IT WILL be understandable if Michael D. Higgins is to be spotted at the RDS this week celebrating the arrival of U2's Zooropa tour in Ireland. The Minister for the Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht couldn't be more aware that as the 20th century winds to a close, U2 have firmly placed this country on all global cultural maps, in much the same way that Yeats, Joyce and O'Casey did roughly 50 years ago.

Equally importantly, he is aware that although critics may mock the oft-quoted cliché, the fact remains that U2 are Ireland's greatest national export since Guinness - perhaps even moreso than Yeats, Joyce, O'Casey and the entire Irish literary tradition. He also knows that the group's success offers proof positive that art does sell, underlining his belief that the arts in general is a realm that is rich in potential job opportunities.

This, he says, is a major priority for him in his ministerial role. Consequently, having already restructured the Irish Film Board, lifted the CAP from RTE and set in motion his plans for Teilifis Na Gaelige, Higgins is now in the process of devising similar schemes and strategies for the music industry, as well as the areas of heritage and the Gaeltacht.

For too long now, lip service has been paid by politicians to the potential which exists in these areas. Here - in the second part of a two-part interview - Michael D. Higgins discusses his ideas and strategies in detail, suggesting that the time may finally have come when dreams can be translated into reality.

• The first part of this interview appeared in the last issue of Hot Press.

What is your response to reports that you are building up an Arts 'mafia' in Galway?

I didn't build it up. What is true is that I was a very sympathetic public representative who proposed, let's say, the first grant to Druid. And I was chairman of the Galway/Mayo Regional Arts Committee for nine years - a committee that was hardly ever reported. Again, if you asked anyone attending the Galway Arts Festival had I ever asked them their political orientation they would tell you I didn't. But I do believe that what they're doing is immensely valuable and good and worthy of support. I have always supported the Galway Arts Festival and will continue to do so. And one of my proposals is that the great energy built around Macnas, and around the Arts Festival, which doesn't have any permanent framework, should have one. I've been trying to push for a theatre to be built, a place for music and so on. But this Arts 'mafia' thing is nonsense. If people go to the trouble of reading the basic act which established the Arts Council they will see that people are on that council to take decisions in the national interest, no more and no less.

Do you think the Arts Council has become too Dublin-based?

It goes through different phases. Let's be clear about this - it's not valuable to be indulging in a simple rural/urban or Dublin/the rest of Ireland divide. What's important is that, yes, a huge proportion of our population lives in Dublin and they have the right to arts facilities as part of a national strategy. And it is true also that there is regional underprovision. There are parts of the country where the arts are very fragile in terms of both provision and activity. There is a great case to be made for strengthening that regional dimension and I certainly intend to look at that.

Do you envisage an appropriate increase in the annual government grant for the Arts Council, which itself, is seriously underfunded?

Definitely. The funding level is well on the way past the PESP targets and has to be revised upwards. I'm confident I have the support, within government, to make the case for that.

Paul McGuinness has suggested that another way of raising funding for the arts, would be to tax major artists that perform here and redistribute the money in the appropriate areas.

Certainly the acts that Paul spoke to me about can afford to make a contribution along these lines. The idea of an international star arriving, taking the money and not dropping anything off is singularly unappealing. But what you have to consider, as part of this proposal, is those performers who are not in the major league - whether its say, violinists who play the Concert Hall to limited audiences or bands who play in the Rock Garden. I agree with the concept but don't want it to have a series of negative effects on artists you never intended it to damage.

Both Bob Dylan and Jerry Lee Lewis have recently set up homes in this country. Need they, and other artists fear they may lose their tax-free status in Ireland?

No. The more positive way of approaching this is to look at ways you can capture more revenue from the presence of such major artists here. That's why I support the development of high-level technical facilities in this country - such as recording studios - and an infrastructure that would support the recording industry in the broadest sense. If I, for example, make it tax-effective for people to make films here, then it would be logical to do the same for the music industry. It may seem very glamorous having superstars living here but it's of more benefit to the community at large if we have the facilities and technical competence which will attract people to come and record here, whether they live in this country or not. That would be my point of departure, rather than the idea of removing tax-free status from artists.

You have previously spoken of the idea of extending tax-free status from 'creative' artists to 'interpretative' artists, such as musicians. Is that really a workable idea?

I have two studies going on at the moment and one examines in detail the economic benefit of different kinds of artistic activity. When that's finished I will be in a better position to say whether this concept is possible, or worthwhile. If it helps the linkages between all those people who work in the arts, I'll certainly go a step further along these lines and see if we can indeed extend tax-free provision to interpretative artists.

But would you agree, in principle, with Paddy Moloney, who says that it is quite obscene that, say, old pipers who have contributed greatly to cultural life on a local level, are left to die in poverty because, as "interpretative" rather than "creative" artists, they are deemed ineligible for membership of organisations like Aosdana?

I would, definitely. But then there are many categories that are excluded from Aosdana, apart from musicians. Therefore I think it would be worthwhile for the members of the new Arts Council, as soon as they are elected, to look again at this whole area of artists that are represented in Aosdana and those who are not. You certainly have a fair representation of visual artists whereas, besides musicians, there is a great number of people who have made a considerable contribution to producing, directing in theatre, for example, and whose work is not granted official recognition at this level. Indeed, some of these people have given 20 or 30 years of their lives to the art of theatre and they definitely should be considered eligible for membership of Aosdana. We also must address the under-representation of women in Aosdana and, over the next five years, aim for gender-equality in this area.

In relation to ineligibility for Aosdana, isn't the core problem the question of how one defines artistic talent? Surely the old, hierarchical view that those who compose music, for example, are somehow more "creative" than those who "interpret" music, needs to be dismantled.

Yes. That definition is a core problem and I think the new Arts Council will take that specific issue on board, particularly as a result of the kind of talents of people like Ciaran Benson, whom I have appointed as chairperson of the Arts Council. Ciaran has a very up-front definition of creativity and I very much suspect that he, and the Arts Council, will redefine this concept along those lines.

Does it strike you as sensible, that when it comes to deciding who is, and isn't entitled to tax-free status as an artist, the revenue commissioners currently have the final say. Would you want that decision to be taken out of their control?

I think that they sometimes take decisions on rather narrow financial criteria. For example, I recently was quite upset that they were proposing to change their relationship to actors and actresses. What they were proposing, as explained to me by Equity, while it had the superficial morality of financial rectitude, in practice it didn't take cognisance of the way in which actors and actresses make their living. What was proposed was that theatre managers would function as employers, with responsibility for actors and actresses as conventional employees. This would be quite inoperable and totally discouraging, particularly to the management of small theatres and to touring groups. This proposal is currently under negotiation because Equity now is a section of SIPTU. And I have had discussions with senior people in SIPTU about this problem. So in all matters such as this there is great sense talking to the government department which is involved, which is mine. And I must say that this inter-reaction is hugely important. The decision on such issues is not just a financial one, or a tax decision, it is one that relates to the key question of what will be the effect of such decisions on artistic production.

So are you saying that, in future, you want the revenue commissioners to consult with you and your department on the question of who should and shouldn't be entitled to tax benefits as an artist?

Yes. And I think that is a very reasonable request.

It has taken nearly 100 years for film to be accepted as an art form in Ireland and forty years for the same status to be accorded to rock, partly because educational institutions are rooted in classical traditions, favouring "high" art rather than popular culture. Do you think, for example, that Neil Jordan's movies and U2's music should be integrated into studies at Universities like TCD and within the educational system in the broadest sense?

Definitely. What is absolutely urgent is that we accept that in a democracy, to be able to critique is a necessary tool for participation. That's why I fully support those kind of media studies that help people to translate their own environment in a way that empowers them and enables them to participate, whether it be in the art of film-making or rock. And that's why I would like to see U2's music, and Neil Jordan's films and other powerful forms of popular culture included in the curriculum at Trinity, and indeed at other Irish universities.

Do you agree that it is particularly important for working class people to see their own cultural choices, and environment reflected in education?

They are entitled to it. And this to me is an absolute imperative. It's no different than when the printing press was introduced and the powers-that-be thought it would be a nice thing if people learned to read yet let's confine them to the Bible. But they read Tom Paine's revolutionary pamphlets instead. And in the same way that the drive to literacy was driven by the democratic tendency, the drive towards democracy now requires that you bring the same arguments to bear on the new forms of technology to ensure that, as I say, this process empowers the broadest possible range of people, particularly those who have previously been marginalised within the educational system. So yes, these realities should be taken on board by those institutions that offer teacher training courses, and who need to bring this awareness into the classroom at the most basic level. For example, I certainly would like to see the language of rock videos to be studied in schools because I am worried that too many turn their audiences into passive recipients of a very questionable, and influential set of images, in terms of sexism and violence.

You also want film to be fully explored as both an indigenous art form and in terms of the country being used as a place of location for foreign filmmakers.

I do. What I have been doing in relation to film is drawing on lessons that have been learned elsewhere. The principal lesson I learned after I became Minister is that there is a pattern to the way other countries approach the film industry, which is that they usually went for post-production tax breaks. So it is very clear to me that if you are going to do something serious in terms of the film industry you must do a combination of a dedicated agency, which will bring the generic industry into being, and gear your tax incentives to the point of production rather than post-production. It would be absurd, for example - as once was suggested to me - to have a certificate of tax breaks after a film is made. The purpose of my giving a certificate under the existing arrangement in Section 35, is that it is used to negotiate investment money, which is an area of key importance. The changes I made in Section 35 raise the possibility that you can get up to a million and fifty thousand in immediately and benefit from it and, if you're involved in BES you can invest in film as an additional tax incentive thing. Plus, moving it away from corporations, you now can bring individuals in for £25,000 a year. The final part of my plan was co-production agreements. We currently have co-production agreements with Canada and I propose to sign one with Australia and have prepared one for France and Germany.

What is your response to those Irish filmmakers who have always argued that all the money should be pumped into building up simply making Irish films?

My overall aim is to establish Ireland as a film space, in the broadest sense. This involves drawing on all the skills and talents that are available in this country, and developing them. And I propose to give institutional support to this by spending money on training people in terms of lighting, sound, screenplay writing, all the skills that are involved in the film industry. One of the advantages of my ministry involving structural funds is that I have a significant figure in for film. And while I know that, for example, one part of the industry at the top can become cash-rich this isn't sufficient unless it meets what is coming from below. So, in this sense I will, finally, be developing in this country, a climate in which films can be made, Irish and otherwise.

These developments are in keeping with the recommendations of various reports on the film industry. Do you also plan to fund the Irish Film Board along the lines suggested by the report of the working group on Irish Film?

Yes. And another of the reports made it clear, in figures that are accepted by the Department of Finance, that every million spent in the film industry generates 50 jobs if you're talking about documentaries, 48 jobs if you're talking about features. Also, if, for example, Leila Doolan spends £1.5 million and is funding 10% of peoples' production, that will generate £15 million in terms of turnover. The jobs that will arise out of that include work for actors, carpenters, electricians, painters, taxi drivers, B&Bs and so on.

Could you put that in practical, verifiable figures in relation to say, the value of David Putnam's current movie being made in Skibbereen?

The value to the local economy in Skibbereen is £5.7 million. The value of John Sayle's film, to the community in Donegal, where he's making his film, is £3.6 million. So what all this is doing is creating jobs in a definite way and at a lower cost than industrial jobs. Plus, projects of this kind often bring jobs into areas where industrial jobs would not be possible. And as we speak there are five films in production and another three planned for September and October. What's generally accepted, internationally, is that if you get five or six major features being made every year for five years, you are then in the business for real. That's what matters. You can't win an Oscar every year. And that should not be our aim.

Apart from cultural goals and considerations, is job creation in the area of the arts your main aim?

Absolutely. And what I am eager to prove is that this whole area is not simply a matter of vague, abstract concepts. For far too long that reductive view of the cultural space has held us back from developing its full potential in terms of job creation. This is an area that is job-rich, and has the added benefit of being personally enriching. And I have similar strategies in terms of turning round the industrial potential of the Gaeltacht. I will be putting a lot more money into, for example, preparations for Teilifis na Gaelige.

Is it true you also have similar development plans in relation to the general area of heritage?

Very much so. My whole aim is to upskill people rather than to be seeking to make areas that have, for example, peripheral transport difficulties, go into competition with areas that have economic advantages. I'll also be spending a lot of money on a new area, the waterways. I have proposals in there to spend money on developing and cleaning canals and for providing cycle lanes and walking-through areas. You'll also see significant, job-rich activities taking place in the development of waterways, canals and rivers.

How would that specifically apply to the Shannon river, for example.

The Shannon is very important in this sense because you have to make sure that whatever you're doing is ecologically sound because there has been a dramatic increase in the use of the Shannon. It's necessary to have tanking-out facilities for vessels, for example. But most importantly of all, in line with my belief that the whole concept of cultural tourism needs to be redefined, I think it is essential that such areas be developed for use by our own people rather than just tourists who visit us for a short while. To my mind it currently is too expensive for our own people to go on the Shannon. The principle users of the Shannon, as a great water resource, are Germans and the peak months are July and August. I want to extend the use of the river, in that sense, to all year round and to all people.

Is this your reply to those people who claim the Government failed the people of the area in relation to the question of the Shannon stopover?

I was one of the people who made the regional argument very strongly, and still do, but the point is that you could never get a straight set of operating costs and income from Aer Lingus' activity at Shannon. We will be able to do so now. And what we need to do in the area is generate new business. For example, Scandinavian countries haven't had flights easily in here and that should be developed.

On the subject of Mullaghmore, there is the public perception that the final decision remaining with the Department of Public Works is a defeat for you.

They haven't the 'final' decision because any application will have to come back to Cabinet. And I never saw this as a matter of 'winning' or 'defeating'. And I don't think people see it that way. I think they realise that all these centres were started before I took over. I am responsible for future policy and future policy will see consultation and participation.

What is your current position in relation to Section 31?

One week after I was elected I said that I would not automatically renew it and that's still the position. I've spoken on this subject as far back as 1975 - I've seen posters saying 'we're still waiting' and they quote a petition I signed, from the NUJ, stating I was opposed to Section 31. In fact my position hasn't changed in terms of my discomfort at the way it operates. But what I am doing is reviewing it, in the wider context of Broadcasting legislation.

What's your response to people who suggest that you are merely fudging the issue?

I would say that those people have no understanding of the dynamics of political power. The Government is a partnership between Fianna Fáil and Labour. What's important, in that context, is that I bring enough people in the Cabinet with me to ensure that I deliver absolutely the best result possible in terms of reducing the level of State censorship to a minimum, while also sorting out the confusion that currently exists about the application, by RTE in particular, of Section 31. I could make an issue of principle of this now and put myself in a position where I would have no option but to resign and thereby ruin all the other initiatives which I can effect as Minister, just as they're getting started. Anyone who thinks that I should do that is taking a stupidly narrow, short-sighted and sectarian view. I can assure them that no-one is more committed to achieving a satisfactory resolution than I am on the question of censorship, and I will deliver the best possible result. But that will be done not by going at it like a bull in a china shop but by looking at the full complexity of the problem. I don't, for example, subscribe to the unlimited, libertarian concept that anybody has the right to say anything in the name of freedom of speech because you could have incitement to hatred, racism, justification of violence and so forth. There are questions here of how editorial responsibility is allocated, and whether or not it is appropriate to deal with this in the context of broadcasting legislation at all. Which is why I think a considered approach is the best one, and the one which is most likely to win the support of the Cabinet. And I will not be set off that path by anyone attempting to reduce it to a question of abolish this or abolish that. I am far more interested in getting it right and getting it right beyond the issue of annual renewal of the order.

Is it fair to say that you would be viewed as republican, broadly speaking?

I remember taking part in debates with people who say that 1916 was a waste of time and I don't accept that because this is to impose a set of motivations and rational requirements on people who participated in what they felt to be something very important, which led to the foundation of this State and led to the institutions of which I now am a part. My father was involved in the War of Independence, as were my uncles. And my uncles were on one side in the Civil War and my father was on the republican side. I'm very aware of all that being part of my family history. But, on the other hand I've always felt that a republic that was defined simply in terms of territorial integrity betrayed the social and inherent rights content of a republic. I see this as a betrayed republic. I equally draw on what my whole life has been dedicated to - the humanist agenda - which raises the question that the life is always more important than the territory. And, in visiting Northern Ireland, I see that what people have to live with is not simply two cultures and two divisions but different remembered versions of history that we'll have to accommodate, even if they are objectively contradicting each other. So that humanist agenda is what is important to me. And there was always a strain within republicanism that accepted that. It did not become the dominant strain and because it wasn't the dominant strain, after independence those that had concentrated initially on the territorial constitutional argument took over the field and the word 'republican' began to mean anything that one wanted it to mean, but I see it in it's finest, strongest sense of the citizens operating in terms of equality and freedom and outside of repression and in a socially just society.

If the human life is more important than the territory does that mean you can't support the IRA?

I do not support the IRA. And I do not accept that the IRA is in a direct line from the Independence struggle. You cannot, at this stage, with so many civilian casualties, so many people maimed and injured, so many scarred, say that this is the path towards the resolution of the problems on this island.

But couldn't one say the same thing about Loyalist paramilitaries?

Indeed. From the Unionist veto came an even more cruel set of paramilitary initiatives, which were not condemned by those who were, if you like, on the 'respectable' side of Unionism, sufficiently. And behind all of that, it is hard to believe that even Labour governments in Britain ever seriously addressed the issues that were involved, in a sustained way, which might deliver a solution.

And what do you say to Gerry Adams who, in Hot Press, accused you of weeping for people in the Third World, yet ignoring the suffering of people a couple of hundred miles from your doorstep?

That's nonsense. And it's cheap too and I'm disappointed that he used that analogy. When I think back to my interest in El Salvador and human rights etc. I similarly recall writing, in Hot Press, about the Kirkpatrick trial. That's because I see these issues as indivisible. I always have done so.

What about the Phoenix profile which suggested that 'Swanning about in a safari suit with a Sandinista leader in one hand and a press release is not, after all, as "subversive" as attacking imperialism in one's own country'?

Let me put it like this: I wish those who make these accusations were as committed as I am to the indivisibility of human rights. And, equally that they were not quite so capable of running for cover in relation to some of the most appalling and horrendous civilian deaths. I also think it is obscene when I read that people who are directly involved indulge in the hypocrisy of wanting to apologise retrospectively for having 'killed the wrong person'. What an abuse of language that is. What are their credentials for questioning my work?

The Northern/Southern Ireland question is, arguably, the single most important problem facing this country as we head for the 21st century. Do any other politicians ever suggest to you that being Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht is really a peripheral role in relation to Northern Ireland?

Most realise that I'm working in this area too - from a cultural perspective. For example, the relations between Northern Ireland Arts Council and the Dublin Arts Council are very good. There are a number of joint projects, particularly in the community arts area, where, for example, women from the north are coming down south and vice versa. And this, in particular is a vindication of my belief that the exclusion of the women's experience from politics has been part of our inability to come up with those lateral, sensitive strategies which can bind communities together. In community arts you see this everywhere. And the point is that arts, culture, the Gaeltacht and the Irish language are all there in the north as well and it would be my hope that Teilifís Na Gaeilge will be an all-island station. Likewise, if you look at other areas of culture and the arts you will see that the leading people - the poets, musicians, visual artists and so on - are already committed to a set of transcendent values that are beyond the immediate conflict. And these people are powerful agents of the new discourse that's necessary.

It has been suggested that a person like yourself could go 'mad' in office. If not madness, what is your ultimate aim for your term in office?

(Laughs) Well, if what I've done so far is 'madness' then I'm quite happy with that! But in saying things like that, people forget that I've had a background beyond my own relationship to the arts. For over 20 years I've been a political scientist, a sociologist and before that an economist, so these are things that are all of use to me as a Minister. What I want to put in place are a set of structures which will enable good things to happen in relation to creativity and jobs. My area is absolutely rich in its jobs potential, for example. It also is rich in terms of what we just spoke about, joining communities together, building a more generous vision of ourselves, a national image with more self confidence. But to do that, what I feel I must achieve is set in place structures that will be facilitated through an ever-evolving process long after my term in office.

Do you, finally, believe that the Michael D. Higgins of 25 years ago could meet you today, shake your hand, look you in the eyes and not have to turn away feeling a sense of betrayal?

I do. And what I realise, being 52, is that the more you want to do, the more you have to do it through respect for the complexity of things. But there are core values you hold onto. And to me, the fact of the matter is that someone like myself, who insists on recognising the complexity of things and refuses to deny his sensitivity and so on, is an invitation to similar people to become involved in the political process in any way they want. It is too easy to sit back and scoff at the kind of people politicians are, to let cynicism dislodge thought. But what's really important is that the realm of politics must not be abandoned. And I'm hoping that there will be people who think better than I, write better than I and are more passionate than I, who will come to represent a more sizeable proportion of politicians in the future. I am fully convinced that this is our best hope - for politics and culture. That is my greatest wish.