|
The full transcript is available at: http://www.wales.gov.uk/assemblydata/N0000000000000000000000000025956.pdf here is the introductory section: Eleanor Burnham: I propose that the National Assembly for Wales believes that the functions of the Arts Council of Wales should not be taken into the direct control of the Welsh Assembly Government. (NDM2167) I propose amendment 1 in the name of Kirsty Williams. Delete all and replace with: the National Assembly for Wales believes that the Welsh Assembly Government should not take the Arts Council of Wales under its direct control. On 14 July, the First Minister lit the so-called bonfire of the quangos, not with a match, but with a stick of dynamite, and ‘boom’, the fate of the Welsh Development Agency, the Wales Tourist Board and Education and Learning Wales was sealed. However, the rest of Wales’s quangos escaped the flames for the time being. The dynamite under the big three went off as soon as it was primed. In terms of the rest, Rhodri settled for a ticking time bomb with a detonation time that is unknown, except, perhaps, to Rhodri Morgan and the Cabinet, who are not telling. The announcement of a policy that did not appear in Labour’s election manifesto, but was held as the centrepiece of the second term, has been handled appallingly, leaving thousands of employees to spend the summer concerned about the future of their organisations and their jobs. In terms of the three quangos whose fate has been determined, there is an argument that Wales will be governed more efficiently, that a single body for economic development and tourism will be more efficient than three, that the overlaps between quangos and the Government will be removed and money better spent, and that the change will genuinely create a one-stop shop. However, there are also many unanswered questions, not least those regarding how democratic scrutiny will be improved. Although the Labour Assembly Government has not deemed it appropriate to consult with the people of Wales on the future of the quangos or to schedule an Assembly debate, this is not a debate on that issue; this is about the future of the Arts Council of Wales. There are issues relating to the way in which the arts council works that favour its retention, but, beyond the flaws in terms of efficiency and processes within the council, there is a central underpinning principle at stake. Should a body responsible for funding various art projects be under the daily and direct management of the Government,particularly if one party stays in Government for years? That crucial question sets the arts council apart and makes it the subject of our debate today. The Welsh Liberal Democrats are not in favour of keeping all the quangos; far from it. We have argued for reform and fully support the idea of democratic accountability. That is why we have long argued in favour of a parliament for Wales. However, the arts are not like other areas of public expenditure. At their best, the arts inspire us and enrich our lives. They enable us to express ourselves and our individuality. The arts challenge us, move us, and create a space for reflection in a world that seldom allows us time to be full of care, much less to stand and stare. This is an issue of freedom of expression—something on which we Liberal Democrats place high value and feel strongly moved to protect. Freedom of expression is central to an open and democratic society—it is what allows human beings to express their individuality. Peter Law: Will you give way? Eleanor Burnham: No, not at the moment. Freedom of expression is also about opinions, sometimes political opinions, and any attempts to control such opinions, through funding or other methods, should be an anathema to all democrats. The arts community exists to express what each of us feels deeply, or are capable of feeling, therefore there is little surprise that it has expressed its thoughts clearly on this issue, not least in the open letters sent by Eve Ropek on behalf of the visual arts galleries, Christopher Ryde on behalf of the Wales Association for the Performing Arts and its members, and Richard Hogger, director of Creu Cymru, which were published in the Western Mail on Friday. The thread that runs through them is that it is not the place of government to make decisions about individual arts projects. The Government’s function is to promote the arts and artists, and to sustain a society that appreciates those artists. Government can, and should, provide policy and strategic direction, as it does now, but it should not make daily decisions on arts funding, and there should not be full politicisation of the arts. We know that the value of art cannot be measured exclusively in terms of gross domestic product, which is a crude measure that looks at the dollar rather than the douleur, and the euro rather than euphoria. However, we must not forget that the arts can make a significant contribution to the economic prosperity of Wales, and we trust that the Government’s curiously delayed creative industries strategy will provide the tools for that to happen, but that is a debate for another day. While there is a strong case for keeping meddling Ministers out of the arts, there is an equally strong case for keeping the arts away from meddling Ministers. Keeping the arts council out of the Government is as much about protecting the Minister from the inevitable daily demands of deciding whether to fund particular projects as it is about protecting the arts from the Government. Politics may well be the art of the possible, but the Minister’s job would soon become impossible under the weight of the arts. The arts provide a prominent example of a field where there needs to be a separation between the determination of policy and the implementation of that policy. Do not take my word for it, listen to the arts council itself, which says that Governments often relish the success of the arts, but art often poses problems for them. Art involves risks, and it is not all about consumption by an audience, it is also about creation and expression by individuals. The previous chair of the arts council, Sybil Crouch, says that what is particularly worrying about the proposals to absorb the arts council and other cultural bodies into the civil service is that, to date, no reason has been given as to why this would be a good thing. Those are the views of the experts. The arts council’s submission, in response to the Government, makes a powerful case for its independence. Perhaps the most powerful is paragraph 23, which explains why the arts council meets two of the three exemption criteria in the Permanent Secretary’s letter of 2 August: it is a body that takes decisions that are better kept at arm’s length from the Government. Peter Law: Will you give way? Eleanor Burnham: Not at the moment, thank you, Peter. The arts council is also a body that undertakes or exercises functions that are clearly non-governmental in character. The First Minister’s announcement on 14 July admitted that there might be a case for keeping exceptional organisations at arm’s length, and that is exactly the kind of organisation that we are talking about. I do not mean that it is ‘exceptional’ in the sense of being outstandingly good—none of us in the Chamber will have forgotten that the arts council has been criticised in the recent past by Assembly Members of all parties, but we must keep in mind that this debate is about the principle, not the institution itself. You do not have to support how the arts council is run to support the principle of separation of arts and Government. We are not arguing for the current council to be preserved in formaldehyde, like a grotesque Damien Hirst piece; reform of the institution will be necessary to ensure that it remains responsive to the needs of Wales and its culture. Our arguments are not about maintaining the status quo or about particular institutions, but they are born from a desire to ensure that the arts have the best possible chance of success in the future. 4.40 p.m. With the opening of the Wales Millennium Centre next week, Wales will have a major arts venue and a glittering landmark building at the heart of the capital city. Seven funded organisations will be calling the centre their home. Alongside this development, good work is being carried out across Wales, for example, by Clwyd Theatr Cymru, Theatr Genedlaethol Cymru, Theatr Gwynedd and Diversions dance company, to name but a few. The immediate future of the arts in Wales seems to be bright, but a big, dark cloud appeared on the horizon when the First Minister lit the bonfire of the quangos. I urge fellow AMs to listen to my colleagues, to the artists who have spoken out, and to the arts council in its submission. The case for keeping the arts council at arm’s length is not just compelling, it is overwhelming. The Government makes decisions every day with which we do not agree, and it makes many more that we broadly support, but this decision is crucial to the future of Wales’s cultural life. It is a life that, here, more than in many other countries, defines a unique nation. This is why we urge all AMs to support the cause to keep the arts council at arm’s length. The arts are an exception to the debate on the quango state and, if we want arts in Wales to be exceptional, we must ensure that artists are free to express themselves. The First Minister: I propose amendment 2 in the name of Karen Sinclair. Delete all after ‘Arts Council of Wales’ and replace with: should be considered in the context of the forthcoming statement, which the First Minister has undertaken to make on the review of Assembly sponsored public bodies. |
| Wales Assembly Government web site: www.wales.gov.uk/assemblydata/N0000000000000000000000000025956.pdf |
| e-mail: |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 |
|
Other related news stories on the Theatre in Wales web site : |
Older news
stories have been carefully archived.
2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999