Examination of Witnesses (Questions 374-379)
LICHFIELD GARRICK
THEATRE, DERBY
PLAYHOUSE, BELGRADE
THEATRE COMPANY
22 FEBRUARY 2005
Q374 Michael Fabricant: Stuart Rogers,
Chief Executive of Birmingham Rep said earlier on that the split
between council and Arts Council funding was pretty well typical.
When we visited the Garrick yesterday, that did not seem to be
the case, and I wonder if I could just ask to have put on the
record how the funding of Lichfield Garrick works with the Arts
Council, and then perhaps we can move along the table to the other
regional theatres.
Mr Ablitt: We have a local authority
commitment of something over £200,000 a year, and probably
nearer £250,000 this year, currently working to an Arts Council
grant of £30,000, which is RFO for the next year or so.
Q375 Michael Fabricant: You were here
when I was asking the Birmingham Rep about the Independent Theatre
Council's assessment which said that one of the weaknesses of
the Arts Council, in their view anyway, was that they tended to
provide funding to large organisations and by having limited resources
prevented smaller organisations or new kids on the block from
getting any funding at all, or very much funding. Would you agree
with that assessment?
Mr Ablitt: That is the position
we find ourselves in, quite clearly—the figures speak for
themselves. I was not involved in the communication.
Mr Everitt: At the point that
we came to the Arts Council for funding, the bank was dry.
Q376 Michael Fabricant: The distinction
that has been made by all the theatres in the earlier evidence
is that between a receiving theatre, like the London theatres
that receive touring production companies which come in, and those
that have their own production companies. I suppose it could be
argued that the Arts Council should concentrate its funding not
on the fabric of the building but more on the provision of new
touring companies or new in-house theatre companies. What is the
Lichfield Garrick's potential for providing that sort of new artistic
direction?
Mr Everitt: Our whole theory is
that if the whole culture is going to work, then we must be creating
work that reflects our local community, and the only way to really
produce work that reflects the local community is to produce it
yourself. Our ambition is to do a programme of work every year
that reflects our local community; so our ambition is to produce
a certain amount of work ourselves. That will be then backed up
with that touring programme.
Q377 Michael Fabricant: If you were producing
your own in-house production—and you mentioned yesterday
the Garrick run—would that tour go out to other theatres?
Mr Everitt: That is a possibility,
if it has success, but in the first instance it must be having
a conversation with its local community. That must be its first
impulse. If it then has success, there is a possibility of it
going elsewhere.
Q378 Michael Fabricant: Is that the experience
of the Derby Playhouse and the Belgrade Theatre?
Ms Hebded: I am not sure I understand
the question.
Q379 Michael Fabricant: What is your
experience of Arts Council funding; are you getting adequate funding;
did you find the Arts Council flexible enough if you did approach
them, in providing funding for various initiatives that you came
up with? Did you find the door closed? How responsive were they?
Ms Hebded: There is never enough
money, always; and everybody involved in the arts is always arguing
for more money for themselves. Part of the question we are wanting
to ask in the debate we are wanting to open—quite clearly
we do not have the answers, but how do we share that money? How
is that money to best support emerging companies, emerging artists,
emerging buildings and emerging art, whilst not losing the fabric
and the important companies and culture that already exist? This
is not a criticism of the people who currently work very hard
within the Arts Council organisation, but the system sometimes
does provide blockages and there is not a clear flow to enable
the new and up-and-coming to flourish.
| 
