|
THIS ITEM IS REPRODUCED FROM THE BRITISH THEATRE GUIDE WEB SITEE The decision of the Welsh Assembly Government to strip the Arts Council of Wales of its planning functions and leave it as a distributor of funds (but not all: certain organisations, including Terry Hands' Theatr Clwyd Cymru and Theatr Genedlaethol Cymru, the National Theatre of the Welsh language, will be funded directly by WAG) is little more than a political fudge. First Minister Rhodri Morgan's trumpeting of the so-called "bonfire of the quangos" - a typical politician's sound bite - meant that, to save face, something had to be done about ACW, but to absorb it totally into the civil service was impossible, for the civil service is not a charity and therefore cannot be a National Lottery distributor. Hence the fudge. When an organisation like an arts council distributes funds, because there is more demand than there is money, it must decide on who wins and who loses. The basis for that decision must be three-fold: is the quality of the applicant's work good enough, are its proposals feasible and does its development fit into the strategic planning for the whole sector? ACW will still be able to answer the first two exactly as in the past, but in answering the third it must now submit to the priorities laid down by the Culture Board, which will inevitably - since the Culture Minister is its chair - follow the Assembly line. In other words, although nominally at arm's length from the WAG, ACW has no option but to follow its line. It may be argued that, in fact, ACW will be free to give money to whatever organisation it wishes: in principle, of course, that is true, but in practice it is highly unlikely, not least because, if it funds areas which lie outside of the Culture Board's development plans, it could be accused of wasting public money. A statement from Rhodri Morgan is worth looking at in some detail: "You can justify the existence of arms-length bodies in government, but there is no such thing as arms-length public money. Ministers are always responsible for its allocation and the Assembly is always responsible for its scrutiny. There is no dodging that responsibility." This is chopping logic to an alarming degree. It is indeed the function of government, whether the WAG or Westminster, to allocate and scrutinise. He is right in that there is no escaping the first but there are ways of carrying out scrutiny which do not require the direct involvement of government in any part of the decision-making process. Since Jennie Lee set up the first Arts Council of Great Britain after the second world war, successive governments in Westminster have operated the arm's length principle and it is, I suggest, impossible for Mr Morgan or any other politician to argue that, given the financial constraints and in spite of the inevitable mistakes (for even governments make mistakes, Mr Morgan), that it has been an unsuccessful four decade period. The arts are far better off for the existence of ACGB and its successors than they would otherwsie have been. There will never be 100% agreement with decisions taken by an arts council. Indeed, arts councils can lose their way, as ACW did a year or so back, and make foolish decisions, but are we really supposed to believe that AMs or MPs will do better, particularly when guided by that most important imperative of any politician, the need to get re-elected? What is worrying is that a devolved government is making sure that it doesn't devolve any of its powers: am I alone in thinking that it is very odd that a government which owes its very existence to the devolution policies of Westminster should be so centrist within its own spher |
| British Theatre Guide web site: www.britishtheatreguide.info/articles/051204.htm |
| Peter Lathan e-mail: |
Sunday, December 5, 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