Considering the trouble Minister Sile de Valera has had with the Arts Council recently, it was to be expected that her review of arts legislation might suggest a restructuring of the Council. But did anyone imagine that it might result in the end of the Arts Council as we know it?

Towards a New Framework for the Arts is only a discussion document, of course, and as such, is welcome. But it packs quite a powerful punch when it opens debate as to whether the "arm's length" approach, which devolves the making of policy to an independent Arts Council, rather than to a political Ministry, has had its day.

"There is broad acceptance in the arts community and among all key arts development agencies that the arm's length principle has been appropriate to the arts environment in Ireland. There have, however, been concerns expressed on issues such as accountability and transparency and these issues should be considered in the review of the arts legislation," the report states.

It adds that the Council of Europe has remarked that there are "dangers" attendant on the arm's length approach, "including the withdrawal of cultural decision-making from genuine public view or accountability and a potential neglect by Government of a sector which it does not directly control".

Why would a government department be more accountable and more open to public view than an Arts Council? Admittedly, the Minister goes before the electorate in democratic elections - but most of the full-time staff of the department does not, and is unknown to the electorate. Furthermore, the Arts Council is appointed by that democratically-elected Minister, and has a life-span of only five years. As to the suggestion that a government of the future might be moved to neglect the arts sector, because it did not "control" it, wouldn't it be better for the sector to be ignored by such a government, than controlled?

That's the crucial issue, really: control. If arts policy is dictated by government, it is dictated by politics. Looking back, it is obvious, as the report states, that the "arm's length" approach has been better for the arts than direct ministerial control would have been. How can anyone assume that this government, or unknown governments of the future, would be more enlightened in their governance of the arts sector than past ones would have been?

The model set out for discussion in the document is that there could be, potentially, an "Advisory Arts Council", which would "advise and assist" the Government, through the Department of the Arts, in formulating policy for the arts, and an "Executive Arts Board" which would disburse arts funding within the parameters of Government policy.

If that sounds frightening to you, please make your opinion known to the Minister. The discussion document is available from the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands in Mespil Road, Dublin, and from next week, will be published on the web at: www.heanet.ie/natlib. The Minister is looking for submissions from "interested parties" before October 20th, and a Bill will be published early next year.

Back to the Arts Council as we know it. As expected, the report suggests that it should be reduced from its present strength of 17 members and that members be appointed on a "rolling" basis, one after the other, rather than all at one time. Both of these suggestions seem to stand to reason. It also raises the question of a fee for the Council members, and that wouldn't be a bad idea - it's increasingly hard to get the best people's time for nothing.

There are other points of interest in the discussion document. It asks whether the role of the Cultural Relations Committee at the Department of Foreign Affairs should be expanded, or whether the development of international markets for Irish art be within the remit of another body.

If so, should that body be within the Arts Council or would that "carry the risk of diverting both its attention and some of its Exchequer funding from its core responsibility"? An Arts Council committee led by the artist Maud Cotter is already looking at the whole issue of the Irish arts in an international context. The timing is hardly coincidental and suggests the Arts Council thinks it could cope with its "core responsibility" having a few off-shoots.

The report throws open to discussion the role of local authorities in arts funding, and asks, for instance, whether they should have an obligation to fund the arts, and an expanded role in decision-making on the arts. It is progressive and pro-active in its questioning of the place of the arts in education, and goes as far as to ask whether this place could be underpinned by legislation.

It is depressing, however, in its discussion of arts in the Irish language and the so-called "traditional" arts. It asks whether "Irish language art" is an "artform in its own right", which presumably makes artists who work in Irish "Irish language artists". It asks whether there should be a pre-determined ratio between Arts Council spending on the arts in Irish and other spending, presumably whether there's anything worth funding in a particular year, or not. Cynics will enjoy imagining the separate, Irish-language Aosdana chamber suggested.

Similarly, the "traditional arts" - that's jigs and seannos, not painting and poetry, I suppose - are lumped together and the report asks whether they shouldn't have a "Traditional Arts Council", no doubt to discuss such questions as whether Donal Lunny's bouzouki is an "indigenous" instrument or not.

These ideas are limiting and backward. They are throwbacks to a Civil War division between the peasants and the landlords. They are political divisions. They make the case again for an "arm's length" management of the arts.

Peter Sirr reads poetry at the Irish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's annual Hiroshima Day commemoration this Sunday in Merrion Square at 1 p.m. A wreath will be laid at the cherry tree planted by CND in 1980: phone 087- 2476424 for information . . . The Lyric production of Marie Jones's Stones in his Pockets, which is set during the shoot of a Hollywood film in Ireland and features Sean Campion and Conleth Hill under Ian McIlhinney's direction, has become the most profitable show on London's West End. At the end of the month, it transfers from the New Ambassadors theatre to the larger Duke of York, and is set for a Broadway opening next March . . .