The decision by the Minister for the Arts, John O'Donoghue, to dismantle some of those elements of his predecessor's Arts Bill that have given rise to so much concern and heated opposition is the correct conclusion to an ill-thought out proposal that would have had a retrograde impact on the arts in this country.
The proposal to establish three standing committees to advise the council on the traditional arts, on art and innovation and on arts activity by local authorities provoked an outcry from across all sectors of the arts. In particular, the committee on traditional arts created the greatest dissent and protest, not least because this committee alone was to be granted funding powers. Such a development could, de facto, have led to the creation of an independent Arts Council for the traditional arts.
With the exception of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí´ Éireann, a consensus emerged among most of the traditional arts organisations that this would not best serve the sector. It is good news that their conviction is now the minister's.
Mr O'Donoghue's plan to instead appoint temporary committees from time to time will, of course, have to be tested within the framework of arts governance. The abandonment of any funding function for these committees removes the most objectionable aspect of the original proposal. How such ad-hoc committees work alongside the members of the full Arts Council requires care in the brief they are given. The membership of these committees - and indeed of the new Arts Council itself which is due to be announced this summer - affords the minister his own opportunity to show creativity.
What now is most regrettable is that the prolonged debate on the issue of the standing committees has distracted attention from another, more ominous signal in this Bill: the extent of the statutory recognition it accords to the increased role and policy-making powers of the minister. The implications of this aspect of the new bill require far greater scrutiny than has been allowed. The much-lauded tradition of an "arm's length" relationship between the minister and the council, a sacred principle since arts legislation was first introduced, is about to change to one that inherently carries the danger of political intervention. Assurances from the current holder of the office are no guarantee that sometime in the future autocratic directives might not be made as a result of this legislative change.
It has been made clear by the present and former ministers that the implications of this are that, in future, Arts Council's strategies will have to be in accordance with State policy. The rigid tone of the minister's declaration on this is not reassuring. He insists that it is incumbent on the minister to ensure implementation of policies but so far there has been no enunciation of what policy might be. After almost a year in office, the arts sector is entitled to some insight into the minister's thinking and aims, whether it is about funding or his own particular vision and valuation of the arts and their place in society.