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
| 
