Síle de Valera, the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and theIslands, responds to recent criticisms of her in this newspaper

To be attacked once by The Irish Times is something of an honour. To be attacked twice promotes one to notoriety. To be attacked three or more times within one fortnight, in prominently displayed features with emotive headlines, looks like a campaign.

In the very recent past, I've been accused in the features pages of The Irish Times of being governed by inertia, of insisting that I be the one to open the National Gallery's Millennium Wing against the wishes of the gallery's chairperson, of failing to articulate my vision, of failing to prevent other people peddling my supposed views, and of failure to consult with key interests. All are untrue, some provably.

Let's start with inertia. Here are the facts. Since I became Minister:

• Eleven Bills have been enacted, including the first major piece of legislation on broadcasting in almost 12 years and the first Bill on wildlife in 25 years. (This compares with five Bills during the previous administration.);
• Funding to the arts, through the Arts Council, has almost doubled, from €26 million in 1997 to €47.7 million in 2002. This allowed the Council to complete its first arts plan a year ahead of schedule and complete its second arts plan (costing €127 million) in full;
• An Academy for the Performing Arts has been approved, with an initial capital allocation of €44 million, on my recommendation. It is now the responsibility of the Department of Education;
• A sum of €63 million, under a scheme called Access, was provided for arts and cultural centres around the country to improve access for all our citizens to adequate venues for the creation, expression and appreciation of arts and culture;
• A Music Board has been established to develop the Irish music industry;
• A major review of the Irish film industry has been completed and additional resources given to the Film Board so it can direct the resulting plan;
• A Council of National Cultural Institutions has been established;
• €127 million has been provided for heritage projects under the National Development Plan;
• A Heritage Fund has been established on a statutory basis so that our national collecting institutions can acquire artefacts of significant value for the people;
• A review of arts legislation, following widespread public consultation, was concluded last year, and the Parliamentary Draftsman's Office hopes to finalise a new Bill within weeks;
• National cultural institutions, under- financed for years, have been given additional resources to improve services and access by the public. Since 1997 there has been a 233 per cent increase (up from €8 million to €18.7 million) in the overall budget to the National Museum, National Gallery, National Library, National Archives, National Concert Hall, IMMA and the Chester Beatty Library.

Inertia? Hardly. Particularly when you consider that the above is just a shortlist, and that it is a shortlist which excludes an equivalent body of achievement on the heritage side of my brief.

What it amounts to is solid, evidenced progress based, in every case, on respectful listening and consultation with the experts who were directly involved. What it doesn't amount to, in my view, is an opportunity for personal PR, although, on the face of it, this list of developments and achievements would allow any public relations consultancy to stage several photo-opportunities per month. Those photo-opportunities haven't been staged, because I prioritise substance rather than publicity, and - perhaps unwisely - assume commentators will do likewise.

Each one of the developments I have mentioned has had profound implications. The increased funding for the cultural institutions is a classic example.

To take just one example, the National Library. When I came into office, the library was closed on Tuesdays and Wednesdays until 2 p.m. The manuscripts area closed for lunch every day and also closed early on a number of evenings each week. This is no longer the case. I have increased funding to the library by a factor of three, and the number of professional staff has been doubled. A phased capital programme, costing in the region of €70 million, has been initiated to improve facilities.

The accusation of inertia is an easy, empty one. It's a case of not letting the facts get in the way of a good sideswipe. One of those cases is understandable and even excusable. When Vincent Browne is interviewing major figures for his Saturday interview, it's fair for him to assume that what he's being told, on the record, is correct. Further, it's fair for a sub-editor, laying out the resultant feature, to put one of the assertions made to him in a heading, as happened when Browne interviewed the chair of the National Gallery. The heading read: "There were exchanges with Síle de Valera, who insisted she would be the one to open the Millennium Wing."

The facts are otherwise. The initiative came from the gallery. In August 2001, I received a letter from the chair of the gallery inviting me to open the Millennium Wing. This was on foot of a decision of the board of governors of the gallery taken at a meeting the previous June. I accepted that invitation.

After Browne's interview was published, the press officer of my department wrote to The Irish Times correcting the damaging inaccuracy. The correction was never published, despite three phone calls by the press officer to the 'Letters' page of this newspaper. (I should make it clear, inter alia, that Vincent Browne's questioning of the National Gallery chair was otherwise well-informed. It was this inaccuracy, carried in a sub-head across the top of a prominently laid-out page, which was offensive and should have been corrected.)

One of the problems in correcting some recent stories is that, in order to prove myself innocent of imputed actions, I would have to open controversies which at the time damaged particular organisations and which would, once again, complicate the professional lives of those running the organisations.

I believe it was the first editor of the Times of London who said that the business of newspapers is disclosure. Quite so. But the business of newspapers - particularly newspapers of such repute as The Irish Times - is not to misrepresent personal conviction and prejudice on the part of the writer as disclosure.

That is what happened in the first paragraph of a large story about the Abbey, in which the writer stated that "the Minister, Síle de Valera, did not consult the theatre before making the decision". Startling, this assertion, when what is in question is taxpayer's money for a new venue for the National Theatre. A minister, faced with such expenditure on an organisation of such historic significance as the Abbey, involving its future location in a changing capital city, who failed to consult with the theatre, would be negligent. I was not.

Of course I engaged in consultation, meeting with the chairman and members of the board on many occasions and ensuring that officials from my department had frequent contacts with the Abbey in relation to the redevelopment. The last meeting I had with the Chair and members of the Board was at the end of November 2001.

The same writer, in another recent piece, rhetorically asked why I had not articulated my vision for the Abbey. The reality - as a little research would have established - is rather different. For starters, I hold strong views on what has been called "the vision thing". I believe it to be inappropriate for a politician to tell artists what they should create.

The function of politics, in relation to the arts, is, in my view, more properly one of catalyst and enabler. Watching the Abbey in the past two decades as it has tried, and often failed, to move away from recycling past glory to a new identity, a new voice in Irish culture, I have been at pains neither to articulate nor impose an external viewpoint.

Even before I became Minister, I held the view that the building on Abbey Street should be rejuvenated. I have expressed this view both inside and outside Dáil Éireann. Had the board of the Abbey presented the people of Ireland and the Government with a strategic plan running counter to that stance, I would have listened to their proposals with respectful attention. However, the Abbey, in its own publication, A Theatre for the Millennium, opted enthusiastically to stay on the site occupied by the first and second Abbey buildings.

This was supported by an open letter from writers associated with the Abbey, which stated that:

"We believe that this [the Abbey Street site] is preferable to any other suggested development for the Abbey Theatre, for two reasons. One is historical: this is the site of the original foundation and continuity with that tradition is vitally important. Secondly, the present building . . . enjoys an exceptional location in the city centre and this should not be easily surrendered."

The choices, in the beginning, were to renovate the existing building, build a new theatre on the same site, or go to a new site. To fully understand all three options, I listened to many views and visited the inadequate backstage facilities of the present Abbey.

It is the job of Government to rigorously examine all proferred options in relation to such a pivotal national asset as the Abbey, and that's what I did.

The last accusation - that I "seem unable to articulate and implement" my own vision - says more about the writer and the newspaper than it says about me. In speech after speech, I have articulated a consistent vision for the arts in Ireland. A vision rooted in a determination to make the arts accessible, not elitist, to ensure the regions have adequate venues for the creation, expression and appreciation of arts and culture. It is a vision of the arts requiring risk and innovation while, at the same time, seeking to preserve the best of the past.

Above all, it is a vision of the arts which showcases artists and their work, rather than showcasing the Minister. However, eagerness to serve behind the scenes, rather than constantly seek personal publicity, should not be misinterpreted as inertia.