerful imagery of a photograph, shot on the Border between Muff and Derry, of a roadway where, two years ago, the body of Ciaran Doherty was dumped by the Real IRA. Photographs shot 30 years ago are as vivid as if we were back in that time. I encourage people to go to the Kerlin Gallery on Anne's Lane. To get to the bottom of the issue, the photographic imagery will do more to promote what happened than any politician can articulate.

I welcome the opportunity to speak, albeit for only three minutes. I have requested that we have statements on the arts in the near future. I look forward to a more extended opportunity to speak on the arts.

I thank Deputy McHugh for acknowledging my work in the arts in a voluntary capacity at community level. It has enhanced my life and I hope others have also gained. In this country we take the arts for granted. The report of an bord snip nua galvanised all who are passionate about the arts to highlight the value of the arts in our society.

We benefit from the arts in many different ways, whether as practitioners or as people who attend artistic performances, exhibitions and so on. It is wonderful that we are finally having a debate on this, two and a half years down the line. I take this opportunity to commend the National Campaign for the Arts on its ongoing work in this area.

Participants in arts-related activities are sometimes so engrossed in producing their work or participating at in particular activities, at whatever level, that they forget to consider their work in a broader context in terms of the value they are bringing to themselves, their communities and society as a whole. The Indecon report commissioned by the Arts Council put figures on something we all assumed but had no way of proving. The report showed, for example, that the arts sector provides more than 21,000 jobs and contributes more than €300 million in taxes. We learned from the report that the wider creative industry gives €4.7 billion to the economy annually. These data copperfasten the convictions of those of us who are passionate about the arts as to its wide-ranging value to our society. What is more, they will help to convince those who are distracted by issues they consider more important that we must continue to invest in the arts on the basis that such investment will benefit us all. We have not yet acknowledged the value in a range of therapies, whether health therapy, involvement with youth and so on. We must explore all of that more fully.

As a people, we seem to have lost sight of the reality that our cultural institutions belong to all of us. People are often amazed to be told that entrance to the National Museum and National Gallery, for instance, is free. Unfortunately, the Acting Chairman has indicated that my time is up. I am looking forward to a debate where I will have an opportunity to expand on the points I have made. I am passionate about the arts and am committed to doing everything I possibly can to ensure the artistic community will continue to be supported in its endeavours for the benefit of society in general.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I compliment Deputy Robert Troy and thank Senator Fiach Mac Conghail for his presentation yesterday evening. A recurring theme to emerge from this debate is the message that the arts are a necessity not a luxury, an asset not an overhead. I cannot imagine an Ireland in which citizens could not participate in the enjoyment of arts and culture.

As other speakers have observed, the arts make a significant contribution to the economy. The 2011 Arts Council report indicated that the sector provides direct and indirect employment, supporting 21,300 jobs and contributing €306 million in taxes. That is not to say, of course, that the arts should be evaluated solely on economic grounds. However, I draw the Minister's attention to the economic study which showed that the value to the local economy of the Galway Arts Festival was €17.5 million in 2011. It is the arts which drive the tourism industry, with most visitors to this country taking time to visit museums and galleries and attend festivals and events. Studies and surveys show that for 70% of visitors to Galway, the arts festival was a factor in their decision to come. We look forward to this year's event which will begin in two weeks time.

This is not the first campaign to highlight the importance and value of the arts. Three years ago, at a time of threat to arts funding, an event was held outside the town hall in Galway at which politicians were invited to sing, play a musical instrument, recite a poem or tell a story. I recall Pádraic McCormack, then a Member of this House, performing his juggling party piece. The event succeeded in its objective of securing the maintenance of arts funding, for which great credit was due to the organiser, Lelia Doolan. The latter is currently trying to persuade the Department to release the €2.1 million available for the Galway Picture Palace project.

The Minister is undoubtedly aware of the work of Music for Galway. Members of that group have been eager to stress the arms-length principle that has underpinned arts policy and structures in the State for more than 60 years. They have warned against undue political interference and emphasised the importance of having an independent board of the Arts Council. These are important messages to take on board.

It is vital that a cost-benefit analysis is undertaken before proceeding with any of the proposed mergers of cultural institutions. The Minister should begin by speaking to people in those institutions about the ways in which savings and efficiencies might be achieved. Some mergers might end up being more costly in the long run, as happened in Canada where, as I understand it, the amalgamation of the national library and national archives cost some CAN $15 million. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett used the analogy of merging sporting bodies to illustrate the absence of a sound rationale for such proposals. The question was raised last night as to whether the GAA, FAI and IRFU should be merged on the basis that they all represent ball sports, with each code merely using a different type of ball. That is clearly absurd.

To sum up, we must avoid short-term decisions which might endanger the future of the arts sector. Instead, we should encourage participation, foster innovation and continue to enhance Ireland's reputation in the arts on the world stage. It is important to appreciate the economic potential of the arts and the creative industry. I will reject any plan for the merging of cultural institutions which would tend to undermine their independence and prove damaging to our cultural heritage.

I join colleagues on all sides of the House in commending Deputy Robert Troy, Fianna Fáil Party spokesperson on the arts, heritage and the Gaeltacht, on bringing forward this issue for political attention in the Dáil. The arts are also receiving attention in the Seanad this week. At a time of economic pressures across all Departments, we must ensure that areas of funding which were traditionally seen as "easy targets" do not get squeezed.

Investment in the arts has manifold pay-offs. In many ways, the arts are at the heart of what Ireland is about and how it is seen from abroad. We should hold this strong cultural heritage dear. There is an onus on the Oireachtas to take every measure possible to ensure our cultural institutions are protected and enhanced. In this regard, I urge the Minister to take on board what is proposed in this motion and the points made in this debate before proceeding with any plans to merge cultural institutions. Following consultation with many of the bodies concerned, it has become clear that some of the proposed measures will have serious repercussions. Moreover, there is no clear outline as to where the desired cost savings will arise from such an initiative. It makes sense on many levels to reconsider these proposals.

One of the proposed actions is the introduction of shared services for the National Library and the National Museum. These two bodies perform very valuable but separate functions. Combining responsibility for very important but distinct services to the State such as are provided by these institutions is to blur the lines and engender confusion as to their respective objectives and functions. Members of the arts community have been very generous with their time over the years, above and beyond the requirements of any funding they received. Many people working in the sector or with an appreciation of the sector and our culture give of their time voluntarily in a variety of ways.

It is incumbent upon us to ensure that in establishing bodies for distinct purposes they are independent in terms of policy making. If we can do so, people with a strong interest in the enhancement of those bodies will provide their services at board level to protect them and ensure they perform to the optimum.

It is questionable whether the proposal to combine the Museum of Modern Art, the Crawford Art Gallery and the National Gallery, while retaining separate identifies, can be achieved. In addition, many people have expressed reservations about the plan to merge the National Archives and the Irish Manuscripts Commission. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that he will not proceed with those proposals and instead leave the institutions as they are.

A lot is being asked of the arts sector, which is already under severe pressure. Current funding for the arts is down by 6% this year, from €124 million to €117 million, as a result of the most recent budget. The Arts Council's budget is down by 3%. In addition, arts capital funding has been most severely hit, down 34%, from €32 million to €22 million. Those measures will have repercussions for the future. This week we have seen the first moves by Ministers positioning themselves for the next budget. The Minister, however, should ensure the arts are prioritised as much as possible, while considering the impact that budgetary measures may have. We must continue to value the work of the arts sector. The Minister must ensure that our cultural institutions retain their independence and continue to be supported.

I join other colleagues in commending Deputy Troy for tabling this motion. I add my voice to the many others that have endorsed the positive contribution of the thriving arts and cultural sector. From 2005 to 2010, €1.1 billion was invested in the sector. The success of that investment can be measured in the fact that it contributes €4.7 billion per annum to our economy. In addition, it supports 79,000 jobs directly and indirectly.

The arts should not necessarily be measured in economic terms, despite the positivity I have mentioned. The sector should be measured against the need to protect and promote our cultural heritage and foster and engender new and diverse cultures in future generations.

As a county councillor in Offaly I saw at first hand the initial benefits of setting up an arts office, appointing an arts officer and agreeing and approving multi-annual arts programmes. That will culminate with the new county arts centre and theatre in Tullamore in the coming years. In this regard, I want to commend publicly and thank the Minister for the continuance of funding that was promised by the previous Government. He has worked with the local committee to make sure the project becomes a reality following the success of the planning application.

It only remains for me to reiterate some of the main points of the motion as moved by Deputy Troy yesterday evening. We believe it would be irresponsible not to publish the cost-benefit analysis of the proposed changes before proceeding.

The independence and autonomy of this sector is crucial and must be maintained. The 2002 Bill, which we enacted, gave legislative protection to the arm's length principle, which is the very basis for the Arts Council's independence in disbursing funds. However, abolishing boards and bringing them under the Minister's direct control will undermine that principle which has proven to be such a financial and cultural success, as was detailed earlier.

I commend the motion to the House.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Troy agus an Seanadóir Mac Conghail as ucht an rún seo a chur os comhair an dá Theach anocht.

Ten years ago, I travelled at Deputy Deenihan's invitation, to his home town of Listowel to see what a vibrant, community-based arts sector can do for a town's self confidence and identity, not to mention the economic benefits. The current Minister was central to that and has been involved in everything that has happened there since. That spirit is what we need in the Department now, particularly in the way this process is being handled.

Focusing on the amendment, I am concerned that its wording gives an example of where the Department is coming from concerning this process. It starts by noting the many successful initiatives by Ireland's national cultural institutions which contribute to the enhancement of our reputation abroad and among the diaspora. So say all of us, but if they are not broken why are we meddling with them? Why will we potentially destroy the creative spirit within the cultural institutions that has led to those successful initiatives?

The amendment welcomes the statement in the programme for Government that the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht will make strategic policy formulations the primary function of the Department with line agencies and bodies responsible for policy implementation. That seems to me to diminish our cultural institutions to the role of mere functionaries. Cultural institutions which foster arts, challenge debate and challenge legislators, are designed and dismissed as mere instruments of State, line agencies and bodies. This undermines a magnificent tradition that in some cases predates the origins of this State.

Those involved in those institutions fostered the ideal of having an independent State at a time when the people were not able to do so themselves. We celebrate the identity and memory of those people in busts and portraits in this Chamber and elsewhere in Leinster House. That is the spirit of thought, belief and creativity that will be undermined by the process now underway, because such institutions will be treated as line agencies.

The amendment does not answer the request in Deputy Troy's motion to publish the cost-benefit analysis. If this is the road the Department intends to travel, we should at least have a document available to explain the costs and benefits involved. As legislators, we have an interest in the arts sector through the length and breadth of this island. We could challenge and engage with such a document, using it to defend the values and standards of those institutions. The public may not actively participate in them or have access to them, despite the fantastic initiatives of recent years, but many people still hold them dear. Those who work in the cultural institutions are also held in high esteem because they stand up and challenge the country in many ways though creative talent, including new technology. However, all that will be undermined by this process.

Our galleries, libraries and museums are all different and have been deliberately constructed to highlight our cultural heritage, including literature. It is said that one pitch does not mean the same games. The Minister will understand that saying more than most. The same applies to our cultural institutions.

The absence of a cost benefit analysis undermines the extensive consultation process referred to in the Government's amendment. How could it engage in an extensive consultation process without first outlining to those in the sector, and those with an interest in it, the cost benefit analysis in terms of the consequences of its decisions? How can we, in the absence of such document, trust that the Department is taking the proper decisions? How can we believe that there are savings to be made? My colleagues referred earlier to the Canadian example. There are, doubtless, many more examples of where mergers and the undermining of institutions have led to higher cost. In the absence of a cost benefit analysis, we cannot judge or comment on that.

If the Department and those who run it have nothing to hide in terms of this process and if, as stated, this is in the interests of governance and public service reform and will support the curatorial independence of the cultural institutions, then the Government should undertake the analysis before making its decisions. It should, before making final decisions, allow consultation around what is contained in that analysis or other documents being used to guide this process. It should allow those in the Visitors Gallery and those throughout this island who are the foundation of the arts community to see the document which will influence their lives, careers and how they imagine this country in the years to come.

The Government amendment refers to the decade of centenaries, Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the European Union and The Gathering. However, it commits members of the Government to support the undermining of the institutions that will be the flagships of that commemoration process, The Gathering and our Presidency of the Council of the European Union. If we proceed in the direction in which the Department is guiding us, those flagships will hit the sand and with them the aspirations and challenges with which they are supposed to provide us.

As well as undermining our national institutions the Government is dismantling euro by euro - let there be no doubt it, this is what is being done - the CE scheme structure in every county. The CE scheme and its predecessors were the basis on which many community arts facilities got their start. Many community art facilities which are now national and international organisations got their start on the back of an AnCo or FÁS scheme. New facilities will not get that start because of what is happening to CE schemes. While we are undermining these facilities nationally and locally we proclaim ourselves to be an island of scholars and an island of the art. We hold events such as the decade of centenaries and The Gathering and wonder why they do not reach their potential economically. The decade of centenaries has the potential to challenge the achievements of this State. If we undermine our cultural institutions in this way, these events will be nothing but PR spin.

The Minister set me on a road ten years ago, in respect of which, prior to that, I was relatively agnostic. While this is not an area in which I am particularly involved, I have opened my eyes to it. Last Sunday, the Taoiseach opened the new arts centre in Ballina, at which time he referred to this debate and the need for cost savings. While we are all agreed on the need for cost savings, this cannot be achieved in the absence of cost benefit analysis. As Deputy Cowen said, we are lucky that we have in place around the country an outstanding range of county arts committees and county arts officers such as Mr. Alan McCarthy in Mayo and Mr. Seán Walsh who, through a CE scheme and with community support, manages the Ballina arts centre, challenging those of us who live in the area to keep it going. That is what the arts is about. It is about challenge. If we undermine the independence of the arts community and of our cultural institutions which predate the foundation of this State we undermine their capacity to challenge at a time when more than ever we need to do so.

I compliment Deputy Troy on proposing this motion, which provides us with an opportunity to voice our opinions and concerns and make suggestions on this particularly important topic. This debate is long overdue. During the course of many debates in this House, be it on the economy or social issues, the arts and culture, which are so important to this country and to every county, are left behind.

I did not know when I stood beside the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, last weekend at Kilkenny Castle that we would be having this debate. I listened to what the Minister had to say when in Opposition and at some of the events which he attended, in particular those in Kilkenny. I do not question his passion or understanding of this area. At the centre of this is reform of the public service. As someone who has spoken about reform and who insists on it - I believe we need to reform most of our institutions in terms of costs and so on - I believe that we need to look at this area in the context of the value of the organisations and boards in place, what they have achieved and how best we can reorganise them. I have consulted with many people involved in those boards, be it in regard to arts, culture and so on. They understand the economics of all of this and the difficult space we are now in. They also understand the need to get greater value for money and for greater efficiencies in terms of the work they are doing. They are willing to contribute and to participate in that reform. The only question in this regard is how the Government achieves this while maintaining the independence of that group.

I witnessed the growth over many years of the Kilkenny arts festival and the growth in community interest in the arts and culture, through which people gained a greater understanding of the works of Tony O'Malley and Elizabeth Cope and so on. Their keen interest in the arts has helped them to understand their own heritage and tradition. Often people participate more fully following that type of experience. It would be damaging for us to interfere with or dismantle anything within that sector that is positive. We can talk about culture and art and the tourism associated with it and what that does for centres like Kilkenny and beyond - every county is now fully understanding in terms of the contribution that art and culture makes to their lives, tourism and the economy locally and nationally - but at the heart of this debate is how the Minister is going to proceed based on what he has heard on his journey around the country. I suggest that he should follow his heart and should not allow the Department, which can often engage in a little empire building, to take control of this valuable resource which it will later present as something quite different, which does not contribute in the way the various organisations currently do.

I have no doubt that if the Minister were to look to the memberships of the various boards he would find there are people who are willing to participate again at no cost to the State. This is where the Minister's energy should be directed in terms of seeking efficiencies, in co-operation with the organisations and communities which represent art and culture in this country. If the Minister does so and sticks with his own beliefs we would have something far more positive at the end of this process than what is currently planned by a Department that is looking at this in the context of quangos, which these organisations are not, and the savings that can be achieved. Perhaps there will be no savings.

In terms of reform, the Minister will need all the facts and figures. I would like to be convinced by what he is going to do. I am sure the Minister would like Members across the political divide to be convinced about what he is going to do.

The Minister would find the task of convincing us easier if it was on his terms rather than on the terms of the Department and what it is trying to achieve.

Tá áthas orm deis a bheith agam cúpla focal a rá maidir leis an rún atá roimh an Teach seo anocht agus a bhí roimh an Seanad níos luaithe inniu. I am delighted to be here this evening to respond on behalf of the Government on this matter. To begin, I want to reiterate what the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, said yesterday. It is a sign of vitality in our democratic system that the subject of debate in both Houses this evening is our national cultural institutions. It bodes well for a society when its parliamentarians are so engaged on issues of cultural heritage and artistic importance.

Our arts and culture define us as a nation. They set us apart. They, above all, are what reveal us to the rest of the world. Our excellence in these fields has been constant in a churning world of change. I listened intently to the debate yesterday and earlier today and I acknowledge the contributions from both sides of the House. Having said that, we cannot forget or overlook the fact it was the former Government which authored the strategy of amalgamations and mergers in our national cultural institutions. They left this matter unfinished and the national cultural institutions in a state of uncertainty. In an act of nothing less than pure politics it has presented this motion in its ongoing attempt to whitewash its history of neglecting these matters in the past. However, I agree with one thing said by Deputy Martin yesterday which has been echoed by other speakers, that our national cultural institutions are intrinsic to our history and we should seek to leverage them as much as possible.

Ours is a Government that has put culture at the heart of business and slowed the rate of decrease in funding available to the national cultural institutions. This is a Government that is not afraid to embrace a process of reform where such reform is necessary. I am afraid the Opposition parlayed many half-myths in its contributions to this debate. The notion there has not been consultation with the sector is simply derisory. The Department, the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, and the officials have engaged extensively with all of the national cultural institutions, their chairs and boards and the wider stakeholding community on the public service reform plan. I have great admiration for the officials at the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht who deal with culture, heritage and the language, the work in which they have engaged for many years, their commitment and goodwill and their realisation of how important a part of our country this is.

The Opposition has introduced a veritable quota of red herrings to the discussions. The arm's length principle is bandied about with a lack of understanding. This principle is enshrined in the Arts Act 2003. The arm's length principle is not at issue in the context of the public service reform agenda. In the same way, the Cultural Institutions Act 1997 and its supposed dismantling was introduced to this discussion by those who oppose for the sake of opposition. Again, we did not introduce this into the discussion. Many Deputies spoke about the impact of the arts and culture in our regions and throughout our country and this is very true. It is the arts and culture that animate our towns and cities each evening. They are an irreplaceable part of our community and will remain so through the lifetime of this Government and beyond.

Some Deputies raised the putting in place of an independent recruitment process for chief executives and directors of cultural institutions. There is one in place in the Public Appointments Commission, and it has been used by the Department and the cultural institutions in all recent recruitments including the directorships of the National Concert Hall, the Irish Museum of Modern Art, the National Gallery of Ireland and the Arts Council. This process will also be used in the upcoming open competition for the directorship of the National Museum. All of these appointments have been made during the term of this Government. The suggestion that we are seeking to dismantle independent recruitment simply does not stand up in light of this fact. Furthermore, the board appointments made by the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, and I since we came to office were all publicly advertised on the Department's website and expressions of interest were sought.

I was particularly taken by the contributions of Deputies Catherine Murphy and Maureen O'Sullivan on the work of the National Archives and I join them in congratulating the acting director and her staff on the wonderful job they are doing.

At a time of ongoing economic difficulty, we want to examine the governance of institutions and consider how boards or advisory groups might perform a more outwardly proactive and international role in terms of fund-raising and philanthropy. Where these institutions are virtually 100% funded by the taxpayer, the Government has a responsibility to subject them to periodic review. Some commentary in this House and outside has focused on the curatorial and programming independence of the institutions. There is no question of these being undermined. These institutions perform a very important role and manage on our behalf a priceless resource. The Government wants to ensure they can work in the most effective and efficient way possible for today, tomorrow, and the generations to come.

Some recent commentary has suggested we are planning to effectively dismantle the national cultural institutions. We are planning no such thing. However, the challenge we are faced with is how to ensure Ireland's national cultural institutions can optimise the funding they receive from the taxpayer and be equipped to deal with the range of issues which will arise in the future. One of the simplest ways in which we can help the institutions to work in a more effective, efficient and co-operative way is to encourage them to share common services.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this very timely debate. I was first elected in 2007 and I do not recall a previous Private Members' motion on the arts, heritage or culture and it is very opportune that we having this debate this evening. There is a large amount of cross-party common ground which is good to see.

I have no doubt about the Minister's commitment to the arts. Anybody who follows him in a cursory fashion as I do as he travels to his home constituency of Kerry will see the many occasions on which he stops in Limerick county and city. I am particularly taken with the fact that he does not attend the high-profile places. He attends the lesser-known institutions involved in the performing arts, museums and cultural centres. This is very welcome and it is very refreshing. It was very noteworthy that when he launched his book in Limerick he went to the Frank McCourt Museum in Limerick city. It raised the event's profile. I do not know whether the Minister raised Frank McCourt's profile or whether he raised the Minister's profile; perhaps it was a 50:50 arrangement.

Two great writers.

I attended it and it was a very nice event and the public reciprocated accordingly.

I acknowledge the very fine work of the arts officers throughout the country who work with local authorities through the county and city arts committees. Some of the work they do is largely unknown and it is opportune that we mention it in the Dáil. I will give an example of what is done by the arts officer and arts committee in Limerick. They work in the hospitals, particularly in the children's unit of the Mid-Western Regional Hospital. They go in and shine a light in the lives of young children who are severely sick and who are long-stay patients. They use the arts to bring a degree of relief and happiness to those sick and suffering pain. Very fine work is also done by the arts officers in the antenatal unit of the Mid-Western Regional Maternity Hospital.

It is noteworthy the County Limerick Youth Theatre receives huge support as does the County Limerick Youth Choir. We all speak about the promotion of sport, and it is a major part of our culture and heritage.

Those involved in the arts have a significant programme which they roll out right around my county of Limerick. They participate and get involved in 85 of the 115 primary schools across the city and county of Limerick. That is hugely beneficial to our younger people, many of whom do not engage in sport because it does not turn them on. It has to be recognised in this House that artistic and cultural activities offer a worthwhile and fulfilling pastime to such people.

The festival outreach programmes that our arts officers engage in up and down the country are hugely important. Now that we are in the summer season, fleadhanna cheoil and traditional music festivals are kicking off up and down the country. We often talk about the economic spin-off of such events, which are of significant importance to our small towns and villages. The support that festivals receive from arts officers is immense.

There has been some unwarranted criticism of the role of the arts in major infrastructural projects. I have heard people in this House ridicule some of the roadside art that was installed when the motorway programme was being rolled out and roadway schemes were being finished. That is very regrettable because we should all appreciate these important features of our road network. I will give an example in my own constituency. A fine piece of art on the Croom bypass, which is part of the main road from Limerick to Cork, depicts the mill wheel on the River Maigue and a leaping salmon, which are synonymous with the town of Croom in County Limerick. It is important to give people an appreciation of the culture and heritage of our towns that are being bypassed. The criticism of this very positive programme has been undue and unwarranted.

Many of our debates focus on funding, but the support given to the performing arts in our theatres has to continue. There are less well-known theatres in every county, such as the Friars' Gate theatre in Kilmallock and the Honey Fitz theatre in Lough Gur, both of which are in County Limerick. A former Church of Ireland church - St. John's church in Knockainey - has also been taken over for these purposes. All of these theatres are important. They have to receive State support where possible.

The connection between our museums and our heritage has not been mentioned to any great extent during this debate. There are hugely important medieval sites in County Limerick towns like Adare, Kilmallock and Askeaton. It is right that such sites are used by those involved in the performing arts to hold summer festivals or put on summer productions. The continuing support that is being rolled out by the Office of Public Works has to be mentioned. The OPW has done immense work to restore these sites and make them accessible to the public.

I would like to mention some of the museums in County Limerick. When one thinks about museums in the county, one tends to focus on better-known museums like the Foynes Flying Boat Museum. It is a huge testament to the community in Foynes that the museum has received millions of euro in State investment. The Hunt Museum is another example of a high-profile museum. I remind the House of the existence of less well-known museums like Limerick City Museum. It is also worth mentioning that one of the flagship artefacts on display in the National Museum in Dublin - the Ardagh Chalice - was found in County Limerick.

I would like to conclude by suggesting that the Government made a mistake when it separated tourism from arts, culture and heritage, all of which previously comprised a single Department. I accept that tourism is a much larger portfolio. The link with tourism is a vital part of the funding of arts, culture and heritage projects across the country. If I were to criticise the direction that is being taken, I would say that the links that were in place previously might need to be restored. I recognise the commitment of the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, to this area. We need more debates of this nature to allow us to recognise the fine work, much of which is offered on a voluntary basis, that is being done by people associated with the arts throughout the country.

I welcome the members of the arts community who are in the Gallery tonight. I am delighted to wrap up this debate. I thank every Deputy from all parties and none who contributed to it. Many Deputies spoke in favour of the motion. The speakers on the Government side who seemed to castigate us for introducing this motion agreed that our cultural institutions need to have autonomy and independence. I reiterate what my party leader said last night. Although the previous Government indicated that it intended to produce a Bill to provide for amalgamation, it never happened. The general scheme of the Bill had not been approved by the time Fianna Fáil left office. The previous Government did not agree any changes in this regard. I do not think we should apologise for the policy we are espousing tonight, having consulted the arts community. I am a Front Bench spokesman for my party, but I was not a member of the previous Government. I do not feel ashamed about introducing this motion, which supports the arts sector and the retention of the independence of our cultural institutions.

Fianna Fáil has a proud record with regard to the arts. We introduced the artists' exemption and the tax relief for the film industry. We invested in many venues throughout the country. We opened the arts to the wider community. If I was to speak about the policy changes that have been made by this Government since last year's general election, I would use most of the time available to me. The Government promised that not another red cent would be given to the banks. It said that student fees would not be increased. It promised to abolish upward-only rent reviews. On the specific motion before the House this evening, in its election manifesto Fine Gael committed to the arm's length principle, which has been upheld by successive Governments over 60 years. A great deal of legislation has been introduced over the years to enshrine in law the principle of the independence of our cultural institutions.

We have not changed that position.

That freedom is especially important in the arts. The competencies, expertise and networks at director and board levels within our cultural institutions are of critical importance. I agree with the Minister and some of his Government colleagues who mentioned last night that the arts have always been dealt with on the basis of consensus. That is why we are asking Members to support our motion. I acknowledge the commitment to the arts that has been shown by the Minister since he took office last year. He protected the arts budget last year by ensuring it was reduced by just 3%. I would be failing in my duty as an Opposition spokesperson if I did not use this platform to open a debate in this House on an issue that is being widely debated in the arts community. Last night, the Minister appeared to be taken aback about the fact that people have highlighted this issue through the media. I remind him that people are entitled to avail of their right to freedom of speech.

In November of last year - almost nine months ago - the Government published a public service reform plan that included proposals for certain cultural institutions to be merged. Since then, it has wasted an opportunity to engage meaningfully and purposefully with the interested parties and the general public. Many of the fine institutions in question, which belong to the people of the Republic, predate the founding of the State. I believe they will be around for a long time after we are gone. The secret discussion and consultation that has been initiated by the Government in recent months came about following political pressure and the high-profile resignation of Professor Diarmaid Ferriter from the board of the National Library. The Minister said last night that this approach needs to be taken for economic reasons, as a consequence of the economic mismanagement of recent years. I was disappointed this evening to hear Deputies comparing cuts in arts funding to reductions in other services. I suggest that is like comparing apples and oranges. These mergers will not generate any savings.

They are a box-ticking exercise so that the Minister can go back to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and say he has reduced the number of boards within his Department.

We reduced nothing.

These are not quangos; they are our cultural institutions and they are doing a fantastic job. Cultural tourism contributes €2 billion annually to our economy. There were more than 1 million visitors to the National Gallery last year. This is not about money, as both I and members of the arts community have stated repeatedly. They want to engage with the Minister and bring about real reforms that will generate greater efficiencies and cost savings while at the same time maintaining their independence. I reiterate what I stated last night - the National Gallery, IMMA, and the Crawford Gallery have all made submissions to the Minister's Department on how they can achieve greater efficiencies by utilising backroom services and shared resources. The Minister is on record as stating this was a good document.

We are talking about what effectively will be a Government decision. The Minister has the ideal opportunity. This is his Department, he is the Minister, the person elected by the people. I know he feels it is an honour to serve as Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. He, not any unelected bureaucrat or official, has the responsibility to drive policy in his Department. The buck stops with him and the Minister should not renege on that. It is his opportunity to pursue his policy. I do not doubt his commitment to the arts. In his election manifesto he stated he would maintain the arm's length principle in respect of our cultural institutions and he is now in a position to do so.

On this side of the House, that is all we and the people within the cultural institutions are seeking. They realise savings must be made and they cannot be exempt from any reviews. What they want, what is crucially important in the interests of our cultural institutions, is that each institution should retain its own autonomy and independence. They can only do so by retaining their own boards and directors and ensuring open competition for all future appointments of directorships of our cultural institutions.

Last night the Minister mentioned an advisory group. I became worried when I heard that. Will he propose an advisory committee of the one-size-fits-all kind, and that this one advisory committee will advise our all cultural institutions? That will not work because the board of each institution has a skill set, the scholarship and the expertise relevant to the institution of which it serves. That apart, the boards also play a pivotal role in securing sponsorship and fund-raising and at looking at ways to reduce their financial dependence on the State. This will all be lost if the Minister proceeds as planned.

(Interruptions).

The boards are not a financial drain on the Exchequer.

The Deputy is coming to the end of his time.

Another two minutes will do. Board members are honoured and privileged to serve and share their expertise towards the protection and enhancement of our cultural institutions. They are not on the boards for any financial remuneration. Do not tell me that Professor Diarmaid Ferriter was on the board of the National Library for financial remuneration or that Paul McGuinness, the manager of U2, one of the greatest and most successful bands in the world, was on the board of the Arts Council for financial remuneration. I use these people only as examples - like so many others they are on the boards to give of their expertise to a field they know best.

I listened to Deputies on the other side of the House last night who criticised us for introducing this motion, claiming we were simply playing politics as normal, offering opposition for the sake of it. I remind those Deputies they were very happy to have our support in the recent referendum on the fiscal treaty and that was widely acknowledged.

(Interruptions).

However, I will not renege on our responsibility to hold the Government to account. There has been no cost benefit analysis carried out, no meaningful consultation. There is no service plan in place to identify how any of the proposed mergers will actually enhance the service currently provided.

Given the party whip system, our motion will not be carried. I am pleased that so many Government Deputies spoke positively to this motion. I ask them to ensure that the arm's length principle that successive Governments implemented during the past 60 years, which was enhanced in 1997 by the then Minister for arts, our current President, Michael D. Higgins, with the Cultural Institutions Act, continues-----

The Deputy should not try to claim him.

-----and that our arts and cultural institutions remain outside the remit of politics to ensure our heritage and culture are protected for years and generations to come.

Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 83; Níl, 43.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Collins, Áine.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Creighton, Lucinda.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Anne.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Keaveney, Colm.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McFadden, Nicky.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Phelan, Ann.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Walsh, Brian.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Luke 'Ming'.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Dara Calleary and Seán Ó Fearghaíl.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 85; Níl, 43.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Collins, Áine.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Creighton, Lucinda.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Anne.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Keaveney, Colm.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lyons, John.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McFadden, Nicky.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O'Donnell, Kieran.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Phelan, Ann.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Walsh, Brian.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Luke 'Ming'.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Dara Calleary and Seán Ó Fearghaíl.
Question declared carried.

We must resume normal business and I ask Members to continue their conversations outside the Chamber.

Barr
Roinn