APPENDIX 44
Memorandum submitted by London Arts
ARTS RESTRUCTURING
1. London Arts has at all points attempted
to engage positively with the Arts Council of England (ACE)'s
proposals for restructuring the arts funding and development system
in England. In this spirit, in the autumn of 2001 it carried out
an extensive consultation exercise involving national, regional
and local organisations and organised a major conference on the
proposals at Tate Modern. In November 2001 it submitted a substantive
response to the document Working Together for the Arts. A
copy of this detailed response is attached, together with a related
paper prepared at the time (Shaping the Future—support for
London's arts and cultural activities) addressing issues which
should be covered in the design and development of the London
aspects of the new organisation.
2. Following receipt in December 2001 of
the first draft of a Transfer Proposal from ACE, the Board of
London Arts sent a letter to ACE seeking a number of points of
clarification and information so that it would be in a better
position to decide whether, at its January 2002 meeting, it should
take a decision in principle to transfer its staff and assets
to ACE on 31 March 2002. This letter was drawn up on the basis
of independent legal advice available to the Board. The principal
areas on which it sought additional information were in respect
of the simplification and savings which were expected from the
restructuring; the anticipated functions of the London Regional
Office of the new organisation and the financial parameters within
which the London Regional Office would be designed; and the role
which Board members of London Arts would be expected to play in
the period following the proposed transfer at 31 March 2002 and
the establishment of a London Regional Council of the new organisation.
It also expressed concern that the relationship with the Greater
London Authority, in terms of the appointment of the Chair and
members of the Regional Council, had not been given due consideration
and that there was insufficient time to work it out.
3. In advance of its January Board meeting,
London Arts received a copy of the revised Transfer Proposal from
ACE. This was accompanied by a letter from ACE's Chief Executive,
Peter Hewitt, which addressed the points raised by London Arts,
generally by reference to detailed sections of the Transfer Proposal.
Similar letters were sent to the other Regional Arts Boards. In
some instances, ACE indicated that it could not give full answers
at this stage to the questions which had been raised, but in such
instances, it explained why it considered that the information
supplied was the maximum possible at this point.
4. London Arts' Board met again on 22 January.
In advance of that meeting a number of its members had a meeting
with ACE's Chair, Gerry Robinson and with Peter Hewitt to explore
some issues referred to in the Transfer Proposal in greater depth.
5. At their meeting, Board members agreed
to the following resolution:
"That this RAB, on the basis of the Transfer
Proposal dated 15 January 2002, agrees in principle to transfer
all its staff, assets and liabilities and to this end will:
(i) inform its staff of its intention, as
required by TUPE:
(ii) prepare a full schedule of its staff,
assets and liabilities;
(iii) consult its staff and their representatives
as it believes appropriate recognising that there are no measures
by London Arts requiring TUPE consultation;
in the full expectation of meeting in March
to confirm its agreement to a transfer to be effected from 31
March 2002."
6. At the same time, the Board sought a
further series of assurances from ACE in advance of its March
meeting. The principal issues involved were in relation to pensions,
where the Board asked to be assured that satisfactory and appropriate
arrangements were made to protect the pension rights and benefits
of all London Arts employees; on governance matters, where the
Board remains concerned about how there will be continuity of
governance and support to the executive between 31 March and the
appointment (probably in late May or June) of the London Regional
Council of the new organisation; and on the structure and financial
envelope for the London Region Office, where it has itself, with
ACE's agreement, instituted some work which it will review in
March.
7. London Arts' Board will give careful
consideration in March to the responses it receives from ACE on
these and other questions before finally deciding, in the light
also of the further legal advice which will be available to it,
whether to assent to the proposed transfer. It continues to regret
the manner in which this process has been conducted and retains
doubts on the necessity for such a major upheaval in the arts
funding and development system, particularly when the stated benefits
from it remain uncertain. It also retains doubts that what could
be interpreted to be a move towards a more centralised structure
is an appropriate response to a climate in which a greater degree
of regionalisation is apparently to be encouraged. However, it
recognises that both ACE and the Government remain determined
to effect the restructuring and, in these circumstances, believes
that it would be unhelpful for its staff, its clients and the
arts community as a whole for the process to be further prolonged.
8. The Select Committee has asked for specific
comment on a number of ACE's statements. Brief comments on each
of these points follow:
(a) ACE continues to state that it believes
that savings in the order of £8-10 million per annum can
be made in administration costs as a direct result of the restructuring.
London Arts notes that, in the latest version of the Transfer
Proposal, ACE has said that "the savings target was set on
the understanding that it would be tested as staffing plans become
more concrete. That remains the case." It has also noted
the statement by the Minister for the Arts, Baroness Blackstone,
in the House of Lords on 21 January that "the Government
have asked the Arts Council to make sure that its commitment to
making savings is fulfilled. The great majority of those savings
will fall on the centre." London Arts endorses ACE's pledge
that savings should be ploughed directly into support for artists
and in particular into work supporting cultural diversity which
it has itself signalled as a key priority. However, it will wish
to be assured that, when additional clients and responsibilities
are delegated to the new London Region, that transfer is accompanied
by adequate resources so that there is no diminution in the quality
of the service the Region provides and the range of activities
it undertakes in support of the arts in London.
(b) Until work has been done on a detailed
staffing structure for the new organisation, it will not be possible
to judge whether the balance of duties for arts officers will
change to enable them to devote more time to funding issues at
the expense of administration tasks. London Arts agrees however
that this is a desirable goal.
(c) ACE has stated its intention that the
present plethora of arts funding schemes should be reduced to
a small number of banded programmes (eight in the latest version
of the Transfer Proposal). London Arts strongly supports efforts
to make the funding system more accessible and easy to navigate
for applicants. It is pleased to note that ACE has recognised
the need to reflect regional difference within this simplified
system.
(d) London Arts has noted that, in "The
Case for FutureOrg" now set out in the Transfer Proposal,
ACE has said that the new organisation "provides an accountability
structure within which higher level decision-making can be located
regionally than is the case now. Such further delegation would
not have been provided by the Arts Council to the RABs because
of insufficient accountability." It understands that this
comment reflects that fact that at present the National Audit
Office does not audit the accounts of the RABs, though there has
never, as far as it is aware, been any suggestion that the RABs
are anything other than fully accountable for the sums of public
money which they distribute.
(e) ACE has said that further delegation
to the regions is an essential part of the proposed restructuring
and that, within the new organisation, there will be a greater
degree of regional input to national decision-making. London Arts
welcomes these statements. It is clear that the success or otherwise
of the restructuring will crucially depend on the extent to which
these pledges are translated into action.
(f) London Arts has always greatly valued
the close relationship which it has enjoyed with local authorities
in London, in particular through the Association of London Government
and the Local Authority Forum. A number of representatives of
local government serve on its Board and make an excellent contribution
to its work. London Arts is pleased to see that, in the proposals
for the new organisation, it is recommended that six (out of 15)
places on the London Regional Council should be for local authorities.
The proposals are however less clear about the methods by which
the Greater London Authority should be involved in appointment
to the London Regional Council and how it should be represented
on the Council. London Arts is currently in urgent discussions
with ACE and the GLA about how this can be resolved.
1 February 2002
|
