Although the Minister's consultative paper suggests that there need not be any disturbance of the arm's-length principle, it is not sufficiently reassuring on this issue. It also seems to hint at a distrust of the principle. It quotes a Council of Europe publication, Balancing Act: 21 Strategic Dilemmas in Cultural Policy, signalling the dangers for accountability in a system of arts allocations "at arm's length". However, the Council of Europe also warns that "cultural policy has historically been better at thinking administratively than about the underlying principles which should guide its work".
`THE 1951 model is out of date: let's change back to the 1949 model." Readers of "Towards a New Framework for the Arts", Sile de Valera's discussion document on the amendment of the legislation governing the arts, would be forgiven for concluding that this is the central thrust of her proposals.
In 1949, the Cultural Relations Committee (CRC) of the Department of Foreign Affairs was set up as an advisory body. Two years later, the Arts Act established a quite different body, the Arts Council, as an autonomous and politically independent organisation both in the way it functioned and in how it allocated funds voted to it by the Oireachtas. But now Minister de Valera believes that the council should again become "an advisory arts council" which could "advise and assist the Government, through [her] Department, in developing national arts policy and strategic planning for the arts".
Demoting the Arts Council to the position of an advisory body, like the CRC, is essentially the bureaucratic option. Anyone who has served on the CRC - I did so myself for a number of years - will testify to the reactionary nature of its structure, which deprives the members collectively of the ability to take initiatives and which promotes a lack of responsibility for the decisions taken. Although good work has been assisted by the CRC, the absence of a dynamic has been its fundamental weakness. The vacuum tends to be filled by civil servants. "In this scenario," the Minister's review document suggests,
"a second agency, an executive arts board, with appropriate administrative and management structures, might be established . . ." (my italics). Even if its professional staff is expert, such an executive, operating without the input of a broadly-based council, runs the risk of lacking credibility in the arts world. Full-time executives would make all grant allocation decisions without being challenged.
The chance is strong that this kind of decision-making might become reduced to whatever is administratively convenient. The arts sector's alienation from such a process - which is distinct from partisan disagreement with some decisions - would inevitably result in demands for a time-consuming and cumbersome appeals process, if challenges in the courts are to be avoided.
Such an agency might appear at first to be a more efficient body for dispensing public funds to the arts sector. It might reduce the inconvenience involved in developing and implementing arts plans. But the absence of a non-executive forum - an independent, accountable Arts Council - by which priorities are tested and alternatives scrutinised, would create a potentially destructive force. It would simply be the managerial option.
Undermining the principle of arts funding by an Arts Council which, though appointed by the Arts Minister, is independent from the Government - the "arm's-length" principle - would, in my view, be an unacceptable political option. I am most certainly not suggesting that financial corruption would result. Nor do I think all civil servants are philistines. My concern is that political "interference" in the arts can result in the stifling of creativity, the advancement of "favourites", and toadying to the establishment.
Allocation of public money in support and encouragement of arts activity is a complex affair, which relies on subjective judgments regarding quality and relative worth. The criteria are primarily cultural. Decisions on a broadly-based and well-informed consensus are not infallible, but they are the least imperfect method available. This approach has served us well and must not be weakened.
There is no doubt in my mind that lobbying and politically motivated pressure would result if there is any dilution of the arm's-length principle. I can not imagine that any arts minister would want this, but if the structures allow it, it will happen.
The system of arm's-length arts allocations is common throughout the English-speaking world, as well as in other places, such as Finland and Quebec. Some might argue that since the Arts Council is made up of people appointed by the Minister, the process is already politically compromised. But whatever its shortcomings, no Arts Council has ever been accused of political bias. It is true, however, that the appointments to membership of the council would be more transparent if they were scrutinised by an Oireachtas Committee.
Although the Minister's consultative paper suggests that there need not be any disturbance of the arm's-length principle, it is not sufficiently reassuring on this issue. It also seems to hint at a distrust of the principle. It quotes a Council of Europe publication, Balancing Act: 21 Strategic Dilemmas in Cultural Policy, signalling the dangers for accountability in a system of arts allocations "at arm's length". However, the Council of Europe also warns that "cultural policy has historically been better at thinking administratively than about the underlying principles which should guide its work". While administratively effective procedures are vital for the implementation of cultural policy, administrative efficiency should not be the principle objective of cultural reform.
Certainly, the relationship between the Minister, her department and the Arts Council requires the reiteration and reinforcement of four underlying principles, which, although not mutually exclusive, require co-ordination. These are: ministerial authority under the democratic process; institutional autonomy at arm's length from the Government; specific responsibility for implementing arts policy; and clear accountability in accordance with 21stcentury best practice.
In defining the role of her own department, the Minister should bear in mind the recommendations of the Council of Europe on the merits of "managing cultural facilities and support for cultural activities separately, so that the relatively straightforward provision of buildings is undertaken by one department and the more complex developmental role by another." This was the approach adopted by de Valera's predecessor, Michael D. Higgins.
Colm O Briain is a former General secretary of the Labour Party and the first full-time director of An Chomhairle Ealaion/The Arts Council from 1975 until 1983. He was policy adviser to the minister for arts, culture and the gaeltacht in the last government.
