Professor John O'Hagan:

I thank Deputy Ó Fearghaíl for his searching questions. I am pleased he has welcomed value for money studies because it is vital that they are continued. In the public arena at the moment people are talking about small increases in the budget and where they will be allocated but there is a huge existing expenditure in the public sector that should be constantly under review, not just in the Arts Council. Value for money studies have been very useful.

In terms of the benefits of the arts, one must distinguish between personal benefits and benefits to the taxpayer. Someone might like going to the Abbey Theatre, or to a concert or they might like gardening or hill walking. There is a personal benefit to them from such activities. The issue here is what is the benefit to the taxpayer and society at large. That is what we have to pin down. People often confuse the issues. There is a wonderful opera festival in Wexford which should be funded because people enjoyed it so much, but people should pay for their personal enjoyment. The report tried to point out that there is a benefit for broader society that could be justifiably funded out of taxpayers’ money. What one needs to do is provide evidence for that. Two reports have been done. The Arts Council is just a small part of the arts sector. Personally, I think it is inappropriate that it is burdened with collecting data and evidence on the sector. It should be done by the Department, like it is done in Britain, because the Department has an overarching brief.

There is a need for a much bigger survey and survey data. As the Deputy correctly said, what is required is not just quantitative data, it is qualitative data and narrative. Others have heard this story, but I remember meeting Compton Mackenzie who is an impresario in the West End and I asked him about the subsidised theatre sector in London. I thought he would be totally against it but he said, on the contrary, the subsidised sector is where they test talent and plays. He said if there was not a subsidised sector in London there would be no West End, but that needs to be tracked. If some people are very successful on TV now, they start their training in the subsidised sector and evidence seems to be built up for that. The Deputy is quite right but the evidence must go much wider than quantitative data, it should be qualitative and narrative, telling a story like that. I thank members for their questions.