There was meant to be a different article in this space. A writer working in the theatre sector was going to ask why the Gate's programming decisions had seemed so conservative this year, given the £600,000 of public funding the theatre had at its disposition. Now it emerges that the Gate hasn't received a penny of this money. For the past 11 months, it hasn't been funded by the Arts Council at all.

No hint of the situation has been evident in the theatre's publicity or in the Arts Council's official publications. The three of the Gate's programmes which I have to hand from this year, including the one for the most recent show, Dublin Carol, have a whole page in them declaring: "The Arts Council provides both operating and capital grants to the Gate Theatre in support of its annual programme of new productions from the Irish and world theatre repertoire. This has helped support the Gate in achieving its success and reputation in bringing Irish theatre to the world stage and bringing world classics to the Irish stage."

The Council's logo follows in large type. And the Arts Council's publication, Art Matters, describes the theatre as receiving £600,000 in the current year.

Although no-one set out deliberately to deceive the public, this is what has happened. Presumably, both sides decided to let an illusion of the status quo stand, as talks were (and are) ongoing. Both sides presumably hoped that they could soon find a way to synchronise their plans. However, the perpetuation of this illusion has had serious consequences for the public. Many theatre-goers book tickets and attend shows with a different frame of reference for appreciation depending on whether the theatre is State-subsidised, or if it is not.

For a start, the Arts Council logo should be an indication of quality. It says that the arts organisation in question has gone through a serious vetting procedure and has passed. It is a kind of artistic "Q" mark - though we all know you can't guarantee quality in the arts.

The Gate's flyers for its forthcoming show, Oliver Twist, which runs right through January, carry this message: "The Gate Theatre is a not-for-profit organisation which is administered by the Edwards/ Mac Liammoir Trust and funded by the Arts Council". There follows the Arts Council logo. If the current situation continues, by the time the curtain goes down on Oliver Twist, the theatre will have been without Council funding for over a year.

The fact that it has seemed to be Arts Council-funded without being so has been as unhelpful as it has been helpful to the Gate, however. Audiences may make demands of a heavily State-subsidised venue that they would never make of a commercial one. Many were asking the question why the Gate's programming seemed so conservative this year. The restaging of the Gate's 1988 triumph, Oscar Wilde's Salome, which still credited Steven Berkoff as director even though Alan Stanford was bringing it to the stage 12 years later, seemed an extraordinary attempt to rely on past successes.

The staging by the Gate of yet another Dickens adaptation for Christmas - Oliver Twist - again directed by Alan Stanford, who had last year directed A Christmas Carol, also seemed like an unforgivably safe bet.

There was nothing on this year's programme which dramatically counter-balanced this conservatism. Bringing name director Jonathan Miller in to direct Shakespeare's As You Like It seemed like just that - bringing in a name. For a city still living with the memory of Declan Donnellan's magnificent all-male As You Like It at the 1991 Dublin Theatre Festival, it revealed no new delights in the play.

Contracting Alan Stanford to direct Shaw's Arms and the Man during the summer was far from revolutionary. Bringing Conor McPherson's Dublin Carol to the city of its inspiration in a new production for the Dublin Theatre Festival was a welcome move, but was fairly risk-free for the theatre in which McPherson's The Weir had run and run to packed houses.

There's nothing wrong with making good commercial sense, of course - it's just that the programming of Dublin Carol did not do much to counteract the impression of conservatism which has shrouded the theatre. Conservatism is perfectly understandable, indeed necessary, in the programming of a commercial venue, but not for one which, we thought, was State-funded to the tune of £600,000 a year.

And hackles were not lowered by the fact that the theatre's development programme, which was launched with fanfare at the 1999 Dublin Theatre Festival, seems to have stalled completely. The development director left her job in September and has not yet been replaced.

There seems to have been no movement at all this year on the "New Writing" programme either. No new plays have been performed, or even read in public. As for the "TCD/Gate Directing Programme", there haven't been any masterclasses in TCD since May.

It is time for the Arts Council to come out officially about its difficulties with the Gate - was this not going to be a new era of "transparency"? And as for the Gate, if it is a successful, entirely commercial theatre, it is time that it came out as one.

commentbox@irish-times.ie