Written evidence submitted by Trestle
(arts 70)
INTRODUCTION
Trestle is a 29 year old theatre company with
approx £700k turn over. A third of its income comes from
the Arts Council, which funds Trestle Touring, a Regularly Funded
Organisation which takes new physical storytelling theatre productions
across England. A third comes from local government and trusts
and foundations including the Heritage Lottery Fund to run Trestle
Taking Part, a programme of nationwide and international participatory
work. The remaining third is generated by the commercially run
building from which the organisation operates, Trestle Arts Base,
a local and international creative centre. www.trestle.org.uk
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:
Recent cuts have had an effect, but we have
been able to absorb them by making cuts to our operation, rather
than passing on the impact to the beneficiaries of our work. However,
this streamlining has pushed our internal operation to the edge
and future cuts will have a significant effect in changing the
nature of our business. With cuts of more than 10%, a radical
re-thinking will have to take place; national touring of new small
scale theatre work will suffer as such work is impossible to make
without public subsidy; the art will suffer as fewer risks can
be taken as subsidy shrinks. At local and national levels we will
be obliged to reduce our ability to offer engagement in participatory
work. Significant spending cuts, implemented immediately, will
leave many organisations unable to recover and force them to close
completely. Gradual cuts, weighted towards the end of a three
or four year period will allow us to plan, gradually shift focus
and find ways of surviving, ensuring the arts—for which
Britain is renowned throughout the world—are sustainable.
Last year saw 71 Trestle performances, 219 Trestle
workshops and 689 Trestle mask sets delivered throughout England
and beyond, engaging over 29,000 people with theatre and enriching
their lives through art:
7,000 were audiences for our performances across
the uk.
3,300 were audiences at trestle arts base.
4,600 took part in workshops.
2,800 took part in trestle's youth theatre.
5,900 took part in community activity.
5,400 used trestle masks across the world.
Every £1 of arts council funding in 2009-10
generated £1.16 from other sources and, at the current level
of funding, this is projected to rise to £1.82 in 2010-11.
If subsidy is cut, it will fall, significantly reducing our contribution
to the local and uk economy, a proportion of which is generated
from outside the uk.
In a year, Trestle employs 18 staff permanently,
over 50 freelance staff, at least 10 international artists and
100 UK artists and supports at least 15 community groups in regular
activity and 50 community and business groups in one off activities.
If subsidy is cut, significantly and immediately, redundancies
will follow and our ability to support community groups and the
more disadvantaged members of society—those who are least
able to make a financial contribution to our work—will be
greatly reduced.
What arts organisations can do to work more closely
together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make
economies of scale
Trestle Arts Base can use its resources to their
full potential, sharing space with other creative industries and
local FE and HE institutions.
Theatre companies need to re define their purpose
and mission, clarify their unique offer, ensure their strengths
are sustained and developed and potentially relinquish areas of
weakness. However, many have already undergone this process in
order to meet the spending cuts already implemented.
What level of public subsidy for the arts and
heritage is necessary and sustainable?
To make new work that is not commercially driven,
subsidy is crucial. The implementation of the creative curriculum
in schools recognises that the arts play a key role in a child's
development, enabling them to grow into well-balanced, confident
and responsible adults. Without public subsidy for the arts, the
future wellbeing of our society will suffer and the impact of
cuts will be felt many years down the line.
Reports on subsidy for the arts, commissioned
and published over the last ten years have highlighted the need
for greater public subsidy, not less, and this subsidy has been
forthcoming. If the level of subsidy were to be reduced to that
of 1999 (in real terms), the arts would be at risk now, as they
were then (see the Boyden report for more detail). However, at
that level they may be sustainable for a few years, if Britain
is able to commit to raising levels of subsidy again once the
present crisis is past. To reduce them any further may well see
the arts unable to recover with fewer, if any, new artists able
to build the future of the arts in Britain in ten years time.
Whether the current system, and structure, of
funding distribution is the right one
The current system needs an overhaul and the
future flexibility in funding being suggested by the Arts Council
is a good thing. However, if cuts in subsidy are inevitable, one
has to question whether funding cuts should devolve onto those
organisations using the funding to make work that has a direct
and genuine impact on lives, or onto the administration of that
funding. Decisions to cut public subsidy must be made with a view
to minimising the costs of funding administration, allowing arts
organisations to maximise the use of the remaining funding.
What impact recent changes to the distribution
of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;
whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need
to be reviewed;
In these times of recession, where it is clearly
necessary to limit spending in the voluntary and public sectors,
lottery funding is one of the few beacons of hope for many arts
organisation, producing high quality art which enhances lives.
We face hard times and the arts have the capability to touch peoples
lives, give hope where otherwise there is none, develop the confidence
and life skills of children, young people and those who are disadvantaged,
working alongside the NHS and Social Services in supporting health
and social care in less tangible but equally vital ways. It is
crucial for the future, not only of our industry, but of a confident
and contented Society, that the proportion of lottery shares given
to the arts is returned to its original level and Trestle Theatre
firmly supports the Draft Order to do so.
For example, Trestle Theatre is core-funded
to produce and tour high-quality theatre nationally within the
UK, but the organisation also runs a venue which supports emerging
artists and new work, associated projects within its local community
which specifically address disadvantaged groups and international
residencies which bring artists from around the world to teach
and learn at its creative hub. These areas of operation support
and are supported by its core-funded work, but could not take
place without additional lottery funding. By linking both types
of funded project, Trestle is able to add value to both while
keeping costs to a minimum, thereby maximising the impact of the
funding.
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;
There has been no specific impact in touring
theatre as yet; inevitably questions arise as to the future of
the Arts Council.
Whether businesses and philanthropists can play
a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;
It will take a long time to establish this;
as with any partnership or collaboration, building and sustaining
a productive relationship between an arts organisation and a business
or a philanthropist is rare. Such funding generally comes with
agendas and potential restrictions, which can be counter productive
to the production of great art. As with all organisations, Trestle
has focussed on diversifying its funding base over the past 3
years; however, it is unrealistic to believe that business and
philanthropic income to the arts could replace public subsidy.
A massive culture change, which will be slow to shift, will be
necessary before arts organisations can rely as much on private
philanthropy as they currently do on public subsidy. This will
take ten or twenty years to change and will never be a realistic
or immediate solution to the present crisis.
Whether there need to be more Government incentives
to encourage private donations.
Yes, incentives would help; in the USA there
are attractive tax breaks for philanthropists and giving is part
of the ego-building of the American identity, where a society
based on the commercial produces great business people who will
give their money and name to the arts. Due to the essentially
feudal system of the UK, this level of philanthropy is not the
same and the traditional families/foundations who give are already
doing so, such as The Westons, the Foyles etc. The government
need to think about how to incentivise the newly moneyed people
and businesses to support the arts and then promote the dissemination
of this culture. This will take time and sustained effort to permeate
through the whole of society to a point where it has a significant
impact.
AN EXAMPLE
OF PARTNERSHIP
WORKING:
Out of Sight Out of Mind 2009-10: A professional
and community project run by Trestle, Hertfordshire County Council,
St Albans District Council and supported by the Heritage Lottery
Fund. Based on the history of Hill End Psychiatric Hospital, including
a large site specific performance by 50 local people aged eight
to 80, consultation with over 100 people who lived and worked
at the hospital, participatory work in local schools, a new archive
established by the Library Service, interactive museum exhibitions
and a developing website.http://www.stalbansoutofsightoutofmind.org.uk/
September 2010
| 
