Written evidence submitted by the West
Yorkshire Playhouse (arts 06)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— The UK Cultural Sector is one of, if
not the most, valuable and successful globally and a significant
driver of the national and regional economies.
— This success is due to the diversity
of the sector, its mixed funding model and the efficiency of arms
length funding bodies.
— Significant cuts in state funding cannot
be made up from private sources.
— Significant cuts in state funding will
have serious consequences for arts organisations and therefore
UK economy and society.
— Recommendation is for the Government
to have a rigorous, evidence based approach to cultural policy
and the current mixed model of funding with arms length funding
bodies to be left intact.
— First person testimony.
1. ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL IMPACT
OF UK CULTURAL
SECTOR
There is a tendency to view the Cultural Sector
and its sub-set, the Arts, as an essentially frivolous and luxurious
past-time which is "nice to have" but has little importance
to the economy or health of society. The facts suggest otherwise.
In the UK the Cultural Sector has enjoyed significant growth (6.6%
1999-2003), attracts highly skilled and innovative workforce,
enables more cohesive, creative communities and is a significant
segment of the economy. The UK heads the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development's (OECD) league table for the Cultural
Industries with between 3-6% of Gross Value Added to the economy.
Even just looking at the figures for "the Arts" (music,
visual and performing arts), the UK heads the league with 0.5%
GVA as opposed to the US 0.3% or France 0.2%. In the UK this puts
the Cultural Sector ahead of manufacture of food, real estate
and computing in its overall contribution to the economy. In 2003
the figure for exports from the Cultural Sector (excluding software)
was £7,700 million. The UK also leads the OECD league table
in terms of level of attendance or involvement in cultural activities
and time spent on average participating or engaging with a cultural
activity. The importance of the Cultural Sector is demonstrated
in its use as part of regional regeneration schemes. Culture 10
in Newcastle Gateshead (2000-07) supported 50 world and UK premieres
and the opening of nine new cultural institutions along with a
programme of community engagement. Through Culture 10 tourism
has become a key component of the region's economy accounting
for about 10% of jobs and reversing a "brain drain"
of skilled workers from the region. This programme was supported
by a mix of state (Arts Council), regional, European and private
funding. This effect is not confined to the larger urban areas.
The net economic impact of just six local festivals and events
in the local authority area of Kirklees (West Yorkshire) is assessed
at £1.9 million.
2. BENEFITS OF
MIXED FUNDING
ECONOMY AND
ARMS-LENGTH
FUNDING
In the UK on average public (including state,
local, Lottery) funding makes up 50% of cultural organisations
funding, with earned income at around 30% and private the remaining
15-20%. At West Yorkshire Playhouse 40% of our income (£2.5
million) comes from state funding, and the remaining 60% from
earned and private income. This contrasts with around 70% state
funding in France, up to 90% for major arts organisations in Germany
and a tiny proportion of state funding in the US. The UK is more
successful, as measured both in engagement with culture and in
economic impact, than the largely state funded model (France,
Germany) AND the largely private funded model (the US). In levels
of per capita state funding the UK does come out just ahead of
France and Germany and a long way ahead of the US: about £12
per person per year as opposed to £11.50 in Germany, £9.50
in France and 34p in US. However, when regional funds are added
in (7 million Euros in Germany) state funding in the UK is considerably
less for a greater impact. An equivalent sized theatre in Graz,
Austria, has a turnover of 22 million Euros (of which 80% is state
subsidy). West Yorkshire Playhouse has a turnover of £6 million
pounds. The theatres produce roughly the same number of productions
per year, with the Austrian theatre producing far less community
and education projects. In the UK where costs and efficiency of
the Regularly Funded Organisations are rigorously examined by
the Arts Councils, Local Authorities, Boards and Charity Commission,
arts and cultural organisations are more efficient with a greater
proportion of turnover going into making art than bureaucracy.
3. THE ROLE
OF PHILANTHROPY
The total figure for private investment, including
business sponsorship, individual giving and trusts and foundations,
for the UK in 2008-09 was £653.5 million. But the amount
given varies wildly between art form and region. Of that total
figure £527.2 million was in London, Scotland and the South
East leaving just £126.9 million for the rest of the country.
Across art forms, £347.5 million going to the sector covered
by the Arts Councils with Heritage and Museums making up the rest.
The Arts Councils' total budgets are roughly £734.79 million.
This means that a 25% cut across their budget (£183.70 million)
would require a 53% increase in private investment to make up
the shortfall. To translate this into how it would affect West
Yorkshire Playhouse and theatre in Yorkshire:
— The total Arts Council Yorkshire funding
for Regularly Funded Organisations in Theatre is £7.32 million;
— A 25% cut would be £1.8 million;
— The total private investment in Theatre
in Yorkshire is £1.3 million;
— So private investment would have to go
up by 138% to make up the short fall.
Quite simply, it isn't going to happen. An ambitious
but reasonable expectation is that private investment may be able
to grow by around 10% annually. A cut in the order of 25% in the
Arts Council budget will shrink the sector, probably damaging
its ability to raise funds from the private sector. Philanthropy
can only in this context be seen as additional to, not a replacement
for, state funding.
4. THE IMPACT
OF REDUCED
FUNDING
This paragraph will deal specifically with theatre,
and this theatre in particular, as the potential impact can be
very different across different art forms. The performing arts,
including theatre, are a particularly labour intensive art form.
On a typical production here around 75% of direct costs go on
people and only 25% on materials. This makes it hard to reduce
costs. The obvious reduction is in number of actors and the average
size of casts has been driven relentless down for decades from
about 10-15 in the 70s/80s to somewhere around 4-6 now. Theatres
are not overstaffed, in many cases relying on much volunteer and
intern labour to make up for lack of paid staff. Cutting material
costs may not help overall, as the set, costumes and props are
part of the package people buy so it would be difficult to charge
the same ticket price for a show with no physical production at
all. So costs may go down but then so would income. While digital
innovations can and will improve the performing arts through reaching
and interacting with a greater range of audience and diversifying
the artists and means by which art is made, they cannot ever significantly
alter the production model. At the heart of the performing arts
is the inalienable experience of one group of people performing
and another watching. As it is not possible to "salami slice"
cuts of 10-25% out of individual production budgets, cuts would
mean losing 10-25% of productions. If this happens across the
whole sector the inevitable consequence is that theatres will
close, some temporarily, some permanently. Closed theatres means
the audience will diminish, leading to a vicious cycle of decreasing
income and production. This will have far reaching effects. Outside
of London there is no such thing as a wholly commercial cultural
sector. Commercial companies such as design and marketing firms
depend upon the subsidised sector for a large part of their business.
Even inside London the commercial sector depends on people, innovation
and product from the subsidised sector. A severely reduced subsidised
sector will severely reduce the economic and social impact of
the whole Cultural Sector.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
The funding model for UK Arts and Heritage works
very well. It produces some of the best art and cultural attractions
in the world, is attended by a large, diverse and growing audience,
and contributes to local and national economies, for a very small
administrative cost. The Cultural Sector enriches communities;
in tangible ways through employment, training, creation and retention
of skilled workers, and tourism; and intangible through great
community identity, cohesion, education and experiences that cannot
be had anywhere else. While it is acknowledged that the Cultural
Sector will not be exempt from funding cuts, it is strongly recommended
that the cuts are not taken as an opportunity to dismantle the
system of funding. The funding model we have is world class. To
put it bluntly: it isn't broken; please don't try to fix it.
6. TESTIMONY
The above figures attempt to give a snapshot
of the economic value of the Cultural Sector and the effectiveness
of the current funding model. It cannot capture the true value
of the Arts for communities and individuals; it cannot measure
the joy of a young person helped to feel part of creating something
for the first time, or an older person treasuring a memory or
the pleasure of escaping into something beautiful. The following
first person testimony, taken from a response to a blog on arts
funding and the subsequent discussion, tries to give a sense of
this intrinsic value.
Reading through this (substantial) discussion
there seems to be an occasional misapprehension made by some of
you.
The arts are not just for the middle-classes.
My friends and I are from working class families,
most of us came from the same "rough" ( we thought it
was alright) estate, lived in council houses and went to an average
state school.
Now I am talking just about theatre here (and
indeed it seems that all the arts have been thrown into the same
bag…which is perhaps not helpful)
Our drama teacher took us to see a piece of new
writing—a play that seemed to be talking about our lives,
our situation. Relating with the characters on stage was a thrill,
more so because we were sharing the experience with the rest of
the theatre audience. That actor/audience relationship simply
cannot be reproduced in any other art form (Certainly not film,
tv etc . and definitely not the internet, as some here have suggested,
which is a very lonely medium)
Because of that play we decided to create our
own similar work, at GCSE. It was a piece that allowed us all
a chance to express ourselves in a way we could never have before.
This was not outreach or educational work…
It was just a play. A play we paid to go watch and it was worth
every penny.
Importantly it was a play that might not have
been produced if it relied on private funding. The fact is that
businessmen are not (usually) artists, they may enjoy art but
it is not there job to create it, to consider and develop it.
As such they will most likely feel more comfortable supporting
work that they feel they understand or would personally enjoy.
This does not allow for experimentation or development.
Nor does it allow for art that represents people who do not have
the disposable income to support it.
I am the only one of that group of friends who
has gone on to pursue a career in theatre. The others are mechanics,
teachers, office workers etc but they will still come to the theatre
with me…they're not all massive theatre fanatics but they
enjoy it and can afford it because its FREE with the Arts Council's
Night Less Ordinary scheme.
One last thought, my mum is a nurse and yes she
would definitely love more money but she loves nothing more than
going to see the ballet. It maker her SO VERY happy:
Sometimes watching a thing of beauty is enough
to make everything else seem ok.
And sometimes watching something that makes you
think just a bit differently may change your life for the better.
Surely a form which might inspire such positive
change deserves a little support from that state?
As I say, just a thought.
August 2010
|
