Lower House gets less say on arts subsidies. (If the minister gets her way)

Some people read Christmas stories over Christmas, others the interview supplements of newspapers, and a few do so with policy papers. So quite a lot of people have been reading the 'Request for advice' of our culture minister read. At least I have. Those who 'officially' cannot have done so are the members of the Council for Culture, because the whole package only arrived when everyone there was already sitting at home with the hangover from Christmas drinks. Reading it, they can already clearly see what the minister is after. That's quite a lot.

Just under a thousand pages of regional profiles have been handed in to Culture Minister Ingrid van Engelshoven. The application shows that neither the minister, nor anyone at the ministry, will have actually read them all. Nor is it necessary: the whole package has been passed on to the Council for Culture, which must read them. Or at least: suggest that the profiles have been read, when it comes up with an opinion in early April. For now, it is important to pay attention to what the minister actually wants for advice.

Eredivisie

The minister wants to get rid of chamber motions in which MPs, triggered by one or more lobbying BN-ers, manage to sneak a festival, museum or other cultural thing into the basic infrastructure. This is because that basic infrastructure, in its current form, is not suitable for that. It is now seen as a kind of premier league of culture, while formally it contains no institutions at all, only 'functions'. For instance, the 'national and international repertory theatre' function could be filled by the former Toneelgroep Amsterdam, now ITA, but also by a club like the National Theatre, or a yet-to-be-founded core of creators with nefarious plans. In her request for advice, the minister makes it clear she wants to return to those 'functions'.

For instance - almost at the end of the 17-page piece - there is the function of 'knowledge institute'. This is supposed to be something supra-sectoral to which all kinds of existing institutions can contribute. Whether there are any bricks involved in that, the application leaves open. Presumably, the minister is happiest with a digital online solution. So is Google. As far as the minister is concerned, the knowledge within the sectors should be solved entirely within the funds (Literature, Mondriaanfonds, Performing Arts, Film, Creative Industry), which are thus already assigned a larger role than they currently have.

In the visual arts sector, the presentation institutions will all go to the Mondriaan Fund, if the minister gets her way. No more fussing in the room whether the institutions are in Amsterdam< Rotterdam or Utrecht or in Groningen and Diepenheim. No more political interference in that. The fund can sort that out.

Heritage Act

In the heritage sector - monuments and (historical) art museums - the minister goes furthest. She actually wants to bring all heritage under the 'heritage act'. The application reads like this: 'How does the Council see a substantial shift of financial resources from basic infrastructure to the Heritage Act? What consequences does it see for the management and supervision of national museums? What opportunities for supervision does the Council see? I also ask the Council whether and under what conditions the funding of museums can take place exclusively through the Heritage Act.'

With the aggravation of the cultural funds' portfolio, a greater emphasis on regional steering and the disappearance of museums from the basic cultural infrastructure, the minister is effectively putting them out of action. So we end up with a system similar to the British one: a national cultural council that determines the distribution of cultural budgets without direct political influence.

Fair practice

Does that end the role of politics? Broadly speaking, yes, at least if that subtext of this request for advice is picked up by the Council for Culture. Politics then only really has something to say about one thing: the fair spending of money and the level of the budget. And that is what, as far as I am concerned, is still the minister's most important question: 'In the Council's view, what are the concerns if the fair practice code becomes a grant condition in funding from the state, province and municipality? Fair practice may lead to higher wage costs. I am curious about the Council's view on the relationship between higher wage costs, own income and production.'

With the minister, many others are curious about this too. If the fair practice code does indeed become a workable code, and does not get bogged down in the bureaucratic grit in which so many other codes have degenerated, then enshrining it in the subsidy conditions would inevitably lead to a steep decline in subsidised cultural provision. If the budget does not grow, and that is what it looks like now.

So far, however, there seems to be little support for such action, judging by the vagueness in which discussions on the labour market agenda are already degenerate are. Would the council advise the minister to drain that soggy polder? We will know in April.