DCMS Comprehensive Spending Review: BECTU response to the Paper on the Arts

11 September 1998

Introduction

1. BECTU welcomes the opportunity to respond to the DCMS (Department of Culture, Media and Sport) Paper on the Arts, in the context of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). As a trade union representing thousands of arts workers in the theatre sector, together with members in arts centres and in the visual arts, we base our comments on the practical experience of working professionals in the area.

2. We address our comments to the Arts Paper as the single most appropriate channel for our response, although some of our comments may also be relevant to other papers of e.g. on DCMS Objectives and Museums and Galleries. We have responded separately on the Film Paper.

Funding

3. It would be churlish not to acknowledge and to welcome the very encouraging and substantial increase in cultural spending announced as part of the conclusions of the CSR. We further welcome the very process of consultation on a range of detailed cultural issues being undertaken by the DCMS. On both counts we recognise the vastly improved and more positive approach so far undertaken by this Government as compared to its predecessor. None of our more critical or questioning comments should be taken as offsetting this general view.

4. Before reacting more specifically to the paper on the The Arts, we would also like to place on record our approval of the £100m earmarked for the phased achievement of universal free entry to national museums and galleries by 2001. We are especially gratified at this proposal since our own National Visual Artists Branch initiated a long and hard-fought public campaign on this issue in 1995, later joined by other arts organisations and given added weight by a massive public petition. We hope that the proposal will be implemented in full, and that any residual objections or reservations by trustees or directors of relevant museums and galleries will be overcome.

5. Returning specifically to the Arts Paper and to the claim that 'We will make substantial additional funds available to the arts over the next three years', (paragraph 12), we believe that this - while welcome in itself - should be set in context.

6. The arts, initially under the previous government, have been undergoing funding standstills and cuts for a number of years, incorporating the ACE standstill on arts spending, local government cutbacks and a reduction in the share of Lottery funding.

7. Furthermore, comparative international data on public arts spending indicates that the UK lags behind many comparable economies in the amount of central and local government arts expenditure. The ACE Research Report 13 (published June 1998) indicated that the UK came 7th out of 11 countries surveyed - behind Finland, Germany, Sweden, France, Canada and Holland. UK public spending on the arts and museums was identified as 0.14% of GDP or £16.60 per head (rising to 0.16% if Lottery expenditure is included) - compared, for example, to 0.36% in Germany (£56.50 per head) and 0.26% in France (£37.80 per head). This indicates that the UK is a long way from being in the leading group of comparable economies in terms of funding the arts.

8. The DCMS paper indicates that 'alongside grant-in-aid funding, the Government intends to maintain after 2001 the percentage share of Lottery funding for arts at the 16 2/3 % in the National Lottery Act 1998' (paragraph 24). This obviously means that the reduction in the proportion of Lottery funding for the arts from one-fifth to one-sixth (resulting from the additional good cause) is to be maintained in the long term. We ask whether this can be reversed, since by 2001 presumably the proportion of Lottery funding needed for Millennium projects should be greatly if not completely reduced. More clarity on this point would be welcome.

9. Public funding for the arts, as the DCMS no doubt well appreciates, can also have an economic multiplier effect - thereby stimulating additional economic activity (and, of course, potential taxable revenue for the Exchequer). In this respect, and given our strong interest in the theatre sector, we note that the Wyndham Report pointed to the economic impact of West End Theatres in generating additional tourist revenue. The point we would emphasise is that a large number of West End productions are derived originally from the subsidised sector (both national houses and regional repertory theatres). Indirectly, but very significantly, public spending in this area generates real economic benefits.

10. We therefore believe that increased arts spending is economically justified when set against recent historical trends in the UK, comparative international data, competing Lottery good causes and the evidence of a multiplier effect.

11. Finally, we would like to draw attention to the very significant need for extra funding to overcome the problem of accumulated deficits in the regional theatre sector. Stabilisation funding available through the Lottery has partially addressed this in the case of successful individual applications. We would like to see this structural problem addressed in a more comprehensive way by working towards the objective of writing off such deficits throughout the sector.

12. For essentially small, subsidised organisations, the problem of continuing bank charges and repayments can become a permanent and near-crippling burden - with an impact that is not just financial but also artistic (since there is a greater temptation to move towards a policy of smaller, safer productions). Further DCMS attention to this problem would be well merited.

The role of Local Government

13. We fully appreciate that the DCMS paper is above all addressing central government's approach to the arts, and that local government finance and structure brings in issues far beyond the remit of the consultation.

14. We do wish, however, to draw attention to one issue in this area. The Arts Paper itself recognises that 'support for the arts in Britain rests on a complex structure of central and local government funding' (paragraph 1). Chris Smith's introductory paper spells this out even more 'The growing importance of local authority cultural strategies will play an important part here. There has always been a significant relationship between central and local government funding.' (paragraph 16).

15. And yet, years of downward pressure on local government finances - actively promoted by the previous government - have led in a number of cases to drastic reductions in local authority arts spending, with crippling consequences to, for example, regional theatre.

16. Increased central government arts spending through DCMS is welcome - but unless there is a parallel attempt to stabilise and hopefully increase local government spending, severe problems will remain, leading to results at variance with the DCMS national objectives. There is currently no mandatory obligation on local authorities to achieve any particular minimum level of arts and cultural funding as a percentage of their overall budgets. We believe that this sort of proposition should now be given active consideration as part of a recognition that public arts funding rests on a combination of both central and local government contributions.

Business and the arts

17. The Arts Paper sets out clear aims in this area:

• 'We want to encourage cross-fertilisation between business and the arts, and to strengthen and deepen the relationships between the arts and private sector funding sources by building these priorities into the core thinking which underpins public funding.' (paragraph 10)

• 'The new funding body will be asked to consider how to integrate business support objectives more clearly into its core policies.' (paragraph 19)

18. Any realistic strategy for arts funding must, of course, take account of the role and value of business support. Continued business sponsorship of the arts is necessary and welcome. We believe, however, that the nature and impact of this support should be closely analysed and that public policy in this area should set clear guidelines and goals - if necessary by seeking to rechannel some of the current flows of such funding.

19. We have two particular concerns about the current pattern of business support for theatres. The first is geographical - quite simply, business support is disproportionately focused on London, at the expense of the rest of the UK. This is born out by ABSA's own figures as set out in ABSA Business Support for the Arts 1996-97. These show that 53% (£45.7m) of business support in the relevant period went to London - more than the rest of the UK combined. This no doubt reflects sponsors wishes to be associated with prestigious London-based events and productions and perhaps also the concentration of corporate decision-making in the South-East.

20. Our second concern is artistic, and based more on an impressionistic analysis that specific data. It is that business support appears to gravitate more readily to events and productions perceived as safer and more readily anticipated as successful. New and innovative productions and events appear to find it much more difficult, in many cases, to attract significant business support. Some of this may be inevitable, but there is a real danger that artistic policy can begin to be dictated by attractiveness to funders rather than artistic criteria.

21. On both counts, we believe that these aspects of business support are unhealthy for the development of the arts in the UK. We do not, as a consequence, recommend rigid rules and restrictions on business-support. We do, however, wish to see clear public guidelines and active dialogue between the DCMS and business funders in order to redress these trends.

Education and the arts

22. The linking of arts spending to broader social objectives is made explicit in the DCMS Papers. In particular, there is a recognition of the potentially beneficial links to educational objectives.

• The Minister's introductory Paper lists 'the nurturing of educational opportunity' (paragraph 8) and one of the DCMS's 'four central themes'.

• The Arts Paper states that 'The taxpayer needs to be able to understand more clearly what outputs are expected from the sums of money made available to the arts: whether directly or indirectly in the contribution of the arts to wider social and economic objectives, including.... education and training' (paragraph 8).

23. Specifically on arts education in schools, the OFSTED report 'The Arts Inspected' (1998) confirmed the links between the arts and general education. Comments on the report as set out in Arts Digest (April 1998) include the following:

• 'The arts play an important part in improving pupils' concentration and powers of enquiry'.

• 'Contact with the arts enriches pupils' lives and help them acquire worthwhile knowledge and skills, including an ability to question, explore ideas, appreciate and strive for a high quality of performance'.

24. In this context, we are concerned at the continued pressure on school budgets for arts education, which are in some cases suffering as a consequence of the increased priority being given to literacy and numeracy skills. More specifically, we believe that the recent decimation of spending on theatre-in-education (which both brings the arts into schools and uses theatre as an educational tool) is ill-advised and counter-productive. We believe that serious reconsideration should now be given to the positive potential of theatre-in-education in contributing to general educational objectives, and that the drastic reductions in funding for this work should be reassessed and hopefully reversed.

The new arts bodies: central and regional

25. We note, and in principle support, the proposals for a new central body incorporating the present national responsibilities of the Arts Council and Crafts Council - with a broad remit and accountable structure. If such a body could take on a strong strategic role, could be 'open and accountable' and could 'command respect right across the arts' (paragraph 14), this would clearly improve the prospects of developing and implementing a serious and informed public arts policy. We look forward to more specific proposals in due course.

26. We further note the proposal, spelt out in more detail in the DCMS Objectives Paper, for strong new cultural bodies in the regions, incorporating the functions of existing organisations such as Regional Arts Boards. The aims of a strong regional role in arts policy and funding, of a measured devolution of power from a national level, and of the development of a strategic lead to the arts at regional level - are ones we can support. As with the proposed new national body, however, we believe that accountability is the key. We would wish to see more specific ideas on lines of accountability - hopefully embracing an inclusive approach in which the views of workers in the arts and their representative organisations would have a role. A reshuffling of the current arts bureaucracy will - if the new bodies are to represent a genuine step forward - not be sufficient.

27. A very specific point - and one not referred to in the Paper - is that we would wish any new cultural funding bodies to continue the current practice of funding individual artists as well as organisations. This should be separate and additional to any welcome and continuing funding to individuals along the lines of the Crafts Council business start-up grants.

The watchdog

28. The Arts Paper, in line with the other Papers, draws attention to the proposed creation of a tough new watchdog body with a remit including 'standards of efficiency and financial management' and to 'promote quality'. (paragraph 13)

29. From our own bitter experience, we can certainly vouch for the fact that the standard of management in the arts - with some honourable exceptions - is in our view generally poor. There are a number of notorious examples, including the Royal Opera House, which speak for themselves in this respect. If the watchdog body could help to address this problem, by providing an external means of monitoring and reporting management performance, this could clearly be beneficial.

30. The value of such a body will, however, be determined to some extent by the criteria it adopts. A narrow, accountancy-based approach will not be sufficient. A broader approach - incorporating, from our own area of interest, a concern for constructive industrial relations - will have a much greater prospect of achieving real improvements in this area.

Visual artists and other arts workers

31. We finally wish to draw attention, within the remit of the Arts Paper, to some of the practical concerns which beset visual artists and other arts workers. This is a brief illustration only of some of the issues felt as priorities by working artists. Further information is, of course, available to substantiate and develop these ideas. We put these forward now in the belief that a context of increased arts funding ought to allow a more serious address to those issues than has previously been possible.

32. Firstly, there is a property issue. Visual artists and others self-evidently need space to work, whether it be in the form of artists' studios or, more broadly defined cultural amenities. Apart from a small elite, most visual artists, for most of their working lives are likely to find the economic burden of such property (in the form of rates, rents etc.) financially-crippling. We would like to see attention given to the possibility of developing a category of artists' premises or cultural amenities for which special provision could be made in terms of protections on rent, rates, etc. We understand that there are working examples from abroad (e.g. France, Germany, New York) which could be drawn on. More specifically, attention could be given to providing for mandatory rate relief for such premises (currently, under the Local Government Finance Act 1998, such relief is only available for charities). While these matters go beyond the DCMS's own remit, they are nonetheless of great importance in facilitating artists' ability to work and should therefore, in our view, be of legitimate interest to the DCMS in this consultation.

33. Secondly, there are a number of artists rights issues - including exhibition payment right (EPR), resale rights and copyright issues. Our point here is that a public policy lead in this area - if only as a guideline of good practice for funded bodies - would be extremely useful, e.g. a nationally agreed target level of EPR to be adopted by all Regional Arts Boards or equivalents. Government cannot and should not get involved in individual bargaining on rights - but it can take a role of setting standards which all bodies in receipt of public arts funding are expected to observe. By setting fair and reasonable public standards for the treatment of creators, we will thereby facilitate the production of original artistic works.

34. Finally, in terms of the built environment, we would like consideration of the proposal that a proportion of all Lottery funding in this area should be earmarked for artistic works e.g. sculptures, installations, paintings complementary to the building and its design. It seems appropriate that arts funding for building purposes should incorporate an active concern that such projects should embody artistic works. In line with the 'per cent for art' campaign, we urge consideration of a public commitment to this effect.

Conclusion

34. We welcome the DCMS consultation and the consequent attention to strategic issues in the arts. We further welcome the proposed increase in arts funding. We believe, nonetheless, that the currently more optimistic climate will only be translated into a permanent reality if the problems outlined in our submission are actively considered and addressed. We look forward with interest to the further progress of public policy development in these areas.