Annex
THE ARTS COUNCIL'S TWO PROSPECTUSES
On 14 March 2001, the Chairs and Chief Executives
of the ten Regional Arts Boards were informed by the Chairman
and Chief Executive of the Arts Council of England (ACE) of their
plans to initiate a significant re-organisation of the arts funding
system. RABs were told that the proposals had political endorsement,
they were "non-negotiable", and would be pushed through
regardless of RAB views. A deadline of 30 April 2001 was set for
RABs to transfer their staff, assets and liabilities to ACE. The
Arts Council's proposals were published the following day in A
Prospectus for Change. At the heart of the Prospectus was
the proposal to amalgamate the existing Arts Council and the RABs
to create a single, new national arts funding and development
organisation.
The announcement was completely unexpected;
the absence of detail or analysis in the Prospectus of the real
causes of excessive bureaucracy in the funding system led to its
interpretation by many as a centralist and hostile take-over by
the Arts Council.
The way in which ACE launched its Prospectus
contravened the Cabinet Office paper on "Staff Transfers
in the Public Sector" and the Cabinet Office's published
code of practice on written consultation. However, RABs consulted
widely on the proposals and persuaded ACE to agree to an independent
evaluation of written responses; this was conducted by the market
research organisation, Marketlink (see below).
RAB Boards all agreed that there was inadequate
information in the Prospectus for them to agree to a transfer
of their staff and assets into the Arts Council. The original
deadline for transfer of 30 April 2001 was withdrawn.
The RABs shared the views of arts organisations,
artists and local authorities that any re-structuring should be
informed by a clearer analysis of the objectives and options for
achieving improvements than was presented in A Prospectus for
Change. The RABs completed their own analysis and options
appraisal and developed an alternative model which set out a clear
programme of change at regional and national level. Because of
its unwillingness to test other models, ACE abandoned its original
intention of developing its proposals jointly with the RABs and
instead appointed consultants to draw up a second Prospectus,
subsequently called Working together for the arts. The idea of
a single new organisation for arts funding and development remained
both central and non-negotiable in the Arts Council's thinking.
THE GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE TO
THE ARTS
COUNCIL'S
PROPOSALS
When, on 14 March 2001, Gerry Robinson met the
chairs and chief executives of the Regional Arts Boards, he told
them that his plans to create a single organisation for arts funding
"had the agreement of DCMS and Number Ten". The immediate
political support for the changes proved to be more qualified
than the chairman of the Arts Council had implied. In a letter—also
written on 14 March—Chris Smith wrote that his support for
the proposals was subject to his being satisfied that "the
devolution of power to the regions is real and not cosmetic";
that "real savings throughout the system are actually deliverable";
and that "the proposed regional advisory bodies are credible
and have clout".
A debate on the Prospectus proposals was held
in the House of Commons on 2 May. Some MPs ridiculed the proposals
and MPs from all main political parties expressed concern at the
nature of the proposals. The main arguments expressed were that
self-determination in the regions was important and that this
was best achieved by independent regional agencies, not a single
national organisation. In his reply to the debate, the then Minister
for the Arts, Alan Howarth, repeated the "tests" that
the government would apply to the proposals as articulated in
Chris Smith's letter of 14 March. In the House of Lords on 2 July,
Alan Howarth's successor, Tessa Blackstone, went further: she
said that the approval of the government was conditional on the
Arts Council delivering "the administrative savings that
would prove impossible to secure under the current structure and
that it will at the same time succeed in delivering increased
power and responsibility to the regions".
Working together for the arts was published
on 16 July with a statement from the new Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, who described the Arts
Council's plans as an "excellent blueprint". In a letter
to the Chairman of the Arts Council on the same day, Tessa Jowell
emphasised that "this is a new organisation with regions
at the heart—not just a re-invented Arts Council. The new
organisation must work differently, must work well, and must attract
and retain the best people".
THE RESULTS
OF CONSULTATION
Disclosure of the results of the consultation
on A Prospectus for Change was postponed until after the
publication of the second prospectus Working Together for the
Arts. On 18 July the results were posted on a poorly signposted
part of the Arts Council website. There were 1,120 written responses
to A Prospectus for Change. Ten times as many respondents
were "completely negative" about the proposals as were
"completely positive".
The consultation period on Working together
for the Arts ran from mid-July until mid-September. There
were 416 written responses. Among the possible reasons why the
response rate to the second prospectus was considerably lower
than that to the first prospectus were fatalism, cynicism and
demoralisation in relation to the change process; and the fact
that many artists and arts organisations felt that they had their
say on the central idea of "a single new organisation"
for arts funding—an idea which was at the heart of both
prospectuses—when they responded to A Prospectus for Change.
In addition to written responses, there were
two other forms of consultation. There have been about twenty
consultative meetings with artists, arts organisations and local
authorities—at least two held in each region—about
the two sets of proposals; these meetings were attended by members
of the ACE Executive Team. At most of the meetings the majority
of those present have either been openly hostile to, or seriously
sceptical about, the idea of a "single organisation".
After the publication of Working Together
for the Arts the independent market research company Marketlink
conducted 74 interviews on the telephone with a sample of artists
and representatives of arts organisations. In these, 61 per cent
of arts organisations and 64 per cent of individual artists were
either negative, cynical or waiting to be convinced (ie neither
favourable nor unfavourable) about the impact of the proposals.
Respondents highlighted the importance of achieving what is claimed
in the prospectus, particularly "fulfilling the objective
of delivering significant cost benefits and channelling administrative
savings to support the arts". But Working Together for
the Arts was a false prospectus because it is unlikely that
the promised £8-10 million savings per annum will be realised
within a single organisation.
In the House of Commons on 2 May, the then Minister
for the Arts said that the criticisms that had been expressed
of the Arts Council proposals "have come predominantly from
politicians and people working in the system. Relatively few criticisms
have come from artists or arts organisations, although, ultimately,
the crucial test will be how the system works for artists".
In the two rounds of consultation, 533 letters were received from
arts organisations. Of these 350 were completely or mostly negative
about the proposals and 124 mostly or completely positive—so
among arts organisations negative responses have outweighed positive
responses by nearly three to one. Among individuals (mainly individual
artists) across the two rounds of consultation, negative written
responses (354) outweighed positive responses (55) by more than
six to one. Alan Howarth's point has thus been answered. There
is no mandate from artists or arts organisations for the changes
that the Arts Council is seeking to impose.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On 5 December the Arts Council's Draft Transfer
Proposal was made available in the funding system. The Arts Council
intends to issue the Transfer Proposal in a more developed form
in January. Regional Arts Boards have been asked to arrange meetings
in the second half of January at which they will be asked to initiate
formal TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment))
consultation processes with the intention that Regional Arts Boards
will transfer their staff and assets to the Arts Council on 31
March 2002 eleven months later than originally planned. As charitable
trustees, the Board members of the ten RABs will have to judge
whether the creation of a single organisation is likely to result
in a structure that will provide a better service for artists,
arts organisations and the wider public than the present system,
and whether any improvements are likely to justify the costs of
realising them. On 21 December the Minister for the Arts wrote
to the Chairman of the Arts Council endorsing the direction in
which the Arts Council is heading in building a single system.
| 
