BECTU's response to consultation on Arts Council of England Capital Programme 2

7 February 2000

1. BECTU welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation. Our submission, as set out below, focuses only on those issues of greatest relevance to the interests of our members working in the arts.

   Capacity Building

2. We have long been concerned about 'the destabilising effect of a large capital programme' (3.8). Too often, in our experience, staffing implications have not been considered at a sufficiently early stage, with the end result, in some cases, of considerable job losses.
3. We believe that staffing issues, including meaningful consultation with the relevant trade union, should be factored in to the application process from the start and certainly well before any decision on a bid. We hope that the new approach indicated in 3.8 can encompass such measures.

   Revenue Planning/Stabilisation Programmes

4. We welcome the increased attention to the potential 'disjunction between capital and revenue planning' (4.13). We have drawn attention in the past to problems arising from accumulated deficits in the regional theatre sector, under which continuing bank charges and repayments can become a near-crippling burden. In our view, such situations can justify additional injections of revenue funding (by means of deficit write-offs). Without this, capital programmes can easily be undermined, since the organisation's long term viability is placed in doubt.
5. Additionally, we welcome the recognition of the 'emerging mismatch between new large-scale venues and insufficient large-scale artistic product' (4.13). We believe some capital developments are potentially wasted when the venues concerned find there is insufficient product (eg emerging from West End theatre or existing repertory theatre) to make full use of new or improved facilities. We believe that increased attention should be given to investment in artistic product so that the software matches the hardware ie the 'integration of capital and revenue considerations' (4.13) - if necessary, by increased revenue funding.

   Partnership

6. We note the proposal for 'greater flexibility' (4.3) in partnership funding under CP2 - with the Arts Council 'in many cases' providing 'no more than 10%-15%' of project costs (4.3). While not opposed to flexibility per se, we hope due allowance will be given to the greater difficulty faced by some projects in attracting partnership funding. In particular, with local authorities facing long term spending constraints in this area, projects not attractive to commercial partners will inevitably be disadvantaged.
7. We welcome the recognition that while much Arts Council investment has gone to the 'most economically and socially deprived local authorities', it is nonetheless the case that 'the bulk of that investment went into the most prosperous areas of those local authorities (3.16). We therefore welcome the proposal, within CP2, to target social exclusion at not just local authority but ward level. We trust that the more flexible approach to partnerships will not be allowed to undermine this aim.

   Broadcasting/Recording/Electronic Publishing

8. We note the new set of 'artistic priorities' (3.4), including distribution by the above means. We trust that the increased emphasis on such forms of distribution will be accompanied by respect for creators' intellectual property rights and for contractual entitlements to secondary payments enjoyed by any other arts workers.

   Visual Artists

9. We welcome the proposal for 'added priority to investment in artists' workplaces, and spaces where artists make and create new art, whether as individuals or collectively' (3.6).
10. We have long sought to point out that many visual artists find the economic burden of suitable workplace property to be severe. We would like to see consideration of protected rates/rents etc for artists' workplace premises and believe there are examples from abroad (eg France, Germany, New York) which could be drawn on. More specifically, we would like consideration of mandatory rate relief for such premises (currently, under the local Government Finance Act 1998, such relief is only available for charities).
11. We further believe that ACE support for the Resale Right Directive would be a very practical and immediate demonstration of support for visual artists, as would the development of national guidelines for good practice on exhibition payment rights.