Written evidence submitted by Leicester
City Council Cultural Services Division and also as Lead Partner
for Renaissance East Midlands (arts 173)
SUMMARY:
— The proposed spending cuts will seriously
damage the arts and heritage sector's ability to "make a
difference" by supporting key public agendas.
— Their impact will be particularly felt
in the most disadvantaged areas and communities.
— Cultural and heritage assets and activities
should be maintained at such a level that they can be valued and
used, effective, relevant to and reflective of the people and
communities they serve.
— Public subsidy should be sufficient to
provide capacity for them to be able to access additional income
eg through grant applications, commercial activities, sponsorship
and private benefactors.
— The Renaissance in the Regions Programme
has been vital to enable museums to begin to more fully achieve
their potential as contributors to key agendas, and it is important
that it continues.
— However, along with other important aspects
of MLA's work, it could be managed in alternative, possibly more
cost effective ways. It also needs a "lighter touch"
and less micro management. The national framework of hub partnerships
would be capable of delivering much of the existing Renaissance
Programme with direct funding from DCMS.
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;
— The ability of Arts and Heritage to help
improve people's lives, raise aspirations and create more cohesive
communities through support for learning, social cohesion, cultural
identity, local pride, sense of place, wellbeing, spiritual fulfilment,
and economic regeneration including through tourism and the creative
industries will be affected by the reduction in the number and
quality of venues, programmes, services and activities provided.
The reductions mean that fewer people will participate in cultural
activities.
— The impact of recent spending cuts has
been to create pay and recruitment freezes in the arts and heritage
sectors. This has reduced capacity to deliver and has directly
affected front line services.
— Reduction in the number of people employed
in the cultural sector, and an increase in unemployment.
— Fewer work opportunities for young people,
especially recent graduates.
— Increased charges and charging—some
sections of the community will be priced out of the market.
— SME's will cease to exist in the creative
industries, heritage and arts sectors.
— Voluntary organisations reliant on grant
funding may cease to exist or be reduced.
— The volunteering opportunities lost through
the reduction in capacity or government funded organisations will
be greater than the number of volunteering opportunities gained
by replacing paid work by voluntary labour and through increased
numbers of unemployed people.
— Spending cuts are resulting in introduction
of and/or increased charges.
— These effects will be felt by the most
disadvantaged communities and neighbourhoods, since much funding
for activities is prioritised towards them.
— Although education budgets will be less
affected, the reduction in arts and heritage funding means that
organisations will have less capacity to work with schools and
young people.
LOCAL EFFECTS
FOR LEICESTER
— Leicester has high levels of deprivation,
leading to poor life prospects for many of its citizens. It also
has particular social cohesion issues arising from its diverse
population, and challenges supporting many new communities including
high levels of refugees and asylum seekers. Arts and Heritage
funding has helped to address these issues.
— The effects of cuts will be particularly
felt in areas like Leicester where the public sector provides
a high proportion of jobs and economic activity.
2. What arts organisations can do to work
more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort
and to make economies of scale;
— Organisations with similar products could
combine together in trusts or partnerships to share and streamline
governance/administration/management/backroom services.
— The benefits of working across local
authority boundaries should be explored.
— Many local authorities, like Lincolnshire
and Leicestershire, already have partnership organisations supporting
the creative industries, which could be further developed.
3. What level of public subsidy for the arts
and heritage is necessary and sustainable;
— It should be sufficient to ensure that
cultural/heritage assets and activities that people value and
use are maintained at such a level that they can continue to be
used, effective, relevant to and reflective of the people and
communities they serve.
— The range of subsidised assets and activities
needs to reflect the range of interests of different groups, of
all age groups, communities, cultures etc.
— The level of subsidy should enable the
activities/assets to have the capability to develop and be useful.
Insufficient levels of subsidy might mean they stagnate and become
irrelevant and do not provide value for money.
— Funding should not be spread so thinly
that it is not effective—the level of subsidy should be
decided as part of a quantity/quality expectation.
— Over the last decade many museums services
have already increased the amount of income they generate in addition
to public subsidy to 20%-50% of turnover and will continue to
develop income generation streams, but there is a limit to the
amount that can be achieved in this way without adequate public
funding underpinning it.
4. Whether the current system, and structure,
of funding distribution is the right one;
— There is a proliferation of funding streams
(even within single organisation) and these could all be more
streamlined and strategic (avoiding duplication, multiple reporting
structures, reducing organisational administration costs).
— Funding for the cultural sector could
be brought together in a single body or smaller number of bodies
so that it is more strategic.
— The funding for the Arts via ACE and
the funding for Heritage via HLF and MLA/Renaissance have been
delivered in different ways and it is right to review them to
ensure the system is as effective and equitable as possible.
— Arts funding has been available for many
years but it is only since 1995 (HLF) and 2004 (Renaissance) that
museums and the heritage sector have had their need for funding
recognised in the same way. This made a huge difference to the
museums and heritage sector's ability make an impact and to be
better appreciated. Government funding for both Arts and Heritage
is important must continue.
— The different styles of the main funders—ACE,
HLF and MLA, all have strengths, but none achieve the right balance.
ACE often seems to be too relaxed, whilst MLA micromanages too
much.
— Renaissance in the Regions funding has
always had a tension between the particular needs of large museums
and galleries in major urban centres and the wider needs of museums
and heritage more rural areas and smaller communities in each
region, between making the best use of assets of national significance
and assets of local significance. In the new structure for Renaissance
these different needs have to be fully understood and met.
— The existing Hub structure for Renaissance
with the nine Lead Partners is capable of delivering much of the
Renaissance programme efficiently and effectively, and a direct
funding agreement from the DCMS to the Renaissance national museums
partnership along the lines of its national museum funding agreements
should be explored.
— There is considerable frustration amongst
our Renaissance Partners about the way in which the administration
of the excellent Renaissance programme in England by the Museums,
Libraries and Archive's Council has become more and more bureaucratic
and cumbersome. To take one example, prior to April 2009 MLA had
a single funding agreement with Leicester as the accountable body
for the programme in the East Midlands. Partner services (Lincolnshire,
Leicestershire, Derby City, Nottingham City and Northampton Borough)
worked with Leicester City to create a unified regional programme.
Leicester distributed the funding through agreements with partner
services such as Lincolnshire County Council's Heritage Service.
Leicester also collated the statistical and financial information
required by MLA. Since April 2009 MLA has insisted on direct agreements
with five partner services including Lincolnshire and still requires
Leicester City to collate information. Five agreements are now
required, increasing bureaucracy both for MLA and partner services.
Quarterly returns now have to be submitted to both MLA and Leicester
City and what was once a regional programme is increasingly becoming
a series of county or city wide schemes.
5. What impact recent changes to the distribution
of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;
— In theory more funding should be available
to the cultural sector, however in practice organisations will
need the capacity to apply for and manage lottery funding, which
will get harder as organisations reduce staff numbers as budget
reductions take effect.
6. Whether the policy guidelines for National
Lottery funding need to be reviewed;
— They should all be reviewed regularly
eg every five years to ensure that they remain relevant and appropriate
to changing requirements.
7. The impact of recent changes to DCMS arm's-length
bodies—in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council
and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council;
— The abolition of MLA is not necessarily
a problem as long as key successful areas of work that MLA currently
undertakes are delivered—especially Renaissance, Accreditation,
Designation, National Security Advisor and Government Indemnity,
Acceptance in Lieu.
— The combination of Museums and Libraries
did not work since they deliver on different agendas to different
audiences. Archives sit better with museums than with libraries.
— A merged HLF and English Heritage as
proposed could be an effective body to engage with museums, delivering
those aspects of MLA's work which were not suitable for the Renaissance
national museums partnership to deliver.
— It would not be appropriate for ACE to
manage the Renaissance programme, but the key relationship between
ACE and museums and galleries should be recognised. Renaissance
East Midlands developed and leads the successful national Museumaker
programme which shows how museums and arts can work together.
— Other bodies which could take on some
of this work include the Collections Trust, and HM Treasury.
— Of key concern is whether the museums,
libraries and archives sector will continue to be heard by government
after MLA ceases to exist in 2012. Renaissance museums a vital
"Place at the Table" alongside the rest of the Cultural
Sector and this must not be lost.
8. Whether businesses and philanthropists
can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local
level;
— For national organisations and those
based in London/affluent areas—Yes.
— It is much more difficult in the regions,
especially in the more deprived and less populated areas. It is
very difficult to secure sponsorship or philanthropic support
in the East Midlands, especially in cities like Leicester and
rural areas like Lincolnshire.
— This question should also include heritage—why
just the arts?
9. Whether there need to be more Government
incentives to encourage private donations.
— Yes—tax incentives will encourage
donations of money and collections.
— Businesses and philanthropists should
be given adequate incentives to support arts and heritage—the
Acceptance in Lieu scheme and gift aid are important but more
could be done by the government to encourage support especially
in areas that do not benefit so much like the East Midlands.
September 2010
|
