BECTU submission to the People's Lottery White Paper consultation

2 September 1997

THE NEW OPPERTUNITIES FUND <li> BECTU has no criticism in principle of the proposed sixth good cause, with its emphasis on health, education and the environment. We seek reassurance, however, that this significant extension of the Lottery's remit would not endanger the amount of funding already earmarked or anticipated for existing good causes. <li> In particular, we have greatly welcomed, as part of the arts good cause, the use of Lottery funds to assist the development of the British film industry - including the recent establishment of the three film production franchises. We would not want the long term future of the franchises, nor the other ad hoc Lottery spending in this area through the Arts Council, to be jeopardised by an overstretched Lottery budget. <li> The British film industry - potentially a great exporter and cultural asset - has deep structural problems which Lottery funds are helping to address. Anything that undermines this restructuring (with its emphasis on cultivating long term and stable flows of domestic film finance) could have serious long term consequences for the industry, which is otherwise overdependent on unpredictable flows of foreign investment. IMPROVING DISTRIBUTION Lottery Funding and Redundancies <li> We welcome the objective of focusing Lottery funding more 'on people rather than buildings'. In this respect, we believe that lessons can be learnt from the experience of refurbishing the building of some of our major national houses in the arts sector. <li> Major refurbishment of ageing buildings such as the Royal Opera House and Sadler's Wells can clearly be justified as necessary capital projects. What is not acceptable, in our view, is that such refurbishment - which may effectively lead to a close down for a significant period - should lead to redundancies of large numbers of in-house staff, with no guarantee of re-employment when such buildings reopen. <li> The arts is a labour-intensive sector which ultimately relies for its success on the skills and experience of its creative and technical workforce. We find it ironic that Lottery funding applied in the way described above can have the end result of actually displacing large numbers of arts workers - many with years of experience and a commitment to the institutions concerned - and removing them from the labour force. This is, unfortunately, exactly what has happened at the Royal Opera House - where those made redundant have had no guarantee of re-employment on reopening and where those not re-employed will consequently have no opportunity of retraining to adapt to the use of new technology in the future refurbished environment. <li> A strategy which is people - rather than the buildings-led ought, in our view, to rectify this deeply flawed approach. Funding for Maintenance <li> As a secondary point on the use of Lottery funds for building and rebuilding programmes, we would welcome a more relaxed approach to the use of funding for ongoing maintenance. We understand the reluctance to use Lottery funds for ongoing revenue purposes, but there is often a direct link between major capital programmes of refurbishment, and a permanently higher maintenance requirements in the future (covering everything from air conditioning systems to lifts). <li> Many theatres, for example, may regard capital funding as a mixed blessing if consequent maintenance costs are an excessive burden on their revenue flow. Consideration of allowing arts organisations to apply for ongoing funding for such purposes is, in our view, fully justified. Accumulated Deficits <li> We further believe that accumulated past deficits in the arts - which may arise from maintenance costs among others - should be reviewed and where appropriate (though by no means automatically) be written off. The burden of past deficits may otherwise prevent the organisations concerned - which could otherwise be viable - from enjoying the full benefits of one-off Lottery funding on refurbishment and similar projects. Representation Rights <li> A further point on the proposed increased focus on people rather than buildings concerns the interrelation between Lottery funded projects and representation rights for arts workers whose jobs and working conditions are directly affected. We have in mind several examples of applications for funding predicated on assumptions about the size and nature of the future workforce - with absolutely no prior process of consultation with the workers concerned. The end result of a successful application can be a fait acompli in terms of redundancies and other unilateral changes to working conditions: the employers can claim absolutely no room for further meaningful consultation since they in turn are bound by the terms of the Lottery grant. <li> Given that the Lottery is a form of public funding, we believe it is appropriate to require - in all cases of funding applications with serious implications for the workforce - consultation with trade unions representing the workers affected. This would allow - as seems fair and reasonable - an opportunity to discuss the issues and if necessary consider alternatives prior to any final decision on Lottery funding. Matching Funding <li> We welcome the proposed objective, in relation to partnerships with local authorities etc., that "requirements should be flexible to ensure that all applicants have a fair chance of success." <li> Our particular concern with the requirements on matching funding. For those local authorities with relatively less resources - by reason largely of the area where they are located rather than financial irresponsibility - providing matching funding can be onerous. The consequence may be either that such authorities make less applications in the first place or that they are sometimes unsuccessful with the ones they attempt. <li> It should surely not be a side-effect of Lottery rules and practices that relatively more affluent areas benefit disproportionately purely because they have more available resources in the first place. We believe, therefore, that the amounts of matching funds required should be eased and the requirements on matching should in future be applied more flexibly. Integrated Funding Policies <li> We welcome the proposed aim of making Lottery funding 'part of regional and local strategies to bring about economic, cultural and social regeneration'. In terms of arts funding, we believe that would require greater integration of policy among the various funding bodies than has been the case in the past. Decisions on funding by one body should ideally take account of the funding patterns followed by others so as to ensure a co-ordinated approach. Such an integrated policy on arts funding would help to avoid the ad hoc and confusing patterns of funding decisions sometimes experienced in the past. Accountability <li> We welcome the aim that distributors should 'take account of public opinion in their decisions' and that 'decision making is closer to the grass roots'. We believe that for such aims to achieved, careful consideration should be given to the degree of accountability of organisations such as Regional Arts Boards, which are influential in many funding decisions. We have in the past been concerned about the composition and role of such bodies, which have not always appeared to us to be sufficiently representative of or responsible to the needs and expectations of the communities within their remit. We believe that greater attention to issues of accountability will lead in the long run to better funding decisions. NESTA <li> The proposed National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts has our full support and we endorse the three objectives set out in the White Paper. Theatre-in-Education <li> We have a specific interest in the third stated objective i.e. that of "contributing to the advancement of public education about, and awareness and appreciation of, the creative industries, science and technology." In terms of schools and youth work one of the most innovative educational methods developed and applied in the past has been the Theatre-In-Education movement, a form of educational participatory theatre. Unfortunately, due to the reduction in local authority budgets, TIE has been decimated and projects throughout the UK have been cut back or simply terminated. <li> We believe that through Lottery funding and particularly through the new focus provided by NESTA, the educational and creative potential of TIE should be reviewed and recognised. Relatively small amounts of funding could allow the re-establishment of a vibrant and effective means of contributing to NESTA's aim of public education. New Technology <li> We further welcome the emphasis on new technology. The arts sector is experiencing the spread of new, often computer-based, technology to all areas. Assistance for talented individuals is this sector to familiarise themselves with new technology would be very welcome. Free Entry to Museums and Galleries <li> A further point in relation to the aim of advancing public education about the creative industries relates to the current debate on access to our major publicly funded museums and galleries. An increasing proportion of these institutions are abandoning long held policies of free entry in favour of charging. While this is a broader issue than that encompassed by NESTA, we nonetheless believe that consideration should be given, whether through NESTA or other mechanisms, to retaining the principle of free entry to the major, publicly funded collections. This would be a significant contribution to public education about the arts. </ol>   <div class="date"> Last updated 28 December 1998 </div>  </div>  </div> <div id="info"> <h6 class="infohead section about"> About </h6> <ul class="infobody section about"> <li><a href="/about/who-is-who">Who's who</a></li> <li><a href="/about/rules">BECTU Rules</a></li> <li><a href="/about/nec">NEC</a></li> <li><a href="/about/political-fund">Political Fund</a></li> <li><a href="/about/conf/conf01.html">Conference</a></li> <li><a href="/policy/policy.html">Policy</a></li> </ul>  </div> <div id="navsub"> <ul id="navsublinks"> <li><a href="/sitemap">Site Map</a> |</li> <li><a href="/privacy">Privacy Policy</a> |</li> <li><a href="/jargon">Jargon Buster</a> |</li> <li><a href="/contact-us">Contact Us</a> |</li> <li><a href="/terms">Terms and Conditions</a> |</li> <li><a href="/accessibility">Accessibility</a></li> </ul> Copyright © BECTU  </div>  </div>  </div>  </body> </html>