Tracey Emin, Thom Yorke and Ian McKellen - please come and join my artists' parliament

Mark Ravenhill Photo: Mark Gerson

Mark Ravenhill, The Guardian, Monday May 12, 2008

Poor old Arts Council England. Only a decade ago, it was a considered a lumbering beast, too big for its own good. And so it hacked away at its own limbs, keen to prove that it was, in the popular terminology of the 1990s, a "lean machine". Having taken the weight off, and kept it off, the organisation seemed distressed when the arts world (theatre folk in particular) attacked it so savagely at the end of last year over its proposed funding cuts.

The truth is that the leaner arts council had grown apart from the artists and organisations it funds, many of whom report little or no contact with their funders from year to year. But now there are signs of change. Newly appointed chief executive Alan Davey spoke recently of its new priorities, of the need to build stronger links with its clients and look for new forms of peer review - the involvement of artists themselves in decisions about funding and policy.

Well, Alan, I'd like to propose a new model for this involvement. I'm calling for an "artists' parliament", a public chamber where artists debate the future of culture.

I have to confess, it's not an entirely original notion. I've had a look at how arts councils work in various countries, and I've been inspired by Germany, where the arts are both highly prized and heavily subsidised. Founded more than 300 years ago by Frederick III of Brandenburg (later the first king in Prussia), the Berlin Academy of the Arts has 500 members, working artists and academics, who act as an arts council.

I'm not proposing anything like a direct copy of this German Academy, which has elements of democracy but still shows signs of its autocratic Prussian roots.However, I like the idea of artists debating publicly about the arts - wider cultural questions as well as specific funding decisions - and for these open debates to form a key part of arts council thinking.

Such a parliament could have about 120 members, each serving a term of no more than five years before coming up for re-election. One third of this team could be acknowledged leaders and ground-breakers in their fields, as selected by a panel (equally, the task of this panel might be to persuade reluctant and busy artists to accept their civic duty). Another third of the "parliamentarians" could consist of representatives from the unions and guilds that represent working artists, such as Equity and the Writers' Guild. The final third could be selected democratically: all candidates would need is proof that a significant part of their income came from work in the arts. They could put themselves up for election, possibly on a regional basis, as part of the ballot for local elections.

Members of the parliament could propose subjects for debate and call for votes, which could include - at worst - votes of no confidence in the arts council. There would be a place for committees, which could call and question experts; and there should be a sizeable public gallery, open to anyone who fancied seeing figures such as Lord Puttnam, Tracey Emin, Lesley Garrett, Ian McKellen and Thom Yorke having a heated debate about, say, the provision of opera across the country. Media coverage should be extensive.

There's no need for a new building. It would be far better if the parliament - which could convene for a week at a time, four times a year - met at a different location on each occasion. The prestige and sense of excitement about the debates should lead to festivals, local boroughs and councils bidding to host a session. Some of this could be dictated by the arts calendar: a session could be held in Edinburgh's Assembly Rooms during the international festival, another in Hay-on-Wye or Cheltenham during their festivals. A big top at Glastonbury would be ideal. Liverpool's city of culture status would make it a natural contender.

Of course, this all costs. Parliamentarians will have to be paid an honorarium, and be provided with travel and accommodation, plus admin support. But there should be some sources of income: some members will be funded by their unions, some by their local council. A sizeable proportion of costs could be met by a host city or festival, which could gain prestige and profile as this debating circus comes to town.

We can't eat into the money already assigned to the making of art, though. So, inevitably, some of the costs of an artists' parliament would have to come from central government. But I think it would be worth it - a lively way of involving practitioners in decision-making. It would also raise public awareness of ongoing cultural debates and help foster a sense of ownership and involvement in the arts. That would be worth every penny.