Written evidence submitted by Culture
Service, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (arts 170)
1. What impact recent, and future, spending
cuts from central and local Government will have on the arts and
heritage at a national and local level
We are concerned that cuts in funding of the
arts and heritage will:
Undermine the excellent work of the past
two decades.
Make arts and heritage funding less attractive
to private companies, trusts, foundations, philanthropists and
others.
Make Britain, in general, and London,
in particular, less of a destination of choice for (overseas)
visitors.
Reduce the international status of Britain,
in general, and London, in particular, as centres of cultural
and artistic excellence and innovation.
Have a disproportionate impact on the
socially disadvantaged and those who have traditionally been beyond
the reach of the arts, culture, and heritage sectorsyet
who have started to engage more in recent years as a direct result
of dedicated programmes of engagement and social cohesion.
Have a negative impact on the (commercial)
creative industries, which have a healthy symbiotic relationship
with the funded arts, culture, and heritage sectors.
2. What arts organisations can do to work
more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort
and to make economies of scale
We believe that arts organisations should:
Network more efficiently with each other.
Work together to maximise the lobbying
and advocacy power of organisations such as Arts Council England.
Work together with Government to promote
the values and benefits of the arts to society.
Benefit more from best practice in other
organisations.
Utilise resources such as premises, management
and administration more efficientlyby processes such as
sharing or pooling resources.
Become ever more robust with regards
to their efficiency and professionalism.
Advocate more strongly as a sector on
behalf of the arts, culture, and heritage.
Recognise that there is no such thing
as an inalienable right to be in receipt of public funding.
3. What level of public subsidy for the arts
and heritage is necessary and sustainable
We believe that public subsidy for the arts
and heritage should be set at a level that:
Is commensurate with achieving particular
goals and ambitionsartistically, financially, socially.
Is in line with general public opinion as
to the importance of arts, heritage and culture.
Allows for the realisation of long-term
(say, 20 year) strategic plans and ambitions.
Recognises that, as society in general
becomes more affluent, the public as a whole looks to engage more
with arts, heritage and culture.
Recognises that short-term savings now
may lead to situations that are not redeemable in the futurethis
applies in particular to conservation of heritage.
4. Whether the current system, and structure,
of funding distribution is the right one
We believe in a system, and structure, of funding
distribution that:
Has a balance between national and local
interests.
Is transparent and accountable.
Is efficient, cost-effective, and avoids
duplication.
Is flexible and adaptable to change.
Engages with the public and champions
the interests of artists and arts organisations.
Recognises that there is no inalienable
right to administer and distribute public funds.
5. What impact recent changes to the distribution
of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations
We believe that an increase in National Lottery
funding of arts and heritage:
should be beneficial, though may not
fully offset reductions in funding elsewhere (eg through central
or local government); and
could set an unfortunate precedent, whereby
Lottery funding Is seen as replacement for, rather than complement
to, Treasury funding.
6. Whether the policy guidelines for National
Lottery funding need to be reviewed
We believe that the policy guidelines for National
Lottery funding need to be reviewed to take account of:
The strengths and weaknessesachievements
and disappointmentsof the past sixteen years of lottery
funding.
Changes in the arts, culture, and heritage
landscape brought about by digital technology and other innovations.
7. The impact of recent changes to DCMS arm's-length
bodiesin particular the abolition of the UK Film Council
and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
We believe that DCMS should:
Draw a clear distinction between an arm's-length
body and the area of work for which it has a responsibility.
Continue to investigate merger and other
potential organisational change while ensuring that all core responsibilities
remain fulfilled.
Look to minimise the loss of expertise
(brain drain) from the arts, culture, and heritage sector.
8. Whether businesses and philanthropists
can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local
level
We believe:
businesses and philanthropists can play
a long-term role in funding arts, though this is a complement
to, not replacement for, public subsidy;
that cuts in public funding of arts and
heritage are likely to make the sector less attractive to private
companies, trusts, foundations, philanthropists and others;
that there is considerable potential
to develop mutually beneficial partnerships between small- or
medium-sized businesses in the private sector and their arts counterparts;
that businesses and philanthropists will
welcome tax breaks that will further enhance their financial contribution;
and
that Government (central and local) can
work more closely with arm's-length bodies such as Arts Council
England and arts organisations to promote the attractiveness of
the arts and heritage sector to businesses and philanthropists.
9. Whether there need to be more Government
incentives to encourage private donations
We believe that there is considerable scope
to encourage private donations to the arts, culture and heritage
sectors. This can be achieved by:
Government working more closely with
arm's-length bodies such as Arts Council England and arts organisations
to promote the attractiveness of the arts and heritage sector
to private individuals.
Developing schemes for private donors
that focus on the considerable equity that many individuals now
have in property.
Encouraging individuals to leave money
to arts organisations as part of their will.
Offering tax breaks and incentives.
Ensuring that there is an allocation
of seats on the Boards of large arts organisations (and arm's-length
bodies) for "interested citizens".
We would also like to make the point that Government
could considerably assist the arts by easing regulatory frameworks
such as licensing, with a view to making them more appropriate
to the needs, interests and requirements of the arts sector. An
example of this is the London Local Authorities Act, which prevents
a local authority from making a profit from street trading. We
believe that this could be amended to the effect that any local
authority profits from street trading be put towards arts and
cultural events and activities.
We hope that you find this submission of interest.
September 2010
|