Proposals for change, or reform, in any legislative area invariably give rise to opposing viewpoints. Elements of the new Arts Bill, now approaching committee stage in the Dáil, are clearly causing alarm among those who practise the arts but, as various contributions to a Dáil debate on the issues indicate, the concern is shared by some of our legislators.
There are, indeed, serious - even dangerous - flaws in this new Bill. It is to be hoped that the apprehension expressed in reaction to it will encourage the minister to re-examine and rectify these flaws before final legislation. It has been 30 years since the last overhaul of arts governance; it could be a further 30 years before the next changes.
The main contention the Bill has attracted centres around the establishment of three standing committees, to deal with the arts and local authorities, innovation in the arts, and the traditional arts. It is this final one that is creating the greatest level of anxiety and opposition; it is being viewed as particularly regressive. The proposal to invest it with funding powers - denied to the other groups - is, justifiably, a cause of major concern. Quite clearly the lobbying power of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann has been persuasive, but there are other traditional music organisations doing equally excellent work and these have good reason for their apprehension.
There are, of course, protagonists on both sides. While the case has been made, with some cause, that past funding for this sector from the Arts Council has been paltry and disproportionate in comparison to that for other cultural activities, this is no reason to now create a new set of imbalances and a new elite.
While this "committees" issue is, understandably, the focus of much of the debate, there are other aspects of this Bill that provide equal cause for concern. The diminution of the arms-length relationship between Government-of-the-day and the Arts Council is much in evidence here. As Deputy Jan O'Sullivan pointed out, the proposals have the potential to create " an autocratic system in which the minister makes policy, the Arts Council implements it and it then comes down the line". Political management of the arts is not a good thing; it offers the temptation to take partisan advantage.
Previous ministers have achieved much in the way of greater funding for the arts and this has led to a more vibrant and confident sector. It would be a shame if this achievement was now sullied by the creation of division and a retreat to narrow concepts.