Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Minutes of Evidence


Memorandum submitted by Equity

INTRODUCTION

1.  Equity is a trade union representing around 37,000 actors, singers, dancers, other performers and creative contributors working in the UK. The question of the nature and adequacy of public support for theatre in Britain is a core concern for our members. It is a crucial issue, not only for those individuals currently employed in theatre (whether subsidised or commercial sector), but also for many of our members working in television, film or radio, who will often work across all of these media.

  2.  In this submission we will respond to the key points outlined by the Committee in its terms of reference, but will focus on those that are particularly relevant to our experience. We should also stress that we retain a broad view of what constitutes subsidised theatre and note the importance of small scale theatre, touring productions, education and outreach projects, as well as building-based production companies.

  3.  We have responded primarily to issues relating to the administration of the arts and theatre in England, given the public support for theatre in the rest of the UK is managed through Arts Councils that are accountable (directly or indirectly) to the devolved administrations in the Nations.

BACKGROUND

  4.  The Committee will be well aware of the context against which it is carrying out this inquiry. The announcement by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) on 13 December 2004, that it would freeze the revenue grant for Arts Council England from 2005-06 to 2007-08, has been quite reasonably characterised as a real terms cut of over £30 million.[1]

  5.  Equity believes that this settlement is a breach of faith, which marks a return to the bad old days of hand-to-mouth funding. In particular, regional theatres will once again be faced with fewer and smaller plays, fewer new productions, shorter rehearsal times and possible closure.

PATTERN OF PUBLIC SUBSIDY

  6.  Until the recent announcement on future funding there was widespread recognition of the role that this Government had played in halting the decline of theatres through the use of increased public subsidy. In particular, the 2002 spending round ensured that the Arts Council England would see a guaranteed £75 million rise in its total grant-in-aid rising from £336.8 million in 2003-04 to £412.2 million by 2005-06.[2] This apparent commitment to the value of performing arts was warmly welcomed by Equity. It was an opportunity to end the stop-start funding of the past and build upon increases that had already been implemented since 1997.

  7.  The previous two decades had seen funding cuts and a standstill in investment, which had led to a crisis in theatre production. This was highlighted effectively by the Boyden Report in 2000, [3]which provided a robust analysis and an unshakable case for the need for substantial extra funding for English theatre.

  8.  The 2002 spending review appeared to indicate the Government's acceptance of this case and most significantly led to an extra £25 million a year of revenue support being allocated for producing theatres. As a result many regional theatres have been re-invigorated and have been able to work towards the establishment of a strong, diverse and stable sector. The resulting improvement in the range and quality of production has meant that audiences have seen a direct benefit in their experience of theatre, with more opportunities to reach out to new audiences.

  9.  The theatre community has also seen the benefits of this funding first hand—as more new and innovative projects have been staged, creating a greater breadth of productions, audience reach and size, company sizes and rehearsals times. The improved quality of productions has also been accompanied by better employment opportunities for theatre practicioners, including writers and performers, designers, directors, stage managers and technicians.

  10.  In order to capitalise on this success and enable these benefits to be nurtured and supported for future generations, the Government needed to act to consolidate these achievements. Instead the December announcement of a funding freeze until 2008 has constituted a return to stop-start funding. It is an unfortunate fact that this real terms cut represents a missed opportunity and that the momentum gained from the last spending round has not been maintained.

  11.  In respect of capital expenditure, Equity has welcomed the benefits that have stemmed from the National Lottery, which has enabled important refurbishment projects to take place. However, we would stress that Lottery funding should continue to be confined to this additional role (as was originally intended) and not become a substitute for adequate revenue support.

PERFORMANCE OF THE ARTS COUNCIL

  12.  Arts Council England (ACE) performs an essential function for the development of theatre and in disbursing funds. However, in the past few years Equity has supported the changes in structure at ACE, to create a simpler, more transparent funding system for artists and arts organisations, and make savings on administration, which could be invested in the arts. As a result we welcomed the merger of the Arts Council of England and the 10 regional arts boards in 2002.

  13.  Equity believes that the systems and processes of ACE must be as simple as possible in order to enable practitioners to access the funds available for production. Indeed, one of the key arguments in favour of the re-organisation of the Arts Council was a recognition that its system of applying for funds could be complicated, onerous and lack the clarity necessary to enable arts practitioners to access all the funds available to help stimulate new and innovative ideas. The more uniform funding systems with a stronger role for English regions have assisted in reducing some of the bureaucracy and duplication.

  14.  A single body has also been helpful in the development and implementation of the broader strategy and priorities for the future of theatre. Equity played a key role in highlighting the particular need for a national policy on theatre, through its own five year campaign and its Theatre Commission initiative that began in 1996.[4] As a result we have supported the range of priorities in the Art Council's own National Policy for Theatre in England (2000). This policy has since made a most welcome contribution in shaping and developing the strategic planning priorities of theatre.

  15.  However, it could be argued that the ACE theatre strategy and its implementation benefited from a degree of serendipity in timing. The strategy was developed in advance of a significant increase in Government funding announced in the 2002 spending round (above), thus making strategic priorities and targets far more achievable. There is no doubt that in the coming years, subsidised theatres will face much greater challenges in meeting the eight priorities for theatre in England outlined by ACE (ie better range and high quality; attract more people; develop new ways of working; education; address diversity and inclusion; develop future artists and creative managers; international reputation; regional distinctiveness).

  16.  While the functions of ACE are generally dealt with in a thorough and professional manner, its wider strategic approach to theatre may now be compromised. Unfortunately, this outcome is attributable in part to the timid approach of ACE in dealing with Government in the build up to this spending round. While Equity has been explicit in its lobbying of MPs and Peers and the Government in respect of the need for sustained investment in theatre, we believe that ACE has failed to fulfil its key function as an effective advocate for the performing arts on this occasion. Moreover, we have some considerable sympathy with the views expressed by leading industry figures that "being nice and well mannered just has not worked"[5] in dealings with Government.

SUPPORT FOR UK THEATRE

  17.  The focus of this submission relates primarily to England, but there are additional points in respect of the administration of arts funding across the UK that Equity feels obliged to raise, due to the interdependence of regional and touring theatre companies.

  18.  We have noted with concern the transfer of funding control of the Arts Council of Wales to Ministers of the Welsh Assembly. While we acknowledge that this is outside the remit of the Committee, Equity wishes to record its objection to the model, both in terms of the proposed structure and principle of direct control. This must not become a precedent for future reforms of arts funding in the rest of the UK.

  19.  A further concern has been the 10% cut in funding for the Arts Council of Northern Ireland announced by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in December 2004. This is especially disappointing given the ability of theatre and the performing arts to play a positive role in national culture and cohesion—by providing employment, attracting inward investment, encouraging tourism and uniting communities.

  20.  The performing arts in Scotland have also suffered from a shortfall in funding in the past few years, which is in danger of undermining local talent. The Scottish Arts Council failed to see any significant increase in funding from 2002 as in England. It is now administering some major funding for a small number of specific projects (eg £3.5 million for National Theatre of Scotland, £2.5 million Youth Music Initiative), but otherwise planned increases are of the order of 3%—a further real terms reduction given the current level of inflation.

SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT

  21.  The traditional role of subsidised repertory theatres has been essential in providing opportunities for actors, directors and stage managers to develop their skills. However, this has role has been reducing for a number of years. The subsequent lack of work experience at the beginning of professional theatre careers—coupled with post-drama school training that is practically non-existent—has further reduced the availability of training and development opportunities.

  22.  There is a huge training vacuum, partly because of the nature of the industry, which is characterised by short-term contracts and intermittent employment. However, the ACE assessment of its priorities for the development of artists (part of its baseline findings on national policy) has done little to provide useful policy information in this area, as it deals only with permanent staff.[6]

  23.  Equity believes that better facilities must be available for all performers, whether they are seeking training after leaving drama school while they search for their first real job, or they have been working for years and need to train between jobs.

  24.  The role of the Actors' Centres should be developed in order to meet some of the training shortfall. There are currently three such centres (in London, Manchester and Newcastle) that offer a range of services from acting classes and workshops, to computer training. Equity has played a central role in the establishment and ongoing funding of these centres with some assistance from the Union Learning Fund and further support from television companies and other corporate and private sponsors. These existing structures could still be improved and expanded to offer these services to a greater number of actors and other performers across the UK.

  25.  In addition, while financial constraints would make it difficult to oblige theatres to provide training, gradual efforts should be made to enable the larger building based theatres to provide in-house training and work opportunities.

  26.  It should also be noted that there have been some encouraging developments as part of the Government's broader learning and skills strategy. In particular, Equity has been working closely with relevant the Sector Skills Councils in the audio visual sector (Skillset) and the performing arts (Creative and Cultural Industries Sector Skills Council). However, these agencies are still involved in the process of mapping the skills gaps and training needs. As a result they are yet to tackle the more difficult task of delivering training to performers and other creative personnel when and where it is needed.

  27.  Equity has welcomed the investment in performing arts that has been made available through the Creative Partnerships initiative, which has attracted £70 million of investment from the Government (through DCMS and DfES) for 20 new Creative Partnership areas by 2006—in addition to the 16 already running. This type of educational project provides another type of development, enabling schools to work with theatre companies, dance studios, film companies and others. However, these partnerships will require properly funded arts bodies to act as an outlet for their artistic inspiration. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence that the level of investment in Creative Partnerships have had a positive impact upon development and participation in theatre production.

SIGNIFICANCE OF UK THEATRE

  28.  British theatre produces a number of economic, cultural and social benefits. It is admired throughout the world, as one of the country's great cultural assets. The quality, creativity and variety in live performance are a great cause of national pride and international prestige. Great theatre can have an enormous impact upon popular entertainment through the actors, directors and writers who get their training and central inspiration of their careers from working in the theatre.

  29.  While theatres are undoubtedly cultural centres it is important that they should not be regarded as elitist. Indeed, recent figures suggest that more people attend theatre "these days" (16 million)[7] than attended Premier League football matches in the whole of the 2003-04 season (13.3 million).[8]

  30.  The creative industries are also one of the largest growth sectors of the economy, contributing directly to tourism and leisure industries. A report from ACE in 2004 suggested that theatre is worth £2.6 billion to the economy every year, with theatre activity outside London responsible for £1.1 billion of that total. All this is achieved on relatively little investment. Regional theatres generate far more in economic activity than the size of their Arts Council grants would suggest. For example, the Derby Playhouse receives around £0.66 million in annual subsidy, but is worth £3.9 million to the economy.[9]

  31.  The additional £25 million a year in theatre funding has shown that by providing consistent significant investment, theatres are able to plan ahead and contribute even more to their local communities and the national economy. Properly funded and thriving regional theatres are able to play a full and active role in a number of ongoing Government initiatives as education, health, economic growth in the regions, tourism and Creative Partnerships. With secure, consistent funding, theatres can encourage innovative ideas and ensure that they reach every member of their local communities, including minorities and children. For theatre to be truly inclusive and supportive, funding needs to recognise that new, innovative and challenging work is not only found in central London.

SUBSIDISED AND COMMERCIAL SECTOR

  32.  The commercial sector appears to have fared comparatively well in the past few years. It has continued to attract large audiences with a number of large scale productions, with a number of lavish and sophisticated musicals appearing in the West End. In the last year alone these have included the hugely popular and successful Mary Poppins, The Producers and The Woman in White.

  33.  However, practitioners in commercial theatre are the first to admit that their viability is inextricably linked to the continued existence of a healthy subsidised sector. The commercial and publicly funded sectors have a symbiotic relationship: subsidised theatre provides commercial theatre with trained talent and a tried and tested product, and commercial theatre pays essential royalties which help to sustain the subsidised sector.

  34.  Sir Cameron Mackintosh, who rightly commands a reputation for re-inventing musicals, in which Britain now leads the world, has made this point. Indeed he stated specifically that "at any given time, most of the plays and several musicals in the commercial West End will have emerged from subsidised theatre. The international blockbuster musicals that attract millions of people (and therefore earn millions in tax revenue) have nearly all been created by directors and designers whose main professional experience has been in the subsidised theatre".[10]

  35.  Equity also notes that many of the most successful shows are those which come from taking risks. These kinds of risks are more often taken in subsidised theatre, where they would not be supported in a commercial environment given the uncertainty of investment. This is one of the reasons that a number of new West End successes began life in publicly funded theatre. For example, Jerry Springer—The Opera began at the small scale Battersea Arts Centre, transferred to the Royal National Theatre, then the commercial West End and is set to transfer to Broadway. Stones in his Pockets was another example which started at the subsidised Lyric Belfast, before transferring to the Tricycle Kilburn, then the commercial West End and then on to Broadway.

  36.  Conversely, the subsidised sector has also seen commercial theatre become an important source of additional revenue. For example, the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) derives £547,000 income from the licensing of rights for its work to the commercial sector. [11]

CONCLUSION

  37.  Equity welcomes this inquiry and hopes that the Committee will consider the points made—particularly in relation to the disappointing funding settlement; the shortcomings of ACE in acting as a successful advocate for theatre; the need for effective delivery of training; the cultural, economic and social role of theatre; and the symbiotic relationship between commercial and subsidised productions.

  38.  From this list of priorities and the terms of reference outlined by the Committee it is clear that there are a number of areas that require attention. We hope that the Committee will make recommendations on all these issues which will assist the future development of theatre at this potentially difficult time.

  39.  We would welcome the opportunity to speak to the Select Committee on this issue. As the representative organisation of actors, singers, dancers, stage managers, creative contributors and other performers working in the UK we believe we could provide a valuable perspective on the inquiry.

7 January 2005













1   Arts Council England-press release 13 December 2004. Back

2   Department of Culture, Media and Sport-press release 15 July 2002. Back

3   Peter Boyden Associates "The Next Stage: Towards a National Policy for Theatre in England" (2000). Back

4   The Theatre Commission-A report on subsidised theatre in the UK (November 1996). Back

5   The Guardian-14 December 2004. Back

6   Arts Council England-Research Report 33: Implementing the National Policy for Theatre in England (December 2003). Back

7   Arts Council England-Annual Report 2004. Back

8   www.soccer-stats.com Back

9   Arts Council England: Economic Impact Study of UK Theatre (2004). Back

10   Arts Council Annual Report 1996. Back

11   RSC Annual Report 2004.


 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 30 March 2005