Written evidence submitted by Take Art
and the National Rural Touring Forum (NRTF) (arts 205)
SUMMARY
We live in one of the most affluent societies
in the world—no dispute about this; yet state funding for
the arts is under unprecedented threat. The current coalition
in power at Westminster has a mandate, again no question about
this. If they decide to decimate our sector, representing a drop
in the ocean of government spending, they will be sending a clear
message to its citizens and to the world beyond. This message
is that our civilised society has chosen to turn its back on one
of the prime civilising, humanising and life affirming of human
activities. The fig leaf that remains, the argument that "the
cupboard is bare" will ring hollow for generations to come.
— Recent and proposed spending cuts in
the arts budgets at both local and central government level are
likely to decimate the arts—cuts in arts funding are likely
to have a disproportionate impact on the sector.
— Touring arts in rural areas is a vital
lifeline to culture for many people unable to access the arts
in larger towns and cities—cuts in local authority budgets
and Arts Council funding puts this work at risk.
— Arts organisations should take the initiative
and should look positively at ways of working more cost effectively
on the basis that change is a necessity, not an option.
— The level of public investment needed
in the arts should be considered on the basis of a review of public
investment in the arts—this is not a back of the envelope
calculation. While arts funding represents about 0.07% of GDP,
the creative industries contribute 7% to GDP—a handsome
return on the investment.
— The arms length principle needs to be
retained, with an independent central body working effectively
at a sub regional (local) level.
— Arts Funding by local authorities should
become a statutory and not discretionary function.
— An increase in the Lottery distribution
of funds to the arts is to be welcomed but not as replacement
for treasury funds.
— Guidelines for the National Lottery funding
for the arts should always be kept under review (or at least periodically)
to reflect changes in the needs of society and of the arts.
— Businesses and philanthropists have supported
the arts over a very long time, choosing, as they may, who and
what they support; this welcome support is to be encouraged and
supported but not as a replacement for state funding for the arts.
— Any step that encourages private donations
is to be welcomed so long as there are realistic expectations
as to what this might be and if it is not expected to replace
state funding for the arts.
MAIN BODY
OF EVIDENCE
Recent and proposed spending cuts in the arts
budgets at both local and central government level are likely
to decimate the arts
1. The arts receive substantial revenue
funding from local authorities as well as central government through
the Arts Council. Roughly the same is invested by those local
authorities and rural touring reflects this plurality of revenue
funding. At the moment rural touring is besieged on two fronts—possible
cuts in Arts Council funding and also in local authority funding.
At this time of uncertainty organisations are unable to plan not
knowing if one source of funding is to be decimated or if both
are going to be subject to swingeing cuts. Both ACE and the local
authorities are unlikely to pick up the "tab" if one
funder decides to pull the plug on funding completely for an arts
organisation. The uncertainty has bred chaos, severe stress (as
in other sectors), a competitive dog eat dog mentality and threatens
to undermine progress that has been made over the last 20 years
in the space of twelve months. If the 25% plus cuts are followed
through the arts will be decimated and many organisations will
cease to exist.
2. Rural touring will be at risk as a result
of cuts in local government budgets and Arts Council funding.
The bulk of arts funding currently goes into major towns and cities
and the danger is that future funding will consolidate around
major facilities. As a result rural touring will disappear or
be resourced on a notional basis leaving a significant part of
the (rural) population unable to access the arts.
3. The process leading up to the current
position (August 2010) has resulted in a three month hiatus which
is unhealthy and unproductive to all. The budget announced the
possibility of 25% to 40% cuts in public expenditure and asked
government departments to model the impact of such cuts. This
has led to a loss of stability in many organisations and an inability
to plan within sensible parameters. Most organisations can cope
with planning for a cut of say around 10% from, for example, one
funder. An organisation asked to model 40% cuts from all its public
funders (as we are) is effectively being asked to rip up its current
organisational plan and to start again. This is not a productive
use of strategic planning time if the reality is not so bad. This
instability extends from the top at the Arts Council down to organisations
working at a local level.
4. The modelling is not helped by the uncertainty
over whether or not the cuts will be front or back loaded—will
there be deep cuts in year one or will cuts be spread over the
life of the parliament. This lack of clarity is no way to run
a review and assessment of public funding in any sphere, let alone
the arts.
It has bred instability, caused unnecessary
stress all of which will impact on the effectiveness of organisations
trying to do their "job".
Arts organisations should take the initiative
and should look positively at ways of working more cost effectively
on the basis that change is a necessity, not an option
5. If one observes the state of the British
economy and of other countries, the message is clear—there
needs to be an approach to dealing with our financial problems
at both a macro and micro level. Nationally there is argument
over the speed and depth of cuts in spending; there is also debate
over the relationship between spending cuts and rises in taxes.
Arts organisations should not be hanging around waiting to be
told what to do—they should take the initiative and explore
how they might work more closely with colleagues and save money
in this "new" climate.
6. Recipients of Arts Council and local
authority funding are subject to review and assessment. Indeed
regularly funded clients are assessed annually and one of the
review criteria is sound financial management. Organisations that
are inefficient, unproductive and wasteful should be caught by
this process. As the strategic players one would expect the funders—the
Arts Council and local authorities and their regularly funded
clients to explore economies of scale and efficiency savings.
This should be a joint process where funders work with funded
organisations and it should not be a one sided process with either
party expected to make the right decisions. The last ACE portfolio
review shed a large number of clients—one would expect the
current portfolio to comprise of mostly good and effective organisations
so, funders, please work with them.
The level of public investment needed in the arts
should be considered on the basis of a review of public investment
in the arts—this is not a back of the envelope calculation
7. The question posed is an impossible question
to answer in this kind of submission. This should be subject to
a review of the arts funding system—when was the last time
this was done?
8. The total amount spent on arts funding
relative to overall government spending is absolutely tiny therefore
any cuts are symbolic.
9. While arts funding represents about 0.07%
of GDP, the creative industries contribute 7% to GDP—a handsome
return on the investment.
10. Against this is the fact that cuts in
arts funding will have a disproportionate impact on the sector.
11. Investment in the arts should not be
measured only in terms of economic factors—they should be
valued for their own sake and also for their "instrumental"
contribution to society in terms of education, health and so on.
The arms length principle needs to be retained,
with an independent central body working effectively at a sub
regional (local) level.
12. There are a number of comments that
can be made here, the first is that the arms length principle
of arts funding should be retained. The state should feel confident
in supporting the arts in such a way as to enable freedom of expression;
one key way of doing this is to maintain independence in state
funding of the arts..
13. Currently the Arts Council has this
role distributing state funding. Other than ensuring a strategic
approach to the funding of the arts, it also has a critical role
in advocating the arts to government across a number of departments.
The Arts Council could do better! Its connection of dance to the
health agenda is lamentable. This is an argument for making ACE
(Arts Council of England) a better organisation as opposed to
getting rid of it and replacing it with a different body.
14. It is very important that the central
distributive, strategic body is plugged into the regions and local
delivery. London should not be seen as the only key arts region,
nor should metropolitan cities as well as the capital be seen
in such terms. Somehow key effective, delivery systems such as
rural touring, which is enjoyed by over 2,500 rural communities
nationally, should fall within the orbit of this central body.
15. The ACE portfolio is unbalanced. Something
like 70% of their core resources go to approximately 10 big organisations,
which are in the main if not exclusively located in large urban
centres. (the amount of funding which goes into the large urban
based organisations, gives an urban/rural funding imbalance ).
This skews their work, their approach to their work and their
relationship to the rest of their portfolio. There is an argument
to take organisations like the ROH, NT, the RSC out of their portfolio
as it stands and put them into a completely separate funding relationship
with ACE. A review of ACE where they have one demonstrable set
of relationships with these few, key clients and another set of
relationships with the rest of the portfolio would stop the skewing
of their work. It would also stop pitting the resourcing of the
few against the resourcing of the many—they should not be
compared to or against each other.
16. Treasury funding for the arts should
remain a cornerstone of government spending. Lottery funding is
welcome but should not be seen as a replacement for treasury funding.
The former is an acknowledged, integral part of government spending
and investment, while the latter is an uneven and less certain
stream of funding. The balance should remain where the underpinning
of the arts should sit within the realm of the former and the
latter should support key initiatives and shifting priorities
among a multiplicity of smaller arts organisations, non arts organisations
and artists trying to become established.
Arts Funding by local authorities should become
a statutory and not discretionary function
17. This is also an opportunity to make
the case for statutory funding of the arts by local authorities.
We know that local authorities currently invest as much money
in the arts as central government does through ACE. In the current
climate local authorities are modelling severe cuts in their budgets.
The arts fall within the discretionary element of their services
and as budgets reduce local authorities will concentrate on delivering
their statutory responsibilities—this means arts budgets
are likely to be savaged.
18. The arts fall within the voluntary sector.
The voluntary sector is seen as having a big role in the delivery
of the Big Society. However, the voluntary sector is part of the
discretionary part of local government funding and this is likely
to disappear as detailed in the previous paragraph. This does
not make sense.
19. Periodically this debate surfaces. The
likely disappearance of local authority funding for the arts (which
will be patchy across the country) with impending budget cuts
makes this debate more urgent than ever.
An increase in the Lottery distribution of funds
to the arts is to be welcomed but not as replacement for treasury
funds
Guidelines for the National Lottery funding for
the arts should always be kept under review (or at least periodically)
to reflect changes in the needs of society and of the arts
20. If the arts are to recover their original
percentage of Lottery funds, as discussed, this will be welcome.
This should not, however, be seen as an excuse to reduce treasury
funding for the arts.
21. The purpose of Lottery funds could be
reviewed in terms of how they might mesh with treasury funding
in the future.
Businesses and philanthropists have supported
the arts over a very long time, choosing, as they may, who and
what they support; this welcome support is to be encouraged and
supported but not as a replacement for state funding for the arts
22. Funds from other sources are to be welcomed
as long as they are not used to replace treasury funding.
23. Businesses quite often fund arts organisations
and events through sponsorship where there is a negotiated return
on the "investment". This is quite different to grant
giving trusts and charities, where it is more common to describe
the "investment" as a donation and where the return
is linked to the aims and objectives of the organisation and a
particular project rather than getting the name of the giver a
higher profile.
24. The recession and the falls in the stock
market have impacted heavily on business sponsorship of and grant
giving to the arts.
25. The culture of giving in these ways
to the arts has a different starting point to that in the USA.
This different starting point should be acknowledged rather than
there being a hasty assumption that we can borrow the American
model and import it into Britain.
26. Private donations and sponsorship tend
to follow prominent, high profile organisations. Smaller, grass
roots organisations tend to miss out or receive very modest sums—the
perceived impact and visibility for sponsors is much lower.
Any step that encourages private donations is
to be welcomed so long as there are realistic expectations as
to what this might be and if it is not expected to replace state
funding for the arts
27. Government incentives to encourage private
donations are to be welcomed providing they are not expected to
replace state funding for the arts.
September 2010
| 
