House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee

Funding of the Arts and Heritage

Written Evidence - Web

Volume One: Arts 001 – 114 Volume Two: Arts 115 – 231 & 54a

List of written evidence

Volume One (Arts 001-060): Page

1 New Writing North (Arts 01) 1 2 County Council (Arts 02) 5 3 Association of Festival Organisers (Arts 03) 7 4 Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums (Arts 04) 9 5 Peter Collins (Arts 05) 13 6 Playhouse (Arts 06) 15 7 APRS (Arts 07) 19 8 Foundation for Community Dance (Arts 08) 24 9 Turner Contemporary (Arts 09) 27 10 Horse + Bamboo Theatre (Arts 10) 29 11 Mind the Gap (Arts 11) 35 12 Carousel (Arts 12) 41 13 Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) (Arts 14) 45 14 Contemporary Glass Society (Arts 15) 48 15 (NMMC) (Arts 16) 50 16 South East Dance (SED) (Arts 17) 56 17 Robin Jacob (Arts 18) 60 18 sporta (Arts 20) 62 19 North East Regional Renaissance Board (Arts 21) 64 20 Museums Forum (Arts 23) 68 21 University Museums Group (Arts 24) 71 22 Royal Shakespeare Company (Arts 25) 74 23 Midlands Federation of Museums & Art Galleries (Arts 26) 81 24 PRS for Music Foundation (Arts 27) 85 25 OYAP Trust (Arts 28) 90 26 Museums and Art Gallery (Arts 29) 92 27 Sue Grace, Sarah Bridges, Jane Seddon, Carrie Carruthers, Louise Tyrrell and Grace Kempster, Northamptonshire County Council (Arts 30) 98 28 Andrew Welch (Arts 31) 103 29 Dance UK (Arts 32) 110 30 National Campaign for the Arts (NCA) (Arts 33) 112 31 Christopher Gordon & Peter Stark (Arts 34) 120 32 Greater Authority (GLA) (Arts 35) 149 33 &Co (Arts 36) 153 34 Heritage Tourism Executive for the North West (Arts 37) 157 35 Camelot UK Lotteries Limited (Arts 38) 160 36 Dr Alana Jelinek (Arts 39) 165 37 Sherborne House Trust (Arts 40) 171 38 Cornerhouse (Arts 41) 174 Page

39 Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers for England (ALGAO: England) (Arts 42) 180 40 Artists Interaction and Representation (AIR) (Arts 43) 183 41 Southwark Arts Forum (Arts 44) 187 42 Mission, Models, Money (MMM) (Arts 45) 189 43 engage (Arts 46) 194 44 Newcastle City Council (Arts 47) 199 45 (Arts 48) 202 46 Film London (Arts 49) 207 47 Faceless Company Ltd (Arts 50) 209 48 London Arts in Health Forum (LAHF) (Arts 51) 212 49 British Federation of Film Societies (BFFS) (Arts 52) 214 50 University Museums (Arts 53) 219 51 City Council and members of Liverpool Arts Regeneration Consortium (LARC) (Arts 54) 224 52 English Touring Opera (Arts 55) 231 53 Institute for Creative Enterprise (ICE), University (Arts 56) 235 54 Music Centre Trust Ltd (Arts 57) 239 55 Partnership for Urban South Quality Place Delivery Panel (Arts 58) 245 56 Museum of South (Arts 59) 253 57 Luton Culture (Arts 60) 257 58 Craftspace (Arts 61) 261 59 Exeter City Council (Arts 62) 265 60 Royal Albert Memorial Museum & Art Gallery (RAMM) (Arts 63) 267 61 Prescap (Arts 64) 271 62 Edward Schlesinger (Arts 65) 277 63 Farnham Theatre Association Ltd (Arts 66) 279 64 Foundation for the Old Royal Naval College (Arts 67) 282 65 London Borough of Southwark (Arts 68) 284 66 Strange Cargo (Arts 69) 289 67 Trestle (Art 70) 294 68 Association of British Jazz Musicians (Arts 71) 297 69 Merseyside Dance Initiative (MDI) (Arts 72) 304 70 Hardish Virk (Arts 73) 308 71 (Arts 74) 310 72 Arts & Business (Arts 75) 317 73 The Heritage Alliance (Arts 76) 324 74 Arts Council England (Arts 77) 331 75 The Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS) (Arts 78) 337 76 Accentuate (Arts 79) 343 77 Hallé Concerts Society (Arts 80) 347 78 Orchestras Live (Arts 82) 353 79 Wayne McGregor Random Dance, Akram Khan Company, Jasmin Vardimon Company, DV8 Physical Theatre, and Hofesh Schechter Company (Arts 83) 357 80 Northern Ballet (Arts 84) 362 81 Cultural Learning Alliance (CLA) (Arts 85) 366 82 Royal Court Theatre (Arts 86) 372 83 (87) 375 84 Crafts Council (Arts 88) 381 85 Corporation (Arts 89) 385 86 Ivan Cutting (Arts 90) 389 87 Jazz Services Ltd (Arts 91) 392 88 Peterborough Attractions Group (Arts 92) 397 89 Creativity, Culture and Education (CCE) (Arts 93) 400 90 UK Music (Arts 94) 406 91 Department of Culture at Manchester City Council (Arts 95) 411 92 Fiona Macalister (Arts 96) 416 93 Opera and Music Theatre Forum (Arts 97) 419 94 Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) (Arts 98) 426 95 East Midlands Museum Service (Arts 99) 432 96 Dr Kevin Fewster (Arts 100) 435 97 The Royal Institution of Cornwall (Arts 101) 437 98 Jonathan Platt (Arts 102) 443 99 Chard and District Museum (Arts 103) 446 100 Musicians’ Union (Arts 104) 448 101 Dance Consortium (Arts 105) 451 102 The Place (Arts 106) 454 103 Artsadmin (Arts 107) 459 104 Incorporated Society of Musicians (ISM) (Arts 108) 462 105 Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site (Arts 109) 469 106 National Historic Ships (Arts 110) 473 107 Amber Film & Photography Collective (Arts 111) 477 108 Modern Art Oxford (Arts 112) 481 109 Theatre Company (Arts 113) 485 110 Association of Independent Museums (AIM) (Arts 114) 488

Volume Two (Arts 115 – 229 & 54a):

111 Equity (Arts 115) 492 112 London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Arts Service (Arts 116) 498 113 Society of Antiquaries of London (Arts 117) 504 114 Freedom Studios (Arts 118) 506 115 The Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge (Arts 119) 509 116 Salisbury Playhouse (Arts 120) 512 117 Oxford Playhouse (Arts 121) 517 118 First Light (Arts 122) 523 119 Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) (Arts 123) 526 120 Apples & Snakes (Arts 124) 529 121 Association of British Orchestras (ABO) (Arts 125) 531 122 Museums Association (Arts 126) 537 123 The Reading Agency (Arts 127) 544 124 UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (Arts 128) 548 125 Voluntary Arts England (Arts 129) 551 126 Martin Thomas (Arts 130) 556 127 North Kesteven District Council (Arts 131) 561 128 New Deal of the Mind (NDoTM) (Arts 132) 565 129 StopGAP (Arts 133) 569 130 Aldeburgh Music (Arts 134) 575 131 London Councils and the Chief Leisure and Cultural Officers Association of London (CLOA London) (Arts 135) 580 132 The Young Vic Theatre Company (Arts 136) 585 133 Country Land and Business Association (Arts 137) 587 134 Netribution Ltd (Arts 138) 593 135 Robert Groves (Arts 139) 597 136 Murray Weston (Arts 140) 601 137 Axis (Arts 141) 607 138 Paul Clark (Arts 142) 611 139 Iain More Associates Ltd (Arts 143) 615 140 The Visual Arts and Galleries Association (VAGA) (Arts 144) 621 141 Rosalind Riley (Arts 145) 630 142 Screen England (Arts 146) 633 143 Michael Ohajuru (Arts 147) 636 144 Regional Cities East (RCE) (Arts 148) 641 145 Northern Rock Foundation (Arts 149) 647 146 TYA-UK Centre of ASSITEJ, the International Association of Theatre for Children and Young People (Arts 150) 649 147 Renaissance East of England (Arts 151) 652 148 Big Lottery Fund (Arts 152) 657 149 National Music Council (Arts 153) 661 150 ZENDEH (Arts 154) 667 151 Renaissance South West (Arts 155) 668 152 Dance Digital (Arts 156) 673 153 Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) (Arts 157) 678 154 Renaissance East Midlands (Arts 158) 679 155 The Blake Museum (Arts 159) 683 156 Liverpool Biennial of Contemporary Art Ltd (Arts 160) 686 157 Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK) (Arts 161) 693 158 Sinfonia ViVA (Arts 162) 698 159 Cause4 (Arts 163) 700 160 The Sage Gateshead (Arts 164) 707 161 CapeUK (Arts 165) 710 162 The (Arts 166) 716 163 Natalie Watson (Arts 167) 722 164 Design and Artists Copyright Society (DACS) (Arts 168) 726 165 Film and Video Umbrella Ltd (FV) (Arts 169) 733 166 Culture Service, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (Arts 170) 737 167 Northwest Regional Development Agency (Arts 171) 740 168 Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee (Arts 172) 745 169 Leicester City Council Cultural Services Division and also as lead Partner for Renaissance East Midlands (Arts 173) 751 170 South West Screen (Arts 174) 756 171 National Association for Literature Development (Arts 175) 760 172 Paul Kelly (Arts 176) 765 173 Renaissance in the Regions (South West) (Arts 177) 770 174 Sue Cheriton (Arts 178) 776 175 Hoipolloi Theatre (Arts 179) 780 176 County Council, with contributions from Dorset Strategic Partnership Culture Theme Group (Arts 180) 783 177 The Society for Nautical Research (Arts 181) 790 178 Almeida Theatre Company Ltd (Arts 182) 796 179 RESCUE: The British Archaeological Trust (Arts 183) 798 180 English National Opera (Arts 184) 801 181 Historic Towns Forum (HTF) (Arts 185) 806 182 Association of English Cathedrals (AEC) (Arts 186) 810 183 Newcastle Gateshead Cultural Venues (Arts 187) 813 184 Paul Graham (Arts 188) 819 185 Stephen Boyce (Arts 189) 821 186 Archives & Records Association (Arts 190) 827 187 Havering Council, Culture and Leisure Services (Arts 191) 833 188 National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF) and the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) (Arts 192) 837 189 Society of London Theatre and Theatrical Management Association (Arts 193) 843 190 a-n The Artists Information Company (Arts 194) 846 191 The Art Fund (Arts 195) 852 192 National Museum of Science & Industry (NMSI) (Arts 196) 856 193 Royal Opera House (Arts 197) 859 194 Making Music (Arts 198) 865 195 High Peak Community Arts (Arts 199) 871 196 Federation of Museums and Art Galleries of Wales (Arts 200) 876 197 County Council (Arts 201) 881 198 William Poel (Arts 202) 883 199 Historic Houses Association (HHA) (Arts 203) 885 200 Renaissance Yorkshire Museum Hub (Arts 204) 891 201 Take Art; and the National Rural Touring Forum (NRTF) (Arts 205) 897 202 National Museum Directors’ Conference (Arts 206) 902 203 Board of the South Western Federation of Museums & Art Galleries (SWFMAG) (Arts 207) 908 204 BECTU (Arts 208) 915 National Association of Local Government Arts Officers (NALGAO) (Arts 209) 921 205 Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) (Arts 210) 927 206 (BFI) (Arts 211) 932 207 Renaissance South East (Arts 212) 940 208 Arts Development Officer for County Council (Arts 213) 943 209 Chief Cultural & Leisure Officers Association (CLOA) (Arts 214) 947 210 Local Government Association (Arts 215) 951 211 Southbank Centre (Arts 216) 957 212 National Theatre (Arts 217) 960 213 Nottingham City Council (Arts 218) 965 214 Joint Museums Committee, University of Cambridge (Arts 219) 967 215 artsNK (Arts 220) 968 216 Crewkerne & District Museum & Heritage Centre (Arts 221) 971 217 Dr Simon Jenner (Arts 222) 973 218 Independent Cinema Office (Arts 223) 978 219 Musical Theatre Matters UK (Arts 224) 981 220 Creative Scotland (Arts 225) 987 221 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (Arts 226) 989 222 Association for Industrial Archaeology (AIA) (Arts 227) 992 223 MITA – Moving Image Training Alliance (Arts 228) 995 224 Richard Griffith (Arts 229) 998 225 Marc Sidwell (Arts 230) 999 226 Authors Licensing and Collecting Society (Arts 231) 1001 227 Liverpool City Council (Arts 54a) 1004 492

Written evidence submitted by Equity (arts 115)

Introductory Comments 1. Equity is the trade union representing 36,500 actors, performers and other creative professionals working in the UK. Our members work across the arts sectors and the creative industries including in drama, comedy and entertainment productions, opera, musical theatre and dance. The composition of the membership is approximately equal between the sexes.

2. The question of the nature and adequacy of public support for the arts is a core concern for our members. It is a crucial issue, not only for those individuals currently employed in theatre and arts organisations (whether subsidised or in the commercial sector), but also for many of our members working in television, film or radio, who will often work across all of these media.

3. This submission will respond to the key points outlined by the Committee in its terms of reference, but will focus on those areas that are particularly relevant to our experience. We would also welcome the opportunity to provide additional oral evidence to the Committee in due course. As the representative organisation of actors, singers, dancers, stage managers, creative contributors and other performers working in the UK we believe we could provide an essential perspective on the issues covered by this inquiry.

4. We welcome the timing of this Inquiry, but regret that its findings will not be ready in time to better inform the Comprehensive Spending Review. Equity has been very concerned that no discussions have as yet taken place between DCMS or the Treasury and trade unions in the creative sector concerning proposals in the Comprehensive Spending Review. We are also concerned that no impact assessment has been carried out in accordance with the new Equality Act legislation.

The impact recent, and future, spending cuts from central and local Government will have on the arts and heritage at a national and local level 5. This inquiry comes at a time when funding for arts and culture are under considerable threat. We are aware that DCMS funding may be reduced by up to 30% and that organisations including Arts Council England have been asked to undertake work to model the effects of substantial cuts to their budgets. All Arts Council England Regularly Funded Organisations have already received a year-in cut of 0.5%. In monetary terms this represents a reduction in income for 2010 of £142,185 for the Royal Opera House and £104,022 for the Southbank Centre.

6. The impact of these cuts will also have significant consequences for smaller theatre companies, which operate on much smaller margins and could be devastating for our female members who are already disadvantaged with regard to employment opportunities, despite the success of largely female-led productions such as "Mama Mia" and "Calendar Girls". Small scale and fringe theatre, which are characterised by low pay, currently represent the main employment opportunities for women.1

7. The continuing popularity of the arts has enabled the sector to grow and succeed, despite the challenges of the recession. In 2008/9 there was an increase in attendance at Regularly Funded Organisations of 17% and a 9.2% increase in the percentage of RFOs rated “strong” or “outstanding” in artistic quality2. Given this success and the potential for further growth, the cuts foreseen in the Comprehensive Spending Review would appear to

1 Sphinx Theatre Women in Theatre Survey 2006 2 Source: Arts Council England Annual Report 2010 493

run contrary to the intention of growing the UK’s economy by enabling sectors such as the creative industries and tourism to expand and provide employment.

8. In his speech at the Serpentine Gallery on 12th August the Prime Minister pledged to make Britain one of the top five tourist destinations in the world. The arts and the UK’s cultural heritage will obviously be a vital component of a successful tourism strategy. Research by the Nation Brands Index for Visit Britain has found that the UK is ranked 4th out of 50 countries in terms of having an exciting, contemporary culture in terms of music, art, films and literature. Further research by Visit Britain demonstrates that culture and heritage are “the main motivators for visiting Britain for a holiday/short break”. Visit Britain also estimates that holidaymakers in the UK spend £3bn, representing 60% of their total spending, on culture and heritage activities.3

9. Business leaders also agree that investment in culture and the arts should be sustained. In 2009 HSBC asked 500 entrepreneurs what they thought business in Britain should focus on in the years ahead. World class creative industries were the most important priority at 56.5% ahead of the 46.2% emphasising the need for a top class education and training system.4 NESTA has calculated that with Government support, a 4% annual growth rate can be achieved in the coming years by the creative industries, double the rate of the rest of the economy. This growth would boost GVA to £85 billion from £57billion and create 185,000 new jobs. By 2013, the creative industries are expected to employ 1.3 million people, which is likely to be more than the financial sector.5

10. We also have significant concerns about the impact of cuts to arts funding at the local level. Only 15% of theatres in the UK are subsidised by the Arts Councils, most receive financial support from their local authorities. Local authorities have flexibility over discretionary budgets and so the impact on arts and cultural expenditure will vary from council to council. If protection is afforded to areas such as education and health when local authorities come to implement budget cuts, this could mean that local arts and culture budgets will face more severe reductions.

11. A statutory duty to fund the arts, as is the case in Wales, could deliver substantial benefits for local authorities. NALGAO (National Association of Local Government Arts Officers) estimates that for every £1 being spent on arts services a return of £1.67 is realised in additional funding from other organisations and services.6 Local communities derive enormous benefits from spending on the arts and culture. Investment in cultural activities can also drive regeneration and community cohesion. Public approval for spending on the arts is high, as borne out by recent survey evidence from the Greater London Authority. GLA survey results show that 71% of respondents feel that it is important that ’taxpayer’s money continues to be invested in London’s culture during difficult economic times’ compared to just 16% who disagree.7

3 Culture and Heritage Topic Profile, data from the International Passenger Survey, available from: http://www.visitbritain.org/Images/Culture%20%26%20Heritage%20Topic%20Profile%20Full_tcm139‐ 184566.pdf 4 The Future of Business, The Changing Face of Business in 21st Century Britain, available from: http://www.100thoughts.hsbc.co.uk/downloads/HSBC‐future‐of‐business‐report.pdf 5 Figures available from: http://www.nesta.org.uk/areas_of_work/creative_industries/startups_creative/starter_for_6_startups/assets /features/uk_creative_industry_to_drive_significant_growth_i 6 See: http://www.nalgao.org/e107_images/custom/spendreport08.pdf

7 Pg 60, Cultural Metropolis, available from: http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/04%20Culture%20Strategy%20final1.pdf

494

12. Any significant cuts to public funding for the arts inevitably places the sustainability of many organisations at risk. This will impact on the employment, training and development opportunities available to actors, performers and creative professionals, whose contribution to the arts drives the success of the UK’s cultural offer nationally and locally. The talent nurtured in our theatres and music venues win record numbers of Oscars, Tonys and Grammies, demonstrating that investment in talent delivers an international competitive advantage for the UK and should be sustained.

What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale 13. Our members strongly believe that action is necessary to reduce excessive administrative costs in arts organisations. For some time, our members have reported that organisations have been investing significant amounts in modernising their management, marketing and administrative structures and that this has led to a decrease in funds available for production. We are concerned that increasing overheads have put the core business of theatres at risk. For example, in spite of significant investment in its building, an entirely new management team and a reduced number of productions, the Northcott in Exeter fell into administration this year.

14. There are also discrepancies between full time employment opportunities available to performers compared to those available for support staff. Many theatres are now employing increasing numbers of staff not directly related to performance, such as press and publicity, community outreach and school liaison officers. The justification for this spending is that theatres need to reach out to new audiences.8 While Equity supports this aspiration, unfortunately there is no evidence that such schemes have proven successful and that audiences are becoming more diverse or increasing. Moreover, it appears illogical to invest more resources in reaching out to audiences if this compromises the amount of funding available to produce work on the stage for audiences to watch.

15. Organisations should be required to share data about the proportion of their budget that is spent on the production of work and specifically on creative workers. This could assist in ensuring best practice across the arts. If funding allocations are to be cut, the Arts Councils should also set maximum levels for the proportion of funds spent on administration and should ensure that there is a fair balance between the employment opportunities and remuneration available for creative workers and support and administrative staff.

16. Our members have also identified a significant increase in co-productions. While this model can make sense financially, in some cases it can lead to a decrease in employment opportunities and fees for actors, and other creative professionals including designers and directors, which in turn has a negative impact on the pool of experienced creative talent. Co-productions can also limit the opportunities for genuine ensemble work which is a valued form of theatre many members believe is under-represented in the current modes of production.

17. Equity has argued for some time that the Arts Councils and local authorities should work together as much as possible to provide a coordinated approach to arts funding. While Equity does not have direct experience of managing these relationships, a number of our members who work as artistic directors report that better communication and joint working can be achieved through regular meetings which include all funding parties.

8 Arts Council England reported in its 2009 Theatre Assessment that “national trend data available for the five years of this Assessment reveals a static picture for attendances and audience profiles”. 495

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable 18. Currently public funding makes up just over half (53%) of the income received by the arts sector. 8% of public money is spent by local authorities. The private sector accounts for 15% and box office and other earned income constitute a further third of funds.9 This mixed economy of funding has evolved over time and is effective. In the last decade there has been an unprecedented level of funding made available to the arts which has delivered a range of critically and commercially successful work.

19. The current framework of public support for the arts enables practitioners to take risks and make long term investments in creativity. Funded theatre is able to experiment and produce new and exciting work, precisely because it does not have to rely completely on ticket sales at the box office in the same way as the commercial sector. This ability to take risks makes funded theatre more dynamic and creative, and more able to provide opportunities for new talent and new writing.

20. The organisation Arts and Business agrees with this assessment. In their recently published report Arts Funding in a Cooler Climate A&B state that “a tripartite system that has evolved so organically and which appears to grow so interdependently would be put at risk of serious damage by any attempt to recast it more radically, including the withdrawal of large amounts of subsidy”.10

21. As with many other sectors of the creative industries, the arts are not commercially viable without the support provided by public subsidy. However, the return generated by this investment is far in excess of the subsidy awarded and adds value to the UK economy through VAT receipts, the creation of intellectual property and the development of creative talent. According to Arts Council England in 2004 the public investment of £121.3 million for theatre generated in the region of £2.6 billion, split between the West End (£1.5 billion) and the rest of the country (£1.1 billion). Whilst this is a mixture of subsidised and commercial activity, commercial theatre would readily admit its inability to thrive without the subsidised sector.

22. There are, however, elements within Government arts funding policy that could be rebalanced. Public subsidy for the arts must prioritise the need to develop more original production, create employment for professional performers and focus less on administration. In line with good practice in other areas, and in order to create sustainable employment in the arts sector, funding bodies should insist that organisations in receipt of subsidy pay at least industry standard wages and fees to performers and other creative workers.

Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one 23. We continue to support the arms length principle, the use of peer review in the sector and believe that micro-management of arts organisations is not desirable. However, we do believe that funding bodies should have a duty to hold accurate and reliable information on pay, how much work is being produced and how public money is being used across the arts sector.

24. Initial findings from Equity’s 2010 survey of its members show that over 85% earned less than £20,000 from their work in the entertainment industry in the last 12 months. 17% of

9 Source: Arts & Business 10 Report available from: http://www.artsandbusiness.org.uk/media%20library/Files/communications/ArtsFundinginaCoolerClimateFIN AL.pdf

496

members have had to turn down work in subsidised repertory theatre in the last 12 months because the pay on offer was too low. In commercial theatre and independent theatre the figures for turning down work rise to 19% and 37%. As low pay for performers is endemic in the arts sector, there is clearly a role for the Arts Councils and other funding bodies in proactively promoting the right to be paid properly, whether this is adhering to National Minimum Wage legislation or industry agreed rates.

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 25. Equity has responded to the consultation by the Secretary of State on the Draft Legislative Order to enact a change to the shares going to the National Lottery good causes. Many of our members work in organisations which depend on Lottery originated funding which is distributed by bodies including the Arts Councils, the UK Film Council and Creative Scotland. We welcome the draft Order and its objective of increasing the share of funds apportioned for the arts, heritage and sport from 16.6% to 18% each by 1 April 2011. We also welcome the further proposed increase in the shares for the arts, heritage and sport to 20% from 1 April 2012.

26. The Olympics currently account for £2.2 billion of National Lottery funds, which is approximately 20% of the money that has been made available for good causes between 2005 and 2012. During this period the arts and heritage stand to lose £322.4 million. For this reason we would like to see an even greater proportion of Lottery funding made available for arts, sport and heritage in the future.

27. Some significant achievements have been made possible by the Lottery funding provided to the arts. It is therefore unfortunate that the additional £50m that will be generated as a of the proposed changes to the Lottery shares is likely to be more than offset by cuts to the arts budget resulting from the Comprehensive Spending Review and the demands of the Olympics.

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 28. Since 2000 the UK Film Council has championed film production in the UK and has made a vital contribution to both our economy and international cultural reputation. The success of British film since the Film Council’s creation is clear. The core UK film industry contributed over £4.5 billion to UK GDP in 2009 and over £1.2 billion to the Exchequer gross of tax relief and other fiscal support, from a turnover of £8.6 billion. At the same time UK film exports were 92% higher than in 2001, totalling £1.3 billion. In 2009 UK films and talent scooped 36 major film awards, 17% of the total available.11

29. While we appreciate the assurances made by the Government that tax relief and Lottery funding for UK film will continue, we are concerned that the decision to abolish UKFC has been taken without prior consultation with interests in the sector. There continues to be a need for a dedicated body that can advocate for, and champion British film and film talent, as well as engage with stakeholders such as studios, distributors and trade unions.

Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations

11 Source: UK Film Council 497

30. While Equity acknowledges that philanthropy makes a significant and positive contribution to the arts economy, generating £363m a year for the sector12, we are concerned that private investment should not displace public subsidy. Inducements to encourage private donations and philanthropy should be welcomed as this will enable organisations to top up their funding, but as stated above, we continue to support the existing mixed economy of funding which has proved to be stable and successful.

31. Total private investment in the arts sector fell by 7% for the whole of the UK last year and by 8% in London.13 Given that falls in investment were experienced in all three sources of private sector support, namely business sponsorship, individual donors and trusts and foundations and that the organisation Arts and Business expects this trend to continue for at least two years, the case for supporting and maintaining public subsidy is all the more compelling.

32. We do not believe it is realistic for the UK to replicate the US model of private giving to the arts, where 95%14 of funding is generated from private sector sources. The experience of the US suggests that a reliance on private donations is likely to concentrate funding towards established organisations and could dissuade artists from taking risks or developing new productions and new writing.

33. There is also a risk that substituting private donations for public subsidy will create a funding divide between London and regionally based organisations. Regional repertory theatres are an important pillar of UK theatre and have supported numerous successful and innovative new works that have transferred to theatres in London and beyond.

Other areas of interest that are raised during the course of its inquiry 34. Equity continues to be concerned that due regard for equal opportunities, particularly with regard to gender balance and portrayal are long over-due in the arts sector and is campaigning vigorously for change. Research undertaken for the International Federation of Actors15, of which Equity is a member, found that women in the arts consistently earn less than men across all age categories and that age and gender are a disadvantage when it comes to job opportunities, a disadvantage further compounded by being from an ethnic minority. Best practice for tackling this problem exists in other European countries such as Norway16, where organisations in receipt of government funding are required to do a yearly audit on gender balance. It is vital that employers and arts funding bodies are made aware of their obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

September 2010

12 Source: Arts & Business 13 ibid 14 ibid 15 Age, Gender and Performer Employment in Europe, 2008: http://www.fia‐actors.com/uploads/ENGLISH.pdf 16 The Norwegian Gender Equality Act 2005 states that “Enterprises that are subject to a statutory duty to prepare an annual report shall in the said report give an account of the actual state of affairs as regards gender equality in the enterprise. An account shall also be given of measures that have been implemented and measures that are planned to be implemented in order to promote gender equality and to prevent differential treatment in contravention of this Act.”

498

Written evidence submitted by London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Arts Service (arts 116)

1. Summary

1.1 The UK cultural sector is internationally respected and admired. As we move towards new models and levels of funding arts and heritage, it is important that we maintain and develop the effectiveness and dynamism of our cultural sector.

1.2 Central and local government cuts have already had a short term impact on the scope of our activities as a local authority arts service, and upon the outcomes we are able to deliver for our local residents through culture.

1.3 It is important to note that the cultural sector is affected by direct cuts to culture budgets, but also by cuts to other departmental budgets as these departments pass on cuts to cultural partners.

1.4 The likely impact of future cuts will be that fewer people have access to the transformative potential of cultural opportunities, with the most vulnerable in society likely to be the first to loose out as programmes promoting equality of access for these audiences always require a higher level of initial investment than universal provision.

1.5 The cultural sector is keen to work closely together to reduce duplication of effort and make economies of scale; one risk is that such co-ordinated working and economies of scale may be harder to achieve in future without the infrastructure provided by arms-length organisations such as MLA.

1.6 When considering the benefits of economies of scale, it is vital to balance these against the importance of localised delivery models.

1.7 Like many cultural organisations, we currently operate on a mixed economy of funding including direct local authority budget allocations, commissioning, grants, income generation, and some sponsorship. This entrepreneurial approach keeps our programme fresh and dynamic but also carries a risk of short-termism. We welcome plans to allocate 60% of Lottery funding to the arts, sport and heritage causes.

1.8 MLA has had a positive influence upon the impact we make within our local community, the rigor with which we evidence these impacts, and the efficiency with which we achieve them through partnership delivery. Without a similar body, there is a risk of fragmentation, duplication and loss of quality and innovation across our sector.

1.9 We are keen to work more closely with business and philanthropists to support and develop our programmes. However our experience highlights a number of issues relating to business and philanthropy as funders of the arts and heritage at a local level which need to be addressed for this to be a viable funding approach across the sector. 499

2. Impact of recent, and future, spending cuts from central and local Government will have on the arts and heritage at a national and local level

2.1 In recent meetings with international colleagues from the museum and wider cultural sectors, we have repeatedly been struck by the admiration with which the UK cultural sector is regarded. The UK is admired internationally as a country that values and is willing to invest in its culture and its heritage; progressive and enlightened in its approach and leading the way in terms of the integration of cultural and social policy and the coherence and co-ordination of its cultural sector. This leading global position is the result of years of investment in our sector. In this context, it is vital that spending cuts are structured to avoid undermining the fruits of this investment.

2.2 As a local authority service, we are already feeling the initial impact of central and local Government cuts. These have included the cancellation of a pilot project to recruit and train volunteers to act as Community Learning Champions encouraging more adults to get involved in learning opportunities (MLA funded), and the reduction of funding for cultural activities for children and families in parks in the borough’s deprived wards, and for positive activities for vulnerable young people (local authority funding). The loss of the Youth Opportunities Fund (YOF) has resulted in disappointment for many of the young people we work with who had put together applications for projects and will certainly result in a reduced offer for young people locally as well as removing the opportunity for active participation in shaping the offer that YOF promoted. The withdrawal of Mediabox funding has also adversely affected our intended youth offer this year. In terms of our ability to support 14-19 pathways, the removal of the Diploma Development Partnership and Regional Advisors, and the planned removal of the Diploma Formula Grant from 2011, have impacted upon schools’ ability to work in partnership with the cultural sector, in light of our successful pilot of a Creative and Media Diploma project with a local consortia in 2009/10 which we were hoping to replicate.

2.3 An important point to consider is that the cultural sector is not only affected by cuts to DCMS budgets or to local Cultural Services budgets. As well as facing these sector- specific government cuts, the fact that we have developed sophisticated partnership delivery models to ensure we are delivering on wider local priorities ensures we will be dramatically affected by reductions in spending across many other departments who currently commission us to deliver services. Locally, these include Environment, departments across Children’s Services especially Youth Services and Services for Children with Disabilities, and the PCT. Nationally, cuts to a range of Departments including the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills would be likely to impact upon our sector above and beyond cuts to DCMS.

2.4 In terms of future cuts, we are anticipating a significant impact upon the offer we are able to provide and the contribution we are able to make to the delivery of local priorities through partnership working. With reduced staff capacity combined with reduced departmental budgets across the authority and reduced opportunities to seek project funding from central government funded sources (such as ACE, MLA, Renaissance) it seems inevitable that we will have to reduce the scope of our activities. The likely impact of this is that fewer people will have access to the transformative potential of cultural opportunities, with the most vulnerable in society likely to be the first to loose out as programmes promoting equality of access for these audiences always require a higher level of initial investment than universal provision for those already confident in accessing cultural opportunities. The role culture can play in enabling people to escape social isolation and play a more active part in their communities would seem to be vital in the building of the Big Society. 500

3. Arts organisations working more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

3.1 The cultural sector is keen to work closely together to reduce duplication of effort and make economies of scale; this has been encouraged in recent years through funding structures promoting partnership working and commissioning on a local level, particularly between the public and third sectors. Larger scale sector projects, such as those delivered by the regional Renaissance Hubs, have also helped promote this approach. One risk however is that such co-ordinated working and economies of scale may be harder to achieve in future without the infrastructure provided by arms-length organisations such as MLA.

3.2 When considering the benefits of economies of scale, it is vital to balance these against the importance of localised delivery models. Local authority arts and heritage services and their third sector partners are uniquely placed to deliver bespoke programmes to meet specific local needs, responding to need at the level of individual wards. This approach ensures resources are targeted effectively, as well as promoting equality of access by minimising some of the barriers to access (from barriers relating to financial and transport issues to those relating to personal confidence) that might exist in relation to larger, more centralised cultural institutions. Cultural settings can also play an important part in identifying wider local needs as they can provide a less intimidating, more welcoming environment than many ‘civic’ buildings.

4. The public subsidy for the arts and heritage

4.1 The current system, and structure, of funding distribution

In this section we will explore the nature of the current system in terms of our specific experience as a local authority arts service, rather than commenting more widely on the sector as a whole. We currently operate through a mixed model of funding including:

• direct funding from local authority allocated Cultural Services budget • commissioning by other local authority departments including other departments within Education, Children’s and Cultural Services • commissioning by external partners including schools, PCT, Renaissance Hubs, MLA • project-specific grant funding from lottery distributors, trusts, charities and other bodies including ACE, HLF, MLA, Renaissance, Niace, engage, Richmond Parish Lands Charity, Barnes Workhouse Trust, Hampton Fuel Allotment Charity, Double O Charity • income generation through event ticketing, sales of artworks, retail, functions bookings and facilities hire • corporate sponsorship • donations and individual giving

This varied model of funding ensures that we represent excellent value for money locally as we proactively fundraise approximately half our annual turnover as well as generating external investment in major capital projects. Through being commissioned by other teams within the local authority, we have become an integrated part of the delivery model for a range of core services including services for families, for young people, for children and young people with disabilities and for Children Looked After. This means we are also drawing on wider budgets as well as delivering wider outcomes than those traditionally allocated to ‘culture’. 501

Our entrepreneurial approach to attracting external investment means that we are both proactive and responsive when it comes to securing grant funding. In order to sustain and develop our offer to meet local needs we must seek to identify good fit between these local priorities and the criteria of various grant awarding bodies and national programmes. This helps to ensure that the projects we plan are rigorously aligned with both local and national priorities as well as encouraging us to design projects that represent good value for money in order to increase our chances of being awarded external grant funding. When funding opportunities arise (for example the Transformation Fund which accompanied the publication of the Learning Revolution white paper) we must assess how these new opportunities can be aligned with existing priorities to enrich or develop our provision. This responsive element to our work has over the years ensured that we are constantly developing our practice and our offer and sharing what we learn through these projects with colleagues across the sector. Our work is never static.

This emphasis on attracting external investment, combined with the preference amongst most grant awarding bodies for innovation, does however carry a risk of short-termism. While it is relatively straightforward to source funding to pilot a new set of activity to meet local need, it is often challenging to sustain that activity, even where the pilot increases evidence of need and creates a sustained demand. This potentially undermines the impact of many projects, particularly those which aim to broaden access to culture, as there is a risk that we encourage new audiences to engage with culture but then fail to offer them any further opportunities for engagement, turning what might have been a powerful project with a lasting legacy into something of a ‘tick-box’ exercise which lets down the very people it is meant to benefit. We work hard to mitigate against this problem through rigorous legacy planning but it is a challenge of the current system that valued, innovative (but not brand new) provision with a proven impact is often difficult to sustain without a level of creative rebranding to convince funders to support it. This short-termism has many knock-on effects in terms of efficiency and, potentially, quality, as planning cycles are reduced and cultural organisations struggle to make accurate budget projections in the face of so many unknowns.

4.2 Impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations

We welcome plans to allocate 60% of Lottery funding to the arts, sport and heritage causes. We have benefited significantly from Heritage Lottery Fund grants, including major capital projects which have transformed our site, facilities and programmes, and smaller project grants which have enabled us to develop innovative exhibition and education projects. However, as a local authority service we are concerned by plans to reform the Big Lottery Fund to ensure that only voluntary and community sector projects are funded. Having been part of Big Lottery Funded Their Past Your Future 2, we have experienced at first hand the impacts that such projects delivered on a national scale (and therefore, often, through public sector bodies) can have on local communities.

4.3 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;

4.3.1 Gallery, the accredited museum we administer as part of the LA arts service, has enjoyed a strong relationship with MLA over recent years. We have benefited from advice and guidance from Museum Development Officers, both in relation to achieving Accreditation and advice relating to specific issues including collections care and exhibitions planning. We have benefitted greatly from the training 502

opportunities offered through MLA and Renaissance; both in relation to specific knowledge and understanding but also in terms of organisational development at a crucial stage in our evolution as an organisation. The professional network supported by MLA, particularly through initiatives such as the Local Authority Museums Improvement network and the Museumaker initiative, provides both support and inspirational challenge to us when developing our offer. The encouragement to work cross-sectorally with Libraries through joint development projects initiated by MLA has had a lasting impact on how our services work together locally, in turn helping us extend our offer to wider audiences and promote community cohesion. More recently, encouragement to initiate and sustain partnerships with other sectors including HE/FE, as well as Children’s Services through the Working With Children’s Services project, has helped foster innovation and provide direction as we investigate and share new ways of working.

4.3.2 Over recent years, MLA initiated projects have helped us to develop our offer through innovative pilot projects to ensure that we are meeting the needs of different sectors within our community – including vulnerable adults, non-visiting schools, Children Looked After and other vulnerable young people, and families living in areas of relative deprivation. MLA-administered funding has proved vital in allowing us to embark on these projects. In many cases, these MLA-initiated projects have been the starting point for lasting relationships enabling the Gallery to play a full, active part in contributing to local strategic priorities.

4.3.3 For all these reasons, we believe MLA has had an extremely positive influence upon the impact we make within our local community, the rigor with which we evidence these impacts, and the efficiency with which we achieve them through partnership delivery. Without a similar body, there is a risk of fragmentation, duplication and loss of quality and innovation across our sector.

5 The role of businesses and philanthropists in funding arts at a national and local level

5.1 As a local authority arts service, we have attempted to work closely with business and philanthropists over a number of years with limited success. Our experience highlights a number of issues relating to business and philanthropy as funders of the arts and heritage at a local level:

5.1.1 Many businesses and philanthropic trusts are less willing to contribute to projects led by local authority services because of the public perception that such projects should be paid for ‘by the council’ (even when they are delivered by non-statutory departments) and that sponsoring charities and third sector organisations brings more social benefit. 5.1.2 Many businesses sponsor arts, heritage or education projects as part of shaping their public profile and are therefore more likely to want their brand associated with high profile, large-scale, ‘glamorous’, London-based institutions such as national museums. It is much harder for smaller local arts organisations, which may make a far greater impact within their communities, to attract this kind of funding. 5.1.3 In this context, it would be helpful if Government could work with the sector to encourage private donors across the board and make a case for Local Authorities and smaller cultural institutions 5.1.4 Its takes time and resources to nurture relationships with business. Many smaller scale arts and heritage organisations lack in-house expertise or resources to invest in the necessary marketing and promotion, especially when the amounts 503

secured through local business sponsorship (often £500-£2000) are such that they barely cover the staff time taken to secure them. 5.1.5 Arts organisations seeking funding for education programmes and those within Local Authorities are limited in terms of the businesses they can approach for sponsorship as some brands are not considered appropriate for association with projects involving children and young people. 5.1.6 While some businesses will consider longer-term funding agreements, there is a risk that over-reliance on business sponsorship results in a piecemeal approach to funding enabling multiple short-term projects but not providing sustainable funding which might enable organisational development.

6. Conclusion We welcome the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry into the funding of arts and heritage in the UK. In the context of budget reductions, we are keen to work creatively with Government and the wider cultural sector to find solutions and new models of funding that will enable us to sustain and build upon the achievements of the past decade in terms of the positive benefits culture can bring to individuals, communities and the nation as a whole. As we seek these new ways forward, it is important to be honest about the challenges we face and rigorous in our quest for solutions that will provide long-term sustainability for the sector.

September 2010 504

Written evidence submitted by the Society of Antiquaries of London (arts 117)

The Society of Antiquaries (founded 1707) is one of the country’s oldest learned societies, forms part of the campus of bodies around the courtyard of Burlington House, Piccadilly, and comprises a Fellowship of 3,000 archaeologists, art and architectural historians, numismatists and other skilled professionals. Ours was the first organisation ever to consider and care for the notion of ‘heritage’; before the foundation of national museums we were given works of art and artefacts for preservation and public benefit. Like the Royal Academy and the other Societies around us we are an independent body but our Fellowship represents all aspects of the culture and heritage professions; many of our Fellows’ posts are supported in part or whole through government funding. We have a substantial number of Fellows in Europe and North America as well as increasing numbers from other parts of the world. The Fellows work as university academics, museum curators, local government officers, conservation architects, publishers, journalists, exhibition designers, heritage managers within, and consultants for, bodies like English Heritage and the National Trust. The Society awards grants to students and scholars for research and contributes to funds for the restoration of the fittings and contents of churches. We welcome scholars of all kinds to our Library of 100,000 books and substantial collections. Through long-term loans and major exhibitions both in London and at regional museums we display our collections to the widest possible public; a recent tour of some of the Society’s holdings was funded by the Heritage Lottery and was seen by more than 130,000 people. We own and run for public benefit William Morris’s house at Kelmscott Manor. We are at the front line of consultation about all matters to do with heritage both on a national and international scale and through lectures and conferences provide a unique venue to bring all interested parties together.

1. Cuts in government and local government spending have an immediate impact on the range of services that heritage organisations can sustain but not only within those organisations. They mean closure of spaces, objects and facilities formerly accessible to the widening public that has been achieved in recent years. But beyond this, a great deal of the sharing of knowledge and expertise between different arms of the state- funded sector and between the state and the private sector is done on the basis of quid pro quo arrangements which may cost no more than basic travel and subsistence but prove of immense value to training programmes of all kinds (placements for university students at museums and galleries, for example). Cuts will mean gaps in provision, severing of ties and the denial of co-operation by colleagues hard-pressed with increased responsibilities.

2. For a generation or so now, we have experienced systems of tendering for essential work on conservation and restoration that have loosened core existing expertise within heritage organisations and damaged the internal memory of what work has been carried out. Long-term knowledge of buildings, paintings and objects of all kinds ensures care and preservation for the national benefit now and in the future. It may well now be a good time to pool resources towards the creation of more groups of expertise (stonemasons, painting and film conservators, workers in wood and iron, etc) that provide a common service to a range of national bodies where some ‘memory’ of earlier work is retained and documented. The recent problems of the National Trust for Scotland (the Reid Report of 9th August 2010) brought forth a number of speculations about ‘branding’ that part of the U.K. by bringing together expertise, marketing, price 505

structures for admission etc. across the Trust, Historic Scotland and a range of regional bodies wherever heritage is displayed and offered to the public. It is important to say however that this should remain the pooling of applied expertise and co-operation; our national resources are significant not only for what they are but the avenues historically by which they came into being. We must preserve the physical separation of collections whilst bringing together the means to service and protect them.

3. We have generally welcomed news that there will be more funds for heritage projects from the Heritage Lottery Fund in the immediate future. Many of us who have participated in the processes of application have welcomed in the past help and support in the application process but have noted how heavily weighted that process is at the front end, with ever-growing forms and size of documentation and an increasing number of HLF officers to deal with. Some truly wonderful Lottery-funded projects have succeeded in their primary goals but have been incapable of being sustained beyond the initial phase because national (or more often local) bodies do not have the funds to maintain the provision through staffing, IT servicing and physical maintenance into the long-term future.

4. Philanthropy and business already play a considerable role in arts and heritage support. This has tended however, in recent times, and quite understandably, to have contributed to those aspects of the field where individuals and companies have the opportunity to showcase their donation; for example, exhibitions determined in content and style by the promoting of a company image and geared towards glamorous events that provide business opportunities. In some cases of major exhibitions the donation paid for barely a tenth of the costs but dominated the agenda of presentation, marketing and even education and outreach. In terms of government incentives through tax remission, looking at whether the private sector can help core responsibilities (cataloguing museum collections, conservation, maintenance of buildings) could be a way forward to encouraging donation to a wider range of things for which national bodies have to take responsibility. Professionals working for those organisations are capable of thinking imaginatively to make those streams of income equally a showcase for the generosity of donors. VAT relief on the work needed for conservation of historic buildings, for example, has long been something that many have called for.

September 2010 506 Written evidence submitted by Freedom Studios (arts 118)

SUMMARY: • Disinvestment in the arts and heritage lead to a cultural and economic deficit position. • Return to a historical default position. • Creating a protected enclave for a non reflective Leadership for the culture offer being created in UK • Strategic lessons learnt from Sustained Theatre • Maintaining current levels of (reduced cuts to the) investment into the arts and heritage. • Lib-Con Government has failed to articulate with clarity in the first instance its position on culture and the value it places as a coalition Government on a vibrant cultural economy. • Tax breaks.

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;

Continued cuts and disinvestment in the arts and heritage from central and local Government will leave the cultural offer that has been strategically created over the past decade in this country in a deficit position (both culturally and economically).

The pace at which these cuts are being implemented fail to acknowledge that in the past decade arts and heritage in this country has moved from the traditional notions of culture (founded on the Eurocentric, white, male and fundamentally exclusionary aesthetic canons of Western civilization) to a more diverse cultural offer accessible by a broader constituency of UK residents and international visitors. Critically it must be acknowledged that the past decade has seen a small but positive step change in acknowledging the changing demographics of our country within arts and heritage and a relatively progressive attempt at the democratisation of the cultural space has begun to be enabled. These shifts underpinned by policy decisions have been created by the intellectual and physical ownership of cultural space being enabled through subsidy and resourcing to a broader constituency of artists and consumers who engage in the cultural offer.

Continued cuts to arts and heritage will inevitably force funding institutions to return back to a historical default position that both protects and safeguards the bricks and mortar of flagship institutions at the cost of cultural offers that exist outside of these walls. Such a historical default position will further create a protected enclave for a non-reflective Leadership of the culture being created in this country as expressed by Lyn Gardner (in Why is British theatre still in thrall to Oxbridge?)

I am reminded by the words of the Cultural commentator and BBC broadcaster Mark Lawson who spoke enthusiastically at the very drab conference entitled British Theatre After Multiculturalism in June 2009 at Warwick University:

“In the last couple of years I’ve felt a sense of horror…..I agreed with the phrase used by a reporter that the BBC and broadcasting in general were hideously White. I think that it is impossible to argue with that and i feel a personal shame about this. I try to fight it and i do what i can ……I have looked at a weeks programming on Radio 4 in which there was no non-White contributors and i have come to the conclusion that without monitoring, without targets it never happens. There is a terrible tendency to return to the historical default.”

What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

A number of key learning’s were formed in Baroness Lola Young’s Whose Theatre? Report commissioned by the Arts Council of England that addressed the sustained growth of the Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) theatre sector in the UK. Through Baroness Young’s findings/conclusions

507 key strategic frameworks were proposed to support the sustainable growth of the BAME sector. Baroness Young’s findings would lead to the creation of the BAME sector led initiative: Sustained Theatre. Baroness Lola Youngs report addressed the key areas of: leadership, archiving, internationalism, digital strategies and a series of networked spaces nationally.

The Sustained Theatre process demonstrates that artistic ambition and artistic integrity can be supported and enabled through an agreement of core values between partner organisations through strategically sharing resources and in turn creating best value.

A key learning from the Sustained Theatre process has been the acknowledgement that the need for further growth and engagement with the cultural offer cannot be achieved by all encompassing and unsatisfactory notions of preserving this country’s diverse cultural offer. A single industrial vision attempting to preserve the cultural offer does not go far enough in responding to the changing demographics of the UK. The cultural ecology has to be unpacked and responded too with greater clarity and sensitivity.

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

In year cuts (2010) to the Arts Council of England have directly impacted both the organisation and those that it seeks to fund. Proposed cuts in 2011 and 2012 will see a further inevitable reduction and scaling back of output across the cultural sector. Accepting the necessary cuts that continue to take place across all Government departments both the severity and immediacy of cost saving measures leave the work of the past decade in the cultural sector at risk of being undone.

Maintaining the current levels of funding at the proposed stated levels must now be the ambition of the Government and cultural sector to safe guard the infrastructure and opportunities that have been created to date. In doing so allowing for the planning of growth over the next 10years.

Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

The Arts Council of England continues to demonstrate a historical commitment to strategically supporting the growth of the cultural sector. ACE is both a vital and necessary agent for the cultural sector.

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;

The Lib-Con Government has failed to articulate with clarity in the first instance its position on culture and the value it places as a coalition Government on a vibrant cultural economy. 15 Years of sustained investment into the ACE demonstrates a history of positive impact and added value created through an investment into the arts. One infers the Lib-Con Governments position on culture as being nothing more than an adjunct to tourism. Thus failing to acknowledge the part the arts sector plays in both creating and reflecting the culture of this country to its citizens and internationally.

Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level; Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

Business and philanthropists should be encouraged to play a role in funding arts at a national and local level but not replace the investment of Government into the cultural sector.

Tax breaks should be offered by Government to encourage investment by business and philanthropists into the arts.

508 One would urge the inquiry to consider how monies offered by business against potential tax breaks would be both managed and apportioned across the sector.

The potential drawback that would come with this strategy is simply the investment by business into national flagship institutions that add the greatest value to their own brand and resulting in the arts offers that exist outside the walls of institutions are left in a familiar deficit position. A balance of business and Government investment would continue to maintain a reflective cultural ecology within the UK.

September 2010

509

Written evidence submitted by The Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge (arts 119)

1 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?

1.1 We are concerned that future reduced funding may be concentrated in national museums and major conurbations. This would significantly reduce the cultural entitlement of large swathes of the population particularly in the east and south west of England, where the population is predominantly rural.

1.2 We would welcome assurances that the majority of funding cuts will be restricted to central administration in order to preserve front-line services. Public funding of core support for museum collections, buildings, and access to them provides both a reassurance of continued activity and an endorsement of their value, which is critical in bidding for funds from other sources.

1.3 We would stress the importance of preserving standards such as Accreditation (minimum standard) and Designation (recognition of national importance of the collection(s)), not only because this gives confidence to other funders and sponsors but also because the current standards have gained international recognition. The Renaissance programme supporting excellent work in non-national hub museums in the regions if continued would provide an efficient means of enabling museums to achieve and maintain these standards.

1.4 Support for national standards in museums such as the ’s Collections Link resources should be safeguarded and Culture Grid, part of a European digital exchange platform, also managed by the Collections Trust, must be preserved. This will play an important part in future economic development of tourism and business linked to culture and is especially important to museums among others in the approach to London 2012.

1.5 The investment provided by Renaissance has enabled regional museums to build capacity and improve and extend their offer. Together with lottery funding for improvements to buildings and facilities, this has led to regional museums playing an increasingly important role in stimulating cultural tourism and regional regeneration. Any reduction in funding to front-line services and projects would diminish the regional museum’s sector ability to contribute to tourism in this way.

2 What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale?

2.1 Collaboration and partnership are clearly the way forward and should be encouraged.

2.2 With the benefit of Renaissance investment, the museums of the University of Cambridge and non-University local museums have been able to work together since 2003, and can demonstrate that this approach results in significantly increased public engagement and more diverse users, raised standards, the efficient use of resources and increased their capacity to contribute to national initiatives.

2.2 In the East of England, Renaissance funding has enabled the development of a strong working partnership between the four hub museums with benefits felt well beyond the partners, both by the visiting public and in the wider museums sector. Both locally and regionally, Renaissance-funded collaborative activities have demonstrated that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The East of England Renaissance SHARE project is a good 510

example here: it is an exchange of professional support, training and advice among museums, harnessing the capacity built in the Hub partners and distributing it among the wider museums community in the region. Renaissance Hubs have become significant players in their regions and have been able to have much more impact by working together.

2.3 In our experience, however, dedicated facilitators are essential to successful and efficient collaborations. The well-established and trusted Museum Development Officer (MDO) network has proved an efficient and effective way of delivering support and connecting museums across regions, and in the East of England this network is complemented by the Renaissance-funded Regional Conservation Officers (RCOs). Both MDOs and RCOs contribute to the SHARE project (2,2 above). The improvement of local museums that results, impacts in turn on the current users of museums and the appeal of museums to potential visitors. These museum development posts and networks should be preserved.

2.4 The University of Cambridge has eight museums, five of which have designated collections, and its principal museum, the Fitzwilliam, recorded 335,000 visits in the last year with very high rates of satisfaction and intention to return (BDRC survey 2008-9). All the museums are involved in outreach and contribute to £351m that tourism brought to Cambridge in 2008-09.

3 What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable?

3.1 We recognise that cuts are unavoidable but regret very much that they should follow upon a period of expansion and increased numbers of people using museums. We strongly support the retention of free admission for UK citizens, and are planning to look to other sources of funding to make good some of the shortfall in government funding, including income generating activities within our museum or group of museums.

3.2 Core services such as the Collections Trust’s lead on digital services should also be safeguarded for the good of the cultural sector and the digital economy.

4 Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one?

4.1 For non-national museums the current system of plural funding, accompanied by extensive short-term project funding is deeply unsatisfactory and not efficient or sustainable. The year-on-year assurance of a sufficient level of core funding to address recurrent costs and adequate staffing is essential as this enables museums such as the Fitzwilliam to secure project funding from a variety of sources, for example research councils, charitable trusts and foundations, lottery, corporate private donors. Rolling funding agreements also allow proper planning and this is always going to be more efficient than the short-term approach necessitated by one or two year agreements or project funding.

4.2 Museums are important to overseas business that can be negotiated through cultural tourism and London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games will present an unrivalled opportunity for exploring new markets, particularly in China.

5 What impact will recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds have on arts and heritage organisations?

5.1 We welcome the announcement that funding of the Heritage Lottery fund will be returned to former levels. We remain concerned that up to 2012 sport will require large injections of funding and that the Cultural Olympiad raises aspirations and expectations of 511

museums without the availability of any new funding. There is a need to ensure that capital and project funding is adequately supported by revenue funding.

6 Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed? We understand that these are already under review? In these difficult times, provision for/flexibility towards revenue funding will be welcome.

7 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?

7.1 While the MLA has been a useful strategic advocate for the museums sector, over the last three years increasing bureaucracy has laid increasing demands on recipients of Renaissance funding to an extent that this has interfered with the delivery of services. We are confident that the much of the sector can be trusted to work efficiently and effectively and understands its business in a way that office-bound administrators do not. We recommend that the Committee looks at the Arts Council’s relationship with its Regularly Funded Organisations (RFOs) as a model for supporting museums that are already performing well.

7.2 We oppose the MLA’s proposal to wind down all the Renaissance museum hubs and replace them with ‘core museums’ and a development fund from 2011-12. Where Hubs are working successfully and delivering raised standards and value for money – as in the East of England where there is no obvious ‘core museum’ – we consider it highly retrograde to dismantle the benefits of the last seven years’ investment. A development fund which encourages new projects, which cost time and money to set up and wind down, and many of which will not be sustainable long term, does not represent the most efficient and effective use of public funds when compared to using funding to build on long-term, successful investments.

8 Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level?

8.1 Both businesses and philanthropists should continue to be encouraged to augment core funding for museum but cannot be expected to provide basic funding for maintaining the institution; upkeep must remain a central or local government responsibility. New ideas for public/private support for museums have yet to emerge. We are concerned, too, that some collections such as fine art are intrinsically more attractive to private donors and that others such as scientific, plant or geological collections may suffer as a result. Commercial sponsorship opportunities for regional organisations are limited, as regional and local companies have little or no funds for sponsorship, and national companies tend only to be interested in sponsorship opportunities that have national reach.

9 Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations?

9.1 There can be no doubt that stronger incentives to donate works of art to museums would greatly encourage private giving to museums. Tax incentives are needed to encourage private philanthropic support for both donations and exhibitions. We refer the Committee to the US tax regime related to works of art and to the arguments for continued free admission to museums and zero rated VAT for University museums presented to Parliament by Sir Denis Mahon and others. However incentives (or the lack of) are not the only reason for the difference between US and UK attitudes to philanthropy. The US culture of giving relates to the long held concept of individual responsibility for building cities and communities.

September 2010 512

Written evidence submitted by Salisbury Playhouse (arts 120)

Executive Summary

• Public investment in the arts is extremely small in relation to the overall public spending and has been maintained for the past 15 years.

• These small amounts are proven to lever significant private and commercial investment.

• The arts mixed economy ecology is lean, fragile, complex and unique. Any removal of public spending will have a significant negative effect on the sector and its repercussions will be felt across the nation.

• The maintenance, and more importantly, the inflationary increase of both central and local Government funding for the arts is essential.

• Private funding cannot replace a shortfall in public funding for the arts – they are mutually dependent.

• Organisations such as Salisbury Playhouse service its local community and economy as much as it feeds in to and supports the nation’s theatrical output and must not be seen in isolation, it is greater than the sum of its parts.

• Maintaining Arts Council England as an independent public body for the distribution of public funds for the arts is essential.

• Re-establishing the National Lottery funds to their original level and purpose is welcomed.

1. Introduction

1.1 Salisbury Playhouse is one of Britain’s leading regional producing theatres based in the South West, with a national reputation for home-grown work of the highest quality. Our on-site facilities include a 517 seat main house auditorium, 149 seat studio, rehearsal room, community and education space, set building workshop, scenery paint frame, prop making workshop and store and costume making department and wardrobe. Outside of the building the Playhouse delivers a comprehensive year round participation and outreach programme which services Wiltshire and beyond – in 2009/10 this programme engaged over 14,500 participants.

1.2 Our mission is to: • Create vibrant and original theatre • Celebrate our national status as a leading producing theatre • Engage, inspire and entertain our whole community • Train and develop the nation’s creative talent • Maximise financial opportunities to deliver our artistic ambitions

Within an overall vision to produce ‘Theatre Beyond Expectation’.

513

1.3 In 2009/10 Salisbury Playhouse designed, built, rehearsed and performed nine main house productions (253 individual performances) – including one world premiere and one UK tour, five studio productions (90 individual performances) and welcomed 25 visiting companies of national and international repute - attracting 119,956 audience members.

1.4 Furthermore, in the last financial year the Playhouse contributed £9.4 million to the local economy through additional visitor spend and the use of local goods and services.

1.5 Salisbury Playhouse is pleased to submit evidence to this important inquiry as a long- standing recipient of public funding from Government via Arts Council England, South West. Public subsidy is an essential source of income for arts organisations like ours and the inquiry raises some important questions, the conclusions of which will have a significant impact on the future health of the arts and heritage sector.

2. 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;

2.1 Due to 15 years of small* sustained investment and the introduction of the National Lottery in 1994 the Arts in England are a huge success. The leverage from this public money is currently at a national ratio of 1:2 – for every £1 invested in the arts, a further £2 is generated from commercial and private sources. *Arts Council England’s total budget equates to 0.24% of the total DCMS budget. The arts budget for the whole of Wiltshire is only 0.1% of the total council budget.

2.2 A reduction in the current public funding base, locally and/or nationally will unravel all of the beneficial effects and developments made by arts organisations over the past 15 years. It will be extremely quick to undo and will take many years to rectify.

2.3 For many arts sectors, the relationship between central and local Government funding is an essential component towards a successful and balanced ecology.

2.4 The unique model which exists in the UK between public funding and private and commercial support is one in which the balance is mutually dependent. A reduction in public funding on either a national or a local level will inevitably create an income shortfall which the private and commercial sector will struggle to restore.

2.5 As an inevitable consequence the range, activity and output of arts organisations will reduce. However, fixed running costs including overheads and salaries will, at best, stay at their current level. And the arts sector as a whole will cease to offer the current ‘value for money proposition’ expressed as a ratio of fixed costs to output that it does now.

2.6 Salisbury Playhouse is already a financially lean organisation producing enormous return for very little investment. Wiltshire recently went through a spending review (2007/08) when forming to one council and froze funding to the arts – prior to this £25,000 was cut from the Playhouse budget for three consecutive years. During 2008/09 the Playhouse rigorously sought extra funds and overhead savings (c.£200,000) in response 514

to the recession. Consequently, further spending cuts from central and local Government would have a significant negative effect on the Salisbury Playhouse and its operation.

3. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

3.1 A network of smaller organisations would benefit from sharing administrative services such as finance and human resources. Digital resources could also create economies of scale to reduce marketing and publicity costs.

3.2 Joint procurement policies for services – for example, prior to Wiltshire merging as one council the Playhouse benefitted from joining the Salisbury District Council buyers group and reduced stationery bills.

3.3 Co-productions with other producing theatres with subsequent UK tours will provide greater economies of scale.

3.4 The creations of consortiums which can share access services such as captioning equipment, sign language and audio description.

3.5 City-wide ticketing networks – increasing cross marketing opportunities and box office efficiency savings.

3.6 Larger building based organisations offering space for smaller arts organisations to utilise reduces overheads.

4. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

4.1 Robust evidence suggests that the current level of public subsidy with annual allowances for inflation are necessary to retain the positive momentum of the last 15 years. “Art is cheap for its rich returns, but it is not free” (Polly Toynbee, The Guardian 28th July 2010), moreover the arts are profitable. For 0.07% of the total public spending bill (7p in every £1) West End theatre alone paid back £76 million in VAT, a 40% dividend – these are theatres which rely on regional producing houses such as ours to take the risk in finding their next Les Miserables, War Horse or Enron production for the nation to be proud of and promote around the world. This risk requires public funds, without it creativity will be lost along with the skills and national pride (of the 187 Academy Award nominations given to Britons in the last 30 years, 145 started out and regularly performed at subsidised theatres, such as Salisbury Playhouse).

4.2 Furthermore, the link between public subsidy for the arts and commercial return is now proven. Public subsidy for the arts plays a vital role in the evolution of talent within the creative industries, which are an essential component of the future competitiveness of British business and are acknowledged as our best route out of recession (“It is actually in recessions that people need art the most” Jeremy Hunt 14th January 2010). Between 1997 and 2007, the creative economy grew faster than any other sector, generating two million new jobs and £16.6 billion in national exports.

515

4.3 To further support the sustainability argument, the position of the arts and heritage sector as one of the ‘crown jewels’ of UK society foregrounds the role of the sector as a prime lever for incoming tourism in the UK. Arts and culture are central to tourism in the UK, worth £86 billion in 2007 – 3.7% of GDP – and directly employed 1.4 million people (David Cameron’s speech on 12th August 2010 reiterated that UK tourism was the most important business - rated third in the world). Inbound tourism is a crucial earner of exports for the UK economy, worth £16.3 billion to the UK economy in 2008.

4.4 The Tipping Point for arts funding is minimal. The difference between 15% and 25% cuts from the Arts Council Budget is £45 million – this is a small sum to the Government but significant to such a delicate industry. The Salisbury Playhouse’s scenario planning indicates that cuts above 10% to 15% over four years would be our Tipping Point at which significant change would need to be considered.

5. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

5.1 The Government’s principle of ‘arms length’ funding requires a non departmental public body, such as the Arts Council (a worldwide exemplar body for the distribution of funds and industry expertise), in order to distribute public subsidy to the arts sector without political influence. Therefore, yes, the current system, and structure is the right one.

5.2 Funding from Arts Council England also acts as an endorsement and indicator of high quality – it is proven to lever partnership funding from the private sector and philanthropic sources, particularly Trusts and Foundations.

6. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations?

6.1 Reinstating the National Lottery funds to their original level and purpose will have a positive effect on arts and heritage organisations.

7. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed?

7.1 In the past there have been issues over the restrictions governing the use of National Lottery funding which in the past have inhibited strategies to combine Lottery and Treasury funding in the most cost effective way. Policy guidelines for National Lottery funding should be reviewed to ensure that they are sufficiently flexible for its investment to work strategically, effectively and flexibly alongside Treasury funding.

8. 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;

516

8.1 The impact is currently unclear but it is imperative the Arts Council is not expected to assume responsibility for the work and activity of either the Film Council or the MLA.

9. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding the arts at a national and local level;

9.1 They already do - the evidence of the last 15 years confirms that small amounts of public money work hard to stimulate a mixed economy culture that is internationally acknowledged and which delivers a real return for the country both in economic terms, and in terms of quality of life and the cohesion of society and communities.

9.2 If public funding is significantly reduced, the knock-on effect will be profound. Commercial and philanthropic organisations will also be facing financial challenges, particularly Trusts and Foundations which rely on the performance of large capital funds as the means to support their grant giving to arts organisations.

9.3 It is known that commercial and philanthropic individuals and organisations will not fund public subsidy shortfalls, they want to be associated with success – it is therefore dangerous to assume that they would ‘plug the hole’.

10. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations;

10.1 Reform the current HMRC Gift Aid scheme to make it more user friendly for individual giving to the Arts.

10.2 Adopt the US model of tax incentives to increase philanthropic giving.

September 2010 517

Written evidence submitted by Oxford Playhouse (arts 121)

• Strong cultural provision is essential for the UK’s population. • Oxford Playhouse makes great use of its current levels of subsidy, presenting and producing excellent art and broadening the reach and depth of public engagement with the arts. • Government investment in the arts is far outweighed by the economic and social return on that investment. • Most cultural provision is not funded through public subsidy but the public subsidy allows stability of infrastructure, innovation and creative development of the art, and a wider social impact. • The arts is extremely vulnerable to cuts in local authority funding, a downturn in the economy and reductions in private support, and many organisations will close as a combined result of these reductions in income. • The less creative output we deliver, the harder it is to raise private sources of funding. • Partnership working already happens in the arts, and whilst we should encourage more, we need to protect the geographical spread and quality of provision across the country. • Central government cuts will lead to a greater percentage reduction of provision as organisations are tipped towards closure. • A lean Arts Council is well-placed to protect frontline services and maximise the benefits from public investment in the arts. • We support the changes to the Lottery funding to revert to its original intention. • We are concerned by the removal of some of the arm’s length quangos, particularly in terms of the speed of decision-making, lack of consultation and apparent lack of planned alternative delivery mechanisms. • Philanthropy is an important part of the mixed economy of the arts, and should be encouraged, but it will not replace public funding.

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;

1. Life without culture is not an experience many of us would choose; at least not once we have come to know the value of great art. Imagine never being introduced to a world of theatre, dance, fine art, museums, literature or film. How hard would you fight to make that introduction for every person in this country?

2. Oxford Playhouse uses its funding in two particular ways; to ensure the excellence of its programme, and to make as many introductions as possible, by broadening the number and range of people who pass through its doors. We are committed to opening the doors and making culture part of as many people’s lives as possible.

3. With less subsidy, we will not be able to make and present as many shows as we do now, the breadth of the programme will narrow, and the quality will be difficult to maintain. The international work, the contemporary dance, the shows for young children and the home-grown work of local artists are all particularly costly areas and would be affected. We would produce less shows ourselves, so there would be less provision for the touring circuit, and we would have to employ less people. With less artistic development, less touring product 518

is created, less artists nurtured, less commissions to playwrights and less calculated risks are taken on new and innovative art, which drives the sector and indeed the creative industries forward.

“Art funding is not about encouraging limp dependency but allowing things that would not exist to come alive and in the process make us more so”

4. The provision for the arts and the access of the public to the arts deserves its place on the list, not least because of how little it costs to maintain the current levels of provision, and how much money is ploughed back into our economy by the sector. The UK currently creates a world-class range of culture, and as a result of sustained and careful investment, the sector is flourishing, leading to massive tax returns, international export and growing audience figures. The return on investment is massive, in terms of VAT and tax, in driving tourism, in regenerating towns and cities and in terms of the improved well-being of members of our society.

5. In the last financial year alone 191,180 people saw an Oxford Playhouse show at the theatre, in our studio, off-site, or on tour.

6. Most cultural provision is not solely reliant on public funding. For example, Oxford Playhouse with an annual turnover of £3.8m, raises more than 87% of its income from other sources and yet it is the 13% of funding it receives from ACE and the local authorities that allows it to really make a difference. As well as the areas of quality arts mentioned above, the subsidy allows tickets to be made available and affordable for those who cannot afford to pay more, e.g. schools in hard to reach areas, families on low incomes, community groups such as those in hostels, refugees, those recovering from long-term illness or the disabled. Targeted work to introduce newcomers to the theatre takes place all the time, and succeeds. Our Learning team work with over 15,000 people each year, offering a range of participatory activity for all ages. The provision is heavily over-subscribed, and we target it towards people who have less or no current engagement in the arts. Responses to work placements, training opportunities, holiday schemes etc are overwhelmingly positive. The feedback from one young offender that a week-long drama course was ‘life-changing’ sums up what the arts can achieve.

7. When we remove barriers to culture, more people come and benefit from all that great art has to offer.

8. Oxford Playhouse is facing a significant reduction in funding from all quarters; city and county councils and ACE. The University of Oxford, a major funder, has already reduced its support as it cuts departmental budgets. The combined impact is substantial, and seriously jeopardises the organisation’s future.

9. The theatre relies heavily on ticket income (64%), other trading (14%) and private donations, sponsorship, trusts and foundations (9%). All of this income is also under threat. We work very hard to secure private income, and have increased our success in this area as we have increased our programme activity. The more benefits we pass onto the community, the more creative we are, and the more donors want to support it. Scaling back our activity due to core funding cuts will further reduce the support we’re able to lever from the private sector and donations. 519

10. We have already received a 0.5% cut from ACE in this financial year which although mid way through a year we are able to manage, and we respect the fact that ACE and the DCMS have worked hard to minimise the impact on funded organisations. Loss of core funding means it becomes hard to sustain delivery and stay open, let alone plan and make strategic choices. Commitments are made between 9 months – 2 years in advance and future cuts in the region of 25% will have a massive impact on the work we are able to deliver, much of which we are already committed to.

11. To manage cuts above 10% would mean a significant restructuring across our operation which would jeopardise the organisation’s future, particularly if forced to take place within a short time span. The knock-on effect to audiences would be significant, and the theatre would be less able to support the numerous touring theatre and dance companies who visit it.

What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

12. Arts organisations can and do work collaboratively and imaginatively. Oxford Playhouse regularly co-produces shows, and is already in discussions with a touring theatre company about pooling our resources and sharing producing and administrative capacity which would mean that we can make shows happen which might otherwise never get off the ground, and ensure that far more people are able to see the production. We create shows with local, national and international artists.

13. New initiatives eg Playhouse Plays Out were conceived and developed with the idea of working in partnership to open up some of Oxfordshire’s fantastic locations to residents and visitors and to introduce new people to live performance, challenge assumptions of what theatre is all about.

14. Local arts organisations including Modern Art Oxford, Oxford Inspires and Pegasus Theatre are exploring ways in which we can work collectively to generate better bargaining power with suppliers and share services if possible.

15. Obviously it is important to remove unnecessary duplication, and to maximise the benefit from created work, but equally it is important to retain the strength of provision across the regions. It is not enough to focus funding on preserving the world-class organisations in the capital and in the major cities of the country. A network of venues to present live performance, and supporting high quality artists to deliver outside of the major cities is essential to ensure diversity, growth and audience development in the sector.

16. Efforts have been made to support and enable producing theatres to tour their work, but there is more that can be done in this area to gain maximum benefit from the original investment.

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable?

17. The current arts budget is tiny; it costs 17p a week per person, which is far exceeded by the economic return. That funding helps to create and sustain 520

world-class arts and artists, attracts tourists and businesses to work in the UK and with the UK overseas, drives the creative industries and contributes significantly to improving society and the well-being of individuals. Inevitably, if it is reduced, less will be achieved.

18. There is so little fat to trim from the arts sector, which operates efficiently and inspiringly, creating much with very little. The Arts is already a sector which relies heavily on people working for low wages, and volunteers. Oxford Playhouse currently operates over 6 days a week for up to 13 hours a day and employs a core staff team of 30 full and part time employees with a further 50 people working on an irregular basis and over 100 volunteers giving their time for free. 90% of these staff are employed on salaries of less than the average UK salary of approximately £24,000 pa.

19. The knock-on effect of cuts will tip many arts organisations over the edge, and have a significantly greater impact on provision.

Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

20. The breadth, knowledge and strategic importance of ACE as a distribution network for funding the arts is incredibly valuable. Nurturing and supporting artists, having a geographical overview of the distribution of the arts, striving for an increased audience for all aspects of the arts and supporting the delivery of the arts is vital. The reduction in staffing and administration costs that ACE has already made it an increasingly lean and efficient operation, and we applaud the organisation’s commitment to protect frontline delivery of the arts. Using the historical reserves helped to mitigate the effects of this year’s cuts and it is hard to know how an even smaller set-up can continue to distribute funding without making less flexible, less informed decisions which favour repetition, caution and safety against audience and artist development and aspirations of great art for everyone. Flexible funding terms for organisations will help to ensure that decisions are made regularly about the strength of delivery against targets, and we would encourage a balance between geographical reach and equity, and investing in those organisations who are on an upward trajectory, making the money work hardest and most efficiently in pursuit of both great art and increasing the breadth, quantity or experience of audiences.

What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;

21. Oxford Playhouse welcomes the intention to restore the National Lottery to its original purpose by allocating 20% of the NLDF to each of the good causes of the arts, heritage and sport. The intention to do so over two years allows time for adjustment and the phasing out of BLF programmes which protects existing commitments and allows for a phasing of change.

22. The change will have a significant impact on the arts, increasing the number of grants awarded through Arts Council England's Grants for the Arts programme. This funding stream is heavily over-subscribed, and currently, projects which would deliver excellent art to a wide-range of people are not able to be funded.

521

23. Oxford Playhouse has successfully received grant funding to tour theatre productions, and would like to do so in the future. The theatre produces live performance at the highest level in terms of quality, reach, engagement and participation. We are committed to broadening people's entitlement to the arts, deepening their understanding and enjoyment of culture, helping to bring together the local community, and to maximising the value for money of all investments in the arts.

24. A recent lottery funded tour was a co-production with Ireland's Druid Theatre of J M Synge's classic The Playboy of the Western World. This was a world-class piece of theatre, which thanks to an ACE grant, was able to tour in the UK to five regional theatres where it was seen by 12,219 people. We also ran a major symposium on cultural identity which featured playwrights, directors, academics and poets, and was attended by academics, students, writers and interested theatre-goers. In addition, 486 people attended 20 free post-show discussions and workshops thus creating a lasting legacy to the production.

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.

25. The arm’s length principle has long been recognised and valued by successive governments and the various arts communities. It has served the sector, and most importantly, the public, very well in terms of ensuring an independent over-view, expertise and a long-term custodian’s approach to maintaining and developing art-forms and audiences. The recent changes in terms of abolishing the Film Council and the MLA seem to have been made very quickly, and with little consultation or planning for the alternatives. Without them, administration costs are certainly saved, but has more been lost? Deploying public money to the best possible use is surely best done by those with a deep-rooted understanding of the art form, its developmental needs and how best to widen public access?

Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

26. Of course they do, and they already are playing a long-term role in supporting the arts, but this cannot and should not replace public funding. Many businesses have already cut back on their investment in the arts, and philanthropists are in great demand. It is important to recognise that it is tougher to secure funding and sponsorship outside of London and when not operating at a national level. It is also important to note that many organisations are already working hard and succeeding in this area, but that there isn’t money waiting to be proffered to the arts as funding dries up. It is also very hard to raise funds for the nuts and bolts – for salaries and running costs, rather than imaginative projects and new activity.

Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

522

27. Yes; this can only be a good thing. Encouraging and enabling more philanthropic giving without spending frontline delivery money on doing so is a good thing. Oxford Playhouse has developed a committed core of regular donors and we are continually seeking to increase this network. Oxford Playhouse has also been successful in submitting a project to the Big Give to raise funds to secure our community engagement officer post for the next 3 years through encouraging individual giving. However, it needs to be acknowledged that many successful arts organisations are already tapping into private funds and as stated above, it becomes increasingly hard and competitive to sustain. Many trusts and foundations are reducing their grant levels due to interest rates, and private donors are clear that they donate in addition to government funding rather than instead of it.

September 2010 523 Written evidence submitted by First Light (arts 122)

1. Introduction

1.1 First Light gives young people aged 5-25 in the UK the opportunity to tell their stories, recount their experiences, learn new skills and share their views through creative, digital film and media projects.

1.2 We have enabled almost 30,000 young people between the ages of five and 19 to make more than 1000 films and to create 100s of media projects, including magazines, TV and radio broadcasts, comics and games since we were established in 2001.

1.3 All of First Light’s activity is unique and shares the following ethos:

• Professional support for young people to ensure high level, relevant skills development; • Industry engagement to provide ‘real world’ experiences, validation and pathways to employment; • High levels of youth leadership to ensure authenticity of voice and creative expression; • Exhibition and distribution activity to ensure the young people’s work is seen and enjoyed by a wide audience.

1.4 We believe that every young person regardless of gender, heritage or economic background should be given the chance to realise their creative potential using a form of media that makes the most of their particular talents.

1.5 First Light distributes National Lottery grants, via funding from DCMS through the UK Film Council and is therefore directly affected by the recent announcement of the latter’s abolishment. The First Light Board and its Executive look forward to discussions with the Secretary of State for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport as to how the organisation will be enabled, and further supported, to continue supporting the aspirations, creativity and talent development of young people across the UK.

In consideration of the issues raised by the Committee, First Light offers the following views and comments:

2. 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;

2.1 The recent cuts to public funding in the arts/heritage sectors are a retrograde step. The years of investment that have gone into developing capacity, strategic partnerships and improving the experience for both participants and the respective workforces will be eroded.

2.2 First Light in its funding criteria requires applicants to have a certain threshold of match funding (some in-kind, part in-cash). Many of the type of organisations that we typically fund bring match from local authority sources. Consequently they will have to identify and compete for monies in areas less familiar and starting from a lower knowledge base, it will take time for them to become skilled.

2.3 This is not to say that they will not be successful but rather competition for alternative sources will increase and smaller organisations will be disadvantaged. They are often reliant on project funding which is a fine balancing act and capacity to fundraise is more often than not, a function that is informally included into a staff member’s role.

2.4 Training is usually the first target when budgets become constrained, whereas it should be retained as skills and expertise become important capital to the organisation.

2.5 Spending cuts both at central and local Government levels may discourage partnerships as organisations and sectors become more territorial and competitive, keen to establish an edge and unique characteristics that make them more fundable. 524 2.6 Smaller organisations are liable to be more vulnerable at the local level whereas larger, established ones are likely to be able to ride out the years of austerity that lie ahead, though it could be argued that the less well known brands outside of London will also find it difficult to fundraise.

2.7 We could see the merger of organisations which will of course create savings due to scales of economy being met. However, the diversity and breadth of expertise which smaller organisations represent will be lost. The UK is a country defined by the variety of distinct communities our arts and heritage sectors engage with and we will be all the poorer if such uniqueness is lost.

2.8 First Light is a national charity that champions the full spectrum of diverse backgrounds that young people can be drawn upon in our funded projects. We seek to support new opportunities for those who would otherwise not have access to filmmaking activities. It is essential that we continue to have different voices and fresh talent exposed to what the creative moving image industries is about, contributing new ideas and developing the business case for greater diversity in the workforce. The film and television industries need to be more representative of the UK population, more technically adept (which young people are), and able to contribute and participant in the creative knowledge economy, one of the UK’s strength in the global marketplace.

3 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;

3.1 The UK Film Council’s demise has a direct consequence for First Light. It is the channel through which the charity receives its National Lottery grant from the Department for Culture, Media and Sports. However, taking aside this issue, First light identifies the following impacts that will arise from the abolishment of this strategic agency for UK filmmaking.

3.1.1 The UK Film Council has been able to bring under one umbrella the various distinct but interconnected areas of archives, film education, young people’s filmmaking, audience development, production, exhibition and distribution, certification, etc. This has enabled partnership working and development of strategies which have served not only the public well but also strengthened the sector as a whole. 3.1.2 The discussions to date in the press and public at large have understandably concentrated on production, the profile capturing story. However, without acknowledging the important of audience development and film education/ work with young people shortsightedness comes into play. Key to developing the UK’s film production base there has to be a parallel strategy to develop the knowledge, appreciation and cultivation of British cinema audiences who will drive the need to produce more indigenous films. Solely concentrating on making more British films ignores that fact that without input at the other end of the film value chain means that British filmmakers will more often than not lose out to the stronger, higher profile US film fare. 3.1.3 The Regional Screen Agencies and Nations will also be affected. Funded by the UK Film Council, the majority if not all, are also funded by their respective Regional Development Agencies which are also being abolished. This double hit consequently means that the less glamorous grassroots work to develop audiences and education work are most vulnerable to being cut. 3.1.4 The UK Film Council has become an international brand around which UK film activity can coalesce around and use to strong effect to promote the full value chain of British filmmaking. It has its respected ambassadors whom they are able to draw upon to promote the UK as a place to do business and that has some of the world’s leading filmmaking technical expertise.

4 Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

4.1 Developing a philanthropic culture to mirror the American model will take many years and may require incentives to stimulate interest. There is a danger that without support/incentives/pressure for businesses and high net worth individuals to consider becoming supporters, the culture will take a long time to develop. This gap between public funding being withdrawn and the philanthropic culture becoming established could result in may arts/cultural organisations closing. 525

4.2 There are some areas that businesses and philanthropists will not view as fundable. This is particularly pertinent given that these alternative sources of funding will not be subject to the level of scrutiny and accountability as publicly funders, who have to be transparent in their decision making processes.

4.3 There are particular issues that are of wider public interest that require the intervention of the public purse. Companies are unlikely to endorse projects which cannot fit into a business or CSR case for them, and similarly philanthropists will not necessarily be wide ranging in their support, but may wish to support particular niche areas. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with either approach but it does mean that there is the potential for a narrowing band of organisations that are seen as fundable.

4.4 Experts in the arts and heritage sectors with their knowledge and expertise are able to bring to the fore strategic overviews and opinion pieces that business and philanthropists will lack.

4.5 Smaller, less well known organisations may not be as attractive to support, whereas headline organisations will have resources (human capital, skills to navigate this specialism, networks, etc.) to succeed in connecting with both businesses and philanthropists.

4.6 Where both could play a role would be to offer skills transfer exchange to make organisations in both the arts and heritage sectors more business-like. More often than not, arts/heritage managers have learnt on the job, without the training and development budgets their equivalent in the business sectors would benefit from. Consequently some practices are not as strong, efficient or robust as they can be. In these economic straightened times managers need to be even more smart and business like in their approach to running their respective organisations.

4.7 The interplay between business and organisations/agencies such as First Light who operate within the wider creative moving image sector is more dynamic. The charity has been working with a wide range of industry partners to support its work around access and connecting with diverse talent. This is an area of work the organisation will develop and anticipates that film/television businesses as they come to recognize and trust the brand, will seek it out to source potential talent.

4.8 Support from businesses has to date come in all shapes and sizes, depending on capacity, work-flow, appropriate work available, etc. Cash support has been thin on the ground, but instead, businesses have been playing the long game and have become involved through activities such as mentoring, placements, offering experts for masterclasses, technical support, and creative training.

September 2010

526

Written evidence submitted by the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) (arts 123)

SUMMARY • The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the House of Commons, Culture, Media and Sport Committee Inquiry on Funding of the Arts and Heritage. This comes at a crucial time for the Scheme, following the Government’s announcement of its intention to close its sponsored body – the Museums Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) – in March 2012, and the fact that the sector as a whole is facing severe spending cuts. • The PAS is a network of 50 staff, managed by the and funded via the MLA, who records archaeological objects found by the public for public benefit. • Currently the PAS costs £1.607M p/a: £1.412M of the funding comes from MLA, £5K from CyMAL, £83K from the British Museum, and £107K from local partners, who employ the Scheme’s staff. With the pending abolition of the MLA it is not clear how, and through whom, the PAS will be funded, though the British Museum is an obvious possibility, assuming full/adequate funding is also transferred. • Like all public bodies in the sector the PAS is vulnerable to funding cuts. Given the Scheme costs a relatively small amount and over 92% of costs are salary costs, any such cuts would have a disproportionate impact; making it unable to operate a national recording service for finders of archaeological objects, but also of great detriment to the archaeological record and museum collections. • A 5% cut would be the equivalent of losing at least 3 Finds Liaison Officer posts; • A 10% cut would be the equivalent of losing at least 6 Finds Liaison Officer posts; • A 15% cut would be the equivalent of losing at least 9 Finds Liaison Officer posts.

INTRODUCTION • The PAS is the only proactive mechanism for systematically recording archaeological finds made by the public. It funds 40 locally based archaeologists, known as Finds Liaison Officers, 6 period specialists (Finds Advisers) and a central unit of 4 others. Since 1997, when the Scheme was established, it has recorded over 637,000 finds, many of which may have never otherwise been recorded. Important finds recorded through the Scheme included the Hoard (an Anglo-Saxon hoard of over 1,600 gold and silver objects), the Frome Hoard (a Roman pot containing over 52,500 coins) and the Staffordshire Moorlands Pan (a Roman vessel inscribed with the names of forts on Hadrian’s Wall). • The data collated by the PAS is made publically available on its website – www.finds.org.uk – and transferred to Historic Environment Records. This data is a useful source for people wanting to find out about the archaeology of their local area. It is also becoming an increasingly useful dataset for academic research. 187 researchers are currently using PAS data, which is beginning to transform the archaeological map of Britain. For example, PAS data has increased the number of known Roman sites in and by 30%, and more than doubled the known archaeological sites in Lincolnshire. • The PAS also has an important educational role, enabling everyone with an interest in the past to get involved in archaeology and bring the past to life. Since 2003, over 252,000 people have attended more than 10,280 events organised by the PAS, including talks, finds days and events for children. As part of the Council for British Archaeology’s Festival for British Archaeology 2010, the PAS took part in 75 events, which were attended by 8,430 adults and 2,952 children, an examined more than 1,706 finds. • The PAS is fundamental to the working of the Treasure Act 1996. Its Finds Liaison Officers advise finders of their legal obligations to report Treasure, write coroner’s reports on them, and courier finds to the British Museum for expert analysis and valuation. Since 2003, when the PAS was extended to the whole of England and Wales, the number of finds reported Treasure has increased on average by almost 210%.

527

THE IMPACT OF RECENT, AND FUTURE, SPENDING CUTS • Following the Chancellor’s emergency budget, MLA cut PAS funding by £5K, which the Scheme was able to absorb. • It is currently unclear what cuts (if any) might be imposed on the PAS, and therefore the table below outlines the possible effects of a 5%, 10% and 15% cut:

Cost Impact of cut: based on the cost (salary and on costs) of an average FLO post (£26,800) 5% £80,350 3 posts 10% £160,700 6 posts 15% £241,050 9 posts

• Currently the PAS employs 40 Finds Liaison Officers, of whom 10 are part-time: these are all currently funded through Renaissance. • A 5% cut would result in some post closures. Depending on what posts were identified for closure, the PAS might be able to maintain a national scheme. With a 10% cut, the Scheme would be forced to ensure that some areas of the country are covered by neighbouring Finds Liaison Officers, or covered on a part-time basis. With a 15% cut it is uncertain how the PAS could maintain a national scheme, meaning that many archaeological finds, including Treasure, would go unreported. • Without a local Finds Liaison Officer it is unclear how any archaeological discoveries (including Treasure) would be reported: before the PAS was established the reporting of such finds was uncommon, as most local museums neither had the resources or expertise to adequately identify such finds, let alone record them. In the first instance finders might attempt to record their finds with their local museum, assuming the local curator is willing, able or competent to record such finds. This would obviously impact on local museum resources, normally met by the local authority. More likely, many finders would not bother to record their finds and this loss of information would be of great detriment to the archaeological record and public collections. • Without a national PAS the Treasure Act 1996 would be unworkable. Under the Act finders have a legal obligation to report Treasure to the local coroner in the district the object was found. In practice, finders report Treasure finds to their local Finds Liaison Officer (who informs the coroner of the find), normally when they come to their metal-detecting club. They then write a report on the find and it is delivered to the British Museum. Without a local Finds Liaison Officer, it may fall to the local museum to accept Treasure, write a report on it, and courier it to the national museum for valuation etc. • If the PAS was no longer able to offer national coverage, it is likely many archaeologists and museum curators would argue for metal-detecting to be regulated and/or restricted.

THE IMPACT OF THE ABOLITION OF THE MUSEUMS, LIBRARIES & ARCHIVES COUNCIL • MLA (formerly the Museums & Galleries Commission) has been involved in the management of PAS since the Scheme was established in 1997. Its role has been one of channelling funding for the Scheme: it headed the bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund that established a national Scheme; and became the mechanism for funding the project when DCMS recognised PAS should be funded through central Government. • Following cuts to MLA in the 2008 Comprehensive Spending Review, PAS was also subject to proposed cuts. • At this time 229 MPs of all parties signed EDM 566, which stated: ‘That this House recognises the great contribution of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) to transforming the archaeological map of Britain by proactively recording archaeological finds made by the public; celebrates the fact that in 10 years the scheme has recorded on its public database more than 300,000 archaeological finds, which would not have otherwise been reported, for the benefit of all; expresses concern at the likely impact of funding cuts proposed for the 528

Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA), following the recent Comprehensive Spending Review, on the PAS; and urges the Government to ensure that the scheme is at least able to maintain its current levels of activity and to consider urgently whether MLA offers the best home for the PAS or whether another body, such as the British Museum, would not be better placed to provide PAS with a long-term sustainable future’. • Following an independent review of the PAS, it was agreed there were enough synergies between PAS and Renaissance for Renaissance funding to be used to fund the Scheme. • The abolition of the MLA resurrects the question of where PAS best sits. Given that the PAS is managed by the British Museum, on behalf of MLA, and that the British Museum also administers the Treasure process, it seems sensible that PAS is now fully transferred to the British Museum, but it is essential that adequate funding is transferred at the same time. • In an article on the political parties’ priorities for archaeology published before the election (British Archaeology, March-April 2010) both the then Minister, Margaret Hodge, and then Shadow Minister, Ed Vaizey, singled out PAS as one of the most important initiatives in archaeology, and both of them pledged their support for it.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • Funding cuts would have a disproportionate effect on the PAS. The Scheme would no longer be able to provide a national recording service for finders across England and Wales, and many important archaeological discoveries would go unrecorded. • PAS should be transferred to the British Museum, assuming full/adequate funding is transferred from MLA/Renaissance.

September 2010 529

Written evidence submitted by Apples & Snakes (arts 124)

Written evidence

1. This submission is made on behalf of Apples & Snakes, the UK’s leading organisation for performance poetry and currently a regularly funded organisation of Arts Council England. We run just under 100 performance poetry and spoken word events every year, arrange nearly 700 participatory educational workshops each year that help deliver real social benefits, and provide top quality training and artist development opportunities for both new and established poets throughout the year.

2. I believe that the proposed funding cuts from central and local Government will have a hugely detrimental impact on the arts in this country; particularly if they are front-loaded so that there is no transition period in which organisations can seek alternative means of support and plan for a much more challenging financial future.

3. Arts organisations already work closely together in a way that would seem alien to the business community. The current financial situation means that we are doing so more and more, and finding new ways to collaborate at an artistic and operational level. On behalf of Apples & Snakes, I am talking to three different consortia about how we can work together and potentially make economies of scale. However I think it’s important to bear in mind that the not-for-profit arts sector, although not commercial, has always operated as a competitive market. Organisations doing exactly the same work as each other simply would not have got funding, and there just aren’t huge areas of overlap and duplication of activities. This is particularly the case within the literature sector, which has always been poorly funded in comparison with other artforms.

4. I was lucky enough to start my career in the arts in 1997; near the start of what I think will be looked back upon as a kind of golden age for arts funding. This doesn’t mean, in my opinion, that money was always plentiful or indeed that it was in any way squandered. However there has been a sustained level of funding which has led to a vibrant, artistically exciting, technically ground- breaking and financially viable arts sector. I am very concerned that the proposed draconian cuts in public funding could potentially lead to the opposite: a weak, vulnerable, overly cautious sector that is scared to take artistic risks and who can’t subsidise access to the arts for the most deprived members of our society. It could also become a place where people like me – without the privilege of an income from elsewhere or support from wealthy parents – are unable to find a (paid) first step on the ladder.

5. I believe that it’s right for government to remain at arm’s length from funding decisions and that the Arts Council does a good job in its strategic role. Apples & Snakes has been involved in the consultation that ACE has been running into their proposed new funding strands and look forward to finding more about these plans in due course. We are hopeful that the reallocation of National Lottery funds to their original good causes will have a positive impact on arts organisations as it will increase the Lottery funding available at a time when other funding sources are in jeopardy.

6. As an arts organisation, Apples & Snakes has not been directly affected by the abolition of the UK Film Council and the Museums, Libraries and Archives 530

Council; however, it seems difficult to imagine that closing down two organisations with considerable expertise and years of developing projects, programmes, infrastructure and relationships within their respective sectors won’t have a detrimental effect.

7. Businesses and philanthropists already play a substantial role in funding arts at both a national and a local level. Many arts and heritage organisations already have strategies in place to raise funds through these means, and staff that are skilled and experienced in working with the corporate sector and/or high net worth individuals. Therefore I do not believe that this is a hirtherto untapped market which could in some way replace public subsidy. There are also some organisations which find it harder to attract this sort of funding because of the nature of the work; and this is where public funding becomes all the more crucial. Clearly more Government incentives to encourage private donations would be a positive move, but I don’t think business and private donors can ever replace direct Government funding of the arts.

September 2010

531

Written evidence submitted by the Association of British Orchestras (ABO) (arts 125)

Executive Summary

• The arts have benefited from sustained public investment over the past 15 years. This public investment is tiny in relation to overall public spending.

• The UK’s mixed economy model of arts funding is effective and efficient.

• The maintenance of both central and local government funding for the arts is essential for the health and cultural wellbeing of the nation.

• Private funding cannot replace a shortfall in public funding for the arts.

• The maintenance of Arts Council England as an independent public body for the distribution of public funding of the arts is essential.

• The Government’s proposed changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds are welcome.

1. Introduction

1.1 The Association of British Orchestras (ABO) is the representative body for professional orchestras in the UK. Its members range from the major symphony orchestras (including the BBC) to chamber, opera and ballet orchestras. Our vision is of a society where orchestral music is valued as a core component of contemporary culture.

1.2 The ABO is pleased to submit evidence to this inquiry as a long standing stakeholder in the full range of issues impacting upon funding for the arts. Our evidence is submitted, as a representative body, on behalf of the entire orchestral sector.

1.3 Our evidence will inevitably focus on the arts rather than heritage. However, it should be noted that orchestras to some extent have a “heritage” role, preserving the canon of great works from the past, while also playing a role in nurturing contemporary composers and artists. In effect, it is analogous to combining the role of museum and contemporary art gallery. In 2008/09 British orchestras commissioned 113 new works and put on 132 first performances.

1.4 It is important to explain the complicated mix of funding for professional orchestras. This investment has helped them not only to perform great music in the traditional concert hall but to extend their reach into schools, rural and hard-to-reach communities, as outlined in the ABO’s publication Beyond The Concert Hall, and to be in the vanguard of innovation in digital delivery and new concert formats, as outlined in the ABO’s publication Orchestras into the Future.

1.5 Arts Council England funds 8 symphony orchestras and 6 chamber orchestras (two of which are specialist contemporary music ensembles and one a specialist period instrument ensemble), across 7 Arts Council regions. While there are four London self-governing symphony orchestras funded by Arts Council England, this funding is also intended to enable them to develop residences and tours outside London. So, for example, the Philharmonia Orchestra has residencies in Bedford, Leicester and Basingstoke, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra in Croydon, Northampton, , Crawley and Reading, and the London Philharmonic Orchestra in Eastbourne and Brighton.

1.6 Over recent funding rounds in 2004 and 2007 there has been a steady decrease in the number of chamber orchestras funded by Arts Council England. These chamber orchestras have survived without public funding, albeit on a reduced level of activity. Of increasing importance has been 532

the role played by Orchestras Live, the development agency for orchestral music in England, which has successfully enabled partnerships between and levered funding from local authorities and promoters to extend the reach of orchestras into those parts of the county not served by a resident symphony orchestra.

1.7 In Scotland, two orchestras are funded directly by the Scottish government, to a more generous extent than their equivalents in England to enable them to tour widely across the nation. A third orchestra is funded by Creative Scotland.

1.8 The BBC National Orchestra of Wales is jointly funded by the BBC and the Arts Council of Wales. Chamber orchestras in Wales have relied solely on funding from the National Lottery.

1.9 In addition, there are the orchestras of the opera and ballet companies, which are also beneficiaries of public funding through the public investment in the opera or ballet company, funded by their respective Arts Council or by the Scottish Government.

1.10 In respect of this enquiry, we are excluding the BBC performing groups from the evidence we are submitting.

1.11 Funding from local government varies from orchestra to orchestra. Some, such as the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra, have funding agreements with multiple local authorities. More crucially, local government is often the primary source of funding for the concert halls and local promoters.

1.12 Public funding for orchestras tends to account for anything between 10% and 55% of income, depending on the orchestra. The rest is generated by a mix of earned income from ticket sales, commercial engagements, foreign tours, broadcasting fees and recordings, and private support (sponsorship and individual giving). In recent years the income from recordings has declined as record labels have suffered from the impact of illegal file-sharing and in consequence are less able to invest in classical music recordings.

1.13 There are a number of orchestras, some of international renown, in membership of the ABO which do not receive direct funding from their respective Arts Council, and which therefore rely exclusively on earned income and private support. They are indirect beneficiaries, however, of the funding for venues and from Orchestras Live, and are part of the delicate fabric of public and private support for the arts. These orchestras are concerned that their viability may be threatened by increased competition for the limited pot of corporate sponsorship and individual giving.

2 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

2.1 The ABO would contend that public funding for the arts and heritage had reached a level in 2008/09 that enabled arts and heritage organisations to achieve a healthy balance between public subsidy, private funding and earned income, under the ‘mixed economy’ model. While concerned at the number of chamber orchestras that had been ‘disinvested’ by Arts Council England in 2004 and 2007, the ABO was pleased that investment in the symphony orchestras and opera and ballet companies had remained stable. The consequence of this sustained investment and funding model was that British orchestras presented over 3,100 concerts in 2008/09, to over 3.4 million people.

2.2 The cuts imposed in 2009/10 by both Arts Council England (0.5% to their regularly funded organisations) and by some local authorities have already led to a contraction in orchestral activity, with fewer concerts planned for 2010/11 and beyond. We have already seen the impact of public spending cuts in Scotland, with Scottish Opera proposing to halve the working hours and salaries of its orchestral musicians. 533

2.3 This will be exacerbated hugely by the impending spending cuts for 2011/12 through to 2014/15. Arts Council England has already written to their regularly funded organisations recommending they plan for a reduction of 10% in subsidy for 2011/12, and we await nervously what level of cuts will follow. We are working on the assumption that the total contraction in funding for the arts could be as much as 30%.

2.4 The consequence of this will be that there will be a serious contraction in the amount of concerts, opera and ballet productions available to the public. It is simply unimaginable how our members would cope with this level of cuts and the disappearance of some internationally renowned orchestras, opera and ballet companies would be inevitable.

2.5 This of course would also have knock-on effects in terms of unemployment of artists and administrators, loss of tax and national insurance receipts and a rise in welfare payments. It is arguable that the amount saved by cutting the arts, which would make a negligible impact on reducing the national debt, would simply be offset by the increase in costs associated with rising unemployment and decline in economic activity.

2.6 It is important to note that orchestras and opera companies are in a particularly difficult position in that artists such as conductors, soloists and singers are contracted anything from two to four years ahead. They therefore have contractual obligations and a rapid decrease in public funding would be catastrophic and place them in a position of insolvency.

2.7 It is also important to point out that an orchestra carries large fixed costs in terms of human resources. An orchestra may require the employment of upwards of 100 musicians on fixed contracts, in addition to the management team. Unlike, say, a theatre company, an orchestra cannot simply choose to perform works with fewer musicians. If a Mahler symphony requires 100 musicians on the concert platform, that is the number that must be fielded. And the public, of course, expect a symphony orchestra to play the symphonic repertoire. The problem with carrying such a high level of fixed costs is that the same outlay of expenditure on human resources is required regardless of whether activity is reduced, and a reduction in public subsidy would create an imbalance in the ‘value for money proposition’ expressed as a ratio of fixed costs to output.

2.8 Arts Council England’s Stabilisation programme made a massive contribution to the health of some our leading orchestras and other arts organisations, in response to the pressure placed on them by cash standstill revenue grants in the 1990s which had made it increasingly difficult for them to manage their business on a sustainable basis. Not only did it provide additional funding, but also developed their business planning and internal operational reform. The success of our orchestras today, and their ability to compete in a global marketplace, is directly the result of that investment of lottery funds. However, we should point out the obvious lesson that a shortfall in public subsidy inevitably leads to a build up of deficits for arts organisations such as orchestras that carry a high fixed cost in artistic personnel.

2.9 An orchestra is not just about playing great music on the concert platform. Orchestras have been pioneers in developing education and community programmes, that serve both to develop new audiences and to complement music education in schools. Much of this work is celebrated in the ABO’s publication Unlocking Potential: Education and the Orchestra, with over 400,000 young people in England and Scotland benefiting from engagement with orchestral musicians in both the classroom and the concert hall. However, it is important to stress that while the infrastructure that supports an orchestra’s education department may well be supported by the orchestra’s public subsidy, the projects themselves will often be funded by trusts and foundation or by fees from schools/local authorities.

2.10 If concert halls, venues and local promoters suffer significant funding cuts from their respective local authority, the irony could be that there continue to be British orchestras, but an acute 534

shortage of venues in which to perform in. It is vital to recognise the delicate balance that exists between local authority and Arts Council funding. If one is cut, the other will inevitably follow.

2.11 It is also important to point out that the cuts will not just have an impact at a national or local level, but at an international level as well. Orchestras are cultural ambassadors and operate within a global marketplace, and to cover shortfalls in other areas of earned income have increased the amount of foreign touring they do. This puts them in competition with other European orchestras, which are publicly funded to as much as 85 % of their income. Reducing the amount of public investment in British orchestras will put them at a commercial disadvantage, exacerbated by the recent rise in the value of sterling. Their success can be judged by the fact that in 2008/09, British orchestras played in 39 different countries and performed in 500 concerts overseas.

2.12 The arguments for the financial return on public investment in arts and heritage organisations, including orchestras, have been well-rehearsed. They are generators of income from tourism, as evidenced in Visit Britains’ recent report Culture and Heritage Topic Profile. Performing arts organisations also, of course, generate VAT receipts from ticket sales. Recent research into the impact of Welsh National Opera on the Welsh economy reveals the company contributes £22.5 million to the country – five times its current annual revenue funding of £4.5 million from Arts Council of Wales.

2.13 It is salutary to compare the UK government’s decision to cut spending on culture with the USA’s enlightened inclusion of the arts in its fiscal stimulus plan. Obama's remarks at the December 6 Kennedy Center Honors included the following statement of support for the arts: "In times of war and sacrifice, the arts - and these artists - remind us to sing and to laugh and to live. In times of plenty, they challenge our conscience and implore us to remember the least among us. In moments of division or doubt, they compel us to see the common values that we share; the ideals to which we aspire, even if we sometimes fall short. In days of hardship, they renew our hope that brighter days are still ahead. So let's never forget that art strengthens America. And that's why we're making sure that America strengthens its arts. It's why we're reenergizing the National Endowment of the Arts. That's why we're helping to sustain jobs in arts communities across the country. It's why we're supporting arts education in our schools, and why Michelle and I have hosted students here at the White House to experience the best of American poetry and music."

3 What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

3.1 Although it seems tempting to assume that there is potential for significant savings from mergers and sharing back office functions, there is a body of evidence that shows this not to be case. Evaluation of Arts Council England’s Thrive programme revealed that for a successful merger to take place, significant additional one-off investment is required, for which there is no obvious source of funds. And merger does not necessarily generate a saving in subsidy or running costs; it merely enables the merged organisation to do more with the same level of subsidy.

3.2 In addition, a study of Scotland’s National Performing Companies was undertaken during 2007/08 into the likely impact of combining backroom HR and payroll services. This reported that whilst it was possible that ultimately savings could have been made through this process in future years, the cost of setting this service up was deemed to be prohibitive and contrary to the expectations of such combined working.1

4 What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable

1 National Performing Companies – Report on Activity 2007/08 and 2008/09 535

4.1 The answer to this question is that it depends on the individual organisation. Arts Council England will make a judgement on the level of subsidy required based on the mission, need and quality of the organisation.

4.2 The level of funding for Arts Council England in the funding round 2008-2011 was in our opinion at the right level for the long-term sustainability of its regularly funded organisations.

5 Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one

5.1 We are tempted to argue that if there wasn’t an Arts Council England, one would have to invent it. The model adopted in Scotland of 5 national performing companies, funded directly by the Scottish government, provides an interesting comparison, but it is hard to see how orchestras in England would benefit from a similar approach except for those attached to a national opera or ballet company.

6 What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations

6.1 It is important to stress that changes to the National Lottery are currently at the consultation stage and there is no guarantee the proposed return to the original shares will be adopted.

6.2 Should the arts share return to 20%, this should mean an additional £50 million of lottery funding for the arts will be forthcoming by 2012/13.

6.3 However we are mindful of the principle of additionality, and are concerned that any increase in lottery funding may not replace the decrease in revenue support for orchestras.

6.4 We believe it is important that lottery funding provides some capacity for strategic investment to allow arts organisations to develop. The Thrive programme, as an example, used lottery funding to help generate mergers, and additional investment will be required in the coming years to develop digital distribution and implement greener working practices.

7 Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed

7.1 We are supportive of the principle of additionality and see no need for this to be reviewed.

8 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

8.1 The operation of these non-departmental public bodies has no direct impact on British orchestras. However, we would be concerned if responsibility for the work carried out by these two bodies was passed on to Arts Council England without the provision of sufficient additional resources, thereby impacting on the amount available to support performing arts organisations.

9 Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level

9.1 Businesses and philanthropists already play a significant and valuable role in supporting arts organisations at national and local level. As some of the leading philanthropists have made clear, however, in recent correspondence with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, their contribution is already generous and they would not take kindly to being taken for granted as a quick fix for a substantial cut in public funding. What a philanthropist gives can all too easily be taken away.

536

9.2 Corporate sponsorship has been a source of income for arts organisations for many years but evidence from Arts & Business has shown, not surprisingly, a decline during the recent recession.

9.3 Another important source of private support is trusts and foundations. However, these have suffered in recent years from the decline in their investments and reduction in yields, reducing the amount they can make available in grants. In addition, grants can tend to be focused on education and community work, rather than on the main body of an orchestra’s work.

9.4 It is important to note that Arts Council England created the Sustain Fund in 2009 to enable lottery funding to be used to cover shortfalls in earned income and private support that resulted from the recession. This proves that private support declines during a recession, and therefore should not be seen as a stable long-term solution.

9.5 There has been much talk of endowments as a replacement for public subsidy. However, evidence from the USA has shown the danger of an over-reliance of endowments, with the collapse in the markets leading to both a reduction in the capital value of the endowments and in income. This has led to orchestras in the USA having to re-negotiate contracts with their musicians, industrial unrest, contraction in activity, and cessation of operation altogether.

9.6 This is not to say that endowments do not have their place in the UK mixed economy funding model. They should, however, be seen as one tool in the toolkit.

9.7 Arts organisations already work their hardest to secure private support and it is difficult to see how they can “redouble their efforts” at a time of funding cuts, especially as the cuts will inevitably lead to a reduction in the workforce. It is perhaps rather obvious, but for an arts organisation to raise funds, it needs to employ fundraisers.

10 Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations

10.1 The Treasury is currently carrying out a review of Gift Aid. The ABO and its members support the retention of the Gift Aid system, in particular the retention of the higher rate tax benefit, with some simplification of its bureaucracy. We also believe ‘lifetime legacies’ should be explored as a mechanism for helping build endowments.

10.2 There has been talk of adopting ‘US style’ fundraising in the UK. It is important to point out that in the USA, gifts to qualifying charities (which include arts organisations) can be offset against income tax by all taxpayers, as opposed to the UK’s Gift Aid system, where there is a marginal tax benefit for higher rate taxpayers only.

August 2010 537

Written evidence submitted by Museums Association (arts 126)

Summary • Museums and galleries are a success story, with refurbished buildings, appealing displays and lively events. Public participation has increased significantly. Improvements have been supported by increased DCMS revenue funding, particularly for Renaissance and free admission, along with capital investment from the Heritage Lottery Fund, regional development agencies, local authorities, charitable trusts and generous organisations and individuals. • Museums Association research shows cuts in funding will significantly reduce the quality and quantity of public services provided by museums and galleries. Displays will deteriorate, there will be fewer activities, opening hours will reduce, expensively improved buildings will not run to their full potential, and there will be less work with schools and to widen access. Attendances are likely to fall, with a negative impact on the wider economy. • Museum collections are a significant public asset, built up over centuries thanks to the generosity of past generations. Spending cuts will lead to their under-use and neglect as collections are relegated to stores because of fewer redisplays and exhibitions, and reductions in other programmes to share collections. • Some local authorities have transferred management of museums to charitable trusts. There are successful joint local authority museum services. However, cuts will make museums more inward looking and less likely to seek out partnerships and collaboration. • An increased allocation to the Heritage Lottery Fund is welcome but will not compensate for cuts anticipated elsewhere. Museums and galleries fear confusion and harder access to funds if HLF is amalgamated with other bodies. • The abolition of the Museums Libraries and Archives Council leaves many questions unanswered. There are concerns about the impact of the abolition on museums in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. • Alternative sources of funding are hard to see. Philanthropists have supported museums and galleries since they were established in the 18th and 19th centuries, but this has usually been with gifts of collections and buildings and funds for collecting and building, rather than other activities. Admission charges significantly reduce attendance. Selling collections to generate income is not usually an option (although has been in exceptional circumstances).

(a) Background 1. The Museums Association represents and supports museums and people who work for them. It has over 6,000 members including institutions ranging from large national museums to small volunteer-run museums. Established over a century ago in 1889, the Museums Association is a charity and receives no regular government funding.

2. The Museums Association leads thinking on many issues in museums including improving the use of collections, sustainability and workforce development. It publishes Museums Journal, the sector’s main magazine, organises the major annual museums conference and prepares the sector’s Code of Ethics, which underpins the national accreditation scheme for museums.

3. The Museums Association welcomes this timely enquiry and would be pleased to assist the committee. We are able to provide additional information about many of the points made in this submission. 538

(b) The success of museums and galleries 4. Museums and galleries have been transformed over the past 15 years. Buildings are refurbished, displays are refreshed and appeal to a wide range of visitors and there are lively programmes of events and exhibitions. This has been made possible through the skills, experience and talent of people who work for museums and new sources of funding, particularly capital funding from the national lottery and increased revenue support from DCMS, notably for free admission to national museums and for Renaissance funding for major regional museums.

5. Continued local authority funding has played a vital role, as has ring-fenced funding for university museums from the Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Investment has increased audiences 6. There has been a steady increase in public participation in museums and galleries. In 2009/10, 46.7% of adults in England visited a museum, gallery or archive, a continuation of the steady upward trend since 2006/07, when 41.5% attended. In the same period, the proportion of 11-15 year olds visiting increased from 54.7% to an impressive 66.8% - over two thirds. (Source – DCMS, Taking Part: The National Survey of Culture, Leisure and Sport Adult and Child Report 2009/10)

7. Generally, increased attendances have been stimulated by a growing attention to audiences, capital investment in new buildings and displays, increased spending on programming, particularly from Renaissance in the Regions, and free admission at national museums. Attendance at Renaissance-funded museums has increased by over 40% since the programme started in 2002. (Source: Museums Association survey; see below) Since 2001, attendance has increased by 128% at DCMS-funded museums that used to charge. (Source: http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/museums_and_galleries/3380.aspx)

A mixed economy based on public support 8. The UK has a successful mixed economy of funding for museums, in which self-generated income and private patronage are built on adequate levels of public funding. Most national, local authority and university museums do not charge for admission and get the majority of their income for running costs from public sources. Public museums operate successfully as free-to-use public services, enhancing what they are able to do by generating additional income from sources such as retail, catering and corporate hire. Income from these sources had probably been increasing until the recession, which had a particularly bad effect on sources such as venue hire. However, self- generated income rarely forms a significant part of a public museum’s general running costs.

9. There are also many successful ‘independent’ museums, registered charities that often (but not always) charge for admission and have a more diverse range of income sources. However, many independent museums receive some of their funding from local authorities (and from Renaissance in the Regions in the case of a few larger independent museums). Many independent museums are reported as saying ‘it was a struggle to keep their organisations going’. (Source: Business Models and Financial Instruments for the museums, libraries and archives sector: Review of the Literature and Survey Findings, MLA, 2008)

(c) The impact of spending cuts 10. A relatively small amount of museums’ expenditure is available for public-facing activities such as exhibitions, redisplays, education work, events and activities. This is because museums tend to have high fixed costs for the long-term preservation of often fragile and extensive collections. They require front-of-house and security staff so that they can open safely to the public. Many are also responsible for important listed buildings, which are expensive to operate and maintain.

11. These fixed costs are largely unavoidable, so cuts in funding have a disproportionate effect on the public services provide by museums. There is real fear of a return to the days of empty galleries with leaky roofs and dusty, tired displays. Survey of impact of cuts 539

12. In summer 2010 the Museums Association surveyed major regional museums in England about the impact of a 25% cut in their Renaissance funding.

100% of respondents see a cut in Renaissance funding leading to a reduction in public- facing services such as education and learning programmes, temporary exhibitions, events and work with hard to reach audiences.

Over half the respondents predicted cuts in Renaissance will have an impact on the ability of museums to lever additional external funding.

Over 40 % of museums will reduce opening hours and consider introducing or increasing charges while a third of museums will be forced to close sites or parts of sites.

There will be a significant drop in services for schools. The majority of respondents predicted that without Renaissance-funded education staff, school visits will increasingly be un- facilitated and charges are likely to increase.

Everyone who responded to the survey expressed concern at the possible loss of Museum Development Officers (MDOs), who currently provide advice and guidance to smaller museums. They help to raise standards, which respondents fear will drop if MDO support goes. MDOs also assist smaller museums with fundraising

All respondents identified the increased partnership working that has resulted from Renaissance funding as beneficial, delivering some of the most innovative work. All feared that this activity will be significantly curtailed by cuts, making museums more inward looking, with smaller museums more isolated. (Source: Museums Association Renaissance Survey, September 2010, www.museumsassociation/about/renaissance-survey)

Audiences will fall, reducing economic impact; elitism will grow 13. More generally, expensively improved buildings will not run to their full potential and work to increase audiences, such as late opening, will be curtailed. Reduction in the amount and quality of the work of museums will discourage cultural and heritage tourism, so reducing economic impact. International visitors to the UK’s museums, galleries and built heritage spend £2.6 billion per year; UK day visitors spend £4.2 billion. (Source: Heritage Lottery Fund and VisitBritain, Investing in Success: Heritage and the UK Tourism Economy, 2010, p.9)

14. Cuts may force some currently free museums to introduce admission charges. Typical experience is that the introduction of admission charges at a museum reduces audiences by around 40% (source: http://www.museumsassociation.org/news/24082010-danger-of-introducing-admission- charges-at-free-museums), so reducing the museum’s benefits for the wider economy. Since the introduction of universal free access to national museums in December 2001, visits to the nationals in England that used to charge for entrance have more than doubled, increasing by 128%. (Source: http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/museums_and_galleries/3380.aspx ) Fewer resources to develop new audiences mean that audiences are likely to narrow and come from a smaller segment of society, threatening to make museums more elitist.

15. Reduced funding will also set back efforts (such as the Museums Association’s Diversify scheme) to widen the range of people in the museum workforce, which is not representative of the wider population in terms of race and disability. For example, only around 4-6% of collections jobs are held by people from minority-ethnic backgrounds, whereas the working-age population of England is over 12% minority-ethnic. (Source: Maurice Davies and Lucy Shaw, Measuring the ethnic diversity of the museum workforce, Cultural Trends forthcoming, September 2010)

16. Museum staff are generally poorly paid for the expected levels of skills and knowledge; cuts are likely to exacerbate this. (Source Museums Association, Pay in Museums, 2004 and Museums Association, Salary Guidelines 2009)

540

(d) Collections - a great public asset under used and under threat 17. The nation’s museum collections form a significant public asset, thanks to the generosity of past generations. There are great collections, and great museums, throughout the UK. Museum do far more than simply acquire, preserve and display things; they use collections to engage with audiences of all ages and backgrounds, on- and off-site to bring inspiration, learning and enjoyment. Increased funding has enabled museums to improve the use and accessibility of collections, bringing them out of store and sharing them more widely, so that more people can see them in more places.

18. Over the past five years, the Museums Association has encouraged better use of collections. The seminal report Collections for the Future is being followed up with the Effective Collections programme to make better use of stored collections, funded by the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation.

19. In the past 20 years, museums have also done much to raise standards of collections care and enhance the preservation of collections, helped by schemes such as Designation for pre-eminent museum collections housed outside national museums.

Cuts will mothball collections and lead to loss of knowledge 20. The Museums Association’s summer 2010 survey of Renaissance-funded museums shows that cuts threaten work with collections. All respondents to the survey predict a reduction in collections care and access, with collections increasingly stuck in store.

Use of collections will decline; there will be fewer temporary exhibitions, gallery refurbishments, loans or other activities.

There will be fewer staff with the skills to care for collections

There will be a drop in standards, expertise and sector-specific knowledge

Knowledge of collections is threatened by reductions in curatorial staff (Source: Museums Association Renaissance Survey, September 2010, www.museumsassociation/about/renaissance-survey)

21. This latter point is particularly troubling. It takes years, often decades, to build up knowledge of a collection and museums and galleries now face the prospect of highly knowledgeable staff rapidly losing their jobs, without a clear successor.

22. With funding from the Monument Trust, the Museums Association offers a small number of Monument Fellowships so that recently retired collections specialists can pass on their knowledge to successor staff and the wider museum sector. This time-consuming work needs careful planning and support if knowledge is not to be lost to the museum, to researchers and to wider audiences.

23. In spring 2011 the Museums Association plans to publish guidance on sharing collections knowledge and we hope that museums will make use of this to preserve at least some of the knowledge and experience that would otherwise be lost if expert staff have to leave.

Cuts will reduce access to important collections 24. Funding cuts will make it harder for museums to share their collections. Cuts will set back recent work to build national - regional museum partnerships, which give nationwide audiences improved access to national collections. Similarly, cuts to Renaissance will make it harder for small museums to benefit from the collections and remaining expertise in larger Renaissance-funded regional museums. Collections will be stuck in storage because museums will lend and borrow fewer things, so reducing opportunities for people to see nationally and regionally important collections near to where they live.

541

(e) Working together 25. Some local authorities have transferred the management of their museums to charitable trusts, often leading to improved public services, and bringing other benefits such as increased income generation. However, experience varies and some museum trusts have had long-term financial problems. In August 2010, Sheffield Museums had to be ‘bailed out’ with increased funding from Sheffield City Council.

26. Joint services may have potential. Colchester and recently started running a joint museum service. In some parts of the country, such as and Hampshire, there is a long tradition of county and district councils collaborating in service delivery to improve standards and gain economies of scale. Archives and Museums is a highly successful joint service. However, our survey suggests that cuts in funding will make museums more inward looking and so less likely to seek out partnerships and collaboration.

(f) Sustainability 27. The Museums Association investigated museums and sustainability in 2008. We suggested that after a highly successful period of growth, museums perhaps should consolidate their work and focus primarily on improving the quality of what they do rather than its quantity. Ambition had made many museums overstretched, often trying to do too much on limited resources and, as noted above, struggling with high fixed costs. (This will of course be exacerbated by funding cuts.) We concluded that to improve their sustainability museums need to think more than a few years ahead. Although museums hold their collections ‘in perpetuity’, they rarely think hard about their long-term purpose. The current absence of a clear policy steer from government (see paragraph 38 below) makes this even harder.

28. Looking at environmental sustainability in particular, we concluded museums could do much to reduce their energy consumption, so reducing running costs as well as reducing carbon emissions. However, they need financial and expert support to become greener. Led by national museums in the UK, museums internationally are rethinking the ways they care for collections to take account of the need to reduce energy use.

(g) The Lottery 29. Proposed increases in lottery funding for heritage are welcome. However, they will not compensate for reductions in funding elsewhere. Furthermore, the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) is having to consider supporting a higher proportion of project costs as far less partnership funding is now available from other sources, such as regional development agencies. This reduces the number of projects that HLF can support. Furthermore, the previous government reduced heritage-lottery funds, with the result that HLF no longer has the resources to support all the high-quality applications that it receives.

30. Generally HLF is regarded as an intelligent, successful funder. Museums and their audiences have benefited significantly from the requirement to include learning and participation in HLF- funded projects. We also welcome HLF’s growing encouragement for environmental sustainability.

31. The wide range of ‘heritage’ work that HLF funds, and its UK-wide role, means there would be many problems in a merger with English Heritage. Although both organisations have the word ‘Heritage’ in their names, they have very different areas of responsibility. There is a particular concern about the confusion and complexity that would arise if HLF merges with English Heritage, while, as looks likely, national responsibility for museums moves to Arts Council England, itself a lottery distributor, but not responsible for museum lottery funding.

542

(h) The Abolition of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and other aspects of the funding system 32. There is great uncertainty about the future operation of many of MLA’s valuable functions including Renaissance, designation (of collections of national and international significance in non- national museums) and Museum Development Officer-support for local museums.

33. Renaissance in the Regions has recently been reviewed and there are proposals to change the way it allocates funding to regional museums by giving regular support to a reduced number of ‘core’ museums. We agree that some aspects of the scheme need to change (in particular that funding needs to become less bureaucratic). However, there need to be perhaps 20-30 core museums, rather than the smaller number that is sometimes mentioned. Renaissance’s encouragement of networking and collaboration is beginning to bear fruit and should be built on, as it has the potential to lead to more collaboration and sharing of expertise and resources.

34. Other vital MLA functions include: • accreditation (which sets and assesses standards for museums and has encouraged many improvements in a lightly regulated sector) • funding for the highly successful Portable Antiquities Scheme, • Acceptance in Lieu • aspects of the Government Indemnity Scheme and security advice • the MLA/V&A purchase fund • the PRISM fund for collecting or conserving objects related to science, technology and industry and support for organisations such as: • the Collections Trust • Culture24

35. Most of these functions have an impact beyond England, supporting the work of museums in Wales in particular and in some cases in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is important that this continues in decisions about their future operations. If not, there is the possibility of wasteful duplication.

36. It looks most likely that national-level responsibility for museum will pass to Arts Council England. This has the potential to work well as long as museums have adequate status in the organisation (at least equivalent to areas such as theatre and music) and as long as the arts council has adequate resources to continue key MLA functions.

37. To be successful, policy for museums has needed to be determined jointly by MLA and DCMS (working with the sector itself and key partners such as the Heritage Lottery Fund and Museums Association). However, DCMS and MLA have not consistently worked together on policy and strategy; we hope the new arrangements will mark an improvement.

38. There is a particular policy gap at the moment, with no indication from government or its agencies about their desired priorities for museums. This is particularly unfortunate when museums are being asked to propose expenditure reductions, as it is quite unclear what government thinks should be reduced and what should be protected. Crudely, and at the most basic level, should museums give priority to improving collections care and preservation or to increasing audiences? Does the government consider scholarly research or schools’ programmes to be the most important?

(i) Other sources of income: philanthropy, admission changes and the sale of collections Philanthropy 39. Museums and galleries have always benefited from philanthropy, but this has been primarily for collecting or buildings. There is a long tradition of private collectors giving their collections to museums, and occasionally founding new museums or paying for extended buildings, but there is little tradition of contributing to endowments or paying for long-term running costs in other ways. 543

40. A small number of museums have recently raised extensive amounts from private sources for capital development but these have overwhelmingly been major museums in London, with some notable exceptions such as the Ashmolean in Oxford and, outside England, Kelvingrove in . Smaller museums, especially those outside London, appear to have relatively limited likelihood of raising large amounts of private money, even for buildings and collecting.

41. All types and sizes of museum regularly raise funds from charitable trusts (and the lottery) for capital developments, acquisitions and special programmes such as additional educational and community projects. However, only rarely do these sources contribute significantly to core running costs.

Admission charges 42. Some museums, particularly independent museums, have always charged for admission but this is not often a sensible option for public museums. As noted above (paragraph 14) introducing admission charges typically reduces the number of visits by 40%. This usually increases the amount of public spending per visit, so reducing the efficiency of public spending.

Sale of Collections 43. When disposing of items from their collections, museums follow the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics. After extensive consultation, the Museums Association changed its rules on the sale of collections in 2007. The new rules permit financially motivated disposal of collections in certain exceptional circumstances. In particular, the income from the sale must not be for short-term reasons but has to provide sustainable long-term public benefit (such as contributing to an endowment) and the items being disposed of have to be outside the museum’s core collection. So far, only two museums have disposed of collections in this way: The Watts Gallery in Surrey and the Royal Cornwall Museum in Truro. Both of these are independent charitable trusts. It should be noted that legislation restricts the powers of disposal of some museums, particularly nationals.

44. Sale of collections is not likely to be a source of income for many museums. It is certainly not a solution to short-term funding difficulties and always risks damaging public trust in museums and deterring future donations of collections and other forms of philanthropy.

The Museums Association would be pleased to assist the committee. We are able to provide additional information about many of the points made in this submission.

September 2010

544

Written evidence submitted by The Reading Agency (arts 127)

This response to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee Inquiry is from The Reading Agency, which is an independent charity working to inspire people to read more. It specialises in helping libraries to radically modernise their reading service.

This response:

• Outlines the case for modernisation of library services

• Comments on the impact of spending cuts on libraries and the arts

• Describes the successful Reading Agency model

• Examines the possibilities for an enhanced role in the future

• Touches on issues around arts organisation collaboration

1) Modernisation The Reading Agency believes there is huge potential for modernising the public library service and its reading offer. There are several core areas that will benefit from a focussed approach to development: • Big Society strategy. Using libraries and reading to create a whole new wave of community reading activism and ensuring libraries feature in the National Citizens Service. • Health offer. Levering in health sector investment to create an integrated library health offer to the public and health and social care partners, combining information and creative reading. • National membership from birth scheme building on the success of the National Year of Reading membership drive in 2008 that recruited 2.3 million new members. • Major advocacy campaign to promote the library offer and its key USPs including its status as a widely accessible cultural service free at the point of access; its role as a neutral community space; its expert staff; its national digital offer; and, key services such as social reading activity, health and well being services, children’s and young people’s services. • Digital development. Building shared digital marketing with publishers and a joint approach to the delivery of electronic book content; linking BBC/Race Online partnerships to national reading programmes in libraries; online provision of virtual social reading space increasing access and building capacity. • Adult and community learning. Supporting libraries in consolidating local partnerships to help people re-engage with learning and develop their skills for individual, social and economic benefit. • Educational and cultural partnerships. Developing libraries’ partnership working with schools, and their potential to make a wider cultural offer by linking to other arts forms, e.g. film, music, theatre, visual arts.

2) The impact of spending cuts on public libraries • We believe that the reported picture of decline in library use is not a straightforward decline in public interest and take up. Children’s and young people’s use of libraries is steady (latest DCMS Taking Part statistics) and children’s book borrowing has risen for five years running. Web visits have risen by 50% (CIPFA Library statistics, May 2010). • The evidence shows that where libraries offer a more dynamic, interactive reading service, the public respond with alacrity. Two of The Reading Agency’s most successful programmes, 545

the Summer Reading Challenge for children and the Six Book Challenge for emergent adult readers prove this (see attached information). The number of library linked reading groups has more than doubled in the last four years. There are now somewhere in the region of 10,000 library linked groups reaching 100,000 people (TRA Reading Group mapping data). • In tough financial times, we cannot afford to undercut libraries’ ability to create a nation of readers. Our literacy skills deficit is already too large. The scale of cuts means that the library network is unlikely to survive in its current shape, so prioritizing and innovating will be key. The challenge is to scale up what is working and support the development of a dynamic, modernised reading service which captures the interest of the public. • We must not lose sight of libraries’ radical social purpose. They are about creating a fairer society and engaging local communities through the provision of vital community services in spaces that represent community focal points. They help people become skilled readers with major implications for their life chances. They also provide social engagement opportunities that help connect people, improve quality of life and support the health and well being of individuals and communities. They should not be soft targets for cuts. 3) The impact of funding cuts on The Reading Agency • We believe that the work we do through reading and libraries is important to supporting a healthy, diverse and vibrant local cultural landscape. • We have a robust financial model supported by a diverse funding mix and a thin and lean organisational structure but we would struggle to continue to deliver innovation and new thinking as well as core service delivery to the sector without the foundation of public subsidy. • We receive core funding from the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (£158,000 in 2010/11). Losing this funding would have a major impact on our ability to take this work forward. It would also damage our role in helping libraries work more efficiently by pooling resources/ working across boundaries and delivering the cost-saving benefits of national programmes. • We are also core funded by Arts Council England (£235,353 in 2010/11). Cuts in this funding would seriously undermine our work.

4) The Reading Agency model • We support innovation, alongside helping libraries reduce costs at local level by pooling expertise and resources to achieve better value for money. • We can help libraries tune in to big policy agendas and funding streams such as health and well being, informal adult learning. • We’re all about creative ways of changing frontline delivery, using national and regional co-ordination to make a difference locally. • We have developed a “sign up” model which enables us to offer nationally co-ordinated work which authorities can draw on to make efficiencies. • We’re good at levering in partnerships and investment to inject resources for local people. We work with and are supported by a portfolio of big national partners including broadcasters, commercial publishers, businesses, the TUC and adult learning organisations that bring new resources and expertise into the sector. • We have a raft of evidence to show that our approach makes a real impact locally, particularly in the areas of health and well being, social reading activity, adult learning and for children, young people, families and older people. • In the spirit of the times we do this at a very low cost - we currently have only 13 full time staff supported by a virtual network of specialist consultants. 546

• We deliver a national workforce development programme that focuses on sharing good practice and skills development in key areas such as volunteering, health and well being and adult learning. “It’s an inclusive model – The Reading Agency, library leaders, workforce and customers working together at a strategic and delivery level. Working together is more cost effective – it enables us to create economies of scale, share good practice regionally and nationally, yet flexible enough to reflect local need” Nicky Parker, President, Society of Chief Librarians

5) Building on existing work – an enhanced role We want to continue to develop existing work that is driving change in the library system. This includes programmes like the Summer Reading Challenge (involving 97% of English authorities and 725,000 children); partnerships like the Reading Partners scheme involving 40 publishers (see attached); and, developmental work in the areas of health, volunteering, young people’s participation and adult literacy

Although our specialism is reading, we already play a much wider library development role in order to drive changes in the system. We are interested in exploring how we might play an enhanced role in the future.

Some enhanced functions which could develop out of our current work are: • Future Libraries Programme: we’re exploring how we can weave our expertise through the work of the current ten successful bidders. We also think there is huge potential to apply the current Future Libraries model and the learning it delivers to focus in on key areas – e.g. the delivery of a shared and efficient modernised reading service. • Connecting libraries to policy and market developments: e.g. ensuring libraries feature in the National Citizens Service; helping libraries develop their digital offer from ebooks to linking reading to gaming and other digital technologies; coordinating the national Youth and Adult Learning Boards; a clearly defined health and well being offer. • Library research: we understand the evidence base and are experts in library based research. We want to build on our current expertise working with key stakeholders to develop effective tools to measure the impact of reading in relation to health and well being, learning and community engagement and to better understand user trends. • Partnerships: we want to build on the potential of our national partnership base, for example, connecting the BBC/library partnership to the wider Arts Council/BBC partnership. We also want to lever in new national partners to support libraries’ work with reading including from the health and social care sector and to support reading group activity. • Campaigning and advocacy: we want to speak with a unified voice for public libraries providing a key advocacy platform from which to raise their profile and promote them as partners of choice. • Big Society: we have the skills to support community engagement and participation in the shaping and delivery of library services. • Workforce development: building on our existing and respected workforce development programme linked to volunteering, cross cutting local authority reading strategy development, adult learning and health and well being.

6) Arts collaboration We are already key players in a radical new model for bringing arts organisations to work more closely together through Free Word, a consortium of literature, literacy and free expression organisations based at the Free Word Centre. This is a developing model which is already highlighting the potential for shared service development and back room functions. It 547

also enables us to add value to our library offer through our close working association with partner organisations.

7) Efficiencies We would like the opportunity to talk to the Select Committee about future models for efficiencies, whilst improving the quality of library services. The Reading Agency is ideally placed to help libraries innovate and make efficiencies. We take an entrepreneurial approach to development work and would be happy to share our evidence and expertise with the Select Committee.

September 2010

548

Written evidence submitted by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (arts 128)

1 We are grateful for this opportunity to explain why the National Lottery should be available to fund arts and heritage projects in the UK's Overseas Territories.

2 The Overseas Territories and the British citizens who live in them have difficulty raising funds for vital projects. Most have tiny populations in relation to their rich built and natural heritage; they often also lack locally some of the skills needed to frame and carry out projects which have great importance for the UK's heritage and its international obligations. These include the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, UNESCO's World Heritage Convention, the Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP).

3 “Silent Summer” (Cambridge University Press, 2010) is an authoritative study of the wildlife of the UK and Ireland, including the overseas territories. Apart from the 23 endemic bird species in the territories, the study noted that “a majority of the world population of many species of seabirds (including about half the world’s breeding albatrosses) depend on UKOTs in the South Atlantic. The UKOTs hold substantial areas of sensitive ecosystems, including making the UK one of the world’s most important coral nations.”

4 The remoter territories - Pitcairn, British Indian Ocean Territory, Tristan da Cunha, St Helena, Ascension, the Falkland Islands, and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands – cover a small land area (16,713 km2) but a huge ocean area (total EEZ/ EFZ of 5m km2 – compared with the UK's EEZ of 764 thousand km2). However the total population of these territories is only some eight thousand; and many of the most important islands for biodiversity have no resident citizens and are extremely difficult to access. So, for the National Lottery to exclude the UKOTs is like making an arts and heritage provision which rules out all projects in Great Britain's offshore islands – no St Kilda, no Scilly Isles, no Lundy, no Anglesey, no , no Neolithic Orkney, no musical Shetland, no Hebrides. For an island nation proud of its maritime heritage across the globe and with that heritage still vibrant in the overseas territories, the current position needs to change.

5 A major problem is that their status as British sovereign territories means most international sources of funding are not open to them - or only with difficulty and with support from the UK government. However, many UK funding sources are also closed - because they are not "in" the UK. They are British but overseas, out of sight and out of mind - until a natural or political disaster: the Montserrat volcano or the Falklands War.

6 The prime source of UK funding for heritage projects is currently closed to the UKOTs. This is not because of the legislation under which the National Lottery was set up, but simply as a policy decision by its board. It is time for this restriction to be removed.

7 Such funding as does exist is tiny. The Overseas Territories Environment 549

Programme (OTEP), jointly funded by the FCO and DfID, has a budget of only £1 million per year. It is designed for small-scale projects and it does not apply to the arts, the built environment, or terrestrial or marine archaeology. However, the National Lottery is ideal for larger projects, including those that can protect the integrity of World Heritage Sites, where the average expenditure in the metropolitan UK has been nearly half-a-million pounds per project.

8 National Lottery tickets are not sold in the UKOTs. While this might be possible in some, the crucial reform needed is to allow UK organizations and individuals to bid (sometimes with partners in the UKOTs) for funding for projects to be carried out in one or more UKOTs. The UK's own heritage will be a beneficiary since these are all British sovereign territories, subject to oversight by HMG, especially in respect of international treaty obligations. Ministers are answerable for them, in Parliament and internationally.

9 Access to the National Lottery for projects in the overseas territories would have great benefits for policy and outcomes. UK civil society could work with government to tell an inspiring story in the UK and internationally about Britain's care for its heritage. A topical example is the RSPB's proposed restoration of the raised coral reef habitat of the Henderson Island World Heritage Site. The National Lottery is just right for helping complete the funding for a project that will provide benefits for many generations.

Examples

• The UKOTs contain a rich built and natural heritage, from the Georgian gem of Jamestown to the Bounty Bible, historic wrecks such as HMS Roebuck, many globally threatened endemic species and the testimony - in St Helena and in Caribbean territories - to Britain's role both in the slave trade and in its suppression. Much will be lost without access to adequate funding. • Access to the National Lottery matters not just for funding, but for access to UK conservation skills and policy guidance. [Even though Bermuda has its own rich human resources, in putting together a bid to the World Heritage. Committee, Bermuda needed to draw on invaluable help by a UK consultant with experience of such bids. Bermuda paid, but many poorer territories would not have the resources to do so.] • Especially valuable would be support for archives, museum work, local natural history collections and oral history. • As Britain treats its overseas territories and their people, so will it be judged, at home and abroad.. Our record is poor. Reform giving projects in the territories access to the National Lottery would make a huge difference. • Several UKOTs currently have no resident citizens (South Georgia, British Indian Ocean Territory) and are wholly run by UK-based organizations; others have such small populations that it is unrealistic to expect them to be able to fund serious heritage projects (Pitcairn, Tristan). • The UKOTs already have three World Heritage sites : Henderson Island (Pitcairn), Gough Island (Tristan) and The Historic Town of St George 550

(Bermuda -site of the oldest parliament in the Western Hemisphere), with the World Heritage value also widely recognised of South Georgia and of the Chagos Archipelago. • In 2007 Britain commemorated the bicentenary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Overseas Territories in the Caribbean were unable to participate as they did not have funding or access to UK funding. The Heritage Lottery Fund provided £20 million to events, exhibitions etc in the UK but provided no support for the OTs. The Turks and Caicos Islands Museum is leading a project to uncover the Trouvadore, a slave ship that wrecked there in 1841. The survivors increased the population of TCI by 7%, a direct result of the 1807 abolition of the slave trade Act and the 1834 Emancipation Act. Due to lack of resources TCI's National Museum was unable to participate in the 2007 events. This was a travesty for TCI and for UK communities that would have benefitted from TCI involvement.

September 2010

551

Written evidence submitted by Voluntary Arts England (arts 129)

Voluntary Arts is the national development agency for the amateur arts sector and works to promote practical participation in the arts and crafts. There are more than 49,000 amateur arts groups in England with an estimated 5.9 million members, in addition 3.5 million people volunteer as extras or helpers making a total of 9.4m people. We are making this submission on behalf of the sector. Although we haven’t had time to consult with groups extensively, the views expressed here are informed by forum posts, requests for advice and training and the report ‘Our Creative Talent, the voluntary and amateur arts in England’ published in 2008 (DCMS)

Summary

i. Most amateur arts organisations do not rely on government subsidy to maintain their level of activity however they do rely on the support of their artform umbrella bodies and Voluntary Arts as the development agency for the sector. Together we offer advice and training on income generation and making effective use of resources which is vital in a climate where public subsidy is hard to come by. ii. Many groups benefit from small grant schemes and in-kind support administered by local authorities and would suffer considerably if such opportunities were reduced. iii. Severe cuts affecting the professional art sector would cause amateur arts practitioners to lose out as consumers, audience members and could significantly affect the quality of life for large numbers of people. iv. Most amateur arts groups already operate on low budgets which are accustomed to stretch to gain maximum benefits. v. We would welcome initiatives to encourage collaborative working and would be interested to see how Voluntary Arts could develop this within the sector vi. Voluntary Arts has a good relationship with Arts Council North East as one of its Regularly Funded Organisation clients and would oppose the centralisation of the grant. vii. With reference to proposed changes to Arts Council funding, we would support a structure that was transparent, equitable and did not favour large professional arts organisations over smaller, more localised organisations and amateur arts organisations with an overt social or community benefit. viii. Local Authorities could be encouraged to work with amateur arts groups to extend budgets for participative activity. ix. We welcome the restoration of the National Lottery to its original mandate vis-a-vis the proportion of money awarded to arts projects. x. Voluntary Arts would like to ensure that small grants for arts projects with a social, community or health benefit continue to be awarded and there is not an undue emphasis on awarding large grants to cut administrative costs. xi. Amateur arts groups already represent many aspects of the Big Society in action. We would welcome a funding scheme that awards groups which develop this ethos. xii. Voluntary Arts makes a distinction between ‘arm’s-length’ infrastructure support organisations and grassroots membership umbrella organisations which fulfil a vital role and should be maintained. Voluntary Arts was formed by and supports such membership organisations and is integral to the development of the sector. xiii. We feel that the decisions to cut such bodies as the UK Film Council were made quickly without sufficient consultation or evidence on the impact of such cuts. xiv. Although currently amateur arts groups do not receive significant donations from business and philanthropy, we would welcome moves to provide better tax incentives to enable donations and sponsorship to become more attractive. We would also like to see donors being encouraged to support the Big Society, with its wealth of social and community benefits

552

1. What impact recent and future spending cuts from central and local government will have on arts and heritage at a national and local level?

i. Across the UK, tens of thousands of amateur arts groups stage plays and operas, festivals and concerts, put on exhibitions and run classes and workshops every week. Amateur arts groups are rooted in almost every local community across the UK. They are almost all independent local organisations established by their participants, self- financing and fiercely independent of national and local government. ii. The amateur arts sector does not rely on government subsidy to maintain its level of activity. Traditionally amateur arts groups are self funded, self governed and are proficient in good housekeeping to ensure that the income is well spent. Research tells us there are 49,140 amateur arts groups in England involving 9.4 million people (‘Our Creative Talent’, DCMS/Arts Council England, 2008). The amateur arts sector also includes at least as many people taking part individually or through adult education classes. In 2008 the income of the sector was estimated to be £543m per year. (Our Creative Talent) Across the amateur arts 82% of finance is self generated: in general the amateur arts are not looking for core public funding. iii. However many groups benefit from small grant schemes administered by local authorities and the reduction or cessation of these grants will have a damaging impact. Also local authority reduced budgets may make it more difficult for groups to have access to decent venues, networking opportunities and training. iv. Cuts from local and central government on arts and heritage budgets will have an adverse effect on amateur arts practitioners in their role as consumers and audience members as their attendance at theatres, galleries and other cultural venues is generally more than the average. Many amateur arts practitioners are inspired, stimulated and encouraged by professional art activity and reduced opportunities to access this would impact on their own art practice.

2. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and make economies of scale?

I. With over 49,000 amateur arts groups in England there are a plethora of small groups with an interest in a particular artform or craft. These are grouped together under 200 national umbrella bodies that represent their members and offer advice support and member services such as specialised insurance, access to conferences, training opportunities and equipment. Amateur arts groups already operate on shoestring budgets but there may be potential to work in collaboration with other organisations to develop their activity. We would welcome the opportunity for professional arts organisations to make closer links with amateur groups, using premises out of office hours (when many groups meet) or being invited to events. There is potential for economies of scale to be made between groups on a local level usually around skill sharing such as marketing and promotion, IT or accounting. Voluntary Arts would be interested in brokering such a scheme or supporting local authorities to develop such a role.

3. Is the current system, and structure of funding distribution the right one?

i. The current system gives Arts Council England the dominant role as funder of arts organisations and projects. Voluntary Arts has been a regularly funded organisation for some years, has a good relationship with Arts Council England North East (ACENE) and Arts Council England (ACE) and is actively involved in the ACE Amateur Arts Partnership 553

Development Programme, helping to break down barriers between the amateur and professional sectors. To date the system has worked well for the organisation and the sector as a whole. As a national charity with a base in the northeast, Voluntary Arts is well placed to ensure that its national policy is informed partly by the regional experience. We have a good relationship with our lead officer and would vigorously oppose any move to centralise the funding system. ii. Arts Council England is proposing to replace the current system of funding regularly funded organisations on a three year rolling programme with a system of tiered funding relating to a) specific work carried out over 1-5 years, b) a long term partnership relationship and c) a fee bearing contract relating to specific tasks. iii. While it might be necessary for ACE to achieve a flexible funding strategy in the current climate there is a danger that large, heavily-subsidised, London-based arts organisations will continue to be underwritten by long term funding programmes to the detriment of smaller, more provincial organisations with an evident social and community focus. The proposed scheme will enable numerous types of funding arrangement to arise but a concern would be that transparency and equity might be reduced. ACE has historically been criticised for subsiding ‘high art’ which is elitist, Voluntary Arts is concerned that the ACE clients would effectively receive three levels of funding and that amateur arts groups and their umbrella bodies would be relegated to the ‘third division’. iv. Local Authorities could be encouraged to work closely with amateur arts groups to enable their budgets to reach large numbers of participants. Access to premises, in-kind support and training opportunities can be extremely valuable to amateur groups and may not cost vast sums of money. For some groups it is important that a local, accessible grant scheme operates. Currently local authorities vary considerably in their support of amateur arts groups in their area. There are Arts Development teams that actively work with the sector, convening meetings, and encouraging networking, operating a small grants scheme and developing opportunities for groups to contribute to wider agendas such as health and wellbeing and community cohesion.

4. What will the impact of recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds be on arts and heritage organisations?

i. We welcome the restoration of the proportion of arts Lottery funding to the original level of 20%. In the current climate with a funding squeeze on arts and culture, and with Arts Council England regularly funded organisations being asked to model cuts of more than 10%, any increase in arts funding is welcome news. The Lottery was originally conceived to fund areas of activity that fell outside core statutory responsibility; so we welcome this restoration.

ii. We do have reservations on how the proposed change might impact on the amateur arts sector. We worry that as our sector spans both arts and community sectors it may miss out from both when it comes when it comes to funding. Grants for the Arts applications to Arts Council England are principally judged on ‘artistic criteria’. For many amateur arts groups, projects are often about using art to achieve social or community outcomes. We would like Arts Council England to consider providing opportunities for groups to apply for funding for instrumental use of the arts and we would like the Big Lottery Fund to encourage applications from groups using artistic activity to deliver outcomes in line with Big Lottery Fund criteria. [There is anecdotal evidence of amateur arts groups being advised by the Big Lottery Fund to apply to Arts Council England because they are arts organisations, regardless of the fact that the project for which they are seeking funding is designed to deliver social and community outcomes and would not fit Arts Council England’s artistic criteria.] 554

5. Do the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed?

i. Amateur arts groups have benefitted from grants administered by the Big Lottery Fund particularly Awards for All; a small grants programme with a straightforward application process and short response time. Voluntary Arts is keen to see the small grant scheme extended. It represents value for money, is based in grassroots need. ii. We would like to see the National Lottery underpinning the ethos of the ‘Big Society’ In addition to the Big Society bank, Voluntary Arts would welcome the development of grants to reward small-scale, local action that brings benefits to people and their communities. To some extent the amateur arts sector already represents many aspects of the Big Society in action. But in most cases there is still a lack of connection between the amateur arts and other community groups. With some exceptions, amateur arts groups tend to be very focussed on their artform, their own regular participation/rehearsal and performances or exhibitions. A major strand of the work of Voluntary Arts is to encourage greater collaboration with other community groups and civil society activities to realise the underutilised potential of the amateur arts sector. iii. The amateur arts sector contributes significantly to community cohesion, local pride and identity, health and wellbeing and many other aspects of strong communities but the scale of the amateur arts sector provides potential for it to play a much greater role in strengthening communities throughout the country and realising the Big Society. iv. Currently the policy direction of the Big Lottery is under review and the question is being posed as to whether the direction should either follow ‘The need to ensure that money is distributed to projects that benefit people and local communities served by the voluntary and community sector’ or ‘The need to ensure that money is distributed to projects in the voluntary and community sector in order to benefit the people and local communities in that sector’

The wording of the first option implies that money would be distributed to projects that could be outside the scope of the voluntary and community sector but opens up the possibility of local authorities being recipients of funds. For that reason Voluntary Arts wishes to maintain the wording of the second option.

v. As there is a need to reduce bureaucracy and administration costs Voluntary Arts is concerned that there may be an emphasis on awarding large grants to large organisations, thereby making it difficult for smaller amateur arts groups to access funding.

6. What will the impact be 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?

i. Voluntary Arts accepts that arts funding is not sacrosanct and cuts in line with other departmental targets will need to be made, however we believe that when cuts are made to organisations that are intrinsic to the development of professional standards and quality projects we believe that the detrimental effect on the sector will be more far reaching than anticipated. At a time of stringent cuts and falling audience numbers it is vital that organisations work intelligently, cutting back waste, developing innovation and having confidence to sometimes take risks. Umbrella organisations and development agencies can ensure that effective partnerships are made and resources used efficiently. 555

ii. The abolition of the UK Film Council and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA)will adversely affect cinema goers, filmmakers both professional and amateur, and amateur arts practitioners who have benefitted from MLA initiatives. iii. We see a distinction between ‘arms-length’ infrastructure bodies and those rooted in grassroots activity. Although we would agree that it is important to protect front-line delivery, membership organisations and those which have evolved organically to support the sector are integral to an efficient, well run sector supporting a vast number of independent groups. Since the 1880s UK amateur arts groups have sought out similar groups across the country and 'federated' – forming membership organisations within particular artforms. This is a bottom-up evolutionary process which has resulted today in nearly 200 specialist national umbrella organisations (including the British Federation of Brass Bands, Making Music, the Lace Guild, the National Association of Choirs, the National Operatic and Dramatic Association, the National Association of Decorative and Fine Arts etc). Most of these umbrella bodies are small, unfunded members’ clubs which produce a newsletter and run occasional conferences or other events. A few are more substantial with professional offices and staff to provide training and advice to their member groups. Voluntary Arts was created in 1991 by some of these umbrella bodies to link them together and provide a single voice for the amateur arts sector in the UK and Ireland. Much of our work is about making better use of existing resources by linking existing organisations – e.g. helping local amateur arts groups to access funding, training, advice and support from the wider voluntary (non-profit) sector as well as the arts sector. Voluntary Arts provides a single point of contact with the vast amateur arts sector. This organic network of 200 bottom-up infrastructure organisations gives the amateur arts sector a resilience and vibrancy. iv. We are concerned that the ‘infrastructure’ bodies, even those embedded in the grassroots of their sector are vulnerable to cuts. The recent decision by the Arts Council of Wales to withdraw core funding from a range of infrastructure and support bodies including Voluntary Arts Wales is a case in point and we would vigorously oppose cuts to other departments of Voluntary Arts.

7.Individual philanthropy and business support i. Amateur arts groups do receive business support and donations from individuals but it is usually on a small, local scale and is often because an individual donor is a amateur arts practitioner. Historically, large donations have been made to high-profile, prestigious, mostly London-based arts organisations. Voluntary Arts does not foresee this situation changing and if the Government’s focus is to encourage large donations in lieu of grant aid, the amateur arts sector could be diminished as a result. ii. Voluntary Arts would welcome better tax incentives to individual givers but would like to see a greater emphasis on the promotion of benefits of arts activity to health, wellbeing and social cohesion. Individual donors could be encouraged to see the wider benefits of their donations, e.g. the savings on prescription drugs for older people who sing in choirs.

September 2010 556

Written evidence submitted by Martin Thomas (arts 130)

1. 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 1.1 The Government’s proposed cuts are likely to have a disproportionately large impact on one of the unique selling points (USP) of ‘UK plc’ – the cultural sector (arts and heritage) and creative industries. These areas have blossomed over the past fifteen years. However it is defined – whether performing arts, built and environmental heritage, film, media, museums, galleries, libraries and archives – the diversity of what the ’s arts and heritage offer has contributed enormously to the national economy and to the social, cultural and educational life of the UK’s citizens. The value of arts and heritage to communities is very considerable. At the height of the credit crunch and recession, heritage organisations (including those independent of Government) noted increased interest from the public. Statistics on this are available from the National Trust and English Heritage, amongst others.

1.2 This nation’s arts and heritage have thrived throughout the recession. The arts and heritage have often been stabilised by public investment and have used that funding as a platform on which to develop and encourage commercial investment, philanthropic support and new enterprise. By reducing that public support, one of the undisputed successes of this country is jeopardised and the chances for increasing philanthropic giving reduced.

1.3 There is a desire in many people to seek out positive experiences through heritage and the arts when times are tough. This is nothing new, and evidence can be produced to support this. A Government Department that ‘squeezes’ the positive experiences out of people’s lives, by cutting budgets in order ‘to be seen’ to be fiscally responsible by HM Treasury and Number 10, loses the public support when that Government needs it most.

2. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale 2.1 More collaboration is always to be welcomed. Partnerships across the cultural sector should be encouraged and there has been a lot of good practice in this area already, especially working with children and young people (e.g. Partnerships between museums, arts organisations, heritage, film and new media with the Cultural Hubs programme in Bournemouth & , Durham and Telford; DAISI / Arts In Schools Initiative working in rural communities across Devon; Arts and Health South West working across south west England).

557

2.2 What organisations often want are seed funding, or coordinating support, to get the partnership moving and then recognition from national Government that this collaborative approach is going to be supported and recognised. What discourages partnership work is when Government departments seem to issue conflicting guidance, and when one Department seems to use ‘partnership’ as an opportunity to remove support by piggybacking on another Department’s budget.

3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable 3.1 This is a very complex and involved question. It will probably be answered best by organisations and individuals with a record of accomplishment of funding and investing in the arts and heritage. Government is right to set an aim of smart economics in the cultural sector. Making economies in some areas in order to ease pressure on budgets is understandable. However, Government should also trust those professionals who have worked to ensure best value for the public purse in the arts and heritage sector.

3.2 A minor observation, but one I feel is important. If Government and Parliament see funding of the arts and heritage as a ‘subsidy’, then that is a negative, with all the connotations of ‘preventing decline’ and ‘protectionism’ associated with definitions of the term subsidy. The arts and heritage, for reasons stated elsewhere, add immensely to the quality of life and the national economy, so this funding should be regarded as an investment, or a national contribution to maintaining ‘the USP of UK plc’.

4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one 4.1 The current system is not perfect. There can always be improvements. From my experience, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) or quasi non-governmental organisations (quangos) – whichever you prefer – have been cutting hard and streamlining. Many (like the Arts Council and MLA) have been making year-on-year savings to meet the commitments to save money as per the Gershon and Lyons reviews. Government should reflect on the impacts of these cuts before further cuts. Otherwise, Government could find itself having a cumulative range of cuts (from the last Labour administration and this Coalition one) which result in such a reduced infrastructure that taxpayers’ money has to be wasted on re-recruiting a few months later.

5. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations 5.1 Government’s proposals to redistribute Lottery funding (essentially shifting some from Big Lottery to the Arts Council, Heritage Lottery Fund and Sport Council/s) is welcome as it re-sets 558 the imbalance; and is a return to the spirit of the Lottery established under John Major’s administration. However, what must be borne in mind is that, for example, Arts Council England has - in meeting its obligations to the previous Government - cut their staffing and resources drastically. This means that decision making on grants is harder (i.e. fewer people to do this). In addition, for money to be well used it needs good, balanced, analytical consideration of grant requests. Just allocating ‘a bit more to arts and heritage’ is not an end in itself. Ensure the distributors of the funding are at least able to make decisions in the regions/local areas and that this process is not a centralised decision made with no knowledge of the applicant, the public / audience that may benefit or the local context.

6. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed 6.1 This question is related to 4 and 5, in that a fully considered range of options should be explored. Returning to the basic guiding principles of the Lottery is one option, but if that is done, then some system of protecting those arts/heritage/sports good causes needs to be enshrined. Otherwise, ‘bad habits’ come back and the Lottery coffers get raided when another big bill comes up.

6.2 Political independence of the Lottery distributors must be maintained and this can be checked and balanced by ensuring the partner agencies or advisory bodies have very clear terms of reference that are recognised by Parliament.

7. The impact of recent changes to DCMS arms-length bodies - in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council and Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) 7.1 Other people have spoken very articulately about the abolition of the UKFC. The evidence that Government has presented about cutting it was based largely on ‘executive pay’, which seems a weak basis on which to remove an organisation that has demonstrated positive impact for the national film industry. If that was the perceived issue with UKFC then it should have been raised via the Board of Trustees and addressed as an issue of governance of the UKFC, not a total abolition.

7.2 The loss of MLA raises many questions about how and whether this will really save any money. The core functions of MLA, relating to national standards for museums (through Museums Accreditation); the portable antiquities scheme, security advice; Government Indemnity scheme etc, will all still need to be administered. Does DCMS propose to manage these directly, in London, recruiting and training more Civil Service personnel to do this job?

559

7.3 The greatest single success of MLA, the delivery of the Renaissance Museums programme in local museums across England is now put in jeopardy by the action of the Coalition Government. This public investment has seen museums and galleries actively taking the lead in partnerships in local areas, meeting strict performance indicators and contributing to a wide range of non-heritage services (helping Local councils meet obligations school education, positive activities for people with disabilities, and health and well-being agendas and the Local Authority Children’s Plans).

8. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level And 9. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations 8/9.1 For philanthropy to work, as advocated by the DCMS Secretary of State, there has to be a better understanding within Government (and the UK Civil Service) of what this means. Comparisons keep being made with the ‘American system’, but this is too simplistic and ignores the American heritage of patronage that the UK does not have. There are opportunities to learn from other nations how they fund culture, but this should be more imaginative than just looking at the US system, which for all its merits does take a metropolitan / urban view.

8/9.2 To compare funding of the UK’s arts and heritage sector with the US, is like comparing the taste of a mango with a kipper. The UK and US have very different economies of scale, legal systems, tax incentives, demographics and administrative processes. Has the UK Coalition Government considered looking at how the UK arts and heritage sector has been viewed by other nations (i.e. Singapore) as a model of good practice; or how the UK can learn not only from the USA, but also from Norway (community arts), Germany (comparing the different States’ funding provision), Spain (the cultural infrastructure of the autonomous regions). These nations are closer in size, scale and cultural identity to the UK. We may not share a common language, but our geographical size, populations, educational aspirations and political systems are closer than that of the USA and UK.

In closing, I would ask the Committee to look closely at the accumulated benefits that the arts and heritage bring to the nation. Many aspects of everyday life improved because of the arts and heritage. More tangibly, the economic impacts of heritage and the arts are well documented. At a time of cuts, culture is perceived as the ‘soft underbelly’ of public expenditure, the excess that can be trimmed. I would implore the Committee to consider the 560 case that what makes the public feel more positive and constructive in a time of austerity, is culture. Maintaining funding for the arts and heritage will actually enable the UK to navigate tough fiscal times. Cutting will damage confidence in the Government, public morale and reduce economic output in the creative industries.

Thank you for receiving and considering this written submission to the Committee. I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this.

September 2010

561

Written evidence submitted by North Kesteven District Council (arts 131)

North Kesteven District Council is an innovative high performing authority employing full and part time staff of 388.4 full time equivalents. The District is one of seven in Lincolnshire and covers an area of 356 square miles or 92,000 hectares of which 94% is classed as green open space. Over the last three years the Council has demonstrated continuous year-on-year improvement. The Council has become well known for its cultural services and since 1974 has provided a wide range of services which has enhanced the lives of its residents and visitors. It has a well established arts development team which comprise performing and visual arts who work in rural areas delivering art activity. The arts team – arts NK have been recognised for the expertise they have developed over 20 years and have been commissioned to work in other authorities on major projects. The National Centre for Craft and Design in Sleaford which was opened in 2003 has the largest contemporary exhibition gallery the UK and delivers 5 main exhibitions a year some which are curated in house and tour both home and abroad. Design Factory a business support organisation for craft makers. Design Factory has been championing the region's craft and design sector for over five years. Through its professional and market development programmes, the organisation has created a brand synonymous with high quality craft and design and a selection model that designer/makers aspire to, increasing competitiveness, and raising the standard of contemporary craft and design produced in the region. The organisation now operates on a regional basis but organises exhibition opportunities both in the UK and abroad. The authority also operates heritage sites which include a water mill, Sleaford Navigation House, Cranwell aviation centre and a museum – Mrs Smiths Cottage.

In 2003 the Leisure and Cultural Services was contracted out in a very innovative partnership with Leisure Connection. The partnership has been extremely successful and the authority is currently considering an integration of the National Centre for Craft Design with Design Factory and arts NK to make efficiency savings and develop a robust arts organisation for the future.

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;

The nature of our Leisure Partnering contract has to an extent protected our services and the funding they receive from the District Council. The small amount of cuts in grant funding from the arts council has been inconsequential this year, but it is clear that further reductions are inevitable. The Leisure Partnering contract does make provision for the partner and the Council to work together in the event of a loss of funding to either look to obtain new funding or reduce the service accordingly. Although the recent impacts have not had an effect in this authority we have seen neighbouring authorities take more drastic steps. Funding in arts provision has been cut as a non- statutory service, inevitably loosing out when difficult decisions have to be made. A number of Arts Development Officers and Cultural Officer posts have already gone, rural arts centres closed, projects cut back and museums closed. The very real danger is that with further cuts if no protection is offered to arts funding, cultural provision could disappear from rural areas, leaving village and town residents excluded, forced to drive hundreds of miles to access building based, centralised provision.

The leisure and cultural services partnership in North Kesteven District Council has been very beneficial to this authority making savings while maintaining a high quality service. 562

We are currently working with our partner to look at efficiencies by integrating our arts services and making them less dependent on external funding and robust for the future. The arts team are also undergoing an organisation review which will look specifically at other commercial and funding opportunities.

What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

We believe money invested in the arts delivers significant benefits , as every evaluation and survey shows, impacting positively on economic, health and social development targets. Gone are the days of art for arts sake. Arts organisations have grown to realise they have to deliver in return for their public funding.

Each organisation has evolved separately to take its place in the counties arts ecology and it was easy to think that our separateness was essential to the artistic product delivered. Like other local authority service areas, we have been looking at where savings can be made or improvements delivered through collaboration, and have started to make the necessary structural changes to reshape the counties arts ecology. Over the last year Lincolnshire has looked at, and started to realise, where we can get best value from local authority and government investment in the arts by working together and by sharing resources, skills and expertise. This has been spearheaded through the Lincolnshire One Thrive Organisational Development review process. Audience Development Officers have been employed to work with a number of venues and a shared funding post is being developed as a way of ensuring all funding opportunities are taken. The joint programming of venues is also being investigated. This is a very different way of operating Arts Services and there is a danger that if resources are withdrawn before there has been sufficient time to develop these important step changes that would make arts organisations more robust and able to survive, the whole thing could fall apart mid evolutionary change.

The private sector should not be discounted in this new way of working. The model here in North Kesteven has proved successful with a private partner operating sports, leisure, arts, visitor attractions and countryside services. Their expertise in marketing, venue operation, and by operating under a trust model has proven successful. Similar arrangements could offer lifeline to arts organisations with a collaborative partnership arrangement and economies of scale.

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

The level of public subsidy of the arts should have a direct relationship to the value of what is delivered. Projects that contribute to societies need, be it social, economic or health related, justify investment from the public purse. But this formula should also be applied to the private sector. Businesses benefit from a healthy culture and a happy community – people want to live and work in places that have a vibrant cultural life – so businesses wishing to expand should be required to invest. The arts have proven that 563

they can shape effective programmes that overlap with the agendas and purposes of a wide range of charities, trusts and agencies. These should recognise the value artists and arts organisations make, and be encouraged to fund them accordingly. The future of arts funding is therefore in a robust formula that shares the responsibility of funding with all those who gain value, either directly or indirectly.

Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

It is the one that has evolved, so it is the best starting point on offer. Arts organisations are capable of change, they can be given a task to respond to need within parameters, and they will come up with an answer. The purpose of government and perhaps local authority funding, is to get as much resource to the point of delivery as possible with minimum spillage or evaporation. ACE has proven it can do this, so unless there is a new form of watertight organisation on the shelf, it should be the trusted to carry on.

The current system of funding distribution may be changed or alternatively reduce and supplemented by other methods of funding which are briefly touched upon later and include perhaps incentives for Private or Corporate funding and Percentage for Art schemes from Developers.

What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;

The diversion of funds to the Olympics meant smaller projects lost out, and particularly, in our rural district, those that were grown locally, at a community level, disappeared. Whether the Olympics will make a significant return on this investment remains to be seen. The offer of funding for the Cultural Olympiad provides an opportunity to develop projects that can excite communities about the Olympics and provide opportunities for legacy. The funding available was pitiful and in Lincolnshire alone well over 40 projects have applied for just £100,000. Many of these projects will add value by other investment but it is clear the limited funding available will water down the end result and excellent innovative projects will not be realised.

Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;

If the plan is to return the funds to the original “good causes” then no. If it isn’t, then yes they need to be reviewed. The arts can survive, just about, if the lottery resource is available to rejuvenate thirsty organisations “just in time.” The best strategic plan would be to make sure key organisations are sustained to get through the drought and be able to rejuvenate the sector once the Lottery funds begin to flow again.

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; 564

We have already seen reductions in Arts Council funding which will result in a reduction of service. Sport England and the loss of funding from the free swimming capital modernisation programme has put a new leisure centre project at risk and could see a leisure centre close within 8 years leaving no public swimming pool for a catchment of 30,000 people. The impact of the arm length bodies mentioned above to this authority has been negligible

Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

Yes because we all, individuals, public and private sector, have a vested interest in creating a balanced, happier, society. If the England team are winning, we celebrate; we feel healthier and happier and spend more. It is in the interests of all business to build societies that are culturally aware and active and happy. They should fund arts organisations in proportion to the value they draw from there programmes, visible and obvious as well as less tangible. In times of recession this can be problematic and there needs to be incentives from Government to stimulate this type of investment.

Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

Private donations could be away of generating some investment in the arts but the incentives would need to right to encourage this investment. It is unlikely that this could ever replace the funding that has been available through Arts Council and the heritage lottery fund in times of plenty but there are good examples in Europe and in the United States which should be investigated

The potential to evolve arts based plans / policies for developer lead investment in local communities, examples already exist of "Percentage for Art" within local planning framework documents. The establishment of firm guidelines for developer investment would help establish certainty for developers and offer a firm plan for the future that would be firmly based in community consultation and delivery. Recommend considering the publishing of national guidance / policy on art and environment.

In the States of Jersey Percentage for Art, was introduced by in 2007 and encourages owners of large residential or commercial developments to invest a percentage of their development costs into the provision of art in the built environment. Percentage for Art advisors work with the developer, advising them on appropriate artists and art forms as well as managing the commissioning, delivery and installation of the art.

September 2010 565 Written evidence submitted by New Deal of the Mind (NDotM) (arts 132)

Summary New Deal of the Mind (NDotM) is a charity which helps people into work in the arts and creative sectors, formed from a coalition of artists, entrepreneurs and opinion formers who recognise the economic, social and cultural value of Britain’s creative talent.

• We have developed over 100 creative jobs since March 2009 and will have created hundreds more by the end of next year. • We know a thriving creative sector is vital to the UK’s future economic recovery. • Arts and culture help regeneration, create jobs and boost innovation in the wider economy • Our research shows aspiring artists and creatives want practical help, not handouts • An Enterprise Allowance Scheme for the 21st century would be a cost effective way to help build the next generation of creative entrepreneurs • Imaginative indirect funding and support might include mentoring, business and financial advice, workspace and apprenticeships • There should be greater understanding of flexible freelancing and self employment • Economies of scale can and do work – we’ve proved it and work with government, entrepreneurs, artists and cultural institutions

Submission

1. Getting into the arts and the creative industries is tough. Being unemployed is worse but our research shows that young artists and creative entrepreneurs would rather endure personal hardship in order to pursue their ambitions and their tenacity and dedication is astonishing. These are the people with the drive, commitment and talent to create new business that will be so essential to helping the UK back to economic recovery.

2. Job vacancies are seldom advertised, unpaid internships are commonplace thus reinforcing the view that working in the arts is only for the well off or well connected. Consequently, ethnic minorities are seriously under represented as are people from less affluent backgrounds. We have proved that by working with partners and applying economies of scale, it has been possible to create jobs in the arts and cultural sectors which have given hundreds of unemployed young people the chance of six months paid work, gaining valuable experience, skills and a foot in the door. The majority of those would not have been able to afford to work as unpaid interns and had no personal connections to help so their chances of getting a job in this sector without NDotM would have been remote.

3. Although the jobs are funded through the FJF, it was NDotM that made FJF flexible and relevant to the arts and cultural sector by putting in a joint bid for FJF jobs on behalf of scores of arts organisation who were not offering enough placements to be eligible on their own and in some cases, simply didn’t have the capacity to deal with the bureaucracy of applying anyway. This was a good example of how working with multiple partners achieved a good outcome through pragmatism and practicality.

4. Support and advice for people setting up on their own is patchy but the places such as The Enterprise Centre at the Bernie Grant Centre in North London and similar “hubs” across the UK, shows that they can support local creative businesses. Some are run by local authorities, arts centres or community groups in response to local demand By their very nature, many of these tiny enterprises are run in an unstructured way by independent, non conformist individuals which makes it hard for them to move easily to 566 the next stage in business growth and where sharing access to financial and business mentoring, space and infrastructure support could have a huge impact. This is the sort of indirect or relatively small investment that could pay huge dividends in terms of strengthened communities, sustainable local business and help build a competitive and innovative economy for the future.

5. NDotM would welcome active encouragement of creative hubs or incubators across the UK which we believe could help foster innovative local approaches by drawing on the experience, skills and support of local people through enterprise agencies, community groups, trades unions and chambers of commerce, charities, arts and cultural organisations. Local authorities could help with planning, leases and business rates while local businesses could be encouraged to rent out unused office space to creative start- ups but there needs to be a trade off around skills not just cash. NDotM is currently engaged in research for a report, commissioned by Enterprise UK which will look at a range of different options and experiences from across the UK for such creative hubs or incubators.

6. The area of gaining work experience for those wanting to run their own business is one where NDOtM would welcome the idea of a limited FJF style short term paid work placement programme that would put suitable unemployed young people working alongside self employed people. The potential benefits for both parties are clear but would be particularly relevant to a young creative entrepreneur learning the ropes of running their own business where some skills are as valid for a plumber or musician .

7. The financial contribution to the UK economy of the creative industries is widely recognised to be in the region of £50 billion a year. Representing an estimated 6.4 per cent of the economy, the UK’s creative sector is the biggest in the EU and, according to research published in February 2009 by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) likely to employ more people than the financial sector by 2013. That is even more astonishing when you consider that 85 percent of creative businesses employ fewer than five people. The same research reckoned the rate of growth of the creative sector is double that of the rest of the economy. Evidence of how regeneration based on arts and culture can have a beneficial impact on the local economy and communities can be seen in Newcastle, Brighton, Manchester, East London, Folkestone, Derry and Glasgow among many other places.

8. In March 2010, NDotM published a report (attached separately) commissioned by Arts Council England called , “ Creative Survival in Hard Times” which provided a valuable insight into the obstacles and barriers facing young people wanting to pursue a career in the arts and creative sector, and offered several recommendations for government and arts institutions. We interviewed young artists and creative entrepreneurs and found that overwhelmingly they wanted work space, access to information, mentoring and business skills. Low cost but highly practical interventions that could make a big difference to their lives were far higher on their list of priorities than money. Some argued against public financial support because they didn’t believe “hard working midwives and teachers” should pay for them to follow their dreams. But they did argue for the rules on working and claiming benefit to be changed so that they could more easily start up as freelancers. Within government departments and Jobcentres, there is a cultural acceptance of very narrow definitions of work - someone is either an employee or employer and there is very limited understanding of freelancing, self employment, short term contracts or other ways of working that are so predominant in the arts and creative sector. Because of that, there is a lack of flexibility around benefits where it is actually easier to stay on JSA than take a short term contract which may lead to more 567 paid work but would endanger someone having to start registering for JSA all over again once a short term contract ended. This “ Snakes and Ladders” experience actively discourages people from taking a chance on a temporary job which would give them valuable experience, self confidence and networking opportunities and seems to be totally contradicting any stated desire to help the next generation of entrepreneurs. As a starting point, current provisions for paying self-employment credit could be simplified and publicised and for payment to be extended from 16 weeks to a year which would encourage some jobseekers to take a self-employed option. Those we interviewed for “ Creative Survival” did not think it rational to be offered unemployment benefit to do nothing or to work for nothing. If they are to receive benefits, they would rather be given financial help to set up a creative business where any financial help should encourage productive self employment.

9. Our experience and research underlines the sense that that most would-be creatives value their freedom and independence and would not exchange it for a better-paid regular job. They are therefore willing to take casual, low paid work and consequently miss out on any advice and help available to people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance . It is these same people who are most likely to become the successful creative entrepreneurs and artists of the future – not least because of their commitment, self belief and willingness to make personal sacrifice in order to fulfill their creative dreams. As one of “Creative Survival’s” co-authors said, “Although the creative sector is widely recognised as key to economic recovery, … we treat those who are striving to work in the creative industries abominably with low pay, long internships and little help with professional training.”

10. NDotM grew out an article by Martin Bright in which he called for an imaginative approach to unemployment based on President Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Enterprise Allowance Scheme (EAS) which was brought in by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980’s. Introduced by US President Roosevelt in the depths of the 1930’s Depression, the WPA created 3,500 branch libraries, 4,400 musical performances every month, a national collection of oral histories featuring featured the stories of the last living slaves and hundreds of thousands of jobs for artists, writers, musicians, designers and other creatives. Among the artists and writers supported through the WPA were Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko and Willem de Kooning, Saul Bellow, John Cheever and Ralph Ellison. What was hugely significant was the recognition that arts, culture and creativity are not just an “add-on” for the good times but are essential forces for economic, social and cultural good that allow ideas to blossom, knit communities together and leave a legacy of music, art, theatre, literature, design and heritage for everyone.

11. Some economists credit the EAS with enabling the UK’s creative economy to surge ahead of international competitors in the decade to 1991. The National Audit Office found the EAS was successful in terms of cost-benefit outcomes and compared favourably with other employment measure. We know that businesses set up under the EAS had a greater success rate than the average start up with some 65% percent still trading three years after launch. In many instances , these same businesses employed local people and put money back into the local economy. It is well documented that former beneficiaries of the EAS include Alan McGee, founder of Creation Records, Julian Dunkerton who set up the Superdry fashion label, the artists Jane and Louise Wilson and many other successful entrepreneurs. We believe the time is right for an EAS for the 21st century which would encourage people to set up on their own, kick start new creative enterprises and fan the flames of entrepreneurship which has always played such an important role in the UK’s success, particularly in the fields of design, technology and innovation.

568 12. In conclusion, our experience of helping young unemployed people into jobs in the arts and creative sector, working with a range of partners, has shown us that investment in individuals is just as important as investment in institutions. In this difficult economic climate, it is vital to be flexible and imaginative. That means looking at practical measures that will help nurture and support the next generation of creative entrepreneurs and artists such as space and advice. There must be improved mechanisms for widening the intake of people working in the arts which means a more flexible approach to freelancing and self employment which would also help older people whose circumstances may have changed, as well as young people starting out. Just as the arts and creative sector cannot rely on state handouts,neither should it rely on the ability of a few people from a very narrow section of society to work for free to attract new talent. The arts encompasses opera to DJ decks, games design, dance, fashion, digitisation of archives, creating new buildings, conserving old ones and breathing new life into our towns and cities, so we should seek to use all measures possible to encourage jobs in the arts for an equally diverse range of people. That doesn’t mean a blank cheque but it does mean some innovative thinking and being as imaginative and creative as those we seek to encourage – a small investment in the risk takers could pay huge dividends to the UK – socially, culturally and economically.

September 2010 569

Written evidence submitted by StopGAP (arts 133)

1. This submission is written by Vicki Balaam Artistic Director of StopGAP Dance Company representing the company’s views. 2. My summary of my thoughts below are as follows: a. Funding cuts would impact not only StopGAP’s funding, but our ability to earn income both from working and touring within the UK and internationally b. Cuts to the arts sector would have an impact in other industries and sectors of society as by nature performing arts tends to tour c. Most small arts organisations already practice “economies of scale” because it’s the only way to survive already – there are no more savings in that area for us d. There is only a limited number of costs we can reduce as we still need cash to pay wages e. Core costs are very difficult to find funding for, and these are the costs that need to be covered by government subsidy f. Without core costs being funded the balance becomes disproportionately skewed towards earning money rather than improving and developing artistic practice. This may be bearable in the short term, but in the long term will be detrimental to the UK’s position of being leaders world wide g. A cut across the whole arts sector would impact performing arts companies more than once. They would have to endure the cuts they are due to receive, but there would be the unquantifiable repercussions of venues and development agencies reducing their bookings and what work can be secured would be for substantially reduced fees h. I am happy with the structure of having the Arts Council to manage government funding as I would prefer there to be an organisation between the government and the artists i. Businesses and philanthropists should play a more active role in funding the arts, but should not be a replacement for government funding j. A culture of increased funding from businesses and philanthropists will take years to embed in society, will need better incentives from the Government, and should become part of the current Corporate Social Responsibility and charitable trusts systems. Any other way would seriously disadvantage smaller organisations k. Let us not look to America for inspiration for re-modeling the UK arts industry l. If cuts have to happen, as much time as possible is needed in order to be able to prepare. As the arts sector works so much in advance a minimum of 1 year’s preparation is need for substantial changes. m. The arts, especially integrated arts, is more valuable than saving budget lines. As well as creating great art, it can inspire communities, and show how a truly integrated society can be.

570

Context 3. StopGAP is contemporary dance company consisting of dancers with and without disabilities. A Regularly Funded Organisation (RFO) of Arts Council England and based at Farnham Maltings in Surrey, StopGAP is one of the UK’s top integrated dance companies. The company is a world leader in the quality of it’s performances and workshops, working nationally and representing the UK internationally, leaving a legacy of training and inspiring the next generation of integrated dancers throughout East and West Europe, from Cornwall to Cambodia, Surrey to Japan. 4. StopGAP is unique as within the cast there is a dancer with Downs Syndrome and a dancer who uses a wheelchair, and is a very rare company as all the performers are on full time, long term, PAYE contracts. Retention of staff – both within the office and on the stage – is crucial to StopGAP’s development to enable the company to truly push the boundaries of what is possible because of the depth of knowledge and trust that long term working relationships enable us to achieve. The result is empowered individuals who are strong, mesmerising, charismatic performers that you care about when you watch them, and demonstrate the strength that a truly integrated society can achieve. StopGAP is integration with integrity, dancers performing with humanity and relishing their very tangible connection with each other and their audience. 5. As a company we are very proud to be based in the South East, to be part of the arts sector in the UK and to represent the UK internationally. 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

6. Whilst understanding that cuts in all areas need to be made due to the current economic climate, I am concerned that deep cuts would jeopardise: a. our ability to operate, survive and thrive b. the intricately linked network that links all areas of the arts c. our ability to secure work from international bookings, that already has been used historically to subsidise our work in the UK. 7. We rely on our RFO to support our core costs. With 3 full time and 3 part time members of office staff supporting the workload of 6 artistic team and 2 apprentice artists, we are already operating with an infrastructure that is too small for the workload and ambitions we have. 8. Our options of reducing our costs are very limited as we are already operating on a shoe string. We can’t reduce office staff as this level of operating is our absolute minimum to manage the workload to keep the dancers in full time employment. If we were to reduce the numbers of dancers in the company, we would invalidate the £50,000 investment we have made in creating our new repertoire that is due to be performed for the next 2 – 3 years. If we were to back out on our commitment to our apprentice dancers, that wouldn’t enable us to make savings as they will be part funded by trusts and foundations for two years and part funded by the income generation from delivering workshops and performances to our local community. This would damage the ability for us to replace dancers in the future when members of our current cast decide to retire or move to another company, and it would mean we would not be able to deliver arts activity in our local community, and so lose our value to our host venue. 571

9. We are already entrepreneurial in our approach to securing income, constantly trying to reduce our reliance on Arts Council funding, but the magic answer proves illusive! Despite the fact we are a popular company that’s in demand, the fees we can secure from venues do not match what it costs us to send our dancers to perform – and that’s not taking into account all the costs that are involved to get the company ready to tour. Our current tour has needed additional subsidy from Arts Council England, and for us to use our international fees to further subsidise our tour costs. 10. My concern is that as cuts happen across the arts industry throughout the country, venues will struggle. As their subsidy reduces, there will be less touring dates available and what dates are available will be for less money. This scenario will be catastrophic as the impact will be unquantifiable for us. It is one thing preparing for a specific figure, but it deeply concerns me that we can’t quantify the further ripples that will happen. 11. Our international work is crucial to our schedule, not only for the artistic, profile and personnel development that we find invaluable, but it does financially subsidise the running of the company and UK touring. If we were faced with substantial cuts we would have to increase our international work, which I would hate as we clearly see ourselves as a UK company proud to be based in the South East. My other concern is that building increased international touring to what we have planned takes at least 2 years, so if the cuts happen hard and fast we are unlikely to survive for long enough to be able to build a sustainable international workload at the level we would need. 12. Any cuts would mean a reduction in work and employment. If our workload reduces because we have to reduce our capacity, the following would be reduced: audience figures; numbers of workshop participants; training and development of practice in the education, social services and arts sectors; artist employment within the company; employment of people with disabilities; artistic employment outside the company (usually to create new work and develop our practice); additional income into our local area as people come and watch our work and study our practice; money we spend in the local economy when we tour; international income we bring into the UK both fees we earn and visiting artists expenditure. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale 13. As far as we are concerned we can’t do any more than we are doing already. Being based at Farnham Maltings, we are lucky enough to have free office space and subsidised rehearsals space, access to arts professionals we can go to for advice or to chew over an idea with – this is an invaluable investment. 14. In return we create our work there bringing a range of artists and people through their doors and into their café; we are a resource they can call on; we give advice to them and their associates specifically about disability, access and dance; we are committed to making a difference to our local community so our dance development initiatives implicitly and explicitly benefit them; they receive a regular revenue from our rehearsal space bookings; and can borrow any of our technical equipment that we have access to, especially the more specialist things like simultaneous translation and audio description equipment. 15. Our presence benefits the Farnham Maltings through profile and reputation in addition to the financial benefit, as does their patronage of our work. We both become ambassadors for each other unlocking bigger projects that we would not have secured on our own. 572

16. Being based at the arts centre means we have a greater range of contacts, and so we are able to also share human resources. Excellent examples of this working successfully are our book keeper and our marketing assistant. Both only do a few hours at a time for us but are invaluable to us. If we were to recruit and employ them on our own the recruitment would be costly and we wouldn’t be able to give them enough hours to make it worth their while. As it is, because they were based at the Farnham Maltings, they understood the industry and needed no training, we knew we were getting the right person as we already knew them, they already knew us, and they travel to the same place of work so can be wonderfully flexible in the hours that they work, which means we have the luxury of only needing to book them for the hours we absolutely need them for. The additional unquantifiable benefit is that with that fluidity of personnel comes a flow of information that is invaluable, and again projects grow and develop rather than only happening because the right people meet at the right time. We have gained some significant projects because we have been sharing the office with the right person who can let us know of interesting projects we can pitch for. 17. We extend this way of working to many partner organisations. For instance a theatre that can’t afford our fee will give us extra tech time, a venue that can’t afford to commission us will give us a production week (that is invaluable to us), a residency will be traded for a resident film crew, a workshop for rehearsal space. We do as much bartering as we possibly can and have reduced as many costs as possible, but the bottom line is that we need a certain amount of money coming into the company to pay salaries and things we can’t barter for, so there is only so many of our services we can give away. 18. After a lot of thought, I really think we are working as closely as possible and there are no more economies of scale that we can make. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable 19. StopGAP has existed without subsidy for a long time and with subsidy. The time that we were able to flourish was when our subsidy was 40% of our turn over. There does need to be enough of a subsidy for it to make a difference and to support organisations core costs. Project to project, it is reasonably easy to secure funding for good ideas that are needed, but most of these tend to be participatory. 20. My concern is how to give artists and companies the security to be able to dedicate time to developing their practice rather than turn commercial and constantly turn out work subject to a formula that seems to work. By giving time and security I don’t mean let artists wallow in a darkened room contemplating navels. We find that it is already hard to balance our focus between ensuring we continually challenge the quality and expertise of our integration, with our need to make money. We had a situation recently that meant that our balance wasn’t good and the priority to make money resulted in us working the dancers too hard. The workload became inhumane for them, giving them greater risk of injury and long term damage to their physical ability to do their job. We had to ask them to sacrifice any sense of proportion with their work/life balance, resulting in them working away from home far too much, something that was particularly hard for our dancer with Downs Syndrome who became incredibly home sick. Placing the dancers in this situation was something we resolved as soon as we could and will endeavor never to let happen again. This compromised situation is not conducive for us to continue our ability to retain staff that we pride ourselves on so much, and need to have so desperately for the business of our art to continue to flourish 573

and surprise. I am concerned that we have been placed in this position already so what will happen if the funding becomes worse? 21. If I was an outsider to this industry, I would expect that the solution would be simple: that as the subsidy to the companies reduces then they “just” have to negotiate their fees better. My deepest concern is that if the subsidy to the sector is reduced across the board then the companies will suffer from all sides, losing the level of subsidy that they are used to AND losing the level of fees they currently can reasonably expect. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one 22. I can only talk about my experience of working with Arts Council South East. I value the relationship that StopGAP has had with them since our first performances. It hasn’t always been the most comfortable of relationships, but I have valued that honest, outside eye that truly has been a critical friend whilst having the sector’s best interests at heart. They are challenging in what they are expecting from their RFO’s but I feel comfortable having an organisation that exists between my company and the government: an organisation that ensures we spend our money correctly and are accountable for our funding, and yet one that I am confident that it will lobby government for the good of my sector. I am proud to be based in the South East, and part of that is because I am happy, and actually impressed with the way Arts Council South East has been dealing with the uncertainty of the current climate. 23. I think the structure of having relationship managers is invaluable. I would be very uncomfortable if the organisation distributing arts funding wasn’t a separate “arms length” organisation from government. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level and if there needs to be more Government incentives 24. In an ideal world, of course it would be ideal for businesses and philanthropists to play a role in funding but not to replace subsidy. If they were to become the sole funders then we would be heading towards an arts scene like America, and I, along with many other companies and artists, would not be interested in staying in the UK. There are so many reasons why this would be wrong, most of all because then everyone would be tempted to follow the fashions and trends of what was getting funding rather than focus on creating the best art they could and trusting their quality and innovation would secure funding. 25. Since StopGAP began, I have been chasing business sponsorship and trying to secure that illusive philanthropist that would enable StopGAP to be independent of any subsidy. I have come to the conclusion that this is not possible for StopGAP. Despite the fact we would appear to be a sexy option for either, we do not have the resources or time to invest in wooing the right people, we don’t move in the right circles to make the right connections, and when weighing the balance between spending time filling out a grant application with a formal process to go through for a trust, or spending time chasing sponsorship leads, we know we have a better chance of getting a return from the application form than we have anything else. We have tried! 26. Businesses and individuals do need to get involved in supporting the arts, but arts organisations, especially those that are small and not national institutes will suffer disproportionately if this becomes the only way to fund the arts. Better incentives need to be put in place, particularly tax incentives. I feel that it would be better for the current system to be better used. I would prefer individuals and businesses to develop a culture of giving through trusts and foundations. It 574

has to be a way that would be more transparent and fair than the current pursuit of sponsorship. A greater reliance on personal giving and business support would also involve a fundamental cultural change and this would take time to really take place rather than be a token quick fix. Please let us not follow the American model! Personal thoughts 27. It is the last minute nature of the cuts announcements that I feel would cause the most devastation. It prevents the whole industry being able to confirm agreements which is putting a stranglehold on all plans, possibility of collaborations, and setting up inventive solutions to get us through this period. We just don’t know what we are dealing with and that means we don’t know what decisions we need to be making – and we need to be making those now. 28. With the significant development that has been happening in the integrated dance sector and the disability dance sector, I think the time is now for an amazing transformation to happen within the arts sector that will be led by organisations that show diversity on stage. In this current climate, I feel society needs integrated dance, not only to experience great art, but to inspire people. There is a dangerous level of fragmentation in our communities, but seeing such powerful diversity can inspire change. I have met many people who have disabilities that don’t see any active role models they can relate to, but are inspired by the work of StopGAP – our ethos and quality of work. With the momentum that is building with the Olympics and the Paralympics, and increased profile of people with disabilities within sport and popular culture, it would be a devastation if the arts, after all these years of waiting, can’t make the most of this time and contribute and lead. September 2010 575

Written evidence submitted by Aldeburgh Music (arts 134)

INTRODUCTION

1. This submission is sent by Jonathan Reekie, Chief Executive of Aldeburgh Music, on behalf of Aldeburgh Music. We have largely resisted the temptation to feedback on national issues since we imagine that you will receive much sermonising on them! The comments below mostly relate to Aldeburgh Music as opposed to the sector as whole, partly because it’s what we know best . We also hope that the Committee will be interested in what can be learnt from Aldeburgh Music

2. Aldeburgh Music , founded in 1948 by composer Benjamin Britten and singer Peter Pears, is responsible for……

- The Aldeburgh Festival and a year round programme of concerts and events

- Aldeburgh Residencies – the UK’s only year-round professional development programme for top musicians

- The Britten-Pears Young Artist Programme – the longest established and biggest postgraduate development programme for emerging professionals

- Aldeburgh Young Musicians – the newest Centre for Advanced Training, for children of exceptional potential (part-funded by the Department for Education)

- Aldeburgh Education – an education programme that has received national recognition for it’s work with children and marginalised members (eg:young offenders, NEETS) of the local community

- Snape Maltings Concert Hall, and a campus of music spaces.

SUMMARY

1. Grant cuts will of course reduce our artistic output and our competitive position as well as – and perhaps most important – damage the remarkable and measurable economic impact that Aldeburgh Music has had on the local economy in .

2. The phasing of any cuts will be critical for Aldeburgh Music (and some other UK arts organisations), to allow for enough lead time for necessary reductions in expenditure. The fact is that we make financial commitments a long way ahead.

3. Arts organisations that have run their affairs efficiently should be rewarded and not penalised in a period of cuts. Too often in the past, the inefficient have needed extra support in times of hardship, at the expense of those who have been responsible

4. The Arts already plays a central role in the Big Society. This could be developed further. 576

5. Grants should increasingly be prioritised not on the basis of past investment but on future sustainability and strong governance.

6. There is scope for a more incentivised giving and tax regime, with a higher cap on benefits

7. Restoring the lottery money previously diverted to the Olympics is vital.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Q: 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

1. To be precise a 10% cut of our Arts Council England grant is around £145,000 for Aldeburgh Music and a significant amount of our total income budget for 2010/11. To put it in context this is equivalent to one of the following: the income from about 25 small trust and foundation applications; our direct education project spend for 2011/12; our entire marketing spend; 9 f.t.e jobs; professional development for about 450 artists in a year.

A 25% cut is equivalent to 22 f.t.e jobs or the entire direct project costs of the Britten-Pears Young Artist Programme, the UK’s longest established and biggest support programme for emerging professional artists.

2. More broadly, there are several points to bear in mind

- Effect on artistic standing and international competitiveness: Aldeburgh Music is a leading provider internationally of professional development for top musicians and one of the world’s leading centres for contemporary music. Maintaining a competitive edge internationally is a continual challenge and whilst we will do everything we can to maintain this, there is a very really chance of losing ground to our competitors.

- Effect on the economy and jobs: Aldeburgh Music is one arts organisation that has a very significant benefit for its local economy, being both a driver for local tourism and a major employer. Research – which can be made available - shows that recent capital and revenue investment into Aldeburgh Music has had a very considerable economic effect locally. Inevitably, cuts will feed through into lower economic impact.

There is much talk about the economic effects of investment in the so called creative industries and the arts – not all of it accurate! Aldeburgh Music is a very good example of public monies feeding through to the local economy and to job creation in particular. We suggest that it will be important in making cuts for a bias to be exercised in favour of preserving investments which have tangible and direct economic benefits.

- The danger of rewarding failure: A more subtle point is that we have managed our affairs responsibly, through the recent years of prosperity, strengthening our balance sheet and keeping costs cut to the bone. Cuts will lead to organisations which haven’t been responsible, needing extra support in a time of difficulty, so that inefficiency gets rewarded (just as happened in the 1990s) 577

- Phasing of cuts: We are typical of a substantial minority of arts organisations who make commitments a long time ahead, though it has to be said not as much as companies like the opera houses.

Therefore, many commitments are in place for 2011/12 and beyond. Add to this the fact that, like any building based organisation, a significant part of our budget is overhead, then projects with shorter lead times are most vulnerable to cuts. One example is education work, which will be an easy target for expenditure reduction and although we will be determined to avoid this, difficult choices will have to be made. A gradual phasing of cuts could lessen negative impact.

Q: What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

1. There are several ways arts organisations can work together more effectively...

- Undoubtedly more can be done to share resources and purchase more effectively. There are some signs that this is already happening but there is scope to increase it.

- Successful larger organisations can give advice and support to smaller organisations locally.

- Aldeburgh Music regularly collaborates with other arts organisations locally, nationally and internationally on artistic productions. Interestingly, our experience shows that we tend to be lower cost than similar organisations abroad.

- Larger organisations can share overheads by offering a home or facilities to smaller organisations. This can have not only economic but also artistic benefits.

2. A word of caution....

- The arts sector has a number of small, fleet-of-foot and highly entrepreneurial organisations, who employ staff on sensible salaries. If working together means mergers, getting bigger can lead to non- productive increases in scale.

Q: What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable?

We don’t have a precise answer but would make a few observations

1. Regarding necessity ……

- There is a great deal of evidence that societies with investment in the arts are more successful on economic and social measures, including an improved sense of wellbeing. There are also wider cultural arguments for the arts that will be made elsewhere. Both of these, though important, are abstract and difficult to quantify 578

- It is much easier, however, to quantify the economic effects precisely. It is clear that in many places, such as Aldeburgh, (but also other examples such as London, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle), the arts can be a major attraction for tourists and businesses and individuals re-locating. As we have said above we suggest that the economic benefits that this yields should be taken into account.

- If we have understood the Big Society correctly, the Arts have the potential to play a major role in the Big Society through its educational activities and extensive volunteering. We were somewhat surprised – and delighted – to find that we have been participating in a rather substantial way in the Big Society without being aware of it! For example, Aldeburgh Music has about 160 volunteers giving 9,200 hours of help; engages with about 8000 participants through its education programmes; helps its local elderly population stay active, through for example lunchtime concerts in the winter months.

2. On the question of sustainability, we suggest that grant making bodies should …..

- Examine the key point as to whether organisations are sustainable. To anticipate a point made below we suggest that one of the key criteria in taking decisions about grants should be the judgement as to whether an organisation is capable of meeting its financial targets and has sufficient fundraising skills in particular.

- Look at the overall return to the community using a variety of different measures such as economic and social impact.

- Again, the timing or phasing of cuts is critical, as two possible mitigating factors to cuts (lottery money & private philanthropy) will take time to deliver benefits

Q: Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one

We mainly comment from our own experience in the East of England although some of the points may have national relevance.

1. We’ve had a very good relationship with ACE East under the leadership of Andrea Stark, who has been very supportive, encouraging us to be ambitious whilst being very tough and demanding on what we deliver.

2. Money is still given to some organisations with inadequate governance . We suggest that greater attention should be paid to governance as a criterion for giving grants.

3. As is suggested above, greater weight in making funding decisions should be given as to whether organisations can be sustainable. This probably means that funding organisations, in particular ACE, should be encouraged to develop ways in understanding the difference between good and bad fundraising. 579

Q: 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

1. If by recent changes the question refers to the money being diverted from the arts to the Olympics, this has had a hugely detrimental effect.

2. If it refers diverting Olympic money back to the arts, then this is to be welcomed. If cuts are to be made they could be mitigated by some of this money coming back post-Olympics, though the timing of cuts would have to reflect this (see above)

Q: The impact of recent changes to Department of Culture, Media & Sport arm’s- length bodies - in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council

N/A

Q: Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level

1. The short answer is yes. Aldeburgh Music has doubled its private income in the last decade, on top of raising £11m of private funding for a capital project.

2. This is a good thing though of course the downside is that when recession hits, this support can be quick to disappear. In other words it is much more volatile income source so, for example, two years ago corporate support evaporated almost overnight, leaving big gaps in budgets.

3. Therefore it doesn’t always feel as if it pays off to be self sufficient. As stated above, organisations who have taken the burden off state in good times by being good at fundraising shouldn’t be penalised in bad times.

4. More could be done to encourage giving. Yes, there is scope for fine tuning and improving the tax breaks. Also, arts organisations could be supported in ensuring that tax benefits are communicated clearly to potential givers.

Q: Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations

1. We don’t have a particular expertise but comment that

- There has been improvement in incentives for giving in the last decade, which over time have helped giving.

- Very importantly the cap on benefits for giving needs to be raised

- The general tax and VAT regime will be determine how much disposable income is available for arts giving, so the issue needs to be viewed holistically

September 2010

580

Written evidence submitted by London Councils and the Chief Leisure and Cultural Officers Association of London (CLOA London) (arts 135)

Summary

This response is submitted by London Councils (the cross party membership organisation of the 32 London boroughs and the City of London) and the Chief Leisure and Cultural Officers Association of London (CLOA London).

London is often the envy of the rest of the UK for its levels of arts and heritage funding. However, many of London’s local communities are not touched by national or regional cultural investment and as well as some of the highest levels of cultural engagement, London also has some of the lowest.

There are going to be extremely challenging times ahead for the arts and heritage sectors and London local government like other funders will be making difficult decisions. All funders will need to work closely together to ensure that the inevitable reduction in public subsidy has the least negative impact possible.

We are concerned however, in the turbulent times ahead for the arts and heritage sectors that local organisations and those working most closely with local communities are going to see the worst impact. We therefore would like to see:

• Government incentives which encourage private sector investment and philanthropy but with particular consideration to be given to those smaller organisations that may not be able to offer private partners high profile • DCMS ensure that those organisations it funds either directly or through its NDPBs are committed to greater engagement with local communities across London. This could include linking to local authorities’ cultural priorities or to consider whether reinvestment in local museums could be facilitated through, for example, charging international visitors for museum entrance • National Lottery investment reflect local rather than national priorities with more local control over how decisions about lottery funding are made to ensure that money best addresses local need. • Government consider ways in which local economic generation can come back to local communities to reinvest as set out in the Prime Minister’s recent speech on tourism.

Detailed comments on the questions are given below.

Specific points

1. 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 a) Recent and future spending cuts from central and local Government are undoubtedly going to have a huge impact on the arts and heritage sectors. b) Collectively, local government is one of the major investors in the cultural sector. In London alone, the 32 boroughs and the City of London have a combined annual spend on cultural services of over £509 million, with £79.4 million 581

specifically for ‘culture and heritage’1, This means that local government currently contributes around half of the £1.1 billion investment by public bodies on culture and sport in London2. (Further information on this can be found in the London Councils’ publication, ‘Playing Their Part’) c) Local authorities however are under unprecedented budgetary pressure and are going to have to make difficult decisions over future funding. Non-statutory services are inevitably going to be particularly vulnerable. d) Most arts and heritage organisations are reliant on a complex mix of, often interdependent, public funding streams and private sponsorship. Many local arts organisations, for example, are revenue funded by both Arts Council England and local government. Should one funder withdraw support, the organisation will not be financially viable to other funders and the impact to the organisation will be far greater than may have been envisaged. e) It is vital in these times that funders work together to ensure that strategic joint decisions are made that ensure the best outcome for local areas rather than knee- jerk reactions. London local authorities often work closely with Arts Council England individually and collectively, ACE supports the London Cultural Improvement Programme and invites four elected members onto its Regional Council. However, we need to be mindful that there is currently no mechanism to arbitrate where there are different priorities between different funders. It is vital that local priorities are at the heart of every decision around future arts and heritage funding, and local government is best placed to do this. f) Where funding cuts are unavoidable, these cuts should be implemented as part of a phased process to allow organisations sufficient time to put contingency plans in place / seek alternative funding. g) It should also be remembered that arts and heritage organisations attract much inward investment, particularly from tourism. This is particularly true in London where tourism is worth over £16 billion per year and employs 285,000 people and two-thirds of visitors give ‘culture’ as their primary reason for visiting the capital3.. The loss of funding to arts and heritage organisations will therefore have a detriment impact on the wider local economy. h) Whereas local investment supports arts and heritage organisations that attract tourism, the economic impact that they generate through additional tax yield goes directly to the Treasury. As the Prime Minister stated in his recent speech on tourism, ‘if a local council does more to attract tourists to its area they know they’ll be picking up costs but they’ll get none of the additional business rate revenue. Central government sucks in 100 per cent of this revenue generated by all local economic growth. This is just mad. Local authorities must be allowed to invest some of this back into their own communities.’ If local authorities can access the revenue generated by local economic growth it could be used to support those attractions that help generate the revenue in the first place. i) The London boroughs recognise the economic impact that can come from culture and are working together to seize these opportunities. The five host boroughs of the 2012 Olympics - Greenwich, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest have pooled their resources to develop the CREATE festival. Now in its third successful year, CREATE will return every summer leading up to and following the 2012 Games. Based on research undertaken with the University of East London,

1 CIPFA data 2008-2009, Service Expenditure (Outturn prices), Excluding Capital Charges: Cultural and Related Services - this includes the CIPFA categories of Culture & Heritage, Recreation & Sport, Open Spaces, Tourism and Library Service. 2 Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2009, HM Treasury, 2009 3 Key visitor statistics, Visit London, 2009 and London Tourism Action Plan 2009-2013, 2009 582

CREATE estimate that the 2009 festival with its audience of 822,000 had an economic impact into the local area of more than £15 million. j) As well as the economic benefit, London local government recognises that arts and heritage organisations are often focal points within local communities and have a positive impact on people’s lives and improve satisfaction with their area, generating civic pride, community cohesion and a level of ‘feel good factor’, particularly during periods of recession. When asked about their local area, residents who are satisfied with their local cultural and sporting facilities are more likely to be happy with their local area as a place to live.4 Should funding be ceased or dramatically reduced, then these important community elements may be affected similarly. k) This is supported by a recent GLA survey on culture, indicating that 84 per cent of Londoners think that the city’s cultural scene is important in ensuring a high quality of life. And far from being a luxury, the survey showed 71 per cent of respondents feel that it’s important that ‘taxpayers’ money continues to be invested in London’s culture during difficult times, compared to just 16 per cent who disagree5

2. What can arts organisations do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale? a) London local government cultural services are already developing new ways of working both in terms new models of governance for cultural services and in joint working across borough boundaries. The London Cultural Improvement Programme has been driving this work towards more efficient working and is recognised as an example of best practice nationally. b) There are undoubtedly ways in which arts and heritage organisations can also work more efficiently together and therefore lessen their reliance on public sector funding in terms of mergers and/or formalising the sharing of administration, management, technical services/expertise, premises, and marketing, advocacy etc. This will play to the strengths of each organisation and help drive efficiency. c) Local authorities can play a local leadership role in these arrangements and in moving towards arrangements of local cultural partnerships that address local need. In many instances local authorities are already playing this advocacy and brokerage role in bringing organisations in the borough together to work collectively and share best practice.

3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable a) Due to the different ways in which arts and heritage are subsidised it is extremely difficult to give one answer to this questions, especially due to the fact that many public bodies that support these organisations, especially local authorities, have to consider their level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage in the wider context of other, competing, demands for public funding – e.g. housing, social services, many of which will be seen to have higher priority. b) We believe however in the fundamental need for continued, stable public subsidy in arts and heritage in order to deliver long-term strategies. The level should aim to both ensure that the sector can flourish and contribute to the economy in the way that it currently does, and also to ensure that arts and heritage provision can be affordable and accessible to all.

4 Place survey, Audit Commission, 2009 5 Cultural Metropolis. the mayor’s draft cultural strategy: 2012 and beyond, 2010

583

c) Public subsidy in the arts and heritage generates economic benefit. The creative economy has greater importance in London than anywhere else in the UK. The Gross Value Added of London’s creative industries sector was estimated at £18 billion in 2007. Relatively small amounts of public subsidy have stimulated a mixed economy culture and resulted in local and regional investment. d) The arts and heritage sectors can help economic recovery. Arts Council England note that between 1997 and 2006 the creative economy grew faster than any other sector, accounting for 2 million jobs and £16.6 billion of exports in 2007. e) Vitally the creative and cultural sectors are identified as one of the top seven growth areas for London’s economy6. f) It must be recognised that short-term savings now may lead to situations that are not redeemable in the future – this applies in particular to conservation of heritage.

4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one a) In the difficult times ahead it is vital that funding reflects local needs and priorities. Local authorities are best placed to know what these local needs and priorities are and in many cases have the direct relationships with local organisations and communities. By ensuring that local authorities are at the heart of funding decisions, available money can be directed in more targeted way to address local needs and aspirations. b) DCMS and its NDPBs must ensure that nationally and regionally funded instructions are committed to a local community approach and to working in partnership with other local organisations. There are many boroughs, particularly in Outer London who do not feel that these organisations are reaching into their communities or that there is any attempt by these organisations to align their work to these boroughs’ local priorities.

5. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations 6. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed a) The changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds should help arts and heritage organisations although we do not yet know how quickly this will translate to more funding on the ground and particularly how those organisations that are facing high reductions in revenue funding will be able to respond. In order to make a real impact on a local level, the NLDBs should be considering more radical changes that allow more local control over lottery spend. This would ensure that this spend is responsive to local needs and priorities rather than national. b) We do not want to set a precedent whereby Lottery funding Is seen as replacement for, rather than complement to, Treasury funding c) It is vital that we ensure flexibility in the funding options available for smaller local/community groups.

7. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level 8. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

6 Destination 20:20, LDA, 2010 584

a) If businesses and philanthropists are to play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level there needs to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations. b) There is a strong concern that it should not be assumed that there is enough capacity from the private sector to ‘plug the gaps’ that the inevitable reduction in public sector funding is going to recreate. New arrangements will take time to establish and cannot immediately replace government subsidy. Fundraising relies on developing relationships and making approaches from a position of strength or mutual understanding, and as such, simply seeking funding to plug the gap left by government will not be tenable. Recent announcements and media articles have demonstrated that sponsors do not and will not see their role as a replacement for mainstream funding. c) Cuts in public funding of arts and heritage are likely to make the sector less attractive to private companies, trusts, foundations, philanthropists and others. Private sector funding is more likely to be secure by arts and heritage organisations for specific projects rather than on-going revenue support. d) This is particularly true at a local level. Those arts and heritage organisations who have a national/international profile will be the ones most able to benefit from this type of giving. More locally focused organisations, who in fact may be the ones best delivering local priorities for their communities will not be able to offer the same profile opportunities for sponsors/donors and will inevitably struggle to compete with the larger organisations. e) Fundraising is a skilled and time consuming role. Small arts and heritage organisations, often those working in the most challenging communities, will be unable to achieve the funding needed because of a lack of staff resources, critical mass and skills; we do not want to create a situation whereby large well known organisations able to attract finance surviving, at the cost of the small companies. The arts sector is an eco system, with grassroots artists and companies experimenting with ideas, artists and audiences. By way of example, BAC in Wandsworth feeds the Barbican Centre with new and extraordinary performances, which the Barbican could never develop itself. If local arts organisations are allowed to fail it will lead to a steady decline of the vibrancy of arts in the UK.

September 2010 585

Written evidence submitted by The Young Vic Theatre Company (arts 136)

1. On the impact recent and future, spending cuts from central and local Government will have on the arts and heritage at a national and local level.

1.1 Funding of the arts in the UK is a complex ecology This will destabilised by substantial cuts from central and local government. Such cuts will have a profound impact on the successful UK 30:30:30 model, an even sourcing of funds from box office revenue, private donations (from individuals, corporates and foundations) and public investment.

1.2 This contrasts with the US model where the virtual absence of public investment for theatre has retarded artistic research and confidence and that of northern Europe where an abundance of state support frequently generates work of a high quality which reaches an audience with a narrow base. The UK system has for years been acknowledged to be the most successful at investing in innovation and reaching across boundaries of culture, class and wealth. Substantial reductions in public investment place this in jeopardy.

1.3 In our case, we have in the past been consistently generated £2 for every £1 of public investment.

1.4 The proposed cuts will have an immediate impact on our ability to produce which will have a knock-on affect on the very many companies with which we collaborate and mentor, formally and informally.

1.5 They will also severely affect our long term ability to fundraise from private donors, who, in our experience, support only the boldest, most original work.

1.6 The stability and security that state investment provides enable us to do the research that gets this type of work off the ground in the first place.

1.7 Without such sustained investment our work will need to become more risk averse and consequently less commercially rewarding in the long term.

1.8 The number and diversity of artists we employ will be reduced.

1.9 A great part of the work of the Young Vic is with public sector organizations - from NHS trusts to Pupil Referral Units and Childrens Services departments. Cuts to health, law and social services budgets will have the effect that these organizations are no longer in a position to partner with us. As a consequence, a whole range of projects with considerable social and cultural impact will be undelivered affecting the extensive programmes we run for children, local people and those most excluded in society.

1.10 This will be severely detrimental to our ability to fundraise, since we will be unable to create the projects which are most appealing to funders.

2 Our projections for the impact of the current cuts.

2.1 The medium-term effect will be a considerable shrinking of the size and long term profitability of the creative industries and a reduction in the diversity of audiences and participants.

2.2 There will be less art. This will profoundly impact on the cultural life of the nation. Everyone will be affected.

586

2.3 There will be substantial job losses in organisations further to that already experienced by freelance artists and arts project workers.

2.4 Commercially successful work will continue. However its range will narrow and, without investment, it will only be available to those who can afford it. For example, commercial sponsorship will be insufficient to support cheap or free theatre ticket schemes of the kind we and many others operate.

3 On whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level.

3.1 They already do

3.2 For example, in our case they contributed approx 30% of our income until 2008.

4 On what arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale:

4.1 We lead in promoting collaboration. We co-produce with a large number and broad range of arts organizations each year, nationally and internationally.

4.2. We run an associate company scheme, the only one of its kind, offering accommodation, mentoring and skills development to emerging arts organizations.

4.3 We have initiated and are leading the first ever consortium of London theatres and venues which is producing a major series of international collaborations across London in 2012.

4.4. All these ventures are innovative and require a degree of public investment to make them possible.

September 2010 587

Written evidence submitted by the Country Land and Business Association (arts 137)

SUMMARY

1. This evidence considers only heritage funding, because arts funding is outside the CLA’s remit. Heritage and its funding are vital issues for our members, who collectively manage at least a quarter of England’s heritage.

2. Heritage in recent years seems to have been perceived by Government as a very minor subset – even an overly-publicly-funded subset – of ‘culture’. This is wholly misplaced. Firstly, heritage being almost ubiquitous – most of us experience it each day – is arguably more important to more people1 than other forms of ‘culture’ in DCMS’s remit. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the issues raised are very different, not least because heritage is overwhelmingly not publicly funded: unlike arts or museums, only a tiny proportion of heritage is funded as a ‘cultural offer’ by public bodies (see 9 below). Heritage funding is primarily a market efficiency rather than a ‘public subsidy’ issue.

3. We need to be realistic about Government’s role in heritage. It has two responsibilities: (a) creating the right framework for the market to work, and (b) carefully-targeted action where there is market failure. Both are crucial, and neither has to be expensive. The vital point is that these two roles are directly connected: if Government gets the framework right, the market will take care of most heritage, and the extent and cost of dealing with market failure is greatly reduced.

4. The crucial point now is that the framework is not right. Our resource-hungry heritage protection system cannot operate with the low and decreasing level of resources allocated to it in local authorities, and is in crisis. Resources are clearly not going to be increased, so the system needs to be changed. Fortunately this can be done, in ways which increase, not cut, the effectiveness of heritage protection (see 20 below).

THE CLA AND HERITAGE

5. The CLA’s 35,000 members are rural businesses, individuals, charities, institutions, and professionals. They manage and/or own a quarter to a third of all listed buildings in England and Wales, and an even higher proportion of monuments.

6. The CLA is thus by far the largest heritage ‘owner’ stakeholder group. Our members have a deep concern for heritage and fully support its protection. More importantly, they are on the front line: they actually have to manage heritage, and pay for it. This is astoundingly expensive: many of them are spending tens of thousands of pounds a year2, and collectively they are spending probably well over £1 bn.

HERITAGE FUNDING

7. Nobody will ever know the exact total cost of looking after heritage, and few attempts have been made to estimate this, though it is essential that we have figures. The 2008 Traditional Buildings Crafts Skills report suggests a current figure of some £5 bn a year for

1 This evidence takes the importance of heritage largely as read, partly because we have no doubt that your Committee will receive much evidence on this from others. 2 In a CLA member survey Who pays for heritage? in 2006, the 243 respondents were each spending £33,000 pa on average (at pre-2005 prices) on the maintenance and insurance of listed buildings. This figure may be greater than the average for all listed building owners, but it does not include their spending on unlisted buildings, or on all other forms of heritage.

588

building work on pre-1919 buildings3. To this needs to be added (a) management, insurance, and other costs for all pre-1919 buildings, which would add at least a further 50 per cent; (b) total expenditure on managing and maintaining post-1919 heritage buildings and on non-built heritage like archaeology and parks; and (c) the cost of running the heritage protection system. In all, this might imply total expenditure on heritage of say £8 bn to £10 bn a year. This may be an underestimate, but we assume for the purposes of this evidence that it is correct.

8. Of this total of £8 bn to £10 bn a year, some £90m is publicly funded by DCMS, mostly via English Heritage (EH), via grants and via losses on the properties it opens to the public. Perhaps a further £100m is spent on operating the heritage protection system in EH and DCMS, and more especially in local authorities via CLG, and in various other forms of funding like DEFRA’s Environmental Stewardship. Adding these figures gives a total approaching £200m a year, around 2 per cent of the £8 bn to £10 bn total.

9. Public cultural4 funding of heritage via DCMS, CLG, and DEFRA thus contributes perhaps 2 per cent of heritage spending, a very low figure compared to other areas of cultural and environmental public spending (and half of this is regulatory cost rather than ‘subsidy’). The other 98 per cent is paid by owners, occupiers, users, and philanthropy, including about £180m (again about 2 per cent) spent by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF).

THE INQUIRY QUESTIONS

Q1. What impact recent, and future, spending cuts from central and local Government will have on heritage at a national and local level

10. Unlike most areas of public spending, the small amount of public funding for heritage has already been substantially cut in recent years. Heritage was ignored in the post-2002 expansion of public spending, or the ‘golden age of arts and culture’. In particular, funding for the heritage protection system via local authorities has been cut significantly in real terms (forthcoming EH/IHBC research suggests a 7 per cent staffing cut just in the 14 months to early 2010, following substantial previous cuts from a wholly inadequate base); DCMS funding to English Heritage was cut by some 10 per cent in real terms since 2002 (while DCMS funding to arts rose, by a much greater percentage); and DEFRA funding for heritage under Environmental Stewardship has been significantly lower than under the predecessor schemes before 2005.

11. The fact that public funding is small does not mean that cutting it does not matter. Above all, local authority cuts have further reduced the effectiveness of the heritage protection system, and the very malign effects of this on market efficiency (see 19 below) cannot be quantified. And ‘subsidy’ albeit small matters too, because without correctly-targeted subsidy the market (or not for profit organisations) will not act. The over 50 per cent fall in HLF grant funding (from some £400m in 2004/05 to some £180m now) has been compounded by EH’s 36 per cent reduction in its grant expenditure in real terms between 2002/03 and 2008/09. Similarly, for example, EH’s 2010 cuts have included putting on hold its HET training scheme, which gave some hope of improving local authority conservation expertise in the future.

12. Some of these effects may have been mitigated by the economic and property boom up to 2007/08, since booms reduce the extent of market failure, and by efficiency increases. But the scope for efficiency savings in significantly-cut bodies is less than before, and in the

3 Traditional Buildings Crafts Skills report, National Heritage Training Group, 2008, Table 7, line D. http://www.nhtg.org.uk/uploads/NHTG_skillsresearch_England_2008_fullreport_tcm27-11115.pdf 4 This obviously excludes the cost to Government of heritage property it occupies, like town halls, Courts, or the Treasury building in Whitehall, because this is maintained for occupational not cultural purposes, and the public heritage benefit, though significant, is incidental to the main purpose.

589

continuing property market recession existing and future cuts will do real harm. Heritage is clearly not an easy place to find ‘low-hanging fruit’, and ‘sharing the pain equally’ between already-much-cut heritage and other sectors whose much larger public funding has actually increased would not be ‘equal’ at all.

13. It is also important to note that, because heritage projects are seldom wholly publicly- funded, cuts are likely to be resource-inefficient. If not making a £100,000 grant means that a £1m project does not go ahead, then £900,000 of private and other funding is potentially lost. Similarly, Environmental Stewardship funding comes mainly from the EU, so cutting £2m of UK Government spending would cut out about £6m of EU funding, as well as the private sector funding involved. Most important of all, cutting the heritage protection system has a geared effect because it makes changing, and working on, heritage even more difficult, discouraging potentially hundreds of millions of pounds of expenditure.

14. Finally, the VAT rise in January 2011 will remove from heritage in tax almost as much as the entire £200m of public cultural funding identified in 8 above5.

Q2. What heritage organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

15. Heritage organisations have limited funding, and most have limited or minimal paid staff, so duplication and inefficiency are unlikely to be wasting significant amounts of public (or non- public) money. There are opportunities for working together to increase efficiency, and the Heritage Alliance and its advocacy groups have made great progress on this over the last eight years. EH is making real attempts to work with these and other bodies, though there is scope for further improvement. Merging grant funding is considered in 25 below.

Q3. What level of public subsidy for heritage is necessary and sustainable

16. The key point here is that, given the small proportion of public funding, heritage is not primarily a ‘public subsidy’ issue. Questions like ‘how can we increase non-public funding?’ are, if not irrelevant, not nearly as relevant as for arts. The issue instead is mainly persuading and encouraging the market to deliver a vital public good, the conservation and enhancement of heritage.

17. Firstly, therefore, Government needs to get the framework – primarily the heritage protection system – right. This minimises market failure because if the system works effectively the market can and will maintain most heritage, with some help from philanthropy and the HLF.

18. The system is not working effectively now. The new Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) has improved the system’s policy basis, but has definitely not solved its most fundamental problem, the assumption that every change involving heritage needs expert scrutiny, alongside the failure ever to resource that scrutiny on the ground.

19. The malign consequences of this – unskilled staff having to take (or avoiding) decisions, unnecessary costs and delays, heritage decaying or losing value because of a widespread perception that consent for necessary change is unobtainable, much unauthorised work, and ineffective enforcement – have been spelt out in IHBC, ALGAO, CLA and other evidence to your Committee’s previous heritage Inquiries in 2006 and 2008. If the system now continues to deteriorate, accelerating market failure is likely.

20. More resource would be highly desirable, but the real key to solving the problem is getting the system right, so that it focuses scarce resources much more effectively on protecting what matters. Space does not allow a full discussion here, but this in particular

5 A 2.5% tax rise on £10bn of spending would be £250m, though of course some of this expenditure is zero- or reduced-rated, and some is recoverable. VAT is also considered in 35 below.

590

means (a) greatly streamlining the listed building consent (LBC) system, using the impact threshold approach recommended in the Penfold Review6; (b) applying EH’s sensible and proportionate Constructive Conservation approach in all guidance and decision-taking; (c) solving teething problems with PPS5; (d) publishing more (and consolidated) guidance, a very cost-effective way of communicating good practice to local authorities, owners, and developers; and (e) better-targeted enforcement.

21. Secondly, even the right system cannot eliminate market failure entirely, so Government also needs to ensure that unavoidable market failures can, where appropriate, be tackled. This is not a question of routine handouts, but of carefully- targeted subsidy. Market failure in heritage assets7 arises particularly where there is a conservation deficit (ie the value of the asset once repaired would be less than the cost of putting it into repair, so that the market cannot repair it unassisted). EH has attempted to quantify part of the problem, for Grade I and II* listed buildings, in its Heritage at Risk (HAR) programme, and the 2010 HAR report identifies 1,218 such buildings at risk, only one eighth of them repairable without subsidy, with a total conservation deficit of £465m (10 per cent up on 2009). Because Grade I and II* buildings are only 7 per cent of all listed buildings, and less than 1 per cent of all heritage, the total conservation deficit for all heritage is clearly far more than £465m, certainly many billions of pounds.

22. The extent to which Government subsidises this is clearly a political decision, but several points are relevant: (a) the limited evidence available8 suggests this is not a low public priority; (b) public funding is a small fraction of the heritage-led tourism expenditure which might be deterred if heritage decays; (c) as above, the conservation deficit is usually much less than the total repair cost, so £1 of subsidy implies a much greater value of repair, as well as the wider economic benefit to the local and national economy; and (d) deferment is possible but may be expensive: the cost of (say) putting on an arts event in 2015 may be much the same as in 2010, but the cost of rescuing a building may be 10 times greater as decay takes hold.

Q4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one

23. Public heritage funding is as above small, a tiny part of the expenditure of three Departments, CLG (mainly via local authority planning services), DCMS (mainly via English Heritage), and DEFRA (mainly via Environmental Stewardship). There is also Lottery funding, which is not public money but comes under DCMS.

24. There are two potential questions here. Firstly, given as above that heritage is primarily a market efficiency rather than a ‘cultural subsidy’ issue, Government should examine the case for amalgamating responsibility for heritage, probably under CLG or in an Environment department, rather than leaving it split between departments as it is now. This raises a number of issues, but the current division causes problems: heritage does not fit naturally into the DCMS remit, and CLG has tended to deprioritise it, seeing it as ‘a DCMS issue’.

25. Secondly, there may be a case for amalgamating grant-giving. This at first seems obvious, given that the cost of handling an application is high and that there would appear to be savings from this being done only once, but it raises a number of problematic issues, for example a need for fundamentally different criteria for different kinds of project, that many funders refuse to support market failure if it is in private ownership, that many funders are independent charities, and a monopoly provider problem. This may repay further work, but there are unlikely to be many ‘quick wins’.

6 Penfold Review of Non-Planning Consents (2010, Recommendation F). Other Penfold recommendations like merging conservation area consent into the planning system would have some impact, though merging LBC with Scheduled Monument consent offers limited practical benefit. 7 There are other forms of market failure in heritage, like the market’s inability to provide enough skills training, but the principles are not dissimilar, and space does not allow discussion here. 8 eg the DCMS Taking Part survey, and a DEFRA survey of public priorities for rural development.

591

Q5. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on heritage organisations

26. Solutions to market failure have been badly affected by the massive diversion of funding from the HLF to other causes. We welcome the new Government’s intention to restore HLF funding, given the HLF’s huge positive impact on the landscape over the last 15 years (but see Q6).

Q6. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed

27. There are two important points here:

28. Firstly, publicly- and lottery-funded projects tend to be procured in artificially expensive ways. The need to prove “best practice” and “value for money”, and be seen to prove this, leads to projects being conducted in a risk-averse, belt-and-braces manner which has the unintended consequence of substantially increasing project costs (this ‘paradox of public funding’ is of course definitely not peculiar to the Lottery, or to heritage). Ironically, moreover, this risk-averse approach is often far from low-risk in practice. Accepting a higher degree of apparent risk could allow more projects to be funded from a given amount of money, without an unacceptable increase in real risk.

29. Secondly, lottery distributors relevant to heritage have largely ruled out funding the private sector because of fears of private benefit. Given that many other funding sources also take this approach, this means that there is little funding for market failure where this occurs in the two-thirds of heritage which is privately-owned. This problem now has to be solved by transferring heritage at risk to public or charitable bodies, but this is not always appropriate, or willing bodies cannot always be found even where it is. Moreover, because it is less affected by the issues in 28 above, the private sector may be able to deal with market failure more cheaply. The private sector should be eligible for lottery funding, in appropriate cases where sufficient public benefit can be created (usually, but not only, by public access) to balance any private benefit; EH and some other funders already do this without significant problems.

Q7. 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

30. These recent changes have not affected heritage. But on this subject, we would have concerns about some kinds of change to English Heritage. For example we see little commercial case for splitting apart EH’s roles as regulator and as owner of historic sites, and there is no substantive ‘conflict of interest’ between these two roles, and indeed significant advantages because it helps to make EH aware of some of the problems faced by owners of heritage. In addition, despite the now very small scale of EH funding for the private sector, we would not wish to see EH’s grant-making role abolished or moved to the HLF unless the problems in 29 above are tackled.

Q8. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding heritage at a national and local level;

31. As in paragraphs 7 to 9 above, heritage already is and always has been funded overwhelmingly by businesses, individuals, and philanthropy: almost all is maintained by its owners and users, because they live in it or it provides a direct or indirect flow of income as apart of a business or other private or public enterprise. See also Q9 below.

Q9. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations [funding]

32. Firstly, by far the most important incentive to encourage funding to flow into heritage and minimise market failure is reform of the heritage protection system (see 19-20 above).

592

33. Secondly, as already noted, in cases of market failure carefully-targeted subsidy can encourage substantial amounts of private investment.

34. Thirdly, there is a case for tax incentives where these prevent market failure cost- effectively; areas worth long-term examination include Gift Aid, Maintenance Funds, Acceptance in Lieu, and tax reliefs on expenditure.

35. Finally, it is also relevant that Government currently provides a colossal disincentive to maintain or enhance heritage in the form of the VAT differential of 17.5 (soon to be 20) per cent between the standard rate charged on heritage repair and the zero rate charged on demolition and rebuilding. There are no heritage-specific figures9, but we know from anecdotal evidence from CLA members that VAT is a great disincentive to repair heritage, and we expect the 20 per cent rate to have a more than proportionate effect, stopping much heritage repair and thus increasing market failure. Since 2009, EU VAT regulations have allowed member states to apply a reduced rate of 5 per cent on works to domestic property10. The wider implications of this are obviously beyond the scope of this evidence11, but implementing this would have radically positive effects on heritage maintenance expenditure and greatly reduce the current market failure problem.

We would be happy to enlarge on this evidence if asked to do so.

September 2010

9 The February 2010 Experian report The Opportunities and Costs of Cutting VAT: a Report for the Cut the VAT Coalition gives figures for repair and maintenance works to domestic property (ie not just heritage). It suggests (in paragraph 1.3.6, ‘A worst case scenario’) that increasing VAT to 20 per cent would destroy 34,000 jobs by 2019, and, though the report does not set out specific figures, destroy hundreds of millions of pounds of economic stimulus. 10 This restriction to domestic property is not fatal in heritage terms because half of heritage is domestic, and much of the rest is occupied by businesses which can reclaim VAT. 11 Again, see the Experian report.

593

Written evidence submitted by Netribution Ltd (arts 138)

1. 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;

While I would instinctively assume that cuts will have a negative effect on the cultural industries I cannot rule out the possibility that well focused cuts that target genuine inefficiency, bureaucracy, duplication while removing the 'cushion of laziness' that prevent some of the wealthiest institutions from reaching out to new audiences and renewing themselves to stay relevant could - well applied - have a neutral or even positive effect. But if applied uniformly without due care, as I am concerned the current plan is, the effects could be catastrophic, both economically and culturally. 2. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

The simplest area - besides data sharing (mailing lists, press contacts, internal databases of suppliers, venues or artists) is in IT. All organisations struggle with IT costs and the creative sector is hugely dependent on efficient systems that work - such as for ticketing, revenue tracking, distribution or production support. Limited sources of funding are available for infrastructure projects - and what is spent with public money should come with the requirement that work must be produced under an open source license - and hence sharable with all other relevant agencies and bodies - a considerable amount of costs could be saved.

For instance, many screen agencies have invested large sums in websites (£3m by the UKFC on MyFilm.com) that share video created by people in their region. Sharing the technology on an open source basis would have several effects: - ensure the initial capital investment in original IP from one agency was available to all agencies and other organisations. - provide greater future proofing, as a more widely adopted system is more likely to be upgraded and developed further by its user community. - potentially create an ecosystem around the software that can fuel further economic development - for example for consultants, training organisations and developers who specialise in that software, many of whom are likely to be local to the original development team. - Support other British small businesses and micro-businesses who may find the software useful in their own projects. 594

With open source software companies such as Red Hat making billions for added-value services, and Mozilla's Firefox being far ahead of Google or Apple in taking on the might of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, the economic potential of 'copyleft' software cannot be avoided, and already countries such as South America have a big head start. 3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

Like everything, there could always be more. And of course in a time of cuts, no-one could argue that arts spending is more important than a hospital bed or mental health nurse. Some could argue that it should be left to the market, and that it isn't a vital service. But it's part of our cultural dignity as a nation to have culture available outside of the market - be it the BBC, public libraries or free museums. Its impact on everything from tourism to education is worth far more than its cost and in a world where the UK is becoming ever smaller and less signifiant against the new economic giants, our incredibly rich cultural heritage is a vital part of our national 'brand' and identity. 4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one; CNC in France - which distributes more film finance than any other organisation in Europe - gives a significant proportion of its income in 'automatic finance'. Unlike 'selective finance', where a funding board will assess a collection of proposals, automatic finance ensures that - for example, - a director whose first film has either won awards or had a great box office run, is entitled to automatic development finance on their next project. It's idiot-proof, and saves significant bureaucratic costs.

Furthermore, in the digital age, where all national and regional cultural agencies are seeking new talent to support and develop, automatic finance could apply to - for example - YouTube views or levels of crowd-sourced finance already raised. Imagine I have made a short film on no budget, got it seen by a million people on YouTube, and raised £50,000 towards the production of my next film through a site such as OneFatCigar or Kickstarter - then I could be automatically eligible for certain levels of recoupable investment for my next project (provided that I met certain basic quality and responsibility standards, such as environmental and social practice). Or perhaps my film picked up a top film festival award and was then supported with a cinema release or Oscar awards campaign.

Such a system would remove the perceived 'elite' nature of much public funding, where it is seen that the same people get funding again and again. The system would need to be carefully 595

designed in order to avoid inequalities and to be truly accessible by all, but it would remove the super-power status of the UKFC fund heads, and could stimulate innovation.

At the same time 100% funded microbudget feature and short investments from talented and experienced executive producers (of which the UK screen agencies have a surfeit) into new talent, unproven but full of promise should be allowed to expand from successful 'pilots' at Film London, South West Screen and NorthWest Vision.

5. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;

Really impossible to say without further analysis. 6. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;

A review is rarely a bad thing. 7. 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;

The BFI cannot take on the role of British screen trade body without weakening its highly successful and internationally recognised cultural offerings. Given the BFI's involvement with both a leading critical magazine and an A-list film festival, their autonomy would be threatened if the strategic, marketing and trade aspects of the UKFC were consumed within it, most of all film finance. The London Film Festival would be looked down upon as a showcase for the work they'd financed and being a giant British film PR jolly, while Sight and Sound's editorial judgement would be questioned after the next Shane Meadows front cover. It would be a disaster.

So a screen quango is needed if this market sector - highly vulnerable to global market fluctuations and currency shifts - is to thrive. Few would disagree that it should be lighter, smaller and less control-freaky than the UKFC. At the same time I would like to see it expand to all screen media. While the BFI can remain the cultural flagship for cinema as an art form, the evolution and expansion of screen media in all its forms - from YouTube to Training Videos, Pop Promos to Documentary, TV formats to Video Games, Community video to Interactive Media. Britain's creative high tech economy depends on these areas of screen media, so getting quasi- governmental support, promotion, investment and skills development is essential. Furthermore - in an environment where almost everyone working in British film supplements their income 596

with work in TV, corporate video, web virals and so forth it is naive and slightly old-fashioned to carve off feature films as the sole focus of activity. As the moving image industry moves online and finds new ways of communication thru mobile and interactive, the UKFC's lack of focus in this area is a significant shortfall. The web provides a level playing field - it cannot therefore be denied that government investment will give the sector an advantage. 8. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

Absolutely. I worked at the National Theatre during a Paul Hamlyn Week and it seemed a vibrant and socially beneficial initative - as with the Travelex low price tickets. 9. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

As I understand it, development departments at arts organisations work incredibly hard trying to raise corporate and private funding. I cannot see how their effort can significantly be increased.

I imagine that a PR campaign to high earners, greater tax incentives or a public awareness campaign of philanthropists may have impact - but overall, I don't believe this area has sufficient growth potential to offset the cuts that are being threatened.

Note - I regret the short notice for this consultation and would appreciate the chance to back up my points with examples, evidence and full reasoning. However in the time constraints I will just present my arguments, and hope that if further explanation is needed, I will be able to provide this.

September 2010 597

Written evidence submitted by Robert Groves (arts 139)

Summary

• We need to understand how the increase in public spending has benefited the Arts. A study is required to learn from past mistakes and benefit from the successes. • The Arts Council has to consider so many factors that they are not able to support any of the areas they control effectively. • New art is watered down by the Arts Council. • New institutions have been established that will require funding to survive. New facilities can not be built as a result. • Creative businesses have suffered in recent years by looking to secure funding and not to access other sustainable income streams. • Creative industries have a bright future as technology levels the playing field and opens up new markets. • Community Arts will suffer most by a further blanket cut to regularly funded organisations and must be avoided. • The arts in education need to be fair. • Many of the high arts are supported by public money. They have become unable to generate other income streams. • The Arts Council has a big influence. This needs to be reviewed.

I am a music producer living in Manchester. I have released music in different genres and on many formats. I left university to set up a recording studio, and I learned about business and the music industry and came into contact with lots of publicly funded organisations. I worked in schools and community projects as well as private organisations. I also make films and have experience in other creative fields. I wanted to use my experience to help the committee make informed decisions.

(1) Full data analysis of the newly released government spending figures needs to take place in order to decipher and track the way public money has been spent. It needs to be made clear to the public how their money is distributed. It is a difficult task due to the complexity of the current system. It would be possible to find volunteers to do much of this work but a proper study needs to be coordinated. We must learn from the mistakes and champion the successes. The increase in public money for the arts over the last 15 years has had an impact in many areas. Judging this impact independently and impartially will show clear areas to cut and restructure and practices that should be repeated and expanded.

(2) Looking closely at the effectiveness of the Arts Council is vital. The Arts council has had a lot of money to spend and there are numerous other funding streams that have to be considered. At the moment the arts council have not had to be accountable to public demand. This inevitably has an effect on its performance. The Arts Council recognised this problem in a 2006 paper: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/documents/publications/phpUHflNJ.doc

They suggested that a 'value framework' is needed to show why the Arts Council spends in the way it does. Most of the documents they produce and indeed emails and website copy present the organisation in a glowing light. It is the responsibility of the DCMS to hold them to account in much the same way the arts council do with the regularly funded organisations.

598

(3) The current funding system is extremely complex and as a result it is inefficient. The arts council for example aims to support new art, guide creative business, help communities and socially excluded groups, educate , preserve our arts heritage and increase engagement with the arts. This is a difficult task as these areas all require a different approach. In trying to deliver these objectives the Arts Council have blurred the boundaries between these distinct areas. Unfortunately none of these areas get the specialist attention that they require. This adds to the overall inefficiency of the Arts Council and has a profound effect on the organisations, communities and individuals they support. A project that satisfies all of these areas will be looked upon more favourably than a project specialising in one area and as a result will secure higher future funding. The regularly funded organisations and those applying for one off grants therefore tailor their services to match these criteria. The criteria are is similar for other forms of funding.

(4) People who wish to create new art have to look at fulfilling some of the other criteria. This inevitably waters down the artistic integrity of the the art they produce. They are no longer concentrating on art for arts sake. Innovation and pure creativity drive the whole sector. Like concept cars or couture fashion these forward thinking ideas push the boundaries and eventually filter down and enhance our society. Public funds can stimulate new art in many ways. Helping with the cost of materials and workspace, and providing networking support can allow for artists to develop ideas more quickly. It is an essential area to fund because it is very difficult to raise finance for this without again sacrificing integrity. In order to asses the quality of a proposal panel of judges should be specialists in this field alone.

(5) Those looking to develop facilities to showcase new art would require specialists in other areas to asses the quality of their proposals. Large sums of public money has been spent on these projects. In every city there are a multitude of ways to engage with the arts. It has had a very positive impact on British life. It is unlikely that many new facilities will secure funding over the next few years and cutting this area of funding will save a lot of money. Money will be needed to sustain existing projects. There has been lots of publicity about projects that have failed and gone considerably over budget. We have time to learn from these mistakes and build on successes over the next few years. The organisations and authorities that distribute public funds have to be held to account and develop ways of ensuring mistakes are not repeated. It happened because there was too much money available and ineffective management of that money. It is important to try and recoup money on failed projects and not continue to fund the organisations that do not fulfil their purpose. These new institutions need assessing and advising to enable them to be successful.

(6) As a result of the impending cuts the Arts Council have been making their case on the premise they are value for money. They quote figures about the value added to the British economy by the creative industries. It is very true that revenue from the arts have grown in recent years and this contributes a lot to our economy. Is this a result of the public sector spending or are other factors involved? In recent years there has been more disposable income so this would increase revenue for creative enterprises. Technological factors and TV trends have also played a key role in our international success. It is important to see the Arts Councils role in this in perspective.

(7) Great opportunities have been missed to support our creative enterprises. On seeking business advise creative entrepreneurs were encouraged to be unemployed to become socially excluded, and pushed towards sources of funding. They were rarely advised to concentrate on improving the product, generating capital and looking at marketing and advertising opportunities. As a result many entrepreneurs that would have developed great businesses would look for grants and establish organisations that the taxpayer funds. The available funding streams would require similar criteria to the arts council to become accessible. This led to a lot of new projects drawing public 599

funds that would never be sustainable and in many cases would be unmanageable. Large sums of money were wasted.

(8) The job centre paid organisations to train job seekers in creative fields. Training can inspire but it is extreme to offer everyone on the new deal the option of learning music production as was the case in Manchester. Lots of people choose the free music production course but the course was very short so its effect was negligible. Large sums of money were ploughed into similar schemes across the country. This allowed the creative businesses that took advantage of this funding to flourish. As funding is withdrawn they now have to generate income in other ways. I fear many of these businesses will not survive as they have large overheads and face a difficult and unfamiliar commercial environment.

(9) I believe creative enterprises require specialist advice. This should be business advice primarily as the artistic and creative skills are the responsibility of the creative to develop. In the last decade lots of creative advice agencies funded by public money were established to advise the creative industries. Unfortunately these agencies would act more as funding signposts helping to create more organisations reliant on public money. Community Arts organisations even offer business advice. As a result of these different organisations many entrepreneurs have not set up commercial businesses which help the economy and became experts at securing public funding.. This is great for charities and community projects but not for those looking to set up a creative business. It is also not an effective way to stimulate creative enterprise.

(10) Those people did not seek or take advice and just tried to make money have had the biggest effect on our economy. They have shown new ways of working and are keeping the UK at the forefront of the creative industries. Old business models are outdated and a fit for purpose approach is the key to their success. Within the music industry there is turmoil. Large organisations are in grave difficulty. These new businesses will fill the gap and it is already showing signs that the musicians will see a much greater % of royalties as a result. It is an exciting time and I believe that new creative enterprises in all fields, will lead the way for other sectors to improve business practice. It is now possible for everyone to reach a global market.

(11) Support that is relevant to these businesses and new enterprise needs to be managed by the government with the aim of stimulating the economy and ensuring taxes are paid. This helps the creative and the economy. Business incubation schemes and strong business advice will have the biggest effect on the income the country makes from the creative sector. This is what Creative entrepreneurs require. New technologies allow for business clusters to easily form allowing for efficient management of large projects and amazing collaborations. It is also remarkably cheap to buy professional standard equipment. The future for creative enterprise is very bright and not as expensive to get a foot in the door.

(12) Community arts organisations and projects designed help socially excluded people are most at risk from cuts in public spending. They do not draw large amounts of public money and provide an essential service. The Arts Council will pass on cuts that may not severely damage the large organisations but will cripple the smaller community projects. These organisations must be judged on their value to society not the quality of the art. Those organisations that attempt to satisfy the most funding criteria will have a difficult time proving their effectiveness. It is better to analyse them properly and secure the future of successful projects than to do a cut across the board.

(13) As entrepreneurs were encouraged and guided to establish projects that helped socially excluded people they would buy equipment and in many cases get funding for building work. This 600

also took place in the city centre of Manchester when it would have been more cost effective for these projects to use existing facilities. I saw many fail and it was very clear that the people who ran them did not have the required skills. When working with Aim Higher I was able to get an extremely low rate from one training providers to record school children. They did it because they had the downtime in the facility to spare and they wanted to help out. Creative industries like to give back to the industry and help people be creative. A substantial volunteer drive is needed from community organisations. There is an infrastructure their that could be used to effectively deliver a 'Big Society'.

(14) There are many initiatives that attempt to make the arts accessible to young people. However many schools do not offer a music GCSE. Some areas have publicly funded orchestras come to the school to perform. This is unfair and shows how we have not covered the basics of arts education. Creative industries and the arts can inspire the youth to think and be creative. Making them accessible for all is possible if equipment is chosen wisely. By using computer programs students learn the skills that are needed in the real world because they enjoy it. Allowing school children access to music making and video making equipment and materials for art projects we pave the way for a bright future. Bringing new art into schools is also essential as is allowing access to museums for school children. Developing creative thinking is an important part of education.

(15) The Arts Council is responsible for arts heritage. Some of the highest funded organisations are essentially heritage projects. Many have become unable to make money and are reliant on the large sums awarded. These organisations change their business structure and become less likely to make there own revenue. Money invested in organisations that turn a profit should be the first to stop receiving the awards. Those organisations that will always need funding need to be assessed and decisions made on their merits. The loss of larger organisations would create a lot of negative press so the Arts Council will not be very willing to do this. This needs to be looked at objectively and these organisations must all increase revenue if possible.

(16) By judging art on the number of people it engages we can sometimes exclude great art in favour of socially acceptable state art.

(17) I believe the Arts Council has had to much control and certain areas like enterprise, community projects and education could be handled more effectively by other authorities. Then they can concentrate their energy on stimulating the arts, preserving our culture and engaging the public.

September 2010 601

Written evidence submitted by Murray Weston (arts 140)

1.1 This submission is made by Murray Weston, Chair of the Film Archive Forum UK* and Chief Executive of the British Universities Film & Video Council (BUFVC)**. 1.2 At the time of submission, the content of this response has not been ratified by the boards of the two organisations cited. This response must therefore, for the time- being, be regarded as personal.

*The Film Archive Forum is a national representative body which brings together the senior managers and curatorial staff of the UK’s regional and national audio-visual collections which receive public funds.

**The British Universities Film & Video Council (BUFVC) is a national representative body which promotes the study and use of moving image and sound, and related media in post compulsory learning and research.

1.3 This response concerns the long-term support of the regional and national audio-visual archives in the UK and proposes:

(i) a move to legal deposit which may be required to secure audio-visual content and catalogue data for long term storage and to support access (ii) an increase in recurrent funding at all levels in the sector (iii) a formal reassessment of moving image archives and an evidence- based review of recurrent financial sources which may be applied (iv) further development of the ‘Union Catalogue’ to integrate information on all publicly-funded archive holdings with other data sources nationwide to promote public access and use, while retaining elegance of search operations (v) 2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Although moving image and sound are pervasive media in the 21st Century, they remain a Cinderella story in the world of UK libraries and archives, bearing in mind the quantities of content and contextual documentation which is being created and lost through neglect and lack of investment or a coherent forward-thinking national strategy.

2.2 Future generations will be the judges of our efforts to value, capture and preserve the UK’s audio-visual heritage. Right now, those of us who work for or with audio-visual archives in the UK know that we require a sea-change in policy terms comprehensively to capture and preserve audio-visual works for long term access. For the time-being, those who engage professionally with the curation of audio-visual works are aware of substantial shortcomings in the system when compared to the current treatment of published text.

2.3 During the last 100 years, audio-visual media have been among the most powerful in communicating knowledge and entertainment to the largest audiences. In 602

the early part of the 20th Century, cinema newsreels (for instance) were the only source of authoritative news for a predominantly illiterate population so the cinema was their ‘window on the world’ and it had a profound effect on public opinion. This is one example of the value of these media historically, and one which is thrown into high relief when we consider the quantity of broadcast news which is currently being discarded or lost.

2.4 The careful cataloguing, preservation and access to these media is essential to underpin scholarship and learning in a society which intends to value its past to inform the future.

2.5 However, the story of the cataloguing, preservation and access to audio-visual works in the UK is one of disorganisation and under-investment that appears likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

2.6 This situation in the UK compares very poorly with other EU states. In France, for instance, the Institut National de l’Audiovisuel INA (in Bry sur Marne) receives some €75 million per annum to capture, store and preserve radio and television, whereas the UK invests around £3 million per annum in these media. In addition to the INA, the French government also supports the massive Cinémathèque Française, which has the benefit of legal deposit, plus an ongoing system of digitisation and remote access.

2.7 ‘Parity with Paper’ is the epithet which is heard from frustrated UK scholars fighting for access to archive audio-visual works. This is not without justice because a simple analysis reveals how far behind text audio-visual works in the UK are in being drawn into the scholarly corpus.

2.8.1 Text – books and journals

Legal deposit – publishers are required, by law and if requested, to lodge six copies of each published work for storage in the six copyright libraries in the UK and Ireland

It is important to note that most printed publications are published in a minimum run of 1000 copies, whereas television programmes, for instance, may only exist in one or two copies (if that) at the time of transmission (although addressing and affecting an audience which may be counted in millions). They are therefore a great deal more vulnerable to destruction and loss than literary works published as books. Audio-visual works may therefore affect a great deal more lives through transmission to mass audiences, but be a great deal more vulnerable to loss.

Inter-library loan of books – the UK’s book libraries enjoy the benefit of a developed network which collaborates to deliver a service of inter-library loan which operates throughout the UK public library system.

Cataloguing – is an integral part of the process of legal deposit of published text which supports the use of ISBNs and ISSNs and standard catalogue descriptors by the 603

publishers and by the recipient libraries. It goes without saying that, without a properly developed library catalogue it is not possible to know what is there to be found. Citation through published bibliographies and reading lists is a process embedded in the culture of scholarship.

2.8.2 Audio-visual works

No legal deposit arrangements – a television transmission which is viewed by some 15 million people may be discarded by the producers within a very short time after completion. There is an off-air recording arrangement which partially captures independent television and BBC television output in the BFI National Archive. Feature film prints and copies of other films are only deposited in the national collections through voluntary arrangements with owners. No formal process of Inter-library loan for film and copies of broadcasts –this places audio-visual works at a substantial disadvantage, when compared to published text, from the point of view of scholarship and research. Cataloguing of archive film, television and radio in commercial collections is often solely for the purposes of supporting onward sales so the scholarly components of context, and rigour of description are rarely accomplished in sufficient detail alongside technical data. There is no single cataloguing standard and no unified national catalogue for UK film and television archives (although recent moves have been made in this direction through the collaboration of members of the Film Archive Forum UK in the Screen Heritage UK initiative). No developed culture of citation in research through publication of filmographic information and viewing lists

2.8.3 In the last decade, under the Labour government, the audio-visual archive sector made its case on these issues, initially through a well-attended conference at The British Library, under the title Hidden Treasures, and later through submission to a Parliamentary Select Committee. Then the British Film Institute compiled a paper entitled the Strategy for UK Screen Heritage which proposed that there was an urgent need to (i) secure the BFI’s own collection (the National Film and Television Archive), (ii) to support the established regional film and television archives, and (iii) to promote greater understanding and use of these media by educational establishments and the general public. The estimated cost of this initial investment was put at £55 million over five years. However, the government responded by allocating funds of just £25 million from the DCMS to the UK Film Council to disburse over a period of three years.

2.8.4 From this sum around £19 million has been allocated to a building programme for the BFI for new storage facilities. Around £1.5 million has been applied to the development of a ‘union catalogue’ (for the publicly-funded audio-visual collections in the English regions) and around £2 million has been allocated to regional archives under an initiative entitled Revitalising the Regions. In 2010 the incoming coalition government saw fit to withdraw some £2.5 million from the funds which had been allocated for digitisation and public access work. This relatively small cut in spend means that the general public will be less likely to see the benefit of, or appreciate the significance of, previous public investment in audiovisual archives.

604

3 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

3.1 The immediate consequence for the UK’s nations and regions is that the relatively modest funds now cut from the Screen Heritage UK initiative (some £2.5 million) will have the effect of hiding from public view the fruits of investment in audio- visual archives which stretches back more than 50 years. Curtailing digitisation activity for online delivery is therefore an inefficient cut which undoubtedly has a deleterious effect on the public impact of previous investments. Further cuts will be substantially deleterious for UK audio-visual archives.

4 What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

4.1 As a result of the apparent lack of national appetite to install legislation for legal deposit of published audio-visual works, unique audio-visual heritage assets, which are arguably some of the most powerful records of British life and culture, are spread haphazardly across various sectors – industrial, commercial, private, public and educational – and there is still no unified national catalogue of the content assets which have survived. They are therefore highly vulnerable to disposal, degradation and loss as a result of inappropriate preservation policies driven by overly constrained finances and/or ignorance.

4.2 By and large, the various sectors holding unique audio-visual archive items recognise their heritage value and do hold constructive dialogue and, from time-to- time, work together collaboratively. However, the only way fully to secure the national collection and its context long term is to install mandatory arrangements under legal deposit and support the creation of centres of excellence for public access to and preservation of physical and virtual audio-visual media. Legal deposit would bind the regional and national effort to acquire, preserve, catalogue and make available our audio-visual heritage.

5 What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable

5.1 When considering the future, publicly-funded audio-visual archives have an increasingly complex set of tasks to accomplish to satisfy public expectations. However, in the UK the sector has been burdened by misconceptions from public funding agencies that have tended: (i) to place moving image and sound collections in a different category from text libraries, (ii) to expect ‘the industry to pay’ for these archives, (iii) to expect audio-visual archives to ‘monetise’ their collections when the ownership of the underlying IP rests elsewhere, and (iv) to characterise moving image and sound collections as ‘entertainment’ and not part of the scholarly corpus.

5.2 Recurrent core grant funding is therefore essential to secure publicly-funded audio-visual archives long-term, but this should not be to the exclusion of other forms of income from trading, sponsorship, research and publishing.

605

5.3 The dark truth of private sector audio-visual archives is that less than 10% of any collection earns 90% of income from trading so precious few, if any, commercial collections will be able to support their collections long term (from trading in content) and most private archives will, ultimately, end up in the hands of publicly-funded archive agencies.

6 Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one

6.1 There can be little doubt that the current systems of funding for the support of publicly-funded audio-visual archives in the UK (especially the regional film archives) is not fit for purpose and should be reassessed and improved radically without delay (because it is currently so varied and inconsistent). While the national collections urgently require additional recurrent funding, the need in the regions is arguably even more urgent.

6.2 The BFI’s National Archive, along with the UK’s three other ‘national’ audio- visual collections (National Library of Scotland, National Library of Wales, and the Film Collection), are in receipt of recurrent core public funding. In a number of these cases (for instance in the case of the BFI’s National Archive) recurrent funding is in urgent need of uplift because the existing collections cannot be maintained or improved as would be expected. This is the result of the freezing of recurrent grant funding and the consequential reductions in staff employed to support quality cataloguing, curation and access long term. Poor funding causes a piece-meal, make-do-and-mend approach to curation that is not capable of engaging efficiently with the immediate challenge of capturing and storing additional content arising from the upsurge in production and publication through media such as satellite television, DVBT and the Web.

6.3 The very worst difficulty for those constructing forward financial plans to sustain audio-visual archive collections is the misguided notion (engendered primarily by public funding agencies) that these collections are capable of being ‘monetised’ or exploited in such a way as to support most of the archive operation. This is hard to understand. We would not, for instance, expect The British Library to sustain its future operation through the sale of books. Why, therefore, would it be expected that film and television archives enjoy such an opportunity when they are also custodians or repositories of works created and owned by others?

7 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

7.1 The abolition of the UK Film Council and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council will, in our view, have a mixed effect. The UKFC was not established originally with a remit to take a serious long-term interest in the organisation and running of the nation’s film and television archives. It was therefore perceived to be (along with its associated Regional Screen Agencies) somewhat ‘in the way’ of the process of draw- down and application of funds for the benefit of the regional archives. There were also substantial political issues arising from a Screen Heritage UK initiative which (apparently) was only to apply to the ‘English regions’. On the other hand, the development of a 606

specialist body to deal with film UK wide was a good idea. However, the unfortunate abrogation by the UKFC of any real interest in television, which has been palpable in the corridors of Little Portland Street, has been strangely retrograde bearing in mind obvious issues arising from the convergence of audio-visual technologies and multiplatform distribution.

7.2 The MLA was helpful to the national and regional audio-visual archives but their issues did not immediately map on-to the MLA schema.

7.3 The immediate concern is that the small advances achieved by audio-visual archives with the assistance of UKFC and MLA funding should be turned, as soon as possible, into measurable change and long-term benefit.

8 Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

8.1 Business interests and philanthropists have had an effect on the funding of audio-visual archives. However, such relationships have been few and far between, and even fewer have had a long-term effect. By and large commercial business sponsorship is short-term and focussed on achieving immediate goals. The audio-visual archive sector requires long-term recurrent funding, so business sponsorship, as currently available, can only be regarded as project-based and short-term.

8.2 Very few philanthropists have made an impact with their support for audio- visual archives. The late John Paul Getty jnr was one of these rare people and his support for the BFI and the NFTS in the 1980s/90s was substantial, funding the purchase of 21 Stephen Street and the building of the John Paul Getty Preservation Centre at Berkhamsted. These were capital projects which were welcome, but such investment did not offer a significant long term contribution to recurrent funding. There can be little doubt that new forms of incentive for individuals and business interests will be required to provide sustained support for audio-visual archives.

9 Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

9.1 Giving by the rich in the UK is not yet an ‘expectation’ as it might be in the USA. This is a cultural change which may only be achieved through a variation in attitudes encouraged by an improved set of incentives. Some of those incentives should be financial through tax breaks and other benefits. However, it must be said that private donations will not, alone, fully sustain audio-visual archives long term.

September 2010 607

Written evidence submitted by Axis (arts 141)

1. What impact will recent, and future, spending cuts from central and local Government have on the arts and heritage at a national and local level?

1.1 Artists survive within a mixed economy of practical opportunities and support which depend on state and local government investment. Artists’ studio groups often rely to some degree on public subsidy; many artists work in schools, Further Education and Higher Education, where retrenchment looms; the regeneration schemes which created opportunities for public art are likely to disappear; and it goes without saying that there will be fewer commissions and exhibitions, as funding for our gallery system diminishes.

1.2 There has been little discussion so far about the impact of cuts to arts funding on many aspects of the private sector, as budgets for office accommodation, marketing and various other specialist services diminish. In the long run, commercial galleries will also lose out, because innovative emergent practice so often finds early support and encouragement within the subsidised sector. And, of course, the impact of public sector cuts on the wider economy will mean that there is simply less money to spend on art.

1.3 Cuts are already being felt at a local level, because there is less funding available through local authorities and Grants for the Arts, and other funders (e.g. trusts and foundations) have become more cautious in response to dwindling investment income. Several visual arts organisations in our region (Yorkshire) have made staff redundant and curtailed their activities; and there are further redundancies and programming cuts in prospect.

1.4 In general the impact of the cuts so far has been a scaling-down of artistic ambition and the loss of amenities and services that make a practical difference to the individual practitioner. Sheffield Contemporary Art Forum, for example, had a budget of only £42K for its recent city-wide festival of contemporary art (Art Sheffield 2010) – in sharp contrast to the budget of £98K which it raised for the same event two years ago. Also in Sheffield, Yorkshire ArtSpace Society (an artists’ studio complex) has been forced to close the reception area which has served as a small exhibition area for artists, both from Sheffield and from further afield.

1.5 Like all Arts Council Regularly Funded Organisations, our own organisation (Axis – the online resource for contemporary art) has absorbed a 0.5% cut this financial year and expects a 10% cut to its funding from ACE next year, with more substantial cuts in the pipeline thereafter. These difficulties have been compounded by the withdrawal of £20,000 of core funding from the Arts Council of Wales, as a consequence of its recent investment review.

1.6 We are very concerned that organisations based in England, but with a UK-wide membership and remit, are finding it increasingly difficult to attract funding from Wales and Scotland, where there is clearly a strong sense that local organisations should take priority. This retreat behind internal national boundaries makes for a more fragmented and inward-looking cultural sector, less able to represent and speak on behalf of the UK as a whole.

1.7 One of the more disappointing aspects of the Arts Council of Wales’s investment review was the distinction it appeared to draw between “frontline services” (i.e. organisations directly involved with producing and presenting art) and behind-the- scenes activities. To pit one against the other, in an echo of government rhetoric about

608

frontline delivery and backroom bureaucracy, is to make a simplistic distinction that ignores the complexity of the ‘ecology’ upon which arts organisations and individual artists depend. If ‘the frontline’ is interpreted as meaning public-facing institutions, then many of the agencies and networks that offer strategic support to the individual artist and independent producer within the visual arts sector will disappear.

2. What can arts organisations do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale?

2.1 Many organisations are already looking at how they can share resources, for example by combining ‘backroom’ functions, sharing exhibitions and collections and jointly funding and promoting events. But while it often makes good sense for organisations to work together in the interests of maximising the return on public subsidy, there will always be limits to what collaboration and sharing of resources can achieve. Arts organisations, like any other kind of organisation, have their own internal culture and governance arrangements, which can make it genuinely difficult to merge or share resources.

2.2 In addition, most small to medium-sized arts organisations are already administratively lean, with little spare capacity to ‘lend out’ to others. There are also dangers inherent in organisations becoming too engrossed in implementing structural change and merger arrangements at the very time when they need to be at their most inventive and outward-facing.

2.3 For all these reasons, we would urge the Select Committee to accept the argument currently being made by Arts Council England that cuts should not be frontloaded, but should be staged in a way that encourages considered decision-making and gives organisations time to adjust their business models. If cuts are implemented too quickly, then many worth-while organisations with the potential to adapt and evolve will fall by the wayside.

3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable? Is the current system, and structure, of funding and distribution the right one? What is 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?

3.1 It is hard to know how to respond to these questions, given that the government has already pre-empted consultation by abolishing the UK Film Council and MLA, and by proposing that English Heritage should merge with The Heritage Lottery Fund. It is surprising that these decisions have been taken with (apparently) so little detailed consideration of how they will be implemented.

3.2 At a time when so many other areas of the economy are contracting and vitally important public services are under threat, it may be unrealistic to argue that funding for the arts should be maintained at existing levels. Yet the UK has the largest cultural economy in the world relative to its GDP and the arts and heritage industries are central to the all-important tourist trade. We urge the Select Committee to keep these economic arguments in mind as it deliberates the future of art and heritage funding.

3.3 We also urge the Select Committee to acknowledge the progress that Arts Council England has recently made in reducing its overheads and streamlining its administrative systems. We believe that Arts Council England has risen to the challenges presented by

609

the current economic climate and is working hard to support its client organisations through difficult times. Any further cuts to Arts Council England would, in our view, inflict irretrievable damage on an organisation that is valued and needed by the arts community more than at any other time in the post-war period.

3.4 Necessary though its recent re-structuring may have been, it leaves Arts Council England much depleted and lacking both the internal expertise or staff resource to take on the major functions of MLA (e.g. Renaissance in the Regions). We agree with Mark Taylor, Director of the Museums Association, when he states that museums should not simply become a ‘sub-set’ of the arts and heritage but should have their own strategic body. However, if the merger does go ahead as anticipated, then at the very least ACE should be given the resource it needs to take over the functions of MLA successfully.

3.5 Film is not our area of professional expertise, so we find it hard to make informed comment about the abolition of the UK Film Council. It is clear, however, that the Lottery funding distributed through the UK Film Council will still have to be handed out by other means. Understandable concerns about excessive bureaucracy should not throw into question all the so-called quangos that distribute money to the arts and heritage. Decisions about how public money is spent should be taken with due regard to fairness and accountability, neither of which can be assured without adequate levels of staffing and proper administrative procedures.

4. What impact will recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds have on arts and heritage organisations? Do the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed?

4.1 We fully endorse the government’s proposal to re-distribute Lottery monies to the original ‘good causes’ of the arts, heritage and sport. At a time when other sources of public funding are likely to diminish, it is vitally important that we protect the investment made in the arts since the launch of the National Lottery in 1994. This investment has benefited visual artists in innumerable ways, for example through the creation of new exhibition spaces, education initiatives and public art schemes. The infrastructure for making and showing art outside London is immeasurably stronger than it was 20 years ago. But these hard-won advances could easily be lost if Lottery funding is not diverted back to the arts in order to mitigate the worst effects of spending cuts in other spheres, particularly in Local Authority and Arts Council budgets.

4.2 Contemporary art is especially vulnerable in such a climate, because it is inherently experimental, often provokes adverse media reaction and has little support from politicians wary of its more controversial aspects. Yet contemporary artists ask questions of and about the world in which we live; they make us look at it with fresh eyes and stimulate new ways of thinking about it; they provide pleasure, inspiration and intellectual enrichment. In a knowledge-based economy that relies on visual as well as verbal communication, the ability to decode, interpret and use visual images and structures is increasingly important in developing critical thought and debate. A healthy visual arts sector is vital to the wider well-being of the creative economy.

4.3 One major concern is the question of how the lottery bodies support collecting and collections. For a long time it has been clear that the cost of major works of contemporary art far exceeds the purchasing power of public sector galleries; and once galleries stop collecting contemporary art, it can be very hard to gain foothold again. Under current guidelines for lottery funding, it is not clear how acquisitions of contemporary art for public collections can be funded, since the Heritage Lottery Fund will not fund the acquisition of works that are less then 10 years old. Yet the art of

610

today is the heritage of tomorrow. There are good economic reasons for acquiring art at the time that it is made. If we ignore the art of the present until it is recognised as important, we may by then no longer have the means of acquiring it at all. Even 10 years may be too long to wait, as is evidenced by the fact that the YBAs are scarcely represented at all in public collections outside London.

5. Can businesses and philanthropists play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level? And should there be more Government incentives to encourage private donations?

5.1 Business sponsorship and philanthropy are certainly to be encouraged, but past experience suggests that it will prove difficult to attract on any significant scale, especially in our less wealthy regional towns and cities. Benefactors generally want to be associated with high-profile projects which will generate good PR and create a positive ‘brand’ association in the mind of the consumer. Contemporary art, which often questions the social, political and aesthetic status quo, finds it hard to compete with the (on the whole) much safer world of classical music, ballet and blockbuster exhibitions.

5.2 If a culture of philanthropic giving is genuinely to develop, it will take time and require support from government. We fully support The Art Fund’s long-standing campaign for improved tax incentives to encourage cultural donations and individual giving to museums.

September 2010

611

Written evidence submitted by Paul Clark (arts 142)

This submission is from myself, Paul Clark, an individual artist (composer) who regularly works in the subsidised sector, specifically theatre and the performing arts and, on occasion, in the commercial sector of TV, film and commercials.

The themes of the submission are:

- What level of public subsidy is necessary and sustainable for performing arts sector, particularly theatre.

- There is a medium/long term impact of the subsidising of theatre on individual artists/practitioners, who become successful and create inward investment and raise tax revenue for the British economy.

- How the transferable skills learned in (and paid for by) the subsidised sector , including in experimental work, are highly valued by the commercial sector who are prepared to pay for them. The fees they pay (which can be high) are taxable in Britain and return to the exchequer.

- These calculations have to be born in mind when considering cuts. Every time Judy Dench, Danny Boyle or Ben Kingsley make a film and pay tax in the UK (or spend their money here), we are making a return on an investment in their talent made decades ago by the public subsidy in the arts. It is profit making.

- We have a global competitive advantage in this field which must not be neglected

- The competitive advantage is a perceived one and is not one based entirely on cost. In an increasingly competitive global economy we need to strategically focus the economy on sectors that cannot be easily undercut abroad. Theatre is, perhaps surprisingly, such a sector - British performing art is highly regarded internationally, and the premium it can charge feeds directly into the wider economy.

- There are dangers in the Arts becoming over-reliant on private/ corporate sponsorship, because of short termism and global financial instability. Government should create incentives (tax breaks) for corporate sector to invest in arts organizations long term and for core running costs , (rather than project based donations) so those organizations can be planning over longer time frames and do not have to swallow huge cuts at the whim of market/economic downturns.

- This submission puts to one side any wider cultural/social benefits the arts brings.

1. I write this submission in a rehearsal room in Berlin, during a lunch break. we have just finished a session rehearsing a new version of a classic play, Miss Julie, using live video, sound and Music. I am composing the music.

2. In the same room I can see 10 British artists and technicians who have been invited to work on the production. A team first put together at the (subsidised) National Theatre. We are being hired by the Schaubuhne Berlin on the strength of ambitious, experimental work which was paid for entirely by the British subsidised sector. Collectively we will be bringing tens of thousands of Euros into the British economy and paying tax on that in the UK. It is an expensive way for a German producing house to proceed - it would be much cheaper for them to use local artists - but the reputation and professionalism of British artists is such that they are prepared to pay.

3. The piece is co-directed by Katie Mitchell and Leo Warner. The National Theatre invested in their first collaboration in pioneering video/theatre work six years ago. I wonder if they would have taken such an expensive risk in a cash strapped atmosphere of cuts. They have taken this 612

work to theatres in Germany (twice), Austria, and the USA and all of this income comes back into the British economy. Leo's company (59 Productions) created its first ten productions with public subsidy - he now has taken this work to , for example New York Metropolitan Opera, Salzburg Opera, The Lincoln Centre New York and other venues around the world.

4. You will probably have been reminded already that the estimated contribution from West End VAT receipts alone are larger than the entire Arts Council theatre budget. Much of this success comes down to the investment made by the government in public arts subsidy - it is difficult to find artists and technicians in the West End who didn't cut their teeth in the subsidised theatre. There are direct and indirect ways in which this subsidy/investment feeds back into the British economy.

5. Others will be making the case for the tourism that the subsidised arts attract to Britain (particularly London) but consider also the wealth created by individuals working in the subsidised sector who take their skills to the West End, Broadway or to film . Even that doyen of the commercial theatre Andrew Lloyd Webber's Joseph had its first professional production produced by the (subsidise) Young Vic theatre. Stephen Daldry was director of the (subsidised) Royal Court before making Billy Elliott for film and stage. Phylida LLoyd worked at the (subsidised) Royal Exchange Manchester and the (subsidised) RSC before making Mamma Mia for stage and screen . Tom Morris was Artistic Director of (subsidised) BAC before co-directing (with Marianne Eliott - RSC/Manchester Royal Exchange etc...) War Horse (opening soon on Broadway and shortly to be adapted for film by Stephen Spielberg, featuring a British cast - tbc - set to include Peter Mullen and Emily Watson who both started their careers on the subsidised stage.) The list goes on and on and I haven't included names in the technical (lighting/sound/design) departments who take their work around the world, because the list is already long enough just cherry-picking a few famous examples.

6. If the idea of cuts is to address a public deficit that will haunt generations to come then the argument for cutting funding to theatre is lost already purely on economic grounds. The British theatre creates £2bn p/a on a subsidy of £120million. We have to invest if the criteria for cuts are financial and are being made for the long term.

7. I would add that it is not just mainstream practitioners that can make the leap into serious revenue generating productions - who would have guessed that experimental company Improbable (whose primary medium was sellotape for a while) would create a show (Shockheaded Peter) that was a hit in the West End and Broadway? Practitioners in experimental work can flourish, if they are well nurtured early in their development.

8. You will know that Film inward investment of £800m far outstrips the entire ACE budget. Obviously subsidised theatre cannot take the full credit for this - but it shouldn’t be underestimated.

9. Consider a few names - Sam Mendes (American Beauty) , Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire) Mike Leigh (Vera Drake etc..), Martin McDonagh (Oscar winning director and widely believed to be the second most- performed playwright in the USA after Shakespeare), Nick Hytner (Madness of King George) - all have had or continue to have long associations with the subsidised theatre. And then there's acting talent: Anthony Hopkins, Ben Kingsley, Patrick Stewart, assorted Redgraves, Bill Nighy, Helen Mirren, Catherine Zeta Jones, Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman, Ralph Feinnes, Maggie Smith, Ian McKellan. etc, etc...

10. Try compiling lists like this of other great English speaking countries like Australia or Canada. The reason you will struggle is because the UK has a culturally embedded, decades- long , low-cost solution for training talent and offering up the skills learned to the commercial sector. The subsidised theatre. 613

11. Take my own field of music; Stephen Warbeck worked in theatre (musical director of the subsidised RSC) before going on to win an Oscar for his score for Shakespeare in Love and composing dozens of film scores. George Fenton also started his career composing at the RSC before working on scores of film scores and going on to win 5 Oscar nominations.

12. There are numerous other examples, not only in film but in TV and commercials. Careers like this are a fantastic investment by the British government - bringing ready money into our economy.

13. I can't speak for these composers, but I know that the tax I paid in the UK for two sequences of commercials made in the USA is more than I have been paid in Arts Council Grants in my entire 20 year career. Anecdotally, I know that the fact that I work in experimental forms and have written operas holds a certain allure in the wider commercial creative community. They want originality and the subsidised sector can take the financial risk of nurturing it while it is still cheap. The commercial world know that if you have performed at a high level on the British stage, the quality of your work is likely to be high.

14 . As composers we obviously are creating further ripples in the creative economy - paying artists' agents, session musicians, recording studios, publishers and the like. Our collection agency PRS (in the form of its charitable foundation the PRSF) is the biggest donor to creating new music with an annual budget of over £1m

15. If it is cheaper to procure steel from Russia than England, then a buyer will procure from Russia. In the arts/creative industries this is simply not the way the economy works. It may be the case that Sri Lankan economy can offer a much cheaper film score or Opera director, but this is not enough to make it competitive - the perceived worth of the talent is critical.

16. We live In a European economy which will struggle to grow (is already struggling) as it competes against cheap employment elsewhere in lean asset-stripped industries seeking ever- shrinking profit margins. If we are serious about aiming for 3% growth in this country, nurturing industries that cannot be undercut on cost alone should be a crucial part of an economic strategy. The only way we will be undercut in the performing arts is if we let it atrophy by cutting public subsidy and slowly depressing the pool of talent. To let it atrophy would be as silly as the french deciding to not tend to the vines of its money-spinning wine industry during a bad drought year.

17. The investment (it IS an investment) is also incredibly good value. In many areas of the public sector it is easy to find quick ways of cutting costs - consultancy fees in NHS Trusts, maybe, or bloated pay-packets for senior figures in Universities for example. Orchestras/Opera pay serious money to conductors and virtuoso soloist and singers. In the subsidised theatre it is very difficult to make such a case. Its quite hard to think of anyone in British subsidised theatre who is embarrassingly overpaid. Performers fees are not yet criminally low, but they re not far off. Especially in the dance world. Equity minimum is currently £400 per week - which is not great for freelance work, particularly if you are highly educated and skilled. Fortunately for the UK economy, there is good, artistically rewarding work around, being subsidised by the country which make such a small wage worth taking. Plus there is the prospect, for the fortunate or talented, of upward mobility financially, as I've illustrated with the numerous examples of those who have made good on the public investment. As a fringe benefit for the British economy, at a time when we desperately need fluidity in capital flow, you can be sure that the vast majority of recipients of theatre public subsidy will not be investing their money in investment vehicles that don't feed back into the real economy, like buy-to-let properties or hedge funds. On £400 per week you are buying a sandwich and maybe a book. Our £120m investment flows right through the economy. If £120m seems like an insignificant sum, in the context of, say, the Special Liquidity Scheme of over £200bn that allowed the banks to lend to each other (but not necessarily the public) then I agree, it is a very small sum. 614

18. I would suggest an increase in funding for theatre would be a more financially prudent decision than cuts, if (as the government insists it is) these decisions are being made for long term reasons.

19. Notice that , despite being a musician, who has worked in the classical world and in Opera, I am not using the same arguments to defend these areas of the arts. They too play their part in the economy but Theatre is a particularly compelling economic case in terms of the cost to benefit ratio. I would argue that UK dance could probably pull off the same trick if it was as well supported as theatre.

20. With no serious adjustment to the way the banking and finance sectors operate and re- invest their surplus capital , there is a real danger in the next few decades of similar trouble in the financial sector to the recent events we have experienced. Recent history is littered with increasingly frequent crises with numerous industrial basket cases (Long Term Capital Management ‘98, Enron ‘01, Northern Rock ‘06, Savings and Loans ‘84, Continental Illinois Bank ‘84, and general meltdown in Japan and Nordic countries ‘97. And then the dot com bubble and the recent bank wipeout of RBS et al. The private sector is extremely, unpredictably insecure. If we create an arts economy over-reliant on private sponsorship we risk a great deal. MOMA New York lost a third of its revenue overnight when Lehman Brothers collapsed. This is a case in point - they (Lehmann) wanted to invest in a huge cultural behemoth like MOMA, not a small theatre like BAC where I did most of my early productions. Luckily the Arts Council did want to invest. At home, we have seen how the ICA's fortunes have been rocked by the financial crisis, partly because their fund raising auction happened to take place in the same weekend as the Lehmann collapse and raised £500,000 pounds less than expected. It has also suffered from short term investments by the private sector .

21. There is no compelling reason why the private sector shouldn’t be contributing to a mixed arts economy, but I would encourage the government to create incentives for Industry to sponsor over the long term - perhaps giving tax breaks for investments that are ongoing for 3- 5 years. In addition, I would suggest giving incentives to invest in arts company’s core running costs, rather than, say a particular (transient) performance or exhibition. These core costs are extremely difficult to raise funds for - it is harder to motivate private donors to put their money in the rather unglamorous field of administration. As an arts organization, it is very difficult and inefficient to make medium term plans when you are relying on funds that last for only a year or for a single project.

September 2010 615

Written evidence submitted by Iain More Associates Ltd (arts 143)

Executive Summary

1. This document is submitted by Iain More Associates Ltd, one of the UK’s leading fundraising consultancies with a particular specialism in major gifts and large campaigns. We have restricted our comments to addressing the questions of:

a) Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level and b) Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

2. We argue, with the important caveats in paragraph 3 below, that:

• there is plenty of scope to increase the funding that the arts receives from businesses and from private philanthropy, and • that there are actions Government could take which would encourage this.

3. Despite this, we believe that relying on such sources simply to replace former Government funding is an extremely risky strategy. This especially so in the short to medium term, and for operational, as opposed to capital or development, funding.

4. Specifically, we recommend that:

a) DCMS is realistic about its expectations from the sector in respect of increased short term revenue from fundraising, especially any revenue raised explicitly to replace lost government or other statutory funding.

b) DCMS studies the two recent matched funding schemes in Higher Education which aimed first to build fundraising capacity and second to build awareness of the need for philanthropy amongst the public.

c) We recommend that those who appoint Trustees and Chief Executives regard willingness to be involved with fundraising high on the list of essential attributes of new Trustees and Chief Executives. We do not mean that these appointees must necessarily be deeply experienced in fundraising; rather they should be unafraid to learn and unafraid to promote the vision and aspiration for their organisations to potential donors. They must also be willing to give at a level commensurate with their ability so to do.

d) We recommend that opportunities are created for Trustees, Chief Executives, operational boards and leading participants in the Arts, whether actors, museum or gallery curators, librarians etc to learn about fundraising from those who are already successful, whether in the UK or abroad.

e) DCMS offers its support to specific sub-sector focussed benchmarking activity which, as with the Oxford Colleges Benchmarking Study which our firm has run for seven years, should enable leading arts organisations to understand better their own fundraising 616

performance, to learn and share effective practice more fully, and to be able to present a thorough understanding of this across the sector to funders, not least DCMS itself.

f) The review being conducted by the Treasury into Gift Aid resists the pressure from some quarters to redirect Higher Rate Tax relief away from the donor. The current arrangements are a critical and successful part of the process of raising very large gifts, and its abolition would be harmful to the sector.

g) DCMS, together with the Office for Civil Society (on behalf of the conventional “charity” sector) and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (on behalf of the University sector) enter into discussion with HM Treasury about the possibility of introducing into the UK the American concept of “Charitable Remainder Trusts” in order to boost capital donations to the Arts, and to consider extending tax relief to wider classes of assets than the current restriction only to quoted shares and real property.

Our Expertise in this area

5. Iain More Associates Ltd is one of the UK’s leading firms advising not-for-profit organisations on Major Gift fundraising. Drawing inspiration from the US, but not constrained by that experience, we have worked with some of the largest fundraising campaigns in the UK and mainland Europe. We therefore have a keen idea of what is necessary to effect large scale giving, both by those who can give the very largest gifts, and those who support arts organisations with gifts of a few pounds each month.

6. Current and recent clients in the Arts and Culture sector include the Royal Shakespeare Company on their £100m campaign, the , the National Museums of Scotland, the Imperial War Museum, the Chichester Festival Theatre, the Rose Theatre Kingston, the National Youth Orchestra, the Theatre Royal , RADA and many others. In other sectors we are advising the University of Oxford on their £1,250 million (£1.25bn) fundraising campaign “Oxford Thinking” which has nearly 75% of its target raised, and Kew Gardens on its fundraising plans. Outside the UK we have worked with Fondation Alliance Française, Audencia Nantes, Camerata Ireland in addition to a large number of education institutions.

7. Our practice takes us to the heart of the philanthropic process. In addition to our work with fundraisers, we have trained many Chief Executives and Trustees in fundraising, and interviewed thousands of major donors about their philanthropy and potential philanthropy.

Requirements for Successful Major Gift Fundraising

8. Successful Major Gift fundraising requires Vision, Leadership and Relationships.

a) Vision is necessary because donors almost always give the largest gifts in order to effect change. They want to do something new or different, something which will help the organisation to develop and to be transformed. Such gifts are rarely given for “maintenance” and therefore require the organisation to have a keen sense of its intended destiny. This is why institutional Vision and the Leadership’s ability to communicate it is so important. 617

b) Relationships are important because donors of all kinds give to organisations they believe in. They give most to those they feel most strongly about. At a ‘mass’ level, the quality of the Membership or Friends programme is critical in developing these relationships. At a Major Gift level, the organisation’s ability to articulate its vision in a way which is personal and relevant to the potential donor is vital if the fundraising is to be successful. Major Donors tend to be leaders in their own organisations, and they therefore expect to interact with the leaders of the organisations they may support. This is why Leadership is critical to this process.

A broad brush view of Arts and Cultural Fundraising in the UK

9. A very broad view of fundraising in the Arts sector might characterise it as follows:

Successful areas • Corporate Sponsorship • Trust and Foundation Fundraising • Raising funds from Statutory Sources, e.g. Regional Development Agencies, HLF etc

Partially developed areas • Membership / Friends schemes

Under developed areas • Major Individual Giving schemes

10. The table above is a gross over-simplification, and there are examples of arts organisations – for example – whose major gift fundraising activity rivals that of the best in the United States. Nevertheless, as a rule, UK arts organisations’ fundraising resources are aimed more prominently at the funders in the top section of the table rather than those at the bottom.

11. For some organisations, their Friends or Membership schemes are a source of visitors, ticket buyers and financial support. For others they are a source of administrative strife. In the worst independent Friends’ schemes (and by no means all independent ones fall into this trap), the Friends feel they can run the parent organisation better than its paid staff, and the result is a breakdown in communication and enmity.

12. Whether poorly or well run, in our experience many Arts organisations do not think of their Members or Friends as a source of potential major donors. Yet this is the foundation of much major gift work in the United States.

13. Because little resource is dedicated to the identification and development of relationships which could lead to major gifts, few such relationships are developed. Many of our clients have a significant pool of as yet uncontacted (and in many cases unidentified) potential high-level supporters. Yet when we have visited such people to ask about their philanthropic potential for an organisation of which they are frequently a paying member, their knowledge of its aspirations is frequently very limited, and they have rarely been afforded a serious opportunity to get closer to those at the heart of the operation. Yet it is just this opportunity which needs to be developed if major gifts are to follow.

14. Recent work for an important regional orchestra provides an excellent example. Here we found that whereas basic members’ schemes, corporate sponsorship and trust fundraising 618

were reasonably well done, almost no attention had been given to high level major gift fundraising. Such work as had happened had been in the context of a fundraising campaign some years earlier, and after the end of the campaign all contact with the donors had been lost. It is self-evident that this is not the way to build a long term sustainable high level supporter base. This lack of attention is ironic because private gifts of this nature are the most flexible, and sometimes the largest, gifts available to an Arts organisation. They are unconstrained by Trust guidelines, statutory funding requirements &c. Instead they are constrained only by the extent to which the organisation’s vision and that of the donor coincide.

Within Arts Organisations the following actions are needed:

15. The appointment of Chief Executives and Trustees who have a clear vision for their organisations, who are willing to champion that vision and be involved with fundraising. In addition, both senior staff and Trustees must given in a way which is commensurate with their ability to do so. There are plenty of examples of such individuals, but there are more for whom all of this is profoundly uncomfortable, or at the very least unfamiliar.

16. The development of bold visions which are not just about the health of the individual organisation, but concentrate instead on the benefits which accrue to the organisation’s audiences and participants, and the nation more broadly. For example, it may be very important to refurbish a theatre, but that is not an end in itself (apart, perhaps, for heritage or historical reasons). Instead the visions need to concentrate on the outcomes of such a refurbishment – what can be achieved in the refurbished theatre.

17. The practice of short term fundraising campaigns, followed by silence until the next fundraising campaign needs to cease. Arts organisations need to be building long term sustainable fundraising operations which engage and nurture relationships over a long period of time.

18. An increase in resource, both staff and non-staff, dedicated to the identification, cultivation and solicitation of major gift prospects. Practice in the US and the UK shows that one fundraiser can realistically be an “account manager” for around 100 potential major gift donors at any one time. For major fundraising campaigns, many thousands of people need asking personally. This means that if major gift fundraising is to succeed, appropriate resource should be dedicated to the process.

19. Arts organisations need to understand how well they are doing in their fundraising. We understand that there is some activity to measure performance already taking place, but are led to believe that it is not of the intensity or detail of the study in which we have been privileged to take part for some years at the University of Oxford. Almost all colleges now participate in an annual benchmarking process (funded by a donor) whereby colleges share with each other information on fundraising costs and returns. After ten years’ collection of data the result is a significant increase in fundraising investment and return at Oxford, driven partly by increased knowledge of what has and has not worked, the sharing of best practice and incentive either to catch up or to stay ahead. Measured by return on investment, it is arguable that Collegiate Oxford is now as effective at fundraising at Harvard. We believe that some similar study in the Arts sector could be very productive. It would only work if divided into sub-sectors, for example regional theatres, free-to-enter 619

20. Realism is needed about the extent to which permanent endowment can be sought. The University experience is directly relevant here. It is only after a decade or more of active fundraising that University donors are gaining sufficient confidence in the organisations they support to be comfortable endowing them with permanent capital. To start with it is far better first to build confidence by raising gifts for definable, and often, visible out-turns.

Within Government, the following is needed to encourage Major Donors to give:

21. While recognising the very great difficulty that we all face in the light of the current public finances, it is naïve to think that private donors will simply step into the breach. As the UK university sector has moved towards a US-influenced fundraising model, fundraisers in Higher Education have spent 20 years encountering the argument from donors that “I pay my taxes.” This attitude is slowly changing, but it is a long term process, and donors are extremely sensitive to the idea that in giving they may be absolving the government of its responsibilities, even in straightened times. Thus fundraising messages for the Arts sector need to concentrate on the positive, on development and on the future. They must not concentrate on what the government used to do, and can no longer afford to fund. DCMS needs to be careful to encourage philanthropy, but not to give the impression that such philanthropy is simply displacing the government’s now unaffordable previous support.

22. We recognise the difficulty of arguing for increased resource at present. In 2005 the then Department for Education, through the Higher Education Funding Council for England, ran a scheme which matched pound for pound for three years increased resource committed by Universities themselves for fundraising. This was successful in increasing overall fundraising activity in Higher Education, not least because those funded had to commit to continued investment. The success of this initial scheme laid the foundations for the current scheme, running from 2008 – 2011 which is matching actual donations. This scheme has resulted in considerable further investment in fundraising capacity. DCMS might consider something similar for the Arts.

23. There is a review of Gift Aid currently being undertaken by HM Treasury under the auspices of the Gift Aid forum. The Arts sector’s opposition to the idea of a Composite Rate of reclaim is well known, and we share that opposition, on the grounds that there is an intimate link between the gift of taxed income to a tax exempt organisation, and the rate at which tax was paid by the donor. Gift Aid gifts are given net of basic rate tax, and it is at that rate that tax should be reclaimed.

24. Higher Rate Tax relief on Gift Aid should be maintained in its present form. Our long experience of discussing very large gifts with donors (in excess of £10,000, but with considerable numbers in excess of £1 million) tells us that there are only two figures that a donor at this level is interested in. The first is “how much will the charity get?” and the second is “how much of my after-tax income with this gift cost me?” To a 50% tax payer, the message is simple, s/he can fund a £1 million project at a cost of £500,000 of their taxed income. Thus the fundraiser is asking for a £500,000 gift. If Higher / Additional Rate Relief were abolished or reduced, then the amount that the fundraiser will need to ask for will rise in order to fund the same project. This would not be a constructive development. 620

25. Research in the UK and elsewhere has shown that while the tax regime rarely influences the decision as to whether to give, it has profound influence on how much, when and by what means gifts are made. Gift Aid gives the UK one of the world’s most generous (if somewhat arcane) systems of tax relief on income. Yet the UK lags behind not only the United States, but large parts of Western Europe on its tax relief on gifts of assets. Two specific measures could change this significantly.

a) Increasing the asset classes eligible for tax relief when given to a charity. Currently quoted shares and real property are eligible, but, with the exception of certain gifts of arts, other assets are excluded. We understand that this is largely because of HMRC’s resistance to the principle of having to establish a value such a gift. Yet the Capital Taxes Office of HMRC does this frequently for probate purposes. We propose that additional classes of asset should be included, with, initially, a minimum value eligible for tax relief in order to limit the administrative burden for HMRC. In this respect this would mirror the introduction of Gift Aid in 1990, with the floor for donations steadily lowered until Gordon Brown abolished the floor in 2000.

b) The introduction of a system of “lifetime legacies.” There is not space here to explain fully the technical details, but there are significant advantages for both donor and charity which have been shown in the US and Canada to be an important vehicle for encouraging larger and earlier gifts. The European Association for Planned Giving, the Charity Tax Group and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education amongst others have both been arguing for this provision for some time. The Select Committee and DCMS should add their voices to the call for this giving vehicle. The Director of the British Museum wrote on this subject in the Times in November 2008. Referring to this type of arrangement e said “Tax relief for lifetime giving will encourage donations by benefiting the donor, but crucially it will also benefit the public, giving them access to examples of human cultural achievement. If we do not encourage a national culture of giving to all British institutions, collections will remain static and lose contact with the modern world. For 250 years, government has been a generous supporter of acquisitions by public collections, but it can no longer do so alone. As part of its drive to foster wider philanthropy it must now move to encourage private individuals to play a bigger part in enriching our collections, so that our generation can make its gift to the future.”

September 2010

621

Written evidence submitted by VAGA, The Visual Arts and Galleries Association (arts 144)

1. Key issues: • The visual arts economic, social and cultural contribution to the UK depends on a complex and finely balanced mix of public and private investment and earned income. • Galleries are particularly sensitive to cuts in public subsidy; they have the highest percentage of local authority funding and lowest percentage of earned income amongst the artforms. • Proposed public sector cuts and reductions in individual disposable income will create a ‘perfect storm’; with lasting and irreversible impact. • Most visual arts organisations have low levels of unrestricted reserves; cuts in public subsidy will have immediate impact. • Time is needed to marshall collective resources and develop new ways of working. • Severe reductions in levels of funding could foster adverse competitiveness rather than collaboration. • Current levels of public subsidy are essential to maintain provision in the country’s most deprived areas. • The increase in lottery funding for arts and heritage will only in part replace lost government investment. • National Lottery policy guidelines should allow flexibility but should not allow ‘back-door’ replacement of treasury funding. • Abolition of MLA creates potential for joined up strategy, benefiting the visual arts sector as a whole. • There is no one size fits all in investment and subsidy. Organisations emerge and become established in response to specific contexts. • Arts organisations have experienced a 70% downturn in business support during the recession; private sector support is scarce outside London. • The aspiration for philanthropy to play a long-term role in funding the arts nationally and locally is a considerable way from fulfillment.

2. The visual arts sector is an international success story, contributing to tourism, the knowledge economy, our international standing and fuelling the creative industries. Our galleries and promoters are part of a global network that draw increasingly wide audiences from across the world.

3. Galleries, collections, artists studios, public art and artists projects have transformed the fabric of local communities over the last fifteen years. We believe engagement with visual art improves individual well being and aspirations. Research has defined the economic social and cultural impact of the visual arts particularly in regeneration; whilst additional research shows that contact with art and 622 artists raises standards of teaching and learning in schools. 1

4. The sector’sl GVA is £1.9billion, craft and cultural heritage add a further £4.1billion,. In 2006/7 5.2million people visited Tate Modern making it the most visited modern art museum in the world. Frieze Art Fair attracts over 60,000 visitors annually, achieves sales of c £33million and occupies 25,000 hotel beds.

5. 15.8million people visited regional museums in England in 2008/9 including 900,000 school children2. Liverpool Biennial, 2008 had 451,000 visitors over 10 weeks. Nottingham Contemporary welcomed 200,000 visitors within 8 months of opening; it is estimated that local business received an additional £1.5million during the opening exhibition.3 The Banksy exhibition, City Museum and Art Gallery, 2009 was the 8th most popular contemporary art exhibition in the world.

6. Visual art makes a significant contribution to the ‘Big Society’ - Citizen Power Peterborough, a Royal Society of the Arts, Peterborough City Council and Arts Council England visual arts-led project is, for example, exploring how community action might improve networks, build local participation and public service innovation.

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;

7. The visual arts considerable contribution to the UK depends on a finely balanced mix of public and private investment and earned income - a ‘tripod economy’ where public funding provides the foundations upon which earned income and private investment is built.4 No two visual arts organisations have the same financial profile.

8. Public investment comes, typically from: • Local authority discretionary budgets • Arts Council England Treasury and lottery funding • Higher Education galleries receive Higher Education Funding Council support

9. The majority of organisations are: • Not-for-profit companies with charitable status • Departments of local authorities • Within the Higher Education sector

1 2009 Ofsted report ‘Drawing together: art, craft and design in schools’ 2 Cultural Capital, 2010, p3 3 Arts Council England Annual Review 2009/10 p 36 4 Arts & Business, Private investment in culture 2008/09, Tina Mermiri published 2010 623

10. All are vulnerable to public spending cuts, anticipated increases in the cost of living, reductions in disposable personal income and pressure on corporate funding and charitable trusts and foundations. The latter is due to increased competition for grants, low interest rates and market fluctuations. 41% of the top 300 charitable trusts saw a fall in the value of their grant-making in 2008 and a 10% overall drop in net asset value 5.

11. In 2009/10 the visual arts received £7.6million from ACE’s Sustain programme to alleviate immediate impact of the recession. Organisations have already:

• Made operational and efficiency savings. • Improved facilities to increase earned income (eg Modern Art Oxford is upgrading its entrance retail spaces to increase foot fall, dwell time and shop income) • Developed mission-led income through service provision

12. ACE regularly funded organisations have managed a 0.5% in-year cut this year, and are now modelling a minimum 10% ACE reduction and range of indicative reductions in local authority and Higher Education investment for 2011/12.

13. Many visual arts organisations own buildings and or collections but largely have: • No unrestricted reserves • Operating reserves of under 3 months • Uneven cash flows • Do not have the capacity to generate an annual surplus

14. Lack of working capital results in vulnerability to sudden income reduction; there is neither the financial cushion to continue trading whilst establishing alternatives nor the ability to invest in income generation.

15. Lack of cash reserves is a barrier to longer-term sustainability (eg. investment in new technology to drive up audiences or carbon reduction )

16. The proposed cuts will, therefore have immediate rather than gradual impact.

17. Some organisations will make savings through reducing the quantity / quality of exhibitions, outreach and education activities, cutting staff, marketing and development budgets and restricting opening hours. The New Art Gallery will close on Mondays from November 2010 and Sundays from April 2011 and its estimated that attendance figures will drop by 20%.

18. Staff savings are limited, levels and salary costs are at a minimum, pay and recruitment freezes

5 The Charity Market 2009 624 are, for some, already in place. 75% of the sector’s 4,850 businesses employ under five people; 60% of those employed in the sector earn under £18,000 per annum. 6

19. Galleries are largely free to visit. Earned income is based on ancillary trading, eg. catering franchises, shops, corporate hires. In 2008/09 the average amount of earned income achieved by ACE regularly funded visual arts organisations was 34% of turnover, with public subsidy accounting for 55%. Earned income has increased from 27% in 2005/06 but is still significantly lower than all other artforms, e.g. theatre 53% in 2008/09. 7

20. Between March and September 2009 50% of UK museums saw an increase in visitors attracted by free entry8; however ancillary sales decreased by 18% in the same period.9.

21. A number of visual arts organisations have adopted social enterprise models, tendering for contracts to deliver services for local authorities and other public agencies; others are working to ensure that they are procurement ready. The depth of proposed arts cuts and the snowballing impact of cuts across the public sector mean organisations may suffer irreparable damage before realising this potential.

22. There is concern that local authorities are reviewing discretionary rate relief, eg. the London Borough of Camden. If implemented this will add considerably to the running costs of Camden Arts Centre; the venue is also anticipating the impact of Community Transport, Out of School Learning and Youth Services cuts on its community education programme, a proposed 50% cut in revenue funding from the borough and a minimum cut of 10% in revenue funding from ACE. The cumulative effect will be very damaging.

23. The impact of organisational cuts is matched by that on individual artists. Recent data indicates that the value of employment opportunities for professional artists has declined by 27% in the past year. 10 Universities, the ‘top employer’ of artists are set to lose 1 in 6 posts. Artists and public art commissioning agencies saw a sharp decline in work generated by the private sector in 2008/09 as development slowed and developers went into administration. Studio providers are already seeing artists unable to renew leases.

What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

24. The visual arts constituency is already considering how to collaborate and make economies of scale. The Turning Point networks funded via ACE are a mechanism for regional collaboration. Tate is

6 Visual Arts Blueprint, Creative and Cultural Skills, 2009, p 35 7 Arts Council England Annual Submission Statistics 2008/09 and 2005/06 8 ArtFund, Autumn 2009 Museums Survey Fact Sheet 9 Arts & Business Market Trends 2009 Sumer Autumn Edition, Tina Mermiri p5 10 a-n, The Artists Information Company 625 taking a national lead, helping the sector maintain its sense of purpose and ambition and to finds ways of collective working. Ideas include, for example, the development of procurement consortia for utilities, IT, shipping, storage and display equipment and development of ways of pooling patronage and sponsorship income to create greater investment yield.

25. The Whitworth Gallery and Manchester Museum are restructuring to share common functions including visitor services, learning, public engagement, front-of-house services and collections care. This will enable the organisations, who share a parent body in the University of Manchester, to protect the quality and innovation of artistic, educational and outreach programmes. However restructuring requires initial investment; many visual arts organisations lack cash reserves to initiate such work.

26. Time is required to marshall collective resources and find solutions. Rationalisation is easy to advocate but often harder to achieve with differing scales of activity, governance models and growing local accountability. Partnerships take time and effort to work. Severe reductions in funding could foster adverse competitiveness rather than collaboration.

27. Umbrella bodies, given the reduction in ACE’s capacity and the abolition of MLA, are well placed to assume enhanced roles. VAGA occupies a unique position in having a membership that is drawn from both the contemporary visual arts and museums sector and has a national perspective, grounded and informed by the membership.

28. VAGA is part of Visual Arts UK (VAUK) a network of representative bodies and agencies that collectively represents the full spectrum of publicly funded visual arts activity across the UK and has a joint constituency of 60,000 plus organisations and individuals. 11 The VAUK network members provide economies of scale, build capacity and streamline resource by sharing knowledge, providing models of good practice, setting standards, creating connectivity and disseminating information.

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

29. National funding for the arts currently costs less than 17p per person per week. This small amount of subsidy has enabled world class art to flourish.

30. We need a varied sector with flexible support for artists and arts organisations. There is no one size fits all solution , organisations flourish in response to specific contexts. Small arts organisations and interventions at regional and sub-regional level are vital to artistic development, support learning, social regeneration and public engagement. They are the test beds that keep flagship venues vibrant and relevant.

11 The network currently includes: AIR/a-n, Artquest, Axis, The Contemporary Art Society, The Crafts Council, engage The National Association for Gallery Education, International Curators Forum, The National Federation of Artists' Studio Providers and VAGA 626

31. The New Art Gallery Walsall financial modelling indicates that a 25% cut in public subsidy over the next 4 years, followed by 4% annual increases in subsidy will see budgets returning to current levels in 2021/22; this is without an adjustment for inflation. A 30% cut in subsidy over 4 years followed by 2% annual rises means that 2010/11 budget levels will not recover until 2030/31. From this snapshot the venue would, in effect, never recover from a 30% cut without a major additional cash injection. The West Midlands is the English region most badly affected by the economic downturn and opportunities to raise philanthropic donations are virtually non-existent. The Gallery has over 200,000 visitors per annum. This example shows how current levels of public subsidy are necessary to maintain provision in some of the countries most deprived areas.

Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one; 32. The longstanding lack of both an integrated structure through which visual arts funding is distributed and of a joined-up strategy for visual arts development can be argued as being detrimental. The diversity of public subsidy can however also be advantageous, for example local authority investment creates strong local relationships and the ability to partner and lever further support.

33. The discretionary nature of local government funding is concerning. Lack of, or reduction in local authority funding can be seen as lack of local commitment by other funders and undermine confidence in an organisation. This can instigate a domino effect of support withdrawal. Trusts and foundations are keen to ensure that they are not replacing public subsidy and are generally not open to on-going revenue funding. The Charity Commision’s Firm Foundations report notes that trusts and foundations are increasing their scrutiny of recipients viability and use of grants.

34. Nationally the visual arts are split across ACE and MLA, with the National Galleries receiving direct DCMS funding. This has weakened visual arts’ status within ACE and led to historic underinvestment. The Turning Point12 initiative sought to address this but, now at mid-point of the ten year framework substantive change will be curtailed severely by the impending cuts. Visual art receives the highest percentage of income from local authorities compared to other artforms, leading to further fragmentation and greater vulnerability to cuts.13

35. VAGA has previously lobbied for closer alignment between ACE and MLA noting the considerable overlap between many of the aspirations of ‘Turning Point’ and the priorities of ‘Renaissance in the Regions’ managed and funded by MLA, in particular around commissioning, collections, audience development and learning.14

12 Turning Point, Strategy for the contemporary visual arts in England, 2006 13 Arts Council England, Annual Submission Statistics 2008/09 14 Renaissance in the Regions 2008 Review, VAGA submission 627

36. VAGA is concerned that: • The arms’ length principle is maintained and ideally strengthened in response to the trend for directive policy from both central government and the NDPBs. • A national strategic overview is maintained that can marry the local with the national and international.

What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;

37. The National Lottery has underpinned total reinvigoration of the visual arts infrastructure supporting significant growth in the number, size and quality of gallery spaces across the UK and creating more equitable provision. Lottery funding has also supported ambitious commissions and a myriad of small projects, delivering art to all sectors of society.

38. ACE distributes approximately £350million per annum to 880 organisations, of which 190 are visual arts. In 2010/11 this amounted to visual arts funding of £44million, prior to the 2010/11 0.5% in-year cut. A 30% reduction in ACE funding to all organisations would be a reduction of £134million pa, which the potential increase in National Lottery funds of c£50million pa will only mitigate partially.

39. Proposed changes to ACE funding programmes will bar those in receipt of either ‘partnership’ or ‘project’ funding from applying for additional support via the lottery ‘Grants for the arts’ programme. Grants for the arts funding has supplemented artistic and education budgets for many organisations and this will have a detriment effect on innovation and developmental provision.

Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;

40. Given the reductions in treasury funding ACE Policy Direction 2007 O (a) and HLF Policy Direction 2007 N (a) which restrict lottery funding to time limited projects that have a specific purpose need to allow greater flexibility. However we would be concerned if National Lottery funding became a replacement for, rather than an addition to treasury 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;

41. The abolition of the MLA creates potential for a more joined up approach to visual arts strategy and development to be forged with Arts Council England, benefiting the visual arts sector as a whole.

628

42. There is widespread concern regarding future delivery of MLA’s development role, particularly with the administration savings that are required from the remaining NDBPs.

43. There is also concern that specialist knowledge should be retained. ACE staff are experts in contemporary visual arts but have limited collections knowledge. It is important to recognise the size and diversity of the museums sector, which is responsible for the preservation of industrial and scientific heritage as well as historical art collections.

Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

44. There has been a 70% downturn in business support during the recession and most expect the recession to impact on their fundraising efforts until 2011; the Olympics are cited as a further barrier to securing sponsorship over the next 3 years.15

45. Organisations are now focusing on creating relationships with more businesses for less money, entailing more effort for the same or lower levels of return. Business support is notoriously fickle - mergers and takeovers or dips in profitability can radically alter a company’s willingness to sponsor or donate .. Corporate social responsibility is an area which could benefit from government influence.

46. Private sector support outside London is hard to secure. 3.6% of individual giving in the UK goes to the arts, 78% of this goes to London or national organisations with annual turnovers of £10million plus.. This means that 0.79% in total goes to culture in the regions16. The aspiration for philanthropy to play a long-term role in funding the arts at a national and local level has some considerable way to go to find fulfillment. Visual arts are ill-placed, currently receiving one of the lowest levels of business investment compared to other artforms.

47. Established trusts and foundations report increased demand for support at a time when funds are diminished; the full extent of the market downturn is now being felt and will continue into 2011.17 Legacies are an increasing trend in individual giving, however one in four charities expect to see legacy yields decrease in 2010.

48. Attitudes influence business and philanthropic support. Robert Devereux a high net-worth individual and contemporary art collector states ‘I don’t think philanthropy should be a substitute for

15 Arts & Business, Market Trends 2009, Summer/autumn, p5 16 Arts & Business Funding Decentralisation in the UK Cultural Sector, John Holden, p7 17 AOL News, Charities facing shrinking incomes, 18 September 2009

629 government spending...it should be a partnership.‘ He also notes ‘it’s difficult as peoples wealth has been damaged as well, which makes it harder for them to consider giving.’18

Whether there needs to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

49. VAGA would advocate for Government incentives to encourage both business and private donations, particularly the introduction of life time giving and moves to make gift aid easier for donor and beneficiary.

VAGA , the Visual Arts and Galleries Association is a professional network promoting the visual arts and representing the interests of organisations and individuals working in all aspects of their presentation and development. Our UK-wide membership represents a substantial constituency of professionals and organisations from large local authority museum services to small artist-let project spaces. www.vaga.co.uk

September 2010

18 Observer , ‘Postwar British masterpieces sold off to fund African artists’, 29/08/2010 p5

630

Written evidence submitted by Rosalind Riley (arts 145)

I address the points from your consultation as follows:

• Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level; • Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

1. My credentials for addressing the issue of encouraging private philanthropy to the arts 2. Philanthropy is not a sector that can be influenced; it is a number of private individuals 3. Philanthropy is hard to access for small- to mid-scale arts organisations 4. It is difficult to create inducements for philanthropists 5. Philanthropists are independent-minded do not prioritise the Arts for their own sake; they are ignorant of the business models of the Arts world 6. Philanthropists should be consulted if they are being made part of government policy

1. I am an unusual person in this debate, with what I believe may be a unique perspective. As a Trustee of the Brook Trust I support, with my husband, both artistic and social projects with our own money. Last year our total giving was more than £700,000; the larger proportion being to social projects. I have attended and taken part in several philanthropy events at Coutt’s Bank, and will be speaking there to a large group of current and potential private arts philanthropists at the end of September 2010, on a platform which includes Kevin Spacey and Jeremy Hunt MP. As an actor and producer (Fresh Glory Productions) I work solely in small- to mid- scale theatre, and I am a member of an actors’ co-operative agency (Performance Actors’ Agency), so I see the profession from several sides, at a level which finds it hard to achieve private sponsorship or donations. Ever since the election I have held informal conversations with a range of theatre professionals and have been forming a picture of people’s hopes and fears.

2. I believe, from my recent opportunities for mixing with philanthropists and fundraisers, that the government is under a misapprehension about the nature of philanthropy. My impression is that the government believes philanthropists to constitute a “sector” which can be influenced to follow (or to indulge) government policy towards the arts. I would like to point out that philanthropists are individuals and cannot be approached, led, directed or persuaded as a group. I mix from time to time with very large scale donors, trusts and individuals, and they are wealthy, independent people who have their own agenda and have no obligation to anyone to follow any kind of policy, nor to maintain consistency (though many do the latter). They can change their minds without reference to anyone. They can stop giving if they choose. I do not mean to imply that all philanthropists are whimsical and unreliable, but the fact is that neither are they a solid, directed, coherent body like

1

631

ACE. They will only support the art they like or decide is a Good Thing, and this might not be, in type or quantity, what the government, or indeed the people of the UK, want.

3. In discussions with small- to mid-scale theatre practitioners, I constantly hear that the main problem with philanthropic funding is access to philanthropists, coupled with the enormous amount of time, often unpaid, they must devote to writing applications to trusts and charities. The government may see a solution through trying to make this access easier, or to streamline application procedures, but this would have to be across an enormous number of individual trusts, each run according to its own principles and timetable, and would have to be entirely at the consent of each of these individual trusts and charities, not all of whom will have sympathy with government policy (some of them may even have voted Labour). I believe Jeremy Hunt MP recently wrote to “major donors”, but did not reach people like me who give in quite large amounts but to several small organisations who have no profile in government (or possibly even ACE) circles, illustrating that even Mr Hunt finds it hard to know who we are.

4. I intend to raise the question among fellow philanthropists of inducements and encouragements to give to the arts. There exists a medal, awarded by Arts and Business and sponsored by the Prince of Wales, honouring significant giving to the Arts. Although I work in the relevant areas and indeed know one of the recipients very well, I was unaware of this award until I started researching the subject. I note that the award of the medals was not covered noticeably by the national press, and has no profile among the arts practitioners with whom I mix socially and professionally. I intend to ask the philanthropists attending the Coutts event in September whether the prospect of a medal would encourage them to give more to the arts; I note meanwhile that the medal was given to a number of recipients who had given large sums over long periods without inducement, often with a local, educational or regeneration agenda.

5. Philanthropists are wealthy people, often business people, who are used to coming up with their own plans and executing them as they think fit. They will take advice and they do want to have fun. They are motivated by wanting to put something back into the world from which they have gained so much, and they have the absolute right, as private citizens, to do with their money exactly as they like. They may formalise their giving in a tax-friendly Trust, but in fact they can give in any way they choose, to any timetable, setting their own criteria. In these straitened times, with disasters at home and abroad, they may consider that they would rather cure HIV than support Chipping Norton Theatre, and indeed, as New Philanthropy Capital have said, by far the largest chunk of Trust money goes to overseas development, with social and medical work not far behind (the general public prefers children’s charities, medical charities and animal charities). The Arts are often supported as an educational tool, not for their own sake, nor simply to enhance people’s lives. In addition few philanthropists have a detailed knowledge of the whole arts world, and their giving does not take account of the complex (chaotic?) financial web that makes up, for example, the world of touring theatre. (Most people outside the “Business” 2

632

have no idea that all actors are freelance, for example.) ACE has this detailed knowledge.

6. I recently detected a great deal of indignation among arts organisations about the co- opting of the arts for the Olympic bid. Our sector was touted as one of the jewels in the crown of London, without us having been consulted or persuaded on board beforehand. It seems to me that if the government is going to rely on philanthropists to fund the arts, it is the philanthropists that they should be consulting. They may simply not consent, as a number of disparate individuals, to being part of government policy, and if cuts have already been made to public funding, where is the fall-back position if they choose not to step up to the mark?

September 2010

3

633

Written evidence submitted by Screen England (arts 146)

We are writing to submit Screen England’s response to the recent call for evidence regarding the enquiry into ‘Funding of the Arts and Heritage’. Our submission makes particular reference to ‘the impact of recent changes to DCMS arm’s-length bodies - in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council’.

1. In the DCMS announcement of 26 July 2010, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt proposed “abolishing the UK Film Council and establishing a direct and less bureaucratic relationship with the British Film Institute. This would support front-line services while ensuring greater value for money. Government and Lottery support for film will continue.”

2. Screen England would firstly like to state that the UK Film Council (UKFC) provided valuable expertise, coordination and leadership across the cultural and commercial film agendas, and there will be significant challenges faced by the film sector if it is to attempt to operate without a central coordinating function. The UKFC was also able to focus funding, particularly outside London, to ensure that Lottery money was spent to create both public value and commercial growth. Through its strong relationship with the Screen Agencies and its core funding, the UKFC was able to enable many millions of pounds of private, public and European funding and investment into the countries creative industries and front line services provided by the Screen Agencies. In the absence of the UKFC it would be a tragedy for the country if the valuable work they have begun were not to continue, albeit in a more cost effective form.

3. It is clear that the landscape of public funding for the creative industries is changing. The announcement of the proposed abolition of the UKFC comes alongside the replacement of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), the details of which are yet to be determined. Together these changes will have direct impact on the structure of support for the creative industries across the UK, in particular on the support for the Screen Agencies which serve the UK’s creative industries.

4. The importance of these commercial creative industries cannot be underestimated. Widely recognised as a significant growth area for the UK economy moving into the digital age, together they contribute £60 billion a year, and represent 7.3% of the UK economy, comparable to the Financial Services sector. They play a central role generating significant profile for the UK abroad, at a time when technology is offering new platforms, distribution mechanisms and revenue opportunities for the creative content industries.

5. The UKFC set up the nine independent Screen Agencies in 2002 under the network of Screen England, to help it distribute its funds and nurture talent across England. Since then these agencies have grown and diversified to work across the full range of creative industries, encompassing talent development, production, audience development, skills and supporting businesses across film, television, games and new media. The agencies have developed significant experience in developing and growing the creative industries outside London. The agencies are small and effective; they contain key staff with in- depth industry knowledge, expertise, networks and contacts. They already work closely with the commercially focused private sector in linking together expertise, ideas and talent.

6. With their umbrella body, Screen England, they are currently in the process of re- configuring and consolidating the way in which they work. They are well positioned to provide expert business support to creative companies; they have a wealth of experience 634

across the creative industries and have become adept at raising and combining public and private investment. They form a bridge to the commercial entertainment industry for local companies and make it their business to be knowledgeable on current business models and technology developments in the industry.

7. As well as nurturing film talent at a grass roots level and stimulating inward investment for film production which in turn boosts England’s local economies, the agencies play a key role in: • delivering business support (between 2006 - 2009 provided practical support, including skills, investment and expert advice to more than 13,500 SMEs) • securing public and private investment (over a three year period they raised £78m of investment into the England’s creative sectors); • encouraging international development (each have worked with external partners such as UKTI to assist creative industry companies in their local area to take their ideas to the global marketplace) • supporting convergence (each have been actively engaged in ensuring that creative talent is fully equipped to exploit the impending shift to new technology).

8. As the Screen Agencies re-structure around a more cost effective model of developing businesses and commercialising projects, it is important to ensure that the financial support is not halted altogether for this sort of valuable activity. There is a danger that the loss of the leadership and funding that was provided by the UKFC will create a real vacuum out of which it will be difficult to ensure a proper strategic model for creative industry development and growth outside London.

9. The Screen Agencies have grown to become a product of the market in their area, evolving over time to occupy the bigger footprint of the wider creative industries, not ‘film’ alone. UKFC money has underwritten this, but now the companies which the Screen Agencies work with and represent no longer see themselves to be restricted to the space of ‘film’ alone. Previous Governments have never addressed the issue of how to work effectively with a sector of SMEs by providing a clear delivery mechanism for supporting creative businesses. The Screen Agencies have been both opportunistic and responsive, and we believe that there is now an opportunity for Government to take the foundations we have laid and build on them to move forward with a broader approach.

10. Since they were set up, the Screen Agencies have used the RIFE Lottery funds allocated to them from the UKFC to leverage another £50m of investment into creative industry development for England. If the abolition of the UKFC were to spell the loss of this funding altogether, it would create a very big hole in the creative industries. UKFC money has often been awarded by the Screen Agencies as seed corn funding, which enables creative businesses to go on to leverage further revenue and move to the next level. Removing access to this seed corn funding would be damaging to the growth of the creative business on a local level, impacting on the creative industries as a whole.

11. However, this is also a time to grasp the opportunity to re-balance the relationship between production and culture in Lottery funding, an area which the Screen Agencies have argued the need to address to UKFC for a number of years. Yes, there needs to be an emphasis on the use of film subsidy to achieve economic benefits, but there also needs to be a focus on using funds to achieve broader cultural benefits, and this is something that we feel has not been maximised.

12. The latest reduction in annual grants from the UKFC to the Screen Agencies led to an unavoidable impact on assistance for Festivals and Exhibition Venues. As local authority budgets continue to be pressured, this area of cultural investment – arguably the area 635

most deserving of public support towards film – will struggle to find additional resources. The UKFC had the wrong balance between exhibition and industrial film. We would argue that public money needs to be for public benefit, and there needs to be an infrastructure for cultural impact that can generates commercial benefits whilst also providing social or community value. For example three of the Screen Agencies are delivering a Lottery funded Rural Cinema Pilot Scheme in Wiltshire, and over the next three years, which will take digital projection equipment out to hard to reach areas to enhance access to culture, whilst strengthening social interaction and reinvigorating community participation at the same time. Also, talent development needs to have a higher priority, and we need to be able to invest in the next generation of talent at a grass roots level across the country, outside of London. The Screen Agencies agree that this is the way forward, and this is a new opportunity to expand on talent development whilst addressing the fragility of local film festivals, screening venues and mixed arts venues.

13. With the UKFC no longer in existence, and the structure of LEPs not yet determined, it is imperative that any future restructuring of funding should incorporate a strong recognition of the creative industries, so that this vital sector can continue to grow, to protect jobs and revenue, and to play its part in helping the UK out of recession. As we move into an increasingly digital future, we believe it is the Screen Agencies, or whatever they evolve into, that are best placed to continue to deliver this support. Their services respond to constant change in the needs of the local area’s businesses, the pace and complexity of which is especially great in the newer areas of the creative digital economy.

14. Operating at a local level means interventions and Government policy can be more flexible and responsive/reactive to the needs of all sectors and markets, and decisions can have a greater and more immediate effect. It is vital, therefore, that any change in funding or structures does not lead to a loss of locally-nuanced delivery. Instead, the RSAs can offer a network of business-led, sector-driven solutions, which Government can build on.

September 2010 636 Written evidence submitted by Michael Ohajuru (arts 147)

1. Summary

As an alternative to patronage of the arts being Government funded the reserve of the wealthy I am suggesting using the established principle of crowd funding.

With crowd funding rather than relying on a Government grant or a single wealthy individual, family or institution to fund an art project the funding is broken down into smaller funded units and in return for contributing to the funding the project the donors receive a benefit in kind from the project or the institution.

Today crowding funding is being used by election campaigns, start-up businesses, charities, musicians, films, festivals and others to raise funds from tens to millions of dollars.

Crowd Funding successes include:

The Obama Election campaign which thru crowd funding via the internet and viral marketing to raised many millions of dollars from small donations from millions of people.

Crowd Funding possibilities include:

Creating connections between local societies and national collections for example a group of local village historians could sponsor or fund some aspect of piece of medieval church furniture which has also can be found in their village.

2. What is Crowd Funding ?

2.1 Whitelabelcrowdfunding.com Definition

Crowdfunding allows regular people to raise money [usually via the Internet] for the personal projects, ideas, events and initiatives that matter to them most. Supporters donate to the people and causes they believe in. For example, you might ‘crowdfund’ your honeymoon with gift money from your wedding guests. Or, you could ‘crowdfund’ your pet’s surgery with donations from your friends, family and neighbours. Crowdfunding helps people collect the money needed to bring their fundraising ideas to life. http://whitelabelcrowdfunding.com/crowdfunding-questions/

2.2 Trampoline Systems Definition

Crowdfunding is an alternative approach to raising finance. It’s evolved over the last decade, first in the film and music industries, then in journalism and now in venture finance. Unlike traditional models which rely on large commitments from one or two institutions crowdfunding is based on raising smaller sums from lots of people, who may be linked by social networks or shared interests. http://crowdfunding.trampolinesystems.com/ 637

2.3 Wikipedia Definition

Crowd funding (sometimes called crowd financing or crowd sourced capital) describes the collective cooperation, attention and trust by people who network and pool their money together, usually via the Internet, in order to support efforts initiated by other people or organizations. Crowd funding occurs for any variety of purposes, from disaster relief to citizen journalism to artists seeking support from fans, to political campaigns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_funding

3. What are the benefits of Crowd Funding ?

3.1 Connects with a younger demographic

Crowd funding is normally internet based and so connects Museums and Galleries with a younger demographic. This generation is more use to being on line using social network sites such as:

BeBo http://www.bebo.com/ Facebook http://www.facebook.com Twitter http://twitter.com/ MySpace http://www.myspace.com/

They are also use to working collaboratively on line in games such as

World of Warcraft http://www.worldofwarcraft.com Halo http://halo.xbox.com

or making , tracking and giving to charities via the web as sites such as

eTapestery www.etapestry.com/ just giving http://www.justgiving.com/

3.2 Identifies the Popular Project

Through its viral nature crowd funding quickly identifies those campaigns which strike a chord with the target audience and so take off rapidly while others languish. This allows campaigns or projects to be reassessed rapidly making separating the wheat from the chaff much easier or giving focus to those projects which need to be redefined in some way.

3.3 Reaches out to the community

Like eBay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/) and Flikr (http://www.flickr.com/) crowd funding is about creating and sustaining communities for a specific purpose eBay buying and selling communities of special interest groups; Flikr creating photograph sharing communities .

638

Many art and cultural institution recognise the importance of on-line social network communities – Tate, The National Gallery and The V and A for example all have Facebook sites and Twitter sites. Crowd funding is a natural part of that reaching out to the Internet community

3.4 Creates Connections local , national and international

Crowd funding can help the Institutions to connect with communities independent of distance bringing them together and uniting them around common causes.

3.5 Increases the benefactor options

Crowds funding is democratising - no longer would institutions be reliant on the whim of one major benefactor but can take its funding needs literally to the people. The crowd funding entry points could be priced for a variety of pockets and the fund required could be split a variety of ways depending for example on the target communities.

3.6 Low cost , Low risk Entry

The entry costs are minimal as most Intuitions have a way of collecting money for tickets. An additional suitably worded web page could introduce and present crowd funded projects. Some crowd funding sites are in fact free. They take a share of the money raised. The size of the project could be chosen to present minimal risk to the institution.

4. Current Examples of Crowd Funding

4.1 Individual and not-for-profit organisations

White-Label Crowdfunding (http://whitelabelcrowdfunding.com/) White-Label Crowdfunding is considered to be the World’s first fully re-brandable (or private-label) online crowdfunding software available for re-sale by third-party vendors and brands.

They provide the services to two crowd funding sites:

CreateaFund (http://www.createafund.com): CreateaFund provides crowdfunding solutions for small-to-medium sized non-profit organisations and charities. The offering includes functionality for multiple user-accounts and email marketing campaign management.

GoFundMe (http://gofundme.com): GoFundMe gives individual users the tools to raise money online for their fundraising ideas. The crowdfunding solution empowers users to raise money for personal initiatives through social networking channels such as Facebook and Twitter.

Source : http://www.crunchbase.com/company/white-label-crowdfunding

639

4.2 Funding and Following Creativity

Kickstarter uses crowd funding to fund creative ideas and ambitious endeavours. They believe that:

• A good idea, communicated well, can spread fast and wide. • A large group of people can be a tremendous source of money and encouragement.

Kickstarter is powered by a unique all-or-nothing funding method where projects must be fully-funded or no money changes hands and project is fails.

http://www.kickstarter.com 4.3 Start-ups

Trampoline Systems, the award-winning enterprise software vendor, has pioneered an unconventional approach to finance its growth. Instead of raising money from venture capital firms Trampoline is using the technique called “crowdfunding”, raising smaller stakes from a community of smart private investors.

http://crowdfunding.trampolinesystems.com/

4.4 US Presidential Campaign

Presidents Obama success is attributed to his use of the Internet to virally source funds. A quote from the BBC at the time of the election (Thursday, 19 June 2008 ) underlines the point:

Mr Obama has so far raised an unprecedented $265m (£134.5m) in donations in his presidential race, most of it from small donations given over the internet.

This dwarfs the nearly $97m Mr McCain has so far raised.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7463813.stm

5. A Sample Possible Crowd Funded Project at the V&A

The recently renovated Victoria and Albert Museum’s Medieval and Renaissance Galleries relies in the main for traditional wall plaques, essentially the same presentation technique dating back to the first museums founded in the seventeenth century. Further there appears to be little or no British examples in the these Galleries as the finest pieces are to be found the British Galleries.

Appropriately designed interactive on-line guides based on podcasts* could be used to describe the Museum’s Medieval and Renaissance Galleries pieces bringing the presentation up to date and at the same time where necessary make the connection to pieces in the British Galleries.

640

This work could be funded by crowd funding.

The total cost of the project could be broken down to cost of the podcast for each piece and offered as part of a crowd funded project, with the sponsor for each piece could be noted on the podcast.

*A podcast (or non-streamed webcast) is a series of digital media files (either audio or video) that are released episodically and often downloaded through web syndication. The word usurped webcast in common vernacular, due to rising popularity of the iPod and the innovation of web feeds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast

For example the audio of the Sir John Soane Musemum http://www.soane.org/audio.html

September 2010

641

Written evidence submitted by Regional Cities East (RCE) (arts 148)

1. Executive summary

1.1 Regional Cities East (RCE) is an alliance of six cities in the East of England. The cities, Peterborough, Luton, Ipswich, Norwich, Colchester and Southend-on-Sea, believe that by sharing best practice, collaborating on joint ventures and setting clear priorities, they can create more jobs and affordable homes than they could by working alone.

1.2 Networks of high quality arts and culture projects in smaller cities can offer solutions to a range of national challenges. Continued investment and support for these networks will help the Government reach its economic, social and democratic ambitions despite the current economic climate. But, as much as support will direct energy and resources in ways that have wide ranging and positive local and national impacts, sudden withdrawal of that support will have the inverse effect.

1.3 Together with central government and the private and voluntary sector, our cities have made considerable capital investment in the arts and heritage over the last decade. The returns on this investment will be enjoyed over many years to come in the form of economic growth, greater community cohesion and higher levels of citizen engagement. However, these returns are dependent on continued revenue investment to ensure the upkeep and successful operation of the high quality projects that have been developed. If that funding is withdrawn suddenly, without alternative funding mechanisms being in place and a transition to those arrangements having been agreed, the considerable capital sums invested to date could be in vain. RCE recognises that cuts are likely, and has explored the role that philanthropy and the private sector can play in supporting the arts, but any transition of funding must be handled in a measured and ordered way.

1.4 As these decisions are taken, consideration should also be given to the way in which arts organisations can work more closely together. We recommend:

• Developing functional cultural areas within which local authorities, Arts Council England and the cultural sector can develop a programme of co- investment that focuses resources on key assets, organisations and high profile, high impact interventions. Functional areas for culture should be factored into emerging plans for Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

• Collaborating to maximise resources and impact: Functional cultural areas should see local authorities’ pool resources into shared Cultural Services teams and open up collaborative commissioning opportunities.

• Empowering creative communities: Arts centres of excellence should work with local government and other organisations within the professional and amateur arts sector to develop creative public engagement which strengthens communities and enables cohesion and citizenship.

• Harnessing creative leadership: Arts leaders can play a significant role as civic leaders, collaborating with local authorities to shape local priorities, advocate 642

for the value and contribution of arts and culture to future well-being and prosperity, and drive increased philanthropy locally.

2. Introduction

2.1 Regional Cities East (RCE) is an alliance of six cities in the East of England. The cities, Peterborough, Luton, Ipswich, Norwich, Colchester and Southend-on-Sea, believe that by sharing best practice, collaborating on joint ventures and setting clear priorities, they can create more jobs and affordable homes than they could by working alone. They share a common belief - that smaller cities can deliver economic growth in a sustainable way. And they face common challenges – to improve infrastructure and skill levels.

2.2 The cities of RCE have found that carefully targeted support for the right arts and culture projects is a good way to use scarce resources efficiently to engage society in addressing the recession, rapid demographic change and an increasing public scepticism towards institutions. Cuts to central and local government funding that are not accompanied by a transition to new funding models and ways of working will undermine the considerable progress that has been made.

2.3 This submission will address two of the key questions that have been posed by the Committee:

i) what impact recent, and future, spending cuts from central/local government will have on the arts and heritage at a national and local level

ii) what arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

3. The impact of spending cuts from central and local government

3.1 Cuts will impact on the efforts of Regional Cities East to rekindle economic growth, build community cohesion and engage people in the Big Society.

Impact on economic growth

3.2 Arts and culture help to drive national economic success. In 2007, before the global financial crisis hit, the creative industries accounted for £59.9bn or 6.2% of UK Gross Value Added (GVA) with £16.6bn in exports and nearly 2m jobs.1 Arts and culture are central to tourism in the UK; this was worth £86 billion in 2007 – 3.7% of GDP – and directly employed 1.4 million people.2 Inbound cultural tourism is a vital export earner for the UK economy, worth £16.3 billion to the UK economy in 2008.3

3.3 This national picture is supported by numerous local investments by the public sector in the arts and heritage. For example, firstsite in Colchester is a world- class contemporary visual arts organisation founded in 1994, which runs a host of outreach programmes working with art to engage schools, universities and

1Arts Council figure: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/about-us/why-arts-matter/facts-and-figures/ 2 VisitBritain report - The British Tourism Industry Today, see p.6 of this report - http://www.visitbritain.org/Images/btfr%20full%20final_tcm139-173003.pdf 3 Office of National Statistics passenger survey see table on page 8 of this report - http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_transport/travel-trends09.pdf 643

the wider community. Visitor numbers have grown by 400% in the past ten years, so more space is needed.4

3.4 firstsite’s new home, which has been designed by internationally acclaimed architect Rafael Viňoly, will include a gallery and presentation spaces; education spaces; a 200 seat auditorium with conference facilities, a shop and a cafe. It is expected to act as a cultural landmark for the region and attract 1.5 million visitors over the next 10 years.5 £28 million has been invested in the visual arts facility, which will open in autumn 2011.

3.5 One of the key economic benefits of firstsite’s new home is that it will act as a catalyst to transform the run-down and neglected St Botolph’s area into Colchester’s cultural quarter. The plans for the mixed-use regeneration scheme put forward by Garbe Development in partnership with Ash Sakula Architects have already levered in £50 million of investment. The proposed scheme will include 12,000 sq ft of retail space to let, a 7,500 sq ft creative business centre offering SMEs (small and medium enterprises) support and networking opportunities, up to 150 homes (50 of which will be affordable), a 90-bed hotel, and a mix of independent retail, cafes and restaurants

3.5 The ongoing funding model for firstsite includes contributions from public, private and voluntary sources. If public sector funding is cut without a transition towards an alternative model being secured, then the public and private sector investment so far could be jeopardised.

Impact on community cohesion

3.6 Arts and culture bridge community divides and foster a sense of shared identity. As a major research project backed by the British Council found “Culture enables us to appreciate points of commonality and, where there are differences, to understand the motivations and humanity that underlie them.” 6

3.7 The UK’s journey towards multi-culturalism has not been without difficulty. As a greater variety of ethnicities, faiths and cultures have found themselves living side-by-side, tensions have inevitable emerged. But diversity does not have to mean fragmentation. Growing populations bring new cultural assets and experiences to places, which can complement and combine with the very best of all that has gone before. This type of cultural interplay forges a sense of shared local identity. This not only binds local people together, it creates the opportunity to present a bold and confident face to the outside world.

3.8 The arts offer a forum for this cultural interplay to occur. At their most fundamental the arts are about people expressing themselves, their experiences and their understandings of the world. Places where people best share their own cultures and have an appreciation of local heritage are likely to be those rich in opportunity for people to engage in artistic expression. Thriving local arts are therefore an essential part of building a cohesive sense of identity.

4 Creative Collaborations: A Shared Prospectus for Growth 2009-2011, EEDA and Arts Council England, 2009 5 Creative Collaborations, EEDA and Arts Council England, 2009 6 Bounds, Briggs, Holdon, Jones ‘Cultural Diplomacy’ Demos 2007 644

3.9 For local leaders in cities, the cohesion challenge is particularly pressing. Cities tend to have higher than average levels of diversity. This is true in the East of England, where the majority of the region’s Black and Minority Ethnic community lives in urban areas – the minority group percentage of the population in RCE cities is 14.11% in comparison to 8.4% overall in the East of England. In smaller cities, simple geography makes greater social interaction between different groups much more likely.

3.10 The challenges of multiple identities are compounded for smaller cities, whose diversity is set to increase as their populations grow. Engendering a sense of shared identity, which does not diminish the diverse other identities people hold, is an issue that community arts and culture are well placed to address. Opening up opportunities for people of all backgrounds to tap and build on the artistic heritage of a city can help develop a shared sense of identity.

3.11 This desire to develop a shared sense of identity underpins the £7.3 million UK Centre for Carnival Arts (UKCCA) in Luton, which opened in May 2009 and is the new home of Europe’s biggest one-day carnival. The event attracts some of the world’s best carnival artists to take part alongside Luton’s residents who can learn how to make costumes and engage with carnival arts.

3.12 UKCCA is not only promoting cohesion through the one-day annual event, it runs year round activity, including dance and mask making. It ties in many of its activities around calendar events such as Black History Month and International Day for Older People. The centre complements the work of Luton in Harmony, which is led by Luton Borough Council on behalf of the Local Strategic Partnership.

3.13 The Carnival has a significant positive impact on the economy of Luton, but the UKCCA itself depends on public sector finance for its work throughout the year. Public sector cuts before an alternative funding model has been found would jeopardise the investment of public and private sector partners to date.

Arts and culture as a route to the Big Society

3.14 Arts and culture provide the means for people to make an active contribution to civic life. In 2004 a government study found that, “cultural activities can be highly effective in improving the skills and confidence of individuals and improving the quality of life and the capacity of communities to solve their own problems. Such activities can contribute to the physical economic and social regeneration of an area.”7

3.15 A dominant story in the run up to the 2010 election concerned the public’s increasing skepticism towards institutions. Even setting aside the expenses scandal, which dominated headlines, feelings of disengagement have been worryingly high. In April-December 2009, only 37% of people felt they could influence decisions in their local area, and only 20% felt they could influence decisions affecting Britain8.

3.16 However, people are keen to play a role in their communities and have an influence on the quality of local life, with 41% of adults taking part in some sort

7 DCMS: Culture at the Heart of Regeneration 645

of formal volunteering at least once in 2009.8 This drive to encourage active citizenship needs to be met with spaces where people can come together and find common ground to make the change in their communities that the state cannot.

3.17 Citizen Power puts into practice the principles that underpin the big society. Driven by the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufacturing and Commerce (RSA), this innovative programme includes a wide range of projects that will help citizens become more self-reliant, resilient, altruistic and creative. It is already helping Peterborough to overcome some of the local challenges the city faces around drug-related crime, educational attainment, in addition to building levels of engagement and trust amongst local people.

3.18 Central to Citizen Power is the arts programme. It will develop a series of creative events, artists’ residencies and high profile commissions in which international and local artists will work with local people in Peterborough to help create a blueprint for active, sustainable citizenship in the city. This activity will build on the existing arts and cultural landscape in Peterborough.

3.19 The objectives for Citizen Power are to encourage creative, citizen-led policy innovation to enable the public to come up with new ways of delivering policies and services and also to grow a vibrant arts and culture offer.

3.20 While the Citizen Power programme builds from the bottom up, it is dependent on funding from local government to catalyse the actions of local people. Cuts to its funding would cancel out the multiplier effect that such public sector investment can have.

4. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together?

4.1 Across the RCE network of cities high quality arts projects are making powerful contributions to tackling the country’s most pressing economic, social and democratic challenges. They are doing so by working collaboratively and recognising the value for money that investment in the arts and heritage represents.

Arts and culture delivering value for money

4.2 For every £1 that the Arts Council invests, an additional £2 is generated from private and commercial sources, totaling £3 income. At a local level this investment can lever five times its worth.

What arts organisations can do to work more closely together?

4.3 Across RCE, activities and interventions must respond to a vision that is specific to each city’s strengths and needs in order to deliver high impact results. The six cities have built on their existing strengths, led by arts organisations with the potential to achieve a national and international profile, delivering significant social and economic returns to the community in which they are based. In this way, arts and cultural initiatives in smaller cities offer a tantalising opportunity to deliver the new principles of localism and decentralisation.

8 Ibid 646

4.4 Based on the RCE experience, we recommend four policy measures to ensure the success of arts and culture in smaller cities:

• Develop functional cultural areas: Just as the economy is driven by functional economic areas there is the potential to develop functional areas for culture. Within these areas local authorities, Arts Council England and the cultural sector can develop a programme of co-investment that focuses resources on key assets, organisations and high profile, high impact interventions. Public money and the combined advocacy of the partners can be used to lever other sources of investment finance and philanthropy. Functional areas for culture should be factored into emerging plans for Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

• Collaborate to maximise resources and impact: Functional cultural areas should see local authorities’ pool resources into shared Cultural Services teams. This would enable efficiency savings and more effective exploitation of existing cultural assets. Further linkage across local authorities could enable collaborative commissioning opportunities for the cultural sector to deliver services across the area.

• Empower creative communities: Arts centres of excellence should work with local government and other organisations within the professional and amateur arts sector to develop creative public engagement which strengthens communities and enables cohesion and citizenship. The big society thinking about the role of social enterprise, mutuals and charities offers opportunities for new financial vehicles and ways of working, for example through community led trusts or partnerships.

• Harness creative leadership: Arts leaders can play a significant role as civic leaders, collaborating with local authorities to shape local priorities, advocate for the value and contribution of arts and culture to future well-being and prosperity, and drive increased philanthropy locally.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The coming years will be difficult. Public spending cuts may make it tempting for vital partners to withdraw support for arts and culture projects. This would be a mistake. The value of arts and culture to the success of our cities is apparent, so it is important that visionary schemes such as those illustrated here continue to be backed and endorsed by Government. Arts and culture projects that offer a high quality experience to communities can drive economic growth, build social cohesion, and encourage active citizenship. Thanks to this people will be able to enjoy the benefits of living in vibrant, welcoming areas able to approach the future with confidence.

September 2010

647

Written evidence submitted by Northern Rock Foundation (arts 149)

Summary

• Northern Rock Foundation has funded Arts & Culture organisations in the North East and Cumbria since 1997. • Northern Rock Foundation made a significant contribution to the arts and heritage sector in the North East and Cumbria over 12 years but most often as a funding partner, not as a sole funder. • Northern Rock Foundation grants have often been part of a larger package of funding that has included substantial public funding. • Northern Rock Foundation is currently concentrating its grants on tackling the effects of poverty and disadvantage on vulnerable people and therefore now only provides funding for arts and heritage organisations where they can show an impact on these priorities.

Full Submission

1. This submission is on behalf of the Northern Rock Foundation, an independent charity which aims to tackle disadvantage and improve the quality of life in the North East and Cumbria. The submission concentrates on the work of the Foundation in funding the arts and heritage, as an example of the role charitable foundations can play.

2. Northern Rock Foundation was established in 1997. Up to December 2009 the Foundation had provided approximately £36 million of funding to arts and culture organisations in the North East and Cumbria. This included grants of approximately £12 million for new or redeveloped cultural facilities including The Sage Gateshead, the Great North Museum: Hancock, the National Glass Centre in and in , opening up new arts and cultural opportunities for everyone, especially young people. Funding from Northern Rock Foundation for these major projects was part of a package that included significant funds from government sources including Local Authorities and the regional development agency. Northern Rock Foundation also provided approximately £24 million over this period for the delivery of culture and heritage projects, including supporting a broad range of high quality local organisations using the arts and culture to engage vulnerable people in the geographic area the Foundation covers. Examples of grants for community focussed arts support include Helix Arts’ work to engage young offenders, Streetwise Opera’s groundbreaking work with homeless people and Tin Arts’ dance project working with creative people with learning disabilities.

3. Northern Rock Foundation made a significant contribution to the arts and heritage sector over 12 years but most often as a partner, not as a sole funder. In many cases the Foundation was an early funder, providing the basis to lever in other funding, and Foundation grants were often offered in the expectation that other funders would also contribute. The Foundation’s funds were also often offered to support those parts of a project that were not suitable or attractive to other funders such as artists’ fees. The Foundation’s grants were therefore usually one amongst a number of other funders including significant contributions from public sector sources for example lottery funding , local authority funding , regional development agency funding or Arts Council revenue funding. Recent research commissioned by the Foundation from the University of , working with the National Council for Voluntary 648

Organisations, shows that, even with smaller projects, philanthropic funding is frequently part of a package of funding from a range of sources.

4. The Foundation operated specific grant programmes supporting arts and heritage for seven years, 2003 – 2009. In 2009, in response to the impact of the recession in the North East and Cumbria the Foundation’s Trustees carried out a review of grant priorities and made the decision to close the Culture and Heritage programme in December 2009. Northern Rock Foundation’s work is currently concentrated on combating the effects of deprivation and poverty on vulnerable people. The Foundation continues to support arts and culture projects, that can address these issues directly, through its other grant programmes but on a much smaller scale than previously.

September 2010 649

Written evidence submitted by TYA-UK Centre of ASSITEJ, the International Association of Theatre for Children and Young People (arts 150)

Support for Professional Theatre for Children and Young People

Introduction

Three of your questions relate particularly to professional Theatre for Young Audiences (TYA)

The impact recent, and future, spending cuts from central and local Government will have on the arts and heritage at a national and local level;

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

To the question, What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale we would point to many existing examples of collaboration and networking within our sector. Further desirable developments are support for smaller independent companies from larger organisations and the establishment of touring circuits and marketing networks

In our view, only those few theatre companies with their own buildings, or with a special niche audience, may benefit from donations from business or philanthropists. Worldwide, there is no evidence that reliance on private donation produces a healthy, innovative service for all: on the contrary, artistic standards are highest and innovation is strongest where public support is high.

Summary of key points

• Government has a duty to ensure a regular entitlement for all children to see live theatre, alongside other arts and cultural experiences

• UK has professional theatre companies able to deliver such a service, provided the established infrastructure for delivery is not damaged by cuts

• Quality has steadily improved over the last fifty years with continuity of public funding

• International exchange and collaboration has spurred artistic development

• Current funding structures favour individual artists, events or productions rather than the continuing service children need to develop lifelong enjoyment of the arts

Theatre for Children and Young People

1.1. Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that all children have the right to participate in cultural life.

1.2. To give effect to this, Governments should ensure that experiences of the arts are available to all.

1.3. For both social and financial reasons, children need special help in accessing arts experiences. 650

1.4. More than 200 professional theatre companies are today dedicated to the production of theatre for young audiences in the UK. Over the last 50 years, such companies have achieved widespread acceptance among local authority promoters, arts funders, parents and teachers.

1.5. There are valuable and significant benefits to the nation of a population aware of and open to the imaginative stimulus of the arts.

1.6. Theatre is the art form of social interaction. It therefore carries powerful messages about the way we value our society, our neighbours and those close to us.

1.7. Theatre and Drama are highly popular. The shared experience of live theatre adds an invaluable social dimension and has a natural accessibility, but children need to be encouraged to experience the full range of possibilities live theatre can offer.

1.8. The UK’s theatrical heritage is a great cultural achievement and perhaps our most significant contribution to world culture.

The facts

2.1. There are 10 million people of school age. A reasonable estimate of the current annual audience for professional theatre for young audiences in the UK is between 4 and 5 million.

2.2. Over 200 professional companies have been identified as dedicated solely to the production of live theatre for young audiences, which they tour to schools and venues. Some 50 of these currently receive public funding. Many more companies provide occasional performances for children.

2.3. Most experiences of live performance for children are in schools, or at a theatre venue to which children are taken in school time.

2.4. While it has become possible in recent years to gather more information from the internet about activity in this sector of the performing arts, accurate facts are not easy to assemble. No public body keeps records on what theatre children see or how good it is.

Improving Quality

3.1. Arts Councils aim to make funding decisions on criteria related to artistic quality. However, they are naturally influenced by the attitudes and policy of the Government of the day.

3.2. In the UK, unlike elsewhere in Europe, instrumental criteria are often applied to the arts for children and young people by Government, teachers and even arts funders. Dedicated theatre for children is sometimes justified solely on the grounds that it supports other learning.

3.3. Not only have all children the right to participate in cultural life, and to be exposed to experiences of the highest artistic quality, but we suggest that arts and culture in themselves are an essential part of a full life, informing positively all other aspects of human experience.

3.4. While artistic judgements are always subjective, experienced observers agree that the artistic quality of professional Theatre for Young Audiences in the UK has steadily improved over the last fifty years. This has largely been because of increased exposure 651

to the excellent practice evident in certain other European countries and conscious efforts by the members of our association and others to share experience and develop skills.

3.5. We have an established and experienced cohort of artists and producers able to use limited resources with imagination and flair.

3.6. The principal drawbacks to the present system supporting the delivery of high quality theatre to young audiences are:

3.5.1. A framework of public funding which is based on patronage of a few major organisations rather than support for the whole ecology.

3.5.2. Poor liaison between DCMS and DFE

3.5.3. A level of funding too low to enable richer creative ensembles to be maintained and developed

3.5.4. Low expectations from public, venue presenters and schools

3.5.5. Higher priority given to instrumental uses and financial returns than to artistic excellence

Recommendations

4.1. Government should accept responsibility for ensuring that all children and young people are able to participate fully in cultural life.

4.2. An appropriate agency, based on best practice here and abroad, should be charged with delivery of a programme of entitlement for all children and young people to see theatre of the highest possible artistic quality.

4.3. Public funding should be at a level appropriate to the needs of young people and in relation to their number within the population. In practice this would imply an allocation rising from the current 6% of current spending on theatre to an amount nearer 20%.** Given their lack of independent financial resources, children deserve a higher proportion of public subsidy than adults.

4.4. Cuts to local authority venues and arts services which support the presentation of theatre to young audiences should be avoided where possible or alternative channels of distribution actively established.

*TYA – UK Centre of ASSITEJ is a membership organisation devoted to raising public awareness of the value of theatre to children and young people. It is a registered Charity. With our colleagues in 80 other countries around the world we share knowledge and exchange experience about our field of theatre.

** In 2010 values, an appropriate funding package to support a flow of quality productions by 100 companies, reaching 10 million children a year, would be £20 million. (Current ACE spending is £6.5m) This represents a sustainable 50% of costs. www.tya-uk.org

September 2010 652

Written evidence submitted by Renaissance East of England (arts 151)

1. Summary

1.1 Introducing Renaissance East of England This response is from the Renaissance East of England central office on behalf of the four museum services which together make up the East of England Museum Hub:

• Colchester and Ipswich Museum Service • The Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge • Luton Culture • Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service

The Hub partnership was formed in 2003 as the delivery partner for the Renaissance in the Regions programme in the East of England.

1.2 Scope of response This response therefore focuses on the significance of Renaissance funding to the sector in particular, and the impact that cutting or significantly reducing Renaissance funding would have at a regional level. Hub partners will also respond as individual institutions with their own perspectives, but this can read as a collective response to those questions on which we feel qualified to comment.

1.3 Summary of key points • Renaissance has achieved a great deal and should be maintained • If Renaissance is cut substantially or completely the progress made by regional museums and the participation of larger and more diverse audiences in museums and cultural heritage will be threatened • Partnership working – including sharing services and expertise – is key to increased efficiency and improved services • National and local government need to provide a realistic level of subsidy to encourage the partnership model of delivery and to avoid a return to subsistence levels of funding for arts and heritage organisations • A new model for Renaissance delivered by Core museums needs to take into account the needs of rural communities • A less bureaucratic system for delivering and monitoring publicly funded programmes would be welcome • Museums and heritage deserve a national strategic body which has a strong voice

2. 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

2.1.1 Achievements of Renaissance in the East of England Consistent data collection by the four hub partner museum services demonstrates the positive impact of Renaissance:

• 800,000 visits were made to hub museums in 2008/09, an increase of 11.6% since Renaissance began • 34% increase in visits by school age children to East of England hub museums since Renaissance began 653

• 84% of school visits to East of England hub museums in 200/09 were facilitated (i.e. were led by or involved interaction with museum staff) • 235,000 visits were made by children to hub museums in 2008/09, that’s a 29% increase since Renaissance began • 57% increase from 2006/07 to 2008/09 in learning opportunities, including lectures, talks and tours, offered to adults by the hub museums.

2.1.2 Renaissance has also benefited the museum and heritage sector in the region as a whole: since 2008 Renaissance has worked with 89% of the region’s registered and accredited museums through professional networks, direct grants, skills-sharing and training and joint-work on major projects.

2.1.3 Cuts to funding will put this progress and the participation of these audiences in museums and cultural heritage in jeopardy.

2.2.1 The nature of Renaissance funding Crucial to this expansion in opportunities for the public to engage with their heritage has been the long-term nature of Renaissance. Unlike much short-term, project funding available to museums, the Renaissance programme has become embedded in the Hub museums and has transformed the way the sector works. Over seven years it has enabled and encouraged strategic planning and the staff funded by the Renaissance programme, and their experience, are critical to continuing success such as; • The development of sustainable long-term partnerships with other museums and outside the sector • The collective development of strategic programmes e.g. the Growing Communities partnership now influencing local authorities in local cultural aspects of planning and development • Improved standards in the care and interpretation of the region’s unique collections through a network of Museum Development Officers and Regional Museum Conservators and development funding • Extending and improving services to schools • Applying knowledge and skills to work outside museums with non-users in local communities, hospitals, residential care homes, prisons and with marginalised groups such as Looked After Children

2.2.2 The assurance of Renaissance funding from year to year (albeit with business plans of two years) has delivered efficiencies in the development of museum services and driven up standards by providing an infrastructure for joint action.

2.3.1 Conclusion: Impact of cutting Renaissance If the Renaissance programme were to be cut completely or significantly the result would not just be an immediate loss of services to communities through inevitable redundancies, but an undermining of the partnership ethos which has been so effective in raising standards and encouraging ambition. Coupled with a reduction in local authority investment, museums’ capacity to look beyond their own institutions would be far more limited, while a return to a reliance on one-off project grants to individual institutions would risk fragmenting the sector thereby undermining efficiency.

2.3.2 To illustrate the difference, compare giving a grant to a small museum for an exhibition on an aspect of maritime heritage with Renaissance funding for a maritime heritage project officer. The first might benefit the community and visitors 654

to the area in the immediate vicinity of the museum, but the second spreads the benefits proportionately much further: the project officer who runs the Maritime Heritage East network works with 43 museums across Norfolk, Suffolk and to share expertise and resources and raise the tourism profile of this rich aspect of the region’s heritage.

2.3.3 We strongly commend the continuation of Renaissance to the Committee.

3 What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

3.1.1. Shared resources Already in the East of England significant economies have been achieved (see 2.2 above). In addition we wish to point to:

• The merger of two separate services to form Colchester and Ipswich Museum Service [CIMS] which has integrated, streamlined delivery and saved costs. The service is now managing the new Ipswich Art School gallery as a venue and is discussing a similar arrangement for additional cultural services in Colchester. • Museums Luton is now part of Luton Cultural Services Trust which brings together museums, libraries and arts services into a new charity. This has enabled better co-ordinated and more efficient cultural provision for the town. • Norfolk Museums & Archaeology Service and CIMS are developing new joint governance models that could both reduce overheads and provide exciting new possibilities for the interpretation of East Anglian heritage • Funding of a Museum Development Officer for the museums of the University of Cambridge has led to combined outreach projects reaching thousands of families and the development of schools’ teaching in the museums. Shared facilities and response to emergencies, for example, have been developed.

3.3.2 We would welcome DCMS support for museums exploring different models of governance and encouragement of the sharing of staff functions across arts and heritage organisations.

3.4.1 Shared expertise The Renaissance East of England skills-sharing and training scheme, SHARE, has a proven track record of delivering effective museum development through a ‘barter’ economy. Hundreds of days of time from staff in five of the region’s largest museum services are pledged and then used to support activities that benefit museums of all sizes. These include training sessions, tailored on-site advice, mentoring, work- shadowing and self-supporting networks of specialists. SHARE provides a ‘network of know how’ that helps unlock expertise so that it can benefit as many as possible. SHARE has increased skills levels in collections care, service to the public and museum management and administration.

3.4.2 We are currently exploring how to develop the SHARE ‘mutual’ model for the future and, as part of that, are looking at a full cost-benefit analysis. We believe the model is of interest to many in the sector but we know that some core funding is essential for its administration. We are sure that this model could be extended to include other partners in cultural services. 655

3.5.1 Shared services The collaboration of Renaissance East of England partners has produced joint initiatives and services for museum users such as exhibitions: • Stevenage Museum and Epping Forest District Museum have used Renaissance funding to produce family-friendly touring exhibitions which can be booked for free by museums in the region • Eastern Exchanges, the East of England’s response to the Cultural Olympiad which has already engaged thousands of young people in activities and involved many of them in planning the events • Joint exhibitions are also a central part of the work of the regional museum networks such as Maritime Heritage East and the Greater Fens Museums Partnership.

3.5.2 What the partners can bring to the table results in better services for all: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

3.6.1 Conclusion: Future possibilities Renaissance East of England believes there are real opportunities in this area, and that our experience has shown that delivering economies of scale can go hand in hand with developing strategic vision. However, government should recognise a certain level of funding is needed in order to maintain the necessary capacity for this model of working.

4 What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable.

4.1.1. While we accept that some cut in public subsidy to the arts and heritage is unavoidable we would argue that cutting too much will ultimately undermine the long term sustainability and credibility of the country’s cultural heritage.

4.1.2. Public subsidy needs to be set at a realistic level in order to: • Provide a solid base from which institutions are able to raise money from other funding partners and private donors which in turn supports the purchase of works of art and exhibitions • Enable organisations to plan strategically and so make the most of opportunities for partnership nationally and internationally • Avoid ‘subsistence’ funding where institutions live hand-to-mouth damaging credibility and ability to programme quality activities • Safeguard a commitment to public service ensuring all sections of the community benefit from our cultural institutions

5 Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one.

5.1.1 Renaissance and Core museums The distribution of public funds to the museums sector in England through Renaissance has been successful in a number of regions. The hub partnerships have provided many efficiencies with regional posts, projects and central coordination supporting the whole museums community.

5.1.2 The MLA proposal for Core museums has the potential to undermine good hub partnership working if too narrow a definition of what constitutes a core 656

museum is imposed, i.e. a single institution based in a metropolitan centre. This model excludes more rural parts of England without major centres of population. We welcome a recent suggestion that Core Museums might also include groups of museums working together and consider this model more likely to build on Renaissance achievements.

5.1.3 We also would welcome a direct funding relationship with DCMS if Renaissance continues – the principle of devolving funds and responsibility direct from national to local is something we support.

5.2.1 Local Government We need sufficient funding from central or local government to cover the basic obligations for the upkeep of collections and provision of public services. We need to be able to rely on this in order to put our effort into income generation, cultivation of supporters and donors and applications for funding from research bodies and charitable foundations.

6 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.

6.1.1. The MLA has been important in providing strategic leadership and a voice for museums, libraries and archives at a national level. However, their role as programme managers for Renaissance has been more problematic.

6.1.2 Less bureaucracy is to be welcomed but a sector strategic body of some kind is important. There are some issues which are best coordinated and communicated nationally, such as Accreditation standards. It’s also important that if these functions of the MLA are merged with an existing body e.g. The Arts Council, Heritage and Museums are not seen as the ‘junior’ partner – after all 8 out of the top 10 tourist attractions in the country are museums. There would need to be an equal representation and voice for arts and heritage organisations.

September 2010 657

Written evidence submitted by the Big Lottery Fund (arts 152)

Background / Summary

1. The Big Lottery Fund welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry into funding of the arts and heritage.

2. The Big Lottery Fund (BIG) was created in 2004 by the merger of two previous Lottery Distributors, The Community Fund and The New Opportunities Fund. BIG also has residual responsibility for the Millennium Commission.

3. The Big Lottery Fund is currently responsible for distributing 50% of funds raised for Good Causes from The National Lottery and supports projects connected to health, education, environment and charitable purposes.

4. Under our current programmes we fund projects from as little as £300. Demand for our funding remains high. In 2009/10 14,000 commitments were made to projects totalling £440million yet we received over 28,000 applications requesting more than £1billion.

5. Like other Lottery Distributors, we report annually against the additionality principle, to ensure that Lottery funding does not replace Government expenditure.

6. We have a target that at least 80% of our funding, UK-wide, will go to the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS). In 2009/10 92% of BIG’s funding went to the VCS. The remaining 8% went to other wider community projects and partnerships such as individual veterans through our Heroes Return 2 programme, after school clubs and extracurricular activities, partnerships with Local Authorities and others through programmes such as Community Libraries and Parks for People (delivered with the Heritage Lottery Fund).

7. We are an outcomes funder, we are interested in what works for people, communities and neighbourhoods rather than just the specific type of organisation delivering the project. This means that our funding, while local community based, can often be related to arts and heritage activities since these activities can often be used to tackle social, community or personal concerns. Fuller detail of such funding is contained within this response from point 14.

8. Given that the arts and heritage sectors are outside our area of immediate expertise we have focused our response on factual matters relating to our funding of community arts and heritage related projects and the impact of proposed changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds.

Overview of BIG funding of the Arts and Heritage

9. While we do not therefore explicitly fund the arts and heritage sectors we have funded a significant number of community projects related to arts and heritage.

10. Since 2004 we have funded:

9 Over £4.2 million to heritage related community projects 9 Over £72 million to arts related community projects

11. In addition, we have also funded:

658

9 Over £51.9m to veterans and associated projects through our ‘Heroes Return,’ ‘Their past Your Future’ and ‘Home Front Recall’ programmes - an investment in Britain’s living legacy 9 Up to £90million towards the joint ‘Parks for People’ programme in partnership with Heritage Lottery Fund 9 Up to £80m through a ‘Community Libraries’ programme 9 Three major grants of around £70million through our ‘Living Landmarks’ programme. This followed previous investments from the Millennium Commission and BIG in transformational projects such as the Eden project.

Changes to the Distribution of National Lottery Funding

12. BIG currently distributes 50% of all Lottery funding to Good Causes. DCMS is consulting on reducing this share to 46% in 2011 and then to 40% in 2012. This percentage of Lottery money will then be reallocated in equal measure from BIG’s Good Cause area to arts, sports and heritage. It is estimated, subject to Lottery ticket sales, that this will equate to around £150million of BIG’s income being reallocated to arts, sports and heritage each year.

13. In addition, DCMS is also consulting on a new Policy Direction for BIG. DCMS has stated that it is their wish that BIG’s funding remains flexible so that we can continue to fund different partnerships that benefit local communities but that they want to ensure that our funding is focussed on the VCS. As part of that consultation we are seeking clarity on whether this new policy direction would limit our ability to fund statutory bodies (as in our Parks for People programme with Heritage Lottery Fund) or individuals (for example veterans through our Heroes Return 2 programme).

Example BIG funding of the Arts and Heritage

14. The range and quality of the community projects we fund, especially using arts and heritage projects to achieve outcomes for those in need, is reflected in the National Lottery Awards where BIG funded projects feature across a range of categories. This year 13 of the 21 short listed projects are BIG or Awards for All funded. Last year 5 out of the winning 7 projects were BIG funded, including Best Arts project. Some examples of the kind of community projects related to arts and heritage that we fund, and our different approaches to funding, are outlined below.

15. Village SOS – The Caistor Arts & Heritage Centre

• This year Caistor Arts & Heritage Centre was awarded £433,840 through our Village SOS programme. The funds will be used to refurbish a local disused building to create the Caistor Arts and Heritage Centre that would encourage tourism, provide employment opportunities and generate income. The centre will provide workshop and exhibition space for local artists and a number of other rooms and training areas such as a training kitchen. As a historic place with many historical and listed buildings Caistor Arts and Heritage Centre hopes to build on Caistor’s strengths and attract more visitors from the local areas and from further afield. There are also plans for the centre to also include a cinema and a small community library.

• The Caistor Arts and Heritage Centre is one of six projects to win funding through Village SOS – a scheme funded by Big Lottery Fund and supported by the BBC that aims to inspire a rural revival across the UK. Village SOS is responding to the plight of rural villages, and is supporting new community-led business ventures that will breathe new life into their areas, create new jobs and improve the quality of life for local people. 659

• Helping the villagers through the journey will be their ‘Village Champion’ Charlotte , who will move into Caistor for a year and use her experience to support the villagers in getting their community initiative up and running. Her business expertise lies in marketing and project management having worked for the British Fashion Council to organise London Fashion Week. The villagers chose to work with Charlotte from a pool of experts found through a nationwide search by the BBC and Enterprise UK. She has been working with the Caistor project since November last year to develop their idea into a standout business proposal. The BBC is following the stories of the new rural enterprises from start up to trading for a major BBC One series. A major learning campaign will be launched alongside the series to enable other villages to use the learning and enthusiasm from the programme to set up their own community enterprises.

16. Living Landmarks – Funding A World Heritage Site • Three projects were successful in their bids to obtain grants of between £22 and £25 million through the Living Landmarks programme in 2007. One was Heartlands, a World Heritage Site.

• The Heartlands project is a community-led vision to transform one of Cornwall’s most derelict areas into a truly inspirational cultural landscape by turning a former mining site into a World Heritage Site and new parkland. The site will include formal gardens, play space, performance space for events and new cycle trails. This will be complemented by public art including water features, sculptures and contemporary architecture, complementing the Grade II Listed Robinson’s Shaft mine complex near to the village of Pool.

17. Parks for People • The Parks for People programme is a joint initiative between the Big Lottery Fund and the Heritage Lottery Fund. BIG contributed up to £90million to this programme that builds on the two Lottery Funds' shared commitment to bring improvements to local environments by making a lasting impact on the lives of local people and the places where they live. Parks for People is an excellent example of Lottery Distributors working together to achieve shared outcomes. Although a significant number of applicants to this programme are Local Authorities the programme is open to all not for profit organisations.

18. Community Arts Projects • Venture Arts Ltd in Manchester was awarded £157,000 in December 2005 though BIG’s Reaching Communities programme. Venture Arts provides a series of arts and crafts workshops for adults with learning difficulties, enabling them to have a more independent and stimulating life and build their confidence and self esteem. The development of the project will improve the basic skills and promote greater social interaction within the community for adults with learning difficulties.

• The Artworks Creative Together project in Bradford was awarded £255,001 over 4 years through our Family Learning programme. Creative Together is a project aimed at helping families enjoy learning together. Artworks brings adults and children together through a fun programme of arts and creative activities that works to bring together the family through inspired learning activities. Traditional teaching can be off-putting for many, but Creative Together’s hands-on approach will break down the barriers to being able to learn together, as a family - by being fun, accessible and inclusive. Through a fun 10-week creative programme children and adults will work together to learn new skills, gain confidence in their abilities, and adopt new 660

approach to learning in family life. Artworks will work with 120 families on a programme of creative activities lasting up to 10 weeks, which forms the basis of the techniques the families will take away with them. By the end of the programme each family will have gained new technical skills and developed a range of techniques, resources and contacts to continue using as a family. The project will engage family groups who have a child excluded or at risk of exclusion from school; are from specific ethnic minority groups; families with a child or adult with a disability, and families living in defined economically deprived areas.

• Churt Parish Council in Farnham received £5,000 from our Awards for All programme. Churt Parish Council held two exhibitions about the history of the parish. The exhibitions included information and pictures about the history of local events, buildings and life in the village from past to present. Local groups including the WI, over 60's social group and school children all contributed to the displays giving everyone in the village a unique opportunity to learn about the history of Churt.

Conclusion

19. Whilst not being a core funder of the arts or heritage, BIG has made a significant contribution to community projects working in these areas, especially when arts and heritage are a means of bringing communities together or engaging people to help address local issues, needs or concerns.

20. Positive community outcomes from our funding may include: opportunities for training, employment and skills; reduced isolation; ownership and control of assets leading to increased sustainability; greater sense of pride in local neighbourhoods and increased civic participation.

21. Our distinction therefore from other Lottery Distributors (Heritage Lottery Fund and the country Arts Councils), is our focus on community and grass roots projects. However, we have also funded a number of large capital projects and national initiatives that will have a positive impact on the artistic and heritage makeup of the UK for years to come.

22. Changes in Lottery policy will mean BIG will see a reduction in the percentage of Lottery funding received with a corresponding increase going to arts, sports and heritage. However, as an outcomes funder, we plan to continue to fund community arts and heritage projects that demonstrate that they provide an effective means of helping, supporting and enabling people and communities.

September 2010 661

Written evidence submitted by the National Music Council (arts 153)

Executive Summary

1. The music sector is characterised by its complex ecology and mixed economy with the result that any cut in funding will have consequences stretching far beyond the organisation directly affected by such cut.

2. Investment in the music sector represents exceptional value for money for the economy and social well being of the country as a whole.

3. Uncertainty and inconsistency in public funding for music organisations will have a long term damaging effect on the health of the sector and consequently on the country.

4. Private giving is an important source of funding for music organisations but carries risks, meaning it can never be relied upon too heavily.

Who the NMC is and represents

5. The National Music Council is a representative organisation with members drawn from the professional, voluntary and amateur music sectors and both the subsidised and commercial sectors. The NMC’s members include representative organisations for creators, performers in the live and recorded areas, promoters, festivals, music libraries, education providers, broadcasters and those providing advisory services and manufacturing and supplying musical instruments. A full list of members is attached at Appendix I.

6. The extent to which NMC members and their own individual member organisations benefit from arts council or local authority funding varies from member to member. But all NMC members are essential participants in the delicate eco-system that is the UK’s vibrant music sector.

7. The NMC itself is a charitable organisation and relies on modest subscriptions from its members and the voluntary efforts of its officers and Executive Committee.

Introduction

8. This submission reflects the views of the NMC membership as a whole. A number of members have filed their own submissions to the CMS Select Committee in which they address their own individual circumstances. The NMC supports its members’ individual positions insofar as they are consistent with the position in this paper.

9. Many of the points made in this paper, whilst specifically referring to music organisations, will have broader application to the arts and arts organisations more generally.

Responses to the Committee’s specific questions:

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?

10. Any cut in direct public funding of a music organisation, whether that funding is received in the form of an arts council or local authority grant, will have a far wider impact on the overall sustainability of that organisation than the cut itself would suggest. Many music organisations, including the regularly funded organisations (RFOs), rely only in part on direct public funding but it is a crucial element of their income without which they could not generate the other income which they need in order to be able to function.

662

Consequences for non-Governmental funding: 11. It is often the very fact that an organisation has won the confidence of central and/or local public funding bodies, whether for its excellence or for its pioneering work, that gives private funders the initial impetus and confidence to invest in that organisation. If the level of public subsidy goes down then the level of private funding may well be put at risk.

12. Furthermore, in the current economic climate where private sponsors, often corporations, are themselves under immense financial pressures, many arts organisations will look to Trusts and Foundations for even more support than they currently give but this is a limited and finite resource.

Impact on the development of music: 13. The perceived threat that the RFOs with a remit to represent more niche, more edgy and less obviously popular work will be at the highest risk of having their funding cut is of particular concern since it is often these organisations that are driving the development of music and the expansion of public taste.

14. The arts councils and local authorities have provided crucial seed funding for much grass roots and developmental work. This investment is critical to the growth of a dynamic, music sector, both locally and nationally, and to the development of both audiences and of future professional and amateur musicians.

15. The music available to audiences in this country is currently rich in diversity, quality and quantity. Cuts would undermine current provision and if artistic compromises are made because of economic pressures the UK arts scene will appear retrogressive in comparison to those of continental Europe, Scandinavia and the USA.

Effect on ability to plan ahead: 16. Public funding can provide a music organisation with the level of security that it needs to enable it to plan ahead. Promoters, performers and all those involved in music productions often have to plan some 2 to 4 years ahead in order to secure the venue and artist(s) needed for a particular performance, particularly where there is an international dimension to the performance and the organisation is competing on the world stage. A perennial concern of many music organisations has been that arts councils have not committed to funding them on a sufficiently long-term basis and therefore recent arts council policy to provide three year funding agreements in certain cases has helped to improve this situation for some.

17. Forward planning is also essential if the organisation is to attract audiences for its work and satisfy its core purpose of making its work accessible to the widest possible audiences. Audiences also provide the vital third element of income that a music organisation needs in order to sustain itself.

Consequences for interdependent organisations and individuals: 18. In addition to the direct impact on a single music organisation of any cut in public funding as outlined above there is the overall impact that cuts will have on all the organisations with which that single organisation works or upon which it depends. A performance with music at its heart is reliant on many more people and organisations than those visible to the audience on the night. For example: a. It is the promoter’s role to piece together all the elements, including but not limited to the performers, that may be required to realise a particular performance, a performance that is often creatively conceived by the promoter in the first place. b. The venue is essential in bringing together performers and their audiences. c. Through the involvement of broadcasters the performance can reach an even wider audience, both nationally and internationally. d. The performers are employed because of their skills acquired through years of training and education delivered by experts in that sphere. 663

e. They in turn rely on the creative contribution of composers and writers and on music publications and instruments that have to be manufactured. 19. These are just some examples of the hidden complexity underlying what an audience may see on stage and of the interdependence of music organisations and musicians.

Impact of possible cuts in music education: 20. NMC members are concerned that public spending cuts in education could have a direct impact on the music sector. Unless spending on music education is maintained at least at current levels the potential of some of our most talented musicians may never be realised. Music education is also important for the development of the widest possible appreciation of music in all its forms and therefore for the development of tomorrow’s audiences. Many music organisations are responsible for well-established outreach programmes that support music provision in schools. Should these programmes suffer as a result of funding cuts at the same time as a reduction in the level of funding for music education the combined impact would be very serious indeed.

The additional impact of the increase in VAT: 21. The impending increase in VAT will have a direct impact on ticket prices for commercially promoted events and therefore on the music sector. This will be the case whether organisations decide to bear the extra cost themselves, which they are unlikely to be able to afford to do, or to pass the increase, wholly or partly, on to their audiences, which may result in their selling fewer tickets and so reducing audiences.

Effect on the wider UK economy 22. The multiplier benefit, whereby for every £ invested in the arts at least double the amount or more, depending on which research and which area one looks at, is generated for the benefit of the country’s economy as a whole, is a very significant factor which is special to the arts. The UK’s musical scene is currently a major attraction for visitors to this country, so boosting tourism and all the valuable benefits they bring to the UK economy. In addition there are many other sectors that benefit from music and the other arts including the restaurant business, transport and the many providers of goods and services that support the arts. Music also is a valuable net export for this country.

23. It goes almost without saying that another impact of funding cuts will be a reduction in the number of people employed in the sector with all the consequential losses in taxes and attendant social costs associated with unemployment.

Impact on the cultural and beneficial value of music: 24. This country’s investment in music and the arts in recognition of their innate value is part of what make us a civilised society. Music and the arts also make an important contribution to community integration and social cohesion and wellbeing. Music and the arts enrich lives and their benefits go far beyond their economic impact, but they need nurturing if they are to thrive for the benefit of our society.

25. The power of music to affect the well being of our society, particularly when the country is facing difficult challenges as it is with the global recession, is well documented. If anything this is the very time to invest more, not less, in the arts. Indeed the Arts Council can trace its beginnings to John Maynard Keynes’ recognition of the valuable wartime work of its predecessor, the Committee for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts (CEMA), when the nation’s “spirits were at a low ebb”.

Summary: 26. The overall impact on music and the arts of public spending cuts will be increased instability in an already fragile mixed economy far out of proportion to the actual level of cuts. Many organisations will have to reduce their activities and others will cease to exist if they cannot find one or more alternative funding sources. This will in turn have an impact on the entire 664

sector. The current scenario has the characteristics of a perfect storm for many music and arts organisations.

What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale:

Existing partnering: 28. Many music organisations already partner with other music and arts organisations on an occasional or regular basis in order to maximize the different skills, capabilities or investment that each can bring to bear in a particular situation or to a particular creative project.

Premises and other common overheads: 29. Premises represent a very significant element of many arts organisations’ costs and there may be scope for some degree of rationalisation in this area. Public investment in premises to house multiple arts organisations in various centres across the country could be a pragmatic and cost effective solution. In addition, the very fact of arts organisations working in close proximity to each other will enable them to find economies of scale in their operational costs that would not otherwise be possible. Furthermore such proximity could be beneficial from a cultural and creative point of view and result in some innovative work inspired by partnerships that organisations may not otherwise have contemplated.

30. The valuable outreach work that many organisations currently undertake, and which for some is a condition of their public subsidy, could be organised centrally from such premises and this could result in an increase in provision and improved equality of access to such work across the country. Examples of successful cultural hubs to date include the Sage Gateshead and Somerset House in London.

Mergers: 31. There are examples of music organisations that have already fully merged with the encouragement of arts councils. Sound and Music is a very recent case in point, bringing together 4 well established but small organisations involved in different ways with contemporary music. Whilst the experience of Sound and Music is that mergers can succeed they are nevertheless very high risk and a successful outcome is not always achieved. Furthermore, there is a significant cost in effecting a merger and, in the short-term at least, a successful merger outcome may be reliant on an increase in funding. Whilst the newly merged organisation is likely to be better placed to undertake more activity than the pre- merger founder organisations, and whilst there will be economies of scale, mergers are unlikely to result in significant overall savings.

Summary: 32. Whilst economies of scale should be sought, care must be taken to ensure that these are not secured at the expense of diversity and breadth in programming, commissioning and production.

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable?

33. The answer to this question requires a detailed cost / benefit analysis to be conducted which takes into account the full economic and social impact of investment in the arts going beyond the immediate returns to the arts organisations themselves. Please see the response to Q 1 above.

34. There is a considerable disparity between the current levels of public spending on the arts across the nations, both on the basis of per capita spend and as a percentage of total government spending, with Scotland investing the most and England at the lower end of the 665

scale. It is suggested that, at the very least, public spending in England should be increased to match that in Scotland (0.49% of government spending). As a point of interest even this is well below the level of investment of many of our European neighbours. Whilst the NMC does not advocate parity with other European countries, the right balance must be struck between leanness and agility on the one hand and sustainability on the other.

Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one:

35. On balance the NMC supports the principle of an arm’s length body being in place to allocate public monies to arts organsations. However, music organisations have experienced considerable challenges securing funding in the recent and not so recent past due to the continual changes in structures and criteria applied by arts councils and local authorities. Music organisations have to spend considerable time and resources applying for public funds, time and resource that could be spent on developing and showcasing the art form.

36. And, as mentioned above, funding has not always been granted on a sufficiently long-term basis, i.e. at least 3 to 5 years, to enable organisations to plan ahead effectively. This has resulted in an overall feeling of insecurity that has been damaging to the health of the sector.

What impact will recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds have on arts and heritage organisations?

37. The proposed changes are welcomed provided any increase in National Lottery funding for music organisations is additional to and not a substitute for central and local government spending on the arts in accordance with the original policy when the National Lottery was launched.

Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed:

38. Please see our response to the above question. Furthermore, if arts council funding is to be cut then the restrictions currently imposed on RFOs applying for National Lottery funding should be relaxed.

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:

39. The impact on the music sector of the abolition of the UK Film Council is indirect but nevertheless very important. The film industry draws on the specialist skills of individuals and organisations working in a number of different areas of the music sector, most notably composers, performers and producers.

40. The UK Film Council has not only championed British film and TV production but it has secured tax and regulatory advantages which make the UK an attractive place for all aspects of film production. In particular, London now enjoys a special worldwide reputation for film and TV post-production services which in turn generate valuable income for the British economy. NMC members are keen to be reassured that this reputation and its foundations will not be jeopardized by the abolition of the UK Film Council.

41. Furthermore the use of a peer specialist review system to determine the most culturally appropriate allocation of public funds is tried, tested and workable. Funding decisions for film need to be properly informed and consequently there needs to be an equivalent arm’s length organisation to carry out this function on behalf of Government. Without such a body the landscape for British film making and all the sectors upon which it relies will not 666

only change but there is a danger that it will be eroded to the detriment of this country’s economy.

42. NMC members would resist any future move there may be away from the use of peer review systems to determine the allocation of public funding for and within the music sector.

Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level:

43. Businesses and philanthropists already play an important part, alongside the many private Trusts and Foundations, in funding music organisations and it is hoped that they will continue to do so. The feedback from businesses and philanthropists is that they like to be associated with funding success rather than to be plugging funding gaps left by others.

Economic risk: 44. Naturally their ability to fund is subject to fluctuation according to the economic climate. The much hailed American system of endowments and private giving has recently caused enormous problems for orchestras and other arts organisations due to the fact that giving has fallen dramatically as a result of the recession.

Reputational risk: 45. Furthermore, businesses have their own expectations and needs which must be satisfied if they are to sponsor an organisation or a particular project. The experience of NMC members is that a sponsor requires considerable servicing and that this is a resource intensive activity in itself. Furthermore, should a problem occur within the sponsoring business this can have an adverse impact on the sponsored organisation (as demonstrated by the recent anti BP demonstrations held outside Tate Britain). There can also be problems when it comes to individual donors (the Royal Opera House was forced to rename its atrium The Floral Hall in order to distance itself from philanthropist Alberto Vilar who failed to make the anticipated donation and was subsequently convicted of fraud).

Risk to artistic independence: 46. Over reliance on business or private funding has the potential to compromise the integrity and independence of artistic programming. Business sponsors and individuals are keen to protect their reputations and so are understandably most often risk and controversy averse. And yet experimentation and risk taking are integral to the development of all art forms.

Summary: 47. Private sponsorship is therefore not necessarily a reliable or long-term source of funding, being difficult to secure and sometimes high risk. Over reliance on this source would make it difficult for music organisations to plan ahead and realise their artistic and strategic vision. It is in any event more suited to high profile events than as a source of funding for grassroots creativity.

Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations:

48. Private donations could be encouraged through double Gift Aid, Payroll giving schemes and a clear system of tax incentives. But all of these are merely alternative forms of public subsidy carrying with them their own complexity and associated administrative costs.

September 2010 667

Written evidence submitted by ZENDEH (arts 154)

What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

• The collaborative practice of ZENDEH. • Sustained Theatre a network.

1) The work of ZENDEH as a company based in Newcastle is at its heart about creating multi-dimensional cross art form performance products that are intercultural in artistic practice and resonate with diverse audiences; in essence an acute awareness of what it means to be based in the UK with international dialogues and ambitions.

2) ZENDEH (http://www.zendeh.com) thrives through meaningful relationships at a varying scales and spectrums of partnership that mutually nurture and progress the profile of the collaboration by deepening the experiences of artists, organizational teams and audiences alike, creating a space where imagination takes not just the individual but the collective on journey beyond the boundaries of socio-political assumptions and misconceptions.

3) Although a young company launched in Edinburgh, Scotland in 2005 ZENDEH has from the start been committed to representing diversity in our artistic practice, on stages and in spaces and in the welcoming of audiences – this has been made possible through working with existing models of bi-lateral and consortia based practice and where possible innovating these models through modern trends and opportunities that have in turn become strategic and sustainable.

4) Sustained Theatre is a network and a call to action for all artists to lobby for positive change. This is the first time we, as artists, have had a real opportunity to take centre stage and have a voice in transforming the future of our national theatre. A significant system of support has been the opportunities in terms of knowledge, creativity, expertise and courage from Sustained Theatre (http://sustainedtheatre.org.uk/ ). Sustained Theatre is a space for creative connections, conversations and collaborations that is nourished through the artists involved by a network of regional hubs. These hubs are the life blood of Sustained Theatre as they bring a focus and voice to the range of active streams of interest including and ranging from Spaces, International, Archives, Higher Education, Professional Development and underpinning all of this is the artistic work and changes in practice.

5) Through deepening our understanding of scale, ambition and artistic integrity through equalities and awareness, resources can be shared with transparency where the individual voice is given strength through the collective. The North is place where collaborative practice is celebrated and this in turn means that it extends an invitation for new partners be they individual specialists through to industry giants – this is an opportunity for strategic strengthening through diversity.

September 2010

668

Written evidence submitted by Renaissance South West (arts 155)

Renaissance is the Museum Library and Archive Council funded ground-breaking programme to transform England’s regional museums. Central government funding is enabling regional museums across the country to raise their standards and deliver real results in local communities. Renaissance South West is a partnership of five museum services working with the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council to deliver, on a regional basis, the Renaissance programme of investment in England's regional museums. The five parnters are; • Bristol’s Museums and Art Galleries • Russell-Cotes Art Gallery and Museum, Bournemouth • Royal Albert Memorial Museum and Gallery, Exeter • Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery • Royal Cornwall Museum, Truro

This submission is in response to the following issue: • 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;

Summary This submission will demonstrate the considerable scope and impact of the Renaissance programme across the southwest region. Renaissance is increasing participation in museums, supporting the development of world-class museums and ensuring the museum sector is sustainable for the long term. This submission will demonstrate how Renaissance is providing value for money and supporting the achievement of government aims such as Big Society and Sustainable Communities. This submission focuses on the Renaissance South West circa £1million investment to Museum Development activity with the 216 Accredited / Registered museums across the southwest region.

Further reductions to the Renaissance South West programme would have a significant and detrimental impact on the programme. The South West region has already responded to a reduction in funding of over 1 million pounds as a result of the equalisation of funding between the nine English regions in 2009 and further in year cuts of 2.5% in 2010. In 2008-9 Renaissance South West received central government funding of £4,902,610 and in 2009-10 of £4,322,969 and has a provisional allocation in 2010-11 of £4,736,759. Further reductions would inhibit the programme from delivering vital front line services and improvements in museums for local communities across the region.

1. Renaissance South West reaches 216 Accredited museums1 and many more community heritage groups across the region through funding for Museum Development Officers. 2. Renaissance South West funding provides vital leverage for additional investment from both public and private sectors. 3. The Renaissance South West investment in Museum Development Officers enables local community and small independent museums to achieve and sustain professional standards 4. Renaissance funding ensures that ‘Big Society’ is a reality in museums across the region for the benefit of local communities

1 Accreditation, the United Kingdom national minimum standard for the museum sector. 669

5. Renaissance funding ensures that the South West museum sector continues to be a key incentive for tourism and, as a result, a vital contributor to economic development in the region. 6. Targeted Renaissance investment has provided unique employment and training opportunities for young people in museums as part of the cultural and creative sectors 7. The Renaissance investment continues to support increased participation in museums and heritage and provide education, enjoyment and enrichment for all

1. Renaissance reaches 216 Accredited museums across the region by funding Museum Development Officers. Renaissance South West is a central government funded programme investing £36,000,000 in transforming regional museums in the South West 2002-11. Whilst the programme is focused on achieving transformation in the five key partners, Bristol City Museums & Art Gallery, Russell-Cotes Art Gallery and Museum, Royal Albert Memorial Museum and Gallery, Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery and Royal Cornwall Museum, it also plays a vital part in supporting the other 206 Accredited museums across the South West region. In order to fully understand the impact of spending cuts it is vital to fully understand the considerable impact that the Renaissance investment has had and will continue to deliver if current levels of funding are maintained.

The South West region is the largest English region and has arguably the highest number of museums. Over half of the regions museums are located in two counties; Devon and Cornwall. Museums in the South West region hold c.14.5 million objects of which 45% are deemed to be nationally significant. Ten museums in the South West region hold Designated Collections; recognised as pre-eminent collections of national and international significance2. There are over 450 museum and community heritage organisations of which 216 meet the national minimum standard The Museum Accreditation Scheme3. Combined, these museums represent participation levels of over 5 million visits per year, almost 8% of all United Kingdom museum visits. Despite these incredible numbers, most museums in the southwest are small, with over half having annual visitor numbers of 10,000 or less. The southwest has a wealth of small community heritage museums that play a vital role in providing communities with a sense of place. Over 70% of the regions museums4 are independent trusts One in four of the museum sector workforce is volunteer. The Renaissance South West investment supports a delicate ecology of museum development support and professional sector advice to the independent museum sector. This is delivered in partnership with many local authorities across the region. The Museum Development support network has its origins in the regional museum council established over 50 years ago. The current structures provide exceptional value for money and almost comprehensive coverage across this large and challenging region. Stability, in terms of moving from single year funding agreements to a minimum of three-year funding agreements, would provide immeasurable benefits in enabling capacity building and also in supporting long-term sustainability.

Museum Development Officers provide a unique and vital role for local community museums and heritage organisations in the region. Through their local and county networks they provide vital access to information and funding from a wide range of

2 Designation http://www.mla.gov.uk/what/raising_standards/designation 3 Total given in anticipation of the September 2010 Accreditation panel meeting. 4 4 SWMLAC Regional needs 2004 670

private and public sources. Only by working collectively can local voluntary and community museums demonstrate their vital contribution to wider agendas such as social cohesion, civic participation, sense of place and local distinctiveness.

2. Renaissance funding provides vital leverage for additional investment from both public and private sectors. The Renaissance investment provides leverage against local government investment in Museum Development Officers. On an annual basis eleven Local Authorities5 including Town, District, Unitary and County Councils invest approximately £60,000 in Museum Development Officers as part of a number of service level agreements with Renaissance South West. In 2010-11 the Renaissance South West programme will provide match funding of c. £100,000 to support the employment of ten museum development officers within the South West region. These Museum Development Officers will provide direct access to professional advice and support to over 200 museums, community heritage groups and organisations across the South West region. There are a further six Museum Development Officers within the South West supported exclusively by local authorities with an approximate investment of £150,000. These Museum Development Officers provide professional advice and support to a further 30 Accredited museums and many more community heritage groups.

Museum Development Officers provide central coordination at county and sub-county level to enable economies of scale, identify and secure additional investment. For example, in many areas Museum Development Officers coordinate shared marketing initiatives on behalf of museums to ensure their limited marketing budgets have maximum impact. As a result of this coordinated approach they are able to secure non- sector partners and additional investment e.g. the Devon Museums Leaflet is distributed across the county and in 2010 secured sponsorship from Helpful Holidays, a regional tourist accommodation provider.

3. The Renaissance investment in Museum Development Officers enables community and independent museums to achieve and sustain professional standards. 100% of museums in the South West involve volunteers in the delivery of museum services. Over 70% of the South West’s museum community is either run by, or entirely relies upon volunteers for delivery (Towse Harrison, 2003). 71% of Accredited Museum organisations are independent charities. The Renaissance South West investment provides those museums without museum professional staff to access professional expertise in order that they can achieve and maintain appropriate professional sector standards. 216 museums in the region meet or exceed the national minimum standard Accreditation in all areas such as governance, care of collections, education and learning services and visitor services. By meeting the national minimum standard the sector can provide a consistent and professional service and ensure ongoing improvements in response to user need. Renaissance provides further targeted support in priority areas such as Early Years, providing a trusted and quality service to families and visitors with children under 5s.

The Renaissance funded service provided by Museum Development Officers is the only source of direct museum professional expertise available to over half of the Accredited museums within the region.

5 Cornwall County Council, Bude-Stratton Town Council, East Devon District Council, West Devon District Council, North Devon District Council, Torridge District Council, Teignbridge District Council, Somerset Council, South Somerset District Council, Dorset County Council, Bath & North East Somerset Council. 671

4. Renaissance funding ensures ‘Big Society’ is a reality in museums across the region for the benefit of local communities The DEFRA sustainable development indicators (DEFRA 31/08/106) show a deterioration in community participation at a national level. However the South West region bucks the trend with a 2% increase to 49% in overall volunteering. The museum sector is a significant contributor to community participation as 100% of museums in the South West involve volunteers in the delivery of museum services.

Renaissance funded local surveys carried out in 2009-10 provide clear evidence of the impact of volunteering and the need for coordination in the museum volunteer sector;

• There are, at least, 1463 active volunteers in museums in Somerset giving an average of 13,532 hours a month with an estimated economic value of £2.36 million pounds a year.7 • There are, at least, 737 active volunteers in museums in Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire giving an average of 6544 hours a month with an estimated economic value of £1.2 million pounds a year.8 This survey demonstrated that the increase in volunteering in museums exceeded the local authority National Indicator NI6 target twofold. • There are, at least, 573 active volunteers in museums in Wiltshire giving an average of 3456 hours a month with an estimated economic value of £592,457 pounds a year.

Similar figures demonstrating the economic value of volunteering will result from surveys currently being carried out in Cornwall, Devon and Dorset in the autumn.

5. Renaissance funding ensures that the South West museum sector continues to be a key incentive for tourism and a contributor to the regions economic development

Cultural heritage and the region’s tourist industry are inter-connected, attracting an estimated 22.5 million domestic and international visitors in 2009 with a spend of £9.3 billion and a market specialization in domestic holidays (South West Tourism, April 2009). Towards 2015, the South West Tourism Strategy states there are 26 million visitors to the South West each year. Tourism provides 10% of our regions GDP and is worth over 9 billion to our regions economy.

It is widely recognised that museums and heritage provide a vital incentive for tourism in the South West. Tourism South West identifies holidays in which arts, culture and history play a prominent role as a key growth trend for tourism in the southwest. The 2009 Tourism South West visitor profile research identifies over half of visitors are interesting in visiting a museum or gallery as part of their stay in the region. Renaissance South West is working with and targeting investment in priority tourist areas, Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire, the Cotswolds and the Forest of Dean to ensure a closer relationship with Destination Marketing Organisations, Tourism South West. By aligning existing and quality new digital content museums can contribute to the regional marketing of the uniqueness and diversity of the South West cultural and natural history and support an increase in tourism.

6 http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/progress/regional/factsheets.htm 7 Somerset Volunteering Renaissance funded survey with a 79% response rate and using the HLF standard calculation for volunteer contribution. 8 Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire funded survey using the HLF standard calculation for volunteer contribution. 672

6. Targeted Renaissance investment has provided vital employment and training opportunities for young people in museums as part of the cultural and creative sectors

With a challenging employment environment for young people and reduction in university places it is essential to provide a variety of entry-level routes into the profession. In response to the findings of the Cultural Heritage Blueprint (Creative and Cultural Skills, 2008) Renaissance South West is taking action. In 2010-11 Renaissance South West has invested in the establishment of a regional Creative Apprenticeship network. By developing partnerships between key training providers in the region, museum organisations and agencies such as Connections, Renaissance SW has increased awareness and the quality of on the job training. In a sector primarily driven by high academic entry-level requirements the Creative Apprenticeship has had a wide range of benefits. These include raising confidence of the sector in providing work based training with young people as well as opening up opportunities to young people who considered the door closed to those without degrees. With a relatively modest investment of £60,000 Renaissance has grown the investment by securing additional funding to enable the creation of three Creative Apprenticeship clusters in Wiltshire, Plymouth and Bristol. Renaissance South West is actively engaged in developing a sustainable relationship between museum employers and training providers in conjunction with key national agencies such as Foundation Degree Forward and Creative & Cultural Skills.

7. The Renaissance investment continues to support increased participation in museums and heritage and provide education, enjoyment and enrichment for all

South West museums attract c.5 million visits per year and nearly a third of those visits are made by children9. Renaissance South West has delivered and continues to support a wide range of initiatives to support increased participation. In preparation for the increase of local, national and international visitors for the 2012 Olympics, Renaissance South West is investing £40,000 to support museums based along the Jurassic Coast. This funding, matched with private and local government investment, will deliver innovate and fun displays and interpretation for the family market as well as to increase the professionalism of display standards and interpretation for all visitors to enjoy.

September 2010

9 SWMLAC Regional needs 2004 673

Written evidence submitted by Dance Digital (arts 156)

About Us:

The future is digital and DanceDigital works to develop technological literacy of dance professionals, artists, educators, students, pupils and community members. With digital culture as an intrinsic part of the everyday, digital literacy is essential to full civic participation and to the development of new services and businesses. We develop technological expertise that advances dance as an art form and use the art form of dance to develop technological literacy applicable across a broad range of learning and professional contexts. Our work has inter-disciplinary impact and aims to catalyze community cohesion, creativity and development. Our work reaches artists, scientists, computer programmers, software developers, students, teachers and community groups.

DanceDigital is passionate about Dance and Technology. It has been exploring this area for a number of years and has links with major exponents of this genre. For us, Dance and Technology is the use of technological means to express an artistic vision, to communicate new ideas to a wider audience and to share and disseminate activity. This may be through performance (traditional or non-traditional spaces), web-based activity, discussion, ongoing support and advocacy. We will be building on existing and developing new links to further explore this exciting and revealing area of work, one in which new ideas, pathways and new initiatives can be formed. DanceDigital is working closely with our funders to best disseminate Dance and Technology practice and with venues throughout the Eastern region, nationally and internationally. We work as a company for innovation in the creation of new choreographies, facilitating artists in their exploration, developing audiences, building new partnerships and pushing forward the Dance and Technology sector through risk-taking, adventurous and creative practice. We work internationally to drive forward the sector, with a particular focus on developing artists in the Eastern Region and England. This involves artist exchanges, performances and symposia.

Through our ambitious programmes of work, DanceDigital aims to be at the leading edge of Dance and Technology developments, serve our communities and enhance literacy in technology, movement and the arts.

DanceDigital has a team of three full-time staff and four part-time staff.

Funding Context:

‐ Dance Digital is the trading name of Essex Regional Dance Council, a regularly funded Arts Council Organisation (RFO), with service level agreements with Essex County Council, Chelmsford Borough Council and a tender with County Council for provision of dance development in community and schools. ‐ Core funding comprises nearly 60% of total income. Our core funding consists of 50% Arts Council, 25% from Essex County Council, 12.5% from Chelmsford Borough Council, 12.5% from Hertfordshire County Council (tender). ‐ Additional income is project designated and comprises approximately 30% of the organisation’s income. Current project funders are Arts Council England, Essex County Council, Chelmsford Borough Council, Youth Dance England East, Southend on Sea Borough Council, Technology Strategy Board.

674

‐ Sponsorship income is given to us from M and G and comprises less than 1% of our total income. At present we do not have sufficiently developed relationships with private donors to sustain the organization and these relationships will take time to build. ‐ Our earned income from classes, workshops, studio hires, equipment hires and investment income makes up 10% of our overall income.

How funding supports the work that we do:

‐ The funding structure enables us to commission and work with professional artists and support the development of digital dance practice nationally (Arts Council England Funding) ‐ We work with professionals to engage the public through performances, community and education programmes and specific programmes for disadvantaged communities, in the counties of Essex and Hertfordshire. Our education and community work is made possible through local authority funding but the high quality of artistic work that informs the work is made possible through the funding of Arts Council England and Essex County Council. ‐ Our funding model integrates local, regional and national needs for development of dance as an art-form, with a particular focus on new technology and innovation. This integration facilitates dialogue between local, regional and national communities at all levels of expertise and engagement. ‐ Our funding currently supports a studio that serves as incubator and development space for professional artists whose work benefits the region. We have supported the creation of new work that has gone on to tour nationally and internationally. The studio also houses our youth and community programmes that engage the broadest range of people in the community.

Further information:

DanceDigital’s Essex office is based in the centre of Chelmsford, a couple of minutes walk from the town centre and the railway station. It has recently moved into this new office, which is fit for purpose and fully accessible.

Dance Digital in Hertfordshire is currently based in the same office in Chelmsford, to which it has recently moved.

DanceDigital is committed to developing the area of Dance and Technology. We work with artists who are interested and/ or specialised in the dance and new technology/ new media field to enable further experimentation, exploration and risk-taking. We provide support, bursaries and commissions to artists. Projects are artist-driven with the overarching brief of exploration and experimentation, with a regional, national and international outlook.

We attempt to work with innovative and inspiring artists. We define innovation as work, which confounds expectation, changes the way people think or behave and opens up new possibilities and opportunity. Innovative ideas and products have the potential to change our entire landscape and provide benchmarks to measure other work against.

675

Our work is divided into two areas with significant crossover between the two. The Artistic strand deals with professional artists and companies, whilst the Learning strand deals with schools, young people and community work.

DanceDigital work with people from across all sectors, ages, abilities and skill-level; young people, communities, in education and with professional artists and companies. The people of Essex and Hertfordshire benefit from having a hub for high quality dance work in their county, bringing high quality professional artists and companies to Essex, Hertfordshire and the Eastern region, excellent teachers to schools and for communities and providing a unique opportunity to share work, information, experiences and to perform.

Testimonials RE: Springblast:

1. Jean says:

18/03/2010 at 2:04 pm

Brilliant show with a high energy buzz throughout. Great support from all groups, and I can only agree with Lucy’s comments above. Abundant talent and professionalism from performers, teachers and Dance Digital Staff. Lets have more soon. Thank you for having us. Dance 21

2. Stephen says:

18/03/2010 at 8:41 pm

Came to Spring Blast. Amazing acts, really high quality. Great to see so many young lads performing to such a high standard. A greater variety of styles would be good.

Really enjoyed the performance – what a lot of skilled dancers/teachers you have!

3. Shamiso says:

19/03/2010 at 2:13 pm

I performed as part of FOCUS at SpringBlast, it was great to see what other young people in the county have created, and i was surprised and encouraged by the diversity. I think there should be more opportunities for dancers in Essex to interact creatively like this.

Re: Big Dance, Herts

Sarah Talks says: 12/07/2010 at 10:21 pm

Big Dance Hertfordshire in Watford was really great. My son was part of two groups, each requiring different dance styles. The one off piece created for the Big Dance took him out of his

676

comfort zone, but with the excellent teaching from Curtis James and support from DanceDigital the whole group performed really well. The project brought together boys from very different backgrounds and was a real opportunity. The progression from tiny tots, young children, teenagers right up to the explosive ZooNation performance was very exciting to see.

Re: The Rain Parade, Commission by Herts Associate Artists LostDog

Nigel Brook, Chairman of Hertfordshire County Council says: 05/05/09

It is not often one has the opportunity of attending a world premier but you gave it to us last week, for which many thanks. We found the whole concept very interesting and the dancing was truly outstanding.

We wish you and your colleagues every success with the venture and your future activities.

Re: FOCUS YDC performing in a local charity event

Councillor Nicolette Chambers, Mayor 2007/08 says: 20/05/08

Thank you so much for your performance at the community showcase last Sunday. The show was just wonderful and the hard work and dedication from the team and volunteers paid off. The money raised from this event will go a long way to the charities, CHESS and YMCA and we are all truly grateful.

Re: Cultural Dance Day in a Primary School

Zhora Dadd, school teacher says: 05/09/09

The Chinese dancing was fantastic and a breath of fresh air. Faye was lovely and everybody enjoyed it. In fact even the parents’ haven’t stopped talking about it as the children were so excited that they did nothing else but talk about it at home.

Re: Integrated Dance Project bring together Secondary and Special Education Schools

Teacher from a Special Education School says: February 09

We had a wonderful day thanks to Louise, Frank and Sue, and as a school learnt about how relevant dance was for our curriculum as well as the opportunities presented to do something physical and creative with children from a mainstream primary. The day workshop provided a great way to break down barriers and build relationships between two groups of children. A great day and very special. Thanks again.

677

Teacher from a Secondary School says: February 09

This was a fantastic opportunity to work with special children. Excellent effort was made, our students became progressively more confident and creative. What a wonderful experience. Thank you.

September 2010

678

Written evidence submitted by the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) (arts 157)

1. Thank you for the opportunity to present evidence to this Committee.

The Institute for Archaeologists

2. The Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) is a professional body for the study and care of the historic environment. It promotes best practice in archaeology and provides a self-regulatory quality assurance framework for the sector and those it serves.

3. IfA has over 2,850 members and more than 60 registered practices across the United Kingdom. Its members work in all branches of the discipline: heritage management, planning advice, excavation, finds and environmental study, buildings recording, underwater and aerial archaeology, museums, conservation, survey, research and development, teaching and liaison with the community, industry and the commercial and financial sectors.

4. Furthermore, IfA is a member of the Heritage Alliance and the Archaeology Forum.

The Funding of the Arts and Heritage

5. The Institute is not submitting detailed evidence to this Inquiry but wishes expressly to endorse the evidence submitted by the Heritage Alliance (of which it is a member) and to emphasise, in particular, the far-reaching harm to the historic environment and loss of public benefit (as illustrated in the Alliance evidence) which would result from a reduction of public funding on such a scale as to undermine the crucial core functions with regard to the historic environment of DCMS, English Heritage and local authority historic environment services.

6. Indeed, local authority historic environment services play a key role in the efficient operation of the planning system and are responsible (through the operation of the planning regime) for the management of the vast majority (95% or more) of the archaeological resource which is undesignated. Even before the recession, cost-cutting measures had in some cases jeopardised the future of historic environment services and there are very real fears as to the survival of other such services in the light of the potential budget cuts now envisaged by many authorities. Although many of our members are local government officers and ALGAO members, the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers for England (ALGAO: England) is perhaps best placed to provide detailed evidence as to the continuing threat to the future of historic environment services.

7. The reduction of funding to Defra and Natural England in relation to agri-environment schemes would also be likely significantly (and deleteriously) to impact upon the archaeological resource in rural settings.

8. Finally, and while we applaud the Committee’s consideration of such an important and pressing issue, the Institute is concerned that it may still be too early fully to assess the likely implications of the recession and of the financial measures necessary to address it. It is hoped that further consideration will be given to this matter in due course.

September 2010

679

Written evidence submitted by Renaissance East Midlands (arts 158)

Summary

• The level of public subsidy that sustains many museum services is barely sufficient and cuts will put the social and economic benefits that their work brings at risk.

• The partnership between local authority and voluntary sector museums is hugely positive. Cuts to central and local government funding put this success and our heritage at risk.

• National Lottery funds are extremely valuable, but they are not, at this time, as critical as the need for a reasonable level of revenue funding.

• Businesses and philanthropists have a part to play in a mixed economy but are unlikely to replace government revenue funding.

• The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) manages many programmes, including the Accreditation Scheme and Renaissance, which are of great value to the museums’ sector and the impact of MLA’s abolition will depend on how its activities are maintained and supported in the future.

1. Introduction: this response is submitted by Simon Davies, Regional Accreditation Officer for Renaissance East Midlands. It focuses on the possible impact of recent and future spending cuts from central and local Government on heritage in museums at a local level. It draws on both my current work and twenty five years of experience working for independent, national and local authority museums and regional agencies. I have been involved in the development of the Registration/Accreditation Scheme at several points in my career and the value of Accreditation, which I assume in my remarks, is justified in point 3. below.

2. Main Points

2.1 The impact of recent local authority spending cuts on museums in the East Midlands has already been significant. During the first six months of 2010 13% (6 out of 45) of Accredited local authority museums or galleries were threatened by cuts so severe that they put at risk their ability to remain within the national standard.

2.1.1 I have had to contact three local authorities to inform them that cuts being proposed would put at risk the Accredited status of their museums and one site has been closed to the public. In all these cases the cuts were eventually limited to either 50% of professional staff or 50% of sites open to the public, enabling the authorities to continue to provide an Accredited Museum service. A further three Accredited Museums are under threat of closure if local community groups cannot take them over and the timetables proposed do not facilitate such a transfer, making it likely that at least two of these services will cease to operate to the Accreditation Standard if they do not close completely.

2.1.2 Between 2003 and 2008 I was manager of a small local authority museum service and Chair of the Group of Small Local Authority Museums. I am therefore well aware of the 680

constant stress of managing a service whose budget is not quite adequate to meet even minimum standards and the pressure that constant ‘fire-fighting’ puts on visitor services, collections and staff. Two of the museums mentioned in 2.1.1 above were small local authority services and in both cases their professional staff made considerable personal sacrifices in order to enhance the chance that the collections in their care would survive.

2.2 The impact of future central and local government spending looks set to be even more substantial and is likely to effect the great majority of the Region’s museums.

2.2.1 The reduction of central government funding for Renaissance would have a considerable impact upon all the museums in the East Midlands. In addition to the direct impact on the larger services that are part of the hub, Renaissance supports collections access assistants that provide vital support to voluntary sector museums in their area. 55% of Curatorial Advisers (see 2.2.5 below) are also employed by Renaissance East Midlands services.

2.2.2 Renaissance funding also underpins the Museum Development Network, which supports smaller local authority, independent and National Trust museums both directly and through county networks. Museum Development Officers (MDOs) in the East Midlands support an estimated 8,000 volunteers whose work provides a rural cultural offer, supports tourism, and brings social and economic benefits to their communities with a sense of place and local pride. These volunteers serve at least 2 million visitors per annum. One measure of the success of the MDOs in supporting voluntary and independent museums is that 69 such museums have either reached the point of applying for Accreditation, or are likely to do so over the next three years.

2.2.3 The effect of the first local authority spending cuts referred to in 2.1.1 above is an indication of the probable impact of the full 25% cuts in the future. Many small services have been hovering at breaking point (see 2.1.2 above) for some years and as non-statutory services, many will be asked to find cuts above 25%. This will make some services unsustainable and I am certain that we shall see further closures.

2.2.4 The effect of local authority spending cuts on independent museums in the East Midlands is not yet clear. However many such museums benefit from annual grants and other support (such as beneficial leases) from their local authorities and if such modest, but often essential support, is withdrawn it will, in some cases, have an impact out of all proportion to the size of the cut (see 2.3.2 for an example).

2.2.5 29 of the 38 independent museums in the East Midlands that are part of the Accreditation Scheme require professional advice from a Curatorial Adviser. 18 of these are advised by staff working for services within Renaissance East Midlands and may therefore be affected by any reduction in Renaissance funding. The remaining 11 may be affected as local authority staffing levels are reduced, leading to the loss of posts and greater pressures on the time of remaining staff. This comes at a time when, thanks to the success of the MDOs, a considerable number of independent museums have developed to the point where they are preparing to apply for Accreditation. As many as 72 museums could join the Scheme over the next three years, of which only eleven employ their own professional staff. Although it is unlikely that more that sixty will actually apply, this would still create a substantial increase in the demand for advisors that would be difficult to supply even if the numbers of professionals in the Region were not diminishing. 681

2.3 What level of public subsidy for heritage is necessary and sustainable. I do not have comprehensive data in this area, but I believe the following examples demonstrate some of the issues that should be considered.

2.3.1 One of the burdens carried by the local authority museum sector is the care of the archaeological archives created by our planning framework. Occasional finds such as the Staffordshire horde are outnumbered by many less dramatic archives that may tell us a great deal about our past, but are not necessarily needed for exhibitions or other direct public functions (i.e. only one or two examples are needed to illustrate the story that an archive tells). Similarly, collections of more recent material are essential if the story of ‘ordinary’ people and communities is to survive. However the unglamorous business of preserving and providing access to these collections requires revenue funding that few businesses or philanthropists are likely to regard as a competitive opportunity.

2.3.2 Regarding the voluntary sector, I advise a small independent town museum that raises the majority of it’s average annual expenditure of £8,000 from it’s users and supporters, however the £1,000 to £1,250 per annum that it receives from its local authorities pays for an annual temporary exhibition that is both the linchpin of its public services and a great inspiration to the Museum’s volunteers. A significant reduction in this funding would be likely, in the long term, to have a substantial impact upon the Museum’s ability to attract both visitors and volunteers.

2.4 The impact of the planned abolition of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) will depend upon how MLA’s work is taken up by other bodies.

2.4.1 The Museum Accreditation Scheme, the Renaissance Programme, Strategic Commissioning and the Portable Antiquities Scheme are only some of the work programmes managed by MLA that are highly valued by the museums sector because they have helped us to deliver substantial improvements to services to the public. Maintaining a significant measure of the benefits of these programmes is vital to the health of the heritage in museums.

2.4.2 The creation of a strategic body for museums, libraries and archives has created many opportunities, but it has also caused problems. MLA has not always been able to recognise difference as well as it can recognise correspondence and this has had consequences. Some local authorities, for example, have used the MLA title as justification for the use of librarians as curators and vice versa, leading to inefficiency and an inevitable decline in the morale of professionals required to work as amateurs. A new or revised body covering MLA’s brief and others will need to work hard if it is to be able to support all of its sectors with equivalent force and competence.

3. Conclusion: I have presented evidence that recent and future spending cuts from central and local Government are likely to have a significant impact on our heritage.

3.1 The level of public subsidy that sustains many museum services is barely sufficient to preserve the collections that they hold and cuts will put the social and economic benefits that their work brings at risk.

682

3.2 The partnership between local authority and voluntary sector museums, supported by central government funding, most recently through Renaissance, and the Accreditation Scheme has been hugely positive. Threats to both central and local government funding put this success and our heritage at risk.

3.3 Although National Lottery funds are extremely valuable they are not, at this time, as critical as the need for a reasonable level of revenue funding.

3.4 Similarly, although businesses and philanthropists have a part to play in a mixed economy, they are unlikely to replace local authority and central government revenue funding, whatever incentives may be introduced to encourage more private donations.

3.5 The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) manages many programmes, including the Accreditation Scheme and Renaissance, which are of great value to the museums’ sector and the impact of MLA’s abolition will depend on how its activities are maintained and supported in the future.

4. Appendix: the value of Museum Accreditation

4.1 Accreditation is a holistic guide to museum management that encourages organisations to question and improve the services that they provide to visitors and other users. It achieves this by:

• encouraging museums to reach national standards in museum management, user services, visitor facilities and collections care; • providing a framework for the development of core policy and planning documents; • ensuring that small museums without professional staff receive professional advice from a Curatorial Adviser; • offering a shared ethical basis for all bodies that meet the definition of a museum; • giving increased credibility and profile to the governing body; • providing staff (including volunteers) with a sense of achievement at meeting the national standard with corresponding benefits for morale, confidence and ambition.

4.2 Accreditation also assists museums’ stakeholders by:

• providing a benchmark for grant-making bodies, sponsors and donors; • fostering public confidence in museums as bodies that hold collections in trust for society and which manage public resources responsibly, for both present and future generations; • providing potential lenders with evidence that a museum can care for items loaned to it.

September 2010

683

Written evidence submitted by The Blake Museum (arts 159)

1 ) About the Blake Museum, Bridgwater

1:1 The Blake Museum, Bridgwater, an Accredited Museum, was founded in 1926 by Bridgwater Borough Council. It is a local history Museum and the collections comprise material about Bridgwater and the villages in an area covering most of the Quantocks and a sizable chunk of the Somerset Levels. Other topics are Robert Blake, (1598-1657) the Duke of Monmouth and the Battle of Sedgemoor (1685), the local shipping industry, and brick and tile industry, local archaeology and medieval Bridgwater. There is a collection of more than 30,000 photographs.

1:2 The Museum was taken over by Sedgemoor District Council, when it acquired the Borough Council's assets in 1974, and was given up by them in April 2009 as an economy measure and the staff made redundant. The Museum building and contents were transferred to Bridgwater Town Council, who now own it outright and the day-to-day management is in the hands of the volunteers of the Friends of Blake Museum and Members of the Bridgwater and District Archaeology Society. We have an curatorial adviser from the Somerset County Council heritage staff. There is an honorary curator and two deputies with specific management tasks. Others have specific tasks such as organising the learning programme, organising the garden, organising the custodians' rota and managing the Museum shop. We are working to set up a Museum Trust to take over from the Town Council but this is nowhere near fruition.

1:3 The Town Council and Sedgemoor District Council jointly fund the Museum. In the year 2009-2010 it was around £80,000. For 2010-2011 it will be £50,000. Funding is assured for both the years until 2013, but whether at this level will remain to be seen. As well as funding the museum overheads, the money has been used for a major refurbishment of the building, done largely by volunteer labour. The Museum was closed February - May 2009 and November 2009 - April 2010 for this work to be done. This has included replacing a complete floor ravaged by death watch beetle, rewiring, decorating, installing CCTV and computer networks, devising new displays, improving the storage and starting a photograph scanning programme. The adjoining Town Mill which is part of the Museum complex was refurbished as a store with the long-term goal of restoring it as a working mill. The Museum is planned to close November 2010-April 2011 for more refurbishment and for work on cataloguing the backlog of the collection.

1:4 The Friends fund-raise for the Museum, paying for this year, a hearing aid loop system, picture conservation and water butts for the garden, and later some display cases.

1:5 We average around 23 visitors per day over a five day week of whom around 25% are children. In addition the Museum is used as an evening meeting room by the Friends, by the Bridgwater and District Civic Society and the Bridgwater and District Archaeology Society. About 30 people attend these meetings. We receive research queries by letter, email, telephone and personal visit, say five per week.

1:6 We average around ten volunteers per day in the building, and estimate that each puts in around four hours each or a total of 40 volunteer hours per day or 240 hours per six-day week. A number of the volunteers with specific curatorial or administrative tasks put in extra time at home. This is hard to quantify, but is probably in the region of 15-20 hours per week each additional to whatever time they are in the Museum

1:7 The Home page of the Museum www.bridgwatermuseum.org.uk has links to pages detailing the reports and minutes of the Town Council museum sub-committee, the Museum's online collection, the Museum Newsletter Blake News, published quarterly and a page for 684

teachers. The Website of the Museum Friends www.blakemuseum.org.uk has a news page which is a weekly blog of events written for the information of members and others.

1:8 The Museum was chosen last year to trial a localised version of the National Gallery's 'Take One Picture...' Scheme for schools. We selected an oil painting of the last Bridgwater-built sailing ship the Irene of 1906. This was highly successful with around 450 children coming into the Museum during the summer term. Next year's theme is Bridgwater Castle.

2) Answers to the Committee’s Questions

2:1 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; 2:1:1 The impact of the cuts of 2008-9 was nearly to cause the Museum to close completely. It was only by heroic efforts that the collection was saved from being dispersed and the building sold. It is hoped that sudden future cuts will not be made since it will be impossible to complete the task we have set ourselves.

2:2 What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale; 2:2:1 The Somerset County Council's Museum Development Officer publishes a monthly Newsletter which keeps the local museums in touch with each other, and provides news of things like grants.

2:3 What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable; 2:3:1 The Blake Museum is clearly a good example of the Prime Minister's Big Society concept, as can be seen for the amount of volunteers' unpaid time put in. But for the compact to succeed it should be accompanied by a measure of public subsidy to help cover the organisational overheads at the very least. The volunteers work for the public good as well as the satisfaction they get out of it, and public subsidy should be the means of recognising this.

2:4 Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one; 2:4:1 The one for the Blake Museum has worked well so far. But we are liable for Business Rates, due to the anomaly that Precepting Authorities, such as the Town Council, cannot claim a reduction for non-profit activities. We suggest an exemption for all Museum business rate bills of less than £10,000.

2:5 What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations; 2:5:1 We are not able to comment on this.

2:6 Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed; 2:6 We are not able to comment on this.

2:7 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; 2:7:1 The demise of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council will have an effect on Museums Accreditation, for which it is responsible. The Accreditation system forces Museums to take stock on a regular basis of how they run, and is intended to flag up sloppy practice. If it goes it will undoubtedly have a baleful effect on the quality of what Museums achieve. Accreditation needs to be continued in some form. 2:7:2 The Somerset Museums' Development Officer had been of immense help to the Blake Museum over the past eighteen months and were the post to be 685

abolished and not replaced with something similar, the small Somerset Museums will be left to fend for themselves. 2:7:3 We suggest the role of the County Museums Development Officers be funded at least, in part nationally and expanded to take on board some of the functions of the MLA so that local museums will not wither through lack of accessible expertise on best practice.

2:8 Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level; 2:8:1 This is good in theory, but will often depend on the relative wealth or poverty of the business people or philanthropists at the local level, so the outcomes might be patchy

2:9 Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations. 2:9:1 The present system of Gift Aid (for money) for private individuals and businesses might be extended to cover the donation of objects to Museums, which might otherwise go for auction. Objects accepted by the Government in lieu of Inheritance tax covers big-value estates only. Small estates are not covered.

September 2010 686

Written evidence submitted by Liverpool Biennial of Contemporary Art Ltd (arts 160)

Liverpool Biennial is a public art commissioning agency, and delivers the UK’s contemporary art biennial, the largest contemporary art festival in the nation.

It is by nature, belief and action a partnership organisation. Everything we create is produced with partner organisations, giving us a broad range of knowledge, experience and practice on which to base our opinions. These partners include small visual arts organisations, community groups, registered social landlords, environmental agencies, local authorities and a wide variety of development and regeneration agencies.

Executive Summary

1.1 Liverpool city region has a world-class cultural offer, driven by the finest visual arts offer outside of London. Culture is a key driver in the area’s recent renaissance, evidenced by the success of its European Capital of Culture year. Culture remains a crucial asset in the city region’s economic and social development and future competitiveness.

1.2 Liverpool Biennial is an example of the quality and distinctiveness of the UK’s cultural offer, attracting tourism from across the globe, generating economic benefit, levering investment and contributing to national and international external image as well as local quality of life. The funding of the arts sector is an investment, and large cuts, or cuts which are prolonged or repeated, will have a devastating effect on the benefits the arts can deliver.

1.3 In addition, the arts and cultural organisations and practitioners in the city have a considerable track record (both pre and post 2008) in delivering work that has contributed to improvements in key areas such as health, social cohesion, sustainable communities and the urban environment.

1.4 Throughout, and as a result of, Liverpool’s European Capital of Culture 2008 year, the city region has engaged in cross-sector, cross-organisational collaborative working in order to create positive change across the city region’s needs, ambitions and aspirations. Working together through initiatives such as LARC and VAiL allows the arts to achieve more, but the potential for cost savings is limited.

1.5 Most cultural organisations are part of a finely-balanced cultural ecology, which has international impact and reach, but is locally relevant and specific to residents and voters. The priority for government funding and new funding structures must begin with quality of the artistic offer, but must also recognise that the ability of organisations to deliver against a range of desired outcomes (economic, regeneration, education etc.) can support funding decisions.

Responses to Questions: Evidence and Recommendations

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?

2.1 It is currently unclear what scale future spending cuts will take, however it seems appropriate to predict that deep, cumulative cuts will immediately affect individual citizens at a local level as well as Britain’s image internationally. 687

2.1.1 The arts are flexible and adaptable and are driven by those with a passion for what they do and an exceptional belief in the power and importance of the arts.

2.1.2 Small-scale cuts over a limited period of time will provide many challenges. Organisations are likely to respond with vigour and innovation and may actually improve the efficiency of their systems, although the scale and quality of programming will undoubtedly suffer.

2.1.3 Large cuts in funding, or cuts of any size which are prolonged or repeated are likely to have a devastating impact on arts organisations, but, more importantly, will destroy a raft of benefits to our communities and fellow citizens – environmentally, socially and economically, and on the perception of the UK as a cultural centre, affecting tourism and levered investment.

2.1.4 The impact of cuts will be multiplied through a knock-on effect on the availability of funding from other matched sources. Equally, we recognise that spending cuts will not be limited to DCMS. The sector relies on funding from other government departments and public sector organisations, due to its wide-ranging impact in areas such as regeneration, education and health. The effect of cuts across all government departments will be accumulative.

What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale?

3.1 Liverpool Biennial is a partnership organisation and has practiced working with partners from various sectors for more than a decade. Collaboration can provide certain efficiencies, but it is more useful as a means to achieve desired outcomes. Partnerships can also take great resource and time to develop and require investment in a level of trust.

3.2 For Liverpool Biennial, this trust has enabled the partner organisations to present programme that is greater than the sum of its parts, creating economies of scale in terms of artistic merit. This model is also being implemented through Liverpool Art Regeneration Consortium (LARC) and Visual Arts in Liverpool (VAiL) to coordinate programme and thereby attract greater attention and audiences.

3.3 But, these examples are about collaboration to achieve greater things, not about savings. Liverpool Biennial is not building-based and derives both saving and freedom by partnering with venues in Liverpool, but this won’t be appropriate to all organisations. Much of the savings generated by working together is likely to come in operational areas (finance, marketing, purchasing) and while these will be very important to the sustainability of the arts going forward, the sector is already highly efficient in these areas, and organisations like Liverpool Biennial spend the vast majority of their revenue on creating and presenting work.

3.4 Therefore, we feel that working together is unlikely to be a short-term solution, except for those organisations that have already formed close partnerships. We will continue to take advantage of such relationships and will help our colleague (smaller) organisations to develop and exploit them. 688

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable?

4.1 The level of public subsidy is really more a question of public benefit. What does the government believe that that arts can achieve? How much of our international competitiveness is tied to the world-beating provision of cultural opportunities that public subsidy catalyses? Liverpool Biennial generates international attention, contributes to the image of Liverpool as a city worthy of investment, and works to develop the fabric of the city - outcomes that would not be possible without public investment.

4.2 The funding of the arts should be perceived as an investment, rather than a subsidy. Investment implies a return. Cultural organisations can justify some investment directly - Liverpool Biennial 2008 generated a spend of £26.6 million, more than 10 times the amount of public money invested in the festival - but other returns are more difficult to value. Our ‘On The Street’ programme in one of the most deprived wards in the country directly equips disengaged young people (NEETs) with skills and aspiration, and the desire to re-imagine their derelict neighbourhood and to lead their community toward a positive vision of their place, time and opportunity. DfES studies suggest that the current cohort of 16-18 year old NEETs will have a total cost to society of £15billion. What will investment in this programme be worth to those young people, their community, and to wider society in the future?

4.3 It is true that subsidy plays a role, and that not all of the work that the arts undertake pays a direct, or even closely indirect, return, but this research and development work is critical to maintaining the quality of the art and to the extended creative industries. The knowledge economy depends on creativity.

4.4 Likewise, the tourism industry needs product to offer, product that is distinct in a global market place. Quality and distinctiveness works: Liverpool Biennial 2008 attracted 9% of its total 975,000 visits from international visitors who came specifically for Liverpool Biennial, and it levers around 20% of its production budget from Europe and around the world. Liverpool’s year as European Capital of Culture proved that cultural output, commissioned from British arts organisations with real weight behind their punch, will attract visitors and the consequent economic benefit*.

4.5 So, the challenge is not to quantify public subsidy, but to find new ways to quantify the return on the public investment. If this is properly understood, sustainable levels should become obvious.

* Between 2004 and 2008 the city region’s seven largest attractions saw a 50% rise in visitor figures. The Liverpool ECoC attracted 9.7million additional visits to Liverpool, generating a direct economic impact of £753.8million of additional visitor spend in the city region and region. These included 2.6million visits from Europe and the rest of the world, 97% of which were first-time visitors to the city. These additional visitors generated 2.43million staying visitor nights in the city region.

National and local media coverage of Liverpool’s cultural offer more than doubled between 2003 and 2008. Positive stories about the city grew by 71% between 2007 689

and 2008. 68% of UK businesses believed that the ECoC had a positive impact on Liverpool’s image. 85% of residents agreed that Liverpool was a better place than before the ECoC award.

Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one?

5.1 The current system has encouraged sustained growth in the cultural sector and the associated creative industries. The system has created an artistic infrastructure and output which is the envy of much of the world. The development and funding system that exists has provided the government and the world with an extraordinary example of culture-led regeneration. Few cities have managed to lead their regeneration through such a broad diversity of cultural offer as that provided by Liverpool. The city was blessed with great infrastructure, talented programmers, and the full range of artistic production, although the visual arts were particularly strongly represented. What the combined, and conjoined, efforts of DCMS, Arts Council England, Liverpool City Council, Northwest Regional Development Agency and other development agencies achieved was to knit the city’s cultural advantage into economic, social and regeneration advantages.

5.2 This is not to say that the system does not need to be renewed and updated. The environment in which we operate has, and will change, considerably. The unified strategic vision that benefited Liverpool is not common enough and more could be made of seamless work across the social, education, regeneration and health sectors. Real questions remain as to how the current system can help entrepreneurialism blossom in arts organisations, and how the economic benefits that the arts contribute should be reinvested by the businesses and municipalities that receive these benefits.

5.3 Liverpool Biennial believes that the system should reward success and that part of the reward should be the availability of funds that enable risks to be taken to create better output. Those organisations that can demonstrate a track record should be enabled to create more, to innovate and speculate. This belief is rooted in a corollary belief that partnership means that partners learn and grow from each other and share their resources and ideas to create the new. Liverpool Biennial has been working with smaller, emergent arts programmers by sharing our experience, contacts and resources to enable them to develop their capacity to make artistic content. In short, we help them to mitigate risk that facilitates improved artistic reach.

5.4 Finally, we encourage a move away from structures that promote short-term project or initiative based funding. This breeds inefficiency as opposed to longer-term investment which allows for more efficient planning and delivery.

What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations?

6.1 We welcome the return to the original distribution framework of National Lottery funds as Lottery funding has produced real benefits in many areas.

6.2 A recent Lottery application by Liverpool Biennial gives an example of how Lottery funding can have wide ranging benefits: 690

6.2.1 Better chances in life for project beneficiaries through specific and transferable skills to aid their progression into education, training or employment;

6.2.2 Stronger communities by bringing together disengaged young people with community groups, schools and residents of all ages;

6.2.3 Bringing the community together to tackle the needs of the neighbourhood, generating pride, community identity, and a safer environment for residents;

6.2.4 An improved urban environment and permanent asset, with community ownership contributing to reduced anti-social behaviours.

6.3 Changes in Lottery funding will only be judged successful by the quality of decision- making regarding funding distribution. In an environment of reduced public funding, we return to our belief, discussed above, that joined up, strategic vision will be required to make big picture, high impact, and sustainable impact using National Lottery funds.

6.4 We share the LARC assertion that there must be a fair balance between cultural and heritage beneficiaries, and between investment in projects and investment in core costs, infrastructural development and maintenance.

Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed?

7.1 We support a review of the policy guidelines, but re-assert our view that, much as organisations like Liverpool Biennial or LARC have made much of concerted, strategic action, new structures and guidelines for funding bodies must be established within a strategic framework. Any review or changes to the funding systems must understand what can be achieved

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?

8.1 The cultural sector is amorphous and open. Experience, knowledge and ideas are customarily shared between the sector and beyond, often through movement of staff between institutions. The cultural sector in the UK has thrived because of this interchange and we therefore believe that support systems must remain in place to keep the wider sector at the cutting edge and to ensure that it can maintain its ability to generate programme and content which is valued locally and internationally.

8.2 We don’t work specifically with film or with museums, libraries and archives, but we do understand that these sub-sectors require support that is relevant to their needs. Finding mechanisms that can replace the service the abandoned DCMS arm’s-length bodies offered to these sub sectors will be a matter for consultation with the organisations affected, but we do express concern that this consultation did not happen before the bodies were finished. Deep, swinging and sudden cuts 691

will frequently create shockwaves and impacts that are greater than those created by the cuts themselves.

Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level?

9.1 The private sector, including sponsorships, trusts, foundations and individual giving has played an important role in supporting culture for many years, providing time and expertise as well as finance. There is every reason to think this will continue, but we think that private support will be constrained in the near future by perceptions of the financial environment. Many private individuals, trusts and foundations have seen the resources available to then shrink, while spending cuts will mean considerably more competition for the funds that are available. We believe that many individuals will respond to the third sector generously and will increase support, but the timescales in which this happens are unlikely to replace the resources lost through spending cuts.

9.2 However, there are models that provide the real possibility of increasing funds. Endowment funding is relatively unexplored in Britain but has been a successful means of supporting activity in other places. In America and Australia, individuals are more willing to make commitments to arts organisations through small donations, season tickets and memberships. We feel that a significant culture shift is required to embed these sources of revenue and support and to grow them to the point where they provide sufficient free revenue.

9.3 Major questions also remain about the time scale and commitment necessary to develop real growth in private investment and for the cultural sector, legislation and support systems to build the skills, knowledge and structures required. We also understand that some areas will continue to find private fundraising more valuable than others. London and the South East have advantages in profile, access to wealth, and a more well-developed history of private sector support. Other areas of the country will have further to travel.

9.4 The arts are adaptable and entrepreneurial and many organisations will, like ourselves, expand their ambition and capability to raise private support. We have no doubt that private donations and support will continue to play an intrinsic role in the sustainability of the arts.

Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations?

10.1 The introduction of Government incentives would be welcome and should help to encourage private donations. This is likely to occur only if it is part of a package of actions which help to change the culture of giving in Britain, and so incentives should be seen in the role of a catalyst to change rather than a direct benefit which triggers action by individuals. Tax benefits already exist for private donations, but it is important to note that the organisation which collects donations receives and understand the impact of the benefits rather than the individual who donates. We would like to explore whether this system provides a greater benefit or if other means of delivering tax benefits would create more growth.

692

10.2 Additionally, we would like to see the Government explore other initatives such as lifetime giving, gifts of works of art, gift of shares, and tax breaks for social investment funds.

10.3 Finally, more radical solutions may provide more benefit at less cost. For example, unrecoverable VAT is a huge cost to many cultural bodies and we would like to see whether strategic criteria can be established which relieve this burden. Innovation will be required of any arts organisation which has the will to survive and thrive in a very different environment, and we believe the Government should be open to innovation as well.

September 2010

693

Written evidence submitted by Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK) (arts 161)

1. Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK) welcomes the opportunity to respond to this inquiry into The Funding of the Arts and Heritage. We are responding as the Sector Skills Council for the Lifelong Learning sector, which includes libraries, archives and information services across the UK.

2. Our submission focuses on the workforce development and skills issues that pertain to the libraries, archives and information services sector in respect of the issues raised by the Committee.

3. The main issues we wish to raise with the Committee are:

• Excellent library, archive, information and record management services are dependent on having excellent people working in them. Services can only be developed if they can be supported and delivered by an appropriately skilled workforce. Service development should therefore happen in tandem with staff development. • The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) has supported workforce development across the library, archive and information services and it is critical that this investment is not lost at a time when the impact will be felt the most. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) must ensure that its ongoing support for museums, libraries and archives will continue to include a focus on workforce development. • LLUK welcomes the DCMS Future Libraries Programme but we stress that service development must include staff development. New governance models will require new skill sets and a greater understanding of the core skill sets required to deliver public library services. LLUK’s Sector Skills Assessment and the National Occupational Standards for the sector will underpin this work. • In the current economic climate of planned public spending cuts, libraries, archives and information services will have a greater role in supporting individuals to return to work through information, advice and guidance and through offering lifelong learning opportunities and improving skills. • In addition, the library, archive and information services workforce has a key role in supporting the ‘Big Society’. Libraries and archives are a recognised and valuable community space and the people who work within them are a vital resource in delivering on this agenda.

Role of LLUK

4. Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK) is the independent employer led Sector Skills Council for libraries, archives and information services; careers guidance; community learning and development; further education; higher education and work based learning. We represent the interests of the 1 million+ individuals working in lifelong learning in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and are the voice of employers in this sector on skills issues.

5. LLUK’s vision is for: A world class lifelong learning workforce that enables a more prosperous economy and an inclusive society.

6. LLUKs mission is: We work with employers, partners and policy makers to improve the skills, performance and professional development of the UK’s lifelong learning 694

workforce.

7. LLUK’s strategic Goals and Objectives are: 1. We will increase demand for and investment in skills through dynamic employer engagement; 2. We will drive forward the strategic ambitions of our sector by amplifying the voice of employers in UK 3. We will provide credible and respected Labour Market Intelligence to employers, partners and policy makers workforce development activities; 4. We will develop and promote relevant and fit for purpose learning and skills solutions to meet lifelong learning employers needs.

The abolition of MLA

8. MLA has had an ambitious and challenging agenda for the libraries, archives and information services workforce. Its priorities are leadership development, widening entry routes, increasing the demographic diversity of the workforce and e-skills development. These priorities are confirmed by our employers through our annual Sector Skills Assessment which allows LLUK to understand current and future national skills needs and the drivers of skills demand in the lifelong learning sector.

9. LLUK and MLA have a shared commitment to the development of the workforce. This commitment has given rise to an ongoing partnership to increase recruitment in the sector and widen entry routes. This collaboration between LLUK and MLA has produced a number of targeted outputs designed to tackle some of the issues faced by young people and employers today. These outputs include a toolkit for employers who are thinking of providing work experience for year 10 & 11 students, research on barriers preventing young people taking up apprenticeships, a career guidance website for the sector (infoprofessional.co.uk), and an on-line user guide for the National Occupational Standards for Libraries, Archives and Information Services.

10. Our work with MLA for the current year focuses on the development of a new Apprenticeship Framework for the libraries, archives and information services sector which will be fit for purpose and meet the skills development needs of employers and the current and future workforce. Apprenticeships offer alternative entry routes into the workforce and can support skills development and the diversification of the workforce. The National Apprenticeship Service states that: • 80% of those employers who employ apprentices agree they make their workplace more productive. • 88% of employers who employ apprentices believe that Apprenticeships lead to a more motivated and satisfied workforce. • 83% of employers who employ apprentices rely on their Apprenticeships programme to provide the skilled workers that they need for the future. • One in five employers are hiring more apprentices to help them through the tough economic climate.

11. We are also a partner in the implementation group for Archives for the 21st Century in England which MLA and The National Archives lead. Archives for the 21st Century was produced in parallel versions for Wales and England, and laid respectively before the National Assembly for Wales and UK Parliament on 24 November 2009. Designed to support archive services - particularly publicly funded services – this government policy outlines the challenges currently facing the archives sector and highlights the important contributions that archives can make to local communities. 695

All of the recommendations outlined in the policy have an underpinning reliance on skills development and the workforce.

12. MLA has supported workforce development across the library, archive and information services and it is critical that this investment is not lost at a time when the impact will be felt the most. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) must ensure that its ongoing support for museums, libraries and archives will continue to include a focus on workforce development.

13. LLUK already has an established panel of senior practitioners, employers and stakeholders which inform our priorities and validate our work. As a Sector Skills Council LLUK would be well placed to support DCMS with the development of a workforce strategy for the libraries, archives and information services sector, to enable the sector’s workforce to respond to future change.

14. It is imperative that policy decisions and subsequent changes to any workforce strategy for the libraries, archives and information services sector be underpinned by high quality labour market information (evidenced based policy). This is especially critical in the current economic climate where staff numbers may reduce and where pressure exists to introduce new roles alongside professionally qualified staff in public libraries e.g. Para-professional posts and expansion of community-run services. Accurate and authoritative labour market intelligence will enable policy makers, employers and practitioners to make informed decisions about priorities and impacts on service delivery.

Workforce development priorities in the current economic climate:

The following points illustrate some of the priority issues that would need to be considered within the development of a Workforce Strategy for the Libraries, Archives and Information Services sector:

15. In his first public speech on libraries on 1 July, the Culture Minister stated that the Government is committed to a high quality library service but wants a radical rethink in how it is delivered. Mr Vaizey said many options should be considered, including: • shared services • merging functions • staffing across authorities • support from volunteers • the use of other community buildings

16. He also highlighted the position of libraries in Building the Big Society and their role in the current economic climate to help people back to work, to access learning and as a central plank of community cohesion and announced – in collaboration with the Society of Chief Librarians – a public library promise that the library network will help half a million people gain digital skills by the end of 2012 as part of Race Online 2012.

17. A motivated and skilled workforce will be key to ensuring that this challenging agenda can be delivered. Excellent library, archive, information and record management services are dependent on having excellent people working in them. Services can only be developed if they can be supported and delivered by an appropriately skilled workforce. Service development should therefore happen in tandem with staff development.

696

18. The first stage of the Future Libraries support programme for the public library sector will be led by MLA and the Local Government Association Group and will focus on 10 councils. They will work together to support councils as they adapt to the current economic challenge, helping them deliver key services while reducing costs.

19. LLUK welcomes the DCMS Future Libraries Programme but we stress that service development includes staff development. New governance models will require new skill sets and a greater understanding of the core skill sets required to deliver public library services. LLUK’s Sector Skills Assessment and the National Occupational Standards for the sector will underpin this work.

20. Research shows that advice and guidance provided in libraries and social centres that people do visit and feel comfortable to visit is very successful. We refer the Committee to the MLA research paper on ‘Local access to careers information advice and guidance for employability’ (http://tinyurl.com/localcareers).

21. The sector skills council conducts research to identify existing skills gaps and shortages and solutions as well as, most importantly, emerging skills issues. Specifically but not exclusively, the potential contribution of Lifelong Learning UK’s Sector Skills Assessment (SSA) with and on behalf of the sector needs to be recognised more widely. We would welcome support in encouraging employers and stakeholders from the libraries, archives, information and record management services workforce to work with us to ensure this key part of our remit is built on year on year. Analysis of the findings can be used by planners and policy makers alike to inform and shape workforce planning for the libraries, archives, information and record management services sector workforce.

22. LLUK has created and continues to develop structures and standards to enable libraries, archives, information and record management, archives and information services to learn from the broader lifelong learning sector. Furthermore, LLUK draws on good practice across libraries, archives, information and record management and information services both within and beyond the lifelong learning sector. LLUK is also well-placed in terms of disseminating and sharing good practice within the broader lifelong learning sector in particular, and the National Occupational Standards and qualifications projects that are underway will contribute to ensuring that the workforce are able to respond and adapt to the current economic climate.

23. People working in libraries, archives, information and record management already have a varied skills mix, which includes a variety of transferable skills beyond what is seen as ‘traditional’ library, archive, information services and record management skills. LLUK believes there needs to be continued investment in this workforce to ensure it remains appropriately skilled in order to be responsive and to facilitate the continued development of those services.

24. In the interests of increased efficiency and cost savings, LLUK supports the idea of addressing staff training on a more collaborative basis, encouraging opportunities for cross-authority learning and would welcome consideration of a centralised function for core skills development and CPD across the sector for professional, para-professional and volunteer staff, including management and leadership skills.

697

Impact of philanthropy

25. The library, archives and information services sector is less experienced in operating in a philanthropic-driven funding climate in comparison to other arts and heritage bodies. As a result, there will be skills needs for the workforce to ensure that the sector does not lose out.

26. Discussions that LLUK has already carried out with employers has identified potential workforce skills needs around entrepreneurialism, skills of evaluating risk and return, leadership and change management within organisations which would provide the context that would allow new governance and funding models to develop.

Impact of recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds

27. LLUK welcomes the proposed return to the original 20% allocation of lottery share for heritage (including the libraries, archives and information services sector) and the increase in annual funding that this would represent. However, our employers are concerned that spending cuts in public funding and the potential reduction in staffing levels will impact upon their capacity to engage in fundraising and the delivery of projects. More flexible match-funding guidelines and the ability to cost existing staff time into projects may go some way to mitigating this.

September 2010 698

Written evidence submitted by sinfonia ViVA (arts 162)

What impact recent and future spending cuts from central and local government will have on the arts at a national and local level? • Because Arts organisations are adept at adapting to changing financial circumstances the effects of cuts in income can appear to be minimal in the short term. It is only in the medium and long term that the effect on the development of the art form and its practice can be felt.

Some arts organisations will thrive in this environment of cuts – they will find ways to take managed risks and will continue to develop and move their practice forward as a result. However, for many organisations this will not be possible and the perceived risk of investment and development will be too high and therefore they will stand still.

• There is no national answer to this. There must be an understanding that metropolitan and high profile organisations are better equipped to cope with reductions in public funding due to the nature of their connections to individuals and the high visibility and acceptance of their work. It is the more rural and social enterprise organisations which will find it harder in the more straightened times.

What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and make economies of scale? • This question infers that there is an awful lot of fat in each organisation. Certainly in regional Arts organisations this is not the case and there is not a huge lot of duplication in “back office” operations. Indeed five Derby regularly funded organisations have been working over the summer to explore economies by working together and have not managed to find any savings of any significance.

Having said that, the initiative driven culture of the last 10 or so years means there are a lot of organisations running within each art form on a regional basis which are not under an overall strategy for that region. So for instance there is Sing Up, Youth Music and Music Leader active as individual programmes along with professional orchestras in most regions. One idea would be to look at these individual sections on a regional basis and put them under one umbrella and give the whole lot an overarching strategy. Possible savings in administration and other overhead costs, and a more effective delivery organisation.

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable? • This is almost impossible to answer. Surely we should be asking what kind of sector we want, how we build it and how much we are prepared to pay for it. What role do the Arts play in the society we want to live and work in?

Whether the current system and structure of funding distribution is the right one • There must remain a local voice in distribution of public funding. There should also be a degree of accountability for those organisations in receipt of public money. There is a need for the distribution to be done in a way that removes any notion of political influence or ambition. Therefore the Arts Council seems a sensible way of distributing the money. • If we agree that the Arts Council is the best method for distributing public funding then it alone should be responsible for all arts spend and when appropriate work in association with other government departments. It should not, therefore, be sidelined by other departments delivering arts activity.

699

• Should caution about reverting back to too much initiative driven work. Need to give organisations a sense of ongoing viability. Need to build partnerships, confidence and audiences and all that takes time.

Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed • The key here is to get the Lottery back to its original purposes and ethos.

Whether business and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national level • They do, but only as part of a set of funders. However, smaller, more local organisations will need to work harder to engage new funders of significant value in the short term. The key words here are the long term – any change needs to be thought about over a long period, putting in place the tools first then allowing time to work on increasing other forms of funding before a change in public funding is made.

Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations • Government needs to do more to incentivise giving and support of the Arts. Yes it is about money, but it is also about association with the organisations themselves. Private organisations and individuals often want to be associated with things that are seen to be of importance. How frequently do we see MPs at cultural events, supporting them in public. Big stuff gets this, but how much local work gets the benefit if interest from major politicians. People want to be associated with sports events, but the Arts seem to be less attractive.

Once this level of importance is acknowledged then others will follow.

• Individual givers like to be part of a plural funding structure. Indeed it is dangerous for any organisation to be too reliant on one source or individual. Public money is key to this plural funding structure for a large number of organisations across the country. The will to give comes first followed by consideration of tax benefits etc.

• Needs to work with organisations to develop this business and individual support. Skills in organisations need developing. Government should not look like it is opting out of supporting the Arts. On the contrary it should be seen as helping to unlock more money and changing the way people think about giving.

• The private sector needs confidence about the agenda for the Arts and the government must demonstrate its strategy clearly. It feels like we have been asked to build a new house, but have not been given the plans to work to.

September 2010 700

Written evidence submitted by Cause4 (arts 163)

1. Summary

1.1 On recent evidence, we are concerned that there is a danger that the arts could be disproportionally affected by cuts in public funding. Additionally, we do not want to see arts and heritage suffer greater cuts than other DCMS responsibilities.

1.2 We are optimistic that the current economic climate offers opportunities as well as threats, particularly in developing more sustainable funding models, innovative partnerships and a greater entrepreneurial approach. If these are implemented successfully, they could open up additional sources of non-public funding.

1.3 However, it is our experience that few arts organisations have the time, resources and expertise to really exercise this sort of innovation. Therefore, investment in information sharing and capacity-building to this end would be valuable.

1.4 Corporate supporters and individual philanthropists can and do play a long-term role in funding the arts alongside government. However, it is counterproductive to ask or expect philanthropists to fill the gap in public investment. Indeed, this approach lacks a fundamental understanding of the relationship between donor and charity. It is also important that the process of encouraging greater philanthropy is led by philanthropists themselves.

1.5 We believe the appropriate role for Government in supporting a culture of giving is in making giving easier, making it more tax efficient for individuals and companies, and recognising those that make a contribution. Match funding of private support needs much more exploring within Government. We feel it provides an incentive to raise, an incentive to give and a means by which Government can get very best value.

1.6 The contributions of existing donors must be made to go further through more effective donor relations. We believe that the most sustainable investment from Government would be in training fundraisers. The sector suffers from a lack of talented, well-trained staff able to develop strategic programmes capable of attracting significant funds.

1.7 It is also vital that lower levels of giving are maximised. It is in allowing everyone to give, and in encouraging everyone to give, that a stronger philanthropic culture can be created. There should be a renewed focus on life-long giving, career-long giving and developing giving among the young.

1.8 Social media has the potential to revolutionise giving at lower levels. Currently, the majority of charities and social enterprises are not maximising the impact of social media, for both profile raising and fundraising.

1.9 We believe that the UK’s culture of philanthropy would also benefit from promoting the National Lottery much more as a vehicle for charitable giving.

2. Introduction

2.1 On recent evidence, we are concerned that there is a danger that the arts could be disproportionally affected by cuts in public funding1 and a desire to reduce the number of

1 DCMS press release, 24 May 2010, announcing an additional reduction in Arts Council England’s budget of 701

cultural sector quangos.2 Programmes aimed at increasing engagement in culture have already been cut.3

2.2 It appears that the sector is still seen as an easy target by Government overall, despite the strength of support we have experienced from civil servants at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The cultural sector has traditionally struggled to make its case in a way that is appreciated by the Treasury and those that ultimately hold the purse strings.

2.3 This is in spite of the significant contribution the arts and heritage make to the economy through the creative industries and particularly tourism, not to mention their intrinsic value to individuals and communities. The Prime Minister recently cited the tourism sector as ‘fundamental to the rebuilding and rebalancing of our economy’ and ‘one of the best and fastest ways’ of generating jobs and income, using the economic success of Liverpool as European Capital of Culture as a direct example of this4.

2.4 According to Arts Council England figures, every £1 invested in culture produces £2; two thirds of the adult population in the UK enjoy the arts, visit historic sites and go to museums and galleries. Of the top 10 UK visitor attractions, 8 are national museums. The cultural sector is making a contribution to the economic recovery through offering work and training.5

2.5 At a local level, the arts are particularly vulnerable. We are aware of the difficulties already facing libraries, through our work with The Reading Agency, and our fear is that without a statutory responsibility, local councils will be left with little choice but to scale back their support for arts too.

2.6 It is our view that the arts and heritage sectors should bear their share of the pain in the current economic climate as a matter of ‘fairness’. However, given the levels of investment in the sector, and indeed the DCMS as whole, this should not be proposed as a way to fill the budget deficit. The DCMS overall has one of the smallest budgets in Whitehall.

2.7 Additionally, we do not want to see arts and heritage suffer greater cuts than other DCMS responsibilities, primarily sport. Both are equally important – particularly with London 2012 now firmly on the horizon.

3. The impact of spending cuts

3.1 Without doubt there will be hugely visible impacts of funding cuts for both arts organisations and audiences, based on current proposals of 25 to 40 per cent. The range and volume of arts will be reduced; and we may see less risky and cutting-edge work on offer as organisations look to maximise audiences and box office takings. Education and participation programmes are likely to be scaled back, and smaller, community-based organisations will suffer from local authority cuts. We fully expect to see organisations closing, greater staff redundancies and more individual artists struggling for commissions.

£5 million http://www.dcms.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7081.aspx 2 DCMS press release, 26 July 2010, announcing abolition of the Film Council and MLA http://www.dcms.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7280.aspx 3 DCMS press release, 17 June 2010, announcing the cancellation of funding for A Night Less Ordinary and Find Your Talent, http://www.dcms.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7193.aspx#other 4 Prime Minister’s speech on tourism, 12th August 2010, http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2010/08/pms-speech-on-tourism-54479 5 Arts Council England press release, 15th July 2010 http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/news/you-can-cut- us-dont-kill-us-say-uks-cultural-leade/ 702

3.2 During this difficult time, the arts sector needs to prioritise what it can achieve, and be clear with the Government on what role it will play in the current climate. We know that the arts can provide enjoyment, inspiration, education and economic value - but whether the sector can continue to deliver on all of these with less funding remains to be seen.

3.3 Perhaps unusually, we are optimistic that there are also opportunities presented in the current economic climate. Organisations can and should be looking to be more sustainable in terms of their funding mix. During this golden period for the arts, and the boom in public investment, many organisations have become over reliant on the State. This has resulted in a lack of innovation, creativity and resourcefulness in the operation and management of some arts organisations.

3.4 Therefore, we would expect arts and heritage organisations to take a more entrepreneurial approach to diversify funding streams, and increase the creativity in developing projects. We believe that these activities, if implemented successfully, are likely to attract additional interest from non-public funders. However, it is our experience that few arts organisations have the time, resources and expertise to really exercise this sort of innovation. Investment in information sharing and capacity-building to this end would be valuable.

Case study: Reading Agency

3.5 On 1 July 2010 Culture Minister Ed Vaizey MP outlined the Conservative vision for libraries, which he believes have a “home at the heart of the ‘big society’”. The Big Society is particularly relevant to libraries which have the needs of communities and library users at their heart. However, in this age of austerity, it is also essential that creative activities and learning across the sector are given room to thrive and flourish.

3.6 Cause4 knows from first-hand experience of working with The Reading Agency how this can happen. The Reading Agency has developed large-scale community reading programmes in partnership with library services. Its Summer Reading Challenge engages 725,000 children in reading and creative activities across the six week summer holiday, providing volunteering opportunities and collaboration with local schools.

3.7 Undoubtedly, libraries offer a lifeline between the information rich and the information poor. They can support people to get involved in local life in all sorts of ways: volunteers taking services to the housebound; or residents running reading groups. It is this sort of new partnership operating at a national and local level, and linking the statutory and arts sectors, that is essential to a new type of thinking and fundraising across the sector. www.readingagency.org.uk www.summerreadingchallenge.org.uk

4. Partnerships

4.1 While mergers may be a step too far for many arts organisations, partnerships are essential. The potential of mergers can quickly dissolve into parochialism, concerns about identity and branding, and difficulties about managing assets and staff.

4.2 There are, of course, gains to be made in sharing backroom functions and reducing wastage. But we believe the greatest opportunity lies in developing innovative projects in partnership that will be attractive to donors, both individual and corporate. This is particularly pertinent where there are a number of smaller organisations undertaking comparable activities, 703

which is relatively common in the arts. Partnerships allow all parties to achieve their charitable objectives in an interesting and cost-effective way.

4.3 There is huge potential for new and exciting collaborations to be developed as a result of the restrained funding environment. This could be between arts organisations, and between arts organisations and funders. Joint working between charities on the delivery of projects would appeal to donors and cut down on duplication and waste. The Office for Civil Society’s work to reduce the burden of bureaucracy faced by charities is to be welcomed in this context.

Case study: London Chamber Orchestra & Barnado’s

4.4 The London Chamber Orchestra and Barnardo’s are working in partnership to deliver Music Junction. This is the first collaboration of its kind in the UK between a leading orchestra and a children’s charity looking specifically at joined up delivery. Together they are developing a project which focuses on bringing music making activities to vulnerable young people.

4.5 The pioneering project provides high-quality music-making activities and education, a programme of digital music technology training and a mentoring and befriending scheme, each catered to local needs and circumstances. Pupils from Academy schools, Barnardo’s schools and centres, and Independent schools will take part in shared activity, thereby directly breaking down divisions and prejudices.

5. Philanthropy

5.1 Corporate supporters and individual philanthropists can and do play a long-term role in funding the arts alongside government funding. Philanthropy for us encompasses the spectrum of charitable giving by business, trusts and foundations, by high net worth individuals as well as everyday giving by the average person. Increasing a culture of philanthropy requires an increase in both the number of people giving charitably, and the level of donations.

5.2 There is a danger in this current climate of existing philanthropic relationships shifting as the government talks of philanthropists stepping up to fill the gap left in public funding. We believe that this is counterproductive and, in light of the deeply personal nature of the relationship between organisation and philanthropist, such an expectation seems naïve. This approach shows a lack of fundamental understanding of the relationship between donor and charity.

5.3 It is important that the process of encouraging greater philanthropy is led by philanthropists themselves. The success of The Giving Pledge in the States arises because it is led entirely by philanthropists, those who have themselves ‘put their money where their mouth is’ and who stand as an exemplar.6 Attempts by Government to lead on this agenda are likely to be unproductive. At a time when the Government is reducing funding, the culture of philanthropy may benefit from leaving it to those that give to set the pace.

Case study: Salisbury International Arts Festival

5.4 Much is made of the difficulties that regional arts organisations have in attracting philanthropy. However, with the right energy and momentum, the potential to engage local philanthropy and business at a high level has just as many possibilities.

6 The Giving Pledge http://givingpledge.org/#enter 704

5.5 The Salisbury International Arts Festival is an example of regional tenacity and innovation. In looking to identify ways to maintain adequate levels of corporate sponsorship, the Festival team has looked to develop a stream of corporate funding that has been matched by an eminent local philanthropist to protect the amount of traditional headline sponsorship. This will secure the Festival’s diverse artistic programme throughout 2011 and enable the Festival a platform to engage with other local philanthropists providing flexible new models for philanthropic support.

5.6 We believe that the appropriate role for Government in supporting a culture of giving is in making giving easier, making it more tax efficient (for both individuals and companies), and recognising those that make a contribution. We welcome the moves by Government to look at reforming Gift Aid to increase the levels of take up; other means such as payroll giving and lifetime legacies would benefit from greater promotion. We recommend that Gift Aid, as well as other channels, are kept as simple as possible, and that any reforms are accompanied by an awareness campaign backed by the Government. Whatever the method – tax breaks, matched giving, charity bonds – radical change is needed which will outlast the term of any Government.

5.7 We believe that pragmatism should be at the heart of the decision making process of which organisations and projects should be funded by the state. The key consideration is what programmes of value would absolutely not otherwise take place – and would therefore merit support from the Treasury. This is, of course, not necessarily an easy question to answer and involves a large element of subjectivity.

5.8 Match funding initiatives would open up real possibilities for philanthropy. Government match funding of private support, potentially up to a 50/50 split, offers an excellent compromise solution, offering the ‘best bang for the private buck’. It provides an incentive to raise, an incentive to give and a means by which Government can get very best value.

5.9 The contributions of existing donors must also be made to go further through more effective donor relations. This requires increased learning within the arts sector and adequate training for emerging fundraisers. In this funding environment, innovative fundraising is an absolute necessity. It requires a breadth of business understanding as well as enterprise; skills which need developing in the arts and heritage sectors. Additionally, fundraising would benefit from some promotion as a respectable and professional career choice in order to attract new talent into the sector.

5.10 We believe that the most sustainable investment from Government would be in training fundraisers. Encouraging improved fundraising practices should also be integrated into funding agreements. Currently a large proportion of Arts Council funding is spent on the annual programme of arts organisations. A strand of this might be more effectively spent on fundraising staff and resources (such as internal IT systems) to support the organisation in the long-term and help it stand on its own two feet.

Case study: Cause4 training programme

5.11 Cause4 is developing an innovative training programme which aims to attract new talent into development and fundraising and to equip trainees with the skills and experience needed for success. Development and fundraising must go hand in hand – a principle to which Cause4 is uncompromisingly wedded and one that should be deeply ingrained into the thinking of charities and the psyche of fundraisers.

5.12 Countless trustees and executives of charities tell us that they cannot find people of the right calibre to lead their fundraising – people with good instincts and natural judgment, strong 705

communicators capable of building good relationships with donors; strategic thinkers equipped with a broad and practical understanding of the full range of fundraising opportunities.

5.13 Most of us who have found our ways into charity development and fundraising, have done so by accident rather than design. While there are development and fundraising qualifications, and also specific strands within some Masters programmes, these focus too heavily on the theory and insufficiently upon the practice.

5.14 We believe that there is no substitute for hands-on experience that will enable a new energetic and dynamic group of fundraisers to learn how to think strategically, how to develop projects and programmes which will deliver social outcomes, how to build relationships and develop good instincts by working alongside those with a few years – and a bit of success – under their belts.

5.15 The Government’s recommendation of a 1% income social norm is helpful, but we need to create a culture of giving in which everyone is able to participate at levels appropriate to them. This may be more than 1% in many cases.

5.16 It is also vital that lower levels of giving are maximised. Philanthropy should not be the preserve of the wealthy. We can only give according to our means but we will only give if somehow the instinct to give has been developed.

5.17 It is in allowing everyone to give, and in encouraging everyone to give, that a stronger philanthropic culture can be created. All philanthropic journeys, we assume, begin with a small initial step. If the instinct to give according to means is developed, we will see extensive small- scale giving complemented by an increase in those substantial gifts that really make things happen.

5.18 Social media has the potential to revolutionise giving of this sort. The pace of technological progress, especially with the spread of smart phones and the development of location-based services, means that fundraising possibilities are endless. Currently, the majority of charities and social enterprises use the tools of social media, such as Twitter and Facebook as a bolt-on, rather than integrating and optimising them with existing efforts and resources.

5.19 Increasingly, Cause4 has been asked to help charities and social enterprises maximise social media strategies, to think about an organisation’s story and to support them to enhance fundraising. Delivery of social media strategies are perfect volunteer activity but the framework needs to be robust and the outcomes strong with a clear means of delivery.

5.20 The Government might want to look at new initiatives for young people to encourage life- long giving, possibly as part of proposals for the national citizen service. There is certainly a role for schools, colleges and universities. Career-long giving is also important, and payroll giving could have a greater role to play. Organisations should also be looking to develop closer relationships with younger people on the ladder to career success. The Government should be recognising the contribution of donors, and those in earlier stages of their giving careers, through the honours system and in other ways.

6. National Lottery

6.1 We welcome the additional funds directed to arts and heritage from the Lottery, while at the same time recognising the value of the Big Lottery Fund as a source of funding to many community projects.

706

6.2 We believe that the UK’s culture of philanthropy could benefit from an examination of the role that the Lottery plays in the ecology of charitable giving. For example, how far are those who purchase tickets motivated by charity as opposed to personal gain; are philanthropic motivations considered when developing the criteria for distributing funds; do they help the right people and organisations; and are there ways to see income generated and spent in the same localities?

6.3 We would also like consideration to be given to the promotion of the Lottery, with it positioned more centrally in the sphere of charitable giving. Run well, and promoted much more obviously as a vehicle for supporting good causes, it could achieve even more for good causes.

7. About Cause4

7.1 Cause4 was set up by Nick Gandon and Michelle Wright in May 2009 to support charities and social enterprises in development and fundraising across the arts, community, sport and education sectors. Michelle was the London Symphony Orchestra’s Development Director working across a diverse international fundraising portfolio, whilst Nick was Director of the Cricket Foundation, developing and overseeing the highly successful Chance to Shine programme. The company currently works with numerous organisations and philanthropists in the arts sector.

September 2010 707 Written evidence submitted by The Sage Gateshead (arts 164)

1. 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; 1.1. Beyond the obvious impact that some things substantially dependent on public funding either won’t happen or will happen in reduced form, more seriously the cuts risk making managers of arts organisations more risk-averse to protect their other income streams. In turn, experience tells us that leads to cultural programmes becoming of lower quality, less challenging and distinctive, and including less new work than we now take for granted. Cumulatively that would erode our current international reputation for the quality and distinctiveness of our artistic production, along with the earning potential that comes with that reputation. It’s important then to remember that those kinds of capacity and reputation may be much harder to rebuild once key productive capacity has been lost, and (from a Best Value standpoint) rebuilding that productive capacity from a lowered base always takes disproportionately longer, and needs more resources than sustaining the original capacity would have needed; 1.2. A falling quality and/or distinctiveness of the produced work would trigger knock-on consequences likely to include lower earned income, and also a lower interest amongst businesses in investing in the arts as sponsors, since commercial sponsors target their investment toward companies they perceive as successful and who recurrently produce distinctive work of high quality and impact; 1.3. Many of our arts and heritage organisations unavoidably operate at the margins of profitability and economic viability. For those organisations it will only take a small adverse change (reduced earned income, other investment failure, public funding reduction) to trigger a crisis. In many of those cases the speed of the change is key – reductions in any income streams that occur over longer time-scales can more easily be planned for and absorbed than cuts which come quickly and unheralded; 1.4. There’s one other impact that does not immediately show up in the figures. Most of our arts and heritage organisations produce education programmes, often of high quality, which complement and extend the programmes delivered in the formal education sector. There has never been a comprehensive national assessment of the economics of this process. Arts and heritage organisations mostly create these programmes from within their total resources, so there is a constant, ongoing supply of cultural education programming effectively funded (largely invisibly) by the arts and heritage funding agencies. When that funding reduces it is often the case that the education programmes suffer disproportionately, since their capacity to generate income for the producing company is vulnerably lower than their ‘main programmes’. Because this situation has never been mapped or quantified it’s impossible to quantify this effect in advance of it happening, but I strongly suspect that another impact of cuts in arts and heritage funding will be a disproportionately large reduction in education programming up and down the country produced - day in, day out - by companies large and small operating in all kinds of different cultural fields.

2. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale; 2.1. A lot – this approach is in its infancy in the UK, but it offers real opportunities for sustaining and enhancing existing levels of artistic output more efficiently and economically. In NewcastleGateshead ten cultural companies are developing exactly that approach, and finding it yields fruit not just in the economy and efficiency with which we operate but also in many other aspects of our relations with the community we exist to 708 serve. Some of these organisational networks seek some public sector investment to operate with their own maximum efficiency, but that investment is more than repaid by significant hikes in organisational efficiency and management skill levels throughout the network.

3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable; 3.1. This is the wrong question. The critical economic factor is that cultural organisations should receive public sector investment at the levels required to enable them (given their individual circumstances) to be efficient and effective in producing distinctive, high quality work. When the total quantum of available funds reduces that becomes an important principle, so the right public sector response is to invest in fewer organisations, but to invest in those at sufficient levels to ensure that they can continue to produce distinctive, high quality work.

4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one; 4.1. The current 2-tier UK arts investment structure (Government investing through a distributing quango, and with it the idea of an ‘arm’s length’ principle) came into being immediately after the 2nd World War in circumstances utterly different from those of today, 65 years later. This system is far from universally common around the world – there are countries with proud records of achievement in the arts which have a simpler 1-tier system. This may be the moment to ask the question whether the benefits of our 2-tier system are still worth the additional costs and extended policy linkage chains implicit in our current 2- tier system. Asking this question does not at all presuppose an answer to it, but in the financially challenging context of the next five years the question does at least need asking.

5. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations; 5.1. Does this question mean the Government’s intention to restore the original 20% distribution shares to the arts and heritage? If so, the arguments for restoring the National Lottery’s original ‘good causes’ distribution approach feel strong, focused as they are on ring-fencing the distribution to those sectors of public life which have recurrently been ‘squeezed out’ during previous periods of financial pressure and restraint. 5.2. 6. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed; 6.1. The original guidelines (with their focus on capital spending and on a wholly-open application process) represented safeguards built into the Lottery distribution at the start, when many aspects of how the Lottery would work in practice could not be guaranteed. 15 years later there feel to be few risks in relaxing those rules slightly, to allow the distributors to take a more strategic approach to the investment, and also to recognise that not all major developmental investments consist solely of capital spending. 6.2. It seems a near-certainty that the Government’s call to private sector donors, philanthropists and investors to increase their contributions will need some incentivising lubrication. One potentially productive possibility for some of the ‘new money’ resulting from the increased Lottery shares (for arts, sports and heritage) would be to use some of the new money as an incentive budget to lever private sector donors, philanthropists and investors.

709 7. 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; 7.1. We don’t deal directly or closely enough with the UK Film Council or the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council to have a fully informed view of the cost-effectiveness of their work – others will be better placed to answer this question authoritatively.

8. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level; 8.1. Much has been written about the positive aspects of the UK’s ‘mixed economy’ of the arts, poised (as in so many other things) between the opposed regimes of the USA and Western Europe. As the system currently works in the UK, significant levels of core public sector investment play an important part in encouraging and triggering corresponding contributions from philanthropists, individual donors and private sector/corporate investors – who read the public sector funding variously as a qualitative ’endorsement’ and indicator of public value, or as an economic multiplier. Undoubtedly there are businesses and philanthropists who could play a greater role in funding arts, but in many cases they will need to be encouraged to do that by some reforming changes to the gift-aid and tax regimes, and also to the restoration of some kind of state ‘matching’ or ‘incentive’.

9. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations. 9.1. Yes – see 8.

September 2010

710

Written evidence submitted by CapeUK (arts 165)

Background CapeUK is an independent development and research agency which promotes creativity and the arts for children and young people. CapeUK receives funding from the Arts Council England as a Regularly Funded Organisation (RFO) and has funded its work from a variety of sources including charities, trusts, public sector funding and commissioned and consultancy work. We work with many schools and other community settings in Yorkshire and the North West and collaborate with a wide range of organisations in the arts and heritage sector. We lead delivery of a number of key programmes – Creative Partnerships, Arts Award, the Arts Learning Consortium, Arts Explorer and other research and training programmes. We also acted as Creativity Advisor to DCSF 2007-2010. Through this portfolio, we support and work with hundreds of teachers, artists, academics and policy makers, and thousands of children and young people across England. Summary This response focuses on the potential impact of funding reductions for children and young people in relation to arts, culture and heritage. We argue that: • Recent and future funding cuts will have a potentially damaging effect on the experience of and access to arts and heritage for children and young people • Regional umbrella organisations that bring together arts and cultural expertise meeting the needs of children and young people would lead to economies of scale • Public subsidy to support children and young people’s access to rich arts and heritage experiences is essential • Emphasis on reducing bureaucracy and focusing on quality of outcomes across funders would be beneficial • The redirection of funding within the national lottery will not necessarily benefit provision for children and young people • The abolition of the UK film Council and MLA could remove valuable expertise from the sector • Businesses and philanthropists could be encouraged to play a larger role in funding the arts. However, there is a danger that this will favour activities in London, larger high profile arts organisations and one off projects. Such investment should be seen as a supplement rather than a substitute for public sector funding. Response 1. What impact will recent, and future, spending cuts from central and local Government have on the arts and heritage at a national and local level? 1.1. Investment in the arts in the education sector over the past few years has had a significant and measurable impact on education and the lives of children and young people. It has promoted: – greater engagement of learners in their education 711

– increased achievement within subject areas and basic skills, – higher aspirations for pupils and teachers, – employability skills - team working, producing ideas, divergent and convergent thinking skills, recognising possibilities. 1.2. This impact has been well documented by Ofsted, Creative Partnerships and the Education and Skills Select Committee report on Creative Partnerships and the curriculum. It has helped schools to liberate themselves from burdensome curricular constraints, and to promote effective and inspiring teaching. There is a valuable body of knowledge being developed that will enable the thrust of current educational policy to be realised. 1.3. It has also had a big impact on the arts sector – enabling practitioners from across the arts spectrum to use their skills and talents to lead creative learning - inspiring and engaging young people – and developing their own thinking and practice in the process. For many practitioners involving others in making art has become a central strand of their practice This strand of income is crucial for the survival of many individual artists and small companies. A considerable workforce of increasingly skilled and sophisticated ‘creative practitioners’ has been developed and all schools who have engaged with the programmes we lead, understand and appreciate their contributions. 1.4. Cuts to this sector will have a number of detrimental effects and will represent a discouraging dis-investment in the future of the country. It will lead in the long term to loss of competitive advantage. The future wellbeing and prosperity of British society will depend on the creative ability, innovative thinking and practical skills of its people. Our society will also depend specifically on the continued growth and profitable development of creative and cultural industries as a significant sector in the economy. The arts provide a conduit that enables children and young people to engage with activities and experiences that promote the particular practical and cognitive development that will support these future national demands. 1.5. We anticipate the impact of the funding cuts will be significant with the following consequences: • A reduction in the scale and scope of arts provision in many schools - they will not have the resources to commission artists, they will play safe, will put the arts back into subject silos and they will fall back on delivering a narrow and outdated canon with little exploration or understanding of contemporary or even recent arts practice. • Our society will become a less exciting, inspiring and challenging place for young people’s learning and for teachers’ professional development. Children’s introduction to arts and heritage and the subsequent deepening of their understanding and appreciation of it will be greatly impoverished. There is already evidence that arts organisations are cutting their education or learning budgets to cope with recent and anticipated reductions in funding. • The large body of valuable professional development that is being supported through this work is likely to stop. The promotion of reflective practice, enquiry based learning and action research as professional learning is likely to stop. Schools will revert to buying in expensive short-term solutions rather than developing their own deep learning. • Arts delivery and development organisations will play safe – they will develop workshops and practices that stay within boundaries rather than being innovative. 712

The opportunity that programmes such as Creative Partnerships create to irrigate the whole curriculum with creative approaches to teaching and learning will be curtailed. They will look to develop and sell services to schools that give coverage rather than quality, with young people having taster sessions rather than pursuing the arts in any real depth. • Sole practitioners and small arts organisations will be unable to maintain their practice. The momentum that has recently been built in the sector will be dissipated and the energy, skills and knowledge that have been carefully nurtured will disappear. • Where there is funding it is likely to be for short term interventions at the expense of longer term funding that enables programmes and projects to reach maturity – short term funding for set-up is expensive and if not followed through, is a poor use of resources. 2. How can arts organisations work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale? 2.1. The number, range and scale of arts organisations are both strengths and weaknesses, with a high level of variety and innovation but with organisational overlaps of function and cost. Small organisations or sole traders are often very flexible and responsive and can tailor their work to the immediate needs of clients – working in close partnership and personalising their service. Often these organisations work locally and changing the ecology of each local context will have consequences – some intended and some unknown. 2.2. The ideal of people working in partnership - collaborating rather than competing, sharing resources, premises and administrative arrangements– is attractive. However, the reality of such arrangements can be problematic and very time consuming – what is saved in resources could be more than lost in people’s time and focus: investment in organisations that understand brokerage and partnership pays dividends. 2.3. The notion of bypassing any area or regional organisations and making the link directly between funders and producers or recipients and producers is also attractive –directly funding the frontline services and removing layers of bureaucracy to give greatest value for money. However, such a blanket provision would almost certainly result in poor quality work that would be shallow and partial, making no real difference to the lives of people; partly because of the paucity of individual budgets and partly because of the lack of coherence for policy design. For example, giving small amounts of funding to schools for arts provision would probably not be used effectively and if not ring-fenced, would in some cases not be used for the intended purpose. Given the above, what can be done? 2.4. Linking projects and programmes at source – for example the work of Creative Partnerships, the Arts Award and Artsmark could be much more effective if combined and promoted as a coherent package for schools from one organisation rather than from a number of different organisations competing for the same funding or clients. 2.5. A cost effective model would be regionally based umbrella organisations that take responsibility for particular areas of practice, which have a core team and are both the conduits for national or regional funding and the central development agencies that quality assure the work. For example, arts provision for many children and young people is already managed by a number of agencies – Youth Music, Creative Partnerships and the Arts Award. Creating one agency with a remit for children and young people in the 713

region could be more cost effective and would provide a coherent direction for arts development. The wider arts provision agencies that have education as a part of their portfolio but not as their main raison d’etre – museums, galleries, theatres, dance companies - would then have a clear route for developing, coordinating and promoting their work for children and young people. Regionally based umbrella organisations are also best placed to be key providers of professional development for the sector – from child protection to reflective practice. However, combining or merging agencies would be a challenging process because of the differing status of the existing organisations- which include charities, trusts, membership organisations and voluntary sector groups. 3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable? 3.1. This will vary depending on the sector. Funding for work with children and young people in the arts and heritage has been supported by public funds, but from a range of different sources. Without sustained investment from the public sector it is unlikely that this work will be sustainable. 3.2. Funding going into the arts is often a spring board for other matched funding to come into the sector. For example the Creative Partnerships direct cash investment into schools is matched by the schools – putting a further 33% into the externals cost and funding 100% of their staff time. CapeUK has also managed to draw in further funding from Local Authorities and Health Authorities. 4. Is the current system and structure of funding distribution the right one? 4.1. There are a number of competing priorities around allocation of funding that need to be better balanced; transparency, fairness and openness needs to be balanced with cost effectiveness and access. Open competitive calls for funding result in a huge investment of time in applying – these costs need to be met from the sector’s overall income and form part of organisation’s overheads: finding ways of reducing this will be important. A grants system, with agreed outcomes but flexibility for delivery is usually preferable to a contract system, which has specific and reductive outputs and little flexibility for design of delivery. Such flexibility leads to much more innovative, sustained and high quality work. 4.2. The demands from funding agencies need to be simplified so that administration can be both effective and efficient. Current Arts Council systems for managing grant funding are effective, ensuring both accountability and flexibility. However, this is not the case across all sources of funding drawn on by the arts and heritage sectors each of which has different reporting arrangements. 4.3. Where funding is short-term and any continuation is contingent on proving impact, a considerable percentage of the funding is spent on gathering, analysing and reporting data. 4.4. Where government devolves funding for distribution through agencies there should be direction to find simpler and more cost effective ways of administering the funds and determining impact and efficacy with an emphasis on light touch reporting, focussing on quality and depth rather than quantity and coverage. 4.5. Government should also take note of the recent consultations with charity finance groups to both simplify and reduce the burden of VAT on the charity sector. 5. What impact will recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds have on arts and heritage organisations? 714

5.1. The redistribution of funding within the National Lottery to increase the resource for the arts sector seems like a welcome move. However, if the increase is at the expense of health, education and the environment, provision for children and young people may not benefit. Many arts programmes and projects are focussed on changing lives and developing people and the edges of these different sectors can be very blurred. For example, Creative Partnerships programmes in schools are largely designed to improve the educational and life experience of children and young people through and in the arts. Shifting funding from one heading to another may well direct practice away from the arts for social good towards the arts for their own sake, resulting in an increase in one-off arts workshops for children. This would be a retrograde step – England is perhaps the leading country in the world for exploring depth in thinking and learning with and through the arts. 6. Do the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed? 6.1. An increasing feature of contemporary arts practice is to combine and overlay different traditional disciplines – both within the arts, wider cultural and political theory and accessing thinking and ideas from a wide range of other sectors. This is echoed in current educational thinking, with most schools finding ways of constructing a coherent curriculum offer that is consistent with their understanding of learning and their pedagogical practice. Good ideas go across disciplines and the National Lottery funding guidelines should recognise and encourage this, avoiding any silo mentality. This will help the sector innovate and explore, avoiding the common experience of applicants shoehorning great ideas and proposals into overly constrained funding opportunities. Joint funding and shared ownership of programmes and projects should be encouraged and facilitated. 7. What is 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? 7.1. The concept of having expert bodies that sit between funders and delivery is an important one. They are not simply conduits for funding – they develop, direct, influence, innovate and facilitate; this often includes accessing and building other funding sources, i.e. they raise money as well as spend it. Losing them will have a detrimental effect on the quality and sustainability of delivery. 7.2. If the arts and cultural sectors are to innovate, take risks and push boundaries; complex judgements based on strong regional and local intelligence need to be made. Such judgements need to be made by people experienced in the field with the right connections and backgrounds. 7.3. We recognise the need to save money but the challenge is to develop a pragmatic and effective route – not just for distributing funding – but for working in partnership with people to invent, challenge and develop the work. 8. Can businesses and philanthropists play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level? 8.1. An increase in incentives to encourage private donations to support the arts and heritage would be welcome. However, they should be seen as in addition to, rather than replacing, public funding and the route to access this funding needs to be effective and efficient. There is a danger that considerable amounts of time will be needed to generate these donations and that it would not prove cost effective in the long term. It should also be recognised that it can be harder for small organisations, those engaged in work with children and young people rather than the flagship arts and cultural centres in London and 715

the metropolitan areas to attract private donations. Many businesses and philanthropists have already stated that they see their investment as additional to rather than a substitute for public funding. Many philanthropists prefer to invest in specific short term or high profile projects with visible impact and may be less likely to invest in long term or core funding. 8.2. Corporate Social Responsibility can be a powerful driver and the arts can be a high visibility way of achieving it. 9. Do there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations? 9.1. Encouragement for businesses to support and instigate great art and invest in the arts as a way of developing young people (the workers, audiences and consumers of the future) would be valuable. Encouragement and seed funding for business and philanthropists to invest in this way should be explored and co-ordinated to support the providers and recipients of funding.

September 2010 716

Written evidence submitted by The Theatres Trust (arts 166)

1. The Theatres Trust welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Inquiry and would be pleased to provide oral evidence to the Select Committee.

2. The Theatres Trust is an Advisory Arms Length Body of the DCMS. We were established by The Theatres Trust Act 1976 and The Theatres Trust (Scotland) Act 1978 'to promote the better protection of theatres'. These Acts apply to all theatre buildings in England, Wales, and Scotland. The Trust’s 15 trustees are appointed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and include trustees from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

3. The Theatres Trust is a statutory consultee in the planning system. Local authorities are required to consult the Trust on planning applications which include ‘development involving any land on which there is a theatre.’ The statutory instruments setting out the consultation requirements are currently: The Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, Article 10, Para 5 and Regulation 25 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008, Schedule 5, paragraph 11. Theatres in Northern Ireland are covered under an administrative agreement. The Trust reports on its pre-application advice and planning application advice annually to the Department of Communities and Local Government.

4. The Theatres Trust is therefore a good example of an advisory body that works at local authority level within the areas of responsibility of both the DCMS and DCLG. We are often the only source of expert advice on theatre use, design, conservation, property and planning matters available to theatre operators, local authorities and official bodies. Given the pressures on local authorities to reduce staffing capacity in arts and cultural and planning departments, with many arts and conservation posts having been downgraded or deleted, we have been receiving an increased number of requests for our advice.

5. In its written ministerial statement of the 26 July 2010 the DCMS proposed that The Theatres Trust be declassified so it can act as an independent statutory advisory body. The Trust has been told that The Theatres Trust Act and The Theatres Trust (Scotland) Act will remain in force, ensuring that The Trust’s role continues. We have also been told that the only change that will be made will be to transfer the responsibility of appointment of the Trust’s trustees from the Secretary of State to the trustees of The Theatres Trust, thereby reducing administrative time spent by the Department on our trustee appointments. Our authority is vested in the Acts and in our role as a statutory consultee and it is important that these continue as instruments for the Trust to provide its advice and provide for the protection of theatres, particularly when many theatres will be facing additional pressures of cuts in public subsidy.

6. The Theatres Trust receives a £55,000 annual grant devolved for administrative purposes from the DCMS to English Heritage in 1994. It is vital that this grant remains as it is provided for the execution of our statutory work in England. Given that this grant has remained on standstill since 1994 we have already been managing annual inflationary reductions. Any further cut in this grant would seriously compromise our ability to deliver our work. It contributes directly towards the employment of an RTPI qualified specialist theatre adviser enabling us to deliver our statutory obligations to provide planning and heritage advice. In 2010/11 this included 14 pre-applications, 104 planning applications, 626 local authority Local Development Framework consultations and 59 other consultations. The Adviser also considers listed building consent applications and in 2010/11 these totalled 9 pre-applications and 60 listed building consent applications. In addition the Adviser maintains a Theatre Buildings at Risk register enabling us to establish those theatres most at risk.

7. Whilst not a statutory consultee on listed building applications, recognition of our expertise in this area by local authorities means we are considered an important consultee. Our expertise was also noted in relation to the Heritage Protection Review in 2008. The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee stated “Recommendation Four: [The Select Committee] recommend[s] that the 717

Government ensures that the role of statutory consultees such as the Theatres Trust is properly incorporated into the heritage protection reforms in addition to their existing role in the planning system.” The DCMS released its response to recommendations from the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on the Draft Heritage Protection Bill on 20 October 2008. The Trust was referenced in on page 11, stating “31. The Government has welcomed comments received from organisations that have put forward a case for their greater involvement in the heritage protection system. In the case of the Theatres Trust, DCMS has been constructively engaged with them and we agree that there is scope for amendments to the Bill to enable the Theatres Trust to participate more fully in the heritage protection system. For example, a number of provisions will be redrafted to ensure that the Theatres Trust is capable of being included as a statutory consultee, in relation to processes and decisions affecting theatre buildings.”

8. We are working with civil servants at the DCMS on our declassification, but we are yet to receive any written notification of the timetable and the process. We are working to ensure that any changes in our relationship to the DCMS do not impact negatively on our capacity to promote the better protection of theatres on behalf of the nation, particularly at a time when many more theatres in the UK will be facing the prospect of managing their assets on diminishing levels of public subsidy.

Please also find attached our wider response to the Committee’s specific questions.

9. 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

9.1 Subsidised theatres rely upon a range of different funding streams for capital and revenue support including the Arts Council, local Government, European Funding, Government regeneration funding (previously through the Regional Development Agencies and we anticipate in the future through Local Enterprise Partnerships), Arts Lottery and Heritage Lottery. Our concerns lie in the rate of the implementation of the cuts, given that Government departments, Arts Council and local Government will be looking to make savings quickly. Theatres operate on a fine financial balance and should be given time to manage any cuts and seek alternative income to offset any reductions in subsidy and capital commitments. A sudden squeeze on all these funding streams will have an impact upon the ability of theatres to function effectively on a day-to-day basis, to maintain their buildings, and to implement already planned capital improvements, and so ensure they continue to be able to maintain a high quality of service and operate sustainably for the long term.

9.2 In planning for spending cuts, arms length bodies and local authorities are already making provisions for reducing staffing levels and the cost of providing services in the areas of arts and culture, planning and conservation. They are looking at options for cutting back staff, combining service functions with other arms length bodies and neighbouring authorities, and establishing trusts or outsourcing to deliver services. The impact of this disruption on theatres cannot be underestimated and should be managed to ensure it does not cause any additional financial stress.

9.3 Theatre buildings not in theatre use are also at greater risk. The Trust is already concerned at the number of theatre buildings, particularly in the north of England, which are facing closure and demolition by Local Authorities that feel unwilling or unable to maintain them. The Palace Theatre in Nelson was demolished earlier this year, while North Tyneside Council is planning to spend a considerable sum demolishing the Borough Theatre, Wallsend and redeveloping it for commercial and residential uses, despite the efforts of local residents to save the building. The Council specifically cited reductions in public sector funding as reasons why they refused to support local residents’ attempts to save the building, considering their plans financially unsustainable. The Trust fears that these represent the start of another spate of losses of theatre buildings in towns which already have little else in the way of cultural facilities.

718

9.4 Regional theatres are particularly vulnerable to reductions in Government support since they tend to be in areas which lack the profile or means to attract significant levels of business or philanthropic support, resulting in large areas of the country which are denied access to live professional theatre and performances. Regional theatres are vital components of the wider theatre ecology, enabling practitioners to develop their skills and inspiring the next generation and their loss has an impact throughout the sector.

10. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

10.1 Theatre owners and operators will face many challenges to maintain their competitiveness and continue to attract audiences over the next few years. Whilst there may be opportunities to work more closely with neighbouring theatres (in some areas) to promote productions jointly to audiences and to work on joint programming, this can often take as much time as working alone.

10.2 There may well be opportunities for theatre organisations to merge and for local authority- owned theatres to be devolved to trusts, but each of these options will need to be carefully examined and managed. This includes a commitment to investing resources in feasibility work to ensure that solutions do indeed provide a more economically viable and sustainable solution and don’t just transfer financial responsibilities which require similar levels of subsidy.

11. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable

11.1 Theatres operate in a mixed economy, attracting earned income and subsidy to present and produce a range of work for different audiences. Most public subsidy that theatres attract is targeted towards public benefit, providing access to theatre experiences for those in society less able to afford to pay or those that do not have the family or other support that encourages participation in the arts. Protecting subsidy that goes towards providing those least able to access the arts with the opportunity to do so is necessary.

11.2 For example, larger receiving regional theatres are able to attract more income from the box office because of their size. In many of these theatres the levels of public subsidy are often lower, but targeted to providing use of the theatre by community groups who would not have the funds to afford commercial hire rates, or towards providing education programmes where theatres work with local youth services, social services and schools to create opportunities for young and other disadvantaged groups to access theatre experiences.

11.3 In smaller theatres, their smaller seating capacity seriously compromises their ability to earn income. They are often their local communities’ only access to the arts and culture, and in many places these communities are not wealthy. Subsidy that is directed towards producing and promoting work by small scale theatres that work closely with their local communities should be prioritised.

12. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations

12.1 Theatres across the UK are still in need of a wide-reaching and coherent programme of capital investment to enable them to upgrade the basic fabric of their buildings to make them more accessible and financially viable, to improve their environmental efficiency, to increase audiences and help revitalise our tourism industry, and to act as a catalyst for urban regeneration. While the Heritage Lottery Fund has pursued a sustained and effective programme of investment in theatres, the same unfortunately has not been the case with Arts Council England Lottery funds in the last 10 years. If theatres are to engage with new audiences and continue to give life to town and city centres across the UK, it is essential that their capital needs are addressed.

719

12.2 While grants from the Heritage Lottery have helped to reinvigorate a number of theatres such as the Hackney Empire and London Coliseum, many theatres do not qualify as heritage assets in their own right, and the share of Arts Council funding going towards theatre buildings has declined dramatically after the first five years of the Lottery. There has also been an increasing divide growing between the experience of theatres in the commercial and in the subsidised sector.

12.3 The Theatres Trust welcomes the intention to return the Lottery shares for arts, heritage and sport to the level originally intended when the Lottery was set up. If ticket sales remain at their current levels, this should translate into an extra £50 million a year each for arts and heritage. The original ‘good causes’ of arts and heritage have seen a diminution in the funds available for their activities not only from the reduction in Lottery shares in 1997 but also in the redirection of significant Heritage and Arts Council Lottery money to fund the Olympics.

12.4 However, we are also concerned that such re-distribution should not be seen as mitigation for wider cuts in government funding of arts and heritage projects. While we recognise the need to restore integrity to the public finances, we are anxious that the core principle of ‘additionality’ in regard to Lottery funding is not compromised. One of the primary intentions for the Lottery, as the impact assessment document makes clear, was to provide funds for capital projects which the Government was not in a position to fund directly and to ensure that the country’s cultural infrastructure was properly restored, maintained and improved. The value of Lottery funding will be undermined if it is used instead as a substitute for core Government spending.

13. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed

13.1 The Theatres Trust would welcome a commitment to an increased level of Lottery funding going towards capital projects for theatres. One of the primary intentions for the Lottery was to provide funds for capital projects which the Government was not in a position to fund directly and to ensure that the country’s cultural infrastructure was properly restored, maintained and improved.

13.2 There are three areas that we would like to see considered further in the return of the Lottery to its original levels:

13.2 a) A commitment to an increased level of Lottery funding going towards capital projects for theatres, particularly where these support economic and environmental sustainability, address issues related to climate change, and deliver aspirations of locally led initiatives to deliver the Big Society. Many theatres are still to benefit from Arts Lottery funds, which have tended only to focus on organisations occupying theatres that are already financially supported by the Arts Council as revenue or regularly funded clients. There are many theatres that operate in the amateur and voluntary sectors, or operate solely as receiving venues, in education and commercial sectors that provide public benefit and have been unable to access Arts Lottery funding for capital projects. The economic realities of theatre ownership are such that the return on capital invested is low in normal commercial terms, and far too low to support the sort of modernisation that is now needed. This has widened the gap between the standards the public experience in the subsidised and commercial sector.

13.2 b) A commitment to capitalisation and the seed funding of endowments that can support the long term operational and maintenance needs, and therefore viability, of theatre buildings. For example, The Theatres Trust is keen to establish such an endowment to build its Theatre Protection Fund which would enable us to provide assistance to secure the future of theatre buildings.

13.2 c) A recognition of the important leverage role that capital Lottery funds play in the economic, social and environmental regeneration of an area and that it has a complementary role to play in supporting theatre capital projects along with European and UK-wide enterprise and regeneration funds. The DCMS and the Lottery we feel therefore has a role to ensure that other 720

Government Departments are aware of the implications on the Lottery of reducing capital regeneration funds.

14. 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

14.1. In its written ministerial statement of the 26 July 2010 the DCMS proposed that The Theatres Trust be declassified so it can act as an independent statutory advisory body. The Trust has been told that The Theatres Trust Act and The Theatres Trust (Scotland) Act will remain in force, ensuring that The Trust’s role continues. We have also been told that the only change that will be made will be to transfer the responsibility of appointment of the Trust’s trustees from the Secretary of State to the trustees of The Theatres Trust, thereby reducing administrative time spent by the department on our trustee appointments. Our authority is vested in the Acts and in our role as a statutory consultee, and it is important that these continue as instruments for the Trust to provide its advice and provide for the protection of theatres, particularly when many theatres will be facing additional pressures of cuts in public subsidy.

14.2 The Theatres Trust welcomes the proposal by DCMS that we should be declassified to become an independent statutory advisory body. We anticipate that this will result in a saving of administrative time which will enable us to focus on promoting the better protection of theatres. We would welcome an endorsement by Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee of the Trust’s independent statutory advisory role.

14.3 Our advice has been instrumental in securing the future of theatres, scrutinising the suitability of works to theatres, ensuring that new theatres are fit for purpose and campaigning for the retention of theatres under threat. Our specialist advice to Local Authorities through the planning system is particularly vital at a time when they may be employing fewer numbers of planning and conservation officers. It is therefore imperative that the Trust maintains its role as a statutory advisor.

14.4 We are working with civil servants at the DCMS on our declassification, but we are yet to receive any written notification of the timetable and the process. We are working to ensure that any changes in our relationship to the DCMS do not impact negatively on our capacity to promote the better protection of theatres on behalf of the nation, particularly at a time when many more theatres in the UK will be facing the prospect of managing their assets on diminishing levels of public subsidy.

14.5 The Theatres Trust receives a £55,000 annual grant devolved for administrative purposes from the DCMS to English Heritage in 1994. It is vital that this grant remains as it is provided for the execution of our statutory work in England. Given that this grant has remained on standstill since 1994 we have already been managing annual inflationary reductions. Any further cut in this grant would seriously compromise our ability to deliver our work. We would welcome an endorsement by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee that our grant should continue at current levels.

15. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level

15.1 There needs to be a clearer understanding of why businesses and philanthropists invest in theatres and how they expect to benefit, in order to decide how extensive a role their support could play in the sector as a whole. Larger corporations are generally more likely to invest in high profile theatres and smaller groups or regional theatres are less able to attract significant levels of private investment, especially in areas of the country which are economically struggling. 15.2 Furthermore, private funding can be inconsistent and increase the uncertainty of an already volatile sector. The experience of many arts organisations in New York has been that private investment can evaporate in times of economic uncertainty, leaving them in severe difficulties. The 721 impact of the recession last year saw many sponsors drift away from the arts. In some cases the Arts Council’s Sustain funding was able to fill the gap left, but this was a one-off injection of funds.

15.3 The Trust would be concerned at attempts to imitate too closely the American model of arts funding, without an appreciation of the many different factors which underpin it and which are not replicated in the UK, such as tax incentives, more independent regions and a different attitude to the role of central Government. There is also widespread dissatisfaction among American theatre practitioners with a system of private philanthropy which they feel does not deliver the depth or breadth of artistic excellence enjoyed in Europe. Spoken drama in London’s West End and on New York’s Broadway is now dominated by productions developed in the UK subsidised theatre sector.

15.4 Theatres already make huge efforts to attract business and private donations and it is uncertain how much more scope there is for greater involvement of the private sector without further tax incentives also being on offer.

16. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations

16.1 The existing system of Gift Aid is an essential fundraising element of many theatres that have charitable status. The Theatres Trust would welcome any proposals that strengthen the Gift Aid system, make it easier to claim, and which make it more attractive to the individual who is interested in giving.

September 2010 722

Written evidence submitted by Natalie Watson (arts 167)

Summary points

• Continued financial support of the arts and heritage is essential. Funding distribution needs to be secure and less bureaucratic.

• Museums and heritage organisations provide an essential function within communities. They provide a world class provision for learning and enjoyment, which is often free to visit, accessible to all and supports the tourism sector and communities they serve.

• Heritage provision in this country is already heavily subsidised by the free labour of dedicated volunteers. However, professional staff and support functions are vital to maintain standards and organise projects and initiatives that link into government policies, indicators and local targets.

• Grassroot posts such as Museum Development Officers (MDOs) and Conservation Development Officers (CDOs) provide excellent value for money. They work in partnership with a large number of varied organisations, responding to local needs and targets. MDOs and CDOs have a proven track record of using small pots of money to make big impacts.

Submission

1. This submission is from myself in a personal capacity and does not represent the views of any organisations I belong to.

2. I am the Community Heritage and Museum Development Officer (MDO) for Somerset. My post is part of a funding partnership between the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (40%), Somerset County Council (40%) and South Somerset District Council (20%).

3. My role is to provide professional advice and support to museums and heritage organisations within Somerset and North Somerset. This support takes the form of providing funding, curatorial and conservation advice, training, project management, publicity, marketing and partnership initiatives. I work closely with district councils, National trust, English Heritage, Tourism departments, MLA, Renaissance, local, regional and national museums and volunteer bureaus.

4. Somerset has 55 museums and heritage organisations and 62 history societies which are all supported by the MOD post. Of these 55 organisations 20 are registered or accredited and I am Curatorial Advisor to 5.

5. The role does not come with a budget so all funding for projects, training and events must be sought externally. Since coming into post in 2007, I have raised £98,565 worth of external funding. This has been used to fund countywide projects such as annual roadshows, touring exhibitions, tourism initiatives, website development, individual museum learning projects and training events.

6. Heritage provision in this country is already heavily subsidised by the free labour of dedicated volunteers. In Somerset alone there are 1463 heritage volunteers, giving an estimated 13,532 hours in an average month with an estimated economic value of £2.36 million per year. 88% of the 55 organisations in the county have volunteer 723

staff, 40% are entirely run by volunteers and 84% of people providing heritage in the county are volunteers. What the county, and indeed the country, get for this staggering figure is an excellent and cheap provision for learning and enjoyment, which is often free to visit, accessible to all and supports the tourism sector.

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;

7. Somerset is a county which has a very high proportion of volunteer run museums and heritage organisations. Many of these are free entry and rely on donations and funding from central and local government for their continued survival. This year alone two museums have closed down because either the annual grant from the local authority has been cut or the peppercorn rents have been hiked dramatically. One museum this year is facing a deficit of £14,000 because of this situation.

8. The sector is already one which struggles financially, with volunteer labour providing the staffing but continued investment is necessary if museums are to continue. Any cuts on a local or national scale is going to impact the museums dramatically. This means they will not be able to develop volunteers skills, put on exhibitions, offer schools and groups facilities for learning, hit local and national target and ultimately open. The wealth of knowledge and learning is in serious danger of being lost forever through underfunding.

What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

9. Already in Somerset we have developed partnerships across different organisation and local and national bodies to try and reduce duplication of effort and make economies of scale. I work with district councils, National trust, English Heritage, Tourism departments, MLA, Renaissance, local, regional and national museums and volunteer bureaus in many different areas. MDOs such as myself and other professionals should strive to make partnerships with outside groups and share information more widely.

10. Volunteer bureaus are key contacts for arts and heritage groups and I work closely with the local bureaus as a conduit to make placements in over 60 organisations, cutting down on the duplication of paperwork across the county.

11. Tourism is another key area in which heritage serves and I currently edit and maintain the heritage pages on the counties tourism website. An MLA funded projects has produced tourism information, guidebooks, maps and online itineraries which are hosted by Visit Somerset (www.visitsomerset.co.uk/touring-map). This means that the online information is relevant and up-to-date and again, cuts down on duplication of work between myself and tourism bureau.

12. Skills development is an area in which partnerships are already well developed. The SW federation receives skills development funding from MLA to provide tailored, relevant and free training to heritage workers.

13. As MDO I produce a monthly newsletter of news and information as well as upcoming grants, training and initiatives which is circulated across the region. Information from these groups is filtered and fed through to the volunteer and staff and highlights the importance of the MDO role as a conduit for information sharing. 724

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

14. The heritage budget is tiny; the return on investment is huge. Public subsidy of arts and heritage should continue and at a level that makes real differences. Small pots of money can go a long way in museums used to ruining on a shoestring and partnership projects managed on a county level by posts such as MDOs give fantastic value for money. The public gets quality educational establishments, places for learning for all ages, perform and essential functions in preserving and promoting heritage and also serve the economic wellbeing of an area by providing jobs, entertainment, tourism and community focus.

Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

15. The mechanism with which funding is distributed needs to be reviewed. Funding currently goes through too many bureaucratic layers and should instead be distributed at a grassroots level by those who understand the needs of the local area. MDOs and local authority run heritage services have good contacts with the organisations in their area and understand national frameworks, targets and policies.

16. Currently the model of training being organised and hosted by the SW federation in the SW is an excellent model for how central funds can be distrusted by an independent organisation. We have made considerable saving by using free venues and trainers from our own membership, giving greater value for money whilst maintaining excellent evaluation.

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;

17. The MLA provides essential functions for museums and heritage professionals, many of which will need to be maintained by other organisations. Some are provisions which are legal necessities and many others are essential functions that museums would suffer without.

18. Accreditation is a key standard for best practice which encourages museums to strive to develop their collection care and visitor services. Years of hard work have gone into achieving and maintaining accreditation by museums and this cannot now be dropped for cost implications.

19. Training and skills development is also an essential function for an organisation that represents more volunteers than professionally educated staff. Cutting this area with no backup would mean the loss of the skills which make our museums first class establishments and lead to a gradual deterioration in standards. Cutting instantly is a quick fix solution that will cost much more in the long term.

Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

20. Relying on businesses and philanthropists for long-term investment in heritage is dangerous and will lead to massive discrepancies in funding. Undoubtedly private giving from these individuals in somewhere such as London will be on a totally different scale to those of Somerset, which is a rural area and comparatively poor 725

county. I believe private giving is a supplement to heritage funding, not a replacement.

Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

21. I agree that more private giving could be encouraged by the government but would have concerns about the distribution mechanism. Who would get priority and would we see excess of funding to popular causes such as big museums and specific collections, rather than an equal distribution that would benefit small community museums too?

September 2010 726

Written evidence submitted by the Design and Artists Copyright Society (DACS) (arts 168)

1. Executive Summary

1.1. DACS welcomes the opportunity to provide its input into the inquiry and highlight the economic challenges facing artists and their estates, as well as the importance of industry providing support for these groups. The response focuses on questions 1, 3 and 8 outlined in the terms of reference.

1.2. This response relates to the Artist’s Resale Right (ARR), which was introduced in 2006 in the UK for artists, and is due to be fully implemented in 2012. This will extend the right to the beneficiaries and estates of artists that have been deceased for up to 70 years, providing vital support to the heritage of the art community.

1.3. Artists add substantial value to the UK, economically and culturally. As public sector funding is reduced, it is more important than ever that the Government acknowledges the need for the industry to support artists and their estates. The ARR is a valuable source of income in this respect.

1.4. Ensuring a robust copyright system supports artists and reduces reliance on government funding. Artists earn a significant portion of their income from their royalties and the feedback we receive from artists is that, no matter how small, royalty payments support their work. Of note, the median payment to artists through the ARR is £360.

1.5. Inheritance of an artist’s legacy typically brings with it a burden and the extension of the ARR will secure a source of funding for estates, enabling them to protect the nation’s artistic inheritance, as well as support the art trade. Estates are very dependent on royalties and the full implementation of the ARR will provide a significant contribution by the art industry to protect the heritage of the art community.

1.6. The ARR has not had a negative impact on the art industry and neither will the extension of the Resale Right to deceased artists. There is no evidence that the extension will have a negative impact, representing only 0.2% of the entire art market. The ARR has a number of mechanisms in place to protect the interest of the art trade, including the tiered royalty rates and a £10,000 cap on the maximum royalty an artist can receive.

1.7. DACS calls on the Committee to support the full implementation of the ARR to provide much needed support for UK art and its heritage.

727

2. Introduction

2.1. The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee have called for responses to inform the inquiry into the Funding of Arts and Heritage. As part of this, it will be reviewing the impact that public sector cuts will have on the arts and heritage, as well as the role that industry can play in support of arts and heritage.

2.2. Established in 1984 by artists for artists, DACS (the Design and Artists Copyright Society) is the UK’s leading not-for profit rights management organisation for visual artists. We translate rights into revenues and recognition so that artists and their works are properly valued. Today the organisation represents nearly 60,000 visual artists.

2.3. DACS welcomes the opportunity to provide its input into the inquiry and highlight the economic challenges facing artists and their estates, as well as the importance of industry providing support for these groups. The response focuses on questions 1, 3 and 8 outlined in the terms of reference.

2.4. A core element of this response relates to the Artist’s Resale Right (ARR), which was introduced in 2006 in the UK for artists, and is due to be fully implemented in 2012. This will extend the right to the beneficiaries and estates of artists that have been deceased for up to 70 years, providing vital support to the heritage of the art community.

2.5. As part of a broad community of organisation supporting visual artists, DACS would ask you to note our general agreement with the points raised by a-n and AIR in their response to this inquiry.

3. Comments

3.1. Artists add substantial value to the UK, economically and culturally, and should be supported by government funding

3.1.1. Unlike many professions, artists draw their income on a non-contractual basis from a number of sources, including from both the public and private sector. As public sector funding is reduced, it is more important than ever that the Government acknowledges the need for the industry to support artists and their estates, ensuring a vibrant and growing art community.

3.1.2. Although the art industry makes a significant economic contribution to the UK, the average artists’ income in the UK is £21,734.13, much lower than the UK average annual wage1.

1 Submission to European Commission impact assessment exploring approaches to facilitating the digitisation and dissemination of orphan works, DACS, March 2010. 728

3.1.3. At a time of public sector cuts, artists’ limited incomes are being heavily impacted not simply through direct subsidies, but also the availability of public sector contracts. Recent data indicates that the value of employment opportunities for professional artists has already declined by 27% since 20072.

3.2. Ensuring a robust copyright system supports artists and reduces reliance on government funding

3.2.1. The strength of the UK’s cultural sector is directly related to the opportunities we provide to creators to make a living from their creative endeavours now and in the future.

3.2.2. We urge the Committee to recognise individual creators as the engine of the creative economy, requiring economic incentives and rewards commensurate with the value they add to the UK’s economy. This includes a wide range of visual artists, including photographers, illustrators and fine artists.

3.2.3. The ARR provides a valuable source of income for new and upcoming artists whose incomes are coming under increasing pressure in the current economic climate.

3.3. Artists earn significant income from their royalties

3.3.1. DACS has long understood the value of royalties to visual artists. The feedback we receive from those we pay royalties to, no matter how small, tell us clearly that payments provide an independent source of funding which supports artistic practice. In March 2010, DACS commissioned Europe Economics (www.europe-economics.com) to conduct independent research into the financial significance of royalties to artists.3 The research surveyed over 700 artists and showed that on average artists receive just fewer than 11 per cent of their income in the form of royalties.

3.3.2. The median payment to artists through the Resale Right is £360 and the case study in Box 1.0 provides an example of the level of the resale right enjoyed by a new artist under the current system. At this level the resale right does not act as a disincentive for sale, but provides a valuable source of income.

2 Open letter to The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, published in a-n Magazine, September 2010 3 Submission to European Commission impact assessment exploring approaches to facilitating the digitisation and dissemination of orphan works, DACS, March 2010. 729

Box 1.0 Tony Bevan Hammer price: £6,500 Head Horizon Sale price: £8,125 Sold for £8,125 Sotheby’s, June 2010, Buyer’s premium price4: £1,625 London Buyer’s premium price represents 25% of hammer price

ARR due: £260 Royalty represents 4% of hammer price

3.4. The extension of Artist’s Resale Right will secure a source of funding for estates, enabling them to protect the nation’s artistic inheritance

3.4.1. The principle of a post mortem term attached to intellectual property is long-accepted. Inheriting an artist’s legacy typically brings with it a burden. Beneficiaries are often required to store, preserve, and restore original works. They may be expected to maintain an archive, supply reproductions and provide biographical information. Estates are frequently relied upon to contribute to the assessment of provenance, identification of fakes and to be expert in every aspect of the artist’s life and work. This crucial work is relied upon by scholars, museums, art dealers, collectors, and the art world generally.

Box 1.1 Case Study – The William Scott Foundation The William Scott Foundation is run by Robert and James Scott, sons of the artist William Scott who lived from 1913 to 1989. The Foundation undertakes the cataloguing, preservation, and valuing of William Scott’s work, as well as identifying fakes. The running costs of the Foundation are now between £250,000 and £500,000 per annum. The Foundation’s income does not even begin to approach that sum. The introduction of the ARR for families and beneficiaries will create a vital new source of income, enabling the Foundation to continue its important work.

3.4.2. Recent research undertaken by DACS indicates that the estates of deceased artists are very reliant on royalties. Only 22 per cent of income received by the estates was from activities other than royalties. Full implementation of the ARR to secure the collection and payment of resale right royalties to heirs or estates of artists that have been deceased for up to 70 years, will come into effect from 2012. This will make a significant contribution to the support offered by the art industry to protect the heritage of the art community.

4 The buyer’s premium is levied on the buyer of a piece of art by an auction house and is in addition to any commission taken out of the proportion of the sale price received by the previous owner. 730

3.5. The ARR has not had a negative impact on the art industry and neither will the extension of the Resale Right to deceased artists

3.5.1. Since the introduction of the ARR in 2006, there has been no evidence that it has had a negative impact on the UK art market. In fact, the British art and antiques market generated £7.7 billion in sales in 2009.

3.5.2. In addition, there is no economic evidence to suggest that the extension of the resale right will have a negative economic impact on the UK’s art market and has operated successfully across the rest of Europe since 2006. And it is estimated that resale royalties will generate £15 million per annum post 2012 for artists and their estates. This is a significant contribution for artists and their beneficiaries but represents only 0.5% of the value of the modern and contemporary art market and only 0.2% of the entire art market.

3.5.3. The art market in London and the rest of the UK is widely acknowledged to be the most established market in Europe. Those opposed to the right claim that the extension of the resale right will undermine the UK’s position, but DACS calls on the committee to acknowledge that there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. It is also worth noting that the Resale Right is not unanimously opposed by the art trade with a number of dealers disputing the economic claims that have been put forward by those opposed to the Resale Right.

3.6. The ARR has a number of mechanisms in place to protect the interest of the art trade

3.6.1. The ARR is intended to support artists and subsequently the long term growth of the art trade. Mechanisms in place to ensure that it does not have a negative impact on the industry include tiered royalty rates ranging from 4% and 0.25% and £10,000 cap on the maximum royalty an artist can receive on a single sale. These mechanisms will be afforded to those works covered by the extension to deceased artists and the Right will have a minimal impact on a thriving art market in the UK.

3.6.2. Box 1.2 provides two examples of the potential contribution the Resale Right would make to the estate of a deceased artist, whilst also indicating the limited percentage of the sale price made up by the Resale Right. 731

Box 1.2 Alberto Giacometti Hammer price: £59 million Walking Man I (1960) Sale price: £65 million Sold for £65 million Sotheby’s, February Buyer’s premium: £7 million 2010, London Buyer’s premium represents 12% of the hammer price

Potential ARR: £10,000 Royalty represents 0.02% of the hammer price Pablo Picasso Hammer price: £31 million Potrait d’Angel Sale price: £34.7 million Fernandez de Soto Sold for £34.7 million Buyer’s premium: £3.7 million Christie’s, June 2010, Buyer’s premium represents 12% of hammer London price

Potential ARR: £10,000 Royalty represents 0.03% of hammer price

4. Concluding remarks

4.1. Artists are the bedrock of the UK’s thriving art community, providing considerable economic benefits. New and established artists need support to ensure that this industry continues to thrive. The current economic downturn, coupled with the decline in government support, in the form of funding and public sector contracts, presents a challenge for artists and estates of deceased artists in the UK.

4.2. The ARR has successfully supported up and coming artists since its introduction in 2006. The Resale Right is due to be extended to the beneficiaries and estates of deceased artists from 2012, providing much needed support for the UK art and its heritage as it has done for the rest of Europe since 2006.

4.3. At a challenging time for artists and their estates, DACS calls on the Committee to support the implementation of the EU Directive and the important role that the industry must play in supporting the foundations of the art community.

5. About DACS

5.1. Established in 1984 by artists for artists, DACS (the Design and Artists Copyright Society) is the UK’s leading not-for profit rights management organisation for visual artists. We translate rights into revenues and recognition so that artists and their works are properly valued.

732

5.2. DACS offers copyright licensing for 54,000 visual artists and collective rights management for 16,000 visual artists. DACS also collects and distributes resale royalties as part of the ARR. Since the introduction of the right DACS paid by over £10.5 million to over 1,800 visual artists.

5.3. For further information about DACS, please visit our website: www.dacs.org.uk.

September 2010

733

Written evidence submitted by Film and Video Umbrella Ltd (FVU) (arts 169)

1. Summary ƒ Public funding has supported innovative artistic practice, where private giving is often more supportive towards established art forms and established artists ƒ An immediate effect of significant cuts to the arts ecology is a slowing down of productivity as partnerships and funding become slower and less secure – this in turn makes projects more time-consuming and expensive ƒ In a sector where a large proportion of contributors operate with not-for-profit or charitable status, there are little or no margins to cut and any reduction of support will directly effect productivity ƒ Following on from the abolition of UK Film Council, a strategic rethink of support for cultural film could greatly benefit artists working in moving image from within the establish arts infrastructure

2. Introduction

This is a submission in respect of the forthcoming inquiry into The Funding of Arts and Heritage by the House of Commons Culture, Media & Sport Select Committee, on behalf of the Arts Council England-funded arts organisation Film and Video Umbrella Ltd (FVU). This submission is in response to an email from Arts Council England’s Chief Executive Moira Sinclair in which she encouraged FVU and other RFOs (regularly funded organisations) to register their views on a number of questions posed by the Culture, Media & Sport Select Committee. The submission also includes a Director’s Statement from Steven Bode, who has been director of the organisation for the best part of two decades.

3. Organisational profile

Film and Video Umbrella programmes, produces, presents and promotes film, video and new media work by artists.

Underpinning these various interlocking strands of our activity is a commitment to touring as the most effective model of reaching and generating an audience, and to working collaboratively with diverse, often regionally based venues to achieve this.

A similar eclecticism and scope is at the heart of our programming, which not only seeks to champion contemporary film and video work but also clearly and concisely locates it within a broader artistic or cultural context.

FVU is an RFO of Arts Council England and in addition to our ACE grant we currently raise approximately 50% of our turnover from funds and from paid fees. FVU employs three full-time members of staff, four part-time members and a further three freelance creatives on a project-by-project basis.

4. Director’s Statement

Like a lot of organisations across the country, we have been taking some time this summer to focus on the challenges and priorities of the months ahead. Everyone working in the arts faces some difficult, unavoidable choices, and an across-the-board review of strategic funding to look at best value for artists and audiences is an important part of that process. 734

Broadly speaking, the early responses to the situation that have emerged from Arts Council England strike us as both appropriate and imaginative. The challenges ahead obviously call for further innovative and creative thinking, qualities with which the arts community, to its good fortune, is particularly blessed.

While the arts community is able, and willing, to think differently, there are some fundamental principles that need to be highlighted, and reiterated, as part of any wide-ranging review, however radical, or well-intentioned. Much of the expansion of the contemporary visual arts in this country over the last decade has coincided with a strong, reciprocal relationship between publicly funded organisations and the commercial sector. While private giving, by wealthy collectors and other benefactors, has acted as an important stimulus in this, it needs to be recognised that there are certain activities (at the more experimental end of the spectrum especially) that the art market will much less inclined to support, but which are nevertheless crucial to the development of artistic practice. (It is worth reminding ourselves here how innovations outside today’s mainstream often accrue cultural, and commercial, value a few years on). We are not convinced that there is a queue of private benefactors who are able to fully grasp, let alone materially support, the range of professional and conceptual development that publicly-funded organisations regularly fulfill. The prospect of greater philanthropic giving is appealing, and not without potential, but its limits, as a regular and consistent source of outside revenue, need to be appreciated.

Similarly, we are not convinced that there is as much scope as might first seem to be the case for organisations sharing day-to-day resources. The current economic challenges have already seen a number of like-minded organisations working collaboratively and consensually to help further common aims and aspirations. Any move towards actively merging organisations’ operational/administrative functions in the interests of savings needs to be thought through very carefully, however; especially in the case of small- to medium-scale organisations.

- Steven Bode

5. Detailed response to questions raised by Arts Council England

In addition to the above statement we would like to add our responses to a couple of questions specifically from FVU’s perspective:

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

The recent funding cuts amongst arts organisations and the prospect of further cuts to come has meant that both FVU, and the organisations with which it collaborates, have been forced to remodel their budgets, and to consider the likely implications of any shortfall on their future programming. A number of projects that are currently in development have been placed on hold, waiting for confirmation from potential project partners – we are unlikely to receive these commitments until the impact of the settlement is known. In our field is not uncommon for projects to have a production/development life of 12-18 months, 735

so the knock-on effect of the uncertainty in itself, let alone any cuts to funding, is likely to be felt for quite some time.

All of our collaborative partners are as aware as we are that the pressure on current sources of funding is due to become increasingly competitive and that a higher percentage of applications is likely to be rejected. This will mean that development and pre-production of projects will not only be more uncertain but that more person-hours will need to be committed to getting a project off the ground.

One concern is that funders will come to favour ‘safer’ projects with significant institutional backing, and that more challenging, niche and artist-led projects will consequently struggle for support. This would slowly but surely undermine a thriving arts ecology where experimentation at grass root level feeds through to the nation’s major museums as well as being part of the lifeblood of its small independent galleries.

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable

The level of public funding for arts and culture that has pertained over the last decade has resulted in an extraordinary variety of internationally acclaimed work that has been accompanied by an equally significant groundswell of public interest in contemporary art. If previous levels of support have, in effect, got us to where we are today, there must be concern that a drop-off in funding will undo some of the advances that have been made.

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

As an organisation with a long-standing commitment to creative innovation with the moving image, Film and Video Umbrella is waiting to see how strategic policy for this area will be realigned following the abolition of the UK Film Council, but has been reassured by recent statements from Government stressing the importance of ‘cultural film’ within the publicly-funded sector.

6. Conclusion

Regular funding from Arts Council England has allowed FVU to set new benchmarks of artistic practice, audience outreach and technical innovation. A fall-off in that level of public funding presupposes new streams of income to make good that loss. We are not convinced that philanthropy and private giving will significantly ameliorate a substantial cut in funding, since collectors and other benefactors often follow the market rather than cutting edge artistic activity. The long-term effect of not nurturing today’s up-and-coming talent would be that the artworld and the larger moving-image industry would miss out on a number of important future players, and that the area would be poorer as a result.

In a more immediate timeframe, one of the practical obstacles FVU is faced with is the feeling of delay and hesitation which characterises the art world at present. This means that ambitious and forward-looking projects are not only 736

difficult but also more time-consuming and therefore costlier to get off the ground.

In our experience the arts industry is already lean and operating with little or no margins. It is therefore a given that cuts in funding will directly affect artistic output.

September 2010

737

Written evidence submitted by Culture Service, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (arts 170)

1. 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

We are concerned that cuts in funding of the arts and heritage will:

• Undermine the excellent work of the past two decades • Make arts and heritage funding less attractive to private companies, trusts, foundations, philanthropists and others • Make Britain, in general, and London, in particular, less of a destination of choice for (overseas) visitors • Reduce the international status of Britain, in general, and London, in particular, as centres of cultural and artistic excellence and innovation • Have a disproportionate impact on the socially disadvantaged and those who have traditionally been beyond the reach of the arts, culture, and heritage sectors – yet who have started to engage more in recent years as a direct result of dedicated programmes of engagement and social cohesion • Have a negative impact on the (commercial) creative industries, which have a healthy symbiotic relationship with the funded arts, culture, and heritage sectors

2 What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

We believe that arts organisations should:

• Network more efficiently with each other • Work together to maximise the lobbying and advocacy power of organisations such as Arts Council England • Work together with Government to promote the values and benefits of the arts to society • Benefit more from best practice in other organisations • Utilise resources such as premises, management and administration more efficiently – by processes such as sharing or pooling resources • Become ever more robust with regards to their efficiency and professionalism • Advocate more strongly as a sector on behalf of the arts, culture, and heritage • Recognise that there is no such thing as an inalienable right to be in receipt of public funding

3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable

We believe that public subsidy for the arts and heritage should be set at a level that:

• Is commensurate with achieving particular goals and ambitions – artistically, financially, socially • Is in line with general public opinion as to the importance of arts, heritage and culture 738

• Allows for the realisation of long-term (say, twenty-year) strategic plans and ambitions • Recognises that, as society in general becomes more affluent, the public as a whole looks to engage more with arts, heritage and culture • Recognises that short-term savings now may lead to situations that are not redeemable in the future – this applies in particular to conservation of heritage

4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one

We believe in a system, and structure, of funding distribution that:

• Has a balance between national and local interests • Is transparent and accountable • Is efficient, cost-effective, and avoids duplication • Is flexible and adaptable to change • Engages with the public and champions the interests of artists and arts organisations • Recognises that there is no inalienable right to administer and distribute public funds

5. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations

We believe that an increase in National Lottery funding of arts and heritage: • should be beneficial, though may not fully offset reductions in funding elsewhere (e.g. through central or local government) • could set an unfortunate precedent, whereby Lottery funding Is seen as replacement for, rather than complement to, Treasury funding

6. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed

We believe that the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed to take account of:

• The strengths and weaknesses – achievements and disappointments – of the past sixteen years of lottery funding • Changes in demography • Changes in the arts, culture, and heritage landscape brought about by digital technology and other innovations

7. 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

We believe that DCMS should:

• Draw a clear distinction between an arm’s-length body and the area of work for which it has a responsibility • Continue to investigate merger and other potential organisational change while ensuring that all core responsibilities remain fulfilled • Look to minimise the loss of expertise (brain drain) from the arts, culture, and heritage sector

739

8. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level

We believe:

• businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts, though this is a complement to, not replacement for, public subsidy • that cuts in public funding of arts and heritage are likely to make the sector less attractive to private companies, trusts, foundations, philanthropists and others • that there is considerable potential to develop mutually beneficial partnerships between small- or medium-sized businesses in the private sector and their arts counterparts • that businesses and philanthropists will welcome tax breaks that will further enhance their financial contribution • that Government (central and local) can work more closely with arm’s-length bodies such as Arts Council England and arts organisations to promote the attractiveness of the arts and heritage sector to businesses and philanthropists

9. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations

We believe that there is considerable scope to encourage private donations to the arts, culture and heritage sectors. This can be achieved by:

• Government working more closely with arm’s-length bodies such as Arts Council England and arts organisations to promote the attractiveness of the arts and heritage sector to private individuals • Developing schemes for private donors that focus on the considerable equity that many individuals now have in property • Encouraging individuals to leave money to arts organisations as part of their will • Offering tax breaks and incentives • Ensuring that there is an allocation of seats on the Boards of large arts organisations (and arm’s-length bodies) for “interested citizens”

We would also like to make the point that Government could considerably assist the arts by easing regulatory frameworks such as licensing, with a view to making them more appropriate to the needs, interests and requirements of the arts sector. An example of this is the London Local Authorities Act, which prevents a local authority from making a profit from street trading. We believe that this could be amended to the effect that any local authority profits from street trading be put towards arts and cultural events and activities.

We hope that you find this submission of interest.

September 2010 740

Written evidence submitted by Northwest Regional Development Agency (arts 171)

1. A submission by Nick Brooks-Sykes, Director of Tourism, Northwest Regional Development Agency

2. On 28 July the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee announced an inquiry into the funding of the arts and heritage and invited submissions and views on a number of issues relating to this (see appendix).

3. The NWDA and its partners in the region have carried out research into the importance of heritage to the region’s visitor economy, and have invested funds in support of projects relating to both heritage and the arts. Key partners are English Heritage, The Arts Council and The Heritage Lottery Fund and the NW Historic Environment Forum. There is therefore a body of evidence and experience that is, potentially at least, of relevance and interest to the committee.

4. The NWDA and its partners have:

4.1. Commissioned research into the following areas: Heritage Tourism, 2010; The Economic Impact of Heritage, 2009; Historic Towns & Cities in England’s Northwest, 2005; Perceptions of the Northwest and its tourism products, 2010 Research into the activities and expenditure of both overnight and same day tourists (day visitors), 2007 & 2009;

4.2. Supported or led the development of: The Lancaster Heritage Tourism Strategy; The Merseyside Heritage Investment Strategy; A Cultural Investment Framework;

4.3. Supported the following project activity: The Northwest Heritage Tourism Programme Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd Roman Maryport Carlisle Roman Gateway Museum Renaissance (Renaissance in the Regions) The Lake District National Park WHS Bid Art in Oxford Road Industrial Powerhouse Jodrell Bank Liverpool Biennial (with ERDF) Liverpool Capital of Culture Liverpool Everyman (with ERDF) Liverpool WHS Lowther (with ERDF) Manchester International Festival Manchester Museum of Science & Industry The National Football Museum The Tate, Liverpool Visitor Economy Development Pilot Projects in Carlisle’s historic centre, including its Cathedral, Chester, around the Cathedral, Liverpool, and Manchester’s Cultural Corridor

741

5. This range of interventions and investment means that the Agency and its partners have the experience and knowledge to contribute meaningfully to the Select Committee’s inquiry, and in particular to address the question of ‘what arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale’.

Key Points

6. Coordination of activity and investment by publicly funded bodies involved in the arts and heritage makes sense and delivers benefits 6.1. In the Northwest, the NWDA, English Heritage, Arts Council and Heritage Lottery Fund have held regular meetings to discuss policies, priorities and investment. Among other things, this coordination has led to jointly commissioned research and to the establishment of a jointly funded Heritage Tourism post for the region, together with a small capital fund to support investment in heritage properties. 6.2. There are clear benefits arising from the creation of a set of shared priorities, from the decisions on investments that follow from this, and from the improved knowledge and understanding arising from research undertaken in a consistent and coordinated manner 6.3. The work of the NWDA in supporting a regional Major Events Strategy has been highly significant in attracting events to the Northwest region, generating £150m for the regional economy since 2004. Liverpool's year as European Capital of Culture generated £800m for the City Region in 2008 alone, over 3.5m first-time visitors and £176m in tourism spend. 6.4. Coordination activity by public bodies (and by Tourist Boards in particular) can help the private sector to capitalise on the cultural and heritage assets within their locality, for example: through a focus on the creation of an appropriate and high quality public realm within heritage or cultural zones within a wider city or town setting, and; through help to businesses to better understand, and promote and sell to, the visitor audience for such places and attractions. 6.5. Evidence submitted to the recent BIS Select Committee by Andrea Nixon, Executive Director of Tate Liverpool1 and member of the Northwest Visitor Economy Commission, supports the assertion being made. While the references are to the NWDA, the point is that there is value to be gained from a coordinating / leadership role at a level about that of the individual destination: 6.5.1. ‘…the NWDA supports the sector by leading a clear Tourism strategy with agreed priorities shared across a large and diverse region. It has particularly focused on investment in projects of international significance to help grow the visitor economy to its current £14.3bn annual value to the North West; the NWDA is also critical in effective promotion of the region on an international scale and in working to help attract and market major events in the North West, including some of Tate Liverpool’s own exhibitions such as Picasso: Peace and Freedom. The Agency has had a particular role in avoiding unhelpful tourism competition between sub regions (e.g. it was pivotal in ensuring that Manchester International Festival was programmed in a different year from Liverpool’s Capital of Culture) and it has helped lever considerable extra resources from other private and public sources through its early support for large-scale projects (e.g. the 2007 Turner Prize at Tate Liverpool, where the RDA’s investment of £100,000 generated a further £350,000 public/private partnership cash support for the project). It has then helped these projects be collectively marketed to an international audience through its own marketing activities, with the resulting benefit that economic impact could be clearly

1 Memorandum for the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee inquiry into the new Local Enterprise Partnerships, Andrea Nixon, Tate Liverpool, August 2010 742

measured through private business gain (e.g. Tate Liverpool’s Gustav Klimt exhibition in 2008 contributed £11.1.m into the city region economy outside the gallery.’ 6.5.2. ‘Having strategic responsibility for tourism properly aligned at regional level with the wider economic development agenda has been advantageous and enabled the visitor economy to benefit from a wide range of Agency investments. There has been particular benefit from having collaboration rather than competition through a regionally co-ordinated approach for cultural tourism, and an ability to spread good practice (e.g. the development of a cultural tourism online portal for Manchester, with an integrated box office, which can now be rolled out elsewhere in the region). Keeping strategic planning aligned to larger economic goals has been very positive for a variety of exceptional cultural events across the region and we need this approach more than ever in current times.’

7. Heritage and Culture are highly important drivers of tourism activity 7.1. The Committee will be well aware of the evidence available in two recent reports2 concerning the importance of heritage and culture to the UK’s tourism sector. Research within the northwest confirms this, while adding depth and insight to nationally commissioned research. 7.2. Whilst heritage is not the Northwest’s strongest tourism offer, it is nonetheless the case that Museums and Art Galleries, along with Leisure & Theme Parks, are the most popular attraction type in the Northwest, each representing 28% of visits' and 'Historic Houses / House & Gardens / Palaces are the next most popular attraction type in the region'.3 7.3. Policy relating to heritage and culture does not always properly acknowledge the importance of day and overnight tourist visitors. For example the publication ‘Taking Part: The National Survey of Culture, Leisure and Sport, Adult and Child Report 2009/10’4 contains no reference to tourism or tourists in the substantive part of the report. The data that underlies the report does not include anything on the nature of the visit. This lack of recognition of the importance of tourism behaviour undermines attempts to understand the motivation and context for engagement with the areas covered (which include heritage, museums and galleries, and the arts), and as a consequence it also impairs policy-making. 7.4. London dominates the UK’s heritage and culture offer and in tourism terms is the outstanding UK destination, particularly for overseas visitors. This dominance and the media focus on London based activity that is a consequence, mean that all other places have a struggle to compete. There is very clearly the potential for more to be done to attract both domestic and overseas tourism visitors to destinations outside London, as the success of Liverpool 08 demonstrates. However to capitalise on these opportunities requires a medium to long term commitment and the recognition of other points made here.

8. Notwithstanding their importance as drivers of tourism, visitors typically seek a range of experiences in the place they visit; heritage and cultural experiences need to be entertaining and interactive, part of a wider set of things to do and to be linked strongly to the destinations in which they are located 8.1. Key insights from research into heritage tourism in the region include: 8.1.1. Decisions about breaks and holidays are made primarily on place (and people need reassurance there will be enough things to do or they are unlikely to take

2 Investing in Success, Heritage & the UK Tourism Economy, Feb 2010, The Heritage Lottery Fund, and Culture and Heritage Topic Profile, VisitBritain, Feb 2010 3 Northwest Heritage Tourism report, working paper, NWDA, March 2010 4 DCMS, August 2010 743

the risk) rather than on individual attractions and themes. Very few attractions are strong enough to drive visits in their own right. Themes (by themselves) don’t work. Themes and stories are more appropriately used to give a place (or an attraction) personality and identity. Achieving this requires joint working / coordination, and the involvement of tourist boards or other destination management organisations. 8.1.2. Often heritage is a backdrop; picturesque streetscapes in which to shop, eat or stroll. A clean, high quality public realm with well-restored and used historic buildings is a fundamental requirement for a heritage destination. 8.1.3. Even for those who are interested in a deeper heritage experience it will only be part of ‘filling a day’. 8.1.4. Heritage experiences must be tangible, entertaining, lively and fun. 8.1.5. Placemaking should include the preservation and productive use of heritage buildings, parks and public spaces and arguably this is a more important role for local authorities than the promotion of visitor attractions. 8.2. The conclusion of a report on the Economic Value of Heritage in the North West for the NWDA was that heritage townscapes (as opposed to individual sites or attractions) are the most significant drivers of economic impact.

9. Joint working between institutions has the potential to be improved and can generate significant benefits for the institutions concerned 9.1. The NWDA funded a project called ‘Raising the Game’ in partnership with regional Museum Renaissance activity and was influential in determining project objectives. Project activity involved a small number of key museums in the region. Areas of focus included: learning lessons and applying best practice with respect to the retail activity of the museums concerned; joint working between museums in Manchester intended to align the presentation of their offer with the City’s Original Modern branding, which led to the creation of the www.creativetourist.com website; support for investments in gallery improvements, and; support for specific exhibitions. 9.2. The Director of the Whitworth spoke of the NWDA supported Kinderzimmer exhibition in 2009 as ‘the most remarkable’ event that The Whitworth has ever presented’, as ‘absolutely transformative’. The exhibition was sold out; visitor figures for June were 40% up on the previous year. The Director spoke about the risky nature of the project and of the role of the NWDA’s funding in creating a willingness of partners to mount the exhibition. 9.3. The regionally supported Industrial Powerhouse project connects different museums and others sites together and through the Raising the Game project improved presentation and integration / cross marking between sites. 9.4. NWDA support for Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Ltd and for action by Cumbria Tourism to support dedicated work in Carlisle has enabled more ambitious and successful activity, and integrated this with ERDF funded investments in the presentation of Carlisle’s Roman story.

10. The lack of any formal designation below that of World Heritage Sites is a missed opportunity, both for more focused investment and for improved presentation and promotion of the UK’s Heritage assets 10.1. World Heritage Sites represent the pinnacle of successful heritage designation, and have the potential to generate valuable economic benefits. Work undertaken by the Lake District WHS Partnership at the NWDA’s behest and with their support has shown the potential for WHS to generate positive impacts in a number of areas. 10.2. However the lack of any designation below that of World Heritage Status means that there is less clarity of purpose when it comes to investing in heritage sites, and in particular doing so to generate economic benefits from tourism, and it misses the 744

opportunity to better present the UK’s breadth of heritage assets to both domestic and international visitors.

September 2010 745

Written evidence submitted by the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee (arts 172)

Summary

• The JNAPC is working for the better protection of underwater cultural heritage (UCH) in the UK’s territorial waters and the international waters adjacent to its coasts. The Committee represents a very wide range of stakeholders in maritime archaeology. See www.jnapc.org.uk .

• English Heritage provides Government support in England through its maritime team, which is of very modest proportions. This team and its contractor already deliver excellent value for a small amount of Government money. DCMS has a minimal resource allocation to UCH.

• Maritime archaeology in the UK delivers great value for money as it is carried out mainly by volunteers. Wrecks designated under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 are resourced and managed by unpaid volunteer divers and archaeologists. The cost to Government is minimal.

• DCMS and Government need to improve protection of our underwater cultural heritage, which is currently at risk. Resource needs to be increased rather than potentially reduced.

• There appears to be no material operational or financial reason for DCMS to abolish the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites and the decision should be reviewed. Savings will be minimal, if indeed any are achieved.

• As a major seafaring nation, Britain has a legacy of sunken naval and merchant vessels throughout the world that represents an enormous resource of historical and cultural interest to this and future generations. Until recently they have been protected by the water depth and lack of technology.

• However with greatly improved technology there is now a major threat to our historic wrecks and commercial salvors are successfully targeting the valuable historic wrecks around our coasts, which will lead to the loss of irreplaceable historical information. There is only one opportunity to gather the unique evidence of our past from these ‘time-capsules’ of history and this should not be squandered for short-term financial gain.

• Legislation for protection of UCH within our 12 nautical mile territorial waters is inadequate. Beyond territorial waters there is very little that the Government can do to protect historic sites unless they are naval warships.

• DCMS needs to lead an urgent review across Government of heritage legislation related to territorial waters, which would also remove UCH from the salvage regime. Beyond territorial waters the Government needs to ratify the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage 2001.

• The need for future legislation and appropriate management support for our underwater cultural heritage at risk provides the strong reason why funding support for this sector should not be reduced, but should if possible be modestly increased. 746

Introduction

1 The JNAPC was formed in 1988 to raise awareness of the United Kingdom’s underwater cultural heritage (UCH) and to persuade government that underwater sites of historic importance should receive no less protection than those on land. The Committee represents a very wide range of interests in maritime archaeology including national societies, museums, archaeological associations and sports diving organisations. Observers are drawn from Government Departments, national heritage agencies, and relevant maritime organisations. Summary information on the JNAPC and its membership is attached in Appendices 1 & 21 below. More information is on www.jnapc.org.uk .

CURRENT FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

Current resources for UCH

2 English Heritage provides Government support in England through its maritime team, which is of very modest proportions. This team and its contractor already deliver excellent value for a small amount of Government money and its assistance with volunteer projects provides considerable leverage to those projects. Historic Scotland, Cadw and Environment Service Northern Ireland have a very modest allocation of resource to UCH. DCMS also has a minimal resource allocation to UCH.

3 Maritime archaeology in the UK delivers great value for money as it is carried out mainly by volunteers and in this respect maritime archaeology is the very epitome of community engagement and delivery. Wrecks designated under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 (PWA 73) are resourced and managed by unpaid volunteer divers and archaeologists. The Nautical Archaeology Society, a registered charity, usually provides training for divers and so the cost to Government is minimal.

Future Funding of Underwater Cultural Heritage

4 There is a considerable task to be undertaken in future by DCMS and Government to improve protection of the underwater cultural heritage, which it is not adequate at present. If we are a nation that seriously believes in our maritime past and wishes to preserve this for future generations the resource needs to be increased rather than potentially reduced.

5 The danger is that removing or substantially reducing the central government catalyst will save very little but will have more serious impacts in the indirect loss of substantial private sector and voluntary activity which actually represent the core sources of input to safeguarding and studying Britain’s maritime heritage for the very substantial economic and social benefits through tourism, education, volunteering and conservation.

1 Ev. Not printed.

747

DCMS arm’s length bodies

6 DCMS has just announced that it will abolish the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites (ACHWS), which advises DCMS on designating wreck sites under the PWA 73 in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The committee comprises unpaid experts and observers who provide transparent and independent advice seamlessly across UK and Northern Ireland on which wrecks should be protected and their future management. The cost of the committee itself is minimal. English Heritage carries out the administration of the committee. The voluntary Licensees of designated wreck sites, who monitor and safeguard them, also have the greatest respect for the independence of the ACHWS.

7 DCMS has not said how this advice will be provided in future but there are indications that English Heritage might be asked to carry out the function. Whilst we have great respect for English Heritage, we suggest that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would be unlikely to accept this proposal and would set up their own advisory resources. There would be a consequent duplication of costs, and policy would diverge over time across the UK and Northern Ireland, which would be unhelpful.

8 JNAPC believes there is no material operational or financial reason for abolishing the ACHWS and that the decision should be reviewed.

WHY THE RESOURCES ARE NEEDED

The threat to our underwater cultural heritage

9 Britain has been a major seafaring nation for hundreds of years. As a result we have a legacy of sunken naval and merchant vessels in our territorial waters and lying on seabeds throughout the world representing an enormous resource of historical and cultural interest to this and future generations. In some cases preservation underwater can be better than on land, particularly for organic materials. Nowhere on land have the remains of the iconic English longbow been found, but on the they found not one, but boxes of them, beautifully preserved. Our underwater cultural heritage is hugely important but it is now at serious risk.

10 The enormous water depths and the limitation of technology have been the great protectors of historic wreck sites until now. However, the recent advances in underwater survey techniques, positioning systems and remote excavation have effectively stripped away this protection. Commercial salvage companies are targeting “high value” historic wrecks off the English coast and worldwide, which they will excavate and sell off artefacts for profit. One American company, Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc, has already located 267 potential targets off the UK coast and is continuing its search. Many of these wrecks lie in deep water and excavation techniques at depth using remote operated vehicles are in their infancy. Salvage today will almost certainly lead to the unnecessary loss of irreplaceable historical information. There is only one opportunity to gather the unique evidence of our past from these ‘time- capsules’ of history and this should not be squandered for short-term financial gain.

748

The UK Government’s position

11 Within the twelve nautical mile limit of territorial waters the Government can use the PWA 73 to designate wrecks of historic importance (63 wreck sites to date) but legislation for protecting the remaining majority of historic wrecks is inconsistent and weak. A full review of both UCH legislation and Salvage Law is urgently required.

12 Beyond UK territorial waters there is very little that the Government can do to protect these sites unless they are naval warships, such as the recently discovered HMS Victory, which sank in 1744. Fortunately, as warships, these are classed as sovereign immune vessels and may only be salvaged with the Crown’s permission. But for the thousands of wrecks of merchant vessels carrying valuable cargoes there is no protection and it is open season for treasure hunters. The English vessel, Merchant Royall, which sank in 1641 forty miles off Lands End, and reported to have been carrying hundreds of millions of pound of silver and gold, is a target that Odyssey and other salvors are seeking to locate. Should they find it, our Government would have no legal means to prevent salvage of the vessel. We and the Government would be unable to prevent the wreck being pillaged off our coast and then we would have to watch the artefacts being auctioned off around the world.

Potential solutions

13 DCMS needs to lead an urgent review across Government (including DfT, MoD, Defra &MMO) of heritage legislation related to territorial waters, which would also remove UCH from the salvage regime. Suitable recommendations were made to DCMS by its Salvage Working Group in 2006 but these were not carried forward into the draft Heritage Protection Bill. The proposed treatment of UCH in the draft legislation provided virtually no improvement at all over the existing inadequate position. Revised legislation is therefore the solution within territorial waters.

14 Beyond territorial waters the Government does have a potential solution by ratifying the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage 2001. The main thrust of the Convention is that historic shipwrecks should not be exploited by treasure hunters for commercial gain, and artefacts should not be sold to finance salvage. Countries that have ratified the convention cooperate to enforce legal protection of wrecks in the international waters off their coasts. The Convention came into force in 2009 and 33 countries have now ratified including Spain, Italy and Portugal. France is expected to ratify in 2010. These are countries that have similar worldwide shipwreck legacies as the UK and have decided that it is in their interest to ratify the Convention so that their historic wrecks in international waters may be protected.

15 However in 2001 the previous UK Government decided not to ratify the Convention. Recently DCMS would not find the very modest resources needed to undertake a review of its dated decision.

16 DCMS should now lead a Government wide review (including FCO, MoD, DfT, Defra and MMO) of the UNESCO Convention with a view to ratifying it in the near future. This would also show leadership to other countries who are considering ratification so that our underwater cultural heritage in international waters can be properly protected.

749

17 The necessity of the future legislative and management support programme for UCH at risk provides the strong reason why funding support for this sector should not be reduced, but should if possible be modestly increased.

General

18 The JNAPC trusts that this response will be of assistance to the Committee and would be pleased to give evidence in person if required.

Appendix 1

JOINT NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY POLICY COMMITTEE

THE JNAPC - PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

The JNAPC was formed in 1988 from individuals and representatives of institutions who wished to raise awareness of Britain’s underwater cultural heritage and to persuade government that underwater sites of historic importance should receive no less protection than those on land.

The JNAPC launched Heritage at Sea in May 1989, which put forward proposals for the better protection of archaeological sites underwater. Recommendations covered improved legislation and better reporting of finds, a proposed inventory of underwater sites, the waiving of fees by the Receiver of Wreck, the encouragement of seabed operators to undertake pre-disturbance surveys, greater responsibility by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for their historic wrecks, proper management by government agencies of underwater sites, and the education and the training of sports divers to respect and conserve the underwater historic environment.

The aim of the JNAPC has been to raise the profile of nautical archaeology in both government and diving circles and to present a consensus upon which government and other organisations can act. Heritage at Sea was followed up by Still at Sea in May 1993 which drew attention to outstanding issues, the Code of Practice for Seabed Developers was launched in January 1995, and an archaeological leaflet for divers, Underwater Finds - What to Do, was published in January 1998 in collaboration with the Sports Diving Associations BSAC, PADI and SAA. The more detailed explanatory brochure, Underwater Finds - Guidance for Divers, followed in May 2000 and Wreck Diving – Don’t Get Scuttled, an educational brochure for divers, was published in October 2000.

The JNAPC continues its campaign for the education of all sea users about the importance of our nautical heritage. The JNAPC will be seeking better funding for nautical archaeology and improved legislation, a subject on which it has published initial proposals for change in Heritage Law at Sea in June 2000 and An Interim Report on The Valletta Convention & Heritage Law at Sea in 2003. The latter made detailed recommendations for legal and administrative changes to improve protection of the UK’s underwater cultural heritage.

The JNAPC has played a major role in English Heritage’s review of marine archaeological legislation and in DCMS’s consultation exercise Protecting our Marine Historic Environment: Making the System Work Better, and was represented on the DCMS Salvage Working Group reviewing potential requirements for

750

new legislation. The JNAPC has also been working towards the ratification of the UNESCO Convention with the preparation of the Burlington House Declaration, which was presented to Government in 2006.

The JNAPC continues to work for the improved protection of underwater cultural heritage in both territorial and international waters.

September 2010

751

Written evidence submitted by Leicester City Council Cultural Services Division and also as Lead Partner for Renaissance East Midlands (arts 173)

Summary:

• The proposed spending cuts will seriously damage the arts and heritage sector’s ability to “make a difference” by supporting key public agendas. • Their impact will be particularly felt in the most disadvantaged areas and communities. • Cultural and heritage assets and activities should be maintained at such a level that they can be valued and used, effective, relevant to and reflective of the people and communities they serve. • Public subsidy should be sufficient to provide capacity for them to be able to access additional income e.g. through grant applications, commercial activities, sponsorship and private benefactors. • The Renaissance in the Regions Programme has been vital to enable museums to begin to more fully achieve their potential as contributors to key agendas, and it is important that it continues. • However, along with other important aspects of MLA’s work, it could be managed in alternative, possibly more cost effective ways. It also needs a “lighter touch” and less micro management. The national framework of hub partnerships would be capable of delivering much of the existing Renaissance Programme with direct funding from DCMS.

1. 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;

• The ability of Arts and Heritage to help improve people’s lives, raise aspirations and create more cohesive communities through support for learning, social cohesion, cultural identity, local pride, sense of place, wellbeing, spiritual fulfilment, and economic regeneration including through tourism and the creative industries will be affected by the reduction in the number and quality of venues, programmes, services and activities provided. The reductions mean that fewer people will participate in cultural activities. • The impact of recent spending cuts has been to create pay and recruitment freezes in the arts and heritage sectors. This has reduced capacity to deliver and has directly affected front line services. • Reduction in the number of people employed in the cultural sector, and an increase in unemployment • Fewer work opportunities for young people, especially recent graduates • Increased charges and charging – some sections of the community will be priced out of the market • SME’s will cease to exist in the creative industries, heritage and arts sectors • Voluntary organisations reliant on grant funding may cease to exist or be reduced. • The volunteering opportunities lost through the reduction in capacity or government funded organisations will be greater than the number of 752

volunteering opportunities gained by replacing paid work by voluntary labour and through increased numbers of unemployed people. • Spending cuts are resulting in introduction of and/or increased charges • These effects will be felt by the most disadvantaged communities and neighbourhoods, since much funding for activities is prioritised towards them • Although education budgets will be less affected, the reduction in arts and heritage funding means that organisations will have less capacity to work with schools and young people.

Local Effects for Leicester • Leicester has high levels of deprivation, leading to poor life prospects for many of its citizens. It also has particular social cohesion issues arising from its diverse population, and challenges supporting many new communities including high levels of refugees and asylum seekers. Arts and Heritage funding has helped to address these issues • The effects of cuts will be particularly felt in areas like Leicester where the public sector provides a high proportion of jobs and economic activity.

2. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

• Organisations with similar products could combine together in trusts or partnerships to share and streamline governance/ administration/ management/ backroom services • The benefits of working across local authority boundaries should be explored • Many local authorities, like Lincolnshire and Leicestershire, already have partnership organisations supporting the creative industries, which could be further developed.

3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

• It should be sufficient to ensure that cultural/heritage assets and activities that people value and use are maintained at such a level that they can continue to be used, effective, relevant to and reflective of the people and communities they serve. • The range of subsidised assets and activities needs to reflect the range of interests of different groups, of all age groups, communities, cultures etc. • The level of subsidy should enable the activities/assets to have the capability to develop and be useful. Insufficient levels of subsidy might mean they stagnate and become irrelevant and do not provide value for money. • Funding should not be spread so thinly that it is not effective- the level of subsidy should be decided as part of a quantity/quality expectation. • Over the last decade many museums services have already increased the amount of income they generate in addition to public subsidy to 20% - 50% of turnover and will continue to develop income generation streams, but there is a limit to 753

the amount that can be achieved in this way without adequate public funding underpinning it.

4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

• There is a proliferation of funding streams (even within single organisation) and these could all be more streamlined and strategic (avoiding duplication, multiple reporting structures, reducing organisational administration costs) • Funding for the cultural sector could be brought together in a single body or smaller number of bodies so that it is more strategic • The funding for the Arts via ACE and the funding for Heritage via HLF and MLA/Renaissance have been delivered in different ways and it is right to review them to ensure the system is as effective and equitable as possible. • Arts funding has been available for many years but it is only since 1995 (HLF) and 2004 (Renaissance) that museums and the heritage sector have had their need for funding recognised in the same way. This made a huge difference to the museums and heritage sector’s ability make an impact and to be better appreciated. Government funding for both Arts and Heritage is important must continue. • The different styles of the main funders- ACE, HLF and MLA, all have strengths, but none achieve the right balance. ACE often seems to be too relaxed, whilst MLA micromanages too much. • Renaissance in the Regions funding has always had a tension between the particular needs of large museums and galleries in major urban centres and the wider needs of museums and heritage more rural areas and smaller communities in each region, between making the best use of assets of national significance and assets of local significance. In the new structure for Renaissance these different needs have to be fully understood and met. • The existing Hub structure for Renaissance with the 9 Lead Partners is capable of delivering much of the Renaissance programme efficiently and effectively, and a direct funding agreement from the DCMS to the Renaissance national museums partnership along the lines of its national museum funding agreements should be explored

• There is considerable frustration amongst our Renaissance Partners about the way in which the administration of the excellent Renaissance programme in England by the Museums, Libraries and Archive’s Council has become more and more bureaucratic and cumbersome. To take one example, prior to April 2009 MLA had a single funding agreement with Leicester as the accountable body for the programme in the East Midlands. Partner services (Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Derby City, Nottingham City and Northampton Borough) worked with Leicester City to create a unified regional programme. Leicester distributed the funding through agreements with partner services such as Lincolnshire County Council’s Heritage Service. Leicester also collated the statistical and financial information required by MLA. Since April 2009 MLA has insisted on direct agreements with five partner services including Lincolnshire and still 754

requires Leicester City to collate information. Five agreements are now required, increasing bureaucracy both for MLA and partner services. Quarterly returns now have to be submitted to both MLA and Leicester City and what was once a regional programme is increasingly becoming a series of county or city wide schemes.

5. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;

• In theory more funding should be available to the cultural sector, however in practice organisations will need the capacity to apply for and manage lottery funding, which will get harder as organisations reduce staff numbers as budget reductions take effect.

6. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;

• They should all be reviewed regularly e.g. every five years to ensure that they remain relevant and appropriate to changing requirements.

7. 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;

• The abolition of MLA is not necessarily a problem as long as key successful areas of work that MLA currently undertakes are delivered– especially Renaissance, Accreditation, Designation, National Security Advisor and Goverment Indemnity, Acceptance in Lieu. • The combination of Museums and Libraries did not work since they deliver on different agendas to different audiences. Archives sit better with museums than with libraries. • A merged HLF and English Heritage as proposed could be an effective body to engage with museums, delivering those aspects of MLA’s work which were not suitable for the Renaissance national museums partnership to deliver. • It would not be appropriate for ACE to manage the Renaissance programme, but the key relationship between ACE and museums and galleries should be recognised. Renaissance East Midlands developed and leads the successful national Museumaker programme which shows how museums and arts can work together. • Other bodies which could take on some of this work include the Collections Trust, and HM Treasury • Of key concern is whether the museums, libraries and archives sector will continue to be heard by government after MLA ceases to exist in 2012. Renaissance museums a vital “Place at the Table” alongside the rest of the Cultural Sector and this must not be lost.

755

8. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

• For national organisations and those based in London/ affluent areas – Yes • It is much more difficult in the regions, especially in the more deprived and less populated areas. It is very difficult to secure sponsorship or philanthropic support in the East Midlands, especially in cities like Leicester and rural areas like Lincolnshire. • This question should also include heritage- why just the arts?

9. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

• Yes – tax incentives will encourage donations of money and collections • Businesses and philanthropists should be given adequate incentives to support arts and heritage- the Acceptance in Lieu scheme and gift aid are important but more could be done by the government to encourage support especially in areas that do not benefit so much like the East Midlands

September 2010

756

Written evidence submitted by South West Screen (arts 174)

I am writing in response to the recent call for evidence regarding the enquiry into ‘Funding of the Arts and Heritage’. My submission makes particular reference to ‘the impact of recent changes to DCMS arm’s-length bodies - in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council’.

1. It is clear that the landscape of public funding for the creative industries is changing. The announcement of the proposed abolition of the UK Film Council (UKFC) comes alongside the replacement of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), the details of which are yet to be determined. Together these changes will have direct impact on the structure of support for the creative industries across the UK.

2. The importance of these creative industries cannot be underestimated. Widely recognised as a significant growth area for the UK economy moving into the digital age, together they contribute £60 billion a year, and represent 7.3% of the UK economy, comparable to the Financial Services sector. Here in the South West the creative industries sector is strong and growing fast, with around 8,000 businesses and practitioners, and direct employment of approx 36,000 people. The South West is home to major businesses such as award-winning animation company Aardman and Twofour, one of the UK’s largest and most successful independent communications companies, as well as a host of small and medium size firms - many of whom have the potential also grow to national and international success.

3. Recognised as a creative industries national exemplar, the creative economy in the South West employs 144,000 people and contributes £5.4bn GVA1. Globally renowned for strength in animation and natural history television production, substantial revenue is also generated from incoming film and television production which in 2009/10 brought £62 million to the region – much of it in rural and coastal areas of the South West2. CC Skills reports a 19% rise in South West employment since 2006 in the subsectors which make up its footprint (including design and advertising). Whilst the broader Television and Publishing sectors represent the major economic drivers, the Digital Communications and Design sectors are also growing in scale and profile. The media sector in the region employs over 36,000 people and research by the relevant sector skills councils identifies high levels of micro-enterprises and freelancers in the region’s creative industries3. However, spread across a large geographical area and operating on varying levels of scale, many creative companies here in the South West find it hard to access the guidance, skills and support that help them to grow, innovate and compete,

1 SWRDA, June 2007 2 SWS figures 3 CC Skills, the Sector Skills Council for the Creative and Cultural Industries, identifies 88% of companies within its footprint as having fewer than 5 employees and 47% in self employment. Skillset, the sector skills council for the creative media industries, identifies 33% of those working within the media industries in the region as freelancers. 757

thereby hampering their true potential.

4. The UK Film Council set up the nine independent Screen Agencies in 2002 under the network of Screen England, to help it distribute its funds and nurture talent across the country. Since then these agencies have grown and diversified to work across the full range of creative industries, encompassing talent development, production, audience development, skills and supporting businesses across film, television, games and new media. As the DCMS has noted, the network of agencies have, for a relatively small investment, encouraged investment of over £50m in the audio-visual creative industries across all regions.

5. South West Screen (SWS), the screen agency for the development of creative industries in the South West, now promotes and supports businesses working across not only film and television, but also non-screen areas such as games, design, new media and digital remits. The agency plays a key role in developing the sector, providing cohesion, delivering key initiatives, boosting talent, training and skills and keeping companies connected across a wide geographical area. Its work is consistent and effective, and its benefits have been felt across the South West. It actively sources investment from other sources to benefit the sector, such as the recently secured £3.2m Creative Industries Innovation Network (iNet) funding programme which will unlock opportunities to leverage further support for innovation, export and knowledge-sharing within the creative industries over the next three years.

6. SWS has historically been reliant on the UK Film Council and South West RDA to resource its programmes of training and business, audience and talent development. As the footprint of creative media has broadened to include digital and pervasive media technologies, so SWS has diversified its funding streams and now has programmes and partnerships with Skillset, UK Trade & Investment, the European Regional Development Fund, BBC Films and NESTA, amongst other partners, whilst simultaneously developing its own income-generating projects. Its services respond to constant change in the needs of the local area’s businesses, the pace and complexity of which is especially great in the newer areas of the creative digital economy.

7. Under the Screen England network, the Screen Agencies are currently re-structuring around a more cost effective model of developing businesses and commercialising projects, and it is important to ensure that the financial support is not halted altogether for this sort of valuable activity. There is a danger that the loss of the leadership and funding that was provided by the UKFC will create a real vacuum out of which it will be difficult to ensure a proper strategic model for creative industry development and growth outside London.

8. Since they were set up, the Screen Agencies have used the RIFE Lottery funds allocated to them from the UKFC to leverage another £50m of investment into creative industry development for England. The loss of UKFC funding altogether would create a very big 758

hole in the creative industries. Research by BIS and DCMS illustrates that creative SMEs face numerous problems acquiring finance. Resource from UKFC and RDAs has often been used by the Screen Agencies as seed corn funding, which enables creative businesses to go on to leverage further revenue and move to the next level. Removing access to this seed corn funding would be damaging to the growth of the creative business on a local level, impacting on the creative industries as a whole.

9. With the UKFC no longer in existence, and the structure of LEPs not yet determined, it is imperative that any future restructuring of funding should incorporate a strong recognition of the creative industries, so that this vital sector can continue to grow, to protect jobs and revenue, and to play its part in helping the UK out of recession. In my particular area of the South West, I believe that South West Screen, with its roots in the creative media industries and its contacts across the sector, is best placed to continue to deliver this support as we move into an increasingly digital future.

10. However, this is also a time to grasp the opportunity to re-balance the relationship between production and culture in Lottery funding, an area which SWS has argued the case to the UKFC about for a number of years. Yes, there needs to be an emphasis on the use of film subsidy to achieve economic benefits, but there also needs to be a focus on using funds to achieve broader cultural benefits, and this is something that we feel has not been maximised.

11. South West Screen absorbed much of the latest reduction in its annual grant from the UKFC through cuts to staffing and overheads. However, there was an unavoidable impact on our activity to support Festivals and Exhibition Venues. As local authority budgets continue to be pressured, this area of cultural investment – arguably the area most deserving of public support towards film – will struggle to find additional resources. The UKFC had the wrong balance between exhibition and industrial film. We would argue that public money needs to be for public benefit, and there needs to be an infrastructure for cultural impact that can generates commercial benefits whilst also providing social or community value. For example South West Screen is delivering a Lottery funded Rural Cinema Pilot Scheme in Wiltshire and the Test Valley over the next three years, which will take digital projection equipment out to hard to reach areas to enhance access to culture, whilst strengthening social interaction and reinvigorating community participation at the same time. Also, talent development needs to have a higher priority, and we need to be able to invest in the next generation of talent at a grass roots level across the country, outside of London. This is a new opportunity expand on talent development and address the fragility of local film festivals, screening venues and mixed arts venues.

12. Faced with the abolition of the UKFC, we recognise the need for a cultural change. Operating at a local level allows us to be more flexible and responsive/reactive to the needs of all sectors of both media and film communities, as the following letters of 759

support illustrate. It is vital, therefore, that the change in funding does not lead to a loss of locally nuanced decision making and delivery.

13. In discussing these points with key businesses and partners in the South West, a number of concerns have been raised about the impact of the abolition of the UKFC, and in particular the threat it poses to the activities of SWS. The following examples have been included to provide a cross section of opinion across growing businesses of a range of sizes across a range of creative industry sectors.4 I would urge Government to read these points and ensure that they are considered.

September 2010

4 Ev. not printed. 760

Written evidence submitted by the National Association For Literature Development (arts 175)

1 Background The National Association for Literature Development is the professional body for all those involved in developing writers, readers and audiences for new writing across the UK. Our membership of 450 is made up of freelance activists and producers, festivals and promoters, independent publishers, librarians, writer and reader development agencies, and arts officers.

2 Summary 2.1 Literature is the carbon factor of the arts – without writers there are no words, without stories there would be no books, theatre, film and TV drama, computer games. 2.2 Literature is a much more complex art form, than merely putting pen to paper, words to a screen, it has its own complex economic models. 2.3 Investment in literature creates great returns for individuals and the Exchequer. 2.4 The subsidised literature sector is essential to the commercial sector in developing new writers and product, and providing the mechanisms for the private sector to reach and grow its market. 2.5 Creative writing and reading are essential tools for building a literate, confident and effective communities, nationally and locally. 2.6 Writers strengthen senses of national and local, and writers associated with place drive prosperity by supporting leisure and tourism, and in some cases being the attraction themselves. 2.7 We also make points on the current funding structure, the National Lottery Share and the difficulty for our sector in securing private donations.

3 Literature is the carbon factor of all the arts. 3.1 Without writers there are no words. 3.2 Without words there would be no books, magazines, websites, newspapers. There would also be no plays, no opera, no TV drama, no film, no computer games, and we would lack the narratives that fuel many pieces of music and dance and much of the visual arts.

4 Literature is a complex art form 4.1 it is not just putting pen to paper, or typing words on a screen. It is time intensive: involving study, research, long intense periods of individual creation, then editing, rewriting, long intense periods of collaboration with agents, editors, directors ... 4.2 and resource intensive, literature has its own complex economic models. Once written, it has to be published: • by print publication and distribution through commercial, independent and online book shops • through the increasing numbers of online publications • through the broadcast or film industries 761

4.3 It is then consumed by readers and audiences • through traditional print and broadcast, and new electronic, media • by writers performing and speaking at readings and festivals throughout the country • through libraries, book shop tours, radio, TV and print media interviews and features 4.4 To be successful literature not only needs investment in production and distribution, it also the same investment in marketing and promotion as any other cultural or commercial product.

5 The rewards of investment in literature can be high. 5.1 The UK publishing industries generate more than £22bn in sales annually - around 30% of the UK's creative industries. Publishing employs some 140,000 people and generates a significant trade surplus from more than £2bn in export revenues. 5.2 Looking at the figures from the opposite end: in In 2008 Carolyn Jess-Cooke received a Northern Writers’ Award from New Writing North of £3,500 to help her develop her work. The awards programme is funded by Arts Council England and match funded by The Leighton Group, a commercial sponsor. With support from New Writing North, Carolyn’s first novel, The Guardian Angel’s Journal, went on to sell in the UK and in another 13 territories internationally. These initial sales generated sales worth 50 times the original modest investment of £3,500. 5.3 Despite such success, the current literature sector is underfunded, receiving just 2.7% of the total Arts Council England funding to the arts in 2009/10. 5.4 Much of the current debate about funding is predicated on an assumption of fifteen years of sustained development. While resources to literature have increased a little especially from Grants for the Arts, proportionally the increase has been much smaller than to those art forms that have received a larger share of the funding, simply entrenching the historic inequality in relation to high profile building based art forms which have always been resourced more adequately. 5.4 While we recognise that there need to be cuts in public expenditure, we would ask the committee to urge the DCMS and Arts Councils to use the current spending review to address the current inequities in arts investment across the art form portfolio, rather than merely apply cuts across the board.

6 We believe that investment in the literature development sector is not an option given the vital role it plays in: • identifying and developing new talent for the commercial sector • creating an audience for and increasing sales for the commercial sector • creating a confident literate society • celebrating national and local identity • giving a voice to localism

7 identifying and developing new talent for the commercial sector 7.1 The commercial and subsidised sectors are symbiotic. 7.2 As illustrated in 5.2, the subsidised sector discovers and nurtures new writers, many of whom then go on to have commercial success. Writers do not have the established professional development paths enjoyed by drama, dance or the fine arts so there are few successful writers 762

who have not at some stage received development support from the equivalent paths provided by the literature development sector – whether that be attending writers workshops provided by organisations such as The Writing Squad or the Arvon Foundation, receiving writers or time to write awards from organisations such as New Writing North, or being brought to public attention by an subsidised magazine like The North or Wasafiri or by an independent publisher such as Tindal Street Press or Bloodaxe books. 7.3 The subsidised sector also provides the space where established writers can try new things, develop new skills explore new opportunities. For example, in 2007, Writers Centre Norwich Escalator Literature supported journalists, academics, and commercial writers to develop literary fiction projects. One of the recipients has since had work published in the US and UK, and had a play developed from her work. Three have become full time writers and a war correspondent for a national broadsheet – has just signed a two book deal with Hodder & Stoughton. His novel will be published in 2011 and has already been sold – along with a sequel – to publishers in other countries.

8 Creating an audience for and increasing sales for the commercial sector 8.1 Once a writer is published, the subsidised sector provides a network of live events offered by promoters and festivals such as the Hay Festival or Ilkley Literature Festival. Readers groups also provide a means for publishers to engage with customers directly. Both increase the profile of writers and generate significant book sales. These circuits also provide the means for new and emerging writers to establish themselves and build a readership. 8.2 Festivals funded by local authorities, and readers groups run by libraries, will be under particular pressure from savings being made by local authorities. Without such networks, access to literature will be severely limited, with readers dependent on the limited range of high profile product covered by the mainstream media. 8.3 It is worth pointing out that festivals and readers groups are not just about selling books. Perhaps, uniquely among the art forms, literature provides the platform for the discussion of ideas, festivals and readers groups provide essential places where people can publicly discuss issues that affect their daily lives and thus provide vital forums for public debate.

8 Creating literate, confident and effective communities 8.1 A successful nation needs a literate population, confident in using words and ideas, knowledgeable about its own, and about other cultures. Reading is a muscle, if it is not used it wastes and becomes ineffective, and while the education sector teaches people to read, the subsidised literature sector plays a vital role in keeping them reading. 8.2 The Literature sector has a strong track record of working with people for whom reading and writing is a life line, and improved reading, writing and cognition skills leads from unemployment and social exclusion, to employment and self sufficiency. The efficacy of reading and writing centred projects has been proven by work such as that undertaken by Prison Writers in Residency represented by Writers in Prisons and supported by the Prison Service, or by work with adult learners and people with low reading ability delivered by the Reading Agency and their partners. 8.3 We believe that access to reading that is contemporary and relates to people's current experience is important, not just for the marginalised but for all of us. 8.4 A businessman seeking to export might be as effectively equipped with knowledge of the customs and mindset of his customers by reading a novel translated from their language, as he would be by market reports. A doctor might understand better the social pathology of her patients better if she was reading the stories being written by young people in her inner city neighbourhood or remote farming community. 763

8.5 Mainstream commercial publishing is limited in the range of titles it can produce, its products have to appeal to a national/international market which will generate significant sales. This militates against risk taking and diversity. Independent publishers and organisations such as Inpress, which specialises in bringing independent publishers to the market place, ensure that a wide variety of voices, including minority and peripheral voices continue to be heard. Independent publishing, and the support of new and emerging writers, is essential to the reflection of not only the rich tapestry of indigenous culture in the British Isles, but its rapidly changing demography – the way the UK relates to itself, locally and nationally, but also how the UK relates to the rest of the world.

9 Celebrating national and local identity and creating prosperity

9.1 Britain is known by its writers – from Shakespeare and Jane Austen, to Roald Dahl, J.K. Rowling, Ian Rankin, Antony Minghella, Monica Ali and Zadie Smith. 9.2 Just as Britain is known by its writers, so are it is regions. Try to imagine Yorkshire without the Brontes, Bram Stoker, Winifred Holtby, Willis Hall, J.B. Priestly, Alan Bennett, Alan Ayckbourne, Ted Hughes, James Herriot, Tony Harrison, Simon Armitage, Kay Mellor, Simon Beaufort, David Peace. Try to imagine Yorkshire without Dracula's Whitby, the Bronte's moors, without Last of the Summer Wine, Herriott and Heartbeat country, Emmerdale. 9.3 Every region, every locality, has its own defining set of writers and imagined landscapes, who contribute to its sense of identity and shared pride, providing the narratives behind the social and built fabric of our society, and such identification, with real or imagined worlds, is a significant driver for the leisure and tourism industry – whether that is the fascination of the Japanese with the Brontes, shows in regional theatres moving to the West End and into international production, or coach loads of fans of TV series exploring the landscape and haunts of their favourite characters. 9.4 The subsidised literature sector has played a part in developing these writers, and/or making sure their work is still published and performed, 9.5 It would make an interesting study to compare the way the new Scottish Government has used writers and literature to foster and promote a sense of national identity, with the way literature is thought of and promoted in England.

10 Funding Structures 10.1 While dissatisfied with our cut of the cake, the literature sector does have a good relationship with literature specialists inside Arts Council England (as is true with regard to Creative Scotland and Arts Council Northern Ireland).

10.2 We value the current arms length funding system, based on specialist arm form knowledge.

10.3 We welcome the emergence of Arts Council England's national literature strategy, but value decisions being made at a regional level where the knowledge of regional cultural differences and an intimate knowledge of local literature ecologies is strongest.

10.4 While we welcome the cost savings made in the centralisation of Arts Council England's grant assessment processes, we are concerned that this seems to remove decision making from specialists with that intimate regional/local knowledge, and that final decisions will be made by cultural star chambers where like is not compared with like, the known will be favoured over the unknown, and the 'super-regionally' glamorous will win out over the locally significant.

11 The National Lottery 764

11.1 As the literature sector receives relatively small amount of support given to regularly funded organisations, currently 1.7%, Lottery funding from Grants for the Arts (6.8% of the total awarded) has contributed significantly to the growth of the sector. Therefore, while arguing for the necessity of increased support for a network of regularly funded organisations, we value and would argue for an increase in the share allocated from the National Lottery for cultural investment.

12 Private Donations

It is particularly hard for Literature to attract commercial and private donors. With the exception of festivals, there is little high profile activity yielding sufficient audience numbers or high profile locations to give benefactors the kind of return they are looking for.

September 2010

765

Written evidence submitted by Paul Kelly (arts 176)

1. Background This submission is from Paul Kelly, Senior Lecturer in Arts and Event Management, writing in a personal capacity. The author spent 15 years working as an arts manager in not-for- profit arts organisations followed by 15 years as Principal Arts Officer for a large Local Authority (population 250,000). He is now Senior Lecturer in Arts and Event Management at the Arts University College at Bournemouth.

2. Summary There have already been cuts to arts funding which have had an impact on services and opportunities. Further cuts will have further impact. Whilst it is too early to identify the extent of the impact, we think it likely that activities at community level, in more rural areas and activities outside of the mainstream will suffer most. It is also likely to be harder in future to obtain arts funding and this will disadvantage people who lack particular language or application writing skills, even though they may have good ideas and delivery ability.

3. What impact recent, and future spending cuts from central and local Government will have on the arts and heritage at national and local level; 3.1 It is probably too early to try and quantify the impact of recent central and local Government cuts on the arts and heritage sector. But there will be impacts and these will probably have an effect on the availability, accessibility and affordability of arts and heritage activities and opportunities to local people. The Select Committee should also bear the following in mind:

a) There has been a well documented loss of local arts services over the past seven years. [add detail of local authority arts cuts] Forty-four local authorities have withdrawn all arts funding over the past seven years. This accounts for approximately 15% of all local authorities with previously active arts services. In addition many local authority arts officers have reported standstill budgets over the past three years. This represents a real cut to arts budgets given that inflation has to be taken into account.

b) We know that one County Council is currently examining an ‘exit strategy’ for arts funding which will lead to a complete loss of all arts funding, staff and services. We are not able to put a financial figure on this at this time, but withdrawing all arts spending will undoubtedly hit a number of arts and social organisations in that area, large and small. This may be an extreme case; alternatively it may be the start of a trend.

c) The impact is very likely to be greater in areas of lower population density – eg rural areas.

d) Owing to a mix of funding policies and management practices, some arts organisations, and it could be quite a large number, are under-capitalised and are either managing deficits or have little in the way of tangible assets or significant cash reserves . This makes them very vulnerable when funding is reduced or withdrawn. It could be that reductions in grants will make such organisations either insolvent or unviable.

766

e) The impact of budget cuts could hit small community projects hardest. These often do excellent work in making the arts more accessible, especially to deprived communities. But they are often low-key with low visibility and lack ‘sponsor appeal’.

4. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and make economies of scale; Two points here:

4.1 Arts organisations often have distinctly different artistic traditions, roles and directions, but the management capacities to deliver these – planning, marketing, finance and accounting can require very similar applications. Back office collaborations or mergers might yield financial efficiencies. For example in one Cathedral City of around 100,000, there is a Festival, Theatre and Arts Centre. The artistic directors meet and talk quite often. But each organisation has its own administrative staff. Apart from history, why?

4.2 In my experience arts organisations treat funding and fundraising as a competitive exercise and do not tend to share information with each other. In one sense that is understandable. But unless and until arts organisations are more open with each other they will not be able to work more closely together and make economies of scale.

5. What level of public subsidy for the arts is necessary and sustainable; 5.1 To answer this question you first need to decide whether you are going to operate a ‘top down’ system or a ‘bottom up’ system. A top down system could be expressed as a percentage of government spending with a target figure both for central and Local Government. I believe a figure of 1% of government spending for the arts has been discussed as such a target on occasions in the past.

5.2 A ‘bottom up’ system could identify what artistic experiences and facilities communities should have ‘a right’ to enjoy. It could look at these in terms of per capita delivery. It could cost those and it could also map what facilities currently exist, what they cost and where they are in relation to population. Both of these are rational ways of establishing a level of public subsidy for the arts. They are also markedly different from the rather irrational way that arts funding has grown.

5.3 The issue of sustainability is one partly to do with political philosophy (especially around public spending), partly to do with national economic performance (governments may feel willing to spend more if the country seems to be doing well). Sustainability is also affected by population growth and shift; a bigger population both implies a bigger need for funding if a per capita target is to be sustained but also bigger tax revenues. Populations are not static (eg Thames Gateway) and that needs to be factored into sustainability issues. The 10 year census ought to provide useful data for review.

6. Whether the current system, and structure of funding distribution is the right one; 6.1 My response refers solely to the arts funding system. On the one hand the arts funding system has been continually re-structured, Arts Council England (ACE) seems comparatively well-led at present and further structural change at a time of considerable funding reductions might not be wise.

767

6.2 On the other hand the decision in 2001 to abolish the Regional Arts Boards and to create a single national arts funding body has led, over a period of time, to a loss of local expertise and commitment and has, to varying degrees, weakened relationships with Local Authorities which have been significant investors in arts and heritage.

6.3 If the philosophy and policy of devolving power to local level, as set out in ‘Building A Big Society” is to be applied to the arts, then a further review of the system and structure of arts funding may be needed. It may also be worth re-examining the system that existed until 1990 of independent regional arts bodies, that were a partnership between local artists and arts organisations, Local Authorities and the national arts funding system.

6.4 In addition the DCMS ‘sponsored body’ system does not properly recognise a growing plurality of funding and interests. It is easy to think that Arts Council England is the arts funding system. But this ignores a significant investment in the arts by Local Authorities. It overlooks investment by the Higher Education Funding Council and possibly the education funding bodies who support arts centres and arts programmes through HE and FE institutions. It also overlooks the more recent role taken up by the sector skills council, Creative and Cultural Skills. All of these are public sector bodies and all re stakeholders in the arts sector. The current system does not recognise this or encourage these complementary bodies to work together.

7. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations; There will be more money from the Lottery for the arts and heritage and that will obviously be positive, unless the increase in Lottery funding merely fills a gap created by a reduction of Treasury funding. The nature of the impact will also depend on whether lottery funding rules or schemes change or not – see my response to question 6.

8. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed; 8.1 When arts Lottery funding became available it was solely for capital projects. Between 1994 and 1997 arts found themselves with a ‘revenue drought’ and a ‘capital flood’. Between 1997 and about 2006, that flow became reversed and the arts experienced a lottery ‘flood’ and a capital ‘drought’. In addition the threshold for arts lottery revenue and project threshold seemed to climb at both the minimum and maximum levels.

I have four points to make here:

a) I don’t think the capital/revenue balance is right. Even though we may be facing hard times, buildings still need repair and improvement, and organisations need better equipment. So, some lottery monies ought to be available for new arts capital applications – maybe 10 – 15% of arts lottery funds per annum.

b) One lesson from the 1990s Regional Arts Lottery Programme is that very small sums of money can make things happen, instil confidence and bring about some quite big differences at local level.

c) Within the last 18 months the arts have been more or less excluded from the Big Lottery’s Awards for All scheme and this is a retrograde step. 768

d) The arts lottery needs to introduce a scheme for one off projects or projects lasting up to three years that allows bids of, I suggest, between £300 and £1,000. The application process and form needs to be simple (the Awards for All form is actually quite complicated).

9. The impact of recent changes to the DCMS arm’s-length bodies – in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council; 9.1 It’s probably too early to say. But I would make two points; first, perception counts for a lot and if reports in the press are correct, some senior figures in the film industry believe that the abolition of the UK Film Council is a bad thing. If they believe that then the abolition does not help the film industry.

9.2 My second point is about human capital. People build relations with people. When I worked for a Local Authority a constant moan I heard from arts organisations about the Arts Council was that the staff there kept hanging. No sooner had they built a relationship with a member of ACE, then that person left. An institution is much more than just a financial cost. Abolish an institution and you lose all the human capital - the trust, the relationships and sector-specific knowledge – that is an intimate part of that organisation. This human capital can be worth far more than the annual financial cost. Abolition is a blunt instrument that may be very damaging and expensive.

9.3 In addition whilst the Government has broadly identified ways of sustaining support for the film industry, I am not aware of a similar announcement about sustaining support for museums, libraries and archives. All three are vital to our national heritage and also provide crucial source material for our creative industries. The abolition of the MLA has attracted far less press attention than that of the Film Council. On current evidence it seems far less thought through.

10. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level; 10.1 The simple answer to a rather simple question is ‘yes’, but this needs considerable qualification. Two hallmark yardsticks of policy measurement are ‘efficiency’ and ‘effectiveness’. Business and philanthropic support for the arts may increase policy efficiency by diversifying the funding and reducing reliance on the public sector. But suppose we argue that an effective arts policy is one in which all people in England who wish to can access the arts; will business and philanthropic support for the arts serve this objective? The answer is not necessarily. It may be very difficult to attract business support for rural arts projects or for projects working with deprived communities or local projects without high PR profile. Businesses and philanthropists may wish to support specific types of arts projects. Some areas of England will have low concentrations of business with the capacity to invest in arts projects.

10.2 It is also not quite clear what this questions means by the phrase ‘can play a long-term role’. That could imply changing the arts funding balance over the longer term. Or it could imply investing in endowment funds that generate annual income and thus have a long term impact.

769

11. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations. 11.1 The British arts funding system is often compared to its American equivalent. In America the arts attract a much higher per capita level of private donations than in England. Though I seen no research on this, it is popularly believed that the high level of private donations in the USA is partly due to the fact that they are tax-deductable. It should also be added that America almost certainly has a higher proportion of millionaires than England.

11.2 What will incentivise private donors in England? Our Government incentives actual or under discussion seem to include receptions with Government ministers and/or the ‘Honours System’. If that is the level of ‘incentives’ under discussion, it seems to me to be a bit Ruritanian.

11.3 If the Government is serious about encouraging private donations for the arts, then it needs to reform and market the Gift Aid system – not widely known and complex to operate – and/or to introduce further tax benefits for private donations. The current system is also not very egalitarian. If you happen to have inherited an historic painting worth millions you can negotiate to gift it to the nation in lieu of death duties. But if you wish to support an arts enterprise or creative project with your own hard earned cash there seems to be no equivalent tax break on offer.

September 2010

770

Written evidence submitted by Renaissance in the Regions (South West) (arts 177)

Renaissance is the Museums Libraries and Archives Council funded programme to transform regional museums in England. Renaissance South West is a partnership of five museum services that include: Bristol Museums Galleries and Archives, Russell-Cotes Art Gallery and Museum in Bournemouth, Royal Albert Memorial Museum Exeter, Plymouth City Museum and the Royal Cornwall Museum based in Truro.

There are 260 museums in the South West, the largest of the English regions in area. They serve a population of just over 5 million as well as a national and international audience. Together they care for, interpret and develop a rich collection reflecting not only the natural and human history of the region but many aspects of significance to the world-wide community.

ƒ Access To Collections With the help of Renaissance funding, Collections have become more welcoming and offer increasingly imaginative forms of display, adopting a more open approach to ensure that their collections reflect many different cultures and experiences.

ƒ Economic Growth Museums are key contributors to the economy, having an annual economic impact of over £2 billion. Renaissance South West Hub museums have leveraged additional funds (both revenue and capital expenditure) of over £20.1 millions in 2006-7 to support their developments. Over £1.4m has been directly invested in projects in the South West museum community.

ƒ Learning Museums have a unique role to play in delivering the nation’s educational priorities at all levels. They can also offer the opportunity for social and collaborative learning. The Renaissance in the Regions programme has notably supported work with young people, but museums have also made enormous strides in increasing informal learning opportunities for adult learning.

ƒ Sustainable Communities Renaissance is opening up museums’ potential to develop even greater connections with our diverse communities. Engaging with local people is not only bringing new audiences into museums but also taking museums out into the community. 771

All the above mentioned achievements of Renaissance South West risk being severely damaged to varying degrees by the speculated cuts in public sector spending. This submission is a response to the issues identified by the Committee.

1. 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:

Between 1998-2008, Creative industries, of which museums constitute a key part, contributed £4,240m (Gross Value Added) to the overall economy of the South West region. The Bristol based, internationally acclaimed, Aardman Animation, creators of Wallace and Gromitt, epitomises the importance of Creative indistries to the region.

As well as being the most rural region within the Renaissance programme, the South West is also a region with a heavy reliance on public sector employment. Having already offered substantial ‘efficiencies’ museums in the region are not in a position to carry on delivering to broader local and national agendas, one of the biggest successes of the Renaissance programme. Museums professed aim to be accessible to all and to meet the needs of the communities they seek to serve will be enormously compromised. A cut in their budgets will inevitably lead to prioritisation of their resources and capabilities and therefore, a considerable dilution of their cultural offer. As well as shorter opening hours, many museums will be forced to abandon those programmes and initiatives, which have successfully addressed agendas such as learning and community cohesion, to name just two. Many museums will face having to mothball their valuable collections, imperilling their ability to effectively address the needs of their visitors.

Thus for instance, the enormous strides made by Plymouth Museum and Art gallery building a solid foundation for their much lauded community engagement and education work through their ‘Museums in Transit’ programme will be seriously undermined by the cuts. A cut in the budgets of schools, as in many other areas of public sector, will make it increasingly difficult for young people to visit museums. This will then be exacerbated by the double whammy of museums having to cut back on their education and outreach programmes.

In a region where tourism is the mainstay of the economy the South West’s museums play a pivotal role in making it an attractive destination for national and international visitors. It is therefore highly likely that the cuts will impact on the region’s museums’ ability to contribute to the tourism economy at a time when the government is exhorting us to sell Britain for its unique cultural heritage. Partners within 772

Renaissance SW have major initiatives that have the potential to make a huge contribution to the region’s tourism offer. Bristol Museums and Art gallery are opening their new state of the Museum of Bristol at to the public in 2011. Part of a major local economical regeneration of the key waterfront area of the city, this project funded through a variety of public sources, will serve to vastly expand the cultural offer of the museum locally by delivering on the key ‘Sense of Place’ agenda as well as raising its national and international profile. The Royal Albert Memorial Museum in Exeter has been undergoing a major renovation that will vastly improve its ability to meet local and regional needs as well as contributing the vital tourism economy of the area. It must be emphasised that both projects have received very substantial Renaissance funding. In the larger scheme of things it has to be said that, as is evident from the achievements of Renaissance SW, museums in the region have been quite adept at using small amounts of money to grease the wheels of ‘Big Society’ ideas. As Eleanor Moore, South West Museum Skills Coordinator, put it: ‘What is a Museums Development officer if not a ‘Big Society’ community facilitator’?

2. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale:

Developing and embedding a culture and ethos of partnership working is widely regarded as one of the biggest successes of the Renaissance programme. Renaissance funding has enabled museums within the partnership to leverage large amounts of funding that would otherwise not have been possible. It is this that has enabled Sub-regional partnership working is in fact a particular strand of the Renaissance SW business plan. Plymouth’s Visual Arts Consortium which enables partners in the cultural sector to work together on joint projects, shared marketing and education is just one example of how museums in the region have become increasingly smart in using collections as resources for activities. But while developing partnerships with those in the cultural sector is perhaps to be expected, museums have also excelled in developing mutually beneficial relationships with non-sectoral bodies. There is today, a far greater understanding of the need to link with broader local and national agendas. As Hilary Bracegirdle, Director, the Royal Cornwall Museum, puts it: ‘Museums today understand the language of local government and its priorities. I can now go any meeting of the local authority and connect what the museum does to broader agendas. It is this that has allowed museums to think strategically and put users at the forefront of what we do’. With its particular emphasis on partnership working, Renaissance has ensured that museums in the region are also on the forefront of the shared services agenda of local and national government. Nevertheless, the museums community is continually exploring ways of further sharing of resources and expertise. As Julie Finch, Director, Bristol Museums and Art gallery puts it: ‘A key part of the future thinking will revolve around having shared community team and education teams for arts, museums and libraries’. 773

3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable:

Even though their models of governance and business planning vary, museums within the Renaissance partnership in the South West, like their counterparts elsewhere, rely on local investment in museums and heritage. The term ‘subsidy’ can also be seen as a bit of a misnomer in this context. As with the rest of public sector, museums are expected to deliver specific outcomes, linked to local, regional and national priorities. In the round then, ‘public subsidy’ for museums, as with arts and culture generally, is as widely accepted principle in Britain as it is for the National Health Service, for instance. That being said though, a particular emphasis of the Renaissance programme has been to enable museums to look at broadening their commercial activities. The planned openings of both the M Shed in Bristol and the RAAM in Exeter, have placed a particular emphasis on generating income from commercial on site activities. A key focus for the Russell- Cotes Art Gallery and Museum is to begin to reduce its reliance on public sector funding, to diversify and increase its income base, reduce its expenditure and build its financial sustainability. This is being achieved through its business transformation project.

As part of their efforts to ensure sustainability and broaden their funding streams, museums in the region have of course been at the forefront of exploring various models of governance of which achieving trust status is one of the most popular. But no matter how entrepreneurial museums are in exploring new sources of funding, the requirement of public funding in order to meet professional standards cannot be wished away. It is to be noted though, that becoming a trust is not to be seen as a panacea for the financial issues facing museums in the current financial climate.

Bristol has established a Development Trust to support fundraising for the service and undertake bidding to Trusts and Foundations in line with the Charities Commission edict, the trust also provides a vehicle for fundraising to the private sector that is not totally associated with a local authority in its behaviour.

In addition, the combination of local authority funding, Renaissance in the Regions funding through MLA and Heritage Lottery Funding has created viable projects across the SW region from new temporary and permanent exhibitions to wholesale capital projects at Exeter and RAMM, the combined funding has fostered excellence, innovative thinking, contribution to place shaping and raised profile of the SW region culturally.

774

4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one:

Renaissance in the Regions continues to be one of best examples of national planning, regional delivery through local government structures. Flexibility of planning and delivery is in fact one of key requisites of the current system. However, it is felt by some that a ‘light touch’ is required greater ease of planning and delivery.

Flexibility of planning and delivery was one of the key requisites in Renaissance at the beginning; it is perhaps a mark of its importance at all levels of the sector, right up to DCMS, that central controls have become a stultifying feature of Renaissance. Trust in local knowledge and competence, monitored with a light touch would return gratifying levels of creativity and initiative to what remains a great programme.

What is important to bear in mind is that it is difficult to meet the aims of ‘Big Society’ without funding relative to the level of deprivation. There is a danger of Local Enterprise Partnerships being drawn up without reference to culture. It is not possible to have a vibrant tourism economy without culture being linked to local strategies. There is a strong feeling among some partners though that revenue, as opposed to project funding, needs to be part of a future distribution system.

5. The impact of recent changes to DCMS arms-length bodies - in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council and Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA):

The abolition of the MLA poses key challenges to the museums profession. The maintenance of national minimum standards for museums accreditation and advocacy are two aspects of the MLA’s work that need to be addressed in the wake of its abolition. The need for a national museums body to ‘bat’ on behalf of the sector is universally felt to be desirable. Nevertheless, museums have to look at he broader picture where new ways of working may well offer new opportunities to broaden their offer. Nevertheless, in the absence of any clarity about where the functions of the MLA may sit, dilution of standards is seen as a real threat.

6. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level:

The US model of philanthropy seems to exercise a particular hold on the imagination of politicians in Britain. While there are many commendable features of the American system, it is often forgotten that their public museums too are currently experiencing enormous financial difficulties. It is also to be 775

remembered that what works for a major museum in New York or Los Angeles does not necessarily work in Des Moines, Ohio. It takes a long time and changes in tax laws to establish the sort of philanthropic culture of ‘giving’ that exists in the US. Britain, with its particular concentration of national cultural assets in London, has a poor record of regional museums benefiting from private donations and philanthropy. Beside, as key business leaders have publicly expressed to the government, private giving should not be seen as an alternative to proper public funding. Philanthropists, by and large will only invest in museums, which are sustainable and successful in terms of their local and national funding sources and endowments.

September 2010

776

Written evidence submitted by Sue Cheriton (arts 178)

1.0 Summary

1.1 Funding of the Arts and Heritage Sector:

It is my view that there are growing concerns in the arts and heritage sector over the implications of budget cuts expected in 2011/12 across local authorities as part of the forthcoming spending review and the effect this will have on the sector as a whole. As an area of discretionary spend for Local Authorities, different service delivery and funding options will need to be considered to ensure the sustainability of the sector. These include:

• Engaging in the Big Society agenda to increase capacity in the sector • Encourage RFO’s to match fund including increases in private donations • Consider ‘entitlement’ as an alternative funding model • Incentivise private donations and sponsorship • Do not underestimate the value of culture to the economy especially tourism • Dispose of some of the assets where this is proving not to be good value for money (including rationalising collections in some cases)

2.0 Views on future funding of Arts and Heritage

2.1 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;

2.1.1 It is likely that the arts and heritage sector particularly in local government will be under pressure to find significant savings following the spending review. With projected saving of around 25% is already being planned for in many local authorities and this has focused attention of the key role of local authorities in the future and in some cases a consideration of pairing back to the statutory functional areas. In my authority the grant aided sector has been advised on the potential savings required across the authority and the impact this is likely to have. At best there maybe an expectation of 25% cuts across the board, but more likely this will focus on priority areas for Council’s, consideration of alternative funding streams including co-production opportunities, and reviewing the capital assets across sub regions at the very least.

2.1.2 The current DCMS Structural Reform Plan (July 2010) does not provide much in the way of support or direction for the arts and heritage sector. This together with the proposed reforms of the cultural agencies (particularly the potential loss of Museums, Libraries and Archive Council) suggests that art and heritage is not seen as a priority area for government, and will be giving the same message to Local Authorities as they consider reduced budgets in the spending review.

2.1.3 The future will be tough going forward for independent and local authority run establishments and organizations, and there appears to be a real appetite to consider radical change in the design and delivery of services in the culture block. 777

The time constraints of the forthcoming funding round will not allow these to come to fruition before the spending review cut bite.

2.2 What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

2.2.1 It is the belief of Torbay Council that funding is not always the answer to delivering good art and heritage product. An example is that in 2009 Torbay Council staged an ambitious arts exhibition ‘ Antony Gormley’s the Field for the British Isle on a budget of £5,000. This attracted 38,000 visitors over a six week period, engaged over 3,000 local children in education activities, sprung off other associated exhibits in other attractions in the local area, and generated an actual additional spend for tourism of £900k.

2.2.2 This was successful because a number of agency (Arts Council Collections), local government, voluntary and private sector interest groups and organizations got together to deliver something new to attract visitors. This is co-production and Big Society at its best and show that this approach can work.

2.2.3 Arts organisations will need in the future to work more collaboratively to deliver the same or more for less, they will need to consider how they can impact across other agendas such as tourism and the economy and really focus on priorities and what is important to their organizations.

2.2.4 I was personally dismayed to see in the Sunday Times on 30th August that arts organizations were against the lottery funding given to the Arts and Business organization. Private sector funding will be key, if arts and heritage organizations are to thrive in the future. I cannot understand why these organizations see the private sector as a threat. Although the UK does not have such a philanthropic society as the US (who fund more than 90% of the arts in the US according to the Sunday Times article) there could be more focus on engaging private individuals and businesses to support the arts and heritage sector.

2.3 What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

2.3.1 With the current economic climate local authorities will struggle to continue the level of support to arts and heritage organizations that has been enjoyed in previous years. Therefore radical change, re-prioritising against community outcomes and working closer with partners to deliver programmes and product will be inevitable.

2.3.2 The National Lottery has fuelled a capital growth in the sector over the last few years and this could be unsustainable in the future from a revenue perspective. Organisations will be required to be sustainable and should not reliant on local government funding.

2.3.3 I would suggest the level of funding should be matched against other income sources and not related to levels of expenditure as it appears. This will ensure those 778

organizations who work hard to secure income from other sources are not disadvantaged and ensure there is joint responsibility for raising funding.

2.3.4 My concern is that regional, local and non building based activities that are not of national importance could be marginalized, if significant budget cuts are to be found from the sector. The grass roots activities, new work and innovation, often related to one off programmes and projects do more to give access to non traditional audiences than the standard RFO arts product. It would be unfair to focus on existing RFO’s at the detriment of real accessible arts in the community.

2.3.5 If we truly want to ensure the arts reach those in the wider community perhaps a radical change in the funding structure across the cultural sector should be investigated. If funding was based on ‘entitlement’ similar to individual service areas in health, on the basis of removing barriers to access to the arts – ie. Giving entitlement allocations across cultural activity for those on low income, incapacity benefit, communities with rural accessibility issues etc. This would ensure those who can afford to pay more do and those not able to access have advantages in participation dependant on their interests.

2.4 Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

2.4.1 The funding government and lottery for sport and the arts are consolidated into the two agencies who also deal with policy and direction for those sectors – the Arts Council and Sport England. I have never understood why the Heritage functions have been split between HLF, MLA and English Heritage. I think consolidating the roles would better reflect the other agency positions and link funding closer to policy and direction across the board.

2.5 What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;

2.5.1 None that I can identify specifically.

2.6 Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;

2.6.1 I think a review of the Lottery Funds and assessment of what outcomes have been achieved would be a good idea. Question what has really been achieve, have people’s lives changed – how and why.

2.7 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;

I think a joint Cultural Agency be considered which encompasses all of the current agencies. The joint working arrangements between agencies since the Hodge Review 779

has show certainly in the South West that much can be achieved by working across the sector. There is a concern that libraries and heritage will suffer if there is no intention of replacing the body within other agencies to support this part of the sector.

2.8 Private Income Sources

More could be made of private funding – individual support as well as company sponsorship. I would welcome an incentive scheme to reward those who become patrons of the arts and believe this could prove very cost effective taking state fund savings in to consideration.

The Arts and Business model could be expanded to take on this role.

September 2010 780

Written evidence submitted by Hoipolloi Theatre (arts 179) Summary

Hoipolloi advocates for:

• A balanced funding system with public subsidy as an essential component. • Continued funding for innovation and experimentation in order to support art form development. • Small arts organisations to be valued for their dynamism, creativity and flexibility. • Partnership working and peer-to-peer learning as tools to increase cost- effectiveness. • Arms length funding characterised by rigorous and transparent decision- making with greater involvement from artists • More flexible funding agreements with investment linked to specific projects and timeframes. • 20% of Lottery funding going towards the arts. • Innovative fundraising models such as crowdfunding to be transposed into the arts. • More incentives and schemes to encourage private donations.

1) 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.

Spending cuts will have a significant impact on the arts.

Depending on the scale of the cuts, up to 25% of those currently funded by Arts Council England as Regularly Funded Organisations (RFOs) are likely to lose their funding. With spending cuts across the board, organisations and individuals will be faced with an increasingly competitive environment, with greater numbers chasing reduced levels of funding.

Building based organisations or those dependent on both Arts Council England and local authorities investment as part of their mixed economies are likely to feel the impact of spending cuts particularly strongly. Some venues are already struggling to offer companies the fees required to cover production costs, threatening the viability of touring and access to live work across the country.

In a risk-averse climate, innovation and experimentation - the bedrock of art form development - could be compromised, with funding being channelled into frontline delivery rather than research and development. Protecting the latter is vital to the future health of the arts and wider society. Recognising the essential role played by small organisations, which are often more dynamic and flexible, in the wider arts sector is also important at a time when size might be confused with strength.

2) What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

Arts organisations are by their very nature creative and entrepreneurial. Increasingly, they are forming innovative partnerships in order to achieve their goals. Hoipolloi’s next piece of new theatre will be co-produced by the Barbican Centre in London and National Theatre Wales amongst others - an example of organisations of different sizes, scales and locations joining together in order to deliver a project of the highest quality with an eye to value for money.

781

Encouraging peer-to-peer learning and sharing of knowledge will help to increase cost- effectiveness - for example, Hoipolloi has been commissioned to create ‘digital diaries’ explaining how the company has harnessed digital technology to engage more directly with audiences. These will be disseminated to others in the sector enabling peers to learn from Hoipolloi’s experiences as they implement their own digital strategies.

3) What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable

Sustained investment in the arts over the past 15 years has produced a rich diversity of arts activity which inspires, engages and connects with audiences and participants of all ages as well as a sector which fuels the creative industries, helps to generate jobs, contributes towards a wider sense of wellbeing and is celebrated internationally - all of this achieved on very modest amounts of funding (the arts budget costs each person just 17p a week).

Public subsidy levers additional support into the arts. For every £1 that Arts Council England invests, an additional £2 is generated from private and commercial sources. Many organisations have evolved complex mixed economy models which bring together public funding and private enterprise; these in turn feed the commercial arts sector and the creative economy with ideas, knowledge and skills. Maintaining a balanced funding system with public subsidy as an essential component will be crucial to the future health of the arts.

4) Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one

It is essential to have an organisation at arms-length from the government with a clear responsibility for supporting art and artists. The McMaster Review underlined the need to involve artists more in decisions regarding funding distribution while the McIntosh Report highlighted the need for rigour and transparency in Arts Council England’s decision making around its investment process - these are both important points for the Arts Council to consider when deciding how to distribute its funding. The introduction of more flexible funding agreements which link investment to specific projects but which recognise the needs, timeframes and strategic ambitions of each artist or organisation would be welcomed.

5) What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations

Hoipolloi supports the reinstating of the share of Lottery funding going to the arts, heritage and sport to 20% each. The company has benefited significantly from Lottery funding through Arts Council England’s Grants for the Arts programme. Hoipolloi’s annual grant, currently c£122k, contributes towards core costs but does not cover any production or project costs. The company is dependent on raising funding from a mix of public and private sources to ensure that it is able to deliver its artistic ambitions. Since 2006/07, Grants for the Arts funding has played a crucial role in this, with four significant awards of between £40k and £150k secured to support a range of artistic, audience, digital and organisational activities.

6) Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level

The classic business model in the arts since the 1980s has been a mixed economy, with arts organisations dependent on an often delicate balance of funding from public and private sources. Businesses and philanthropists have been a part of this and should continue to have a vested interest and involvement in supporting artistic excellence and audience engagement. Rather than placing undue emphasis on generating private sector funding via old-style 782

sponsorship packages and donations, Hoipolloi is interested in how more innovative funding models such as crowdfunding can be transposed across to the arts.

7) Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations

Incentives could be introduced to encourage higher tax payers in particular to make charitable donations.

Some of the schemes run by Arts & Business in the past such as the Pairing Scheme and New Partners programme were instrumental in encouraging businesses to engage in arts sponsorship for the first time. It would be timely to refresh and re-launch these schemes in order to support business investment.

Founded in 1994 and based in Cambridge, Hoipolloi is supported by Arts Council England as a Regularly Funded Organisation. From its origins as a small scale touring company, Hoipolloi has established a strong reputation for making original and refreshing new theatre work which is toured live - nationally and internationally - and also distributed online. In 2009/10, the company reached around 50,000 people through live performances, workshops and online interaction

September 2010 783

Written evidence submitted by Dorset County Council with contributions from Dorset Strategic Partnership Culture Theme Group (arts 180)

Executive Summary

The introduction gives information about the knowledge and expertise underpinning this submission. This is followed by factual information which provides the context for the submission. The rest of the submission addresses the issues which the committee has set out for consideration, and includes the following key points:

• Most arts organisations can cope with planning for a cut of around 10% from one funder, but an organisation asked to model 40% cuts from all its public funders faces a more seriously damaging prospect. The modelling is not helped by the uncertainty over whether or not the cuts will all come in from next year, will all come in following years, or will be phased in gradually. • Arts organisations need to take the initiative and look positively at ways of working more cost effectively on the basis that change is a necessity, not an option. Local Strategic Partnerships provide a framework for collaboration and the cultural contribution to implementation of the Sustainable Community Strategy. • The experience in Dorset is that it is essential to seek a common approach across local arts organisations, local authorities and the Arts Council. Failure to seek common understanding and to seek to make informed decisions which aligns, so far as practicable, the requirements and funding positions of all parties is a major risk. • In relation to arts funding, core investment to support development work will always be needed and the fact that this investment shows a considerable return in terms of economic and social impact unquestionably justifies that investment. The level at which this investment is set should relate to this impact and be directed to developing increased flexibility within organisations. • Frameworks for public subsidy should take into account the needs of rural areas. Rural proofing of any proposed changes is therefore an essential part of the Equalities Impact Assessment required in any policy review. • It is essential to continue supporting the Portable Antiquities Service which provides an essential protection for archaeological finds and the discovery of Treasure. There is no private sector way of delivering this service. • Support for English Heritage’s archaeological research programmes is also essential to develop tools within Historic Environment Records to support the delivery of effective protection through the planning system and to increase public awareness and engagement with the historic environment. • We understand that there is a proposal that the functions of the MLA will be absorbed into ACE. Strategically we would wish to see within ACE far greater recognition than exists at present of local authorities’ joint investment role in terms of both social purpose and access to excellence within arts and heritage. • Business support for the arts is led by business imperatives, and it is important to recognise that this model does not always fit with strategic aims to ensure that all communities have access to high quality arts experiences • In relation to philanthropy, Dorset has enjoyed support from local philanthropists who have made an important difference and contribution both to arts and heritage activity. However, philanthropic giving in general is related to projects which reflect the personal interest of the individual philanthropist and therefore it cannot be assumed that philanthropy will somehow fill a gap 784

left by reduced public sector support to ensure the social, health and economic outcomes of strategic arts and heritage provision.

1. Introduction

1.1 The Dorset Cultural Strategy 2009 – 2014 has the vision and ambition that Dorset leads the world in placing culture at the heart of quality of life.

1.2 In the Dorset Citizens’ Panel Survey April 2009 78% agreed that access to cultural activities helps to make Dorset a better place to live; and 77% agreed that engagement in cultural activities contributes to an improved quality of life.

1.3 A key aim of the Dorset County Council (DCC) Arts Service is to provide creative leadership to make arts experiences of the highest quality accessible to all communities in Dorset.

1.4 DCC supports a number of key arts organisations including the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra (BSO). The BSO is an orchestra of international standing and regularly brings high quality performances to venues around the county. Its players and performances are a source of inspiration and learning for young people in Dorset.

1.5 Including the BSO which has a much wider geographical reach, there are eight Regularly Funded Organisations (RFOs) in the county, most of which are also supported by DCC. There are a further four key organisations that receive DCC support and project based funding from Arts Council England (ACE) or other funding bodies.

1.6 DCC’s Historic Environment team seeks to promote interest, understanding and enjoyment of Dorset's historic environment, and careful and sensitive development within it. This is done in a number of ways, which include providing information and advice on planning matters, historic buildings, agri-environment schemes, monument management, and the identification and recording of finds.

1.7 We have a rich historic environment which is an important factor in Dorset’s unique character and distinctiveness. It includes our built heritage of historic buildings (some housing important art or archive collections), attractive market towns and villages, over thirty historic parks and gardens, over nine thousand listed buildings and some 5% of England’s scheduled monuments such as Maiden Castle, which is among the largest and most complex of Iron Age hill forts in Europe.

2. Factual information

2.1 Dorset is an averaged sized county in terms of area but is among the smallest counties in England in terms of population. The county has a large proportion of older people with almost 29% of Dorset residents over retirement age. (The national figure is19.2%). There is a relatively low proportion of younger people. The proportion of residents in their twenties is 7.9% compared to 13.5% nationally.

2.2 In some of the more rural parts of the county, the population is relatively spares. This situation, together with these demographic trends, have particular implications for an effective response to service needs of Dorset’s communities. This is the context for the responses set out below to the issues the committee has raised. 785

3. 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

3.1 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 arts organisations and challenges to planning within sensible parameters. This instability and uncertainty extends from the national level down to organisations working at a local level. The process leading up to the current position (August 2010) has resulted in a three month hiatus which some organisations are finding unproductive and which adversely affects future planning.

3.2 Most arts organisations can cope with planning for a cut of around 10% from one funder, but an organisation asked to model 40% cuts from all its public funders faces a more seriously damaging prospect. The modelling is not helped by the uncertainty over whether or not the cuts will all come in from next year, will all come in following years, or will be phased in gradually.

3.3 The tipping point which will drive most organisations into financial difficulties is less than a 30% cut. Up to this level of spending cuts will mean that organisations will need to reduce output and will have considerable impact.

3.4 Smaller organisations in rural areas in some parts of Dorset will find particular difficulty because of the inherent increased costs of working within a large sparsely populated area.

3.5 English Heritage funding for buildings at risk has reduced within the county. Dorset has a growing population of elderly residents, and those residing on low incomes in historic properties are most at risk of not being able to fund repairs adequately.

4. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale.

4.1 Working together within new forums can bring people together to collaborate on joint organisation and marketing, training and business development. A good example of this is the work being undertaken by the Dorset Strategic Partnership Culture Theme Group and the pioneering projects developing under its umbrella.

4.2 Organisations can work together more closely but more formal joint operation will need time to achieve. Merger can only take place successfully as the end of a long process of increasing collaboration.

4.3 To be successful, merger needs to be driven by joint objectives and priorities not financial imperative. Collaboration and merger is a long term process and cannot be achieved overnight.

4.4 Arts organisations need to take the initiative and look positively at ways of working more cost effectively on the basis that change is a necessity, not an option. Local Strategic Partnerships provide a framework for collaboration and the cultural contribution to implementation of the Sustainable Community Strategy.

786

4.5 The experience in Dorset is that it is essential to seek a common approach across local arts organisations, local authorities and the Arts Council. Failure to seek common understanding and to seek to make informed decisions which aligns, so far as practicable, the requirements and funding positions of all parties is a major risk.

4.6 Discussions have identified the following areas as having potential to reduce duplication of effort and bring economies of scale: • Shared marketing and promotion • Shared audience and market research • Shared venue staffing.

5. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable.

5.1 Some public subsidy for the arts will always be necessary. Any attempt to define an appropriate level of public subsidy would need to be informed by a thorough review of the entire public, private and philanthropic investment picture.

5.2 There is now a considerable body of evidence that cultural activity improves individual and community health and wellbeing and can support achievement of outcomes for children’s, health and social care services. Consideration of how cultural organisations can better integrate with the joint strategic commissioning process may be useful in relation to public subsidy. The recent Health White Paper’s move towards GP commissioning is particularly significant.1

5.3 In relation to arts funding, core investment to support development work will always be needed and the fact that this investment shows a considerable return in terms of economic and social impact unquestionably justifies that investment. The level at which this investment is set should relate to this impact and be directed to developing increased flexibility within organisations.

5.4 It is essential to continue supporting the Portable Antiquities Service which provides an essential protection for archaeological finds and the discovery of Treasure. It also provides the principal means of bringing this information into the public domain where it can be used by professionals and the public. There is no private sector way of delivering this service.

5.5 Support for English Heritage’s archaeological research programmes is also essential to develop tools within Historic Environment Records to support the delivery of effective protection to the historic environment through the planning system and to increase public awareness and engagement with the historic environment.

5.6 It is also highly desirable to continue funding to tackle those buildings and monuments that are most at risk and which cannot be used for directly profitable purposes. The longer they are left to deteriorate the more expensive it is to put right the depredation. It is particularly important to link this delivery mechanism with agri-environment schemes as many of the monuments at risk, particularly in Dorset, are on agricultural land. The available evidence suggests that agri-environment

1 Equity and Excellence, Department of Health White Paper, July 2010, http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh _117794.pdf 787

schemes make a vital contribution to environmental outcomes and are a key vehicle for delivering conservation of the natural and the historic environment.2 Research also suggests that Environmental Stewardship and particularly Higher Level Stewardship deliver significant additional socio-economic benefits.3 As the development of agri-environment schemes is ongoing there will no doubt be scope for further process improvements and simplification, but the continuation of these schemes and the provision of adequate resources for them should be regarded as a keystone of the government’s aspiration to be the ‘greenest government ever’.

5.7 Frameworks for public subsidy should take into account the needs of rural areas, which are not always met by the urban or city focussed opportunities such as Capital of Culture. Rural proofing of any proposed changes is therefore an essential part of the Equalities Impact Assessment required in any policy review.

6. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one.

6.1 The current system tends towards encouraging dependency. Therefore the system should look to build longer term sustainability which is not so dependent on public subsidy. However to be successful this will mean forging new longer term relationships between funder and funded.

6.2 The current system seems to be withdrawing from the support of the built heritage. This is happening at a time when a recent Visit Britain report shows that the built heritage is a strong driver of visits to Britain with £4.5 billion worth of spending by inbound visitors annually. In particular the report notes that built heritage is something that most visitors want to experience, appealing to all ages; that Britain’s built heritage is seen as iconic and that Britain’s built heritage is world-class, ranked 4th out of 50 nations by potential visitors; France, Italy and Spain being our main competitors. 4

7. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations.

7.1 An increase in the National Lottery distribution of funds to arts and heritage is to be welcomed but not as replacement for treasury funds; however this is not scheduled to take effect until after the Olympics have finished in 2-3 years time.

8. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed.

2 Agri-environment schemes in England, Natural England, 2009 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/farming/aesiereport.aspx 3 Estimating the incidental socio-economic benefits of Environmental Stewardship Schemes, CCRI. March 2010 http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/es-socioeconomic/esschemes- socioeconomic-summary-100330.pdf 4 Culture and Heritage Topic Profile, Visit Britain, February 2010, http://www.visitbritain.org/Images/Culture%20%26%20Heritage%20Topic%20Profile%20Full_tcm139- 184566.pdf 788

8.1 Guidelines for the National Lottery funding should be kept under periodic review to reflect changes in the needs of society and of the arts and heritage sector.

8.2 The offering of grant aid to smaller heritage research and development projects also needs reform to require that a copy of the results is lodged with a public repository such as the local historic environment record and thereby made available to a wider audience.

9. 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.

9.1 There are reservations about the MLA In terms of its effectiveness at representing the archive and libraries sector. Since its reorganisation and relocation to Birmingham, MLA's local 'reach' is arguably non-existent with only small teams covering two English regions each. Contact with MLA tends to be infrequent and based largely around funding streams on offer. The consequence of the demise of the MLA will mean that The National Archives will need to play an even greater role in terms of archive leadership, encouragement of best practice and self assessment. It is questionable that there is a similar body to fulfil this role for libraries. This means that the opportunity to share good practice and the development of a consistent sector wide approach to common issues such as the developer contributions work that the MLA has been involved with, will be lost.

9.2 Any significant reduction in funding of museums through the current MLA “Renaissance” funding programme is likely to have an impact on arts and culture. This may not be through a direct reduction in museum activity but because local authorities may have to move funding from other cultural areas to offset any reduction. This example illustrates a more general point which is the importance of appreciating the inter-locking nature of funding streams. It is only at the local level where the consequences of hard decisions come together and an overview of impact can be seen, both by sector leaders and managers, politicians and the public.

9.3 Funding for the Portable Antiquities Scheme is paid by DCMS through the MLA and removal of that funding stream would be disastrous as previously noted.

9.4 Despite our reservations about the effectiveness of the MLA, we would be very concerned to see museums, libraries and archives effectively 'unrepresented' at government level. Until we are clearer about how MLA's functions are to be re- provided, there will be degrees of concern about the government agenda on heritage and its real long-term interest in museums, libraries and archives following MLA's abolition.

9.5 We understand that there is a proposal that the functions of the MLA will be absorbed into ACE. Strategically we would wish to see within ACE far greater recognition than exists at present of local authorities’ joint investment role in terms of both social purpose and access to excellence within arts and heritage.

10. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level.

10.1 Businesses and philanthropists have supported the arts over a very long time, choosing, as they may, who and what they support. This support is to be welcomed 789

and encouraged but not as a replacement for state funding for the arts. A critical reason for this is the need to ensure sustainable approaches and work for the medium to long-term. It is debilitating and not cost-effective for organisations to survive on short-term funding solutions.

10.2 Business is more likely to be attracted to the larger organisations which have a national and international profile. There is no evidence that any more than relatively minor business sponsorship can be achieved for the small scale arts provision which is the model in Dorset. The BSO’s larger profile and national reach means that it can attract significant support from business.

10.3 Business support for the arts is led by business imperatives, and it is important to recognise that this model does not always fit with strategic aims to ensure that all communities have access to high quality arts experiences

10.4 In relation to philanthropy, Dorset has enjoyed support from local philanthropists who have made an important difference and contribution both to arts and heritage activity. In addition organisations and local authorities in the county have a good track record of obtaining funding from grant-making trusts. However, philanthropic giving in general is related to projects which reflect the personal interest of the individual philanthropist and therefore it cannot be assumed that philanthropy will somehow fill a gap left by reduced public sector support to ensure the social, health and economic outcomes of strategic arts and heritage provision.

11. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations

11.1 Any step that encourages private donations is to be welcomed as long as there are realistic expectations as to how much this is likely to achieve. It is also important that private donations are not considered as a viable alternative to state funding for the arts and heritage.

11.2 Government should certainly provide incentives to carry out actions it requires people to do for the benefit of society as a whole. For example repairs to historic buildings sometimes cost more than repairs to ordinary buildings. Tax incentives should encourage this vital aspect of properly sustainable investment and activity.

Glossary of abbreviations ACE Arts Council England MLA Museums Libraries and Archives BSO Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra Council DCC Dorset County Council RFO Regularly Funded Organisation

September 2010 790

Written evidence submitted by The Society for Nautical Research (arts 181)

SUMMARY

The key points in this submission are that :

• the Country’s present financial situation must be addressed. The Society recognises this may mean a severe reduction in central government funding for some years yet

• the Advisory Committee on National Historic Ships has done invaluable work and its key functions and funding need to be retained

• Government can facilitate maritime conservation by signalling its national value. This should help unlock purse strings in the private sector

• National Lottery Funds have proved invaluable to maritime conservation. While recognising that public money must be properly accounted for in the bidding process, in accordance with Government policy, the process can surely be made less tedious

• the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck sites should not be abolished before its members’ experience is transferred into English Heritage and its counterparts in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

• the scope of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 should be extended from the 12 mile Territorial Sea to the whole of the UK’s 200 mile Economic Zone. The limitations of the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 should be reviewed so that remains before 1914 can be protected

• a settled policy on the management and exploitation of historically significant wrecks or other underwater archaeological sites is needed. As part of this, earlier decisions that the UK should not sign the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage should be revisited

• new burden costs for English Heritage and its counterparts in the devolved administrations should be funded or at the very least Government should indicate that they will be funded after the worst of the economic crisis is over

• it is important to scholarship that reductions in funding do not reduce the standards of care by which archive material is preserved and that access to archives for research and study is not reduced.

INTRODUCTION

1. This written evidence is submitted on behalf of the Society for Nautical Research1.

THE SOCIETY FOR NAUTICAL RESEARCH 1. The Society for Nautical Research is a company limited by guarantee. It is also a Charity and by a Charity Commissioners’ Scheme is the Trustee of the Save the Victory Fund whose object is to assist in the maintenance, upkeep and presentation of HMS Victory and is the Trustee of the Macpherson Collection Endowment Fund whose object is to augment the Macpherson Collection held by the Trustees of the National Maritime Museum and to assist in the maintenance and exhibition of this collection. 791

2. The Society for Nautical Research was founded in 1910 to foster the study of ships and seafaring throughout all ages and in all seas. It has an international membership open to all. Its refereed journal, The Mariner’s Mirror, is recognised internationally as the pre-eminent English language journal on naval and , nautical archaeology and all aspects of seafaring and lore of the sea world wide and in all ages.

3. The Society’s first conservation achievement was in January 1922 when HMS VICTORY was moved into dry dock No. 2 at following a campaign by the Society to save her before she sank at her moorings. She was docked successfully and then surveyed. As a result the Admiralty decided that she must stay in dock but that the cost of restoration was so high that it could not be met from public funds. On 10 June 1922 the Board of Admiralty wrote to the Society to say that if the Society was prepared to raise money to pay for the ship’s restoration to her 1805 Trafalgar condition the work could be done in the dockyard on the basis of the Society’s expert advice. The Society’s ‘Save the Victory Fund’ was set up and funds raised. A plaque on board was unveiled by King George V when he visited the newly restored ship in 1928 to record the Society’s close involvement with this work. The ‘Save the Victory Fund’ still exists and still provides monies that assist the maintenance, display and conservation of the ship. The Society also continues to provide the Chairman for the MoD’s VICTORY Advisory Technical Committee.

4. The Society’s collection of artefacts at Portsmouth has grown through the Society’s VICTORY Gallery which was opened in 1938. It became a key component firstly of the Royal Naval Museum in 1972 when the collection and the Gallery was gifted by the Society to the Secretary of State and more recently of the National Museum of the Royal Navy. The Society was instrumental in facilitating the Act of Parliament that established the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich in April 1937 and in securing the Macpherson Collection numbering many thousands of maritime prints, paintings and other items now in the Museum. In more recent years the Society played its part in establishing the Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust and in 2005 deposited the John P Bethell Water Craft Information Resource with the National Maritime Museum, Cornwall.

5. The Society has also been engaged in one way or another with conservation projects for HMS IMPLACABLE, HMS FOUDROYANT (now restored at under her original name of TRINCOMALEE), MARY ROSE at Portsmouth, RSS DISCOVERY when she was moved from the Thames Embankment to , the return of SS GREAT BRITAIN from the Falkland Islands to Bristol and with giving advice about the Victorian steam fishing vessels/whale catchers still in South Georgia. Most recently the Society has given advice to the Trustees of the in connection with their restoration plans and particularly the structural problems that might follow from lifting her from the bottom of the dry dock.

6. In the inter war period members of the Society measured and recorded the details of fishing and other inshore craft. In 1992/93 the Society built, presented to HMS VICTORY and now finds the volunteer crew for a 25ft sailing and rowing built from 1805 drawings. She makes appearances at various sailing events to publicise the Royal Navy, HMS VICTORY and the work of the Society. The Society organises a ‘new researchers’ conference each year with the British Commission and is engaged with an international conference at least every other year. It also provides grants to help researchers and runs its own lecture series as well as contributing to others.

7. In the 100 years of its existence the Society has had practical experience of ship and boat conservation as well as the display of artefacts to museum standards. It has done so when the only funding for such activities had to come from private sources and it has done so when public funding was available; though it must be remarked that funding for nautical purposes 792

TODAY’S SITUATION

8. The Society is well aware that the country’s present financial situation must be addressed and that in the short to medium term this may require a severe reduction in central government funding. Historically, maritime conservation has been underfunded and so all reductions will be felt severely.

NATIONAL HISTORIC SHIPS

9. The Secretary of State announced on 26 July that he intended to declassify the Advisory Committee on National Historic Ships and transfer its functions to another body. We are not too sure what the term ‘declassify’ means in this context but understand from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) that it means that the Committee’s Non Departmental Public Body status will change as will its accounting structure. It would have been useful to know before preparing this evidence what the Secretary of State has in mind as a successor body because National Historic Ships has an important role that should not be lost or diluted. The Society hopes that this change does not mean that National Historic Ships’ core funding from DCMS – less than £260,000 a year – will be lost.

10. In the few years of its existence National Historic Ships has placed over 1,000 vessels on the National Register of Historic Vessels. This list includes the National Historic Fleet being vessels spanning the spectrum of UK maritime history. (The National Maritime Museum, Cornwall has followed this lead and created and maintains the National Small Boat Register.)

11. But National Historic Ships has done much more than make lists. It has, for example, intervened to prevent the demolition of the ship and is now working with the Scottish Government to find a conservation solution in the light of the fact that the Scottish Maritime Museum can no longer afford to maintain her or afford the space that she occupies. (It seems likely that a long term solution that will save this important Australian emigrant ship will be in place before too much longer.)

12. National Historic Ships has also been able to broker the transfer of World War 2 High Speed Launch 102 and Motor Gunboat 81 from private ownership to the Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust boat collection. These two boats are on display for all to see at the Gunwharf, Portsmouth this year. National Historic Ships also played a key part in the ground breaking exercise of persuading HM Treasury to accept the boats in the Steam Boat Museum in lieu of death duties. This collection has thereby been kept together and in its context. It is understood that the Lakeland Arts Trust (as successor to the Museum) is committed to a plan which will result in the effective conservation of these boats and their public display again in due course. Without this intervention by National Historic Ships this unique collection would have been dispersed.

13. National Historic Ships has brokered activities which help to give an economic life for historic vessels. It successfully brought together a French company wanting to move high value wine by wind power and the owners of the only working topsail in the United Kingdom – the KATHLEEN & MAY - built in 1900. This resulted in 3 contracts being won for this vessel to move wine between France, Ireland and south west England.

793

14. National Historic Ships has recently launched the Shipshape Network. This is a national initiative to develop regional networks of skills, suppliers (including an online directory of skills and services) and to act as a base for training initiatives. Shipshape Solent, Shipshape Mersey, Shipshape Bristol Channel and Shipshape Thames are already operating and the network is, we understand, to be expanded over the coming year.

15. With grant aid from the Society for Nautical Research and the Headley Trust, National Historic Ships is about to publish the UK’s definitive conservation manual on the principles of ship conservation. The publication has been endorsed by Mr John Penrose MP, the Minister for Tourism and Heritage. (Paragraphs 19 et seq. comment on the difficulties and challenges of ship conservation.)

16. These examples illustrate the advantages that have accrued to maritime conservation from the work of National Historic Ships. Its functions and the way that they are exercised will continue to be important. It is a unique repository for knowledge and skills essential to conserve and restore historic vessels. These skills are just not available in the various Museums. A way needs to be found for these skills to be kept and used and for National Historic Ships to be acknowledged as the foremost body in the vessel conservation discipline. It would no doubt be possible to construct a new body separate from government but one which still received core funding through DCMS. But one wonders whether this would really be worthwhile or is, indeed, necessary?

17. The Society understands that National Historic Ships costs the taxpayer just £257,000 per year. But as National Historic Ships spend some £50-60,000 per year in small grants and can and does broker arrangements between those who have funds and those who need funds, the state has a body which makes a real difference to vessel conservation at minimal cost to government. National Historic Ships has told the Society that it generates 3 times its costs in investment in historic ship projects and raises other money as well for its own projects. The Heritage Lottery Fund has accepted National Historic Ships as their principle advisor for all historic vessel applications. All this gives a very good deal indeed for the state and we urge that National Historic Ships be allowed to continue to receive core funding from government and to continue to be the officially recognised vessel conservation body. With core funding and official recognition of National Historic Ships’ effective, if frugal, maritime conservation can continue.

18. By signalling the national importance of vessel and, indeed, maritime conservation in general in this way Government should help to unlock partnership funding. Government could further contribute at very little cost by explaining the value of maritime heritage to the public at large. For whatever reasons, the country nowadays seems totally disconnected from its maritime or industrial heritage. Because of this disconnection voluntary donations are harder to come by than is desirable; and significant philanthropic donations are even scarcer. Signs of Government interest in this work would help to secure funding from charitable and private sector sources. Donors would be much more aware that they are helping a necessary cause including maintaining scarce skills and thus employment. Downstream they are also helping to develop and maintain new businesses based on income from visitors. And additional tourist destinations boost the economy more generally.

SHIP CONSERVATION

19. It must be said that ship conservation whether of a wooden hull or an iron or steel hull is far from easy. Firstly ships are large and they are expensive to rescue, restore and conserve. Secondly they are designed for their weight to be carried on water and so are subjected to many fewer unintentional stresses when afloat than in a dry dock. Their design purpose, whether for a naval vessel or a merchant vessel, was very specific and as such rarely lends itself 794

to conservation in a form where they can easily be used for another purpose which will bring in significant sums of money to help with their conservation.

20. Display also provides its own problems. The need is for a body of water accessible by sea and by land and near to centres of population that can and will visit and contribute through admission charges. There are many bodies of water suitable; but with notable exceptions few are situated in parts of a dockland area that many would chose to visit – though a well featured vessel may turn out be the key to strategic development of a rundown area. That there is a real interest and demand to see well displayed vessels and related artefacts in sympathetic surroundings is borne out by the fact that at the very high quality nautical heritage centres including Anstruther, Bristol, Chatham, Greenwich, Hartlepool, Liverpool and Portsmouth visitor numbers are consistently high.

NATIONAL LOTTERY FUNDS

21. The decline in funding from private sources has in some ways been offset by the availability in the last 20 years or so of funding from the National Lottery. The lottery clearly appeals to the public and taps a funding source not otherwise available. As far as the Society is aware, match funding has always been secured for any project for which lottery funds have been pledged. This income stream from lottery sources for historic conservation projects should not be lost and should be enhanced if possible – perhaps by making the application process significantly less tedious. One of the aims of the Government is, of course, to simplify governance. As already noted above, clear signs that the Government regards maritime conservation activities as being of importance and that National Historic Ships is the principal advisor to the Heritage Lottery Fund for historical vessel applications would help to guide additional private sector match funding into the maritime conservation.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC WRECK SITES

22. Also on 26 July the Secretary of State announced the abolition of the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites. There is presumably an argument that all the significant sites are already known. That view has limited force because we do not know what still remains to be discovered; and as the capabilities of underwater technology is increasing rapidly we just do not know what will be discovered. This is not an idle statement. As recently as 24 August 2010 MoD announced that the wrecks of HMS CASSANDRA (1918) and HMS GENTIAN (1919) had been found in the Baltic. These wrecks legally belong to the British Government. In May of this year the Swedish Government announced the discovery of other wrecks in the Baltic including some that they believe to be from the 17th and 18th Century. If the Advisory Committee on Historic Wrecks has to be disbanded then the Society believes that an effective Group able to advise English Heritage, Historic Scotland, CADW and the Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service on the significance of wrecks needs to be put in place. National Historic Ships may also have a new role to play in this area.

23. The Society’s recollection is that the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites was brought into being in 1978 - and the Archaeology Diving Unit (ADU) at St Andrew’s came into being at much the same time - because the major Maritime Museums refused to contribute their resources to this work. The museums’ skills in this area have been dispersed but the ADU continues (now within Wessex Archaeology) and since 1978 English Heritage has built a small maritime team based at Fort Cumberland. We suggest that the skills and knowledge of the individuals who make up the Advisory Committee should be transferred to English Heritage and the similar bodies in the devolved administrations and that the work of their Ancient Monuments Committees should as a consequence be expanded to include advisory work on wrecks.

795

24. In the light of the difficulties that DCMS is discovering in developing a policy to manage the recently discovered 1744 wreck site of Admiral Balchin’s HMS VICTORY because it lies outside the 12 mile Territorial Sea, English Heritage’s jurisdiction and the scope of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 should be extended out from the breadth of the Territorial Sea to the further limit of the UK’s 200 mile economic zone (or to median lines with adjacent countries). Real consideration should also be given to reviewing the limitations of the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 so that remains before 1914 can be properly protected.

25. It is important that the United Kingdom has a coherent policy on the management and exploitation of historically important wreck sites and other items of archaeological significance that may be discovered underwater. As part of developing this policy earlier decisions that the UK should not sign the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage should, perhaps, be revisited but in the knowledge that there is a greater role for the knowledgeable amateur diver to play than UNESCO seems to recognise and that not all sites are best served by leaving them untouched. The marine environment is harsh and natural changes in it may lead to rapid deterioration of sites and artefacts that have apparently been ‘safe’ for years.

26. The centenary of the First World War is not too far distant and there are clear advantages in having a fully developed policy about wrecks from this period and others before this war and its battles at sea are commemorated. The Jutland wrecks are the obvious example.

27. English Heritage should, of course, be funded in accordance with new burdens rules so that it can carry out all additional work that the Secretary of State or Parliament may give to it even if at this stage of the economic cycle this can be no more than an undertaking that new burden funding will be provided once the worst of the crisis is over – say from 2013/14.

MARITIME ARCHIVES

28. Maritime archives are to be found in the National Archives at Kew, the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich, the National Museum of the Royal Navy at Portsmouth, the Naval Historical Branch of MoD (also at Portsmouth) and at numerous other museums or archives funded by national government, local authorities or others. It is crucial to the development of scholarship and education that funding cuts are not allowed to result in long term harm to the condition of these records and that access to them for research and study is not curtailed.

September 2010

796 Written evidence submitted by the Almeida Theatre Company Ltd (arts 182)

1. The Almeida Theatre Company

The Almeida is a 325 seat theatre in the heart of Islington, North London. The Almeida Theatre Company produces a diverse range of British and international drama with some of the world’s best artists and has developed a reputation as a local theatre with an international profile.

The Almeida currently receives regular annual funding from Arts Council England in order to support the costs of offering seats at accessible ticket prices, while frequently presenting large scale productions, in tandem with a high impact education and community programme (Almeida Projects).

The current Arts Council grant equates to 25% of the Almeida’s annual turnover of £3.9million, with the theatre raising another £1million each year through its wide range of fundraising activities. In order to break even each year, the theatre has to play to an average of 85%. Last year it sold 90,351 tickets. In total, the theatre raises £2.81 for every £1 received in public subsidy.

In 2001 the theatre received £2.25million from the Arts Council Lottery to fund 50% of the overall £5.5million cost of redeveloping the theatre, which re-opened in May 2003.

2. The proposed government funding cuts

Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Culture, the Olympics, Media and Sport, proposes a new system of support for the arts, following the “American model,” relying much more heavily on private philanthropy.

This makes no economic sense for the following reasons:-

1) The current American system is failing; private companies are cutting back drastically on their philanthropy in the face of the global recession, resulting in the closure of countless arts bodies.

2) As any private arts donor will confirm, the incentive and desire to support diminishes in proportion to any reduction of public subsidy. They emphatically do not see themselves as the principal source of funding , but rather as an ‘add-on,’ investing in a cultural industry with a world-wide reputation.

3) Perhaps the most important of all, the arts sector is one of the highest growth industries in the country. Not only providing thousands of jobs (creating over 2m new ones between 1997 and 2007) but also returning far more to the exchequer than is invested in subsidy. The theatre in London alone paid back £76m in VAT in 2008 – as against an Arts Council spend on theatre of £54m.

These figures, set alongside the value of tourism - £86bn in 2007 – (which in huge part is due to the nations arts, culture and heritage) clearly demonstrate the counter-productive, short-sighted nature of the Government’s current proposals.

None of this of course takes into account the destructive long-term effects the proposals would have on both the nation’s culture and the health of society as a whole. There is a government funding cut “tipping point” of around 10-15%, when beyond this amount the arts landscape in England would change drastically with the loss of many arts organisations and the country losing its reputation as a world leader in the creative economy.

The considerable benefits the arts can bring in other areas - social, economic, and to general well being - begin with the quality of the art itself. And this country has invested in artistic excellence for the long term. Any repair would require significant investment more than the cuts proposed at a later date to return to the same levels of arts productivity and quality that this country should enjoy. We welcome the proposed redistribution of Lottery funds to provide a greater share to the arts in order to mitigate some of the proposed funding government shortfall.

797 3. Further background information – the wider London theatre landscape

The Almeida Theatre is part of an industry-wide consortium of 12 “Off-West End” London Theatres. The consortium comprises: Almeida Theatre, Battersea Arts Centre, Bush Theatre, Donmar Warehouse, Greenwich Theatre, Hampstead Theatre, Lyric Hammersmith, Royal Court Theatre, Soho Theatre, Theatre Royal Stratford East, Tricycle Theatre and Young Vic.

In many senses, these theatres form the powerhouse of British theatre and a cornerstone of London’s reputation as a cultural capital, a role recognised in terms of public investment.

• The combined annual turnover of the consortium is £28million • For every £1 of ACE investment, the consortium generates on average another £1.65 • The 12 consortium theatres sell around 1million tickets per year – more than the National or Royal Opera House • 10% of London households have attended one of the consortium theatre in the past 3 years and we serve residents in all 33 London Boroughs • The consortium employ over 1,500 people per year • The consortium theatre’s productions feed London’s commercial theatre, boosting the visitor economy, while our international tours and co-productions plus a strong media profile help position London as a centre of vibrant world class culture • The consortium is already working closely together to see where theatres can work collectively to either reduce our own individual costs or increase revenue. This includes opportunities for joint purchasing, joint marketing, sharing administration, staff and resources, sharing knowledge and expertise.

September 2010

798

Written evidence submitted by RESCUE: the British Archaeological Trust (arts 183)

Introduction:

1. RESCUE is an entirely independent charity, which exists to promote and highlight the interests of archaeology and the historic environment within the United Kingdom. We have no links with any political party and are funded entirely by the subscriptions and donations of our members. It is with this remit in mind that we welcome the opportunity to respond to the Select Committee call for evidence on funding of the arts and heritage.

Summary:

2. RESCUE is concerned about future budget cuts undermining the ability of English Heritage and Local Authorities to continue to protect our heritage resource. It must be recognised that the non- statutory status of heritage services at local levels, and budget cuts to English Heritage over the course of the last Government, have already weakened the existing provisions significantly. Further cuts in these areas will cause irreparable damage and will undoubtedly result in the actual loss of archaeological sites, historic buildings and heritage landscapes. RESCUE is also concerned that the Government is intending to replace central funding with philanthropic and volunteer sector involvement, which we believe would be unacceptable. RESCUE strongly supports the Heritage Lottery Fund, and would urge the scheme to continue, but with a simplification of the processes involved in obtaining grants, and a greater emphasis on conservation projects. We believe that the museums sector requires strong representation at a Government level, and are concerned that the abolition of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council will weaken this representation. We recommend that metal detectorists should be required to contribute to the conservation and maintenance of the objects that they recover, and suggest that current provisions for the archiving of archaeological material recovered through the planning process are wholly inadequate.

Response:

3. Budget cuts under the last Government have had a significantly detrimental impact on heritage protection regimes over the last few years. This ongoing real-terms reduction in English Heritage’s budget has resulted in the organisation withdrawing from its practical role in the management of the heritage resource, to a less useful strategic position. English Heritage now produces large amounts of written guidance papers that have no practical support, whereas previously the organisation acted as a centre of excellence for heritage professionals, and a national hub for advice. Expertise in archaeological science, artefact studies, planning advice and heritage management has all been whittled away in recent years and continues to be reduced, along with the valuable grant-giving functions which once provided measurable results in terms of heritage restoration, repair and rescue projects but are now virtually non-existent. The organisation continues to offer less and less of interest to the professional heritage community, and as a consequence, is at serious risk of losing its status and credibility within the sector.

4. Local Authority funding cuts have also been detrimental to heritage protection. The lack of statutory status for either Historic Environment Records, or Heritage Protection advice and management services at local levels clearly has resulted in these services being targeted during budget cuts. Non- statutory services are always viewed as “expendable” at a local authority level. The result of this is that no matter what policy Government produces regarding the operation of heritage protection regimes (the latest example being PPS5 – Planning and the Historic Environment), or whatever guidance is produced by English Heritage to facilitate the process, it is viewed as an optional exercise by Local Authorities, and targeted for reduction or removal when budgets are cut. Historic buildings and archaeological sites are diminished or lost as a result – either directly during the planning process or by stealth, with decisions regarding their future management taken by unskilled individuals. It is long overdue that Heritage Protection services should be afforded the same status as those accorded to the 799

natural environment. The requirement for a simple change in the status of departmental resources at local levels would at least arrest the decline that has been ongoing for some years.

5. Future spending cuts need to be targeted carefully. RESCUE is under no illusion that additional spending cuts are coming – although taking into account the significant reduction in the budget for English Heritage under the last Government we would urge that any new programme should be proportionate, and should be undertaken with full awareness of the practical effects of the previous programme of cuts under the last administration. A further significant reduction in English Heritage’s budget will very likely rob the organisation of all but its responsibility as a landlord to a number of historic properties, which would be disastrous for the wider heritage resource and its future sustainability.

6. Heritage organisations are particularly adept at attracting and working with the voluntary sector, and this also should be borne in mind when considering the future. Without the core support of expert staff, and the comparatively small levels of project funding that they administer, the network of voluntary involvement and support for the Historic Environment will undoubtedly collapse. The Government has stated quite clearly that its intention is to encourage private donations and philanthropic involvement in a “Big Society” - yet it must be understood that without the initial resource of Government funds and support, it will be impossible to carry this policy through at a local level, and that it will fail as a result. We would urge the Government to adopt the measures we have outlined above, and to ensure that there is a viable and accessible grant budget – in addition to that provided by the Heritage Lottery Fund – that is available in support.

7. We cannot offer further advice beyond this regarding heritage funding and encouraging philanthropic participation. It is our firm opinion that the heritage of the country belongs to, and should be accessible to, everyone, and that therefore it is the responsibility of the Government to adequately maintain and resource the structures necessary to facilitate access and participation. It is clear that previous Governments have abdicated this responsibility in the hope that others would assume it, and whilst the present situation is difficult we would strongly urge this Government to reverse this trend. We do not believe that it is appropriate or viable to expect philanthropic involvement to sustain a satisfactory heritage programme for any length of time. Whilst such involvement is welcome, it should be viewed as a bonus, and never considered as a replacement policy position to full Government support.

8. With this in mind, we would like to champion the need for the continuation of the Heritage Lottery Fund. This fund has provided for countless projects in support of heritage initiatives, and should be lauded for the success that it has been. In the future, RESCUE would like to see a simplification in the processes involved in obtaining grants, as at present these can be extremely convoluted – even for relatively small amounts of money. We would also like to see a greater emphasis given to creative conservation projects, placing these on an equal footing with education and outreach initiatives, although in line with the principle expressed above, we believe that HLF initiatives and projects should be considered as supplementary to the requirements of heritage protection - which clearly should be a national policy issue and resourced at a national level.

9. One aspect of funding which concerns RESCUE, and which places a significant and unnecessary burden on museums’ funding comes in the allocation of awards for the discovery of artefacts that are declared as treasure. The discovery of small single objects is not so much at issue here, but where groups of artefacts or high status objects are recovered, the conservation, archiving and curation costs are a worrying burden on local museum services. This is compounded by the situation whereby the original finder is wholly rewarded for depositing this material, and assumes no responsibility for its future. We believe that there should be a process available to coroners whereby they can advise that some or all of the costs for the conservation of treasure objects can be deducted from the finders’ fee which is allocated upon the declaration of treasure. In this way, the real long term cost of recent discoveries such as the Staffordshire Saxon hoard, or the hoard of 52,000 Roman coins recently 800

revealed in Somerset, would not simply be placed on the public sector by an individual who then walks away - potentially with millions of pounds of public money - without accepting that their discovery has ongoing financial implications for its preservation, curation and interpretation for the public body that acquires it. There is no central Government fund available for the conservation of objects discovered in this way, and until there is, we believe that it should be a shared responsibility between the finder and the state to ensure that such discoveries are properly cared for and presented for public appreciation, rather than becoming the state’s responsibility alone. We realise that such a policy might be an incentive for individuals not to report that they have discovered potential treasure – in the hope of achieving a higher value for it commercially. This would need to be investigated fully before any policy change – but a potential solution could be found in enhancements to the existing Portable Antiquities Scheme, and an end to the voluntary principle behind the reporting of discoveries. Compulsory and enforceable finds reporting procedures, with penalties for non-compliance would also ensure that the antiquities scheme would operate fully in accordance with the terms of the Valletta Convention.

10. RESCUE is unclear as to what the impact of the abolition of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council will be. It is without doubt the case that these organisations require representation at a Government level, and that the loss of the MLA will result in a loss of this representation. It is to be presumed that the functions of the MLA will be absorbed into another organisation, although this has not been made clear. Were this to be English Heritage, we would have real concerns that the provisions would be inadequate due to the previous budget cuts to that organisation, and its policy shift outlined above. It is also the case that the MLA has failed to provide the leadership and representation that the sector requires. For example, local and regional museums have suffered from poorly planned expenditure over the last ten years with the result that essential ‘backroom’ staff and facilities have been reduced to the extent that few can now effectively undertake one of their core activities, the storage and curation of archives from developer-funded excavation. Across the UK, museums have exhausted their storage space for archaeological material, with the result that new archaeological archives created through investigations initiated by the planning and development process, are unable to be deposited in the appropriate repositories. There is a very real likelihood that a number of museums will be compelled through lack of space to begin destroying archives in the very near future. This problem has been growing for a number of years – yet has been neither adequately highlighted nor addressed despite there having been a number of recent opportunities to do so. The whole issue of the future sustainability of the museums and archives bodies, with particular reference to a desperate need for significant increases in storage capacity, requires serious and urgent consideration as the problem is likely to worsen as the economy recovers and development projects (including housing) resume.

11. RESCUE would be pleased to offer examples to further support the points we have raised here, as for this response we have deliberately ensured the points are succinct and clear. Representatives of RESCUE would be able to appear in person before the Committee should that be desirable, to discuss these issues in more detail.

September 2010 801

Written evidence submitted by the English National Opera (arts 184)

Summary (short paragraph summarising below in bullet points):

• It is clear that arts organisations will be impacted by funding cuts; to varying degrees. Everyone in the cultural sector understands that the arts are not a special case, but there is concern that culture is an easy target politically, when the reality is it provides huge return for a small investment and is crucial to a healthy, happy society.

• ENO is not alone in running a very efficient organisation with 94% of our costs going straight into the artistic programme. The impact therefore of even 5 – 10% will be noticeable to the public in the form of loss of jobs, diminished training opportunities, cuts in programming and rises in ticket prices.

• ENO provides a huge amount of public value in return for the Arts Council grant of £17.9 million (2010/11). Through an artistic programme which strategically uses the grant to support adventurous, innovative and dynamic work, it reaches a much wider and diverse audience than is usual for opera and brings unique work to the UK that would not otherwise be seen. Many people have seen their first opera at ENO as a result of the Company’s policy of affordable tickets - over 50,000 tickets were £20 or less last season. ENO is the UK’s largest employer of British opera talent and plays an important role nurturing emerging talent through a number of schemes and career opportunities. Like others in the subsidised theatre or music sector we provide a vital bedrock for the talent and expertise that the commercial sectors require.

• Our significant collaboration within the UK theatre and media sector and with international opera houses ensure not only that our work reaches large numbers of people but also provides important financial investment. Our international partners for the forthcoming 2010/11 season alone are investing £3.5 million into ENO productions.

• Introducing a model which relies more heavily on corporate or individual giving or on self generated income needs serious consideration particularly in the current economic environment. Some organisations – those with limited assets such as entertaining space or commercial property - such as ENO, will find this model harder to sustain. Relying on individuals to support the artistic programme makes the creation of the riskier, more innovative and adventurous work more difficult. It is clear from the UK and international response to ENO’s work over the last two years that there is a real appetite for work of this kind produced to world class standards. Over 39,000 people saw a contemporary opera at ENO in the 2009/10 year. Clearly for the arts to continue to have such an internationally strong reputation it is important that we continue to invest in a wide range of work including new commissions, contemporary opera and productions by creative talent from across the arts.

1. 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;

1.1 It is clear that every cultural organisation - national, regional and local - will be affected to varying degrees as a result of funding cuts. The arts are not a special case in these times of cuts, but should not be dismissed as only a luxury or as an industry that can easily survive by finding funding from rich individuals or those who want to participate. Just as the benefits, both financial and social of the arts are not in dispute but difficult to precisely calculate, so is the likely impact of cuts. Some organisations will survive better than others. Most organisations do not have “fat” or “excesses” to cut – cuts will generally impact directly on the art itself, the 802

affordability of access for the public and the development of UK creative talent – the past and current funding have seen to that. For example in the 2008/9 ENO received no uplift in its ACE grant (impact of circa £450,000 in that year and almost £1.5m across the three year spending review) and has been impacted like many other organisations in the recent recession, with a fall in corporate sponsorship. The impending rise in VAT and increases in National Insurance contributions will compound the problems. Far from the concept that medium or large scale organisations at national level have a lot of slack, waste public funds on excessive pay or expenses, ENO is very efficiently and tightly run. 94% of our running costs are used on the artistic programme. With good financial management, a strong artistic programme and leveraging investment from international houses in our work, we operate at a very small surplus/breakeven; investing as much as possible in the work on stage and ensuring that we offer opera at affordable prices. For an organisation such as ENO with minimal discretionary spend a cut of 5% to 10% in the grant would result in change that would be noticeable to the public – in the level of work on stage, jobs and ticket prices.

1.2 Artistic Programme

Inevitably the element of the artistic programme that is most likely to suffer due to cuts in funding is that work that is riskier – the lesser known work; the existing contemporary opera; the new commissions. We believe that grant funding should be used to take risks –to allow creativity to flourish; to experiment; to bring the public work which they would otherwise not experience; to challenge. ENO uses it grant-in-aid (around 50% of income) strategically to create a dynamic and unique programme and to invest in the future of opera in a way that reliance solely on earned income or private fundraising would not allow (the US funding environment has resulted in far more conservative programming in that country than in the vibrant UK). In each ENO season circa 70% of the programme (10/11 productions) is new (i.e. not revivals) including a commitment to contemporary opera. For example, in the forthcoming 2010/11 season we are staging the UK premiere of a 20th century opera by a Russian composer and the World premiere of a newly commissioned work by a young American composer. Not only are we the only opera company with this approach in the UK, we are seen by the international opera industry as one of the most creative and inspirational places in the world to see opera at the moment. This has resulted in ENO being able to forge a number of critically successful international partnerships with important houses/festivals (witness the comments of our co-producing partners in the ‘Working with ENO’ section at www.eno.org/explore/about- eno). These not only allow us to bring to UK audiences work that would not otherwise be seen but means our work is travelling much more widely across the globe – allowing us to celebrate the UK creative industries abroad. We are currently working with at least 20 international houses and in the 2010/11 season have leveraged £3.5m of investment towards our artistic programme and the commission and development of new works (refer also 2 below).

This artistic strategy, combined with affordable tickets, results in ENO having a much more diverse and younger audience. Over 30% of our audience is under 44 on average and for contemporary operas this figure is higher. This is an increase from 21% five years ago and is the highest of the UK opera houses. Sustainable public funding allows us to maintain a balance of private/public funding to ensure that more adventurous, new and unexplored work is created and that we develop new audiences.

1.3 Outreach and Participation

Outreach and participation programmes are important for the long term future of the arts. While these programmes by their nature initially reach relatively small numbers of people they play a crucial role in supporting the core artistic programme by encouraging participation in and engagement with the arts - reaching out to a more diverse audience, targeting communities that would not ordinarily participate in the arts and encouraging disadvantaged and younger people to engage more closely. There is much evidence of the benefits of these programmes. In 803

autumn of 2009 we worked closely with the BBC, in particular BBC Radio 3, on a project to encourage people around the UK to find their voice and discover the joy of singing. Sing Hallelujah used Handel’s famous Hallelujah Chorus to involve people of all ages. Two live events – in Glasgow and London – brought people of all ages together to learn the chorus while a multitude of interactive tools online at .co.uk/sing still exist to help people get started and to continue to sing through local networks. Feedback to events and online initiatives was hugely positive with many people saying they would join local choirs and continue to sing. The project spanned from a Radio 3 broadcast on Christmas Day to activities with volunteers from our local borough, Westminster, and reached hundreds of thousands of people over the course of four months.

1.4 Jobs and Training

As outlined above, funding cuts will mean cuts in the artistic programme – this will result in the loss of jobs and diminish training opportunities. Generally jobs within the arts sector are not highly paid positions but often require specific skills and years of training. Many of the people working in the broader music and theatre sector learn their craft and gain immense experience from subsidised organisations such as ENO. The skills and experience gained within the subsidised sector benefit the broader commercial entertainment and creative industries. From creative talent to stage management, props, make up and costume professionals, the subsidised arts sector supports careers early on and gives people huge opportunities to develop that benefits the wider cultural and commercial sector. The high level of new productions originating at ENO each season is helping to support the commercial set building industry. Reductions in funding leading to a cut in the artistic programme will have a direct impact on the companies in this sector, potentially resulting in more job losses.

As the UK’s largest employer of British opera talent (86% of our singers, conductors and directors are British or British trained in the 2010/11 season) we at ENO take our role in nurturing talent seriously. ENO currently runs three training schemes for emerging talent: two for singers and one for orchestral players. The training and role opportunities we give to singers are not in abundance in the UK and we provide an incredibly important staging post between formal learning and professional careers. ENO Opera Works is the only scheme of its kind to provide gifted singers who have fallen into other careers or are unable to undertake full time training a more flexible route to a singing career. ENO Evolve is the only training scheme for young orchestral players in an opera house in the UK.

2. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

2.1 Co-producing partners

Most cultural organisations have been collaborative for a good while. ENO’s many co-producing partnerships are testimony to a collaborative approach that spans the UK, Europe and North America. At home we co-produce work with smaller theatre companies such as Improbable, Fabulous Best, Punchdrunk, Complicite and the Young Vic, mixing a wide range of creative talent and theatre and opera. Outside of the UK we co-produce with many houses. Our most longstanding artistic relationship is with the Metropolitan Opera, New York with whom we regularly co-produce and we have just entered into a new long term collaboration with the Bayersiche Staatsoper, Munich. We are always careful to pick partners who share our artistic ambition.

This model of collaboration allows us to do two important things. By sharing financial and artistic risk we can ensure that ambitious, internationally recognised works are presented in the UK and showcase British creative talent abroad. We opened the 2009/10 Season with a new, spectacular production of Le Grand Macabre by Ligeti, directed by the Catalan theatre group La Fura dels Baus. This remarkable production sold out in London. It was a four way partnership 804

with three European houses and the total production costs of £1million were shared four ways. Essentially ENO brought investment worth £ 750,000 into the UK with just one production. Without this approach ENO would not have produced the production and UK audiences would not have had the opportunity to see it. In the forthcoming Season (September 2010 to July 2011) this figure is £3.5 million.

2.2 Internship scheme

Another good example of the collaboration currently in place is a scheme to provide properly organised and fully monitored and assessed internships in the cultural sector for people registered as unemployed. ENO is one of a number of organisations including the Royal Opera House and Somerset House in the scheme and the internships, which are linked to NVQs, are funded through the Future Jobs Fund.

2.3 Potential for the future

There is potential for more as well and we are exploring options with a number of other London based organisations particularly in relation to buying power. Having just experienced some problems with the housing of the organisations’ archive there may be some logic in a central location and service for arts archives.

3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

3.1 Most organisations work very hard indeed to generate £1 for every £1 given. This 50/50 model works well when the economy is thriving but less well in hard times. Being more reliant on non-sustainable sources of income jeopardises long term planning and makes organisations very vulnerable in difficult times. Some organisations, with a lot of assets such as land or property, might find it possible to generate new income streams but others less so. For example it is more difficult for ENO to encourage corporate giving because we cannot provide the entertaining spaces that the Royal Opera House and Glyndebourne offer and unlike the South Bank Centre, or again the Royal Opera House, we are not landlord to shops and commercial units that provide an income stream separate to our artistic programme. While it might seem the fairest approach to expect organisations across the board to generate a similar level of income or cope with a similar level of cuts, in reality organisations are not all in the same starting position.

• Is the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one

3.2 It is sensible, for everyone concerned, to have an arm’s length principle in place – such as the Arts Council. Key to sustainable funding is long term objectives and funding agreements so organisations can be strategic and forward thinking.

• What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations

3.3 It is still very unclear how these changes will work in reality and what the benefits are for the arts as well of course when these changes really would take place. More understanding of changes would be very helpful.

• Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed

3.4 No comment – see above

• 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; 805

3.5 Not our field so we don’t feel we can comment

• Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level

3.6 Private sector fundraising cannot replace Government funding to the level that is required as individuals or corporations have very specific interests and motivations and there is not a ready traditional in the UK of sponsoring operating costs. As already discussed to rely so heavily on this strategy will compromise the more innovative, creative or experimental artistic output that is so essential to the UK’s reputation for cultural excellence and the future of our arts. It will also necessitate a review of ticket pricing policies potentially making great art less accessible to everyone. We know from our artistic programme that people are very cautious to sponsor anything new or different. However private funding could make a greater contribution to the arts than it currently does with more encouragement and profile (see below) – but this is a long-term strategy to change perceptions and needs to be viewed in that way.

• Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations

3.7 The Gift Aid/tax regulations need to be clarified and the level of benefit we can give donors without being taxed significantly increased. Some way of encouraging increase in profile and public thanks for arts donors and sponsors (press recognition, honours etc) would also be very valuable.

September 2010 806

Written evidence submitted by the Historic Towns Forum (arts 185)

This submission is made on behalf of the Historic Towns Forum1. The Forum’s area of interest is the historic environment and it is not commenting directly on matters relating to the arts. However, the HTF recognises that there are a direct links between heritage and the arts, consequently it shares the concern of the arts community at the prospect of reduced funding.

The response below follows the questions set out in the Committee’s call for evidence.

1. 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.

1.1 The impact will depend on where the cuts fall, e.g. cuts in English Heritage’s funding to maintain its historic properties will compromise their future conservation, whilst local authority cuts in funding for conservation staff will reduce the ability to manage the impact of development on listed buildings and Conservation Areas. However, the overall impact will be to affect adversely the conservation of the historic environment by: a. reducing the ability of agencies across the board to undertake proactive conservation work; b. reducing the ability to lever in match funding from the private sector and other non public sector bodies; c. undermining the support available to the voluntary sector, which is fundamental to promoting conservation, e.g. through volunteer guides and the work of amenity societies – this seems to be quite counter to the Government’s aspiration for ‘the Big Society’; and d. undermining the pressing need to develop skills in the conservation sector, including both professional and construction/craft skills.

1.2 There is a strong stewardship case to be made for conservation of the historic eminent. There is also a very strong pragmatic one. In his speech on 12th August 2010 The Prime Minister stressed the importance of tourism to the future economic prosperity of the Country. The heritage of this country is central to achieving this vision, as is proved by work carried out for the HLF and other studies: a. heritage tourism is an industry worth £12.4bn a year to the UK2; b. taking into account indirect economic benefit heritage tourism is responsible for £21bn of UK GDP annually3; b. heritage tourism employs 195,000 people in the UK4; c. history/built heritage is the strongest product driver in most overseas markets, and is the highest rated attribute when perceiving Britain as a tourist destination; 30%

1 The Historic Towns Forum (HTF) represents the interests of historic towns across Great Britain. Established as the English Historic Towns Forum (EHTF) in 1987 by a core of key heritage towns, its membership now includes.69 Local Authority and 141 other members. The HTF supports conservation and prosperity in historic towns by promoting good practice, publishing advice, providing a network for sharing experiences and running conferences and training events. 2 Economic impact of heritage tourism, Oxford Economics, 2009. This includes museums and green heritage sites as well as visits to the built historic environment 3 Economic impact of heritage tourism, Oxford Economics, 2009. This includes museums and green heritage sites as well as visits to the built historic environment and the indirect economic impact resulting from these sectors 4 Economic impact of heritage tourism, Oxford Economics, 2009. This includes museums and green heritage sites 807

of overseas tourists claim heritage is the main reason for them visiting the UK – stronger than any other single factor5; and d. over 80% of potential tourists would visit historic monuments and buildings in Britain, making it the highest ranked activity4.

1.3 This is accepted and the HTF has been a leading advocate of developing more sustainable approaches to tourism.

2. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

2.1 This question is equally applicable to heritage organisations. There are many operating in the field and they all have a distinctive focus. For example the HTF promotes an integrated local authority approach to conservation of the historic environment in historic towns and cities, which is a unique role. Every effort is made to avoid duplication through the networking and coordination benefits of the Heritage Alliance and the Heritage Forum (formerly the Historic Environment Review Executive Committee (HEREC)) under the auspices of English Heritage.

3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable

3.1 The HTF takes issue with the word ‘subsidy’ in the context of heritage – it implies paying for an activity that is not otherwise viable. In fact heritage is a viable and vital part of the economy, see paragraph 1.2 above, and the great majority of funding that goes into conserving our heritage come from the investment of private owners in their property, from country houses to Victorian terraces. In some cases public money is used to top-up private spending or used as match funding. In the case of public spending on the public realm, which is part of the historic environment, it is not subsidy, but a necessary investment in a public asset. The issue is a matter of support, including both financial and policy support, for a vibrant and viable sector, rather than subsidy.

3.2 Such is the breadth and depth of Britain’s heritage that to maintain it all to the very highest conservation standards would require huge resources well in excess of that which has been available historically. However, while this is not a realistic proposition, it must be recognised that there remains an unmet demand for resources to maintain our heritage at a reasonable level. The annual Heritage at Risk report6 provides evidence for this: a. 3.2% of grade I and grade II* are at risk; b. 7.4% of Conservation Areas are at risk; c. 17.2% of scheduled monuments are at risk; d. 6.2% of registered park and gardens are at risk; e. 14.0% of registered battlefields are at risk; and f. 17.4% of protected wreck sites are at risk.

3.3 The HTF takes the view that a sustainable (in its widest social, environmental and economic senses) and necessary level of funding is one which would see the at risk figures reduced to zero. A level which maintained the percentages would be bearable in the short term. A level which saw the percentage increase is unsustainable and unacceptable.

3.4 Note that the HTF has welcomed the proposal to increase the share of Lottery funding for heritage activities.

5 ANHOLT-GMI Nation Brand Index, Visit Britain Nov 2007 6 Heritage at Risk, English Heritage, 2010 808

4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one

4.1 The HTF offers no comments on this question.

5. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations

5.1 The HTF commented in the recent consultation on restoration of the percentage of Lottery funding going to heritage cause. It said:

“The HTF welcomes the Coalition Government’s intention to increase the shares to arts, heritage and sport in two stages, restoring the original share of 20% in 2012. The Forum also welcomes the Government’s commitment to the principle of additionality embodied in this proposal at a time when other sources of public funding will be under greater pressure. The HTF believes that Lottery money should not be a substitute for funding that would normally be met by mainstream public sector spending.”

“Restoring the contribution to the HLF will: a. conserve and enhance our heritage leading to environmental, social and economic benefits both locally and nationally; b. support proactive conservation by local authorities by expanding a potential base for match funding c. support a prosperous tourism industry, which relies heavily on heritage assets; d. increase public access to and understanding of our heritage; e. further develop community and voluntary sector engagement and skills in conserving our heritage; and f. support traditional and specialist conservation skills to meet the skills gaps identified by heritage bodies.”

6. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed

6.1 The HTF offers no comments on this question.

7. 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

7.1 The changes to these bodies will have very little direct impact on the heritage sector and the HTF has no strong views. The Forum is concerned about the future of English Heritage and CABE, however, and wishes to see: a. their funding maintained; and b. their independent existence as distinctive and separate bodies maintained.

8. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level

8.1 This question is aimed at the arts, but the role of business and philanthropy, in effect the private sector, is important to the heritage of this country. As has been pointed out above, private investment in maintaining our heritage is of fundamental, perhaps even overriding 809

importance and to that extent it may be considered to be ahead of the game. It is essential for this level of funding to be maintained and that can in part be ensured by adequate public sector funding being available to create leverage and support investment in public assets. But it is not just about money. It is also about the government demonstrating that it cares about the historic environment and accords it a high priority. It needs to lead by example.

9. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations

9.1 Again the wording is not appropriate to the heritage sector where it is a matter of private sector investment rather than donations. That said, initiatives that would encourage greater private sector investment in heritage could include: a. ensuring funding is available to match fund private sector initiatives; b. considering tax breaks for investment in heritage regeneration and renewal; and c. taking VAT off repair works thereby increasing the potential investment in heritage by 17.5% (20%) at a stroke.

September 2010 810

Written evidence submitted by the Association of English Cathedrals (AEC) (arts 186)

1. This submission is made by the Association of English Cathedrals (AEC) which represents the 42 Anglican cathedrals in England and two Royal Peculiars (Westminster Abbey and St George’s Chapel, Windsor). The cathedrals range from those of international importance (such as St Paul’s Cathedral and Westminster Abbey) and those in World Heritage Sites (Canterbury and Durham Cathedrals) to less well known cathedrals such as Blackburn, Bradford and Sheffield. The primary purpose of a cathedral is to be a place of Christian worship but it is also often the most historic and architecturally important building in its environment and of significance to the heritage and culture of the area it serves.

Summary

• Cathedrals are independent ecclesiastical corporations responsible for financing their activities from a variety of funding sources; grants from central Government provide a small proportion of total income, but are important. • Of the two dedicated grant programmes, one, the Cathedrals Grant Scheme run by English Heritage, has already been withdrawn. The other, the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, is due to end on 31 March 2011 unless extended by the Government. • Cathedrals have also received some Heritage Lottery Fund support, but only for projects involving new build and/ or interpretation and access. • Spending cuts will result in delays in undertaking repair projects while additional fundraising takes place; this has consequences for skilled craftsmen and others involved in heritage conservation, and could result in the loss of craft skills for a generation or more. • Fundraising will become more difficult as other heritage and arts organisations, possibly more directly affected by spending cuts, compete with cathedrals for such monies as are available. Grant making trusts are already suffering from reduced investment returns due to the current economic situation.

2. Each cathedral is responsible for its own finances. Cathedrals are ecclesiastical corporations and are independent from the central institutions of the Church of England and from dioceses. Cathedrals raise the funds necessary for them to fulfil their role as places of worship and pilgrimage (involving maintaining their buildings, supporting those in liturgical roles, clergy, musicians and lay staff, and enabling the cathedral complex to be open to all every day of the year) from a variety of sources. These include congregational giving, legacies, income from visitors, sums generated by trading activities, income from investments and property (for those cathedrals with such assets), monies donated in response to appeals and fundraising activity, and grants from the Church Commissioners. The Church Commissioners pay the stipends of three clergy at each cathedral and pay grants for employment costs of lay staff to cathedrals depending on need – those cathedrals with the lowest income from other sources receive most.

3. Central Government funding for cathedrals has taken two forms, both supporting fabric repair work. The first was English Heritage’s Cathedrals Grant Scheme which was introduced in 1991 and ended in 2009. This Scheme 811

provided grants towards the cost of fabric repairs which had to be matched funded. The second is the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme (LPWGS) which gives cathedrals an amount equivalent to the irrecoverable VAT paid on repairs to buildings, bells, clocks, pews and organs and related professional fees. The Scheme was introduced in 2001, initially reimbursing VAT payments in excess of 5% on building repairs but being extended in 2004 to reimburse all VAT on building repairs and again in 2006 to include reimbursement of amounts paid in VAT on repairs to bells, pews, clocks and organs and, more significantly, to VAT amounts paid on related professional fees. The Scheme is due to end in March 2011. There is a campaign to persuade the Government to extend the Scheme to future years.

4. Some cathedrals have also been successful in obtaining funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). This is not strictly central Government funding. It is important to note that cathedrals are specifically excluded from applying to the joint English Heritage/ HLF Repair Grants for Places of Worship Scheme, and can only apply for HLF funding for projects involving new buildings and/ or interpretation and access. The restriction was introduced at a time when English Heritage was running a dedicated grant scheme for cathedrals but has not been reviewed following the scheme’s abolition. We would welcome a review of the Repair Grants for Places of Worship criteria so that cathedrals are able to apply for funding under the scheme. HLF grants are competitive, and awards depend on the number and regional distribution of other projects applying as well as the project’s ‘appeal’. It has been suggested by Government ministers, among others, that the current Government’s intention to ensure more lottery funding is made available to HLF will compensate for the withdrawal of the LPWGS. This assertion displays a lack of understanding of the two grant programmes. Whilst we welcome more money going to HLF, the two streams are entirely separate and different in their aims. Increasing the money available to HLF does not mean that more funds will flow to cathedrals since HLF grants are awarded on a competitive basis to all areas of heritage whereas the reimbursement of VAT under the Scheme is automatic. LPWGS grants are available as of right, are relatively easy to apply for and follow the actual repair work undertaken.

5. Between 1991 and 2009, English Heritage made grant payments under the Cathedrals Scheme of £52m. Spending was concentrated in the earlier years, with only £1m a year being dispersed between 2006 and 2009. We estimate that the LPWGS has paid grants to cathedrals of approximately £1m each year since 2006, but smaller sums before then due to the reduced scope. In 2004, a survey into the economic and social impact of cathedrals showed that cathedrals were responsible for direct visitor related spend of £91m and a total spend of £150m, providing significant economic outcomes for their surrounding areas.

6. The loss of central Government funding through the English Heritage Cathedrals Grant Scheme has already been experienced by cathedrals. Although cathedrals can apply for English Heritage grants under its general grant programme, the programme is open to applications from all listed buildings in England and grants are awarded only to buildings in the most urgent need of support; most cathedrals are not falling down. Major repair programmes are being delayed to allow time for fundraising, in what is a difficult economic climate. This has implications for the skilled craftsmen who work on the buildings and all involved in heritage conservation.

812

7. If the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme is not renewed, or renewed with a reduced level of payment, either in the percentage of VAT reimbursed or in scope of activities attracting reimbursement, cathedrals anticipate further delays in repair programmes while additional funds are raised to pay the VAT bills.

8. Cathedrals do not receive any Government funding to assist with their role as tourist attractions. Whereas the DCMS awards grants to museums to enable free access for the public, no such grants are available to cathedrals. In York in 2005/6, the National Railway Museum received a grant of £5.66 million, equivalent to approximately £6.50 per visitor. York Minster, which received 895,000 visits in 2006, received no assistance and instead charged £5.50 for an adult visitor (£9.00 for a ‘see everything’ ticket), a charge necessitated by the cost of keeping the building open, safe and secure, and in good repair. (Please note that entry to York Minster is free at certain times on weekdays and on Sundays).

9. In January 2010, the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, in its report on Promoting Participation with the Historic Environment stated ‘English cathedrals represent some of our most important architectural heritage yet many of them charge the public for entry. These buildings are expensive to look after and the Department and English Heritage should work together to find ways to fund their conservation so that they can be less reliant on charging for entry, which could deter people from visiting’. This recommendation was welcomed by cathedrals, but, in the current economic situation, we are aware that there will be no new funding for the foreseeable future.

10. Most cathedrals do not receive any financial assistance from local Government. Some local authorities pay or contribute to the costs of maintaining the environs of cathedrals, for example paying for lighting the churchyard at night, or maintaining the grass in open areas. Cathedrals and their local authorities work closely on tourism development and other local issues for the benefit of both cities and cathedrals, but this co-operation does not involve money.

11. Given the current low levels of financial assistance from central and local Government received by cathedrals, cathedrals are better placed than many heritage organisations which depend on grant funding to weather the proposed spending cuts. Our concern is that fundraising, on which cathedrals depend to fund major repair programmes, new buildings and new art commissions, will become even more difficult as more arts and heritage organisations compete for funds from a relatively small number of grant-making trusts and high net worth individuals. Current market conditions have reduced investment returns and the amounts available for distribution. Delays in carrying out repair programmes will result in a general deterioration in the condition of the fabric of England’s cathedrals, eventually to the level established by an English Heritage survey in 1990 which triggered the Cathedrals Grant Scheme and which resulted in a number of major repair programmes being started. It is better to undertake work in a timely way, to minimise costs and disruption and enable skilled craftsmen to be best deployed. Spending cuts will result in increasing hardship for those involved in heritage conservation and to a loss of craft skills from which it could take more than a generation to recover.

September 2010 813

Written evidence submitted by Newcastle Gateshead Cultural Venues (arts 187)

INTRODUCTION This submission to the inquiry is on behalf of the 10 principal building-based cultural organisations in Newcastle Gateshead, who regularly act as a formal alliance under the name NGCV (Newcastle Gateshead Cultural Venues). We are The Sage Gateshead, Live Theatre, The Theatre Royal, The Centre For Life, Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums, Tyneside Cinema, Northern Stage, Dance City, Seven Stories (The National Gallery and Archive for Children’s Literature) and Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art. This submission is not intended to replace individual responses from any of the above organisations but rather will endeavour to reflect our particular perspective as an alliance.

A brief summary of our main points • As an unusual formal alliance of large, building-based cultural organisations we are living proof that steady, long-term prudent investment in arts and culture is of real economic and social value, especially in a region with the particular challenges and successes of the North East • We have actively tested a number of models of working together, have much to share with other alliances and will continue to collaborate – but do not believe efficiencies can ever outweigh the need for ongoing public investment • Any new mechanisms of funding must be informed, light-touch, long-term, joined up, and local and regional as well as national • Lottery funding will be an increasingly important source of future stability and rules on distribution should be relaxed accordingly • Philanthropy has an important role to play in the cultural economy but this is not straightforward in regions outside London; skills, training and incentives are required and the role should not be overstated

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;

1. a) These ten organisations have been the recipients of significant investment in both our capital infrastructure and the production of world-class cultural experiences as part of a determined commitment by Newcastle and Gateshead to effect social and economic regeneration and educational enrichment through culture. This investment has resulted in a physical infrastructure of an exceptional standard and a thriving cultural sector which makes a difference to local people’s lives, earns the region a national and international reputation and makes a substantial contribution to the economy. Four of the ten organisations are entirely new, created to address gaps not just in the regional but the national landscape. According to a specially-commissioned survey (ERS 2009) every £1 of public subsidy received by our ten venues in recent years has generated at least a £4 contribution to the regional economy and often more. b) We are concerned that recent Government cuts, pressures on charitable and private sources of funding and future cuts could quickly damage what has been achieved and jeopardise the impact organisations like ours can have. c) Those of us funded by Arts Council England have already seen a reduction in the ACE budget amounting to £23 million, which includes a 0.5% in year cut to all Regularly Funded Organisations, and a 15% reduction in ACE running costs. This latter reduction could diminish the strength of our regional voice, although we are grateful to ACE staff for their efforts to prevent this. The 0.5% cut will be achievable, but not 814

straightforward given the recent financial climate. The number of major trusts in the North East still willing to dedicate funds to arts and culture is significantly fewer than in other parts of the country; our endowment incomes have reduced as a result of the financial crisis, sponsorship and other corporate relationships as well as our trading incomes have been affected by the recession and have not yet entirely recovered; so the backdrop against which future cuts are being proposed is one of serious constraint. d) Most of the ten organisations have now been asked to model at least 10% cuts by a number of our principal public funders (DCMS, Arts Council England, Newcastle City Council). In some cases this will be mean a reduction in public investment of 15-20% in total. Those whose principal income streams are from the private sector are concerned that the scale and breadth of cuts to the public sector will, in a region like the North East, have a significant effect on audience attendance and spend. This of course will have an impact on all ten of us. We are all of the view that, given the context in which they are being made, and the fact that for buildings such as ours many of our costs are effectively fixed, these reductions in income will have a direct impact on the reach, ambition and accessibility of our programmes and the quality of experiences we can offer our audiences. To put it plainly, fewer leading artists, performances and exhibitions will be on offer and we will have to consider pricing structures and programmes of work which directly undermine the principle of access to great culture for everyone which has been so successfully demonstrated in the North East.

What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

2. a) NGCV is a groundbreaking example of how larger cultural organisations can work together across disciplines in order to become more efficient and effective. We have had an informal alliance for the last ten years, which brought cultural leaders together during a period of intense development. In the last 18 months, (with the help of modest funding from ACE via the Mission, Money, Models programme), we have embarked on a new and much more focussed collaboration as a formal alliance. This has convinced us that there are excellent reasons to work and act together going forward and our joint work strands which are briefly detailed below continue to grow in ambition and achievement. However we have also learnt valuable lessons about collaboration, perhaps most importantly that it needs time and appropriate support structures if it is to be genuinely valuable to all partners.

Our current four areas of activity are as follows:

1. Physical assets: how to jointly finance a range of capital projects which could increase our capacity to generate income. 2. Shared Services: investigating what services and functions we can share, jointly purchase, or approach in a different way in order to be more efficient, save money or time, or achieve more with the same expenditure. 3. Public Engagement: how we can encourage more people to engage with culture. Specifically exploring new ways we can persuade those who are new to cultural experiences to take up opportunities, and those who do come, to take more risks, spend more with us and perhaps give time or money. 4. Digital: how we jointly respond to opportunities in a rapidly changing technological environment in a way that can generate a measurable return on investment.

815

b) This collaborative approach has already resulted in efficiencies, in a deeper understanding of each others’ business models and working practice and the potential for larger scale gains (financial and artistic) in the future. In these first 18 months we have commissioned an authoritative economic impact study, created a collective business case for future investment, launched a preferred supplier scheme and undertaken qualitative research into audience behaviour. We are committed to continuing to work together, to broadening our joint market and to looking for further savings and better practice. c) We are all clear, however, that this kind of collaboration is not a “quick win” and will not be able to replace or even substantially reduce the need for public subsidy. It will make us more efficient and responsive but having thoroughly investigated possibilities for avoiding duplication of effort, the total potential savings, whilst significant, but will be no match for consistent long term public investment.

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

3. Whilst we recognise that even across our membership there are very different levels of need for public funding, it is our collective view that rational, sustained funding of cultural production is vital for the sector to continue to contribute to the economic and social health of the UK and offer high quality accessible experiences to audiences at affordable prices. It is not always possible for cultural activities to be profit-making at the point of production without compromising either quality or accessibility. It is well- documented that risk-taking, ambitious cultural projects make a real difference to the economy in the longer-term, if they are given the right investment early in their development. The North East has been a particularly fine example of this logic in recent years. The Angel of The North, The Pitmen Painters, Skellig, our annual Science Festival, Our Friends In The North, The AV Festival, the year-round programmes at the Great North Museum and countless other examples of nationally recognised and locally enjoyed achievements would not have been possible without public investment. They have all brought profile, pride and economic benefit to a region which has some of the UK’s highest levels of multiple deprivation. Even relatively small reductions in investment can damage organisations’ capacity to take risk and thereby the reputation of the sector is quickly jeopardised, locally, regionally and internationally.

Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

4. a) The recent reduction in the size of Arts Council England may well have an impact on the organisation’s long term capacity to keep abreast of developments in the sector. However the restructure has been accompanied by a new approach which includes an increased trust of cultural organisations and cultural leaders, and an increased willingness to listen and to be transparent about processes and decision making. If this is borne out through the forthcoming challenging months this will be a positive development enabling more effective and joined-up policy and investment. We have also been impressed by the national team’s commitment to longer-term thinking, enabling artists and leaders to articulate clear objectives to both central government and the public. b) The arms-length principle has its advantages especially in ensuring that audiences, artists, curators and scientists, on whose behalf ongoing investment is made, remain at the heart of investment strategies. However, as an alliance we are open to the benefits of a range of mechanisms so long as genuine expertise is employed in the service of the 816

sector, not just at a national level but representing regional and local priorities and the very specific challenges of each of our disciplines and so long as bureaucracy is kept to a minimum. These mechanisms must be joined up and able to complement rather than duplicate one another, especially when specialist investment needs to work in concert with local authority funding.

What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;

5.a) We support the restoration of the Lottery to its original distribution proportions. Lottery funds have been essential in creating the infrastructure which has transformed Newcastle Gateshead. The region’s cultural venues are a staple of its civic character and vital resources, particularly in areas of higher need, where Lottery ticket sales are often greater. b) However there have been many significant arts, sport and heritage initiatives of the kind originally supported by the Lottery, with proven benefits to their local communities, which in recent years have lost out by the steady reduction of the funding to those three distribution streams. If there were any practical way these proposals could come into force sooner than the April 2011 and April 2012 dates proposed, we would welcome that; c) Much attention is being directed at present to ways of encouraging philanthropists, and private sector investors to increase their contribution to the arts. The prudent use of Lottery funds could be a key factor in levering the broadest possible base of support.

Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;

6. We also believe that some of the original ‘safeguards’ built into the policy guidelines could now be relaxed in the light of experience. Discreet programmes such as ACE’s Grants for the Arts and Sustain have proved that Lottery funds can be used strategically and responsively for wider advantage. If the availability of treasury funding is to be significantly reduced, the re-apportionment of the Lottery funds becomes critical to enable the arts to become even stronger and more self-sustaining over the coming years, and to this end, the restrictions currently placed on the use of Lottery money might be reconsidered so that good intentions may not be constrained by legislation.

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;

7. a) The government’s commitment to maintain and increase levels of support for the UK audio visual sector is welcome. However great care needs to be exercised in the deployment of these funds for maximum public and economic benefit. UKFC has undoubtedly improved the success of UK production sector and it is vital that any successor agency maintains a level of national and international industry experience to make wise decisions on investments. The Regional Screen Agencies, particularly in the North East, have made a real difference to the sector and it is vital that a depth of local knowledge is maintained to maximise access to national networks and commissioning opportunities.

817

b) We would also urge that any future geographical spread of film and media funding should remain co-terminus with other successful creative industry mechanisms to ensure maximum efficiency and maximum benefit is gained from current and future digital convergence. There are frequent and increasing collaborations on cross-media projects between NGCV partners and the existing divisions of responsibility that see some aspects of projects nonsensically defined and funded from one source as ‘arts’ and other aspects of the same project defined and funded as ‘film’ or ‘new media’ should be tackled sensibly.

c) A key concern with the abolition of MLA is the loss of the high quality regional support which has been provided by Directors of Engagement and their teams. It is clear that many functions of MLA will need to continue (Government indemnity; acceptance in lieu; accreditation etc). It is essential that investment in museums is maintained. This has been in large part responsible for unprecedented levels of people engaging with museums, an increase in visitor numbers and a more diverse audience for museums. It has also changed the nature of engagement with museums from a passive visit to a positive experience which contributes to learning and personal development as well as to health and well-being. Whatever mechanism continues to deliver the essential technical functions of MLA, it is our view that we will continue to need regionally targeted investment (within and without the existing Hubs) and regional expertise to ensure that development to museums can continue and that these major gains are not rapidly lost.

Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

8. a) We run organisations which strive to raise as much income from private, philanthropic, charitable and corporate sources as is possible. We are viewed in our region as leaders of businesses which have cultural and social objectives and we strive for innovation, entrepreneurship and efficiency with at least the same zeal as our colleagues in the private sector. We are dedicated to reducing the extent of our reliance on public subsidy, but we are convinced that it remains an essential part of the picture, to enable us to work outside market forces on occasion (in reducing ticket and other prices) to attract funding from other sources (public funding is a vital lever of matching finance, especially when risk taking is required) and to ensure long-term development of artists, scientists and curators and their products. b) Only public funding can appropriately offer support over a sufficiently extended period to guarantee high standards of cultural production, and thereby secure other investors, or, indeed, philanthropists. Long-term support is rarely possible for businesses as their own priorities and financial success changes year to year if not more often. This has had a direct impact on all ten of us, especially in recent years. There are good examples in our region of long-term business partnerships but where they do exist it is at a relatively small amount that could never replace public investment. c) Philanthropists are more likely to give to capital or other fixed-term projects so that their contribution is highly visible and time-limited. There are exceptions to this but again at relatively small amounts. Philanthropists in the UK, along with other audience members believe that Government has a role to play in accessible quality culture, and they look on public funding as a vital endorsement of the quality of the organisation or project before they are prepared to give themselves. Individual givers are a very important part of our fundraising activities, but not only do they represent a small proportion of our income but they are fewer and further between in a region such as the North East where other charitable objectives often take precedent. 818

d) There is a significant paucity of skilled fundraisers in the cultural sector, certainly in the North East and probably in a number of other regions outside of London. This is in part because of the (much) higher salaries available in the Higher Education and other sectors. This must be addressed if philanthropy is to play a greater part in our individual economies. e) Whilst we believe that businesses and philanthropists both have their part to play in arts funding, we urge you to be cautious not to overstate their role, especially outside of a metropolitan context.

Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

9. a) We believe that the Government could improve the incentives and mechanisms for private giving, particularly by easing the claim process for tax relief for individuals. For example 40% tax payers rarely understand how to gift the differential between basic and higher rate back. b) The current Government’s interest in philanthropy is an excellent opportunity for a concerted campaign to raise awareness about the existing incentives, which are not well understood by the public. c) Reviewing the rules on Gift Aid so that the taxpayer has less paperwork and considering a higher amount would have a particular impact on lower levels of giving and would furthermore encourage the public to understand that the cultural model often has a charitable element (see d) below). Extending the existing rules for National Trust and other organisations which have attraction status to all the major cultural organisations which have charitable status would allow us to claim Gift Aid on tickets; this would be a substantial contribution to our income streams d) Our research into levels of public engagement confirms that UK audiences are not always aware of our need for ongoing philanthropic giving and appropriate and well- advertised contributions from central government would act as a lever in this arena just as they must continue to do so for larger donations and corporate support.

September 2010 819

Written evidence submitted by Paul Graham (arts 188)

Funding of the Arts and Heritage

1. I am the artistic director of a small theatre in the market town of Ledbury in . The town acts at the hub for a large rural hinterland, and provides many services for that wider area that would otherwise be uneconomic to provide. The Market Theatre is one of those services, and we make accessible small professional and amateur drama, music and dance together with film to an audience that would otherwise have to travel significant distances to find similar provision, if indeed they have personal transport - which many do not.

2. We receive no direct public subsidy, and make no profit. We are simply funded by the income we receive through the box office, and everyone who works in the Theatre does so on a voluntary basis. We are – it seems to me – the perfect example of what is now described as “The Big Society”.

3. So without our box office income, the Theatre cannot exist. Our considerable overheads cannot be met and performers cannot be paid. And there is the rub. People will not visit the Theatre unless the quality of the “shows” that we put on is maintained at a high standard. And many of those shows are subsidised: by Arts Council England (and sometimes because we are close to Wales – the Arts Council for Wales) and by local authorities.

4. Many of the tours in which the Theatre participates are also subsidised by Arts Alive – the Rural Touring Scheme for Herefordshire and Shropshire and by other rural touring schemes – who too are largely funded by ACE and local authority grants. As well as providing our Theatre with a significant part of its programme, Arts Alive and the other rural touring schemes provide a massive number of one-off dates in village halls and other rural venues throughout the whole country. They also look to ensure that the plays and performers are of a high quality, a task that is beyond the capabilities of most small rural venues including us. Amongst the “one night only” shows that are being brought through Arts Alive to us this autumn in Ledbury (and to give you a flavour of what is on offer) are:

• THE OLD CURIOSITY SHOP by Charles Dickens from the highly innovative and national respected Theatre Company

• NURSING LIVES - mask theatre from Vamos Theatre Company from Worcester based on nurses’ experiences in World War II in the former Worcester Royal Infirmary

• Teatro Che y Moche – one of Spain’s leading street theatre companies brings their award winning new work OUA UMPLUTE

820

• Finger in the Pie Theatre Company from London include physical acting, storytelling, puppetry and live music in their version of SWEENEY TODD

5. Arts Alive is governed by a board of volunteer trustees (of which I am one) who give freely of their time, as do the numerous volunteers who sell tickets and programmes, run the bar, make the tea and carry out numerous other tasks at all the many village venues that are used throughout the two counties. Another excellent example of what I understand “The Big Society” to mean.

6. My plea to you is therefore that, while everyone in the Arts does I am sure recognise that rural performing arts will have to bear its fair share of proposed cuts, those cuts must not be allowed to destroy this vital and largely voluntary arm of the arts world.

September 2010 821

Written evidence submitted by Stephen Boyce (arts 189)

1. Basis of this submission 1.1. I write in a personal capacity drawing on the following relevant experience: • Eight years as an actor/teacher, director and writer in Arts Council subsidised theatre companies 1973 - 1981. • Theatre Officer, Director of Arts then Deputy Chief Executive at Southern Arts Association / Southern Arts Board 1981 - 2000. • Programme Manager Awards for All, Community Fund (now Big Lottery Fund) 2000 - 2001. • Deputy Director of Operations, Heritage Lottery Fund, 2001 - 2010. • Currently a freelance arts and heritage consultant and adviser to emerging young artists. • Trustee of Arts Research Limited and Chair of Nuffield Theatre Southampton, an Arts Council regularly funded organisation (RFO). Former Trustee of ArtSway contemporary visual art gallery and of Artswork, youth arts development agency. • Chair of advisory Board for Creative Partnerships, Portsmouth, Southampton and Hampshire.

2. Summary 2.1. This submission considers some of the strengths, weaknesses and complexities of the current structure and concludes that clarity of purpose and function of the key bodies, rather than the number of bodies, is most likely to lead to efficiency and effectiveness. In particular it takes the view that a fundamental review of Arts Council England’s role and functions is necessary. 2.2. However, in a world in which the UK’s cultural ‘offer’ is recognised as outstanding, internationally and at home, and the creative industries are acknowledged to be of increasing value to the economy, there is also a case for considering direct funding of some major cultural institutions by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 2.3. It also includes brief reflections on the National Lottery and on business sponsorship and philanthropy. 2.4. Finally, I call for government to allow sufficient time for informed debate on this once in a generation opportunity to ensure that robust decisions are made on the future provision of support for this increasingly prominent and important area of public life.

3. The current system, and structure, of funding distribution 3.1. Weaknesses of the Arts Council in its current form 3.1.1. The arms length principle is a sound one, but to operate effectively arms length bodies need credibility based on the clarity and fitness of their strategic approach and the expertise and knowledge of their staff. They also need stability of purpose and structure. 3.1.2. ACE needs to review its core functions. Over the last ten years or more it has increasingly focused on its role as a “development agency” at the expense of providing expert - i.e. authoritative, knowledgeable and skilled - advice and leadership, combined with clear, strategic use of funds to enable the arts to develop. 3.1.3. ACE will always be a powerful organisation if only because of the financial ‘clout’ it wields, but it needs to develop a greater sense of humility and perspective. The arts world has a tendency to be inward looking, but the world of the Arts Council is especially so and the failure of ACE (and other NDPBs) to develop more effective partnerships with local government is one indication of this. 822

3.1.4. It has an increasing tendency to try to manage the arts by intervening, but without the authoritative and informed capability this would require. It has developed a superficial obsession with “innovation” in the form of novelty for its own sake. Innovation develops from creative practice and it is the role of the Arts Council to foster the conditions in which creativity can flourish rather than artificially manipulate novelty into being and then attempt to replicate it. In this respect ACE has become an arbiter and follower of fashion rather than an intelligent appraiser of promise and potential. 3.1.5. ACE has become more remote from funded organisations and local funding partners with a consequent lack of local or sectoral intelligence. Frequent organisational change, loss of experienced and knowledgeable staff and failure to focus on core functions have de-skilled the organisation so that it lacks understanding of professional arts practice and day to day arts management. This has further undermined its authority. 3.1.6. There is clear evidence that, in some quarters at least, ACE has not learned the lessons of the MacIntosh report (2008) or begun to fulfil the undertakings of its Chief Executive to build trust and mutual respect with RFOs and local government. In some cases its decision making has become personalised, inconsistent, non-strategic and certainly not based on evidence or a sound reading of previous decisions. Moreover, it is apparent from recent experience that, in the South East, the current Regional Arts Council lacks influence and its members are not informed about key strategic decisions. 3.1.7. Arts Council needs to set clear, realistic and explicit criteria for all aspects of its grant making, to apply them consistently and to make judgements based on sound reasoning and evidence. 3.1.8. In facing up to the forthcoming reduction in its core funding there is a risk that ACE will sacrifice some of its own most valuable achievements because they are not seen to follow a mainstream arts agenda. For instance, ACE has been a key proponent of creative learning through the establishment of Creative Partnerships, now supported through Creativity, Culture and Education (CCE). This major initiative has transformed the nature of teaching and learning in many schools which have embraced a process of whole-school change. It offers considerably more than simply an arts in schools programme and its achievements and legacy need to be protected along with other initiatives aimed at inspiring young people to engage with creativity and creative learning. As Professor Sir Ken Robinson has argued cogently, this is the way to develop the workforce that 21st century employers are seeking as well as citizens who are able to adapt to and influence the rapid pace of technological and social change.

3.2. How can these issues be addressed? 3.2.1. Like any organisation that has lost its way ACE needs to focus on doing a few things well. Its core functions are grant making, national champion (adviser to government, promoter of good practice), and partnership facilitator. 3.2.2. To do these well ACE needs to fulfil its promise to build trust and mutual respect with RFOs and with funding partners, notably local authorities. Specifically, ACE needs to: • restore its authority by recruiting at all levels of the organisation individuals who have demonstrable expertise in arts practice and/or arts management; • fulfil its commitment (following the McMaster report 2008) to re-introduce peer assessment - and not let this become a victim of the need for administrative savings - so that its judgements about funding are informed and credible; • articulate a clear, straightforward strategy for the long term development of the arts in England aimed at creating a climate in which the practice of the arts can 823

flourish and in which partnerships can be fostered without assuming that ACE itself has to be at the heart of these; • review its devolved regional functions ensuring that regional councils have genuine meaning and influence, and are empowered to make decisions based on local knowledge and informed by expert advice and peer review; • through this devolved structure, exercise an enabling role, not duplicating the work of other bodies and ensuring that informed decisions are taken as near to the ground as possible; • review its funding programmes to ensure it has clear and consistent funding criteria, simple processes and helpful guidance.

3.3. Structures for the Heritage - some key issues 3.3.1. The key consideration in reviewing the effectiveness of structures to support the heritage should be the appropriate distribution of functions rather than the number of bodies involved. 3.3.2. For example, the National Heritage Memorial Fund/Heritage Lottery Fund (already effectively a single body) has considerable expertise in grant making, that is its ‘USP’ and it has a strong track record of achievement and organisational efficiency. English Heritage, on the other hand has great strength in depth regarding conservation practice in the historic environment and experience of relating this directly to planning and development. 3.3.3. However, any decisions on the redistribution of functions also need to take account of the breadth of the heritage. HLF has been acclaimed for broadening the concept of heritage, something it has achieved by resolutely declining to define the heritage and instead inviting applicants to say what is important to them about the past and how this should be shared with future generations. But the heritage sector, by any definition, includes significant areas of activity that fall outside the immediate remit of DCMS, such as the natural heritage of landscapes and habitats. This needs to be acknowledged and facilitated through appropriate channels between government departments. 3.3.4. No discussion of support for the heritage should overlook the important contribution made by the sector to Britain’s economy through tourism, and any re-distribution of functions needs to avoid undermining the capacity of the sector to continue to generate significant tourism revenue. The UK-wide distribution of Lottery funding through HLF allows projects in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, as well as in the English regions, to bid for far larger sums than would be possible were the funds to be allocated to the devolved governments. It would be unwise to unpick the long term economic benefits of this strategy, and structure, to the economy of the UK as a whole by, for instance, simply merging HLF and EH and apportioning limited Lottery funds to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. 3.3.5. The former area museums councils and their successors provided an important and often effective service in supporting and stimulating local museum development, albeit on limited resources. The museums sector continues to need support, especially at a time when the likelihood of serious cuts to local government discretionary services becomes ever more apparent. Any suggestion, however, that MLA’s functions should be merged with those of Arts Council England should be treated with great caution as ACE struggles to deliver its core functions (see above). Moreover, in the current structure, museums and galleries have a much better fit with the heritage sector than with the arts. 3.3.6. Renaissance funding for museums has undoubtedly served the sector well in enhancing the capacity of museums to provide better access and wider learning opportunities, often supplemented by Lottery funding for improved display and other facilities. But the benefits have, perhaps inevitably, been patchy and are under threat 824

from the general economic climate and the need for public expenditure savings. This will undoubtedly add to the pressure on National Lottery funds. 3.3.7. The notion that all these varied functions - grant-making, strategy and development, stewardship - can neatly be accommodated within one body, a Heritage Council as it were, is simply not persuasive for four reasons. • Firstly, because the heritage is so diverse as to encompass the historic built environment; oral history; local customs and cultural traditions; industrial, maritime and transport heritage; natural landscapes; habitats and rare species; parks, museums and their multifarious collections; archives; monuments; churches and cemeteries, and archaeology. • Secondly, the functions of any such overarching body would need to include statutory advice, conservation expertise; listing, planning and guidance; grant- making; sectoral development, strategy and scrutiny across the whole of this broad range of what we think of as heritage. • Thirdly, this would create a large and unwieldy body prone, like the current Arts Council, to constant re-organisation and to gradual erosion of expertise. • Fourthly, because of the potential to undermine the effective distribution of funds, especially National Lottery funds, across the UK as a whole, and the legislative complexity of merging or de-merging bodies with different national (UK or country specific) remits.

3.4. Key functions 3.4.1. Stewardship of the major cultural institutions whose remit and standing are of clear national and international significance - bodies such as the Royal Shakespeare Company, Royal National Theatre, Royal Opera, British Museum, V&A, Tate Galleries, etc. - is a potential function of a re-vamped DCMS. Such bodies, not exclusively based in the capital, form a kind of ‘premier league’ defined by their long term guardianship of great collections, bodies of work and cultural traditions, whilst having obligations to share their expertise and their work with others throughout the nation(s) and internationally. 3.4.2. In a mature society, where the case for culture is more widely accepted and respected, the argument for an arms length relationship for these bodies has less force. Moreover, they form a peer group in which resides the very expertise that would be required in an arms length body. 3.4.3. Grant making for purposes of development, experimentation, programming, broadening access, learning and participation should be carried out by bodies whose remit, like that of NHMF/HLF is specifically to make grants for clear purposes and who specialise in the advice, assessment and monitoring roles that are required to ensure effective grant making and scrutiny of public funds. 3.4.4. There is a case for considering an overarching cultural grant making body that is largely application led. But it would be essential that such a body was able to encompass the wide range of knowledge and expert advice necessary to deal with the breadth of activity covered by large historic building projects, digital art, endangered species, parks, choreography, archives, circus, the many forms of music, etc. 3.4.5. My personal view is that small is not only beautiful but can be a great deal more efficient as HLF has demonstrated, and that larger bodies have a tendency towards self interest and self preservation which can lead to inappropriate expansion, inefficiency and a lack of humility. There is no doubt scope for smarter working through more consistent use of shared back office support between grant-making bodies. However, it is essential to avoid the inclination to turn such bodies into remote, centralised processing units. This is the direction in which the Big Lottery Fund has gone (and ACE’s Grants for the Arts is moving) and it has undermined the 825

essential need for this kind of grant making to be informed by local knowledge, and responsive to local need. 3.4.6. There may be a case for bringing together under one umbrella body regulation in the form of cultural planning, conservation expertise, protection of sites and monuments and other expert advice on, for instance, historic ships or theatre buildings. But there would need to be clear commonality of purpose in any such grouping and it should not usurp the expertise that already resides in established institutions such as the British Library, National Archive, V&A and various professional bodies. Instead, such bodies should be given the encouragement and wherewithal to share their expertise more widely.

4. The National Lottery 4.4. Changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds 4.4.1. The National Lottery has been a colossal success, regenerating towns and cities, building communities, fostering volunteering and skills and giving the nation(s) a powerful sense of pride and self esteem. The popular support for the 2012 Olympics is one significant indicator of this. 4.4.2. The government’s proposal to re-distribute National Lottery Funds to the original pillars of the Lottery will be welcomed by the arts and heritage communities. However, the pressure to simply use this additional funding to make good reductions in public funding at all levels will be very substantial for the foreseeable future. 4.4.3. A key objective for the foreseeable future should be to sustain and consolidate the exceptional gains brought about by National Lottery funding over the last 16 years through further investment of capital and revenue funding.

4.5. Policy directions 4.5.1. There is no strong case for DCMS to review the Policy Directions to Lottery distribution bodies. The general encouragement to bodies to enable access to funds, to ensure their use for public benefit, to support learning and participation, together with the Financial Directions, provide scope for appropriate sectoral differences, whilst avoiding accusations of political interference. 4.5.2. As an example of the effectiveness of a light touch approach it is worth citing the Heritage Lottery Fund whose decision not to define the heritage has proved one of its great strengths and successes in so far as it has enabled and encouraged communities to determine what from the past has significance and how that should be shared with future generations. This approach has led to wide ranging public involvement in intergenerational projects, townscape regeneration, learning, skills development and active volunteering, impacts which it would have been harder to achieve through policy edict. 4.5.3. The concerns of some elements of the media regarding “unspent” Lottery funds have been firmly challenged by the reduction in funds in the National Lottery Distribution Fund in recent years and by growing recognition of the need for funding bodies to be able to commit funds to capital projects ahead of drawdown. This forward commitment is a significant factor in giving partner funders the confidence also to invest.

5. Philanthropy and business sponsorship 5.4. The economy of the arts has become a great deal more diverse over the last 10-15 years with increased business sponsorship and individual philanthropy playing their part alongside public subsidy, earned income and other sources of funding. Every effort should continue to be made to continue to expand the contribution of private sources by developing the 826

capacity of organisations to raise funding and especially by creating further incentives for businesses and private individuals. 5.5. However, a number of key factors need to be recognised if a realistic approach is to be taken. • It is unrealistic to expect private funding to make good reductions in public subsidy. The interests and motives of sponsors and philanthropists are different to those of public funding bodies. The purpose of private funding is complementary to the public role and a valuable augmentation of financial support which can be directed to specific projects and activities. • Opportunities to attract private funding vary significantly across the country with a clear advantage to institutions in London. Many organisations based outside London raise private funds in small sums but do not have the market ‘clout’ to attract major sponsors. • The American model of philanthropy exists in a different climate of giving and is at odds with the culture of public service in Britain. For instance, whereas a sponsor or donor may look to have personal influence over a US cultural organisation by effectively ‘buying’ a seat on the Board, in Britain the requirements of public scrutiny of charity trustees make such a situation unacceptable. If we are to encourage increased philanthropy in Britain it will take time to develop a culture that sits comfortably with other valued and respected traditions, and other European models may provide a better fit for the UK.

6. Conclusion 6.1. There is much to be gained from this welcome review, and especially the opportunity to take a long term view of the needs of an increasingly mature cultural sector. There is not room in this brief submission to deal adequately with all the issues, but the importance of a serious national debate about appropriate and effective structures to support the arts and heritage, defined by their functions, cannot be overstated. This is a once in a generation opportunity and, I would suggest to the committee, deserves a sufficient period of reflection and debate to ensure sound and sustainable choices are made.

September 2010

827

Written evidence submitted by The Archives & Records Association (arts 190)

1. The Archives & Records Association is the professional and representation body for the archive and record keeping sector. It was formed in June 2010 after the merger of the Society of Archivists, the National Council on Archives and the Association of Chief Officers in Local Government. The Archives & Records Association is the professional body for archivists, maintains professional standards and accredits academic courses; advocates for the sector and administers the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Archives; and provides a forum for users and special interest groups to coalesce around a single sector body, doing away with the plethora of smaller representation groups that used to exist.

2. Summary

• The effect of the recently announced cuts and abolition of arms length organisations not easily quantifiable and harder information will become more apparent after the CSR and once local authorities start to set and publish their budgets in the first quarter of 2011.

• The archive sector will suffer severely if cuts of up to 40% are uniformly applied due to the structure of the sector, the reliance on capital and resource funding to care for our collections and the small number of staff working across local authority archive services.

• The archive sector has very high levels of user satisfaction and is rated very highly by users in terms of the impact it has on wider agendas including citizenship, education and lifelong learning and stronger communities.

• The Archives & Records Association was formed in June 2010 and led the way in the sector in terms of creating a new streamlined structure for the archives sector by merging three different bodies into one. There is scope for further coordination between the groups representing the museums, libraries and archives sector without the need to create more bureaucracy or bury the sector within larger existing organisations.

• Funding structures and criteria should be changed to allow for fairer access to public money for the archive sector and to give a greater priority for the conservation of and access to our nation’s archival heritage

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;

3. The recent announcements and the uncertainty of what will be contained in the CSR in the autumn makes it very difficult to give any accurate prediction about the impact of decisions which into effect on 1 April 2011, let alone on any longer time scale. As such all that can be done at this stage is to provide an idea of the levels of resource reduction that services are currently being asked to prepare for.

4. Particular to archive services (although not exclusively) is the increasing number of joint services, funded by a number of smaller authorities (usually unitary councils, sometimes with a two-tier county as a partner). These joint arrangements are particularly vulnerable at time of financial pressure, as the smaller councils will find it more difficult to make savings than larger ones and thus look to cultural and heritage budgets before their bigger neighbours. If joint arrangements

828

come under increasing pressure and in many cases come to an end, this would be at odds with the government’s policy for archives, as set out in Archives for the 21st Century strategy, published in November 2009. The over-arching theme of the policy is to develop “bigger and better” archive services in partnership between local authorities and across domains with higher education institutions, to increase efficiencies and improve sustainability. It would be unfortunate if the current financial situation made it more difficult to reach this goal at the very time when greater efficiencies would be to the benefit of all local authorities and partner bodies.

5. Furthermore, most archive joint arrangements (usually formally sealed legal agreements) require the partner authorities to contribute relative to the size of their populations. Therefore, if one or more authorities seek to reduce their contribution, it is then open to all the others to reduce their contribution by a similar amount. Currently this "double whammy" is causing concern to many heads of archive services. One county archivist has noted that the unitary councils seem to have been affected more quickly than counties by spending reductions and so he is potentially facing much more severe reductions than library or museums services in his own authority, which do not operate on a joint basis.

6. The most severe set of potential reductions identified so far for an individual archive service over the next few years is a 40% reduction in a traditional two tier county council. To achieve this cut, staffing levels would have to be reduced by almost 50%, with the closure of one of the two service points and a four day opening at the other. Among posts to go would be the head of service. The reductions are proposed to come in at a single stroke next year, rather than phased and equally draconian reductions have been mooted for both library and museum services in the same authority. Few other archive services have been asked to plan for such sweeping reductions, with reductions of about 10% seemingly the norm.

7. The archive sector employs relatively few people for a direct public-facing service. The local authority archive sector employs 1,600 staff and benefits from a further 3,000 volunteers, who between them contribute some 230,000 hours every year (source: CIPFA statistics for UK local authority archive services).

8. A further effect of reductions in resources will be that even fewer archive services will be in a position to take advantage of external funding sources, such as HLF, as it will be ever more difficult to secure matched funding. Main stream capital funding is being squeezed, and at least one county service has lost an already agreed extension which would have provided additional storage for 20 years and improved document preservation facilities. Some high profile projects appear to be continuing, but overall it appears that in many areas plans to expand or improve overstretched or inadequate storage capacity, or developing facilities to deal with digital records, will have to be shelved for several years, or perhaps indefinitely.

9. Even where large scale cuts are not expected to decimate a service, the effect of any budget reductions will have an immediate effect on the ability of archive services to offer anything other than the core activities of storage and preservation. The scale of that task alone is daunting, with over 780,000 linear metres of archives to care for just within the UK local authority services. The other activities, often most appreciated by service users and indeed the local authorities themselves, such as education, outreach, one-to-one assistance for local and family history researchers and wider community engagement initiatives will very likely cease to continue.

829

10. The archive and record keeping community takes its responsibility in terms of and public service quality and customer satisfaction very seriously indeed. The annual Survey of Visitors to UK archives is commissioned by the Archives & Records Association and confirms the importance that users place in wider work of archives:

When asked 'How far do you agree archives contribute to society” by:

Providing opportunities for learning; 96% ticked 'strongly agree' or 'agree'

Preserving our culture and heritage: 99% ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’

Strengthening family and community identity: 86% ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’

Supporting administrative and business activity: 77% ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’

Supporting the rights of citizens: 69% ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’

Source: Survey of Visitors to UK Archives 2009

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;

11. Much like the question relating to the impact of spending reductions, there will be a time-lag before we are able to properly understand the effect of the abolition of the MLA on the archive sector. It is true that many services have benefited from the relatively small amounts of funding secured through the MLA, so it has been a good return on small funds. There is also the question about how Archives for the 21st Century will be implemented, with MLA ceasing to exist. Will it be left to The National Archives alone to work across government to implement a policy which touches on the responsibilities of not just DCMS, but the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Local Government and Communities, not to mention the Welsh Assembly Government?

12. Historically, the archive sector was made part of the old Resource organisation, the predecessor agency of the MLA. It was felt that with the creation of MLA that at last there was a “headline” mention of archives as a sector in the title of the new body, distinct from museums and libraries. MLA working at its best enables the archive sector to work both nationally and regionally by providing networking, the sharing and dissemination of best practice and integrates archives into a wider cultural and heritage strategy. With the abolition of the MLA, it is vitally important that new ways of providing this service is found.

13. The Archives & Records Association has had concerns relating to the lack of specialised knowledge and the absence of qualified archivists working for MLA, especially following the changes made to MLA’s structure in 2008. The Archives & Record Association has been working closely with the MLA and has a service level agreement in operation with the MLA and The National Archives, providing support for the archive sector in terms of advocacy, driving improvement in public sector service delivery and developing special projects such as improving the way the sector recruits, retains and develops volunteers.

830

14. The Archives & Records Association believes that a real opportunity exists to reassess the nature of the funding structures within the wider cultural and heritage sector. It would be a detrimental step to create larger, single NGOs or to give existing large bodies within the sector responsibility for policy and strategic support for too vast a collection of activities. what arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

15. The Archives & Records Association has led the way in the museums, libraries and archives sector recently. The organisation has been created in order to streamline the professional, representation and coordination functions of the archives sector. This has been necessary to develop the capacity of the sector to communicate more effectively with partners and decision- makers at all levels of government.

16. Whilst efforts should be made to reduce duplication and take advantage of the benefits of economies of scale, the temptation to create monolithic organisations to artificially represent and advance the development of sectors as diverse as the built heritage, visual arts, creative industries, archives, records, libraries and museums, should be resisted. Instead, the culture of the wider cultural and heritage sector must respond to the challenge of both providing specialised knowledge and support for each cultural domain, but also to work more effectively together. One model that government should examine might involve separate, streamlined representation and development bodies, but also create new ways to ensure real cooperation and coordination. For example, in the museums, libraries and archives sectors, the existing bodies (the Archives & Records Association, the Museums Association and the Chartered Institute of Library & Information Professionals) could continue to do the work they do to improve public services, develop heritage and cultural policy and develop professional skills and, in addition, create a tripartite coordination group to ensure that duplication is minimised and the opportunities for collaboration are identified and exploited. Such a coordination group could be responsible for reporting back to DCMS and other sector funding groups, coordinate higher-level funding applications to bodies such as HLF and provide decision-makers with authoritative advice.

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

17. Archives are a capital and resource intense activity – the need for specialist and expensive buildings and plant, conservation and storage, display and transportation of items and the fact that almost all of the activities the sector undertakes depend on the primary resource (the archival items) that we preserve. The investment of public funds in archives is essential for the sustainability of our nation’s collections, maintain a true record of official decisions, safeguard and make records accessible to citizens in order to promote democratic participation. The return on this investment is not just the preservation of our archival history, but also the invaluable support that archives give to so many other cultural and heritage activities, not simply for the artistic elite, but for every community across the country.

Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one; What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;

831

18. Whilst HLF has provided some much needed funding for the archives sector (some £175m to 601 projects over the past 16 years of HLF funding history), the ability of the sector to bid for funds has been hampered by qualification criteria, for example the lack of funding available to continue the important work of cataloguing our nation’s archival collections, a vital piece of work if public access and online engagement is to be extended. There are some examples of where even when archival projects were able to build up joint funding between local authorities and higher education institutions, HLF failed to provide funds despite criteria being met and positive reviews provided by HLF assessors. There is a perception of a low priority given to archives from HLF, in favour of visual arts and other cultural and arts activities.

19. Other funding structures have also discriminated against archives. For example, the MLA’s Renaissance funding stream was only intended for regional museums and archive services were excluded from the criteria. This form of “funding stream” means that even when a sector like archives can contribute to the aims and objectives of a funding body, the rules are exclusive and end up favouring one cultural activity over another. Such exclusivity should end and all sectors should be able to bid for funds based on whether they can help the funding body to reach wider aims and goals. Any proposals which give place public funds in the hands of one or two very large bodies to divide amongst smaller cultural sectors should take into account the mistakes of past funding structures.

Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;

20. We should make a strong case that the funds should be invested in activities with long term and lasting benefits, not ephemeral activities which have short term impact on a small number of people, for examples through investing in cataloguing and conservation, improvements in buildings and plant, rather than in conferences, the drafting of toolkits or one-off events. HLF should also be encouraged and empowered to fund repeat projects once a concept has been proved a success. For example, West Yorkshire Archive Service’s Tithe Map digitisation project was a roaring success and based on a successful concept initiated by Cheshire County Archives, which received HLF money. However, HLF funding was not available for the whole West Yorkshire area and so about a fifth of the maps have been completed, with local people disappointed that there is no chance of funding to do complete the work. Another example of HLF criteria needing change is its priority for historic buildings. Whilst archival projects are more likely to receive funds for projects which include the conservative of historic buildings, these structures often provide the least suitable accommodation for archival materials, are the most expensive to convert and least efficient to maintain.

Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

21. Archive services are well placed to work with businesses to promote the value of archives and records. The Business Archives Strategy is being developed and implemented by the Archives & Records Association in partnership with The National; Archives, MLA and others. The Strategy places importance on the role of businesses in preserving and promoting their own archival holdings and how such materials can be used in core business activities, including marketing, product development and corporate social responsibility initiatives. The Strategy was launched in the Summer of 2008 at the House of Lords by the APG Archives, with the Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Stuart Rose and Dame Stella Rimington giving their endorsements to the project by speaking at the event. The opportunities for businesses to help bring more attention to the benefit of investing in good quality archive services are clear, but more work could

832

possibly be done to enable commercial and philanthropic support for the wider archival community. Opportunities could include the potential of more sponsorship arrangements for businesses to support local exhibitions, family and local history projects.

Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

22. The Goodison Report proposed that businesses should be able to offset the costs of maintaining their historical collections including records against tax, but thus far the Treasury has resisted the idea. In the view of the Archives & Records Association, this proposal is a good idea and would have the effect of either encouraging businesses to look after their records properly themselves, or make them more willing to fund the local authority or a higher education archive to look after their records.

September 2010

833

Written evidence submitted by Havering Council, Culture and Leisure Services (arts 191)

Summary • There are concerns that areas with less developed cultural infrastructure (such as Havering and other Outer London boroughs) may be disproportionately affected by cuts to arts and heritage. • Local authorities will be increasingly under pressure to make cuts to discretionary services such as the arts and heritage. • The funding landscape is difficult to navigate for small community/voluntary based organisations and more support could be provided to support the work of such groups. • Private donations and sponsorship should be encouraged, but cannot replace core funding. Large high-profile institutions tend to benefit more easily from this type of funding than small grassroots organisations.

1. 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.

1.1 Spending cuts in this area are likely to reduce access to arts and heritage for local communities through the closure of venues, organisations and projects if decisions are not taken carefully. There is a danger that the impact of reductions in Arts Council funding could disproportionately affect areas like Havering, where there is already limited cultural infrastructure. Reductions which threaten the viability of organisations in highly populated suburban areas which have only a low level of social infrastructure will potentially leave communities in those areas without arts provision.

1.2 Regularly funded organisations are likely to have to reduce their programme of activities in response to the cuts, while grants available to local authorities and the voluntary sector will also be affected. For example, the Queen’s Theatre in Hornchurch (one of the last remaining professional producing theatres in the country) has been asked to model what a significant level of cuts would look like in their organisations. As this is the only RFO based in Havering, the effect of such cuts would have a greater impact than those of an organisation in an area densely populated by cultural organisations. These factors should be considered when implementing ‘across the board’ cuts to funding.

1.3 At a local level, the October Spending Review and broader cuts to local budgets will potentially have a disproportionate effect on arts and heritage as non-statutory services. Havering is fortunate to have the support of the administration for cultural projects, but they may not be held as a priority for other authorities across London and research should be commissioned to determine the impact of local government cuts on this vulnerable area. There is also concern that the continuing prevalence of some services being designated as statutory may force even very supportive local authorities to reduce funding for arts and heritage, despite their powerful social as well as cultural role, because of the authority’s inability to make the cuts that are required elsewhere in their services. In many ways, the very division of services into statutory and non-statutory is contrary to the Government’s ideals in relation to localism and local determination.

1.4 The current funding situation is also having a destabilising effect on capital funding and cuts at a local level are likely to result in the abandonment of building projects to make the savings. This is a concern for us at present, particularly in relation to heritage conservation and restoration projects. While revenue is clearly an important consideration when determining the impact of funding cuts, we must not forget the impact on capital which allows us to maintain our historic environment and to offer high quality facilities in which to hold arts activities.

1.5 In relation to capital, it is also essential that access to culture is integrated into all new housing 834

developments as part of the basic infrastructure of an area. Current rules make it difficult for Community Infrastructure Levy funding to be diverted towards arts and heritage, as opposed to other elements of social infrastructure. We would be interested in hearing more about how a reformed CIL, could be used to support and maintain arts and heritage facilities in a local area and contribute to cultural regeneration.

2. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

2.1 Shared marketing could be an area of focus for efficiency savings and maximising participation across borough boundaries.

2.2 As funders and providers begin to operate in an increasingly fragmented funding environment, information will become an ever-more important commodity. The role of government in coordinating and sharing information about the sector while promoting innovation and best practice will be vital if we are to avoid duplication and to increase efficiency.

3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable

3.1 At a local level, arts and heritage are an essential part of the fabric of the community in Havering for residents and visitors alike. The development of the borough’s as a cultural centre is vital to the local economy and to quality of life for local residents. Public subsidy is an investment in the sustainability and quality of the local area. As previous DCMS reports have highlighted, investment in the arts is also crucial in addressing social cohesion and a host of other instrumental benefits such as reducing crime, improving educational attainment, supporting health and wellbeing for older people and increasing confidence and self-esteem. Without existing levels of public subsidy, provision in these areas would be dramatically reduced.

3.2 In terms of sustainability, the emphasis of public funding should be on increasing the capacity of community arts and heritage organisations and on delivering instrumental targets such as those relating to health and education through the medium of culture. Public subsidy also has an important role in generating further internal investment and in establishing a thriving environment in which creative industries can flourish.

4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one

4.1 The Arts Council’s regularly funded organisations should be monitored more closely to ensure that they are committed to a local community approach and to working in partnership with other local organisations. In the past there have been examples of RFOs which are not strategically aligned with local authorities and do not distribute their work evenly across the region, despite receiving funding for activities in these areas. The Heritage Lottery Fund offers a structured approach for heritage organisations to seek funding and we are supportive of the recent initiative to increase applications from areas which have received less funding over the years. In both cases, funding tends to be easier to access for well-equipped professional organisations while small voluntary organisations are intimidated by the vigorous application process. The phasing out of the Awards for All grant stream for small applications up to £10,000 in heritage and the arts (which have now been transferred to the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Arts Council respectively) has complicated the process for this type of group.

4.2 Again, despite work to re-distribute lottery funding more evenly, there is still a broader geographic bias that tends to focus funding opportunities on areas where there is already a significant cultural infrastructure in place, rather than building it in less developed areas (particularly in London, where funding clusters in the centre at the expense of sub-urban 835

boroughs).

4.3 There appears to be a policy disconnect between the aims of the ‘Big Society’ and the perceived intention of strengthening funding packages for the large national RFOs, which is likely to reduce flexibility in the funding options available for smaller community groups. We would welcome the opportunity to hear more about how the Big Society model will be implemented to maximise opportunities for engagement with the arts and culture. With the myriad of small cultural organisations operating in the capital, the arts and culture should represent a valuable test case for the delivery of decentralisation, but there is a concern that this will not be reflected in the funding arrangements. We would be very interested to hear, for example, how funding streams will be re-configured to increase opportunities for small organisations such as the new Havering Museum (operated by a local community charity) to access funding to support their work. With only two Heritage Lottery funded professional posts, they rely heavily on volunteers and generate a great deal of activity in the local area at very little cost. In this sense, they are a good example of the Big Society policy in action, but opportunities to apply for the all-important funding to continue the work of the professional staff beyond the current short term funding arrangements are few. We would be interested to know how the Government’s proposals to integrate arts and heritage into the decentralisation agenda will address this type of situation.

4.4 More broadly, we would like to see arts and heritage integrated coherently into the current proposals relating to education and the re-organisation of the NHS, particularly in terms of public health. As research has demonstrated clearly in recent years, participation in cultural activities can have a profound impact on health and education outcomes for all age groups. It would be helpful to see support for the commissioning agenda in relation to arts/heritage and health and education form part of the overall funding policy recommendations.

5. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations

5.1 We are supportive of the intention to increase the amount of Lottery funding going to the original ‘good causes’, and the subsequent increase in funding for the arts and heritage. We have some concern about the future of the Big Lottery Fund, which is a useful source of funding in relation to parks and open spaces and other areas of work that do not naturally fall under the remit of arts and heritage, such as children’s play. We welcome the government’s intention to make future applications more accessible to the community and voluntary sector; however, the local authority plays a key role in building the capacity of community groups and would want the opportunity for local publicly funded organisations to apply for funding in this area to remain open.

6. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed

6.1 At present it is difficult for small community organisations to access arts Lottery money due to the inflexibility of the funding streams. Former smaller scale schemes, such as Arts 4 Everyone were more easily accessible for smaller voluntary sector groups. The integration of the arts and heritage streams of Awards for All into the main lottery funding programmes as been detrimental to small local organisations accessing the funding as they find the system harder to navigate; knowing which agency to approach can be difficult and intimidating for community and voluntary groups.

7. 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

7.1 We have received considerable support and advice from MLA London in the course of establishing a new voluntary sector operated local history museum in the borough, so were 836

dismayed to hear this organisation was being cut. They have been supportive in providing small grants, but more importantly in offering advice and training and in helping to develop partnerships and raise standards in the museums, archives and library sectors. It is extremely valuable to have an organisation with a national strategic overview of best practice and new opportunities in the museum sector, which has contributed to the rapid growth, and improved accessibility of high quality museums across the country over the last few years. We hope the Museums’ Hub will be able to fill the gap to a certain extent, but it seems unlikely that the current level of support will be continued – this will have a particularly impact on small museums, especially those operated by the voluntary sector, which benefit more from low level support structures than larger organisations.

8. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level

8.1 While support from businesses and philanthropists is always welcome and should be encouraged, it is essential that such sources of funding are not relied upon as core funding. Philanthropy is easier to secure for large, high-status national organisations, which will doubtless benefit from such schemes, but more localised community projects and organisations could be marginalised by an over-reliance on the type of funding. It should not be assumed that private support will flood in to fill the gap left by public funding, particularly for community organisations which may not have the expertise and networks to draw down private sponsorship. Investment tends to generate more investment, and without a certain level of core funding organisations will not have the capacity to seek out sponsorship and private support. In this situation, private patrons could have more influence over the direction of arts and heritage organisations, potentially affecting the social outcomes of their work and the types of audiences benefiting from their services.

9. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations

9.1 It would be helpful for the Government to raise awareness of the opportunities associated with private donation and to offer support to organisations in developing their unrestricted funding strategies. However, as above private donations will tend to disproportionately benefit high- status organisations and more work needs to be done to encourage this funding to filter down to the local community. Government incentives to encourage private funding should not replace core funding, particularly for smaller and more vulnerable organisations.

September 2010 837

Written evidence submitted by the National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF) and the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) (arts 192)

1. Introduction – NHMF and HLF 1.1 The National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF) was established in 1980 to save the most outstanding parts of our national heritage at risk, as a memorial to people who have given their lives for the UK. NHMF is the only dedicated source of Government funding for emergency acquisitions. It helps to acquire land, buildings, objects and collections of outstanding scenic, historic and cultural interest. An outstanding national collection has resulted from £298million awarded. Without NHMF funding, key parts of our national heritage such as the Flying Scotsman, Orford Ness nature reserve and the Staffordshire Hoard would have been under threat.

1.2 When the National Lottery was created, NHMF’s independent board of trustees was given responsibility for distributing the heritage share as the only body with a remit for and experience of grant making for cultural, built and natural environment heritage across the entire UK. The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) is the largest non-government funder of the UK’s heritage, currently distributing around £205m a year. The proposed change in the share going to the heritage Lottery good cause would mean an increase to £255m a year in 2012-13.

1.3 HLF’s approach is driven by the nature of its funding from Lottery players. It supports the heritage that the public values, and helps people to get involved with and learn about it, thereby sustaining heritage for future generations. Lottery funding totalling £4.5bn has been awarded to a broad range of heritage - from national icons and collections to small, neighbourhood projects; from landscapes, National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty to castles and piers; and from steam trains, museums and parks to oral history and local traditions. More than 34,000 projects of all sizes have been funded, with grants from £500 to over £20m, in every part of the UK. Almost half of this funding has been awarded to voluntary and community organisations with nearly all projects involving volunteers. The need and demand for Lottery funding remains strong. In 2009-2010, HLF received applications for £524m – more than two and a half times its annual grant budget.

2. Summary of response • The national priority of reducing the government budget deficit will inevitably mean less public money is available. Analysis suggests central and local government funding cuts of between 25% and 40% would mean a reduction in public spending on heritage of £600m to £950m p.a. across the UK. • A fundamental re-design of what heritage services are provided through the public sector is likely to result. Heritage organisations will need to adapt to these new financial realities. • This will not be easy. A transformation of the sector on this scale will need careful management and the adjustment will take time. There is a real risk of deterioration in the quality of physical assets along with the social and economic capital that is based upon them. It is of vital importance to protect the legacy of investment and innovation that lottery funding for heritage has made possible. • This new environment will also bring opportunities. It could lead to a sector that is even closer to local communities and is sustained by a combination of volunteering, local ownership, income generation and individual donations, working alongside continued public investment. • Additional Lottery income of £50m a year from 2012-2013 will mean that HLF will be one of few bodies able to respond to these pressures. HLF‘s experience as a trusted funder of heritage, drawing in private and public investment, places it in an important position to help organisations to adapt, by investing in skills and capacity as well as assets.

838

3. Impact of recent and future spending cuts from central and local Government on heritage

3.1 The scale of cuts 3.1.1 There will be reductions in public funding across the whole heritage sector. Central government departments including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) are all likely to reduce funding. Changes to the funding of economic development, with the creation of Local Economic Partnership and the abolition of Regional Development Agencies, will also have an impact. The situation will be comparable in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

3.1.2 HLF/NHMF analysis of the potential scale of these cuts has assumed reductions of 25% to 40% in the budgets of both central government departments and local authorities, between 2010 and 2014.

3.1.3 Central government departments currently provide £1.4bn in funding for the heritage sector, so cuts here could amount to between £370m and £580m a year. This covers anticipated cuts of £173m to £276m in the DCMS budgets currently allocated to English Heritage, the Churches Conservation Trust, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, the nationally funded museums, the British Library and the Royal Parks. Annual cuts in Defra’s budget for natural heritage are estimated at between £193m and £309m. In addition, there are likely to be cuts to the sector from other parts of central government – such as funding for the National Archives, a proportion of which supports heritage.

3.1.4 Local authorities are also significant funders of heritage, with budgets for historic building conservation, museums, galleries and archives, and historic parks and gardens. HLF analysis suggests that total local authority expenditure in England and Wales for heritage was £570m in 2009/10. A 25% cut would therefore mean a £142m annual budget reduction, rising to £228m p.a. with a 40% cut.

3.1.5 Overall, cuts to the entire heritage sector in England alone could be between £500m and £800m p.a. With comparable budget cuts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, UK- wide cuts would be between £600m and £950m p.a. For comparison, HLF’s funding for distribution within the sector UK-wide is currently £205m p.a.

3.1.6 These cuts will have an inevitable impact on HLF funded projects and future applications. All Lottery awards over £50,000 require partnership funding of at least 10% with awards of over £1m requiring applicants to raise 25%. In the HLF programmes targeted at urban regeneration and public parks, the proportion of match funding from the public sector has traditionally been even higher, with nearly all match funding coming from local authorities and development agencies. HLF funded projects are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain partnership funding from within the public sector. Amongst the larger projects supported in the past two years, for example, 70% of match funding was expected to come from the public sector. But only one half of that has been secured. Some projects will therefore need to revise their funding and project plans. The situation is already worse in places, outside of the more prosperous metropolitan centres, where public sector support has tended to play a bigger role.

3.2 The impact of cuts 3.2.1 With less public funding available, the heritage sector’s financial model will have to be re-configured. Heritage organisations will need to evolve, to be flexible and to adapt to overcome the loss in public funding by revising business plans and combining greater earned income and local philanthropy with volunteer involvement.

839

3.2.2 In time more heritage organisations are likely to operate outside the public sector. They will become more locally responsive – operating with a social purpose and with commercial acumen. This could bring the freedom to experiment and to innovate – for example by looking after a mix of heritage assets from across different parts of the sector, or by operating across a variety of geographical areas, rather than within strict administrative boundaries.

3.2.3 Organisations in the sector certainly have the potential to play this type of role and – judging by a recent increase in applications to HLF for projects involving asset transfer – there is an appetite for doing so. The National Trust is often held up as a model but, at the other end of the spectrum, thousands of small local voluntary groups already undertake conservation work in parks, nature reserves and historic buildings, and run sites and museums.

3.2.4 The current level of philanthropic interest in heritage can help to underpin this transformation. The most recent Arts & Business survey, for 2007-08, showed private investment in culture close to £700m, with heritage organisations receiving £232m. This sum mostly comprises individual donations, legacies, trust and foundation giving rather than investment from business. Heritage attractions are also benefitting from the healthy domestic visitor economy, with the boost of the Olympics to come. The growth of the knowledge economy offers further opportunities to increase income, for example through intellectual property and licensing.

3.2.5 However, there are real risks. A transformation on this scale will take time and will need to be managed. Even for an organisation that only receives a third of its revenue from public funding, replacing a 25% cut would require a 13% increase from other sources – 3% a year for the four years over which cuts will be introduced. A 40% cut would mean a more demanding 20% increase. And there are many organisations in the sector that operate on a greater proportion of public funding than one third, and where the percentage increase in private finance would need to be even higher. Indeed some parts of the sector, especially those that are not visitor attractions, will always struggle to achieve high levels of earned income from commercial operations.

3.2.6 Public funding for heritage is fully justified on the well established principle of market failure – government resources are needed because no market exists for individual consumers to pay for the maintenance of heritage assets, despite the high value that people place upon them. Even where a market could, in theory, be created – charging visitors entry to a local park for example – this will frequently be highly inefficient as well as inequitable. Philanthropy, though a part of the answer, can’t be the whole answer to this market failure issue, either. Valued heritage in both inner cities and remote rural areas may equally suffer, due to a lack of donors able to provide financial support on the scale required.

3.2.8 Therefore, if the financial re-adjustment required is not managed successfully, or is simply not feasible, services will have to be cut and the real risk of loss will arise. In some areas, such as collections and archives, ‘mothballing’ may be a feasible option for a short period, but this will mean that there is much reduced access, with educational and other services based on the collection being reduced or closed, leading, for example, to a loss of contact with heritage for millions of schoolchildren and – more widely – a reduction in the public support that sustains heritage. For historic buildings and parks, cutting back on maintenance carries the real risk of longer-term loss and damage that will be expensive to rectify – as has happened in the past. In the natural environment, a double adaptation will have to be managed – to financial and climate change. Across the heritage sector, revenue investment in public engagement will fall, and conservation expertise will be lost at both a local level and from within the relevant public bodies.

840

3.2.9 The deterioration of assets and curtailment of services will have a knock-on impact on the social and economic benefits derived from heritage – from the enjoyment, inspiration and opportunities for reflection that people value, to the quality of the local environment. There will be economic consequences for some areas, where heritage attractions act as important tourism anchors for local visitor economies. Cuts will hamper local regeneration and economic development. Finally, if the organisational infrastructure for managing and running activities stagnates, then opportunities for the thousands of people who are enthusiastically involved in heritage projects will be lost. Heritage volunteering, properly managed and resourced, is hugely popular, with very strong, proven benefits for the volunteer’s own well-being, as well as for the wider communities in which projects are based.

3.2.10 HLF has particular concerns that the legacy of Lottery investment of the last 16 years, which has achieved so much for heritage and people, should not be jeopardised by cuts to those parts of the sector unable to adapt quickly for good reasons, or through cuts that are made in too much haste.

4. Public subsidy and the system and structure of funding for heritage 4.1 Public subsidy is a necessary part of the mixed economy that supports a thriving heritage sector and is justified by the importance that heritage has for our society and the key role it plays in quality of life, contribution to the economy and our international reputation.

4.2 Government should continue to take responsibility for protecting heritage of national importance. NHMF is the only dedicated source of funding for emergency acquisitions, providing an essential backstop for the UK’s Treasure Act and the Export Control system. NHMF’s grant-in-aid was increased from £5m per annum to £10m per annum in 2007-8, following a recommendation from the 2004 Goodison Report to raise its annual grant-in-aid to £20m. It currently has insufficient funds to respond to all the calls on it and in recent years has had to use its endowment to save Dumfries House and ’s Diana and Actaeon.

4.3 NHMF and HLF play a vital role in heritage’s mixed economy. Both are UK-wide funds that cover the full range of the UK’s heritage. Funding should be equally available to all four countries of the UK, which should continue to have access to HLF’s UK-wide budget for major transformational projects. More than 50 of HLF’s awards of over £2m have been in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

4.4 Communities also want funding bodies to have an understanding of local heritage and to take decisions as close as possible to the grassroots. Almost 60% of HLF funding is decided by locally recruited committees across England and in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. 40% of HLF funding has gone to projects in the 25% most deprived local authority areas.

4.5 Funding should also be available for the whole breadth of the UK’s heritage including museums, galleries, libraries and archives; historic buildings and monuments; designed and natural landscapes; industrial, maritime and transport heritage; and the heritage of language, dialect and local traditions. HLF cuts across traditional, but artificial, heritage boundaries enabling communities to take action that brings wider benefits to local areas; for example through our successful Landscape Partnerships programme, which covers the heritage of an area that people value, whether natural, built or cultural.

4.6 Funding is needed for both large national and small local heritage projects. HLF values excellence delivered through heritage projects of all sizes, with grants from £3,000 to over £5m.

4.7 Lottery funding for heritage must retain a people-focussed approach. HLF funding has conserved and opened up the UK’s heritage to a much wider group of people than ever before. It has given the public a greater say in its care and management with 90% of awards in the 841

past year helping heritage projects to recruit and train volunteers. Getting people involved in heritage is one of the key ways to ensure that it will be sustained for future generations.

4.8 In order to maintain the arms-length principle, decisions about applications to both HLF and the NHMF must remain entirely independent of the Government. Furthermore Lottery distributors should fund projects that would not otherwise be funded by the government or public bodies in the pursuit of their statutory duties. But Lottery funding is not sufficient to replace all of the likely reduction in central and local government funding for heritage, of as much as £950m p.a., even with the expected increases in heritage’s share in 2011 and 2012.

4.9 Funders should continue to work together to maximise their impact and value for money across the heritage, culture and voluntary sectors. HLF currently delivers a number of funding streams with others, such as the Parks for People programme with the Big Lottery Fund, which has invested over £150m in public parks since 2006, and the Repair Grants for Places of Worship with English Heritage, which has awarded funding to Grade I and Grade II* Places of Worship since 1996.

4.10 Heritage funders must have robust, transparent and accessible processes that are trusted by applicants, while delivering value for money. Specialising entirely in grant-making allows HLF and NHMF to work impartially alongside the wide range of bodies they fund, providing support in all areas and maintaining a strong focus on customer service.

4.11 Funding has been and must continue to be distributed in a way that leaves a legacy of heritage in better condition for future generations and meets existing heritage need. The decision to give heritage a share of the National Lottery’s proceeds in 1994 followed decades of under-investment that had left the UK’s heritage in a parlous state. We must not risk returning to that state.

4.12 Finally, funding should continue to ensure that heritage plays a role in the UK’s economic recovery. At a time when the Government is seeking to rebalance the economy, heritage is playing a vital role in supporting growing industries such as tourism. Heritage-based tourism contributes £20.6bn to UK GDP and supports an estimated 195,000 full-time jobs, not just in London and the South East, but across the whole UK.

5. Business, philanthropic and private donations to heritage 5.1 It is important that the tax system plays its full part in supporting philanthropic giving and private donations to heritage. The Art Fund’s ‘Living and Giving’ proposal would be one way of providing such an incentive, for example through income tax or capital gains tax.

5.2 Both NHMF and HLF awards act as an important lever for other funders, major donors and public fundraising campaigns. HLF is often the first funder to commit to heritage projects. This endorsement gives confidence to other funders and has resulted in a further £3.3bn in partnership funding being secured for heritage projects since 1994. For emergency acquisitions, NHMF is often the principal funder supported by a small number of other funders, notably the Art Fund. Whilst trusts and foundations do contribute to NHMF-funded acquisitions, such as grants from the Esmee Fairbairn Charitable Trust and the Monument Trust for the purchase of the Siegfried Sassoon Archive, they cannot be relied upon as a sole source of funding. Most private funders expect to see some public funding contribution to acquire items for the national collection.

5.3 Donations from high worth individuals are often focused toward large capital projects, such as the National Portrait Gallery’s Ondaatje Wing, which was also supported by an £11.9m award from HLF. Private collectors also play a significant role: for example, with the help of 842

NHMF Anthony D'Offay's collection of modern art was secured for the National Galleries of Scotland and Tate for £26.5m despite being valued in excess of £131m.

5.4 Public fundraising campaigns can also raise money for acquisitions. However, they are quite rare and require both time and resources to succeed. Two of the most successful recent fundraising campaigns were those to secure Turner’s Blue Rigi and the Staffordshire Hoard. Both campaigns raised almost 25% of the total required from public donations, but still required a contribution of around 40% from NHMF.

6. Impact of changes to the National Lottery for heritage organisations 6.1 In 2008 HLF announced an annual grant budget of £180m p.a. from 2009 until the end of the current National Lottery licence period in 2019. Strong Lottery ticket sales have enabled HLF to increase that budget for 2010-2011 to £205m. The proposed change in Lottery good cause share for heritage from 16.6% to 18% in 2011-2012 and to 20% from 2012-2013 onwards means HLF could increase its budget by a further £19m in 2011-2012 and £50m from 2012-2013 if ticket sales remain at £5.4bn p.a.

6.2 As a result, HLF expects to support more projects and initiatives than originally expected. Additional income will allow HLF to be even more responsive and flexible in dealing with the issues arising from reduced public spending by supporting organisations through this period of change. It will also enable HLF to respond to other emerging challenges and opportunities for heritage, such as the public-policy focus on community ownership, asset transfer and decision- making at local level; the continuing development of digital technologies; the challenges of a low-carbon economy; and a growing, ageing and more diverse population.

7. Impact of changes to DCMS arms-length bodies for heritage 7.1 As new architecture is established to support a number of sectors within DCMS’s responsibility, it is important that places of worship; film, theatre and maritime heritage; and the museum, libraries and archives sectors continue to benefit from strategic leadership and investment. HLF and NHMF will work alongside any future arrangements and will continue to award funding to these important parts of the UK’s heritage.

7.2 DCMS has also stated that consideration is being given to “the role and remit of English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund and the National Heritage Memorial Fund”. NHMF is working with DCMS, and other bodies involved, to ensure the best possible future for the heritage, reinforcing the importance of the principles set out in section 4 of this submission.

September 2010 843 Written evidence submitted by the Society of London Theatre and Theatrical Management Association (arts 193)

Summary

• The performing arts play an important part in the cultural, social and economic life of the UK. Indeed, British culture in general and theatre in particular are the envy of many other countries. • Theatre in the UK brings real economic benefit. The sector as a whole generates nearly £3 billion pounds a year in economic activity. • Although the theatre sector does not expect to be immune from the impact of the current economic crisis, state investment is essential to ensure access to high quality, diverse theatre, opera and ballet. • No doubt more can be done by arts organisations to intensify their search for sponsorship and donations. But there is a limit to what can realistically can be achieved over a short time.

SOLT AND TMA

1. SOLT and its sister organisation, the TMA, are the trade associations that represent theatre managers, producers and owners across the UK at the large and middle scale.

2. Both organisations represent lyric as well as dramatic theatre. Their members represent both commercial and subsidised theatre.

Impact of Spending Cuts

3. It is difficult to respond to the first issue raised by the Committee. At the present time, it is unclear what precise cuts will be required of the DCMS; how those cuts will be distributed between the Department itself and its various Non Departmental Public Bodies. When it is known what cuts will be imposed on Arts Council England and on equivalent organisations in the devolved nations, they will need to consider carefully how those cuts should be distributed across their theatre portfolios; and within their theatre portfolios, they will need to decide the outcome for individual organisations.

4. Having said that, the sector does not realistically expect to be immune from the impact of the current national economic crisis. Yet great care will be needed to ensure that, so far as possible, the implementation of any cuts does not undermine the core functions of those organisations that continue to be in receipt of funding. In theatre ‘front line services’ are what happens on stage.

5. So far as the funding distributors are concerned, SOLT and TMA are anxious that they should not take the across the board approach to equal pain. Their decisions in due course will need to be informed by the significance of their current funding in relation to the total budgets of individual organisations; by the extent of their reliance also on local authority funding support; and by an assessment of their likely ability to raise more funds from the private sector. The issue of local authority funding is particularly important for regional theatres.

6. It is important to emphasise that theatre punches well above its weight in economic terms. The annual economic impact of theatre activity is some £3 billion, of which London theatre accounts for £2 billion. In addition, ticket sales alone account for 844 some £80m annually in VAT receipts. This is more than half the total sum spent on theatre by governments across the UK.

Working more closely together

7. Theatre organisations in both the subsidised and commercial sectors already work very closely together, sharing productions and their associated costs. In the last four years, 45 of the productions seen in commercially operated West End theatres began their life in the subsidised sector. If this source of product were to become significantly attenuated, the consequences would be far-reaching. But it would be wrong to suggest that no more extensive collaborations might be possible. We would expect subsidised organisations to explore this option vigorously, both between themselves and with commercial theatre interest.

The necessary level of public subsidy

8. There is no formula for determining the “right” level of public subsidy for the arts in the UK. Traditionally, funders have tended to look to international comparisons as offering some kind of benchmark. All such comparisons in recent years have shown that central and local government expenditure on the arts as a proportion of GDP is significantly higher in the UK than in the US, but at he same time significantly lower than in the more developed Western European countries. 9. Across Europe, both the total quantum of subsidy and the proportion of arts organisations’ income which is attributable to government support are significantly higher than has typically been the case in the UK. Whereas the larger subsidised lyric and dramatic theatre producers in the UK tend to receive about a third of their income in subsidy, in continental Europe the figure is often as high as two-thirds or even four-fifths.

System and structure of funding distribution

10. In both Scotland and Wales, the devolved governments have recently made significant changes to funding mechanisms in the arts. In England, the Arts Council has endured a number of reorganisations over the last 10 to 15 years. Although systems can always be improved, the most pressing need at this time is for consolidation rather than further change.

11. SOLT and TMA are firmly of the view that the arms length principle is important to the effective assessment of individual organisations and of their need for financial support.

Changes in the Distribution of National Lottery funds

12. The recent announcement of some increase in the proportion of National Lottery funds to be made available to the arts is welcome in itself. However, the increases are small and are likely to pale into insignificance by comparison with cuts in other budgets.

National Lottery policy guidelines

13. In general, SOLT and TMA would like to see lottery distributers in the arts given greater flexibility over the uses to which National Lottery funding may be put. Such flexibility could be particularly helpful at a time of cuts in central government budgets, especially if Lottery funds can be used to facilitate the transition of individual organisations from the current level of public funding to a lower level. 845

The abolition of the UK Film Council and MLAC

14. These are not matters on which it would be appropriate for SOLT and TMA to comment.

The long term role of business and philanthropy

15. UK arts organisations already devote significant resources to raising sponsorship and donations. They have been doing this for 30 to 40 years, and in some cases longer. Taken over all, the sector has been successful in this endeavour. Having said that, however, some individual organisations find it much more difficult to raise this kind of funding than others. This may be because of their geographical location or because of the nature of the work that they do. All subsidised organisations will undoubtedly respond to cuts in their public funding by intensifying their efforts to raise sponsorship and donations.

16. In this context, it is relevant to look at the US where business and private philanthropy play a much greater role in sustaining certain arts organisations. By and large, US philanthropy has been much more heavily attracted by lyric theatre than by dramatic theatre. One consequence of this is that culturally significant dramatic theatre within the US is largely confined to New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Across great swathes of the US, the only available theatre is touring Broadway musicals. It is no doubt partly for this reason that Broadway itself is very heavily dominated by musicals. At the time of writing, there are no plays being performed on Broadway.

Incentives to encourage private donations

17. If the government wishes the subsidised sector to increase its income from private donations, it needs to will some of the means as well as the ends. As things stand, donors make a donation of a given sum, and it is for the recipient charity to reclaim the tax. For high-rate taxpayers in particular, the total impact of their donation is obscure. In the US, by contract, donors deduct their donations from their gross income. Introducing this system would have a major impact on people’s willingness to give large sums.

18. In this context, it is relevant to observe that the US also offers a much more benign tax regime for investors in commercial theatre than is the case in the US. Again, if the UK system were amended along US lines, it would have a significant impact on the ability of commercial producers to raise investment.

September 2010

3 846

Written evidence submitted by a-n The Artists Information Company (arts 194)

We welcome this opportunity to submit evidence and our opinions to the committee’s deliberations on the future funding of the arts, and would equally welcome an invitation to expand on this in person to committee members in due course.

1 About a-n 1.1 a-n The Artists Information Company is a not-for-profit limited company concerned with stimulating and supporting the value of visual artists in society through a portfolio of publishing, advocacy and networking activities1. Over the past thirty years we have charted, commented on and assimilated the changing ecology of the arts funding system and its impact on the visual arts.

1.2 Our own sustainability as an “arts enterprise” in which public funding forms around 25% of turnover2 has been achieved through embracing innovative practices, collaborations and research partnerships and through fostering an active and committed community of members. We do not, however, underestimate the value that public investment through the Arts Council has played in ensuring the company’s sustainability, relevance ensured by research, and thus its critical ‘edge’.

1.3 Artists are our core community and we serve their professional needs and artistic aspirations by operating at the intersection between art education, arts employment and artistic practice. We regularly speak to over 32,000 arts professionals, creating and foster conversations amongst art students and artists, amongst tutors and career advisers, and between employers, commissioners and artists. We are the major recruitment agency for visual arts practitioners and pre-recession, were promoting over £26m of work opportunities annually3.

1.4 Our submission is from the perspective of the visual arts and offers examples of how our approach and those of our partners might inform and contribute to a reshaping of the arts funding landscape.

1.5 Our responses to this inquiry’s questions, that we have confined to the areas in which we have the greatest knowledge, are designed to explore some strategic, broadly-based solutions to reduced public funding whilst indicating the long-term benefits from investment in creative people and in practice-led infrastructures.

1.5 In overview, we propose that our existing arts funding infrastructure is outmoded because it retains much of the 20th century model of patronage. To thrive, the arts need a 21st century model that embraces the widest interpretation of ‘enterprise’, and that is capable of nurturing future working practices and investing in sustainable arts infrastructures and frameworks, supporting the well-being of wider society and of the very many professionals that the sector employs.

2. 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;

1 See http://www.a-n.co.uk/about_a-n for further information. 2 Although a-n is an ACE RFO, for every £1 of grant aid, we earn £3 from sales and services. This ratio has been held since the company’s inception in 1980. 3 Since 1989, a-n has reported on the changing face of work and employment for visual arts practitioners. 847

2.1 The challenge will be to ensure that quality and reach can be maintained in a difficult operating environment through pooling of knowledge expertise and resources. The implications of spending cuts raise two major issues: (a) Saving costs in terms of administration of funding to ensure that the maximum amount of spend can go to direct delivery of high-quality projects; (b) Ensuring that both strategic thinking and accountability remain as core principles when funding is distributed whatever routes are selected.

2.2 New strategies for arts funding should be informed by the role and reach of the networks that exist in the arts. In the visual arts, these range from the self-generated network of umbrella bodies Visual Arts UK4 to the strategic ALIAS5 network of artist-led organisations in South West England and the Live Art Network of London-based performance and interdisciplinary organisations Arts Admin, Live Art Development Agency and NewWorkNetwork. Location-specific networks include the groups and individuals who come together to create the annual X festival in London and Sideshow, the British Art Show artist-led ‘fringe’ in Nottingham.

2.3 We would propose that serious consideration is given to increasing the percentage of funding as devolved funds through such umbrella agencies and networks of smaller- scale organisations. These are well-placed to pinpoint and assess quality and distribute funding across their communities. Such networks are lighter-touch, and because they are closer to delivery and know their communities of interest, can ensure that diverse activities can be effectively enabled.

2.4 The Arts Council and others reasonably argue that ‘artists are at the centre’ of the arts. They are the powerhouse, driving the social impact of arts institutions and the markets for art. We would hope that the Inquiry would consider how best to sustain individuals within the arts – those who are driving innovation and social enterprise forward, charged by strong values, social beliefs and self-determination.

2.5 We hope that this Inquiry to recognise the impact of a high level6 of self- employment that results in an arts constituency that is time poor but ideas rich. In our view, the funding mechanisms to support this sector’s contribution need to be weighted towards supporting their essential R&D whilst valuing the judgement and expertise and inherent integrity in locating new audiences for their practice

2.6 There are many examples of successful devolved grant schemes to artists that could provide alternatives to the centrally-held Grant for the Arts scheme in respect of submissions by artists. These include bursaries through the Networking Artist s’ Networks Initiative7, Artsadmin, Artquest and artists’ studio groups, where accountability is ensured by a holding organisation. Such approaches play an important role in supporting grassroots activities that sustain artists as micro businesses in the wider arts economy and play a significant role in building audiences for and enthusiasm for the artists amongst communities.

4 Visual Arts UK includes the following visual arts umbrella bodies based throughout the UK: Artquest, Axis, a-n The Artists Information Company, AIR, Engage, Contemporary Art Society, Crafts Council, DACS International Curators’ Forum, National Federation of Artists Studios Providers and VAGA. 5 See http://www.aliasarts.org/alias_groups.html 6 According to a 2009 AIR survey of members 72% of visual artists are self-employed, against 41% of the creative industry as a whole. 7 See www.a-n.co.uk/nan for resources and reports on this initiative. 848

2.7 By decentralising arts funding in this way, more spend can be delivered to the “coal- face” where content is developed and delivered and less time will be spent ensuring the projects are “translated” for administration purposes.

3. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

3.1 A range of well-established demand-led organisations exist employing business models that encompass an income mix that includes community/ visitor contribution They are knowledgeable about their audiences and the needs of their location and are networked amongst peers locally, regionally, nationally and even internationally. Such networked organisations are already collaborating by pooling resources and expertise. Examples of these have been mentioned in 2.2.

3.2 Effective collaborative working, however, rarely arises from top-down or centralised directives. From our experience, it thrives when it develops from a shared understanding of need and values, and when collaboration is entered into and fully-endorsed amongst likeminded people. A+ (the a-n partnership with Artquest8) is such a collaboration, providing “a framework to deliver professional development for artists and those who work in the sector throughout the UK”. It has developed from longstanding arrangements, and is motivated by the desire to de-duplicate effort, whilst remaining open to experimentation and adding value to all investments made.

3.3 This collaborative, networked approach to arts working is enhanced by the virtual and digital exchange enabled by web based platforms for sharing knowledge. These also strengthen opportunities for communities of interest to collaborate9, find one another and share expertise and resources, both face-to-face and online.

3.4 Public iinvestment in the physical and virtual mechanisms that enable people to identify and build their collaborators and partners across the sector is vital to support economic growth. Our AIRTIME programme, developed to assist artists at the outset of the economic downturn, demonstrates what pooling resources and working collaboratively can achieve.10. The Professional Practice Programme delivered through the APD (Artists Professional Development Network)11 provided evidence of value to 15,000 graduates from across the UK who received high-quality starting out advice.

3.5 A new structure of public funding could reasonably offer incentives for arts organisations to strategically explore their commonalities and interests. For example, addressing how joint programming of a gallery building might better serve several organisations’ aspirations to extend audiences for, and participation in, the arts. Rather than letting out space to earn revenue or sharing back office functions, this approach is

8 This provides a responsive and imaginative framework to deliver professional development for artists and those who work in the sector throughout the UK. 9 An example is the Artists Parents Talking project developed through conversations amongst a range of artists in the UK on www.a-n.co.uk/artists_talking that has now evolved into discussion forums and will undertake research. 10 Over 800 artists and final year art students and some 200 organisations and universities annually participate in AIRTIME events across England and Wales. Input from series partner DACS (Design and Artists Copyright Society) augmented by a combination of local and regional bodies including universities, local authorities and enterprise agencies. 11 APD (Artists Professional Development Network) – over 40 organisations throughout the UK that provide professional and business development courses specifically for artists www.apd-network.info 849

premised on exploring innovative ways of thinking about the presentation and interpretation of art and the building of audiences for it. There is also the potential to use the industry endorsed recommendations from CCS Visual Arts Blueprint12 as priorities to guide to deliver an imaginative infrastructure that involves key stakeholders in service delivery.

3.6 Co-production, collaborative working and multiple financing options are the norm in digital media and production companies. Initiatives such as Project Canvas13, would seem to offer significant platforms for digital arts content direct into households through the TV. Such initiatives also offer new income strands both for makers from their Intellectual property and for producing organisations, to support tailored business models and are worthy of investment. However, such investment will pay off as art is more widely accessible to broader and new audiences, contributing to the viability of organisations and individuals concerned.

3.7 The some 300 proactive artists’ groups throughout the UK listed on www.a-n.co.uk encompass a wide spectrum of career stage and practice and with peer review, provide effective funding accountability. With IT developments and web based applications, “self determined” learning and exchange, such groups offer a more engaged cultural life in our country. They offer a rich seam for digital content for broadcasting whilst also contributing to the imperatives of the “Big Society”.

3.8 Analysis of artists’ use of public funds shows that they tend to plough their funds back into their work, supporting local economies. There is scant evidence that artists are more of a risk for public funding than any other small start up enterprises, yet the level of accountability demand placed them is disproportionate.

4. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

We refer you to commentary in previous sections, where a shift in approach would substantially improve value for money and impact of public funding on audiences and overall economy..

5. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

5.1 The current system’s reliance on ‘tiers within funding’ has created a uniformity, an inherent within centrally-delivered grants schemes that ignore peer review within their decision making.

5.2 We argued in an invited submission to Better Regulation Executive in October 2006 that “the [centralised] method of grants distribution is not good value for money in terms of staff and applicants’ time (many of whom are self-employed) and does not necessarily guarantee quality”.

5.3 We would propose that subsidiarity becomes an organising principle for funding decisions, namely that matters should be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralised competent authority. The concept is applicable in the fields of government most recently presented in the “Big Society”.

12 For Blueprint Recommendations see: http://www.ccskills.org.uk/Ourindustries/Visualarts/tabid/102/Default.aspx 13 BBC and Arts Council initiative www.projectcanvas.info 850

5.4 Over the last decade, the arts funding system has attempted to fit demand-led networks into its existing hierarchical top-down accountability structures when the infrastructure of collaboration and development has adopted other more inclusive, contemporary working practices.

5.5 By adopting the subsidiarity principle, decisions can be made at level proportionate with funding amount and with an appropriate level of expertise. There are numerous existing models to give light touch yet accountable bursaries/ funding using peer led panels and experts14.

6. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations; No comment – not an area of expertise

7. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed; No comment – not an area of expertise

8. 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;

8.1 We would argue that the arm’s length bodies have been superseded terms of effectiveness by the growth over the last decade years of specialist networks. Peer networks (amongst self-employed artists and institutions where interaction happens on a colleague to colleague level rather than as a bureaucratic process) offer a prime resource for supporting for artistic development whist ensuring that quality is heightened through its inherent critique.

8.2 We propose that consideration is given to devolving administration of arts and cultural industries funding schemes aimed at individual artists to specialist visual arts organisations and artists’ networks with criteria for acceptance based on peer review and track-record. This will serve to support the supply side of the industry for the ultimate benefit of the wider community and of clients.

9. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

9.1 A future funding structure should recognise the interface between subsidy and investment. Philanthropy can more widely defined as support for ‘social enterprise’, so that it encompasses the socially-engaged activities that artists undertake locally and regionally and that knit together people in a area. Light-touch mechanisms that genuinely enable local and regional businesses and interested individuals to financially support their arts communities and the talent of individuals within these would be welcomed.

14 These include a-n’s NAN bursaries that have been supported by Esmee Fairbairn Trust, ERDF and ACE and a-n’s own earned income. Impact reports can be viewed at www.a- n.co.uk/nan 851

9.2 Our research has revealed that artists create their own economies, driven by the specificities of their practice15. It is important to acknowledge this, and to ensure that the arts can continue to be both “mirror and lens” for the UK and that not only immediately-assimilated populist work is deemed worthy of support.

10. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations. We refer you to the answers above.

September 2010

15 a-n’s Future forecast enquiry into the future practices and resources for visual artists http://www.a-n.co.uk/research/topic/471527 852

Written evidence submitted by the Art Fund (arts 195)

1. The Art Fund is the UK’s national fundraising charity for works of art. We give grants of more than £4 million each year to enable museums and galleries to buy works of art. We don’t receive government funding; our 80,000 members and 600 volunteers across the country make our work possible. We believe that everyone should have access to great art and that by bringing together the contributions of our members and supporters, we can all play a part in enriching the range, quality and understanding of art for all to experience.

2. We work closely with the bodies overseeing, representing and helping to fund the arts and heritage sector, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) and the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF).

3. We will restrict our comments to the most relevant areas of the Committee’s inquiry, with a particular focus on the museum and gallery sector. The terms ‘museum’ and ‘museums’ are used to denote both museums and galleries.

The impact of cuts in public funding

4. Museums are a valuable and unique resource, providing knowledge and inspiration while connecting people and communities. They attract audiences from home and abroad, and our major institutions showcase the best of UK culture and heritage to the rest of the world. In recent years many museums have reinvented themselves: using a base of public funding they have been able to generate substantial private investment to rebuild, remain relevant and become truly outstanding. At the same time they have become increasingly popular: over 50% of UK museums saw an increase in visits during 20091. 46.7% of adults now visit a museum, gallery or archive and over three quarters (75.7%) engage with the arts.2

5. The proposed cuts to public spending are likely to have a significant impact on museums across the UK. National museums and galleries receive grant-in-aid directly from central government, which on average accounts for almost 50% of a museums funding3. The rest is raised commercially, or from charitable sources or private individuals. National museums received a 3% cut in funding for this year and have been asked to model cuts to their public funding of 25-40% to 2014/15. National museums use public money to generate £240 million of additional funding, and the planned cuts could severely hamper their efforts to lever money from other sources.

6. The proposed cuts could impact on several fronts, but ‘additional services’ such as education and outreach programmes, which have grown in size and scope in recent years, will be particularly vulnerable. Additionally the ‘blockbuster’ exhibitions we have become used to may be threatened on two fronts - as less money is available within the museum, and as private sector sponsorship becomes more difficult to attract. The policy of free admission to national museums and galleries will be increasingly difficult to maintain. It has been an astounding

1 The Art Fund Museum Survey March‐September 2009 2 Taking Part: the National Survey of Culture, Leisure and Sport, Adult and Child report 2009/10, August 2010 3 This figure varies: 60% of Tate’s funding, for example, is now raised from commercial, private and charitable sources. 853

success, acting as a major boost for tourism and doubling the number of visitors since it was introduced in 2001, but even before the planned cuts are made, government grant-in-aid fails to compensate for the high costs involved. It would be a real backwards step if museums were forced to bring back entry charges in some form, especially as we approach the tenth anniversary of the policy’s introduction.

7. We are particularly concerned that cuts may be directed at curatorial posts and acquisition budgets. When faced with the choice between keeping the lights on and buying new objects, the decision seems easy. But expert curators with the resources and knowledge to buy, display and interpret new objects are vital to the medium- and long-term health and appeal of a museum, enabling it to fulfil its core functions of caring for, researching and developing collections. Our last ‘Collecting Challenge’ research, which explored museum collecting activity 2005-2010, found that curatorial posts and skills are under threat in 20% of museums, and 50% are unable to allocate any money to new acquisitions. New acquisitions bring in new and repeat visitors, and once a museum gets out of the habit of collecting, it is very difficult to start again. We would urge museums not to sacrifice curatorship, scholarship and the strategic development of the permanent collection in order to make short-term savings, and public funders to recognise that the long-term health of these institutions depends on the quality of the collection and the depth of knowledge lying behind its presentation to the public.

8. The National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF) is an important source of funding for museums and galleries wanting to acquire significant heritage treasures. Known as the government’s ‘fund of last resort’ for heritage items at risk, it has worked with the Art Fund consistently over the years to help acquire such works as the Vale of York Hoard, Ruben’s Multiple Sketch for the Banqueting House Ceiling for Tate, and Dumfries House and its contents. It currently has £10 million a year to spend: a woefully inadequate sum, especially as we know of so many magnificent treasures coming up for sale, including the sister painting to Diana and Actaeon, Titian’s Diana and Callisto, in 2012. While we understand the pressures in the public purse, we urge the government to retain the NHMF budget at £10 million, and to increase this when finances allow.

The abolition of the MLA

9. Following the decision to abolish the MLA from April 2012, we need to ensure that our museums continue to be properly resourced and supported. The MLA administers a number of important programmes, including Renaissance in the Regions and export controls for works of art. Arts Council England (ACE) would be well-placed to oversee several functions including the Renaissance in the Regions scheme, although we would strongly recommend that museums form a distinct branch of ACE activity, rather than being absorbed into a broader department structure.

10. It would be logical to transfer responsibility for the export control system and the Acceptance in Lieu scheme (which enables individuals to transfer artworks into public ownership in lieu of paying inheritance tax owed) to the DCMS.

Working together

11. A number of local authority-owned museums share space or resources in order to reduce cost and maximise economies of scale. Tyne and Wear Museums and Beamish, the open air museum, operate a joint storage facility on the Beamish site; and City Council is one 854

of many currently looking to build an integrated museums store, to house the reserve collections of all its museum sites.

12. This seems a sensible approach and one that could be taken further. Where possible, museums should be encouraged to work across local authority boundaries to share resources or merge back-office functions, for example storage space, human resources or transport costs. National museums should be encouraged to do the same, to reduce costs and increase efficiency.

13. Museums should also be encouraged to share their collections and to make more joint- acquisitions. Museums have traditionally viewed their permanent collections in isolation, rather than as part of a shared national collection. The Art Fund has helped several museums to work together to acquire objects in recent years, including the Staffordshire Hoard (for museums in the Midlands), Willie Doherty’s Buried for the Imperial War Museum and Wolverhampton Art Gallery; and Titian’s Diana and Actaeon for the National Gallery, London and National Galleries of Scotland. We are also currently sponsoring the UK-wide touring exhibition of ARTIST ROOMS, the collection of modern and contemporary art acquired for the nation from dealer Anthony d’Offay, so that the collection is used to its fullest potential. We always encourage museums to consider working in partnership to acquire and share new objects.

The National Lottery

14. In the last 15 years Lottery money, allocated through the HLF, has helped to transform museums and galleries across the UK. HLF income has declined in the last few years following the creation of the Big Lottery Fund and as Lottery money is diverted to help fund the 2012 Olympics. The government proposes to restore the proportion of Lottery funding the HLF receives back to its original 20%, which will mean an additional £50 million a year. We welcome this, especially at a time when public funding to museums and galleries is being so severely squeezed.

15. To further boost income to the Lottery distributors, the government should also introduce a new Gross Profits Tax regime which would allow the Lottery operator (Camelot) to pay tax after prizes have been paid to players, rather than before. This change would allow the operator to increase prize payouts on Lottery games and stimulate sales; generating an extra estimated £270m for good causes over 10 years4.

16. As the funding available is to change, we would welcome a review of policy guidelines for Lottery distributors. In particular we believe HLF support for acquisitions is severely inadequate: last year less than 1% of its budget went to help museums collect, down from a peak of 10% in 1995/965. We would welcome the opportunity to make the case for additional support in this area.

Encouraging philanthropy

17. If state funding for the arts and heritage recedes, money will need to be found from elsewhere. The Secretary of State for Culture is right to want to promote a culture of philanthropy in the UK. But we have a number of concerns.

4 Camelot Gross Profits Tax briefing, July 2009 5 Figures provided by HLF head office 855

18. There seems to be some confusion over what philanthropy means, and the lines between private philanthropy and corporate sponsorship are often blurred. Corporate sponsorship is an important element of arts funding (many blockbuster museum exhibitions would not be staged without corporate support), but it is not philanthropic: it is a business transaction. Philanthropy is the donation of cash or objects. The Art Fund is a philanthropic organisation: our 80,000 members and supporters donate money (from £33 each year to thousands of pounds), which is then pooled to buy art for public collections.

19. If the government is really serious about building a culture of philanthropy, there will need to be both an acceptance by HM Treasury that tax incentives have a central part to play, and a review of the whole tax system.

20. The UK tax system has its roots in the Edwardian era and where incentives exist, they are based on offering incentives to sell privately to museums and galleries rather than selling on the open market; it does not promote individual giving or link tax write-offs to gifts. Two schemes exist to encourage the transfer of art into the public domain: Acceptance in Lieu, which allows individuals to settle tax owed with a work of art or land; and Private Treaty Sales, which give tax deductions to those selling art to public collections instead of on the open market. These are important schemes, but neither has a philanthropic element.

21. Even Gift Aid, which is often promoted as a philanthropic tax incentive, is becoming in practice more of a match-funding scheme that anything about incentivising individuals by offering reduction in tax payable in return for donations to charity. While a small number of major donors do use Gift Aid as a tax incentive (particularly benefiting the arts sector), it does not encourage additional giving by the vast majority of people ‘gift aiding’ their donations to charity.

22. There are even fewer incentives currently available to encourage people to donate art and heritage treasures to the nation. The Art Fund has long campaigned for the introduction of a tax incentive to encourage the lifetime donation of art to museums and galleries, as exists in almost every other Western nation. We have submitted a detailed proposal, and both parties in the current coalition government pledged to introduce our scheme in their pre-election manifesto. We urge them to now make good their promise, which would help our public collections to develop at a time when museums are struggling financially.

September 2010 856

Written evidence submitted by the National Museum of Science & Industry (NMSI) (arts 196)

NMSI supports the response submitted by the National Museums Directors’ Conference. Below are some additional points we wish to raise in relation to NMSI specifically.

1) 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.

• Government funding is of particular importance to ensuring collections are housed and cared for appropriately. It is a much greater challenge to secure external funding for such work as opposed to more obviously public facing activity such as exhibitions and public programmes. We have considerable work still to do in upgrading the housing of our collections if we are to provide access to the full extent of these collections. Reductions in government funding will significantly impact on our ability to do this.

• When seeking external private funding, we can, at the moment, demonstrate NMSI commitment to a particular project through capital investment. Going forwards we may not be able to inject seed corn funding and therefore funders could question our commitment.

• Our museums based at Bradford and York are major contributors to the regional tourism economy. If they are to continue to remain attractive and draw tourists to the region, continued investment is required. Reduction in investment from Government sources will impact on the tourism economy.

2) What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale.

• NMSI is already working with other national museums in the area of joint procurement. It is recognised there could be further savings if back-office functions were shared. However, if this is to be achieved strong direction and support would be needed from DCMS to challenge the status quo and enable this to be achieved in practical governance terms.

3) What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable.

• We reiterate NMDC’s point with regard free admission. If this continues to be Government policy it must be recognised this requires funding.

• Again, we emphasise that public subsidy for arts and heritage has a direct impact on the tourism economy and is necessary if museums are to remain primary tourist attractions.

4) Whether the current system, and structure, of funding is the right one.

• See NMDC response

857

5) What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery Funds will have on arts and heritage organisations.

• NMSI has submitted a response to the National Lottery Shares Consultation confirming we strongly support the proposed redistribution. The HLF is a vital source of capital funding enabling us to develop and refresh our museums. Any increase to the funds available will have a beneficial impact on the visitor experience and our ability to attract visitors to the museum and region. • It is important that HLF funds continue to be available for national organisations and large scale developments. Other Lottery funding has favoured more grass roots, community type investment.

6) Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed.

• NMSI has an important role in leading public engagement with science. The HLF should ensure it continues to recognise that science is an important part of culture, and be explicit in its support of this.

• It is recognised that HLF needs to ensure public money is wisely invested and desired outcomes achieved. Monitoring and supervision is an important part of this process, and one the NMSI carries out internally through its own project management procedures. HLF could reduce the burden it places on itself and other organisations when monitoring projects by recognising the management skills and experience already held by institutions delivering projects, and taking a lighter touch approach when appropriate.

• Whilst the application process to HLF has simplified there is still room for improvement. The HLF should look towards some of the private major Trusts and Foundations who regularly donate seven figure sums and how their application and monitoring process compares.

7) 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.

• The abolition of the UK Film Council will have a direct impact on the film programme offered by the National Media Museum which is funded via Yorkshire Screen, which in itself dependent on UK Film Council funding. There is therefore uncertainty with regard who the future distributor of such funding will be.

• The abolition of MLA may see a greater advisory role placed on national museums, both with Government and the sector.

• The abolition of the RDA’s has had a direct impact on our major capital development project at the National Railway Museum, to which Yorkshire Forward had been a major funder. Such changes increase reliance on the HLF to enable the delivery of capital projects.

858

8) Whether business and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level.

• There is not a culture of responsibility or duty amongst business and philanthropists to fund our sector: it is a nice to do and good business sense. We need to develop a culture where people believe it is right and proper for them to reinvest a sizeable portion of their wealth into the cultural sector, regardless of the tax incentives on offer.

• There needs to be a change in culture amongst those that do give to give significant unrestricted sums of money. This is commonplace in the Third Sector but not ours. The Third Sector has developed a sense of trust with its major funders; that they are the experts and know best how to spend their income.

9) Whether there needs to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

• We agree fundraising is hugely important and anything to encourage sponsorship and donations is welcomed. However it is important to recognise this is more easily achieved in London, whilst major donations and sponsorship is much harder to achieve and rely on outside of London.

September 2010 859

Written evidence submitted by the Royal Opera House (arts 197)

1. Summary

• The recent and future cuts, coming on top of the recession and extra costs arising from Government policy on tax, pensions and National Insurance, will challenge the ability of arts organisations to create new work, nurture new talent and to maintain the fabric of our arts venues. • Arts organisations have a long tradition of artistic collaboration, from touring to co- productions, but arguably could do more to pool resources and expertise in developing infrastructure. • There is a tipping point at which the cuts damage an organisation’s artistic output and so its ability to attract earned and philanthropic income. Estimates current in the sector lie at around the 10% mark, assuming that the cuts were of short duration. • The arms-length principle has served the sector well and should be retained. Longer- term funding agreements and support for the development of endowments would further enhance the independence of arts organisations. • The Royal Opera House supports the Government’s wish to restore the National Lottery to its original purpose and to restore the shares of the National Lottery Distribution Fund to 20% for each of the good causes of sport, heritage and the arts, but believes strongly that this should not be seen as in any way substituting for any reduction in Government funding. • We do not believe that the policy guidelines for the National Lottery need to be reviewed, except to support the proposal contained in the Conservative Manifesto to make one-off endowment grants available on a competitive basis from the Lottery every year. • We support any changes to the funding infrastructure that focus more monies on front line arts delivery. • Businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts, but are likely to continue to focus their efforts on London and their funding will continue to be vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the economy. • To increase philanthropy it is vital that the Government creates a tax regime that nurtures and rewards giving.

These and the comments below are confined to the Arts sector since our knowledge of the Heritage sector is limited.

2. The Royal Opera House

2.1 The Royal Opera House (ROH) is home to world class companies The Royal Opera and The Royal Ballet, and to the ROH2 programme which develops the artforms, nurtures new artists and provides a London platform as well as support for artistic partner companies.

2.2 In 2008-9 the ROH sold 700,000 tickets, more than half priced less than £50. In addition audiences around the country saw performances in cinemas and free on television and big screens.

2.3 The ROH runs important education and skills programmes and is a leader within the arts sector in developing digital access to all aspects of its work.

2.4 Public subsidy in the form of an annual grant from Arts Council England. In the last financial year this constituted just 28% of Royal Opera House income. 860

2.5 The ROH was reopened in 1999 following renovation funded by a mix of National Lottery funding and private philanthropy with the express intent of increasing public access to the building and to the artistic work taking place within it.

2.6 Following the reopening an endowment fund, the Royal Opera House Endowment Fund 2000, was created. This generated £790k in the last financial year.

2.7 The Royal Opera House has partnered with Thurrock Council in developing the ROH production facilities as part of the High House Production Park, a Thames Gateway regeneration project.

3. ROH response to the Committee’s questions

3.1 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

3.1.1 The Government spending cuts come at a time when a) the economic climate is depressing earned income, and b) other Government policies are impacting expenditure. In the case of the ROH the latter are specifically: • reallocation of responsibility for VAT on imported services: cost to ROH is £1m pa • rise in VAT to 20%: potential cost to ROH of £0.6m pa • expiry of transitional relief on Gift Aid: cost to ROH estimated at £170k pa • pensions auto-enrolment: potential cost to ROH of at least £0.5m pa • National Insurance: 1% increase from April 2011 is an additional annual cost of £0.5m

3.1.2 It is also worth noting that the cuts are being imposed and proposed at a time when many arts venues created or renovated with Lottery funds in order to maximise public use are suffering from heavy wear and tear requiring increased capital investment. Deep cuts in arts spending will impair the sector’s ability to safeguard this investment in British culture for the future.

3.1.3 Sustaining levels of earned income depends upon maintaining the level of core public investment. Commercial exploitation depends in large part on the creation of new and original artworks, and this is exactly the purpose of public funding.

3.1.4 Equally, we cannot expect philanthropists to fill a gap left by Government funding. The level of individual philanthropic giving to the arts has increased steadily over the years, especially in the capital. But it is questionable whether the best way to encourage higher levels of giving is to ask philanthropists to replace monies previously provided by Government. Indeed there is a danger that philanthropists feel that their generosity is being taken for granted, and that could reverse decades of patient development of philanthropic habits in the country.

3.1.5 In addition, not all artistic work is equally attractive to philanthropists. It is much harder to attract funding for the work of lesser known artists or those performing in less established artforms. It is also much harder for regional venues and artistic companies. We know this from our own experience where we struggle to attract private funding for our work in developing new creative artists (choreographers, composers, librettists and directors), for national touring and for work which does not fit established models.

861

3.2 What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

3.2.1 The Royal Opera House is already a very good example of partnership working. The Royal Opera, The Royal Ballet and ROH2 all share the same resources, from Costume and Scenic workshops to Marketing, PR and Fundraising, IT HR and Finance and of course our ROH Orchestra. This results in considerable efficiencies and allows us to achieve a greater return on our public investment.

3.2.2 Co-productions and co-commissions significantly reduce investment and risk for performing companies. The Royal Opera regularly joins with leading opera houses across the world and with small and medium sized British companies in creating new shows for our main stage and our smaller Linbury Studio Theatre. The Royal Ballet is undertaking two co-productions this season.

3.2.3 ROH2 collaborates with a wide range of artists, companies and venues. For instance, composers nurtured through our opera development programme go on to work with small to mid-scale companies that can produce and tour their pieces cost- effectively, and new works commissioned by ROH2 tour to smaller regional theatres and festivals.

3.2.4 Many arts organisations have experienced the need or opportunity to invest in digital, and especially website, development in recent years. Given the fast pace of change in this field, many organisations find themselves running to keep up with customer expectations and commercial practice. The Royal Opera House is taking steps to establish an ‘Open Source’ approach in which collaborating arts organisations would work together to create new formats, new products and new opportunities for audience interaction and revenue generation.

3.2.5 For performing arts organisations in particular, the development of audiences and the delivery of effective ticketing, fundraising and customer relationship management (CRM) systems is of the utmost importance. The ROH is anticipating the need to make significant changes in its infrastructure to support these operations and has already taken steps to involve other arts venues in looking at new ways of working, including the possibility of pooling resources for the development of new systems or working together in a consortium to improve efficiency and capacity.

3.2.6 The Finance Directors of some of the major Regularly Funded Organisations are meeting in September to look at what potential there might be for further collaboration.

3.3 What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable

3.3.1 As noted above (3.1.3. and 3.1.4), sustaining levels of both earned and philanthropic income depends upon maintaining the level of core public investment. Though the business models of arts organisations vary, from recent discussions with colleagues in the sector a common consensus emerges that there is a tipping point in terms of the cuts, which if exceeded will destroy those business models. That tipping point for most organisations probably lies around 10%.

3.3.2 The Arts Council England has stated that in their reckoning there is a tipping point between 10% and 15% where the sector as a whole becomes less viable.

862

3.3.3 The organisation Arts & Business refers to the ‘gold standard’ of one third public funding, one third philanthropy and one third self-generated. An organisation such at the Royal Opera House, already generating 72% of its own revenue, exceeds that gold standard. But by the same token, since it is already actively exploiting those options it has less scope to open up wholly new revenue streams.

3.3.4 It should be noted that the risk to the sector increases if the cuts are sustained. This would compromise our ability to create new work and to maintain the fabric of our arts venues. With diminished artistic output and a poorer audience experience it would be hard to attract earned and philanthropic income, throwing the sector into a vicious downward spiral.

3.4 Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one

3.4.1 The arms-length principle has served the sector very well and we would not want to see that changed.

3.4.2 The current system under which the Arts Council distributes both Government and Lottery monies is both efficient and effective, enabling the Arts Council to maintain a holistic view of statutory funding of the Arts.

3.4.3 One helpful change would be longer term funding contracts for organisations like the ROH that plan and make financial commitments many years in advance.

3.4.4 From our experience of partnering with local authorities, we suspect that there might be value in closer collaboration between the Arts Council and local authorities in meeting shared objectives in the most cost-effective manner.

3.5 What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations

3.5.1 The Royal Opera House supports the Government’s wish to restore the National Lottery to its original purpose and to restore the shares of the National Lottery Distribution Fund to 20% for each of the good causes of sport, heritage and the arts. However we believe that the restoration of Lottery shares is justified in its own terms and should be viewed independently of proposed Government cuts. That is to say that the restoration of Lottery shares should not be seen as in any way substituting for any reduction in Government funding for the arts.

3.5.2 In particular we believe that the additional monies which will be forthcoming to the Arts Council from the Lottery will enable the Arts Council to assist otherwise thriving arts organisations that are encountering funding difficulties due to a) the continuing difficult economic climate, or b) the need for exceptional capital investment to maintain the fabric of important arts venues (see also section 3.1.2).

3.6 Whether policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed

3.6.1 No. Overall we believe that the current policy guidelines have served the sector well.

3.6.2 We do however support the Conservative party pre-election pledge to make one- off endowment grants available on a competitive basis from the Lottery every year.

863

3.7 The impact of recent changes to DCMS arms-length bodies – in particular the abolition of the UK Film Council and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council

3.7.1 These changes do not apply directly to the performing arts sector. However in general we support the policy of focusing monies on front line arts delivery.

3.8 Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level

3.8.1 Businesses and philanthropists already play a long-term role in funding arts, though more at a national level and more in London.

3.8.2 Private funding is especially vulnerable to external factors, as demonstrated by the recession in the UK and, even more strongly, in the United States. In the US, where the balance of public and private funding is more heavily weighted towards philanthropy and sponsorship, arts administrators say they are experiencing a funding crisis. Originality and creativity is suffering in the US as a consequence. The maintenance of a steady and more even balance of public and private support protects organisations, and more importantly their artistic output, against such vicissitudes.

3.8.3 Business support in the UK has been particularly hit by the recession and current economic forecasts suggest that it is unlikely to pick up significantly in the foreseeable future.

3.8.4 Private funders rarely support core costs. Even an organisation such as the Royal Opera House that has a really strong membership base finds that the bulk of its private funding is project based. Moreover this tendency is increasing with the shift from commercial sponsorship to individual philanthropy.

3.8.5 Over dependence on private funding can lead to strategy and practice becoming overly-driven by private donors, to the detriment of the public interest.

3.8.6 In particular such over dependence can put pressure on organisations to favour the interests of certain sections of their audience, to the detriment of the broader public. In the case of the Royal Opera House, it is public monies that ensure that our building and our programmes are open to the public and that our ticket prices are affordable.

3.8.7 However, carefully managed, private funding can and does play an important role in enhancing the quality, ambition and reach of our work.

3.9 Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations

3.9.1 Yes. The most effective way that Government can encourage private giving is through changes to the tax regime.

3.9.2 The higher-rate tax rebate currently available to donors through Gift Aid incentivises donors and so maximises the amount of philanthropic monies available to the sector. Its removal could quickly unbalance established patterns of giving.

864

3.9.3 The tax regime must continue to encourage the setting up of new charitable foundations, both to increase the number of such foundations and to replace major expendable funds that are due to conclude in the foreseeable future.

3.9.4 Incentivising long-term, committed giving could provide the financial security to arts organisations to take bold, inventive and long-term artistic decisions. Such philanthropic commitments would also boost Britain’s ability to compete for artistic talent in a tough international market.

September 2010

865

Written evidence submitted by Making Music (arts 198)

1. Summary

1.1 This submission is from Making Music, formerly known as the National Federation of Music Societies. We welcome the opportunity to make this contribution to the debate on arts funding.

1.2 Making Music is the largest umbrella group in the UK operating in the voluntary arts, with around 3,000 member groups representing some 200,000 voluntary and amateur arts practitioners.

1.3 Most of our members receive little or no public subsidy, yet put on 12,500 or so concerts a year and have a turnover of some £43 million, much of which is spent with the music industry.

1.4 Our members rely extensively upon us for practical support, and our Arts Council England grant accordingly works very hard to support this network.

1.5 Our relationship with Arts Council England is good, and we strongly support its role in providing arms-length funding for the arts in England.

1.6 We are concerned that the emphasis on “front-line” organisations could disadvantage membership and umbrella organisations such as ourselves upon whom small under-resourced performing and promoting groups must rely. This would be a mistake, as without us our members would be unable to afford and resource their events.

1.7 We feel that there is a barrier to giving in the arts because of a widespread perception that arts activity is elitist and self-serving. Consequently we would welcome a much greater emphasis on the benefits of arts activity to society at large.

1.8 We would like to see the National Lottery return to one of its earlier roles of providing small-scale grants to grass roots organisations. We welcome the return of Lottery shares to their original purpose.

1.9 We would like to see increased fiscal incentives for individuals and businesses to support arts organisations and activity.

1.10 We support initiatives to help arts organisations to work together at an infrastructure level. These must be undertaken in full cognizance of the practical difficulties. We would especially welcome capital expenditure to support premises and infrastructure issues.

1.11 We believe our members offer an example of the Big Society in action, as the events they promote are strongly community-focussed and offer opportunities and services to local people without a call upon the public purse. We would like to see due recognition of this by both Local Authorities and Government.

2. Submission

2.1 This submission is from Making Music, formerly known as the National Federation of Music Societies. It has been seen and approved by the Board of 866

Management. We welcome the opportunity to share our views on arts funding with the Select Committee.

2.2 Making Music is the largest umbrella group in the UK operating in the voluntary arts. Its members, numbering nearly 3,000, are all amateur and voluntary arts organisations, who are responsible for putting on around 12,500 concerts and events annually, in all parts of the UK. They involve some 200,000 people as active performers and promoters of events. We are an Arts Council England Regularly Funded Organisation, in receipt of some £300,000 in 2010/11.

2.3 Like many such umbrella groups Making Music was formed by its members, its Board and Regional organisations are elected by its members, and is consequently able to represent them. But as the largest such group of its kind in the UK, we also feel able to offer an insight into the world of voluntary music as a whole.

2.4 Making Music offers a range of services to support its members and enable them to flourish, especially in the areas of administration, marketing, artist selection, audience development and particularly in encouraging them to be active in their communities. We believe that without such support and encouragement our members would be less able to achieve the quality of event that they currently offer, and less able to undertake the outreach work that is so vital for the future.

2.5 The diversity of Making Music’s members is extensive. They range from traditional classical music organisations to samba bands, Indian classical music organisations, and steel pan groups. They encompass large and stable organisations, small ad hoc groups, and everything in between.

2.6 In making this submission we believe that we represent the views of the great majority of our members. Unfortunately there has not been time to consult extensively with them on these subjects (especially as their activities tend to be much reduced during the summer holiday period) but our knowledge of them through our elected representatives and extensive survey work earlier this summer gives us confidence that we represent their views accurately.

3. Funding of the voluntary music sector

3.1 We believe it fair to say that historically the voluntary music sector has been funded on a very different basis to its professional equivalent. Until 1985 the National Federation of Music Societies [NFMS] was responsible for the distribution of Government grants to its members; when that responsibility was removed it continued to play a similar role in some English regions until as recently as 2007. It now has no such role to play. Although in some quarters this loss has been lamented, NFMS, now known as Making Music, has successfully repositioned itself as a service-based organisation, and judging by its continued growth is fulfilling a need for its members.

3.2 After the loss of funding from NFMS, it has been much harder for amateur music groups to access funding for core activities. Whilst in many cases funds for special projects are still available and are accessible to amateur groups on an equal footing with their professional counterparts, there is rarely the equivalent of the core subsidy available to some professional orchestras and opera companies. This has caused many groups to have to scale back their activities; for example by employing fewer professional musicians, undertaking 867

fewer concerts, hiring less prestigious venues, reducing community education activities etc.

3.3 This loss of core funding, whilst disappointing in some ways, does at least ensure that a) amateur arts activity is predicated upon a sustainable business model without the need for external funding sources, and b) the call upon the public purse from the voluntary sector is negligible. This is significant in terms of the Big Society initiative (see below at paragraph 9).

3.4 Accordingly, most of our members receive no public subsidy whatsoever, whether from Arts Council England [ACE] or their local authority [LA]. In spite of this, according to our 2010 financial survey, they are able to achieve a turnover of some £43 million, £19 million of which is spent on professional artists, and donate £1.7 million to charity along the way. They are a model of value for money in terms of arts activity.

3.5 Although these are impressive statistics, it is clearly true that channelling more money into the voluntary music sector would have beneficial effects, particularly in terms of being able to undertake more activities within the community. Many of our members are keen to reach out more extensively into the communities in which they operate, but find doing so risky. Additional funds, even on the basis of guarantees against loss, would yield more extensive and cost-effective results in this area than an equivalent intervention in the professional sector. Voluntary music groups could be seen as an under-utilised resource for delivering social benefits within the community – more on this is to be found in section 9.

3.6 The biggest funding concern we have at the moment is in Local Authorities. Their extreme budgetary constraints will not only, we fear, affect those few groups in receipt of financial support, but also those who receive in-kind support such as subsidised venues, free publicity and so on. Although there is considerable evidence that music groups are providing significant public services within their communities, they are rarely given the same priority as more visible third sector service providers who are in receipt of LA contracts. Where there is no overt funding relationship LAs can often make decisions that have (possibly unintended) detrimental consequences to the health of the local arts ecology. This is a major concern arising from the threat of cuts and financial constraints.

3.7 It is important to realise that, even though the sector has a much more robust business model than its professional equivalents, the Government can ill afford to wash its hands of financial support for the voluntary music sector, given the multiplier effects evident from the statistics in paragraph 3.4. In particular the support of infrastructure organisations such as Making Music is crucial. These organisations provide the vital support for individual groups that would otherwise be totally absent. With its £300,000 grant Making Music is able to help its members undertake the huge range of activity outlined above, and add considerable value to the subscriptions it charges. We think this represents excellent value for public money (around £24 per member event is one way of looking at it). Without the support of such umbrella groups and infrastructure bodies the Government would either have to support these groups directly (very expensive) or see them wither on the vine (surely disastrous for the cultural life of the nation). 868

3.8 In summary, the funding of the voluntary music sector provides superb value for money. But in spite of this it is relatively fragile; small changes could have significantly negative effects disproportionate to the amount saved. We believe infrastructure support remains crucial, offering by far the most cost-effective way to support a multiplicity of local groups. Further investment in the voluntary music sector would reap substantial benefits by offering risk-free ways of undertaking further community-based activities and outreach programmes.

4. Arts Council England

4.1 The principal body supporting the voluntary music sector in England, largely via its support for Making Music, is ACE. From our perspective, its recently increased emphasis on the voluntary sector and its continued funding of our activities is of course extremely welcome.

4.2 We are aware that there are some highly influential and senior supporters of the voluntary sector within ACE, and are very grateful for their support. However, we believe that it remains true that a number of ACE employees are still exclusively focussed on supporting professional artists and have little time for, or interest in, community arts activity. This we feel is a shame and we would encourage ACE to look at this, given the huge significance of the voluntary arts, and especially voluntary music, to the cultural life of the nation.

4.3 Similarly it is important that ACE as a whole does not see public engagement in the arts purely as developing audiences for professional artists and arts organisations. From our point of view, it is equally important to see ACE encouraging engagement in the form of participation in and learning from arts activity.

4.4 We believe that ACE plays a vital and valuable role in the arts in England, and especially under its new leadership will continue to do so. In our position the abolition of the UK Film Council and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council has little impact; but we would deplore the extension of this attack on arms-length bodies to encompass the Arts Council.

5. “Front-line” organisations

5.1 Much recent rhetoric about potential cuts has been directed towards trying to preserve, as much as possible, the support for “front-line” organisations. Whilst we of course applaud the intention to sustain the delivery of arts activity, we are concerned that this approach could jeopardise the status of umbrella groups, who as mentioned above, have a huge part to play in the support of small grass roots and local organisations.

5.2 We are quite clear that umbrella groups are indeed “front-line” organisations in the sense that arts activity would suffer if their existence were to be compromised. Indeed, such organisations are uniquely placed to provide much needed support, particularly in England’s rural communities and amongst diverse groups, where others can fail. Given that direct financial support for voluntary music organisations is now minimal, it becomes increasingly important to ensure the health and flourishing of those bodies that support them.

5.3 At the moment we are not aware of specific threats to such organisations in England, although drastic steps have been taken to remove them from the 869

portfolio of the Arts Council of Wales. Given the major role that infrastructure organisations can play in delivering the Big Society initiatives, we would obviously be concerned about a similar move in England.

6. The National Lottery

6.1 The National Lottery has had a chequered history from the perspective of the voluntary sector. Initially our members, and indeed we ourselves, benefitted substantially from programmes such as Arts for Everyone, Arts for Everyone Express, and more recently Awards for All, offering small-scale grants on a relatively bureaucracy-free basis. These programmes offered a level playing field for the voluntary sector, which responded enthusiastically and accordingly received substantial numbers of grants for special and unusual projects.

6.2 We recognise that programmes of this nature were expensive and administratively top-heavy to deliver. However, we are disappointed to see their almost total demise in favour of programmes offering larger and more significant grants more suited to larger arts organisations with professional fundraising staff.

6.3 We think there is a potential role for independent infrastructure organisations to offer small-scale grants on an agreed basis on behalf of lottery distributors. Whilst this approach is currently very much out of favour, we feel it is the only way of ensuring a cost-effective method of distributing small grants, which remain a very welcome way of supporting grass roots arts activity.

6.4 If this is not possible for any reason, we would strongly recommend reintroducing a small grants scheme such as Awards for All into ACE’s portfolio of grant programmes.

6.5 Naturally we welcome the redistribution of Lottery income to retrieve the income lost to activities that should have remained within the Government’s core remit.

7. Individual philanthropy and business support

7.1 Historically these sources of support have been less relevant to the voluntary sector, except in individual local situations. We would welcome an increased emphasis on these, particularly reflecting the fact that many wealthy individuals and senior managers can often be active amateur musicians themselves.

7.2 There is certainly scope for better tax incentives, and we would welcome any initiatives in this area, which can only be of benefit to the overall climate.

7.3 Even more significantly, we would welcome a much greater emphasis on the benefits of arts activity to society at large. We feel that there is a barrier to giving in the arts because of a widespread perception that arts activity is elitist and self-serving; creating lots of enjoyment for the participants but little benefit to society as a whole. Those of us involved in the arts know that this is only a tiny part of the picture – benefits to society are massive, including huge effects on the population’s physical and mental health. We would like to see DCMS and ACE playing a greater role in promoting this awareness, which would, we believe, encourage greater philanthropy than currently exists.

870

8. Working together

8.1 Much emphasis is currently being placed on whether arts organisations can work together to reduce infrastructure costs and create economies of scale. Whilst in general we would welcome such an initiative, the practical difficulties are immense and need to be handled with great care.

8.2 Heavy-handed attempts to force this to happen under the threat of funding withdrawal have in the past been unhelpful in promoting a constructive atmosphere. Instead ACE could perhaps offer a more positive approach by actually offering combined services and infrastructure in return for a reduced grant.

8.3 Probably the most beneficial way in which organisations could work together is by sharing premises. We believe the Government should consider the purchase of one or more buildings as an investment in the arts, allowing rent free access to approved arts organisations. Retaining these buildings as assets would be a very cost-effective way of offering support to the arts with little outlay from the revenue budget.

9. The Big Society

9.1 We welcome the Government’s emphasis on community-led initiatives under the umbrella title of the Big Society.

9.2 We contend that amateur musical groups are exemplars of exactly the sort of organisation which the Government hopes to encourage under this banner. They organise 12,500 events a year to audiences of around 1.6 million people, and in so doing offer a huge range of opportunities to the music profession, with whom they spend some £19 million. And they do this with very little call upon the public purse.

9.3 Such groups are organised locally by local people. They promote events to local audiences and spend money with local venues and businesses. They are “by the community, for the community, in the community”. What is the Big Society if not that?

9.4 Although the notion of Big Society is about self-help and sustainable practice, the role of independent infrastructure organisations is of vital importance in the successful delivery of these initiatives. This is another area in which proper support for these organisations is of crucial significance. Voluntary music groups can be focussed on their own regular participation/rehearsal and performances, and a major strand of our work is to encourage greater collaboration with other community groups and civil society activities to realise the underutilised potential of the voluntary music sector. The scale of the voluntary music sector provides potential for it to play a much greater role in strengthening communities throughout the country and realising the Big Society, given the right level of support from organisations such as Making Music.

9.5 We would welcome the opportunity to discuss with the Government how such a powerful movement has grown up and what can be done to strengthen it and replicate it in other areas of society.

September 2010 871

Written evidence submitted by High Peak Community Arts (arts 199)

Summary

• Arts Council and Local Authority funding enables this organisation to lever in funding for projects from non-government funds. • These projects develop audiences and increase access to the arts for hard to reach groups and encourage new creative arts practitioners. • The arts have an important part to play as a contribution to the cohesion and regeneration of communities. • This organisation has a lean structure already and does not see much potential for economies of scale. • A small amount of public funding has enabled this organisation to deliver a range of projects that have the potential to save public money elsewhere. • The Arts Council provides the best structure for arts funding distribution. • Increases in National Lottery funding are unlikely to successfully replace Arts Council revenue funding. • Business and philanthropic funding is unlikely to be directed at organisations that do not have a high profile venue based programme.

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;

1. High Peak Community Arts is an organisation whose remit is to enable people to participate in the arts particularly those who may not otherwise. It has a different business model than a theatre or venue with box office revenues. Arts Council and Local Authority revenue funding provides essential support for the infrastructure of the organisation, enabling it to raise an equivalent amount of project funding. Without this revenue funding for its core infrastructure, there would be no way of accessing funding for the variety of projects it offers. Arts Council funding, in particular, gives an organisation a profile that enables it to secure other important project funding. It also enables the organisation to use its Arts Council money as match funding for many other income streams. High peak Community Arts uses its project funding to work with disadvantaged young people, elders, disabled people, people with mental health issues and people in isolated rural communities.

2. This work develops audiences, increases access to the arts for hard to reach groups and encourages new creative arts practitioners. High Peak Community Arts is able to bring both new talent and new audiences into the sector, both of which are vital to sustain it and allow it to play an important role in Britain’s economic recovery. The arts are thriving because sustained investment has been made over the last 15 years. This investment has enabled the creative economy to grow over this period. Arts and culture are also central to tourism in the UK, which is a vital export earner for the UK economy.

3. The arts also encourage volunteering. Recent case studies from this organisation’s arts programme include successes: • one individual from a disabled adults’ project is now voluntarily running his own pottery project helping others • students from a local secondary school who participated in a music project are now working with local primary schools helping young children develop their talents.

872

4. The arts also have an important part to play as a contribution to the cohesion and regeneration of communities. In particular, participatory arts projects have the capacity to strengthen communities and enable them to build aspirations for the future. Participants gain from: • an increase in self confidence • a general well-being through self-expression • accessing new social networks and making new friends • giving something back to their community • an awareness of the creative industries including the possibilities for future employment within them.

5. High Peak Community Arts is able to provide numerous examples of people who have accessed its disabled adults’ arts programmes and, through that experience, have been able to transform their lives from feeling isolated and depressed to feeling that they are valued members of their communities. Responses to participation in projects include: • “It’s opened up a whole new world” • “It’s great feeling part of a team” • “I’ve gained confidence and friends” • “Made me human again, not just a nuisance” • “Got me out of my doom and gloom, got me interested, going out and doing things”.

6. Examples of how the arts have been used as a vehicle for communities achieving change include: • Imaginative and innovative ways of gathering people’s views at community consultations (e.g. Video diary projects) • Stimulating participation in delivering lasting improvements in local environments. (e.g. Friends of Station groups)

7. The production of participatory arts projects within communities provides a link between development of the arts and the regeneration of that community. These activities enable people • to identify the arts as part of their lives – that progressive and high quality arts are for them and not just for an elite elsewhere • to feel that they are giving something back to the community and that they have not been disenfranchised from any process of community regeneration • to feel that they are making a contribution to a cohesive and engaged society. Outcomes include those that save public money elsewhere: • reduction in unemployment • less need for access to mental health services • less need for access to general health services.

8. Cuts from central and local government will come on top of the difficult climate for accessing project funding. (Charitable Trusts have less investment income and there may be less public funding for projects that have a social impact.)

What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

9. High Peak Community Arts is the only participatory arts organisation working in the High Peak district of Derbyshire. It already works in partnership with non-arts 873

organisations to deliver projects. It is a lean organisation with a clover leaf structure to maximise its productivity and flexibility. It collaborates with other arts organisations on general policy development and strategy for the arts, and with both arts and non-arts organisations in the delivery of projects. It sees the potential for increased collaboration with other arts and non-arts organisations to deliver future projects, but it sees no possible savings from the sharing of administrative or management with other similar organisations. This is particularly relevant for organisations that are geographically distant. Whilst some work within an organisation can be outsourced or shared with other organisations most of the administrative and management activities depend on interaction with other workers and access to office based information systems. Whilst our organisation is open to a reappraisal of its operating model, with only the equivalent of 2.3 full time workers, any significant reduction in its core staff would result in a situation where staffing of the organisation was no longer viable.

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

10. The arts budget is very small already – 17p per person per week is the figure that has been quoted. Certainly the experience of High Peak Community Arts is that a small amount of public funding has enabled the organisation to deliver a range of ongoing projects that have reached groups of people who would not otherwise have had these experiences. There have been a range of outcomes that save public money elsewhere including the reduction of unemployment and a fall in numbers of people who need access to mental health and general health services. Because High Peak Community Arts is a very tight ship, a significant and sustained reduction of its public funding would result in a closing of the organisation and a cessation of its activities completely. All the benefits that are described above would be lost.

Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

11. It is a good strategy to keep the Arts Councils independent of political interference. It enables the Arts Councils to distribute funds to organisations that they feel are best placed to develop the arts and a cultural economy. Regularly funded organisations such as ourselves have been seen as partners in the development of the arts. Regularly funded organisations are closely monitored and reviewed annually to ensure that the public investment is made wisely and the achievement of organisations is in line with a national and regional strategy. That is why the Arts Councils are so important. We understand that the bulk of the Arts Councils’ overall spend is re-distributed to organisations for front line delivery.

What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;

12. Any greater distribution of National Lottery funds to arts organisations has to be welcomed provided that organisations like ourselves who are managing projects that have a social, community or health related benefit in addition to an artistic benefit are not then excluded from the non-arts National Lottery funds. High Peak Community Arts is currently in receipt of both Grants for the Arts and Big Lottery funding for its projects. Both of these funding streams required much research and development work to access in the first place. Typically, it is possible for 12 to 18 months to pass between the inception of an idea to the successful award of a grant from these streams. So any increase in Lottery funding will not be able to replace 874

reductions in revenue funding that occur sooner. It is unlikely, also, that Lottery funding will be able to replace the more assured funding structure that the Arts Councils and Local Authorities have been able to provide organisations.

Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;

13. There is a specific problem with the Awards for All fund. Projects that engage people in the arts are now excluded from the fund and re-directed to Grants for the Arts. The Awards for All fund was able to fund 100% of a project but the Grants for the Arts will only fund a maximum of 90% of a project. This has had an impact on the small community organisations that had hitherto been able to access this funding stream to run arts projects within their communities. These organisations do not have the types of match funding that an established arts organisation would be likely to have access to.

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;

14. UK film council has brought in so much funding from elsewhere to stimulate this sector. We do not have sufficient knowledge about the Museum, Libraries and Archive Council to answer this.

Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

15. Private funding already plays an important role in funding the arts. But only some arts organisations receive this funding, which has traditionally been provided for high profile venue centred arts organisations, where that funding provides publicity and promotion for that business. We do not see that businesses will have a long term and sustained role in providing funding for the arts other than the funding that they already provide. Whilst the potential may exist to make philanthropic giving more effective for the arts, leaving the funding of the arts to the whims of business leaders cannot be a sustainable way to have a long term funding strategy for the arts. Clearly, philanthropic giving may continue to be an important funding stream for some arts organisations, it is difficult to see how this type of funding strategy is going to be of help to organisations such as ourselves that have a solid social programme but do not necessarily have a very visible product.

16. It is a more effective model for a business to create a charitable trust to distribute funds as part of a social programme. Predominately, charitable trusts have clear priorities so that applicants are able to judge the likelihood for success. But these priorities are made by the trustees of each trust and there is currently no joined-up thinking to ensure that charitable trusts are able to provide a coherent range of support for any particular sector.

17. We do not see the capacity of the business and private sector to make up any shortfall in the current public funding structure.

875

Whether there needs to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

18. Private donations are always gratefully received but, as in the answer to the above question, we do not see this strategy as a substitute for the funding systems that are currently in place.

September 2010 876

Written evidence submitted by the Federation of Museums and Art Galleries of Wales (arts 200)

In submitting these comments we would like to acknowledge the fact that certain duties of government are devolved from Westminster. It is not entirely clear if this consultation applies to England only, but we have assumed it is a UK wide consultation. Our comments relate mainly, but not entirely, to how museums in Wales are affected.

1.0. Summary • Museums in Wales are already low level of funding, as are those in England who have not benefitted from the successful Renaissance programme. More cuts could lead to widespread closures. • Proposed closure of MLA is hasty and seems to be based on no strategic overview of the consequences. • We are concerned that the effect on all the Home Countries may not have featured in any discussions on these actions. • Private philanthropy has its place but under the current taxation system there is little incentive to support it. When given it usually supports short term projects not long term sustainability. It can never replace public support.

2.0. This submission is on behalf of the Federation of Museums and Art Galleries of Wales.

2.1. The Federation of Museums and Art Galleries of Wales is the strategic body for museum and art gallery professionals in Wales, advocating for the highest standards of museum provision throughout Wales. We represent all types of museums – National, local authority, university and independent, - and their staff whether paid or volunteer. The Federation promotes good practice in museums and galleries and provides support, advice and a forum for discussion of museum issues affecting members.

2.2. The museum environment in Wales is different from elsewhere in the UK with the National Museum of Wales holding the majority of collections. The pattern of local museums – a mix of Local Authority and independent museums – is characterised by small scale institutions in the main – there are no big city museums in Wales for instance. Despite devolution, the impact of Westminster decisions can have a bigger impact on Wales, due to decisions being made with only the English situation in mind. It is for this reason that the Federation is keen to respond to the consultation.

2.3. Our comments concentrate on the situation within museums rather than the wider arts and heritage field. 3.0 Impact of spending cuts.

3.1. Museums are not a statutory service. Local museums in Wales already operate on minimal staff and resource levels, so any further cuts will have a serious effect. Local authorities are likely to concentrate further on core services – which does not include heritage – and there will be a further squeeze on funding. This will also apply to the independent museum sector that often receives modest grant aid and/or other forms of support from local authorities. Very small grants – in many cases less than £10,000 - do make a considerable difference and allow the volunteer run museums to operate. Grants to organisations such as small museums may be the first to be cut.

877

3.2. There is now a real fear that museums, both Local Authority and Independent will close – a loss to the local economy (especially tourism), the local community and to jobs. In addition there will be added pressure on any surviving museums to safeguard collections from closed museums. Closures will often be of branch museums which serve local communities. Authorities may be reluctant to entirely dispense with the vestige of a museum service but if funding is at a premium they may make such decisions.

3.3. Many local museums receive help and advice from the National Museum of Wales. In addition museums in Wales have links with other National Museums throughout the UK. A recent study by the National Museums Directors Conference highlighted the importance of this. (Summary at http://www.nationalmuseums.org.uk/media/documents/what_we_do_documents/partnerships_rep ort.pdf ). Examples of this work include museums in Wales borrowing objects from The Tate, via the Museum Associations Effective Collection Programme and a long term partnership between the National Portrait Gallery and Bodelwyddan Castle. If these bodies and institutions are similarly squeezed they will retract to core business and cease or reduce their pastoral role. Thus local museums will have a double hit.

3.4. In our view it is essential, if there is to be a reduction in budgets, that this must be done on a managed basis, based on a strategic overview on a country or regional basis rather than piecemeal. Otherwise we could be left with very patchy provision in the future.

3.5. If peoples access to the past through objects is lost that can never be regained. It will not be retrievable once the economy has recovered.

4.0. Role of Arts Organisations in working together

4.1. We assume this also applies to museum and heritage organisations too.

4.2. Many museums already work in partnership on projects on an ad hoc basis. However formal relationships, in terms of the museums we know in Wales, would not lead to any significant savings as museums are operating from such a low base already. We can see the advantages of large museum services working together (as some examples in England) but there is little opportunity to do this in Wales.

4.3. The public face of museums must continue to be local within the community. The possible closure of some museums would be a retrograde step. Public services in museums such as the educational role are very popular and rely on a constant level of staffing and resources. Schools are being encouraged to explore new learning environments for their pupils and the benefits of museums education programmes. Museums provide this as a service and operate on a cost covering basis only. Further cuts would mean services such as these would be cut.

4.4. There are few specialist staff in museums in Wales (outside the National Museum) – it is possible to share experience (and this happens a lot) but not the expertise.

5.0. Level of public subsidy. Museums are not statutory and therefore at particular risk. Museums are praised for their contribution to society but not supported as such.

878

5.1. Current system of funding. There are no well funded museums in Wales outside the National Museum and even that might be said to be relative. Funding for local authority and independent museums has continued to decrease over a number of years – the current situation is not new. Redistributing funding to ensure nationals provide more services to locals may be a way of filling the gap left by closure of MLA (and others).

5.1.1. Admission charges – National Museums have free entry due to government policy but many LA and independent museums have to charge to survive. The difference is not well appreciated by the public – there is hostility to any charge. Why not ask overseas tourists from non EU countries to pay at National Museums and redistribute this income across museums, or even as a saving to protect vital services?

5.2. Lottery – the increase in the percentage of lottery funds allocated to heritage is only restoring it to the level it was before 1998. We obviously support this move. However with little capacity museums often struggle to jump through all the hoops of the application process especially for large projects. This is to their detriment although the need is definitely still there.

5.3. Recent changes to arm’s length DCMS bodies – The recent announcement by the Department of Culture Media and Sport that the Museums Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) is to be abolished in 2012 as part of the spending cuts may spell disaster for museums in Wales.

5.3.1. Several functions of MLA have an impact in Wales and it is unclear how these will continue in the future.

5.3.2. There is concern, for instance, that grant support for museum purchases whether works of art or historic industrial equipment will be lost.

5.3.3. Another valuable service that is under threat is the free technical advice from the National Security Advisor. Museums have to follow strict guidelines to borrow items of national importance from other museums. The advice from the National Security advisor enables museums to make decisions on what improvements they need to make to their galleries. In addition the Government Indemnity Scheme administered by MLA provides museums with an alternative to the considerable cost of commercial insurance. These services are crucial for the continuation of the successful network of loans that occur across the UK.

5.3.4. The MLA also operates the Acceptance in Lieu scheme throughout the UK which enables taxpayers to transfer items to museums to offset tax. Many museums in Wales have benefitted from these programmes in the past.

5.3.5. There are also a number of organisations funded through MLA which provide advice, funding and support to museums in Wales such as the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Collections Trust.

5.3.6. A key strength of the successful Museum Accreditation Scheme - a quality standard administered and developed by MLA that gives the public assurance that museums are safe places for their heritage - is that it operates UK wide. How will this quality assurance scheme be maintained and developed in the future?

879

5.3.7. The loss of the MLA may have bigger consequences for Welsh Museums than their English counterparts as there is a danger that any transition arrangements will not apply in Wales.

5.3.8. The closure of MLA is therefore of considerable concern. The decision seems to have been made with little knowledge of the impact on the sector as a whole. Many sector support bodies have been stripped away in the past (Area Museum Councils, Regional Agencies) and now MLA. If functions go into DCMS (or elsewhere) there will inevitably become even more England focussed, but there are still many services provided by MLA that are UK wide (see examples above). Whilst the MLA/DCMS have said it will maintain some schemes through the transition, we are concerned that some of the specific implications for Wales may be overlooked.

5.3.9. It will not be possible to replicate these services locally – it has been far more efficient to undertake some services and support on a UK basis. Replicating them in Wales will cost more money which obviously is neither desirable nor practical. There is a danger of losing some world leading initiatives such as Accreditation.

6.0. Role of Businesses and philanthropists. Business can help but often it is very hard work to source especially for the small museum. It is also usually not for revenue funding. Museum professionals would need to develop expertise and skill in making approaches for such funding. At a practical level money needs to be available outside of the capital and big cities and incentives through e.g. taxation need to be encouraged. This has to be done at a UK level as it is not a devolved responsibility.

7.0. Private Donations. Encouraging private donations is obviously supported but past evidence is that they are never long term (see above) and often on the donor’s terms. Funding a temporary exhibition is of value but does not help long term sustainability of the museum. There are some good examples of private giving – recently the Story has had substantial private support but even here it is to set up a new museum – not long term support.

8.0. Other issues - volunteering. There is a danger of over reliance on volunteers – the nature of volunteering will undoubtedly change over time and people may not be so attracted to volunteer in museums. A recent study of volunteering in museums was carried out on behalf of AIM (the Association of Independent Museums) and can be found at http://www.aim-museums.co.uk/downloads/84797761414092009152924.pdf In its executive summary it says ‘competition for volunteers will be greater, and the needs and motivations of potential volunteers will differ to those of today’. Recruiting and retaining volunteers will therefore be a job in itself and should not be viewed as an easy option.

8.1. Earlier this year Volunteer Development Scotland warns that fewer young people recognise the link between volunteering and being a good citizen http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/Article/986645/Scotland-faces-lost-generation- volunteers/ In 2009 The Institute for Volunteer Research found many reasons for not volunteering, a lack of time, lack of information and awareness and perception and stereotypes. The report gave recommendations for improving this, but it is not an easy 880

process. http://www.vds.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Ockenden%20and%20Russell%202009%20A ll%20woolly%20hats%20and%20wellies.pdf

8.2. It is not sustainable to replace existing publically funded museums with volunteer museums. The pool of volunteers is limited and even successful volunteer run museums tend to have some paid input, such as a volunteer co-ordinator or access to advice from a Museums or Heritage Officer. Whilst there are some extremely successful examples of volunteer run museums, organisation and professional input is the key to their success.

September 2010 881

Written evidence submitted by Surrey County Council (arts 201)

1. Reduction in funding from local government may result in lack of support to small and medium sized museums that often hold important collections, are important to local communities and are increasingly important to tourism in small and medium sized towns. Loss of small and medium sized museums will lead to the permanent loss of items of heritage and culture, long-term loss of means of involvement of people in their local heritage, destruction of local partnerships and loss of skills built up over recent years. Any central funding review must take account of the needs of such museums, especially those run by local government. Such a review will also need to take into account the ongoing need to provide direct support and advice for local museums, e.g. through the provision of Museum Development Officers, in order to enable museums to run with either a very small staff or to be entirely volunteer run. Local museums, including local voluntary museums, represent excellent value for money, but they cannot provide an adequate service without the support of professionals who can give direct and specific advice. In association to this, there is an as yet unknown impact of recent changes to DCMS arm’s-length bodies – in particular the abolition the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA). It must be emphasised that it is essential to have a central staff who understand museum and heritage issues, who can take a strategic view and who will be able to drive the development of museums for all their aims including artefact preservation, public involvement and tourism. The abolition of the MLA places such central expertise in jeopardy.

2. Considering the example of the Woking Palace Project in Surrey, it is clear that a very small input of capital from central and local government sources – e.g. central government via the HLF and local government via the county, district or borough councils - together with thoughtful support provided by in-house local government heritage specialists, can have a very large positive impact on the local community. The Woking Palace Project: [a] responds to an identified and pressing need for specialist training, a need identified, moreover, by the community itself, and not imposed from above; [b] is a true partnership of different public, voluntary and private sector bodies, including local government, charities, universities and industry; [c] has successfully raised the public profile of an internationally significant historic site, helping the site's improved present and future management; [d] contributes to the 'knowledge economy' of the UK by providing new specialist archaeological data as part of wider research aims and agendas. Projects such as the Woking Palace Project are an exceptional example of the Prime Minister's plans for ‘Big Society’ at work, and should be considered a model for future such plans in the UK. In this light, it is worth bearing in mind just how many people already volunteer in heritage organisations: there are over 5000 heritage bodies in the UK and more than 400,000 people volunteer in heritage activities every year. Of these, archaeology alone contributes over 2000 community archaeology groups with over 200,000 members. Heritage Open Days are the biggest annual voluntary cultural event in England: in 2009 these attracted over 1 million people to over 4000 local events and sites, representing an in-kind contribution of time by volunteers to the cash value of £3.8 million. Surrey is a particularly good example of this at work at the local level. A series of voluntary sector groups, including (but not exclusive to) the Surrey Archaeological Society, Surrey History Trust, Surrey Historic Buildings Trust and Surrey Gardens Trust, have between them thousands of members of all ages, background and experience, working in partnership with one-another and local government to provide the equivalent of tens of thousands of pounds worth of time and expertise every year.

3. An estimated over £120 million is contributed to the UK economy each year through the heritage planning regulatory system under Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (and it is estimated that there was a total of 6233 individuals in UK archaeological employment as of 1 April 2010 (Aitchison 2010: 1)). Over 90% of archaeological work undertaken in the UK is done so under these planning system terms, at little cost to central 882

government (except in the provision of specialist advice and services via English Heritage) (and bearing in mind that the DCMS budget represents only 0.8% of total government spending: with only 4% of this budget (0.032% of total government spending) directly funding the heritage sector), and at equally little cost to local government (except through the provision of historic environment conservation/development control teams). The current system of investment in the historic environment via the planning system is an extremely cost-effective one that is the envy of many other countries. It is a very 'light touch' part of the regulatory system wherein minimal government involvement leads to a generally very high standard of work done on historic sites in advance of development. Moreover, since reformed by the introduction of PPS5 in March 2010 this system makes a commitment to local community and voluntary sector involvement precisely in line with current government priorities towards community/stakeholder involvement.

September 2010 883

Written evidence submitted by William Poel (arts 202)

William Poel is Chairman and Managing Director USP Networks, a company with 18 years of "hands-on" experience of the online revolution and evolution, and at the leading edge of developments such ad servers, content management systems and targeted media with response schemes.

Once upon a time, the Arts were funded from the "3 Ps":

• Performance

• Patronage

• Punters

There were no middlemen (other than perhaps venue owners) to speak of. Those that gave the paying customers what they wanted, managed to eat; otherwise the rest starved for their art, or pursued their art as fulfilled amateurs, willing to wait for a cruel world to come around to their way of thinking.

Then in the 18th/19th century, the spread of printing made books and sheet music much more widely available - and at marginal cost to produce - and then the world of Agents and Lawyers got involved. So it's been downhill ever since.

In this document, I propose an innovative way to address the subject of funding creative arts, that takes full advantage of the digital revolution and revert to the original - and sustainable - principles - OF Arts funding.

The present realignment of funding brought about the necessities we face is an opportunity to revisit old values and apply new technologies.

All forms of art may now be delivered and enjoyed "on line" these days, and this provides a perfect response mechanism for audiences to pay in a variety of ways.

Television can also participate in this new form of funding. The present system generally starts when a (scheduled) TV company commissions a series (generally from one of the usual companies) that leads to a pilot, and possibly a series.

The costs of this process are largely unchanged in recent times, despite the media revolutions going on all around, yet a system where many more creative companies were able to put together short pilots - extended trailers if you like - and have the audience vote by "pre- subscribing" to the potential series is perfectly do-able.

The system I have in mind can operate at a very local basis as well - even to the extent of a local amateur dramatic society producing a series of 5 minute trailers for their plays, to ensure they are steered towards the one their audience actually wants (and is willing to pay for!)

Moreover, there should be scope for the UK to lead from the front in this idea, and create a much-needed employment in areas where the UK has traditions of creative excellence, along the way.

There will obviously be concern expressed that minority interests will not be supported by a system that is plainly designed around harnessing a popular opinion, but experimenting with public funds is one of many luxuries of less accountable times, before that the financial realignment "changed everything". 884

I have a lot more I should add, but commercial confidence is a major issue under your terms of engagement; I fear you will only hear from the disgruntled whose gravy trains are grinding to a halt, and those with no financial opportunies to put at risk. SO I suspect the result will be very bland.

September 2010 885

Written evidence submitted by Historic Houses Association (HHA) (arts 203)

Key issues

• The arts and heritage play a very positive role in the UK economy and some areas of expenditure are essential if our heritage is to play its part at the heart of social and economic recovery • The historic environment requires not only grant aid, but expertise to underpin conservation • There is scope for the creation of public-private partnerships to pool resources and improve efficiency • The restoration to 20%, of the shares of National Lottery funding to the arts, heritage and sport, would be very beneficial • Government incentives are essential to optimise business sponsorship and philanthropy, whether through funding or reform of taxation

Introduction

The Historic Houses Association (HHA) represents historic houses, gardens, castles and estates mainly in private ownership, although there are a number of charitably owned houses in membership. We have 1,500 members throughout the UK, representing an astonishing variety of cultural heritage, ranging from intimate family homes to some of Britain’s most iconic buildings.

Our members’ houses and gardens welcome 14 million visitors each year; 500 are open to the public, more than the National Trust and English Heritage and their equivalents throughout the UK combined. One in five of all member houses and gardens have developed education resources and programmes and welcome over 300,0001 educational visitors each year.

Historic houses provide character, distinctiveness and a sense of place and help create pride in where people live. 87% of British people think the historic environment plays an important part in the cultural life of the country2. Historic houses are seen as being central to our quality of life and our sense of identity and well-being. The latest English Heritage research shows that in all seven historic environment regeneration areas surveyed, over 90% of people who lived and worked locally agreed that these projects had improved their quality of life3. The virtual disappearance of grants for the restoration of privately-owned historic houses and the loss of incentives such as the One-Estate Election, have had a significant impact. Since much of the heritage economy is in private hands and operates outside DCMS control, the impact of government funding reductions is in reality much greater than DCMS budget reductions suggest. Government has a critical role in filling the gaps that the market cannot cover.

Over the years, some houses have been sold and have closed their doors to the public, while one owner in eight has had to sell art in order to finance repairs. When art is sold to

1 HHA Education Survey (2006) 2 Valuing our Heritage (2007) 3 Amiom Locum/English Heritage, The impact of Historic Environment Regeneration (2010) 886

finance repairs, the chances of it ever coming back to it house of origin in the UK are very slim.

The impact of Government spending cuts

1. The potential negative impact on the UK economy, of significant arts and heritage spending cuts by central and local Government, can be demonstrated by the fact that 80% of international visitors say that their principal reason for visiting Britain is connected to heritage and culture4. Heritage tourism contributes £20.6bn to GDP each year, supporting 460,000 jobs5. Reductions in spending on heritage would be a false economy if they led to reduced tourism revenues, as would be likely.

2. Many historic houses and their gardens are the key players in their local economies, particularly in rural areas, where other opportunities for employment and business activity are often limited. 30,000 people are employed directly at historic houses, or in businesses occupying premises in the grounds6. The beneficial effect that public visiting to these places has on the wider economy is estimated at £1.6bn per annum7. Cuts in spending on grants and advice for privately owned heritage would over time, have a significant and negative impact on the economy of rural areas.

3. The historic environment creates not only a sense of environment, but stimulating and exciting places for learning. For instance, one in five HHA properties offer educational visits. Cuts in grants and advice for privately owned heritage are likely, over time, to reduce the provision of these educational visits, by handicapping the ability of owners to restore and adapt their properties. Cuts in educational spending will also erode the ability of schools to make visits. The combined effect will be a diminished educational experience for school pupils.

4. Since two-thirds of Britain’s historic environment is privately owned and managed, its owners bear the costs of stewardship. HHA owners alone spend £139m per annum on conserving historic buildings and their contents, with practically no public support. Even this figure falls well short of the amount needed to maintain the fabric of historic houses. As a result, the backlog of repairs at HHA houses has risen by 50% from £260m in 2003 to £390m in 20098.

5. The provision of expert advice by English Heritage to owners and managers and through local authorities is of considerable importance. Without this expert advice many local authorities might, inevitably, make uninformed decisions, which cause damage to the historic environment, or avoid making decisions which are essential to the viability of historic buildings. The consequences, including the possible loss of important places and environments and the effects on quality of life could be very damaging, not just in practical terms, but in relation to loss of identity and sense of place.

4 British Tourism Framework Review (2009) 5 HLF/Visit Britain: Investing in Success (2006) 6 Jeremy Eckstein Associates, HHA Survey of Member (2009) 7 Parliamentary Question reply by Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP (2009) 8 Jeremy Eckstein Associates, HHA Survey of Members (2009) 887

6. Spending cuts in this area also pose a threat to the role that historic buildings can play in regeneration of communities and local economies. There are numerous examples across the country of the way in which the historic environment plays an essential role in regeneration through sustainable development. It can make a unique contribution to the quality of the environment and historic houses often support the regeneration of local economies, especially in rural areas, by sourcing local products and services. Castle Howard, for example, does business with 1,000 local companies.

Economies of scale

7. There are, no doubt, efficiency savings that may be made within the funding systems for the arts and heritage. In particular, partnership working may play an important role in husbanding resources efficiently.

8. However, a reduction in the number of agencies does not necessarily equate to a beneficial economy of scale. For example, English Heritage plays a unique role as the specialist body which advises Government on the historic environment, supporting the sector through grant-giving, advocacy and expert advice, as well as playing a critical role in supporting local authorities in championing the historic environment.

9. Any compromising of English Heritage’s (EH’s) highly professional advice service to owners and local authorities in planning and casework, or where complexity is beyond local expertise, could result in disparate standards and short-term interest outweighing the national good. As such, EH has a different geographical remit and plays a distinct role from that of the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and their two sets of functions would not sit well together within a single organisation.

10. Given that EH currently provides both funding and expertise in support of the historic environment, it is important, in order to ensure the best use of public funds, that its expertise is not separated from its capacity to award grants. So even if, for example, the introduction of a single specialist agency for awarding arts and heritage grants were to appear cheaper, it would provide significantly less value for money than the current system, as a consequence of the separation of roles.

Levels of public subsidy

11. Cuts in heritage expenditure have potentially serious consequences, some of which can be demonstrated by examining recent history. For example, reducing EH support to buildings on the Heritage at Risk register by 40% would have resulted in the loss of 460 Grade I and II* buildings during the period 1999-20109.

12. While any reductions in EH’s ability to deliver these services would be undesirable, it would nevertheless make strategic sense for it to invest in external partnership working in order to deliver more of its objectives in the medium to long term. Investment in the private sector could underpin strong, cost-effective partnerships which benefit the historic environment.

9 Heritage Alliance submission on DCMS Structural Reform Plan (2010) 888

13. Currently, while financial support for privately owned heritage from EH is extremely limited, it is specifically excluded from HLF conservation funding. There is, however, a strong case for reviewing this policy and making HLF grants available to projects in the private sector. This case is explained in paragraph 23 below.

14. Sustainable funding sources are particularly important for the historic environment, because once neglect has set in, the ultimate expenditure required to restore a property may be much greater than if funds were available to enable early repair.

15. Some areas of public expenditure are essential if our heritage is to play its part at the heart of social and economic recovery. Certain areas need to be protected, as a consequence. These should include: • the specialist legislative capability within the DCMS to frame the legislation required to update the heritage protection regime • proper resourcing for historic environment services in the forthcoming review of local authority finance • support for cultural learning opportunities for children and adults, in which heritage plays an integral part. The HHA has put these ideas forward to DCMS as part of our response to the DCMS Structural Reform plan, both on its own behalf and as part of the Heritage Alliance.

The current funding system

16. Public investment in the historic environment is needed for the reasons already given, but also generates employment in the tourism and construction industries. In addition, quality of environment is one of the key factors in promoting inward investment and historic buildings have an important role to play in creating places where people want to live, work and visit. The funding system has a role to play in conserving and enhancing the quality of the environment.

17. Given this and the fact that two thirds of the historic environment is privately owned, we would welcome a statement of policy from government that the privately owned heritage should be as entitled to eligibility for grant aid as historic buildings in public ownership, so long as funding is directly linked to a significant public benefit.

18. The establishment of this principle would not undermine the current system, but could facilitate the establishment of public-private partnerships, which would enhance the existing system and enable the best use of limited resources.

19. The current system lacks fiscal incentives to support the built heritage. Proposals for these are referred to in the final section of this response.

The National Lottery

20. The HHA strongly supports the HLF as a nationwide body delivering the National Lottery for heritage organisations throughout the UK. Its funding is coordinated 889

and has allowed for a more sensitive response to grantees, for example in the percentages of partnership funding needed, particularly for smaller projects.

21. The HHA welcomes the coalition government’s intention to increase the shares to arts, heritage and sport, restoring the original share of 20% in 2012. However, Lottery money should not be allowed to become a substitute for funding that would normally fall to mainstream Government spending and we welcome the commitment to the principle of additionally that this proposal makes, at a time when other sources of public funding will be under greater pressure.

22. Funding distributed by the HLF has had a huge impact on the historic and natural environment and has helped to generate further investment and presented opportunities for regeneration and community growth. The HHA supports the HLF’s role as investor, rather than funder, which means that grants have an effect substantially greater than the funds invested, particularly when they involve other funders and partners.

23. The HHA hopes that the increase in funding available to HLF will pave the way for further support for heritage projects supported by the private sector. Currently, privately owned heritage is, as stated in 6 above, specifically excluded from HLF conservation funding. We believe that there is a strong case to review this policy and to make HLF grants available to projects in the private sector, so long as the public benefit is sizeable in relation to the grant and particularly in relation to any incidental private benefit. The principle is not new. English Heritage grant aids privately owned heritage (albeit on a tiny scale compared with previous practice) and in other areas, such as environmental conservation, school or hospital building or defence procurement, it is the norm for government to purchase goods or services for public benefit or use from the private sector.

24. The HLF already devotes resources to encouraging applications from underrepresented groups and geographic areas. Increasing this role through additional funding should improve take up from these sectors.

25. The HHA shares the concerns expressed by the Heritage Alliance about the requirement for Lottery distributors to reduce the proportion of funding for administrative purposes. This could have the negative result of discouraging distributors from making smaller grants which are proportionately more costly to administer. Projects with which the HHA has been involved have often had to piece together grants from different funders for relatively modest grants and it would be a great concern if these smaller grants were not properly supported. As an example, the HHA is currently involved in a heritage outreach project which has received £36,000 of public funding but will go on to unlock a further £70,000 of partnership funding and involve a groundbreaking collaborative partnership.

26. The HHA is also concerned that HLF research resources are to be included in administrative costs. The HLF is uniquely able to undertake robust research on the social and economic outcomes of heritage investment and to provide a national UK wide perspective. The Heritage Lottery Fund’s report: Investing in Success: Heritage and the UK Tourism Economy 2010 revealed the scale of the heritage 890

tourism industry in the UK, estimating its gross domestic produce contribution to be £20.6 billion.

Business sponsorship, philanthropy and Government incentives

27. The HHA believes that a mixed economy, involving public-private partnership working and including a robust system of public funding is essential to the health of the arts and heritage in the UK.

28. A strong and unequivocal government commitment to the value of our heritage is needed, in order to avoid demotivating both potential philanthropists (including those responsible for the maintenance of our heritage) and the large number of volunteers who work on the historic environment and whose contribution is increasingly important in times of economic stringency. Such a commitment would also help to focus the attention of potential business sponsors on the benefits of supporting heritage projects.

29. If the historic environment is to meet the challenges which result from reductions in spending – if the gap in funding, and more, is to be made up from the support of large and small-scale philanthropists - practical incentives are needed. Improving the operation of the existing tax regime, for example on Acceptance in Lieu and Gift Aid, would help both to conserve historic houses and extend public enjoyment of the nation’s heritage.

30. Other mechanisms are needed too, to encourage increased and enduring funding from businesses and philanthropists. The historic environment needs schemes similar to the Big Arts Give or Arts & Business’s former Pairing Scheme, by which government support directly stimulates increased investment from private sources.

31. For the privately-owned historic environment, the principal issue may not be reductions in public funding. A tax regime to stimulate the maintenance of historic buildings, including a reduction in VAT on repairs to all listed buildings, which properly recognises their value to society and the economy, would help significantly.

32. The greater use of Heritage Maintenance Funds would eat into the backlog of repairs referred to in paragraph 4 above and generate employment in conservation skills. However, such use will not be made without changes to the currently unfavourable tax treatment of income and capital gains generated within such funds. The HHA has made proposals for improvements in the tax treatment of HMFs, taking into account that the money generated by them can be used only for the maintenance of nationally important historic buildings, usually open to the public. The details can be found at: http://www.hha.org.uk/our-policies/tax- campaigns.html.

September 2010 891

Written evidence submitted by Renaissance Yorkshire Museums Hub (arts 204)

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. This response is submitted by Museums Sheffield on behalf of the Renaissance Yorkshire Museums Hub. The Hub comprises Bradford Museums and Galleries, Museums and Galleries, Hull Museums, York Museums Trust and Museums Sheffield (Lead Partner).

2. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

2.1. Public investment into regional museums in recent years is paying off. Museums and galleries are increasingly seen as attractive, vibrant places to visit. Visits to Yorkshire Hub museums have increased by 75% since 2002. But the high quality experience that people are enjoying in unprecedented numbers as a result of this investment emanates from the efforts of whole organisations. Collections care and knowledge underpins exhibitions and displays; learning and community programmes inform, and are informed by, collections knowledge. All activity is linked and it would be a fallacy to believe that savings can be made without having an impact on front line services.

2.2. Public sector cuts will have a profound effect on regional museums and will emanate from numerous directions. The biggest impact will be cuts imposed through parent bodies such as local authorities, followed by cuts to the Renaissance programme.

2.3. Detrimental effects in relation to jobs, collections care, exhibitions, school and lifelong learning programmes, community and outreach activity and support for other regional museums are unavoidable.

2.4. Evidence shows that museums contribute to increased educational attainment, stronger communities and community cohesion. They work with people who are least likely to see themselves as part of the Big Society.

2.5. Museums are an important but underestimated part of the visitor offer, with the financial benefits accruing to the region’s economy not the museums themselves.

2.6. Cutbacks in service will make it more difficult for museums to generate their own commercial income, further impacting on their sustainability.

2.7. The planning and consideration of culture at a national level should be considered by a single body rather than a government department and numerous arms length bodies.

2.8. The delivery mechanism and funding for the Renaissance programme should be given urgent attention to avoid unnecessary redundancy processes and stalling of activity

3. THE IMPACT THAT RECENT AND FUTURE SPENDING CUTS WILL HAVE ON THE ARTS AND HERITAGE

The extent and scope of the impact

892

3.1. The museum sector, along with all other public services, is preparing itself for cuts to its funding. For many regional museums the biggest impact will come through cuts to local authority core funding; cuts between 30% and 40% are currently being modelled. As a non-statutory service museums have always had to argue their case against big players such as schools and social services. Many now expect that they, along with other culture and heritage services, will be an easy target for cutbacks at the highest end of the scale.

3.2. Since 2004 the Renaissance programme has also brought central government money into regional museums for the first time to build capacity and enable them to extend their reach to more people. This has led to vastly improved visitor experiences resulting from investment in education services, community engagement and better collections care. In Yorkshire, Hub museums currently receive on average 17% of their funding from Renaissance, over half of which is spent on people. Add this to the anticipated reductions in core funding and many Hub museums will be facing reductions in their operational budgets in the region of 50%.

3.3. In addition, museums understand the advantages of plural funding streams and have been working hard to diversify their income base. Unfortunately, many of these alternatives also emanate from the public sector. This means that museums will not only suffer cuts to their main income streams, but also numerous other cuts which will compound the problem. Some of the following have been confirmed; others remain the subject of speculation: • Loss of Arts Council England (ACE) funding, e.g. reduction in numbers of regularly funded organisations (RFOs) • Decline in partnership activity with National Museums • Investment from regional development agencies which are to close, e.g. Yorkshire Forward • Reductions in funding from government departments other than DCMS, for example Department for Education (Strategic Commissioning), Ministry of Defence (military museums), Department of Health (partnerships with Primary Care Trusts) • Decline in other commissioning programmes as organisations operate increasingly in-house to retain their own core staff • Some local authorities are reviewing rate reductions for charities and rents for museum premises • Financial insecurity in schools means that they are booking later, making it harder for museums to respond to their needs. Schools are also looking increasingly to parents to finance visits which will further disadvantage children from deprived areas. • Reduction in commercial business, sponsorship and other partnership funding from private sector companies that rely themselves on public sector business

3.4. Even where funding streams are available, for example National Lottery, many museums will find lack of capacity and match funding to be an obstacle in accessing them.

The effect on museums

3.5. It is anticipated that museums which are directly or indirectly (e.g. through Trusts) delivering services on behalf of local authorities will undergo extensive restructuring and downsizing. The current signs are that they will be under political pressure to keep all sites open rather than being allowed to take a more strategic response to 893

reviewing their cost base. Therefore, in order to make the required savings there will be a disproportionate loss of people, particularly in collections, learning and curatorial teams, as they try to protect sites and opening hours. Therefore a 20% reduction in people overall could translate into a 75% cut within specialist teams. Additionally this loss of expertise will make recovery harder once the funding position improves and will undermine long term sustainability.

3.6. Falling back to a position of caretaker services means that collections care will inevitably suffer. Collections are the lifeblood of museums, part of our shared national heritage. Museums are charged with safeguarding, developing and making accessible collections of local, national and international significance. The collections, the people and the attendant knowledge are at the heart of all museum activity, driving exhibitions, learning programmes and events. They add the authenticity which makes museums into much more than simply visitor attractions.

3.7. Exhibitions are expensive, both in direct costs and staff time. Cuts will mean fewer temporary exhibitions. The ones that remain will be lower cost and therefore less high profile, attracting fewer tourists and visitors. Museums have also worked hard to ensure that exhibitions are created with a whole service approach; therefore loss of audience development, community and learning staff will also have a detrimental impact on the quality of the end product.

3.8. The Renaissance programme placed a high value on education and reaching new audiences. This achieved a substantial increase in learning and outreach activity, particularly school visits, which will be unsustainable in the future. As far as possible museums will wish to protect learning along with other front line activity; however it is inevitable that jobs will be lost and activity will decrease.

3.9. Through outreach activity museums have worked hard to attract non-traditional visitors, such as those on lower incomes or from minority ethnic backgrounds. Reduced expenditure in this area will resurrect the perception that museums are elitist and ‘not for the likes of us’.

3.10. Renaissance, complemented by MLA’s regional activity, also provides support to the wider museum community, from the smallest independent museums to those run by large unitary authorities. This increases the sustainability and quality of museum provision with the resultant benefits accruing to communities and the economy. Should this support mechanism be lost the impact would be to fragment and isolate the sector. There would be a loss of expertise, facilitation and partnership building - in fact everything that makes museums a sector rather than a number of isolated and disconnected services.

Social impacts 3.11. Having considered the impact on museums as organisations, this section will consider the resulting effect on the people they serve.

'Museums enable people to explore collections for inspiration, learning and enjoyment. They are institutions that collect, safeguard and make accessible artefacts and specimens, which they hold in trust for society.' Museums Association

3.12. Across the country museums inspire hundreds of thousands of school children every year. However, cuts at the level currently predicted will put much of this in jeopardy. In Hub museums many learning staff are Renaissance funded and some 894

will lose their jobs. Non-Hub museums will be affected by cuts to the DCMS/DfE Strategic Commissioning programme. School visit numbers will fall and there will be more self guided visits rather than those facilitated by knowledgeable and enthusiastic staff. The quality and range of programmes will decrease. In addition, there may a further impact from schools themselves being unable to afford trips away from school.

3.13. Why does this matter? Learning and training cannot be delivered solely through the formal education system. People need to access learning opportunities in a variety of places and in ways which suit their circumstances and learning styles. Evidence shows that museums contribute to increased educational attainment by school children. They provide a stimulating learning environment and positively influence attitudes to learning and education. They encourage creativity in the broadest sense.

3.14. Museums reach out to communities and minority audiences, often those in the most disadvantaged areas. They support, and are supported by, thousands of volunteers – over 100,000 in the independent sector alone. This is currently described as the Big Society and museums have been doing it for years.

3.15. Community engagement work will be a casualty of funding cuts. Museums involve everyone in preserving, defining and exploring identity and heritage. It is in-depth work, staff intensive over a long period of time, therefore expensive and vulnerable. But this kind of activity is vital if the Big Society is to flourish. Museums work with people who are least likely to see themselves as part of a Big Society; they may be the first to extend the hand of friendship and encouragement. The Big Society needs a thriving museum sector.

Financial impact 3.16. A recent speech by the Prime Minister drew attention to the value of tourism to the UK economy. Driven strongly by the heritage sector and often underestimated, it is the country’s third highest export earner. The contribution of museums and galleries to the heritage sector is also often overlooked. However, recent research in Yorkshire demonstrates the value of museums and galleries to the regional visitor economy. Museums and galleries, as a group, are more popular than all other types of Yorkshire attraction within overseas, domestic and local markets. Visitors to the region rate museums and galleries as the best of Yorkshire: the only thing better is the scenery. Delivering high visitor satisfaction they are a powerful proposition for the affluent short break market and are a major draw for the growing family market. (Popular, prized and full of potential: Yorkshire Museums and the tourist offer; Wafer Hadley, 2010.)

3.17. However, as important as museums and galleries are to tourism, the associated economic benefits are felt by the region’s economy not by museums themselves. And whilst they are becoming ever more entrepreneurial in raising earned income they will always be a net contributor to tourism rather than a beneficiary. Therefore a decline in museum activity will have an adverse effect on the region’s economy.

3.18. Museums also act as a multiplier within the creative and digital economies. Their recent increased spending power has helped companies in this economic area to build up their businesses as they assist with exhibitions, print and digital design, learning programmes and outreach events. In return, museum and gallery teams are strong supporters of the output from creative companies. Reduction of museum funding will inevitably have a dampening effect on the creative and digital economy, 895

just at a time when it is seen as being of great importance for the future prosperity of the UK.

3.19. Museums and galleries are becoming ever more entrepreneurial as they seek to increase their levels of earned income. Improvements in catering and merchandising, cultivation of sponsors and donors, hosting weddings and events are all playing a part. However, this success is underpinned by the fact that they are energetic, successful organisations with vibrant exhibitions, attractive venues and enthusiastic, knowledgeable staff. It therefore follows that if this attraction is diminished so will their appeal to clients and sponsors. Cuts in public funding will be accompanied by a reduced ability to generate commercial income.

4. STRUCTURE OF FUNDING DISTRIBUTION, PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOLITION OF MLA

4.1 At the time of writing the abolition of MLA is known but we await further announcements about the future of other agencies and arms length bodies. We can only speculate about which of MLA’s functions will survive and who will be given the responsibility of delivering them.

4.2. Clearly for Renaissance Hub museums the future of the Renaissance programme is vital. Whilst it is accepted that programmes such as these should be regularly reviewed to ensure they deliver effectively and efficiently, it is hoped that changes will be introduced in a way that safeguards previous investment. In particular, should there be a loss of Hub status for some museums, this should be done in a measured way to avoid compounding their financial misery. The delivery mechanism and funding for the Renaissance programme should be given urgent attention to avoid unnecessary job losses and stalling of activity.

4.3. The planning and consideration of culture at a national level should be considered by a single body rather than a government department and numerous arms length bodies. This would allow comparison of investment across the cultural sector and a single point of information, direction, evaluation and strategy. It would eliminate the current anomaly within museums where the Nationals work directly to DCMS whilst regional services are channelled though MLA. National museums in many cases deliver the same range and standards of service as the very best independent and local authority services and each could learn through closer links with the others.

4.4. A single body could compel a strategic approach to public investment in the arts and heritage within a city rather than the current piecemeal approach. It could also encourage economies of scale by a strategic lead to identify those areas of activity which would realise the biggest benefits.

4.5. The concept of a single body would also address current concerns about the fragmentation of the sector as the future of MLA functions is considered, for example Accreditation, Renaissance, Portable Antiquities Scheme. This would be compounded should an organisation the size of the Arts Council be charged with responsibility without a fundamental revision of its overall mission and purpose.

5. NATIONAL LOTTERY FUNDING

5.1. The proposal to restore the share of Lottery funding to heritage projects is welcomed. Consideration should also be given to offering revenue funding for a 896

number of years in order to maximise the public benefit of capital funding. A legal agreement with stakeholder groups to secure such funding would ensure commitment to the future of the investment.

5.2. Cuts in public sector finance are changing the demand for HLF funding. Anecdotal evidence suggests that large capital projects are in decline. It should also be recognised that reductions in numbers of staff and revenue funding will be a barrier to museums in taking advantage of all levels of Lottery funding.

5.3. It is understood that HLF will be asked to reduce their administrative costs which could reduce the time they have to spend on pre-application support. This will disadvantage new applicants, giving more funding to previous beneficiaries.

6. THE ROLE OF BUSINESSES AND PHILANTHROPISTS

6.1. The role of businesses and philanthropists is inextricably linked to Government incentives, particularly tax incentives. The current gift aid scheme is generous; however it is complicated and there seems to be little encouragement for take up.

6.2. The UK does not have strong tradition of philanthropy, whilst competition for the attention of those we have is fierce. If the Government is committed to encouraging more philanthropy this needs to form part of a comprehensive long term strategy

6.3. Those private companies and individuals who choose to sponsor the arts want to be associated with excellence. Should cuts in public sector finance have an adverse effect on quality then support from such donors will decrease.

September 2010 897

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 898

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 899

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 900

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. 901

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

902

Written evidence submitted by the National Museum Directors’ Conference (arts 206)

1. 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;

The UK’s museum sector has been hugely successful in the last 10 years. Statistics testify to museums’ success in attracting visitors: • Between 1998-99 and 2008-09 the number of visitors to national museums rose by 70%, with 40,291,579 visitors in 2008-091. • The Taking Part national survey of participation in culture and sport showed that 46.7% of UK adults and 68.8% of children aged 5-15 visited a museum, gallery or archive in 2009-102. • The top five UK visitor attractions in 2009 – and eight of the top ten – were museums and galleries3 and three UK museums were in the top five most visited international art museums in 20094.

The NMDC publication Museums Deliver contains more evidence of the success of the UK’s museums, demonstrating the wide-ranging social and economic importance of museums in the UK and highlighting their unique role in society from the global stage to the local high-street.

Funding cuts will put this success at risk. As museums are front line services with large fixed costs of caring for collections and buildings, it is inevitable that cuts will impact on public service. Likely impacts of funding cuts from central and local Government include: • Negative economic impact – in particular on the UK tourism economy. Cuts will lead to the loss of the UK’s cultural pre-eminence and international reputation through losses of expertise and profile, as well as damage to the ‘UK brand’, all of which will have an impact on incoming tourism. - Museums play a leading role in attracting tourists to the UK and contribute significantly to the UK tourist economy, the 5th largest industry in the UK. Britain's major museums and galleries earned the country £1 billion in revenue from overseas tourists in 20095. - Cuts will also impact on the UK’s creative industries – the fastest-growing sector of the economy – for which museums provide a vital resource, inspiring and showcasing creativity and the heritage on which it is built. • Risk to collections – funding cuts will mean increased difficulty for museums in the effective management and care of the national collections. Government funding is crucial – it is a much greater challenge to secure external funding for collections care work as opposed to more public facing activity.

1 Figures from DCMS Performance Indicators. 2 Taking Part: The National Survey of Culture, Leisure and Sport Adult and Child Report 2009/10 3 The Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA) 4 The Art Newspaper, No 212, April 2010 5 Visit Britain 903

- Cuts will result in the potential loss of curatorial and research expertise. This will lead to a resultant reduction in capacity for provision of expert advice to Government, the commercial market, scholars, students and the public; risks to the nation’s scientific literacy; and risks to the ability to conserve objects, since conservation expertise is highly specialised and irreplaceable. - Funding cuts will result in a reduction in acquisition budgets, making it increasingly difficult to secure key objects for museum collections. In particular there is a danger that with the resultant difficulty in securing contemporary items, collections will not reflect today’s society. • Reduction in access – large funding cuts have the potential to cause a fundamental reversal of building broad, democratic and universal access to culture at a national and local level. They will result in a reduction in access to the national collections, particularly outside London and for hard to reach groups. A decline in visitor numbers to museums will also mean a decline in income from ticket sales and secondary spend in cafés and shops. • Reduction in programming – particularly education provision and outreach work. The high fixed costs inherent to museums mean that there is very limited ‘discretionary’ spend, meaning programming will necessarily be reduced. Loss of programmes will mean reductions in attendance, particularly of hard to reach groups, as well as a reductions in e.g. media profile and fundraising opportunities. • Risk to buildings – a reduction in capital funding will mean less investment to effectively and efficiently maintain the buildings (particularly the fabric of historic buildings) and plant within museums’ estates. Many museums already have a shortfall in budgets for buildings and infrastructure improvements. It will then be a challenge to maintain a world-class visitor experience, as well as to run safe and secure buildings. There will also be a loss of ability to invest in measures to reduce carbon emissions, meaning museums continue to use more energy than they need to. • A reduction in work with regional partners – and an inability to develop new partnerships, which will result in less access to the national collections for people across the UK. Funding cuts at a regional/local level and the subsequent reduction in regional museum capacity will also make it more difficult to work in partnership with regional partners. • Loss of capacity for innovation and risk-taking within the cultural sector – as organisations will be forced to focus on core business in response to cuts in resource and capacity.

2. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

• Museums are already extremely efficient – since efficiency is built into the mixed private-public funding model, and the high fixed costs of collections care mean any reductions in funding cuts must be implemented elsewhere – and so little is spent on back office functions. 904

• Museums are already working together to make efficiency savings. Some examples include: - The V&A has shared the Natural History Museum’s combined heat and power since 2006, resulting in carbon savings to the V&A of 700 tonnes per year. - The Natural History Museum, V&A and National Museum of Science and Industry have undertaken a joint procurement exercise for a single service provider for security, worth £50 million. - The National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery jointly procure electricity and are exploring ways to share services in back-office areas and work more collaboratively. - The National Portrait Gallery is moving its storage to within a section of Tate’s facility at Southwark. - Seven national museums are undertaking joint procurement for shared market research provision – to streamline costs and also enabling the exchange of benchmarking data. • A collaborative approach is already taken by many museums. For example, the NMDC (funded by members) helps museums collaborate on projects and research, share information and best practice.

3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

• UK museums have a successful mixed-funding model of public subsidy and earned and donated income (see section 8 below). Public subsidy is crucial to enable self-generated income to be raised. The independence, creativity and innovation afforded by the current mixed funding model is what makes the cultural life of the UK uniquely excellent. • A necessary and sustainable level of public subsidy is one which enables museums to provide core free public access whilst maintaining buildings and collections in a fit state for future generations. For a sustainable future, we would expect levels of subsidy to stay broadly at their present levels – more investment produces greater returns and public benefit (see section one above for examples of the success of sustained public funding). • Public subsidy has a direct impact on the tourism economy and is necessary if museums are to remain primary tourist attractions (see section one above) • Free admission to national museums is key to ensuring access to the national collections – and is a Government commitment. Free admission is impossible without sufficient levels of public subsidy.

4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

• There are numerous problematic issues around the current NDPB status of national museums – including restrictions on the freedom to use self-generated 905

income through reserves and complicated and overlapping regulations thwarting efficiency and income generation. Modest reforms would make a big difference, although more fundamental reform would be costly and could put collections at risk. • For Ministry of Defence-funded museums, the current annual funding round makes forward planning difficult. 3-5 year funding agreements would give greater certainty and clarity. • Renaissance funding has been a key mechanism for improving and maintaining regional museum provision, and it is crucial that funding continues. NMDC has concerns over how this will be managed following the abolition of MLA (see below).

5. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;

• An increase to 20% would have a positive impact and would restore the imbalance resulting from diversion of Lottery funding from arts and heritage to the Olympics. • The HLF is a vital source of funding for acquisitions and capital projects – an increase in funds available will have a positive impact on museums’ ability to care for the collections they hold, to act as a vital educational resource, and to continue to attract visitors and offer a world-class visitor experience. • Lottery funding will be increasingly key as other sources of funding are reduced – however, any increase in Lottery funds should not be used to offset reduced government funding. Whilst Lottery funding is key in enabling projects and acquisitions to happen which would not otherwise be possible, it can never act as a substitute for core public funding.

6. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;

• Policy should reflect the implications of a reduction in government capital funding – Lottery funding will play a more important role in conserving building fabric, refreshing public offer and therefore maintaining the UK museums’ world-class reputation. • There is a need to ensure arts and heritage funds benefit the entire sector and not just community organisations – the Big Lottery has recently focussed on voluntary and community sectors, excluding statutory bodies. Funds must continue to be available to national organisations and large scale developments – which function as centres of excellence, supporting other sectors and offering broader benefits to the public. • The HLF should ensure it continues to recognise that science is an important part of culture, and be explicit in its support of this. 906

• Reduction in bureaucracy – the HLF could reduce the administration burden by taking a lighter touch approach to project management and monitoring, and simplifying the application process.

7. 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;

• NMDC is concerned over the future of MLA functions – particularly Renaissance funding, but also other functions such as Government Indemnity, Acceptance in Lieu, the National Security Advisor role and Accreditation. If these are to be absorbed into the Arts Council, will museum issues be adequately understood/represented? We need to emphasise that museums aren’t just about the arts. • The MLA has a UK-wide role in relation to various functions (including the National Security Advisor, Acceptance in Lieu and the Portable Antiquities Scheme) and as such there needs to be consultation with the devolved governments as to how these services can be handled transparently and effectively. • With MLA abolition there is an issue of the strategic leadership/policy function for the sector – particularly with loss of staff capacity at DCMS. The removal of MLA will break the link between national and regional museums from a strategic perspective. There may be a greater advisory role placed on national museums, both from Government and within the sector. • There is a need to ensure that the risk of core funding being cut under the pretence of administrative changes and efficiencies is avoided.

8. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

• Yes – but they cannot be a replacement for government funding. The mixed funding model is crucial. • Raising private funds is difficult for general maintenance and running costs – donors do not want to “repair the roof”. A loss of reputation and profile is also likely to affect levels of private donation – donors like to be associated with thriving, world class organisations.

• The extent and timing of support from corporate sponsors and private donors means that it cannot be viewed as a truly sustainable and reliable source of income in the long term For example, the American model of reliance of private funding brings a degree of compromise and vulnerability, and a sudden downturn in private support has recently led to closures of US museums. • Opportunities for raising funds from business and philanthropy are easier to find for some organisations across the sector and in some parts of the country than 907

others. Major donations and sponsorship are much harder to achieve and rely on outside London. Funding and internal capacity cuts make it harder. • Donors have expressed concern at the notion that their funds may necessarily be used to ‘replace’ government monies. There are strong indications that a shift to long-term funding support would need to be achieved over an extended period and significantly incentivised, with assurance that donors were not simply underwriting organisations where the level of government support had significantly reduced and or been withdrawn. • There is an opportunity for growth but it will take time to develop for many organisations and needs Government assistance/incentives (see section 9 below).

9. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

• Yes – changes to the tax regime to support both regular and one-off giving to cultural institutions would help enormously. Favourable legislation to support the setting up of endowments is potentially even more valuable. • The 2008 publication by Britain's major cultural institutions, Private Giving for the Public Good, outlines the need for greater support to encourage a culture of giving and wider recognition of the contribution made by cultural philanthropists. Specific strands of activity or policy which would fulfil that agenda include: - Incentives to encourage gifts to British collections - Reforms to Gift Aid - Lifetime Legacies - Recognition for donors. - Capacity building in the sector. • The UK needs to develop a culture where people believe it is right and proper to invest in the cultural sector, regardless of tax incentives. A 5-10 year time-frame is required for the development of a better culture of giving.

September 2010 908

Written evidence submitted by the Board of the South Western Federation of Museums & Art Galleries (SWFMAG) (arts 207)

Summary points

• Heritage is a cornerstone of tourism in the South West, worth £6.3bn in 2009; • Experienced museum professionals are essential to sustaining the contribution of volunteers; • Small amounts of core funding unlock larger sums and economic benefits; • More and simpler mechanisms for tax efficient donations by individuals and corporations could generate increased income to the sector; • A continuous programme of training is essential to ensure staff and volunteers have the skills to maximise the contribution that museums make to their local communities and to the tourism industry in the South West; • Accreditation, administered by sector specific staff, has led to a demonstrable rise in standards which must be built upon to ensure museums meet their potential at the centre of communities and the economy. • The South Western Federation of Museums & Art Galleries is well placed to channel cost effective support to the region, as demonstrated by its management of the SW Renaissance Museum Skills Programme in 2008-2010.

Submission

1. This submission is made by the Board of the South Western Federation of Museums & Art Galleries (SWFMAG). The Federation is a voluntary subscription based charity, representing museums and the paid and volunteer staff who work in them in the South West of England. It was founded in 1931 to exchange information, share skills, create opportunities and promote the value and benefits of museums and art galleries. In 1953 it was the driving force behind the creation of the first Area Museum Council – the regional bodies whose roles were taken over by the regional Museum Libraries and Archives Councils in the early 2000s.

2. We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence to this Inquiry and would start by saying we applaud the Government’s recognition of the importance of tourism to the British economy. It highlights the contribution made by museums and heritage in attracting visitors to Britain and encouraging UK residents to holiday at home. Figures published by VisitBritain provide robust evidence of the impact of our sector. As the UK’s top tourism destination after London and the South East, the South West accounts for 18% of the UK earnings from tourism, totalling some £6.3bn in 20091. It is essential that the museums, galleries and heritage sites that attract visitors to the region continue to meet visitor needs and expectations in this highly competitive market. To do this they need skilled staff and volunteers and financial stability.

3. The South West of England comprises 9 county and unitary authorities as well as the Channel Isles and , 18% of the land mass of England and as many museums as London and the southeast combined. There are 544 museums and collections, 229 of which are accredited under the MLA scheme. The majority of these local authority and independent museums are staffed and run by volunteers, usually retired, with no previous museum experience, reliant on the support of a network of professionals to maintain and deliver quality. Even museums with paid staff rely on volunteers to deliver many aspects of their service, from visitor reception, through running learning activities to research and essential fundraising.

4. This submission addresses 2 of the questions posed by the Inquiry and illustrates these with examples from our region. In so doing it describes initiatives which inform other areas under examination by the Inquiry.

1 Tourism Facts and Figures, Museums Association, London 2010, contains information relevant to museums and references to key VisitBritain publications. 909

5. What impact will spending cuts from central and local Government have on the arts and heritage at a national and local level?

5.1 Spending cuts from local and central Government will have a big impact on museums in the South West, at a time when the opportunities for funding from other sources are severely stretched. Museums, whether council run or independent, large or small, run by volunteer or paid staff, will all be affected as they all benefit either directly or indirectly from government subsidy. Cuts will affect staffing levels, the ability to preserve items for the future, to add to collections, to interpret them and make them accessible to everyone – it fact the whole gamut of museum activity.

5.2 Cuts threaten the great improvements made over the years, and accelerated since the start of Renaissance in the Regions, to user services and in collections care. The term ‘museum’ can no longer be used as a pejorative word, shorthand for something dusty and static. The success of initiatives such as Kids in Museums, A History of the World in 100 objects and the recent blockbusting Banksy exhibition at Bristol City Museum are examples on a national scale which are replicated at local level several times over.

5.3 It is the professional specialist curatorial, conservation and education staff, able to work on the collections themselves, train others in the skills required or facilitate hands-on public exploration that have brought about this change. A museum’s collections become meaningless and inaccessible if they are not properly housed, preserved, researched and made available to the public through display, interpretation, activities and direct access.

5.4 Museum Development Officers, the Museum Development Fund and Conservation Development Officers The expertise, encouragement and access to project funding and small grants provided by MDOs and the CDOs are key to the success of smaller museums. To cut them would severely threaten museums’ capacity to deliver at the present level.

5.4.1 Modernisation of small and volunteer run museums like the ones so prevalent in the South West can be directly traced to the work of Museum Development Officers (MDOs). Now funded mainly through MLA Renaissance and local authority budgets, MDOs successfully undertake a wide range of tasks at a local level because of their capacity to generate enthusiasm in others. They promote Museum Accreditation, provide advice and guidance, broker partnerships, act as advocates, encourage and support volunteers and develop and manage projects funded by the Museum Development Fund (MDF). They also administer and distribute small grants from the MDF and often organise the County Museum Groups (county based, self help groups of museums). They encourage participation in initiatives that fulfil government priorities as well as meet local needs.

5.4.2 Recent research in the South West2 and the West Midlands confirmed that MDOs are the key component in the improved performance of smaller museums –

An independent evaluation of the MDOs' work was carried out in 2008. It demonstrated that, notwithstanding their limited capacity, they had achieved: • a very high awareness level of their work, with almost all small museums having contact with the MDO; • an especial appreciation of their work relating to funding advice, information about national initiatives and networking; • improved ways of working by museums as a consequence of their advice and training, supported by a grants scheme that enabled changes that might not otherwise have been possible.

2 The South West Museum Development Fund, Renaissance South West, 2010 910

It is clear from this positive response that MDOs are highly-valued, and increasingly seen as the key component in support for smaller local museums. Besides being of practical assistance, much of what is achieved is very much with the grain of governmental policies intended to support the voluntary sector, and in creating a sense of identity and cohesion for local communities – 'place- shaping'.

Extract from Supporting Museums in the West Midlands, by Egeria, published by the Marches Curators Group, 2009

Likewise the impact of the work of Conservation Development Officers greatly outweighs the cost. In the South West a second CDO post was deleted early in 2010 because ‘a need was being created for the advice and support given which it would not be possible to meet.’3. The demand for practical help even now outstrips supply.

5.4.3 The achievements of MDOs and CDOs are in line with government policy of encouraging the growth of the voluntary sector. They help communities explore and express their local identity through the provision of a lively museum which meets professional standards. Vulnerable to cuts in both local and national government expenditure, the loss of these posts would particularly severely curtail the sustainability and development of the volunteer run museums in our region.

5.5 Volunteers Volunteer recruitment to museums will become even harder if extra demands are placed on them, sources of specialist advice are withdrawn and regular small grant funding ceases.

5.5.1 Volunteers are key to the provision of museums and services in the South West, but they need professional support to take some of the strain and to provide expert advice. In Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire alone, a survey of volunteering in museums carried out as part of the Renaissance-funded project Valuing Volunteers, revealed that, in these 2 counties alone, there are at least 675 volunteers working in the museum sector4. They give an average of 6544 hours a month of their time and skills, with an estimated value of £87,253, free. This translates as £1.1M a year. Research in Somerset demonstrated a similar situation.

5.5.2 Local authority cuts are impacting on independent volunteer run museums which rely on local authorities for grants to cover rent charges or for reductions in business rates. One example, Chard Museum, set up as a volunteer run charity 40 years ago, is suffering substantial financial difficulties because of the tapered withdrawal of a grant of c.£9,000 a year to cover its rent to the local authority. Comments in the visitors’ book include: ‘Probably one of the most comprehensive collections of rural crafts, local engineering and some fantastic large exhibits. A credit to all concerned in establishing and continuing to provide a window on Chards past.’. The pressure to raise the shortfall themselves, in an area of rural deprivation, puts undue stress on the museum’s trustees and forces them to consider resigning from the work they love. Many volunteers are retired. They did not volunteer to take on similar levels of stress and responsibility that they had during their working lives.

3 Stuart Davies Associates, Collection Care and Conservation Support Feasibility Study, Renaissance South West, 2010; available at: www.mla.gov.uk/what/programmes/renaissance/regions/south_west/news 4 Reynolds, J., Valuing Volunteers, Gloucestershire County Council, et al, 2009; available at: www.swfed.org.uk/images/counties/n-glos/glos_valuing_vols_rep.pdf

911

5.6 Education and Learning Education and learning will suffer because there will not be the people with the knowledge of the collections or the special teaching skills to generate appropriate curriculum based resources or lifelong learning opportunities.

5.6.1 Use of museums for formal and informal learning has increased by over 25% since 2002, facilitated through Renaissance funding and the money brought into museums through the Strategic Commissioning partnership with the Department for Education. Schools and lifelong learners engage with collections through structured workshops, drop in sessions, over the internet through specially developed digital resources. Research consistently confirms the benefits of museum-based formal learning, particularly amongst otherwise low achievers5. Cuts in this area of work would severely compromise schools’ ability to deliver the curriculum and engage children in their local community.

5.7 Partnerships Cuts will threaten the partnerships that museums have built up locally, regionally and nationally, not just between museums but with Social, Youth and Probation Services, NHS trusts, arts organisations, care providers and others.

5.7.1 Museum collections are fantastic resources through which to develop skills, gain self esteem, showcase talent and develop well-being. Many HLF funded projects are testimony to this. Not only do partnerships bring extra resources into museums, they cement their role within local communities and ensure their collections are used by a broad number of people. Local and national government cuts to the budgets of all partner organisations will mean this frequently life-changing aspect of museums’ work is likely to be curtailed.

5.7.2 North Somerset Museum’s project, Then and Now – Teens through the Timewarp, was a partnership between the council run museum and youth services. Thirty teenagers developed workplace and social skills through the curation of the exhibition which reached the finals of the 2007 National Lottery Awards.

5.8 Training Innovation in the South West has demonstrated how training administered by a regionally based museum group can maintain provision when cuts threaten to narrow opportunities.

5.8.1 Training in all aspects of running a museum is vital to ensure we have the skills and knowledge to get the most out of the collections we hold in trust for society now and in the future. In the South West training has most recently been principally funded through MLA Renaissance money, making it particularly vulnerable to financial cuts.

5.8.2 For the past 2 years Renaissance South West has contracted our organisation to deliver training across the region. This has proved to be highly successful, not only in terms of value for money (average cost per delegate £34), but also in terms of delegate satisfaction. Evaluation has shown that this is due to our knowledge of local needs, of the profile of delegates and their institutions, of training venues and of local sources of trainers who are experts in their field. Delegates from independent and local authority museums value the opportunities to meet to share ideas. Working in a small institution in a large geographical area can be an isolating experience.

5 Research Centre for Museums & Galleries, Inspiration, Identity, Learning: The Value of Museums, DCMS, 2004; available at: www.le.ac.uk/ms/research/Reports/Inspiration,%20Identity,%20Learning_The%20value%20of%20museums. pdf

912

5.9 Cash Through their professional expertise and strong community support museums have gained a track record of maximising the income they have. Proposals to reform Gift Aid rules, the rise in the rate of VAT and increasingly centralised challenge-funding threaten this economic achievement.

5.9.1 Following consultation with users6 Renaissance South West re-introduced a small grants scheme administered by the CDO to help museums buy environmental monitoring equipment, storage materials and to fund conservation costs. Supplemented by the museum’s own funding these grants make basic improvements in collection care possible.

5.9.2 With just £500 each from MLA 2 volunteer-run independent museums in Somerset piloted the National Portrait Gallery’s Take One Picture project to promote the use of museum collections by schools. The pilots were so successful that the approach is now being rolled out across the region.

5.9.3 The benefits of locally based services, where users and providers build up relationships and trust cannot be overstated. Centralisation results in depersonalisation which in turn leads to de-motivation and slow and inappropriate responses to the challenges being faced. What looks on paper to be a cost-saving turns out to be more expensive, either because a result is more limited or of poorer quality or because additional resources have had to be drafted in to supplement the original budget.

5.9.4 Several independent museums raise between 3 and 10% of their income through Gift Aid. Changes introduced in 2006 made the system more complex so that generally only larger institutions had the capacity to benefit from the scheme. To restrict access to it further would severely harm the financial projections of independent museums, many of which are already seeing their income from reserves plummet as interest rates remain at an all time low and stock exchange dividends falter. Likewise, charities cannot reclaim VAT on purchases and so will bear the cost increases resulting from the rise in rate being brought in this coming New Year.

5.10 Responsibility for historic assets Some local authorities are avoiding their responsibilities for historic buildings and collections left to them in trust by cutting funds to charities that have taken on the responsibility of running them.

5.10.1 The delegation to a charity of the responsibility for running a museum, frequently sited in a building which itself is a heritage asset, is seen by local authorities as a good way to reduce their expenditure on the service, sometimes to nil. The requirement on authorities to charge rent for their properties has meant that in the past charities have been grant aided this cost. When these grants are axed authorities are arguably breaking the law as they are not meeting their responsibilities to look after their historic assets, which have frequently been gifted to them for safe keeping.

6. How will the abolition of the MLAC impact on museums?

6.1 When it was set up in 2000 the MLAC, then named Re:source, took over the responsibilities of the Museums & Galleries Commission (MGC) and expanded its remit to include Libraries and Archives. Some functions, for example the provision of a cohesive approach to accessing

6 Stuart Davies Associates, Collection Care and Conservation Support Feasibility Study, Renaissance South West, 2010

913

European funding, were lost during this reorganisation. It is to be hoped that such key areas of operation will not be shed this time.

6.2 Accreditation The uncertain future of Accreditation and of the demonstrable rise in standards it has engendered are of great concern. Responsibility for the scheme must be administered by sector specific staff.

6.2.1 Accreditation (formerly Registration) is a voluntary scheme which sets standards in all areas of a museum’s operation. Museums from the largest National to the smallest community museum have successfully used it as a framework for development and improvement in governance, collections care, financial management, and in their presentation to and involvement of the public. It has made museums more accountable and added both legal and conservation safeguards to the collections that institutions hold in trust for present and future generations. It reassures funding bodies and the public that the museum is publically accountable. Accreditation must survive as an active programme with qualified museum professionals to administer it at all stages.

6.3 The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) The PAS plays an increasingly important role in the operation of the Treasure Act. Since 2003, when the PAS was extended to the whole of England and Wales, there has been an average increase of 194% in the reporting of Treasure, to the benefit of museums across the country.

6.3.1 In 2008 806 finds of Treasure were reported with a further 53,346 non-Treasure finds recorded with the PAS on a voluntary basis, adding significantly to our understanding of the past. 82 parties waived their right to a reward in 51 cases of Treasure, allowing them to be acquired by museums at no (or reduced) public cost. Without the PAS there would be no mechanism to deal effectively with finds found by the public and ensure the knowledge about them is disseminated for the benefit of all.

6.3.2 The Scheme is managed by the British Museum on behalf of the MLA. The abolition of the MLA and the re-organisation of the Renaissance programme and cuts to national museums’ budgets put the PAS in jeopardy. The British Museum, a strong candidate to take on the scheme, must be adequately funded to do so.

6.4 Other key functions of MLA It is important that other services operated by MLA including Acceptance in Lieu, the National Security Advisor, Export Licensing, Designation, Purchase Grant Schemes and Government Indemnity are not lost in transition.

6.4.1 These services make a tremendous contribution to the operation of museums and to the cultural well-being of the UK as a whole, for example Government Indemnity enables the loan of important collections from national museums to the regions, providing inspiration and pleasure to a broader audience.

7. Conclusion

Museums are lively, innovative institutions staffed by people with a passion for the work they do and the potential it can unlock in individuals and communities. Their success in what they do, either as volunteers or paid staff, is underpinned by high professional standards and a small amount of core funding to which they then add value through creative partnerships and enthusiasm.

Heritage and museums inspire civic pride and creative activity which revives the spirit and enriches communities, establishing a positive outlook which is at the heart of Britain’s recovery.

914

The South Western Federation of Museums & Art Galleries is the only sector specific regional organisation in the South West. It is ready to work in partnership with DCMS to face the challenges ahead.

September 2010 915

Written evidence submitted by BECTU (arts 208)

1. BECTU is a trade union for workers in the audiovisual and live entertainment sectors. Many thousands of our members work in areas affected by arts and cultural funding, especially theatre, as well as film and independent production. We therefore have a strong interest in the issue of arts funding.

SUMMARY

2. The arts is an economically significant sector within the UK economy, with a powerful multiple effect in ancillary sectors such as tourism.

The scale of the potential cuts in arts funding could result in widespread closures or potential closure of theatres and other such organisations.

The consequences for the workforce in a very labour-intensive sector would be severe, including a significant reduction in employment and skill levels and a reversal of recent progress in backing endemic low pay, exploitation of young people and lack of diversity.

The abolition of the UK Film Council would be very harmful to the film industry, especially in the key area of indigenous medium-budget UK film production.

Philanthropy can never be a remotely adequate replacement for public funding of the arts.

THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ARTS

3. The arts constitute part of the UK’s creative industries sector, which is one of the most significant components of the UK economy, as the Government’s own statistics indicate:

• The creative industries, excluding crafts and design, accounted for 6.2% of UK gross value added in 2007. • They grew by an average of 5% per year between 1997 and 2007, compared to an average of 3% for the economy as a whole. • Exports from the sector amounted to £16.6B in 2007, which was 4.5% of all goods and services exported. • Creative employment (ie jobs in the creative industries and ancillary sectors) reached 2m in mid-2008, with an average growth rate of 2% per year, compared to 1% for all employment. • The creative industries encompassed over 157,000 businesses in 2008, representing 7.3% of all companies on the Government’s Inter-Departmental Business Register. • In sum, the UK Creative Industries constitute a greater proportion of GDP than of any other country in the world.

4. The arts are a central component of our creative industries. The arts sector’s most distinctive asset is its skilled workforce – with creative, craft and technical skills to match any competitors in the world. Many of these skilled workers move back and forth into adjacent components of the creative industries (such as fashion, broadcasting and advertising), contributing their skills, creativity and experience. To a significant extent, therefore, trends in the UK arts sector have a broader impact on our creative industries as a whole and thus on entire economy.

5. Within the creative industries, the arts is an economic success story in its own right:

916

− For every £1 invested by the Arts Council, an additional £2 is generated from private and commercial sources, providing £3 in total investment. Public funding for the arts also has a powerful multiplier effect, stimulating economic activity in ancillary sectors including tourism. − Two-thirds of the adult population of the UK make use of our arts, cultural and heritage facilities in any given year. − Arts and culture are thus vital to the UK tourist industry, which was worth £86b or 3.7% of GDP in 2007 and directly employed 1.4m people. − Theatre specifically achieves a direct and indirect economic impact of £2.6b per year. It should be noted that the subsidised and commercial theatre sectors are closely interlinked, with established patterns of collaboration by which the subsidised sector develops productions which subsequently transfer to the commercial sector eg to West End theatres.

6. In short, the arts are a vital component of the UK economy and a key element in any economic recovery from the current crisis triggered in the financial services sector. We can only agree with the Arts Council that ‘The arts represent the creative future on which Britain’s economy depends’. This makes the proposed cuts in arts funding a matter of very serious concern – not least because they are a potentially self-defeating barrier to economic recovery.

THE IMPACT OF DRASTIC CUTS IN ARTS FUNDING

7. The Committee requests views on ‘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’.

8. We note the extremely serious nature of the possible future cuts in arts funding: − DCMS have asked the Arts Council and other funded bodies to model a 25-30% cut over the next 4 years. − ACE is already asking regularly funded organisations to model for a minimum 10% cut in funding for 2011-12, with a warning of possible more painful cuts in 2012-13 to 2014-15.

9. Already in 2010-11: − ACE has been required by DCMS to make cuts of around 4% and the ACE’s original budget has been cut by £23m to £445m. − VAT will be raised from 17.5% to 20% in January, which could have an impact on theatre ticket prices and therefore audiences.

10. Other additional factors: − £112.5m of ACE Lottery funding has already been diverted to the Olympics (representing part of an estimated total contribution of £322m from the cultural sector to the Olympics). − Local Government, which has in the past contributed at least as much money as ACE to the arts (and currently contributes about £230m per year), is itself facing very serious proposed cuts of £1.1b. There is no statutory requirement for local councils to fund the arts, so a disproportionate impact on this sector is anticipated.

11. We also note that, in the overall context of public spending, the arts sector is completely insignificant, with an arts budget of an estimated 17p per week per person. UK public spending on the arts has historically ranked below that in comparable European economies such as Germany, France, Sweden and Holland. 917

12. The specific impact of the cuts is obviously impossible to outline in detail at this stage. However, it is already clear that their sheer scale is likely to have severe consequences:

− ACE has estimated that a 25% cut could result in as many as 200 regularly-funded organisations losing all public subsidy (constituting almost a quarter of all such organisations). A 30% cut could lead to a reduction of £134m per year in ACE’s budget for regularly funded organisations – small in the context of the economy as a whole but potentially devastating for the arts sector. − This could lead to the closure or partial closure of leading theatres, galleries, museums and other arts organisations. The financial operating model of many arts organisations will simply not be able to sustain cuts on the scale proposed. For many, there is a tipping point (into non-viability) of 10-15% of funding. − Short of closure, other theatres will simply stage fewer productions; hire fewer technicians, craft people, designers and performers; and tour less. − Broader education and community initiatives stemming from the arts sector are also likely to be seriously affected, as is the long term development of new work and talent for the future. − The scale and urgency of the cuts required also threatens a repetition of the problems of implementation experienced in a previous ACE spending review, including inadequate notice of the cuts, decisions based on flawed information and unclear criteria – all of which compound the financial problems of the cuts themselves.

13. We believe the proposed cuts will:

− Reverse the gains made in recent years in the international standing of UK arts and cultural organisations. − Lead to a loss of vital expertise and, for a whole generation of young people, to significantly diminished access to arts and culture. − Inflict severe structural damage to our arts sector’s internationally-admired and emulated model of mixed (public/commercial/private) funding. − Represent a return, of unprecedented severity, to the stop-start-stop pattern of arts funding that the UK has only recently sought to reverse. − Impact negatively on the economy as a whole through economic multiplier effects and the interlinking of the arts with the creative industries/tourism/and other ancillary sectors.

THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE WORKFORCE

14. The arts generally and theatre specifically is a very labour-intensive sector. The sector essentially depends on its human resources rather than on fixed capital – despite historically unacceptable levels of low pay and casual employment.

15. Cuts on the scale proposed will therefore have a direct and disproportionate impact on employment in the sector – with a severe and immediate effect on jobs, increased casualisation and an insidious longer-term impact in terms of the loss of talent and skill.

16. As well as the serious quantitative impact on employment levels, the cuts will also have the following effects:

• The limited progress which has been made to address pay-levels in this largely low- paid sector is likely to be reversed. The ‘silent subsidy’ (in terms of low pay even for 918

many skilled workers) from the arts workforce will thereby increase rather than diminish. • The investment in skills development – from training organisations such as CC Skills, from trade unions (including our own promotion of skills in collective agreements and through union learning representatives) and from some employers – could be reversed. • The already unacceptably high levels of internships and unpaid work in the arts sector – leading in a number of cases to the exploitation of young people eager to enter the industry – could increase further. As a side effect, this leads to a structural bias towards individuals from better-off backgrounds, where families can afford to subsidise them while entering the industry in an unpaid capacity. • Yet further serious obstacles to addressing the relative lack of diversity in a workforce where, for example in theatre, there is a significant under-representation of black and ethnic minority workers. BECTU has been active in this area through our TUC award-winning Move On Up initiative and in discussions with ACE. Any limited progress which has been made could now be reversed.

THE ABOLITION OF THE UK FILM COUNCIL

17. The Committee specifically asks for views on the proposed abolition of the UK Film Council.

18. We firstly note the economic contribution of the film sector a key component of the UK creative industries – and as verified by the recent independent report by Oxford Economics.

− The film industry contributes £4.5B per year to GDP with £3.6B of this arising from inward ie foreign investment. − £1.2B is raised for the Exchequer, compared to film tax relief of only £110m. − The industry directly employs 36,000 workers and supports a total of 100,000 direct and indirect jobs. The industry workforce has a worldwide reputation for its skills and experience.

19. However, we also know that the film industry is extremely fragmented, with a workforce that is almost entirely freelance, and a predominance of SMEs and single- purpose vehicles (ie companies formed to make a single film) rather than significant, permanent corporate structures. In this context, the strategic role of the UK Film Council has been vital, acting for the industry and bringing coherence to its relations with the outside world in a way that no other body is in a position to do – campaigning for inward investment; representing the industry in discussions with government (for example, on modifying the tax break); channelling lottery funding into successful productions; investing in training for key workers in the sector and new entrants; developing the national network of digital cinema screens; promoting diversity in the industry’s workforce; and campaigning against piracy/copyright theft.

20. The UK Film Council would have had a particularly valuable role in the coming period, as we face a crisis in indigenous UK medium-budget film and TV film production, with growing concern about production levels in this sector. This is the long-term heartland of our truly British film industry – without which we risk being left as

a) a facility to service international productions (for which key strategic and investment decisions are taken elsewhere, especially in Hollywood, and for which there is a trend to bring in non-UK workers under the points-based migration system) and 919

b) an unsustainable training ground for new entrants mainly working on micro-budget productions.

We continue to welcome inward investment but we also know that without an indigenous sector of wholly/predominantly British-originated productions, we face an uncertain future. This is the key sector where our technical and creative film talent is developed and employed and which in turn underpins our skillsbase and our ability to attract international productions.

21. This sector of film production now faces significant structural difficulties arising from the reduction in investment from broadcasters/financial institutions/private investors; from the lack of pre-sales; from the falling-off of the DVD market; and from the lack as yet of any new business model for the emerging digital environment. This is precisely where we need a national strategic agency to explore future policy solutions and to campaign for them on behalf of the sector. If the UK Film Council is abolished, there will be nothing in place to undertake this role. We might well pay a price in terms of the long- term viability of our film industry.

PHILANTHROPY: A BOGUS ALTERNATIVE FOR THE ARTS

22. The Government has expressed the view that private funding for the arts from business and philanthropists should be encouraged as a means of compensating for severe reductions in public funding.

23. This is not, in our view, a remotely serious and viable alternative to public funding for the arts.

24. All the evidence is:

− That the amount of funding generated from business and philanthropic source has never remotely matched secure public funding levels. − That business funding of the arts has actually decreased in the past year and that significantly increased business funding at time of economic crisis is simply an unrealistic expectation (as is born out by experience in the US). − That such business and philanthropic funding as exists is typically tied to matched public funding rather than standing alone. − That such private funding tends to be geared primarily to London; to larger institutions; and to artistically safer rather than innovative events and productions.

25. Business and philanthropic funding is welcome but – unless we wish to see a permanent diminution of arts activity in the UK – it can only ever act as a supplement rather than as a substitute for long term public funding.

26. Finally, the suggestion that tax breaks for philanthropists would encourage increased donations seems truly perverse. Foregoing revenue to the Exchequer in order to attempt to resolve a problem arising from reduced Government finances makes no economic sense, although it may provide comfort to small-state ideologists.

NATIONAL LOTTERY REAPPORTIONMENT

27. We welcome the proposed reallocation of the arts apportionment of National Lottery funding to its original 20% level by 2012. However, set besides cuts in public funding on the scale proposed, this change in the distribution is of marginal benefit. It will 920

simply be totally outweighed by the negative consequences of significant reductions in public funding.

CONCLUSION

28. We believe that cuts in arts funding on the scale proposed will harm economic recovery; are unjustified given the very small proportion of public funding allocated to the arts; will do long term strategic damage to the arts (and, in the case of the UK Film Council, to the indigenous film industry); will have a severe and immediate impact on the workforce in such a labour-intensive sector; and can never be balanced or compensated for by philanthropy.

29. We believe that the proposed cuts are ideologically – rather than simply economically – driven, which thereby compounds the problem of developing broad agreement on any future strategy for the arts. We anticipate conflict rather than consensus in this area.

September 2010 921

Written evidence submitted by the National Association of Local Government Arts Officers (NALGAO) (arts 209)

1 Background 1.1 nalgao is the national body representing local authority arts officers across England and Wales. With over 400 members, it champions local arts and artists of all types – professional, amateur and voluntary. nalgao’s members include local government officers at all levels, arts professionals, cultural and creative industry organisations, as well as arts marketing and consultancy specialists. We support local arts and creative development and nalgao has a number of significant national partnerships, including with the Arts Councils of England and Wales, the National Campaign for the Arts and the Voluntary Arts Network.

2 Summary • nalgao notes two principle related points, one simple, one complex. The first (not yet widely recognised), that as local government spends more on arts and heritage than central government and as its budgets are cut, arts and heritage will be hit twice.

• The second, that local government arts funding underpins the breadth and diversity of the sector. The real threat to grass roots and developmental work will have a detrimental impact on the vibrancy of the ‘higher’ end of the sector. The ‘arts ecology’ will be damaged, as will cultural tourism and creative industries, one of the few growth areas in the national economy.

• That the sums saved are insignificant in the bigger picture yet will damage the sector considerably for years to come. The impact of cuts in local authority arts budgets will be a decline in participation in arts and cultural services, affecting communities most disadvantaged, young people and those economically challenged, with less art for everyone, and only the well- off metropolitan will be able to access cultural provision. The Arts Council’s ambitions for ‘Great Art for Everyone’ will be unachievable.

• The timing of budget reductions will be critical – front-loading cuts will cause damage, back-loading will at least allow organisations to prepare for and in some case replace lost funds.

3 The Impact of funding cuts from central and local government on arts and heritage at a national and local level 3.1 nalgao’s primary concern over arts and heritage funding is the double impact of central government cuts, coupled with local government reductions. Local government is a major funder of arts and heritage – spending more on these than the DCMS. CLG reports1 that spending by local government on culture (excluding community centres, sports and recreation) in 2008 – 09 was nearly £2,500,000,000 against £1,200,000,000 from DCMS.

3.2 Local government funding for arts and heritage underpins the sector in England, but these services are not statutory (excluding some record office obligations and minimum provision of libraries). Consequently, cultural and leisure budgets are under major threat as councils ask what is the minimum they are required to do. Furthermore, these budgets have already been under pressure for some time – there is little room to manoeuvre.

3.3 nalgao’s annual surveys of local authority spending on the arts reveals, in summary, that: -

1 Local Authority Revenue Expenditure and Financing England: 2008 – 09 Final Outturn, December 2009, CLG 922

3.3.1 Arts budgets generally have been at standstill, with little inflationary increase. Factoring in the impact of inflation over the 2008 – 09 period, this equates to a real 5% decrease in arts spending by local authorities. 3.3.2 Spending on the arts by local authorities varies considerably, from below £50k to over £5million. Unitary authorities in general invest more in the arts than county or second tier (i.e. district and/ or borough) councils, an average of nearly £1.5 million against £500k and £200K respectively. 3.3.3 It is smaller councils that have reduced arts spending the most, and that report least confidence in the future. However, only three major cities in early 2010 reported being positive about the future, against a general expectation of severe cuts. 3.3.4 Forty-four authorities have withdrawn all arts funding over the past 7 years, which accounts for approximately 15% of all local authorities with previously active arts services. A quarter of responding councils to our 2009/10 survey expected severe service reduction in 2010 – 2011 but this was in expectation of a deficit reduction policy prior to the general election and so before the likely scale of public spending cuts was known. There is often no major press coverage of local authority arts closures, unlike closures of regional or national arts projects, which may receive press and media interest. The closure of local authority arts services is consequently unreported and often unnoticed by the national arts funding system.

3.4 Local authorities fund the arts in furtherance of council priorities, such as health, education, regeneration, economic development, creating vibrant places and supporting social and cultural inclusion. In doing this council arts service have developed strong partnerships with other council services and external public services, such as health, education and housing associations, while nearly two-thirds have partnerships with the cultural industries sector.

3.5 These partnerships generate additional funding for the arts, and while it is not possible to give a national total for this, a representative sample of 64 authorities reported additional income from these sources at £20,000,000.

3.6 Most council arts services attract other public and/ or commercial funding to spend on the arts, giving a return of at least £1 for £1 invested. However, nalgao notes that this return on investment is considerably lower in 2010 than in 2009, when it was £1.34 for every £1 invested.

3.7 While council arts services and independent arts organisations have been skilful at attracting other public funding for the arts, the in-year cuts in 2010 – 11 to these funding streams have been particularly damaging, not only for being unplanned but already into the funding year with funding spent or committed. For instance: - 3.7.1 Regional Development Agencies have (in some regions) funded the arts, the in-year cuts have resulted in the withdrawal of £1.37million towards the Turnpike Gallery in the North West, where the Liverpool Everyman Theatre has also lost £2.4million promised for redevelopment.2 3.7.2 In the Eastern region, the withdrawal of LABGI funding threatens the future of ADeC (Arts Development East Cambridge). ADeC is a good example of the existing level of innovation and partnership working already present within the arts sector: a charity, ADeC works with a number of local authorities through both grants and contracts, as well as generating income directly, and through trusts and foundations, to deliver arts services and activities directly responsive to local communities’ interests and needs. This is an effective and sustainable model, however, the in-year cut of nearly 10% of its turnover has put it under significant pressure, at a time when work was already planned to manage planned cuts to local authority funding from 2011 onwards. It is notable

2 Arts Professional website 16.08.2010 923

that ACE made the decision to limit the in-year effect on its core funded (RFO) organisations, but this approach has not been uniformly matched in relation to the more community focused work carried out and funded by local authorities.

3.8 Local government is often a co-funder with Arts Council England for its Regularly Funded Organisations (RFOs), and ACE’s 2006 – 07 survey showed local government’s contribution to be £65.6 million. Funding cuts place this partnership in jeopardy; at considerable risk to both regional and national flagship arts organisations and it will be a rarity for either partner to be able to make good the reductions made by the other.

3.9 The Arts Council and councils also jointly fund activities and organisations outside of the RFO portfolio. These were not eligible for SUSTAIN funding, introduced by ACE to help organisations through the recession, and are vulnerable to cuts. An example of this is the council run New Art Gallery Walsall, which receives grant-aid from ACE, but faces council cuts of between 25% and 40%. It has been calculated that even the ‘best case scenario’ will take ten years to return funding levels to present day rates. The gallery has already had to shut on Mondays; further budget cuts will mean more closed doors.

3.10 However, Arts Council funding and the RFO portfolio in particular, tell only a part of the story of the arts in England. Over 70% of local authorities surveyed by nalgao reported that they regularly fund non-ACE funded organisations.

3.11 nalgao has a particular concern for the diversity of arts activities that take place outside of buildings – we fear for this work as it leaves no “empty building” as testament of lost funding. This area of community outreach and often pioneering development, is particularly vulnerable, especially work with the ‘hard to reach’ groups and communities, work in youth clubs, village halls, community centres, in open spaces and on the street. This also includes festivals, often the lifeblood of community participation in the arts. British Arts Festivals Association (BAFA) reports sponsors are dropping out. For instance, Henley Festival lost £100,000 sponsorship as companies question the ‘wisdom of hosting champagne events when staff are being laid off’ and local authority lost grants, and Cheltenham Festival faced a £220,000 cut of local authority funding.

3.12 In addition to the funding they provide, local authority arts services have a significant role in facilitating the voluntary sector. Support for the voluntary arts sector on the ground is almost entirely carried out through local authorities. This varies from liaison with the licensing and enforcing roles of councils through advice and guidance, and both direct and match funding support to enable applications to third party grant giving bodies. The voluntary sector is a huge part of the whole arts economy across the UK, and the impact, both social and economic, of the removal of local authority support on that sector is wholly unknown.

3.13 We understand the focus on protecting front line arts delivery, the Arts Council’s emphasis on the arts themselves, but the important financial support to capacity and skills development has been an early casualty. The loss of support to the Cultural Leadership programme, Artsmark and Audience Development will all have a longer-term negative impact on the growth of talent and workforce skills – the arts ecology will be damaged.

3.14 Nalgao also fears that – insofar as an emerging arts and heritage policy can be discerned – that it is informed by a ‘high arts’ perspective, one whohc does not recognise or value the breath and diversity of the arts and heritage sector in England.

4 How arts organisations can work more closely together to achieve economies of scale 924

4.1 There are clear entrepreneurial opportunities and models for the sector –and the hub and satellite model of the museum sector may have lessons for others as well. These will enable greater efficiency and self-sufficiency, and there is good evidence that these are already in development in both council cultural services and the independent sector. However, timing is crucial, and the front-loading of cuts will mean that most services will not be able to develop new income routes and delivery models in time to support a smooth transition. The result will be weakened services, unable to deliver effectively and therefore entirely vulnerable to closure. More careful timing and funding reductions would enable services to move more effectively into new operational models, protecting front-line services.

4.2 While economies of scale might well be beneficial for back office ‘merger’, the diversity of the sector, the ‘character’ of individual organisations will need to be protected as will the ability to maintain specialisms and social values when larger organisations will be in the stronger position and could subsume smaller more vulnerable operations.

5 What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable? 5.1 Currently the sums invested are modest in the big picture – if the entire cultural sector, (that is arts, museums and libraries) could access just .05% of the health, social care and children’s service budgets, council cultural budgets would go up by 45%3, and yet we have already shown that councils spend more than twice on arts and heritage than the DCMS. The savings to be made – even at 40%, will mean little to the national funding pot but cause considerable damage.

5.2 To answer this question however, the policy and purpose of funding arts and heritage needs to be clear, as does an understanding of the value the funding ‘buys’. If free access to galleries and museums is the nation’s ambition so that our heritage is free to all, not only those who can afford it then that comes at a cost. A cost that includes the fixed costs that come with the statutory duty of museums to conserve and interpret.

5.3 A ‘cultural entitlement’ policy would suggest a different funding level, and no doubt one that is currently not considered affordable. However, a ‘one percent for arts’ policy has been successfully applied by councils in the past and might be a useful benchmark – as well as providing a very clear statement that arts funding is far from excessive.

6 Is the current system, and structure, of funding distribution the right one? 6.1 Analysis of Arts Council funding to RFOs across the English regions (2005 – 06 to 2008 – 09) indicates a considerable imbalance of distribution. While London received over 50% of the funding, the Midlands received 12% and the South East – the most populated region, received only 4%.

6.2 ACE no longer distinguishes between treasury and lottery funding distributed as grant aid, but a similar imbalance is present in grants – with £6,080,000 to London, £1,656,000 to the West Midlands and only £832,000 and £781,000 to the East and South east respectively4. As ACE reports that grant applications are frequently turned down in the lower funded areas due to pressure for funding rather than poor proposals, this indicates the distribution of funds for grant is not equitable.

6.3 The Arts Council has been working to address this imbalance, but there is a lack of equity across the country and, while local priorities and difference are to be acknowledged and celebrated, ACE policy differences have been hard to understand. Funding distribution needs to

3 IDeA January 2010 4 Arts Council England Annual Review 2010 925

be transparent and fair – but even for successful fund raisers, the processes are time consuming and the decision making often obscure.

6.4 ACE no longer publishes distribution data related to art form and regions, consequently it is not possible to see who has received Grants for the Arts funding. This leads to the perception – if not the reality – that in some regions, G4A funding is topping up RFO clients, rather than supporting grass roots, new and innovative or developmental work.

6.5 Indeed, ACE’s focus on organisations that require significant levels of regular funding can be counter productive: it has effectively excluded smaller scale, often more flexible organisations, and it also creates a bias against organisations working in communities, which often do not carry the overhead costs of large buildings. It could be seen as encouraging organisations away from routes that would increase self-sufficiency. In this, we welcome the current review by ACE of its funding streams and hope these will in future be more equitable and responsive.

7 Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding needs to be reviewed 7.1 While the hoped-for increase is welcome, it is not due until April 2012, by which point it is likely that reduced staffing will mean arts organisations and council arts services have little capacity to make funding applications. This increase will not make up the budget cuts.

7.2 The ending of the ‘Awards for All’ has negatively impacted on community groups as it was a simple and easily accessed lottery fund, not adequately replaced by ACE’s smaller Grants for the Arts scheme, which remains challenging for small community groups and inexperienced fund raisers who previously were able to learn much by the simpler application process.

7.3 At the same time, larger arts projects have been generally excluded from the Big Lottery which has not generally been able to recognise the value of arts led applications.

8 The impact of recent changes to DCMS NDPBs 8.1 While we would agree that some of the NDPBs needed review to be more effective, the abolition of these with so little consideration of the impact is concerning. Where will support for museums, libraries and archives now come from? How will the nationally important support for the film industry be made?

8.2 Furthermore, there have been considerable changes to these agencies over the past few years n- changes that have led to a loss of human capital and intelligence. Organisations are the sum of the people that inhabit them – not simply a reflection of the balance sheet. Loss of knowledgeable and experienced personnel through repeated restructuring has been destructive of relationships, and certainly in the case of the MLA and ACE, meant a serious reduction in contact, support and effective advise.

9 Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in fund the arts at a national and local level 9.1 While it is hoped this would be the case, representative voices have already indicated they are interested in adding value, not replacing public funding.

9.2 Experience has shown that high profile organisations, those in prime locations with fine building – whether traditional or new – those that have something to offer sponsors in either prestige or hospitality or marketing, can do well in this – although sponsorship and patronage have declined in recent years.

926

9.3 Lower profile, less glamorous work such as criminal justice, activities in less densely populated, rural areas and centres of deprivation, outside of the economically active south east and London have all struggled

9.4 Sponsors and businesses support that which appeals to them, new organisations, developmental and risky projects, volunteer led arts projects – those most dependent on public funding are not generally attractive to private funding.

10 Whether there need to be more government incentives to encourage private donations 10.1 Yes – but it is hard to say how private donations could be generated, beyond a more generous and equitable tax break system. To create a similar spirit of giving to America will take time – at the very least – more like a cultural shift.

September 2010 927

Written evidence submitted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (arts 210)

1. 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

This Government has sought to protect front line artistic and cultural provision wherever possible. The recent in-year cuts to cultural budgets were focused on back office and lower priority functions. Arts Council England Regularly Funded Organisations, for example, received only a 0.5% reduction in their budgets. Any future changes in funding will adhere to the same principle of protecting front line cultural provision as far as is possible. The impact of any changes will also depend on other changes at local government level, the response of the sector in further increasing self-generated income, changes to the National Lottery good cause allocations and the fostering of philanthropy. It would, therefore, be wrong to attempt to predict the impact now, particularly as the outcome of the Spending Review will not be known until 20th October.

2. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

This Government would encourage any co-operative work between arts venues, in sharing knowledge, equipment and expertise in order to save money and increase efficiency. There are undoubtedly areas of duplication within publicly funded cultural organisations and we would encourage our Non-Departmental Public Bodies to take the lead in encouraging the organisations they fund to take advantage of the benefits shared services can bring. We welcome Arts Council England’s emphasis on regularly funded organisations taking on a greater role as art form leads, which should provide the support structure for this to happen and also the work done by the National Museums and Galleries, English Heritage and CABE to share and collaboratively procure some back office and service functions.

3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable

This Government firmly believes in public support for culture, supported by self-generated income and philanthropic giving. We believe public subsidy should be at a level that allows the cultural sector to operate in a sustainable way; that is why we continue to protect front line artistic provision wherever possible. The Spending Review will set the level of public subsidy for the cultural sector from 2011/12 to 2014/15 and we cannot pre-empt the outcome of that process.

4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one

This Government is committed to the mixed funding model with funding coming from Government, from earned income and from other sources including sponsorship and philanthropy. We are always looking at ways in which we can improve the distribution of funding, as seen with the changes currently being made to our arms length bodies. We also welcome the changes to funding schemes that Arts Council England have recently consulted the public on, including replacing regularly funded organisation status with partner organisations and specific programme funding. This should provide a more flexible way of providing funding to organisations and individuals, reflecting the differing roles they play in the sector and how they can best contribute to delivering public policy objectives.

5. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations

928

“The Coalition: Our Programme for Government” states that this Government will reform the National Lottery so that more money goes into the arts and heritage, and also sport. We propose that the arts, heritage and sport should each be increased from 16.66% to 20% of the funding that goes to good causes, restoring the shares they received when the National Lottery was set up. In order to protect the voluntary and community sector funding through Big Lottery Fund, whose share would be reduced from 50% to 40%, we propose to stage the change, with the shares for arts, heritage and sport increasing to 18% on 1 April 2011, and then to 20% on 1 April 2012. A public consultation on this was run by DCMS between 21 May and 21 August 2010 and the responses are currently being analysed. Taking account of the consultation responses, we propose to introduce an Order to Parliament in the autumn.

This Government believes that, in line with the principle of ‘additionality’, that Lottery funds are additional to core Government spending, funds should go to causes that would not otherwise receive funding. It is important and accepted that the Lottery funds arts and heritage among its good causes, sectors which are crucial to the well-being and quality of life of the public.

Arts and heritage currently receive, together, around £500 million each of Lottery income a year, although amounts are currently reduced because of the transfers towards the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, amounting to a total of £322 million from the arts and heritage together over a period of five years from 2008/09 to 2012/13. These amounts are dependent on ticket sales and so vary from year to year, but income has increased and current projections are healthy.

Excluding the effect of the Olympic transfers, the Government’s change would mean around £100 million a year extra for arts and heritage combined. In cash terms, therefore, taking account of the additional funds available to arts and heritage distributors after the Olympic transfers end, the increase will be greater. Under current projections, the arts and heritage together can expect to receive the following income, year by year:

Approximate cash amounts based on current projections 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Arts £200M £220M £285M £315M Heritage £200M £220M £285M £315M

6. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed

Policy Directions to the UK and England distributing bodies (which are currently Arts Council England and the UK Film Council for the arts good cause and the Heritage Lottery Fund for the heritage good cause) are issued by the Secretary of State. These Directions set the broad framework within which the individual Lottery distributors work and the distributors are required to take them into account. In line with its support for the principle of ‘additionality’, the Government has no plans to change the system whereby funding decisions are entirely for the distributing bodies to make.

The existing directions to UK and England arts and heritage distributors have been in place since 2007 and those for Arts Council England and Heritage Lottery Fund include the following:

• Fundamental principles of the Lottery as it was set up in 1994, and which the Government has no plans to change, including the need for an element of partnership funding or contributions in kind from other sources; for projects to be for a specific, time-limited purpose; and for projects to demonstrate financial viability; and where capital funding is sought, a clear business plan to show how running costs will be met. 929

• The need to involve communities in making policies and spending money, foster local community initiatives, and support volunteering, in line with the Coalition Government’s proposals for the “Big Society”, • The need to ensure all areas of the country have access to funding • The need to assess the needs of the arts and heritage and the priorities for addressing them. • The need to ensure that those receiving Lottery money acknowledge it using the common Lottery branding so that the public know where Lottery money has gone.

Where there are structural changes to the Lottery distributing bodies, new policy directions will be issued to successor bodies. In the arts and heritage area, the Government has proposed the abolition of the UK Film Council and is considering the role and remit of the Heritage Lottery Fund.

We continue to look closely at the current directions for the Lottery in respect of arts and heritage and how they can deliver the Coalition Government’s priorities. The Government will consider issuing new or amended policy directions in any good cause if it is appropriate to do so, as has already been the case with Sport England, for a specific issue relating to Olympic legacy. The Department is currently consulting on a proposed new policy direction to the Big Lottery Fund.

7. 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

DCMS is responsible for a network of more than fifty public bodies and one of the priorities of the Secretary of State has been to examine DCMS’s network of public bodies critically with the aim of improving accountability, transparency and value for money.

This forms part of the work being undertaken across Government, and led by the Cabinet Office, to restore proper accountability for activities funded by public money. Public bodies which do not meet one of the three tests outlined will be bought back into departments or devolved if their function is necessary or abolished if not. This work will reduce the number of public bodies, increase the transparency and accountability of the remaining few, and ensure more effective delivery of public services.

As a result of this review, the Secretary of State announced on July 26th his intention to make a number of changes that included:

• the abolition of the UK Film Council; • the abolition of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA); • the merger of UK Sport and Sport England; • the merger of the National Lottery Commission and Gambling Commission (subject to a business case) • the abolition of the Advisory Council on Libraries and the wind up of the Legal Deposit Advisory Panel.

We will continue to explore further opportunities to improve the accountability and coherence of our public bodies landscape.

The details and timing of the proposals announced on 26 July are still being finalised and are subject to discussions with the parties involved. Any necessary legislative changes will be made through the Cabinet Office Public Bodies Bill, which is due to be introduced in the autumn.

930

Where bodies are to be abolished we will look to transfer key functions to other existing bodies so as to continue to support our sectors and preserve the necessary expertise. In the case of the Film Council, for example, this will include their current responsibilities for those key mechanisms that support the industry including the film tax relief, which is worth more than £100 million a year, which will remain in place and Lottery funding for film which is set to increase because of the changes this Government intends to make. We are now considering options to transfer the distribution of these Lottery funds to other existing bodies, with a view to reducing administrative costs; and we will maintain key priorities such as strengthening the sustainability of the UK film industry and support its diversity. We will maintain a strong relationship with the British Film Institute which plays an important role in our cultural heritage. We are discussing with the BFI setting up a direct, less bureaucratic relationship with DCMS.

The decision to abolish the MLA was taken by DCMS in order to focus on front-line services, and to reduce costs and the number of its public bodies. The MLA’s key functions such as providing strategic leadership for the Museums, Libraries and Archives sectors, administering the Renaissance programme, library improvement work and carrying out statutory functions for cultural property, will continue and will be transferred to other organisations. The DCMS is working closely with the MLA to ensure that the transfer of these functions takes place smoothly.

8. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level

Philanthropy and business support are key elements of the mixed funding model for culture in this country. Some of the most iconic and enduring cultural institutions were established through the generosity of philanthropists and private individuals, from the National Trust to the British Museum, from Tate to the public libraries across the country endowed by Andrew Carnegie and John Passmore Edwards.

This support continues today, and is a vital strand of the mixed funding model. For example the support for the Cultural Olympiad by Premier Partners BT and BP, and Panasonic. Enlightened businesses have demonstrated corporate social responsibility through their support for cultural activity and while this has in some cases been understandably constrained through the recession, we hope and believe corporate support for the cultural life of the nation will grow as the economy recovers.

The Government recognises the profound generosity of donors, whether individuals, businesses or trusts and foundations across society. The £655million of private sector support for culture in 2008/09 formed a key element of the overall funding framework, alongside public funding from central and local government, National Lottery support and commercial revenue. We believe businesses and philanthropists will continue to play a vital role in funding the arts and heritage over the long term, alongside public funding, not replacing it and they deserve our thanks and appreciation for so doing.

9. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations

It is right that Government should play a role in seeking to incentivise private donations to culture. Philanthropy should not replace Government funding but Government must take an holistic approach to public support for cultural activity and the broad range of business models pursued across the sector. Government needs to provide leadership and pursue a long-term strategy in pursuit of its public policy objectives, while working in partnership with the sector and other funders. Philanthropists also demonstrate leadership, strikingly so in the case of the recently announced Giving Pledge in the United States, and our aspiration for the Big Society is 931

that all members of the public will embrace charitable giving and decide which charities to support, in their communities and nationally.

Incentives come in many forms and donors have multiple motivations for their philanthropy, so Government should be cautious about being overly prescriptive, but we believe it is right that people should take informed decisions about charitable giving. We recognise there are occasions on which giving can be incentivised by the tax system, but tax measures also carry costs and it is right that the Chancellor should have primacy in that aspect of taxation policy. Government also has a role to play in ensuring effective giving and that the highest proportion possible of any charitable donation goes to the primary purpose for which it was intended. Transparency and value for money are as important to charitable giving as to any other area of public policy.

We must not lose sight of the fact that while the act of philanthropy can be an end in itself, giving pleasure to the donor as well as to the recipient, or creating a legacy which may endure beyond the donor’s lifetime, it is just as importantly a means to an end. The creation, curation, performance and dissemination of great art, and the preservation of our national heritage for future generations, is the fruit of philanthropy. If we can enhance that public benefit through more incentives to encourage charitable giving, we should do so.

September 2010

932

Written evidence submitted by the British Film Institute (BFI) (arts 211)

Introduction

ƒ The BFI welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in its inquiry into Funding of the Arts and Heritage, as it is very timely on a number of fronts.

ƒ The BFI is at a pivotal moment in its history, when the culture of film has never been so important or more all pervasive across society as a whole - something that has been reaffirmed by Government in its recent review of Arm’s Length Bodies.

ƒ The BFI was founded in 1933 and granted a Royal Charter 50 years later. It has five objectives:

o to encourage the development of the arts of film, television and the moving image throughout the UK;

o to promote their use as a record of contemporary life and manners;

o to promote education about film, television and the moving image generally, and their impact on society;

o to promote access to and appreciation of the widest possible range of British and world cinema; and

o to establish, care for and develop collections reflecting the moving image history and heritage of the UK

ƒ We are grant-in-aid funded by DCMS - currently through the UK Film Council until April 2011 - receiving £16 million per annum, a grant that has remained static for the past 6 years, in effect going down in real terms every year. The BFI also receives an additional £1 million levy from commercial terrestrial broadcasters to fund the television element of the BFI National Archive. A further 58% of our total funding is self-generated income, up by 50% compared to five years ago.

ƒ This Inquiry is timely not just in looking at the impact of the proposed cuts to the arts, but also in the proposed restructuring of how the arts are delivered – including film. Both of these changes have a significant impact on the BFI.

ƒ Our mission is to ensure that everyone has access to the broadest choice of film. We show and distribute the sort of film that simply wouldn’t be available without the BFI’s intervention. It is this broad spectrum of world cinema presented by the BFI that acts as a catalyst to spark, inspire and influence continued development across the whole of the creative industries.

ƒ A vibrant film culture is the essential bedrock for a thriving film industry, whether that it is delivered through the BFI London Film Festival which champions creativity and originality by annually showcasing the best of contemporary world cinema, or through BFI Southbank’s dynamic programme of screenings, on-stage talks and events such as Future Film, Dark Fibre or Movie-Con. The BFI is a melting-pot for discussion and debate around film, television and the moving image.

933

ƒ The backdrop to this is the BFI National Archive which cares for the national film collections. It is constantly refreshed and the BFI continually drives audiences to it so people can understand and appreciate their own place in society, for instance through TV productions such as the Home Movie Roadshow recently aired on BBC 2 or a major documentary featuring a dramatic film of Scott’s Antarctic expedition due to screen on the Discovery Channel this autumn.

ƒ Equally, the Archive and collections provide an understanding of film as an art form, equal in stature to theatre, dance, painting or music. It is a unique source of enjoyment and critical appreciation for audiences, and a well of inspiration for filmmakers to gain insight to the work of those who have gone before.

ƒ The BFI’s evidence to this inquiry is given within the context of our mission and aims.

Response to specific issues posed in the Inquiry

1. 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

1.1. In terms of the Arts as a whole, the cuts, if they are as deep as proposed (25-40%), will have a devastating effect as it is unlikely that private or public sources can come to the rescue in such quantity fast enough. Philanthropists do not favour giving money to plug gaps in funding and there is less money around anyway.

1.1.1. With increased emphasis on financial income, organisations will be inherently risk averse leading to reduced innovation which is essential for creative endeavour.

1.1.2. At a time of recession the arts play a vital part in the confidence and international identity of the national psyche – they also bond communities which will be much needed in the proposed changes across the UK, moving from regional to local structures.

1.1.3. During the Olympics in 2010 a global spotlight will shine on the UK and with this level of funding reduction, the overall programme of artistic excellence, scope and ambition will be significantly curtailed – whether practically in terms of reduced opening hours/days, or the ambition of projects undertaken

1.1.4. Britain’s cultural scene is a major attraction for visitors from home and abroad and it makes a significant contribution to tourism and the economy. Spending cuts are likely to result in reduced output or scope of programming in the arts, which will have a negative impact on arts organisations’ ability to generate revenue as footfall decreases. Arts organisations often work collectively to attract visitors to an area and many businesses local to that area are equally reliant on those visitors.

934

1.1.5. There are very specific skills that will be lost – and continuity of these skills will be under threat. One example will be conservators and curators – all organisations will be forced to reduce these – curators are the result of years of personal and professional expertise in specific areas.

1.1.6. Organisations which are delivering less, and less able to ‘sell’ themselves will be less attractive to philanthropists. Even small donors like to invest in success.

1.1.7. Capital funding reduction will lead to revenue monies being spent to ‘shore-up’ failing estate and systems which in the long run will be much more expensive for the public purse.

BFI-specific

1.2. The BFI recognises that difficult decisions have to be made in these challenging times and acknowledges that it must play its part in helping to reduce public spending. However, it is important in this context that the Committee understand the BFI’s current funding position.

self-earned income

1.2.1. The BFI has been on the same grant-in-aid (£16 million pa) since 2004. For every £1 it receives in grant, it raises a further £1.50 in self- generated income.

pension

1.2.2. The actuarial deficit on the BFI pension scheme of £15m is costing the organisation nearly £1m per annum in additional contributions.

Screen Heritage Strategy

1.2.3. A report1 published by the House of Commons Select Committee in 2003 said: “The BFI should take the lead within the UK film and TV archive community and champion the whole sector, particularly the regional archives, alongside safeguarding its exemplary reputation amongst international peers. An over-arching national strategy promoting both good curatorship and increasing accessibility should be vigorously pursued.”

1.2.4. In response to this, and at the request of DCMS, the BFI developed and is leading the Screen Heritage UK programme. A government capital investment of £25 million announced in 2007 is to fund three core strands: a secure storage and database; identification of significant collections in regional film archives; and digitisation for access.

1.2.5. In the funding cut announced in June, the Government reaffirmed the vital investment needed for new state-of-the-art vaults with the right environmental storage conditions to ensure the preservation and 935

safety of the BFI National Collections. It also reaffirmed funding for regional archive collection identification.

1.2.6. However, a cut of £2.5 million was made to the digitisation and access strand of the programme and this seriously impedes the total success of the whole project in that whilst the national collection is safe and we know what material is in there and in other significant regional collections, the public cannot access the content as originally planned.

BFI Film Centre

1.2.7. The BFI’s business case demonstrates the pressing need for a landmark cultural centre that addresses its very severe and critical estate issues. It would enable the BFI to consolidate its crumbling estate and help make it more economically sustainable.

1. The British Film Industry – September 2003

1.2.8. In June 2010 the Government withdrew its funding pledge of £45m for the BFI Film Centre, which triggered a further cut of £5m that had been pledged by the LDA. This has stalled the BFI’s plans to replace life-expired facilities on London’s South Bank which are struggling to cope with growing public demand for access to their cultural heritage and to world cinema. Given the condition of the BFI’s estate, delaying investment will add a burden to public finances in the long term and considerable ongoing risk to income should the estate fail.

1.2.9. Furthermore, the BFI’s plans included significant partnerships across a range of organisations - from universities to venues - to ensure that the centre acted as a pivotal node in a digitally enabled network across the UK to provide the widest possible public value. The BFI’s ability to achieve this is undermined by the cut in funding for the Film Centre.

Impact of the cuts on the BFI

1.2.10. We have been asked to model 25% and 30% cuts in our grant-in-aid. Taken together with a flat cash grant for the last seven years, the effect of inflation and the additional £1m per annum pension top-up requirement, the total cuts to be found from the BFI are 6.5m by year four.

1.2.11. In the last six years our self-generated income has increased on average by 10% per annum but this is now flattening out. Nevertheless we are looking at new sources of income, particularly in the digital arena and exploitation of the BFI brand abroad.

2. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

936

2.1. This must be one of the avenues to be explored, but we are uncertain of the quantum of savings possible. We are already exploring the potential for sharing common services such as Finance, Human Resources, Estates and IT. From our own experience, we are doubtful that there is significant opportunity here as after six years of driving through economies, the quantum of savings we can make in shared services is very low.

2.2. Recent analysis commissioned by the BFI from HP shows that the BFI’s support services are so old, without significant investment it is questionable whether the systems are even migratable to the modern platform needed to gain any benefit from shared services.

3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable

3.1. This is a very difficult question to answer. Public subsidy is needed to support artistic endeavour and allow such expression to find audiences – endeavour that wouldn’t happen otherwise without public intervention because at the grass root level its market value is unproven.

3.2. Sustainability has to be considered in a much wider context, outside the artistic world. The immediate value of investment in the arts is difficult to quantify, the chain of investment and effect is often long and too complex to track accurately. And yet we all know that the reputation of great cultures and great civilisations rests on the vibrancy of how that culture finds expression through artistic endeavour and the legacy that this lays down to inspire future generations. The reason we know this in this country, is precisely because we have one of the most vibrant, joined-up, wonderfully diverse and significant cultures in the world. The legacy of global reputation speaks for itself.

3.3. Investment needs to be prioritised to achieve the following:

3.3.1. It is important that Britain maintains an international profile culturally and creatively – no more so than in film. It is one of our great global successes and an economic generator. If it is to be allowed to continue to grow and provide increasing contribution to Britain’s GDP then it needs increased and sustainable investment. A vibrant film culture is the bedrock for a successful, thriving industry.

3.3.2. The national collections cared for by the BFI are a vital part of our cultural heritage. The costs of preserving and restoring – let alone distributing – such an extraordinarily complex medium are very high. Once a film deteriorates it is lost forever. However the cost of restoration is very high.

3.3.3. In this digital world there is an audience expectation that they should be able to access the collections online, which requires funding for preservation then digitisation.

3.3.4. Furthermore, it is not always possible due to rights ownership.

937

3.3.5. There are other things the Government could do which would not increase public subsidy but which might help organisations such as the BFI offset cuts, for example: allowing the BFI to make available “orphan works” held in its collections. Income generated from exploiting these works would be ring-fenced so that rights holders could be paid if they eventually came forward to claim their works.

4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one

4.1. With considerably less money to ago around, we offer the following considerations:

4.1.1. Streamline funding – we should ask ourselves no matter however painful the implications, how many layers of administration should there be between the money and the audience or artist? Every layer adds additional ‘back office’ cost. Should there be need for more than two layers?

4.1.2. Consider new governance structures for organisations to be freed up so they can take a more entrepreneurial role. The BFI, in designing a new direct relationship with DCMS, is looking at the possibility of a ‘US’ style Board structure, with a two tier Patrons for major donors and a smaller formal Trustee board. We are also seeking structures that will allow a more flexible investment/ borrowing model.

4.1.3. The BFI has benefited, and could benefit significantly more, from co- productions with broadcasters. Publicly funded broadcaster partnerships should be encouraged as they enhance audience take- up, drive revenue and enhance the partner brands.

4.1.4. In seeking a ‘local’ agenda – care needs to be taken not to splinter funds into such small pots that they cannot be sustainable or achieve anything really valuable in themselves. The other danger is that in seeking ‘local’ rather than ‘regional’ structures, more resource is actually spent knitting together these small pots of money.

4.1.5. Lastly, the production of statistics, target information and ‘proof points’ of delivery are expensive. Could they be reduced? Much of the answer to this is how a greater pact of trust can be fostered with the public, where public value is achieved through actual engagement, rather than through KPIs or something similar.

5. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations

5.1. We refer the Committee back to answers given in response to question 4 above. However, we very much welcome the government’s commitment to increase Lottery funding by reducing overheads and providing greater direct benefit to the public with increased share going to the arts.

938

6. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed

6.1. see answer to Question 5

7. 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

7.1. These are very difficult times and call for difficult decisions to be made. We have to look hard at where value is added and make sure that as much as possible goes to frontline services.

7.2. The BFI is pleased that it will from 1 April 2011 report direct into DCMS. The announcement to this effect has great significance for film culture in Britain as it allows the BFI to have a conversation at a departmental level alongside other national cultural bodies and collections, giving a much needed direct voice for film as an art form. The Secretary of State proposed in his announcement: “establishing a direct and less bureaucratic relationship with the British Film Institute.” The benefit will be a new, freer way of working that allows us to explore other governance structures.

7.3. It is interesting that the reaction from the film industry focused on the need to keep funding and tax credits intact. The BFI agrees and was relieved to see in the announcement an absolute commitment from central Government that neither the lottery funding not tax credits were ever at risk, and that going forward its cultural policy and strategy for film will have equal voice and prominence.

7.4. It is critical, however, that specific skills and expertise are not lost along with the arms’ length bodies being closed.

7.5. We refer the Committee to answers in response to question 4.

8. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level

8.1. They already do. There are hardly any of the larger charities that don't have a well developed fundraising department tasked with raising those funds that GiA has, in recent years, failed to cover with diminishing investment, increasing costs and higher ambitions.

8.2. We can see that raising money for projects outside of London can be more challenging, particularly when there is less available money to go around.

8.3. It is commonplace to compare the US model of philanthropy and charity giving with that in the UK. However, there are fundamental differences between the two that require a wholesale change in attitude from the public in the UK, with a tax regime that is as supportive before we are likely to see the same degree of giving.

8.4. Corporate and philanthropic donors do not want to plug gaps in funding, they want to achieve additionality. They are less attracted to investing in 939

organisations that are threatened. They are less likely to invest in the non- attractive projects such as new roofs or drainage.

9. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations

9.1. We would welcome more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

9.2. A review of tax incentives that benefit private donors in a similar way perhaps that Gift Aid does to charities would help the development in the UK of a widespread culture of philanthropic giving. This is akin to the more generous personal tax relief schemes that exist in the US in the philanthropic sector.

9.3. The BFI would like to see the acceptance-in-lieu scheme extended to living donors, not just restricted to the estates of the deceased. In other areas of the cultural sector acceptance-in-lieu has brought over £250 million worth of works into the public domain. We need to ensure that film collections can be preserved intact and saved for future generations to enjoy.

9.4. A similar move should also be considered for the assignation of rights to films and film collections in lieu of tax so that that work can be exploited to provide greater public value without additional burden on public finances.

9.5. We would like to see greater Government support for projects that whilst they do not pledge public funding, the intent and commitment instils a level of confidence amongst others who may be more disposed to invest.

September 2010 940

Written evidence submitted by Renaissance South East (arts 212)

1. Summary

This document outlines a preliminary response from Renaissance South East to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry and call for evidence for The Funding of the Arts and Heritage.

The key points include:

• Museums should be considered as part of the broader heritage sector in this inquiry • Uncertainty of future funding models can have a negative multiplying effect • Sector consolidation is likely to result in knowledge loss and reduced capacity to support local museums undertaking beneficial transformation

2. Response to Issues

2.1 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;

2.1.1 For the purpose of this response, heritage is considered to incorporate museums. Museums are an integral part of this cultural landscape providing for the cultural entitlement needs of local communities and supporting wider tourism agendas. The Renaissance programme to date has encouraged the museums sector to transform itself into a dynamic cultural asset that contributes significantly to economic and social priorities. The South East Museum context is illustrated in Appendix A.

2.1.2 Proposed spending cuts at both a national and local level are likely to result in a reduction in the capacity of museums to sustain the quality of outreach, learning, museum support advice, training and collections care. The reductions are likely to result in staff consolidation and associated experience / knowledge loss from the heritage sector.

2.1.3 When considering wide spread spending cuts it is necessary to consider the multiplying impact it may have in the local economy and the capacity of the heritage sector to recover in the longer term. Appendix B outlines some of the recent achievements of Renaissance South East to highlight what the opportunity cost could be.

2.1.4 The potential impact of a combination of reduced national and local investment in heritage may include:

• Local Authority Museum consolidation of capacity and an associated reduction in ancillary support to independent local museums. • Consolidation of museum assets – requiring advice on ethical disposal of collections and closure of museums. • Reduce capital budget expenditure on the maintenance and enhancement of facilities and buildings. • Reduced support to museum accreditation and the sustainment of standards • Reduced capacity for museums to undertake quality outreach and community engagement programmes. 941

• Reduced capacity to undertake volunteer coordination and provide opportunities for volunteering in the heritage sector. • Reduced opportunity to undertake good practice sharing and continual professional development as specific interest networks become unsupported and training budgets are reduced. • Knowledge / experience lost from the sector as staff levels reduce.

2.2 What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

2.2.1 There is scope for a number of heritage organisations to collaborate more closely to ensure the efficient use of public funding to support the sector. The short nature of a project based approach to cultural support (typically with a business case of 2 years) limits the substantial benefits which could be realised from considering them as part of a transformational programme for the heritage sector.

2.3 What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

2.3.1 Renaissance South East has been working with museums to help them become more economically sustainable and giving them the skills to develop into thriving, cultural organisations. The programme is transitional and will take a period of time to fully realise the benefits. Investment is necessary for this transformational programme to continue.

2.4 Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

2.4.1 The abolition of the MLA presents an opportunity to establish a more sustainable model of funding for museum transformation in which it directly meets the regions needs and has a low central administration. The process of transition needs to be transparent and have adequate time for local consultation.

2.4.2 This investment must be highly targeted. We propose to build upon the achievements of Renaissance and focus on activities that strengthen the economic performance in the regions. Specifically future funding should be used to support activities that encourage national and international tourism, sustain quality of place at a local level, improve the quality of life for all residents, and encourage centres of excellence. Activities that develop a skilled workforce and that inspire Big Society.

2.4.3 The South East region is one of the greatest contributors to the nation’s economy and will be vital to its recovery. Many of the communities in the South East have high cultural participation , cutting back significantly on investment in museums and wider cultural activity in this difficult financial climate will be counterproductive in terms of economic recovery in the short and longer term. Clearly efficiencies and savings need to be made, but now is the time to continue a good degree of investment if we are to look after the reputation of the South East as a quality place to live and attract business. See Appendix A for précis of the South East Museum context.

2.4.4 This investment must be highly targeted. We propose to build upon the achievements of Renaissance and focus on activities that strengthen the economic 942

performance of the South East. Specifically future Renaissance funding would be used to support activities that encourage national and international tourism, and that sustain quality of place at a local level. Activities that develop a skilled workforce and that inspire Big Society. The programme would continue to make museums more economically sustainable, joining up with other cultural providers to maximise resources and potential.

2.5 What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;

2.5.1 Jeremy Hunt’s promise of more lottery money for heritage, that the Heritage Lottery Fund would receive an increased share of lottery profits, back to the levels it received when the lottery was founded in 1994 has been welcomed by museums. As other sources of capital funding for museum-related projects become harder to access, the Heritage Lottery Fund will become even more key to museums’ drive to revitalise their services and ensure they are relevant to modern audiences, so that they can continue to increase the public’s interest in the past and the world around them.

2.6 Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;

2.6.1 There needs to be an increase in the flexibility regarding match funding as other sources of funding become even harder to unlock.

2.7 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;

2.7.1 The most significant impact of the changes is the increased uncertainly it has perpetuated in the heritage sector. The abolition of the MLA as a wider umbrella organisation for the sector increases the need for strong regional organisations such as Renaissance which can support the transformational change of the sector.

2.8 Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

2.8.1 Yes, there is scope for greater involvement of business and philanthropists in the long term funding of the heritage sector. This approach requires further investigation to identify how external funding can be optimised to support the heritage sector in the long term. Something in here about how successful Arts and Business has been as an organisation especially within the arts sector and how this can possibly be replicated in the museums sector?

2.9 Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

2.9.1 Private donations to museums will be become an increasing source of revenue, especially in larger scale capital projects. Government incentives to make private donations easier would be welcomed by the sector.

September 2010 943

Written evidence submitted by the Arts Development Officer for Gloucestershire County Council (arts 213)

Summary

• This letter is sent in my professional capacity as Arts Development Officer for Gloucestershire County Council, and has been agreed by the Council ‘s Cabinet Member for culture. • We believe recent and future funding cuts from central and local government will have an extremely damaging effect and threaten the closure of some of the principal professional arts organisations across Gloucestershire. • Gloucestershire County Council, jointly with Arts Council SW, has recently provided modest funding to enable a consortium of arts providers to explore closer collaborative working. The Council is considering outsourcing its arts development budgets to the consortium on a tapering basis over the next three years, in order to support capacity building via collaborative working. • We strongly support the restoration of National Lottery funds to the original good causes including the arts, and have responded to the recent DCMS consultation exercise accordingly. • We believe tax incentives will be helpful to enhance funding from business and philanthropists, because few Gloucestershire arts providers have the dedicated specialist staff to pull in such funding at present.

1. What impact recent, and future, spending cuts from central and local Government will have on the arts at a national and local level

1.2 From my perspective as Arts Development Officer of Gloucestershire County Council, working daily with the dozen principal professional arts providers across the county, I believe recent and future cuts will have an extremely damaging effect, and threaten the closure of some of these highly valued local charities.

1.3 Arts Council England SW currently fund c.£1.2m p.a. to the 11 principal regularly funded organisations (RFOs) within Gloucestershire, as well as providing Lottery funding to a number of smaller projects and programmes. They have now had a 5% grant in aid in- year cut (£23m). By using its historic reserves (a non repeatable strategy), Arts Council has this year limited the funding reduction to RFOs to just 0.5%, which is absorbable. But Arts Council has now been asked by DCMS to model a 25-30% cut (= £134m p.a.) across four years, which, they state, would mean the loss of many arts organisations – large and small. We fear the most severe effects will be felt in a largely rural county such as Gloucestershire, which has a network of smaller voluntary sector arts providers, who would inevitably be more vulnerable than the larger regional flagship centres.

1.4 At county level, Gloucestershire County Council currently invests a total of £177,000 p.a. in grant in aid, plus £104,000 in salaries, supporting a team of three arts officers, two of which attract Arts Council matching support.

1.5 The County Council now faces a massive deficit, created through a combination of rising costs (demographics; rising landfill taxes; rising child protection costs) and declining income. It is consequently reviewing every area of spend within the Council and, although budget decisions will not be taken until October/November, following public consultation, it is highly likely that all the above funding will be cut from 1st April next year. 944

1.6 Four of the six Gloucestershire district councils, who have hitherto formed the third major funding partner for Gloucestershire arts providers, have either withdrawn such funding, or notified their decision to do so by 2012.

1.7 The combined impact of these cuts will certainly threaten the viability of many of Gloucestershire’s smaller arts organisations. Those that have a higher proportion of self generated income will weather the storm. Cheltenham Arts Festivals, for example, have a highly skilled team dedicated to securing sponsorship, and last year only 18% of their income came from public sector funding. Some organisations own buildings from which they can earn revenue: Stroud Valleys Art Space is an artist led initiative which, through hard work and enterprise, has refurbished and now owns a formerly derelict factory in Stroud. It now offers affordable studios for artists. Sadly, what is likely to be lost will be the public benefit work of these organisations – the high quality, locally appropriate community education work which Arts Council and local authority funding has hitherto supported. The impact of this loss will be felt within Gloucestershire by the most vulnerable groups, because our funding to these arts providers has been targeted to support education and outreach activity to disadvantaged young people, those with disabilities and special needs, the elderly and those lacking access. It is this work, and the smaller arts charities for whom it is the principal focus, which will not be viable, faced with withdrawal of funding from County, District and the Arts Council. In our view, the viability of four or five of the current eleven principal providers will be seriously be at risk.

2. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale

2.1 Gloucestershire County Council strongly support this objective and, to this end, jointly with Arts Council SW, we have provided £4,000 to enable Gloucestershire Arts Framework, a consortium of arts providers, to work with a locally based consultant to explore closer collaborative working. The results of this work will be reported to us after 16th September. If they are substantive, the Council may consider outsourcing its arts development budgets to the consortium on a tapering basis over the next three years, after which all funding would cease. The aim would be to support capacity building within the sector so that, by the end of three years, it is more “commission ready” and maximising earned income to replace lost local authority income, as part of a managed process of change. This arts specific work complements a larger scale exercise across all cultural services within Gloucestershire, delivered by both county and district authorities, which is examining whether cross-cultural countywide services can deliver better outcomes at lower costs, via a new cultural commissioning body for the whole county. It is our belief that the cultural sector is not yet taking advantage of the significant opportunities available via commissioning from health, social care and children’s service budgets.

2.2 Although the results of the arts sector work will not be published until September 16th, we have been encouraged by the engagement of the sector thus far. Despite the daily pressures on these small scale and overstretched charities, they have nevertheless committed to a serious attempt at partnership working, while still seeking to retain their own brand and identity, in recognition of the threat to their viability which they now face. From being a loosely networked talking shop, the consortium is now working towards the following outcomes.

• Shared “behind the scenes” services whereby one provider offers box office services to smaller scale or touring organisations; or building based venues offer hot desks to non-venue based agencies. 945

• Joint marketing of artistic productions by providing space in brochures for other organisations; audience swopping, or developing cross-artform packages of participative opportunities for commissioners. • Joint productions, e.g. joint programming of art in unusual places; shared commissioning of a new performance, or a joint outreach offer to young people. • A single portal to the arts for commissioning bodies. • The formation of one or two consortia of “commission ready” arts organisations which share common policies including quality assurance, evaluation and finances. • Off the shelf cross-artform packages ready to sell to teachers, GPs and social care providers. • Joint mapping of the gaps in the arts offer across the county – and programmes devised to fill them. • Development of a “Friends of Gloucestershire Arts” scheme of patrons and champions. • Recruitment of a team of high calibre cultural volunteers to add capacity. • Joint delivery of a county wide arts event to showcase talent.

2.3 Overall the aim is to secure more non-arts funding and to maximise earned income; to use this to nurture talent; to consolidate and grow audiences and participants; and to articulate better the value of this work through improving the evidence base.

2.4 The ambition is high and the resources to realise it very limited, but we hope this Council will agree to phasing its necessary budget reductions in a way which supports this collaborative working model. This is because we recognise the value of the current arts infrastructure, a network of small scale providers who are rooted in their locations, with real knowledge of local needs, and whose locally distinctive and targeted programmes offer better outcomes for local communities than could any single larger scale provider.

We would be happy to provide further information on this collaborative work as it rolls out over the next few months, if desired.

3. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts organisations

3.1 We strongly support the restoration of Nationally Lottery funds to the original good causes, including the arts, and have responded to the recent DCMS consultation exercise on National Lottery distribution accordingly.

3.2 Lottery funds provide the resources for Arts Council SW’s Grants for the Arts scheme. This is currently the only open to application scheme available to the arts sector in Gloucestershire to support new development initiatives. As such, it is of critical importance.

3.3 The current average success rate for Grants for the Arts is about 40%. In the past, it has dipped as low as 21%. Gloucestershire scores relatively well, given its size, because we have a network of professional arts organisations who are skilled and energetic fundraisers, and our application rate is high. But, for the same reason, there are many disappointments. Over the past couple of years, several very strong applications have been turned down by Arts Council, with feedback explicitly stating that the only grounds for refusal were shortage of funds. When this happens regularly, it can be extremely demotivating, causing real loss of morale within the sector. Enhancing Grants for the Arts funding so that sound, well researched applications which fully meet the requisite criteria were funded would be enormously beneficial. Such development funding is really the 946

enterprise capital for the sector, and its lifeblood. It is also critically important in unlocking further funding.

4. Whether business and philanthropy can play a long term role in funding the arts at national and local level.

Whether there need to be more government incentives to encourage private donations.

4.1 There may well be potential to increase funding to the sector from the sources, but it is our view that tax incentives would be needed to bring about significant change. We highly value the work of Arts & Business, and warmly acknowledge the tremendous voluntary fundraising work of arts charities and festivals such as the Three Choirs festival, which has just raised £320,000 towards its £750,000 costs in this way. But fundraising on a meaningful scale these days requires skilled professional teams. Few of the smaller Gloucestershire arts providers currently have the dedicated specialist staff in place to pull in such business and philanthropic funding, and it is our observation that, with the exception of Cheltenham Arts Festivals, few of the smaller Gloucestershire arts providers gain a significant percentage of their income from such sources at present.

September 2010 947

Written evidence submitted by the Chief Cultural and Leisure Officers Association (CLOA) (arts 214)

1. INTRODUCTION

CLOA is the professional association for Strategic Leaders in the culture and sporting sector of Local Authorities in England, Wales and Scotland (Vocal). Over many years, professionals from CLOA have worked with central government, Local Government and many national organisations to help influence and inform policy development to ensure the sector contributes fully to local communities.

CLOA has worked successfully with a range of partners and particularly with the LGA, IDeA and with colleagues on the National Culture Forum has continually demonstrated the contribution that culture and sports services make to people lives by improving their health and well-being, enabling older people to be more independent and improving education, the economy, community safety and community cohesion.

We have also been a key partner in helping improve how these services are delivered working in collaboration to implement “A passion for excellence” the sectors own improvement strategy. CLOA and the National Culture Forum, represent and co- ordinate the views of all the sector professional organisations on issues of common concern

2. KEY POINTS

Firstly we commend to you the detailed responses of our member bodies, the Museum Association and the National Association of Local Government Arts Officers (nalgao). Beyond these we’d like to emphasise the following points. • Cuts in funding from both central and local government will hit all arts and heritage organisations, but particularly those serving our most deprived communities. • Any budget cuts need to be phased in and agreed between funders and with the organisations involved • Arts organisations already work well in collaboration with one another, but could do more to combine back room functions. • Local authorities will need to invest in capacity building across the sector if it wishes to outsource both service functions and assets. • Current levels of cultural funding a small part of overall public spend. Cuts will mean a diminution of access and outreach work. • Funding partnerships between Arts Council and local authorities need to be stronger, more consistent and demonstrate better understanding of the different reasons for giving support. • A proportion of lottery funds should be delegated to consortia of local authorities to meet locally determined priorities, as is the case in Wales through the “Community Chest” fund. • The proposed restoration of the original proportions of lottery funding for arts sports and heritage is to be welcomed. • Lottery funding is for special projects, not ongoing programming and currently needs matched funding, which are increasingly difficult to find. The match funding requirements need to be revisited as this does not help the poorer Councils or communities. • Business and private giving are part of the current mixed economy of the arts and heritage sectors, but they cannot make up for shortfalls in public investment. 948

• Smaller organisations (outside the major cities) find it much harder to get sponsorship and need locally focussed pools of support. • The creation of endowments and local community foundations are excellent concepts and the government should do all they can to make these attractive to the private sector, without falling for the idea that they have solved the funding conundrum – this is only part of the answer.

3. IMPACT OF SPENDING CUTS

3.1 It is important to remember that the UK’s cultural organisations are a success story. They attract inward investment, provide pleasure for both visitors and local communities and make a major contribution to our society’s wellbeing. Society has long accepted that it should actively support arts and culture, but at the same time, it is seen as a ‘non essential’ area, ripe for cutting when times are hard. We often look across the pond to see how America supports its cultural activity, and common belief has it that they are much less reliant on public funds. However, recent research has demonstrated that London based cultural organisations (of every size) are more efficient that their USA counterparts in earning income. Larger organisations certainly gain more of their support from the private sector and endowments (41% in New York against 12% in London) but smaller organisations (turnover less than £3.7 m) which are the majority in both countries, receive 39% of their income from public sources in USA against only 36% in the UK. Therefore, it is important to remember that, all over the world, public funding plays a major role in supporting access to arts and heritage.

3.2 Spending cuts in the field of arts and heritage will have major effects. The DCMS is already one of the smallest spending departments of central government. This spending is roughly matched by local authority spending nationwide, but here the average spend by each authority on the whole of the culture and leisure sector is rarely more than 3% of its total budget. However, this is a sector which is both vital to the health of the economy (the creative industries being the fastest growing sector since the early 1990s) and to the social wellbeing of our communities. Cuts of 25 % + on already tight budgets from both central and local government will mean the demise of many smaller organisations, particularly those serving our more disadvantaged communities and a reduction in activity and access from those larger ones which do survive.

3.3 CLOA is in no doubt that it will be very difficult for arts and heritage organisations to sustain their core functions if they suffer the “double whammy” of central and local government cuts at the same rate, and on the same three year timetable. We would argue for the cuts to be phased in so that organisations have time to plan reductions in service and raise other funding. It is also vital that all public funders discuss the phasing of their cuts together with their clients.

4. ARTS ORGANISATIONS WORKING MORE CLOSELY TOGETHER

4.1 Most arts organisations already work very leanly and in partnership with other like minded organisations across the cultural and wider third sector, particularly in the field of co production. There is always room, however, to explore other forms of collaboration. These are likely to be around touring programming and shared back office work. For instance, the Arts Council supported “Thrive” programme has led to a number of audience development/marketing collaborations.

4.2 Local authorities are already looking at outsourcing even more of their arts development delivery to third sector organisations and are encouraging their partners to look at responding to strategic commissioning opportunities, thereby answering local priorities, for example, from children’s services and adult social care. This will require arts and heritage organisations to combine forces to offer the most comprehensive responses to strategic commission. It will also entail local authorities investing in 949

capacity building across the sector, to ensure such opportunities can be taken up effectively, particularly where authorities are also intending to transfer building assets. This issue of the need to improve capacity building is strongly supported by the IDeA and CLOA.

5. NECESSARY AND SUSTAINABLE LEVELS OF PUBLIC SUBSIDY

5.1 Currently, considerable amounts of public funding are spent on widening access to cultural activity – free entry to museums, and education and outreach programmes across arts and heritage, for instance. Widening access costs money and gives few opportunities for earning more income. Performing arts organisations could lessen their reliance on the public purse further by programming more commercially and reducing their commitment to outreach. Public galleries and museums have much less opportunity to increase their earned income, but major institutions could mount fewer, but larger, “block buster” shows, for which they can charge. Such programme reorientation will be possible, but to the detriment of widening community participation and understanding.

6. CURRENT SYSTEM OF FUNDING DISTRIBUTION

6.1 The current system is complex. Outside the major companies most arts organisations receive support from central government via the Arts Council managed and lottery funds and also from local government. These two funding sources have fundamentally different emphases – the Arts Council being most interested in the excellence of the art and local authorities in the excellence of reach to local communities. If this system is to survive it will depend on Arts Council and local authorities working in effective partnership – currently this is very patchy across the country.

6.2 CLOA believes that local people understand local cultural provision best and would argue for distribution to be led locally as far as possible. Current reductions in the number of Arts Council regionally based officers have led to a weakening of connection with local need. Furthermore Arts Lottery distribution is now undertaken from a single base in Manchester. We appreciate that this is a cost saving centralisation, but at the cost of loss of sensitivity to local need. However, for the future we would argue for a proportion of lottery funds to be allocated to consortia of local authorities to support applications from their areas against locally determined priorities.

7. NATIONAL LOTTERY

7.1 The proposed restoration of the original proportion of lottery funds to arts, sports and heritage projects is welcomed. It would be even better if the restoration were not delayed until 2011/12.

7.2 Both the Arts Council and Heritage Lottery Fund are important sources of capital and developmental support for cultural organisations, but this funding has always been additional to core activity and cannot and should not replace managed funds.

7.3 Lottery applications have always required matched funding from local sources. This has often been a hard call, particularly for smaller organisations outside metropolitan centres. With the demise of Regional Development Agencies, trusts and foundations have smaller amounts to give (because of low interest rates, meaning there are now even fewer sources of match funding. These requirements need to be eased, bearing in mind this may well mean fewer projects funded.

8. IMPACT OF CHANGES TO DCMS ARM’S LENGTH BODIES

950

8.1 The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) has, by and large, understood how to work with local government providers, whilst the Arts Council has patchy provision. CLOA is concerned, therefore, at the lack of consultation with local authority partners and the prospect of some of the MLA’s functions going to the Arts Council, whose remit and philosophy has been very different. The Crafts Council has not benefitted in profile or reach by being subsumed into the Arts Council a few years ago. The MLA is a much bigger and a more strategically important fish to swallow. This will only work if the MLA sectors have proper recognition within the reformed organisation and if there is adequate ring fenced funding to ensure the continuance of regional museum support through Renaissance and for museum accreditation generally. In fact ACE could benefit from the MLA’s understanding of the local authority perspective.

8.2 Similarly, although both the Heritage Lottery Fund and English Heritage have ‘heritage’ in their titles they have different remits and we would not recommend amalgamation.

9. THE ROLE OF BUSINESS AND PHILANTHROPY

9.1 Business and private giving have always been part of the mixed economy of cultural organisations, but it is clear that such funders give in the expectation of adding value rather than paying for the core activity. They are also attracted to high profile building and production projects so that income from sponsorship is practically the preserve of large prestige organisations. Even large national organisations do not currently achieve more than 15% of their funding from private sources. This could be increased but it would take a long time and would require a major cultural change, not only in the cultural organisations, but also in business attitudes. There is no quick fix.

9.2 As stated previously, it is definitely harder for small organisations outside the centres of major cities to be attractive to sponsors as it is for many of the community arts engagement projects that they run. The last government found it hard to attract private sponsors to their city academy programme. Arts projects with disaffected young people or in deprived neighbourhoods are an even more difficult to market.

9.3 Long term support for cultural activity requires long term investment – and this is where talk of endowments comes in. We certainly believe this should be explored, but the initial costs of setting up endowments that will yield useful amounts of money for organisations are large. It’s noticeable that, in the USA, even large institutions get little more than 5% of their income from endowments.

9.4 The government could certainly do more to encourage private giving, although this should not be seen as the main solution to a withdrawal of public funding. It would help smaller organisations, in particular, if the government encouraged private giving (through tax breaks, etc) for setting up of local community funds, which could respond to local need. Individual philanthropists have been instrumental in encouraging others to pool their giving for local use. Local and central government could work together to support such initiatives.

September 2010

951

Written evidence submitted by the Local Government Association (arts 215)

Introduction

1. The Local Government Association is a voluntary membership body and our 422 member authorities cover every part of England and Wales. Together they represent over 50 million people and spend around £113 billion a year on local services. They include county councils, metropolitan district councils, English unitary authorities, London boroughs and shire district councils, along with fire authorities, police authorities, national park authorities and passenger transport authorities.

Key messages

2. There are three key issues that must be addressed in order to support the future flourishing of the arts and heritage:

• The public subsidy to arts and heritage bodies must be better aligned with the priorities of local communities, and these services must become more accountable to local people;

• Councils and local partnerships must be given the maximum flexibility to spend the public money they have in a way that best supports their local area. The LGA is working with government to develop a radical place-based approach to public services that would cut through funding silos. This model would provide opportunities for the arts and heritage to access new funding streams;

• The arts and heritage sectors must work together to lead their own improvement and development. The focus of this work should be to develop new governance and delivery models that can adapt to reduced funding, and which open up the arts and heritage in a way that makes them a cornerstone of the Big Society.

Background

3. Supporting the arts, culture and heritage is a billion pound concern for local authorities in England1. In 2008-09 this investment supported a total of 1099 theatres, concert halls, arts centres and museums and galleries2. Councils also play a major facilitation role, helping to maintain networks of people, groups and facilities, and in particular supporting community and voluntary groups.

4. This underlines the fact that local government remains, as it has always been, a vital part of the ecology of the arts. From the Chester Mystery Plays, commissioned by the town’s mediaeval guilds, to Jeanie Finlay’s digitised reflection on Anish Kapoor’s Sky Mirror, commissioned by the council-supported Nottingham Playhouse, local communities continue to make the best use of their heritage and to foster the production of excellent arts for and in their places, to make their places better.

Radical reform of public services

5. The LGA has made an open and comprehensive offer to the government about a great

1 £1.117 billion combined revenue and capital spend by English local authorities in 2008-09. See Annex A8, Local Authority Revenue Expenditure and Financing (CLG, 2009). 2 See Culture, Sport and Recreation Statistics 2008-09 (CIPFA, 2009). 952

reform programme for public services. The main idea of this reform, which we are currently working with government to develop, is simple: radical decentralisation is needed for a more affordable and effective state.

6. We believe the state must be reshaped through place-based area budgets, rather than the present system of ring-fenced departmental funding silos, which is coupled with a target setting culture in Whitehall and competing and often contradictory performance management regimes.

7. Parliament would remain the decision-making body for how national tax revenues are spent, while decisions on what public services are commissioned locally – and from where – would be made at the local level. In most cases, the local body should be the council or an existing partnership of councils. Its job would be to simplify the way public services are run locally, to strip away duplication and waste, improve effectiveness, and put local people – not bureaucratic interests – first.

8. Given the scale of the expected cuts to public spending, it is only through such radical reform that frontline public services, including the provision of cultural services and facilities in the arts and heritage, can be protected.

9. More information on the LGA’s work can be found in Place Based Budgets: the future governance of public services; which is available on our website, at http://new.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/12294113

What does this mean for the arts and heritage?

10. A place-based approach to funding public services, in which the ring-fence is removed from many central grants and the local governance body commissions services in response to local need, would, we believe, present huge opportunities for the arts and heritage, as well as for sports and other cultural services.

11. Cultural services budgets will need to deliver efficiency savings, just like all local services. But place-based budgets offer, at the same time, the chance for local arts and heritage groups and in-house providers to get access to more of the big block grants that councils and local partners receive. On this model, there will be less distinction between statutory and non-statutory spending.

12. The strategic commissioning of cultural services by, for example, schools, social care services or mental health trusts, is a key area of interest at the local and national level. Local Government Improvement and Development (LGID), the national cultural quangos, the professional bodies of the National Culture Forum and the Chief Culture and Leisure Officers association, have all been working to improve the capacity of local cultural services to be strategically commissioned.

13. This work must lay the foundations for a culture shift in local services to prepare for the coming reductions in public funding. Councils will deliver less, but commission more. So the capacity and capability of the arts and heritage sectors to be strategically commissioned to deliver outcomes against place-based funds, must continue to be built up.

Case Study: The LGID-led Culture and Sport Improvement Programme, together with the National Culture Forum, recently produced The role of culture and sport in supporting adult 953

social care to deliver better outcomes. This work shows how the culture sector can provide a wealth of opportunities for people to participate in interesting and engaging new activities, tailored to local community interests and expectations. Such opportunities are vital if people are to be encouraged to adopt the Foresight Report’s recommended “five-a-day” for a more productive and fulfilling later life: Connect; Be Active; Be Curious; Learn; and Give. You can find this publication at: http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=17379857

14. Drawing on the above case study, we can see that funding for older people’s health and wellbeing presents an important potential revenue stream for cultural services. The LGA wants to ensure that any public health budget that might be given to councils as part of changes to primary care administration is not ring-fenced. This will allow councils to commission locally appropriate interventions to improve public health from a wide range of delivery bodies, including arts and heritage groups.

Case study: The LGA also worked with the Museums Libraries and Archives council to produce Building Learning Communities, which explores the value of museums, libraries and archives in supporting informal learning. These local services play a key role in providing opportunities for individuals to gain new skills, often through volunteering; to access information, including support with job searching; and to take part in local activities that can help to build their self- confidence and make them more employable. You can find this publication at: http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/publications/publication-display.do?id=8474587

15. Drawing on the above case study, we can see that another future funding stream for arts and heritage groups might come through Local Enterprise Partnerships’ commissioning of training and employment support programmes for the long-term unemployed.

954

Sector-led improvement and the development of new governance models

16. The LGA recently successfully lobbied for the creation of a sector-led efficiency programme to help councils work together to deliver public libraries more efficiently. The Future Libraries programme, which was launched on 16 August 2010, will be delivered by the LGA Group in partnership with the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. More information can be found at http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7381.aspx.

17. The programme promises to spread learning between library authorities, to achieve cost savings, develop new partnerships and governance models, and to take advantage of digital opportunities.

18. We believe this council led programme should be used as a model for the future improvement and development of other cultural services.

19. For example, we would expect the learning from the Kensington & Chelsea with Hammersmith & Fulham project, which will explore the feasibility of sharing library services delivered or commissioned jointly across borough borders, to be relevant to authorities that are looking to share their heritage protection services in order to make efficiency savings.

20. Similarly, over the last seven years nearly £300 million has been spent by government to improve the positioning and performance of local museums through the Renaissance programme. The Future Libraries programme presents a model on which better use could be made of these resources to assist museums to make an even bigger contribution to their local communities through place based budgeting. Councils taking over responsibility for this programme will ensure greater efficiencies from more targeted funding and less duplication.

More efficient public funding for the arts and heritage

21. We believe that local and national funding bodies in the cultural sector could work more closely together, and that this would help the total public subsidy for culture go further and be delivered more efficiently. Closer priority setting and performance management of funded arts and heritage bodies is central to delivering these efficiencies.

22. For example, local authorities and the Arts Council England (ACE) are the two principal public funders of the arts in this country. Two-thirds of ACE funding goes to their Regularly Funded Organisations; a total of £360m in 2008-09. Funding to the same organisations from councils and local partners was £141m over the same period; a ratio of national to local investment in RFOs of 2.6:1.

23. If we look at investment in RFOs outside London, with its cluster of national arts and heritage institutions, the numbers move closer: ACE invests £177m in the eight English regions outside of London, with councils and local partners investing £100m; a ratio of national to local investment of 1.8:1. In fact, local funding for RFOs is equivalent to 955

more than half of ACE funding to the same organisations in six English regions3. In the East Midlands, ACE invests £23m in RFOs with local partners contributing £19m, or 45% of the total public investment in the arts.

24. It is somewhat disconcerting, therefore, that the Arts Council’s own Stakeholder Focus Research tells us that, “Local authority partners are more negative about the Arts Council’s effectiveness in achieving its mission than others. Indeed, opinion formers raised questions about how harmonious the working relationship between the Arts Council and local authorities is at times, and whether there is a sufficient sense of working towards shared aims.”4

25. RFO funding is, of course, only one part of the arts and heritage funding ecology; indeed, they account for only 13% of the £1.117 billion that local government invested in the arts, culture and heritage in 2008-09.

26. RFOs are, however, a key part of the arts ecology, and these figures offer a useful case study to highlight the current parallel funding regimes which, we believe, must increasingly work more closely together if public investment in the arts is to be delivered more efficiently in response to public spending pressures.

27. We know that local authorities are very keen to look at a “total” or place-based approach to cultural provision in their areas, and we call on government and national quangos to support this work, in order to help protect frontline arts and heritage provision by making public funding go further.

28. We will continue to work with ACE to improve this situation, but neither sector should underestimate the scale of the challenge, or the potential benefits to the arts and heritage of a more efficient approach to public investment in them.

Lottery funding

29. This submission has so far focused on exchequer and local funding for the arts and heritage. It is worth making specific mention about lottery funding separately.

30. Local authorities currently are a key player in the lottery funding system, acting principally as recipients and facilitators of bids. Councils play a convening role locally to encourage and support bids, and a leadership role to focus the efforts of local groups on those priority areas where additional funding might best add value.

31. Drawing on our place-based funding model outlined above, we are interested in a devolved approach to lottery funding that would support the government’s aims of building the Big Society by bringing decision making in an area closer to local people and supporting the growth of a strong and diverse voluntary and community sector.

32. We believe that there is scope to increasingly devolve decisions over the distribution of available lottery funds to the local level. Coupled with other available funds from private enterprise, existing community development organisations and local and central government, the lottery could make a vital contribution to creating a “community bank” in each locality. Such an approach, we believe, would:

3 East of England; North East; North West; South East; South West; and Yorkshire and Humber. Data from RFO statistics for 2008-09, online at http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/funding/regular-funding- organisations/annual-submission/regularly-funded-organisations-statistics-2008-09/ 4 See: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/arts_council_stakeholder_focus_research.pdf

956

• Empower and involve local people in community funding, and bring this investment more in line with local needs and priorities; • Increase the reach of investment into the community; • Support new models of investment including mutuals, loans and asset transfer; • Ensure a more efficient, cost-effective and joined up approach to decision-making and administration of funds, by bringing it together in one place; • Increase transparency and reduce barriers to access for funds by simplifying the system and placing decision making within the local area; • Present a more efficient approach to funding the voluntary and community sector by sharing services and cutting through bureaucracy.

Summary

33. There are currently a plethora of systems for funding arts and heritage projects in the UK; collectively, these are complex, confusing and inefficient. Multiple funding providers operate at local, regional and national level, each with different processes, different priorities and different requirements to access funding.

34. The web of funding providers causes duplication and waste in the system and places decision making with remote national distributors and providers, often focused on nationally set priorities with no direct experience of the challenges and work being undertaken at a local level. We believe the current complex system also effectively ‘locks out’ small and inexperienced groups from accessing investment.

35. In comparison we propose a very simple locally led approach that could lever in additional funding locally, and that would lower the barrier to access funding, reduce back-office costs and move decision making out of Whitehall and into local communities. We believe this will increase the reach of investment into arts and heritage and local communities, stimulate social enterprise and promote greater transparency and accountability over public funds.

September 2010

957

Written evidence submitted by Southbank Centre (arts 216)

1. SUMMARY

• Southbank Centre firmly believes that a mixed economy is the best model for bringing long-term financial sustainability to cultural organisations • Public money spent on the arts is an investment in developing audiences. A public investment in the arts often stimulates a commercial relationship • Southbank Centre, like many arts organisations, maintains a large, historic and well-used site. We hope that the government will work with such organisations to find a way of funding these operational costs that does not undermine investment in the arts programme • The public expect art centres to be well maintained and with a consistently excellent artistic programme. Front-loaded cuts could result in a sharp decline in our offering, which would damage the relationship with our audiences and artists in the long term • Businesses and philanthropists have a major impact on funding of the arts, but more could be done if tax concessions were created and made more generous

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Southbank Centre is the UK’s largest arts centre, occupying a 21-acre site in the midst of London’s most vibrant cultural quarter on the South Bank of the Thames. The site has an extraordinary creative and architectural history stretching back to the 1951 Festival of Britain. Southbank Centre is home to the Royal Festival Hall, Queen Elizabeth Hall, Purcell Room and the Hayward Gallery. Southbank Centre provides a public facility in the widest sense, encouraging cultural excellence, commercial entrepreneurialism and learning and participation opportunities.

2.2 Today, the arts reach ever larger audiences, and the creative industries play an increasingly central role in the UK’s economyi. The next few years will be crucial to the future of our sector. We need to face the challenges created by the recession and continuing social change, whilst preparing for the Olympics and building on the success that the arts currently enjoy.

2.3 Given the current economic climate in the United Kingdom and the anticipated cuts that the cultural sector will face following the Comprehensive Spending Review, as well as the wide range of essential activities that Southbank Centre undertakes, we welcome the opportunity to respond to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry, and to inform discussion as to how funding will best enable cultural organisations to achieve the levels of excellence and access that the public expects.

3. IMPACT OF CUTS

3.1 Southbank Centre strongly believes in the importance of the mixed economy. The core funding for our artistic and operational requirements comes from an ACE grant of £23 million. This support enabled us to generate a further £8.7 million through ticket sales and £9 million through commercial and development activities in 2010. This financial stability has meant that we have become an essential part of England’s arts ecology. As well as maintaining one of the best known cultural tourist sites in London, we welcome the best artistic talent from around the world; put on cutting-edge performances by emerging artists; and encourage engagement with and participation in the arts across all parts of society. Thanks to the sheer scale and quality of the artistic offering we draw millions of visitors to our site, which in turn spurs on the consistency in our commercial income and sponsorship.

3.2 Due to our physical size and the diversity of art forms we represent, we require the funding we receive from Arts Council England to work across a number of areas. We produce, programme and 958

receive work from established and emerging artists both nationally and internationally. We engage with a broad range of people of different ages and backgrounds, and actively promote the creative talent and wellbeing of the individual. We employ a large number of staff and work with a range of commercial partners. We are actively engaged in fundraising to develop our programme.

3.3 Southbank Centre maintains a large and popular site which includes buildings of historic and architectural importance. 21.5 million people use our 21-acres of public realm each year. The area must be maintained to the highest standards in order to meet the expectations of tourists and Londoners alike. There has been a significant increase in operational costs over recent years; Southbank Centre has been assisted in meeting these costs by Arts Council England. A major review of the condition of the buildings has shown a substantial future investment is required to keep them open and operating. Keeping the site running at the standards that the public expects is more crucial than ever in the run up to the London Olympics in 2012. We hope that the government will work with organisations such as ours to find a way of funding these operational costs that does not undermine investment in the arts programme.

3.4 As well as presenting excellent artistic performances, Southbank Centre uses its public investment to take risks with new art forms that attract new customers. Arts centres must profile and celebrate work that attracts diverse audiences. This is for both social and commercial reasons. Without attracting the interest of different parts of the community to the art itself, we cannot hope to encourage new voices into the industry. We then have the opportunity to cultivate these new voices to become members of our core audience from which we derive profit. Our new festival, Alchemy, brings together UK-based artists in contemporary and classical South Asian culture with their counter-parts in the subcontinent. It also links with community celebration and neighbourhood identity and allows us all to understand the country in which we live. It brings new audiences to our site, which then allows us to communicate our wider artistic programme and begin an ongoing relationship.

3.5 Southbank Centre runs a significant programme of learning and participatory activity, much of which is provided to the public free of charge. Public investment allows us to operate and make artistic decisions for the public benefit. Significant and front-loaded reductions to budgets will require us to make decisions on a purely commercial basis. This will mean a significant reduction in the amount of free, participatory and innovative work here.

3.6 All these activities require significant funding. We are under no illusions about the tough times that lie ahead, and accept that the arts will bear some of the burden of the expected cuts. Income from the National Lottery could relieve some of the funding pressures that Southbank Centre is currently under in order to deliver on its aims and objectives. Additional revenue from the National Lottery will enable us to uphold the vibrancy of Southbank Centre’s artistic life whilst fulfilling the expectations of the millions of visitors to the site, the artists that perform here and all of those who benefit from our superlative participation and education programmes.

4. WORKING TOGETHER

4.1 In addition to our wide range of partners on artistic projects, Southbank Centre is exploring potential efficiencies from sharing operational support services with partners in the cultural sector. We recognise that savings from shared services typically arrive after an upfront initial investment and that the approach carries some risk.

4.2 We also believe in working in close partnership with the local community to deliver our goals. Southbank Centre continues to play a leading role with the Southbank Employers Groups, and Southwark Councils, the GLA family and our partners in the South Bank and Bankside Cultural Quarter. Working in partnership with these groups is bringing about improvements to the area, reducing duplication of efforts and improving efficienciesii. 959

4.3 The arts sector must continue to work in partnership with other arts organisations and also other industries. Looking for synergies with sectors such as health, social justice, and education will help deliver great art to those who might benefit most.

5. PHILANTHROPY – ENCOURAGING CORPORATE AND PRIVATE DONATIONS

5.1 We are actively engaged in fundraising to develop our programme and our site to ensure Southbank Centre remains a sustainable world-class destination for creative endeavour. Individuals have already had a major impact on our funding – the refurbishment of the Royal Festival Hall would not have been possible without the private generosity of major philanthropists and the 18,000 people who made donations totalling £2m. British cultural institutions operate a healthy funding model and we welcome the government’s emphasis on the growth of philanthropy in addition to the public funding provided for the cultural sector.

5.2 We now have very productive relationships with a range of corporate sponsors (for example, Shell and HSBC) who are increasingly addressing the balance of our funding constitution. These major corporate sponsors are attracted by our government investment and relative stability it can provide the larger institutions. They are also attracted to our success, our significant number of visitors and central location, and want to play a part in it.

5.3 Not all arts institutions are able to offer this level of benefits to corporate sponsors. Southbank Centre like many other national institutions relies on the health of the wider regional and local arts establishments for future talent and expertise, many of whom struggle to attract philanthropy and sponsorship.

5.4 We welcome the government’s emphasis on motivating donors and stimulating donations. There do need to be more government incentives to encourage private donations. We recommend a focus on major gifts to the cultural sector as an area of growth and potential. To establish a culture of giving, individuals can be encouraged by both tax incentives and recognition of the role they play in society. Those who gave gifts to the Royal Festival Hall did not do so purely for their own benefit but to return the building to the wide public who now enjoy it.

ENDNOTES

i The CBI estimates that the creative industries contribute between 6 and 8% of GDP, account for £16bn of overseas trade each year and employ nearly two million people.

ii Examples of our partnership work include: • South Bank Employers Group, Shell, London Eye, Lambeth Council and local residents to deliver a new Jubilee Gardens and Trust for its ongoing management and with other landowners to improve the public spaces between Waterloo Station and the river • Local employers to deliver better management of the area with joint security, graffiti and other cleaning, waste management, coach management and cycling. • TfL and South Bank Employers Group (SBEG) to deliver the new Legible London signage to help visitors and local resident and workers find their way around the South Bank • The London Development Authority and local employers to explore the potential of combined heat and power to reduce future energy costs as well as our carbon footprint. • The Greater London Authority, Lambeth and Southwark Councils and our cultural partners to deliver a Cultural Olympiad between Jubilee Gardens and Potters Field.

September 2010

960

Written evidence submitted by the National Theatre (arts 217)

There is no doubt that spending cuts from central and local government, and regional development agencies, have had and will have a significant impact on the arts and heritage at a national and local level.

This submission seeks to answer the Committee’s questions both in respect of the National Theatre and the wider performing arts sector and to provide evidence for those answers. In making our submission we would like to make it clear that while we regard the current conditions as being close to optimal, we understand that these cannot continue and we are not making a case for special treatment.

However, we want also to be clear that while hand-wringing and despair are inappropriate and that it behoves us to work together creatively and collaboratively to meet the coming challenges, cutting activity to meet reduced budgets will lead inevitably to a decline in public benefit. The National Theatre thrives and is most successful, productive and efficient (both in terms of levering additional income and in making efficiencies) when it is operating at full capacity. It is no coincidence that over the last five years of regular funding the NT has been critically and financially successful.

We can and should continually reinvent ourselves and our ways of doing things and funding activities in response to an ever changing world, as the submission makes clear. But in our view, it is crucial that the coming period of austerity is viewed as a necessary but temporary period of financial retrenchment rather than the harbinger of a long-term withdrawal of state subsidy.

1. The British theatre scene is a remarkably joined-up picture. The expected funding cuts will have an effect upon the system as a whole. Some parts will be more resilient than others and able to withstand a period of austerity; others are likely to start to fail quickly. The test of our collective ingenuity will be the extent to which we are able to manage through a difficult period with the minimum of damage. We regard the current conditions as close to optimal. It is understood that these cannot continue, but, as hand-wringing and despair are inappropriate, so too would be a relish for the cutting blade.

It therefore makes a key difference whether this is thought of as a necessary period of financial retrenchment, or intended to be the harbinger of a long-term withdrawal of state subsidy.

2. Assuming it is the former, what will matter is certainty of funding in order to provide the confidence to plan ahead. We strongly support the idea of long- term funding arrangements being mooted by the Arts Council England (ACE) and their newly introduced Peer Appraisals. The restoration of the Arts Council’s share of Lottery receipts is strongly to be welcomed, although we note that the effect in cash terms occurs late in the period and leaves a difficult period to be negotiated in the shorter term. The effect of cash shortages in the lead-up to the Olympics, which the arts had hoped to support at full throttle, is of concern.

The NT has considerable confidence in ACE and believes it to be the most appropriate system for funding distribution.

3. Past experience (for instance, from the period of zero or minus growth during the late 1980s and mid 1990s) shows that, although the indomitable British 961

appetite for making and going to theatre will persist, some aspects are quick to die back and slow to re-grow. Examples of the latter are new plays of large scale, the development of young directors and emergent theatre-makers, the development of new work, and diversity. The sector will have to work hard to preserve the conditions for R&D, innovation and diversity; and it will be all too easy to fall back into a narrowing artistic and audience range that would in the medium- and long-term be self-defeating.

4. The National takes a particular interest in R&D through the NT Studio, which spends about £1million per year developing work for the NT stages and the British theatre as a whole. The NT engages in relationships with small, mid-scale and regional theatre companies of all kinds. This is enlightened self-interest, since there is a narrowing gap between the NT’s repertory and the kind of work and artists that would hitherto have been thought of as fringe.

5. Theatre is very largely a freelance business. The quickest and simplest way, therefore, to cut costs is by scaling back the number of new productions - thus saving on sets, costumes, writers’ commissions and royalties, creatives’ fees and actors’ salaries – but the consequence of which is to reduce the vibrancy and box office appeal of an artistic programme.

6. Raising ticket prices much faster than inflation has the effect, over time, of narrowing the core audience and making a theatre over-reliant on a coterie, resulting in a programme that is risk-averse and fragile.

Having held price increases to inflation and introduced the Travelex scheme in 2003 the NT has enjoyed average occupancy level of 89% over the last eight years. This compares with an average of 76% during the last period of funding cuts in the mid 90s, and represents 100,000 more people per year seeing theatre at the National and an additional income of £2m pa at today’s prices.

Case-study: Travelex £10 tickets. The £10 Season was introduced in 2003 and has been supported by Travelex since then. The millionth £10 ticket was sold this year. The six-month annual seasons in the Olivier have had a transformational effect upon the size and make-up of the theatre’s audiences and has enabled a broader range of work on our largest stage, including new plays by lesser-known writers. The leaner aesthetic has been popular with designers and directors and has reduced the NT’s production and running costs. Higher attendances, lower costs and Travelex’s support have made it sustainable on a long-term basis.

7. The unintended consequence of cutting productions and raising ticket prices in order to balance the annual budget may therefore be that subsidy is used less well, since it would be used to cover cost-base rather than funding productions, and its benefits would reach fewer audience members. Some attention to value-for-money needs to be applied in order to guard against this.

962

8. In 2009/10 the NT reached a total audience of 1.4 million1 worldwide, a record number and twice the audience of 2002.

The NT has had success in dramatically increasing activity levels and productivity, with only a small increase in core costs. Turnover has doubled over the last eight years, to £65 million. The NT’s subsidy as a percentage of turnover has fallen from 60% in 1980, to 50% in 2000, and to 30% in 2010. Box office income has risen to represent 47% of the National’s total income for the year.

9. The NT nowadays has three pillars of income: • box office (NT and War Horse combined box office: £31m; broken down to £18m via the NT and £13m through War Horse); • subsidy (£19m); • sponsorship, philanthropy and commercial exploitation (£15m).

Self generated income at 65% to 70% of total income would appear to be a realistic long-term level for the NT.

10. Since 2004, the NT has taken a more proactive approach to the exploitation of its hits. A US ‘first look’ deal brings annual income and a ready partner to transfer the NT’s work to New York (one production a year on average). In the West End, the NT now tends to produce its own transfers, often in partnership with National Angels, an Enterprise Investment Scheme company run and financed by NT supporters. This model has been financially very successful, both with ‘The History Boys’ and now with ‘War Horse’.

Case-study: ‘War Horse’. The production was developed over three years at the NT Studio. It had two runs in the Olivier Theatre and transferred to the New London Theatre in March 2009. Over 810,000 people have seen the show. It had its 500th performance in the West End on 12 June 2010 and is currently booking until 22 October 2011. A New York production, co-produced by the NT, will open in April 2011 followed by productions in Toronto and for US touring. An international tour starting in Japan is planned for late 2012.

11. The relationship between the subsidised theatre and commercial theatre is close and mutually rewarding. Whereas in Paris or Berlin, they are hostile strangers to each other, in London they are inter-dependent. The commercial theatre relies upon the subsidised sector for writers, directors, actors and designers, who often derive vital supplementary income from the commercial sector.

12. The non-profit sector is very significant to London theatre, in terms both of producing activity and audience numbers. It accounts for 45% of play attendances in London.

1 Excellent audience numbers for War Horse at the New London Theatre, alongside the Sunday performances (introduced year-round from July 2009), account for an increase of 45% in attendances compared to 2008-09. War Horse contributed 400,000 attendances to the total paid attendance for NT-produced performances in London of 1.2m, equivalent to 90% of capacity. With NT Live contributing a further 100,000 attendances during the financial year 09/10, and touring audiences in the UK and abroad of 90,000, the NT’s total reach was 1.4 million people worldwide. 963

13. The NT is very significant within both the non-profit sector and commercial sector. The National is responsible for 28% of all London play-going. It accounts for 67% of non-profit play attendances and, with ‘War Horse’, 16% of commercial play attendances too.

14. British theatre has considerable international impact. In the last six years twelve of the 24 Tony nominees for Best Directors of a Play were for British directors (four of those productions were the NT’s).

15. Innovation requires financial stability and the ability to plan and take calculated risks. Non-profit ‘mission’ can be as effective a driver as bottom-line profit. Such is the case with National Theatre Live, the NT’s HD broadcasts into cinemas.

National Theatre Live: 200,000 people across the globe in the last year have seen the NT’s live broadcasts in HD. While year one has had start- up funding, year two aims to be self-sustaining, with seven screenings in place of five, including one each from Complicite and the Donmar Warehouse. NT Live’s mission is to reach as many UK tax-payers as possible. Foreign sales make the programme affordable – and generate immense enthusiasm and admiration for the quality of British theatre.

In any future funding climate, it will be important to maintain organisations’ capacity for innovation, both individually and in collective groupings.

16. Can sponsorship and philanthropy be increased? The NT’s income from sponsors, individuals and Trusts was £1.2m in 1990, £2m in 2000 and £6.5m in 2009/10. The growth has been achieved largely in corporate partnerships and individual giving. Multi-year partnerships are valuable in giving financial security. Travelex, Accenture, Phillips, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Shell have been responsible for many of the NT’s on-going programmes: respectively, £10 tickets, innovation, energy efficiency, New Connections for 11-19 year olds.

But it is noticeable that many sponsors, individuals and trusts are drawn by an interest in new strands of work that enable or enhance the mission of companies with which they are familiar. This is a challenge for emergent companies and regional theatres. Sponsorship is skewed towards London and/or organisations with a national reach.

Delivery of core activity is never an attractive fundraising proposition and there is certainly a risk that private donors and sponsors will be unwilling to step in to make good an abrupt withdrawal of state support. Donors and sponsors give most when they have real confidence in the reputation of an organisation and its ability to meet the agreed programme of work. Buoyancy is a more compelling argument than drowning.

Trusts and foundations, many of whom are traditionally associated with funding capital projects and innovation, will experience competing priorities as they are increasingly looked to for revenue support.

There are some sign of developments in venture philanthropy and a continuing interest from high level donors in making life-time pledges if there was government support through tax reliefs. Some relaxation of the rules governing allowable benefits would also be helpful.

964

17. There is, we believe, the capacity for companies to work together to reduce cost. British theatre is by nature connected and collegiate. Some work has already begun to investigate the practicalities. The NT has started discussions, with the Royal Court and other London theatres, to provide services at low or no cost in the fields of HR, legal, contracting, IT, box office, welfare and occupational health.

18. The question of capital is an important issue. It would be of considerable concern if the pendulum were to swing entirely away from the funding of essential capital renewal.

When the Lottery finally came into being in 1994 it addressed a critical situation in the state of the infrastructure of many of the country’s arts buildings. Huge and disruptive rebuilding programmes were required to deal with the cumulative effects of a lack of investment in repairs, maintenance and capital renewal over a period of many years, but particularly exacerbated by the preceding years of cash freezes and cuts in arts funding.

The shortfall in lottery funding for capital has in recent years started to be felt again. The result of delay in essential capital spend will result in a loss of mission and lead ultimately to greater and additional costs. This is borne out by the experience of the mid 1990s.

If the arts are to thrive and to continue to make a significant contribution to the cultural and economic life of the country, it is essential that they have the means to focus on maintaining current estates; to make sensible alterations to existing buildings to accommodate new work such as digital, collaboration with other arts companies, work with children and young people, and to ensure audience access; to undertake works needed to cope with changes in external environment; and to fund energy-efficiency and environmentally sustainable works.

September 2010 965

Written evidence submitted by Nottingham City Council (arts 218)

Nottingham City Council welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry into funding of the Arts and Heritage. In making this submission whilst we recognise the difficult public funding environment being faced, we also appreciate the contribution that a relatively small level of public funding made within Arts and Heritage does significantly help deliver a broad range of economic and social regeneration issues. In particular for Nottingham;

• Playing a key role in defining Nottingham as an International City of Culture, Learning, Science and Sport. • Supporting Nottingham’s objectives to increase tourist bed nights by 50% by 2020. • Acknowledging the opportunity that the creative industries provide for future employment and future economic prosperity. • Creating a sense of place and helping the City build, diverse and cohesive neighbourhoods. • Support in raising aspirations and help improve skills and health.

Recently a report by Experian entitled “Unlocking the potential of the Creative and Cultural Sector” published March 2010, identified that in the East Midlands the economic output for the regional economy was significant. Experian forecasts suggest that the Gross Added Value (GVA) output for the creative and cultural sectors in this region was equivalent to around £2.95bn in 2009 – or around 4.3 per cent of total regional GVA.

Moreover, the creative and cultural sector’s contribution also makes a significant contribution to the physical landscape of Nottingham City, helping ensure that the City is a great place to live, work and visit. Indeed a wide body of academic research points to the central role creative and cultural assets play in supporting the economic competitiveness of regions. The sector plays an important role in developing aspirations and helping improve life skills and health and, Nottingham in the last number of years the City has worked with a variety of partners to help support a range of large cultural regeneration projects in key development areas of the City, examples include; The New Arts Exchange (Hyson Green), Broadway Cinema & Media Centre (Hockley) and the Nottingham Contemporary Gallery (Lace Market).

Therefore any potential loss of national & regional investment through Government and related agencies such as EMDA, MLA and the Film Council could have a serious knock- on affect for a urban Capitals such as Nottingham. Decreasing funding will make it more difficult for Nottingham to sustain a meaningful cultural offer or have the opportunity to obtain the required and on-going investment needed into the Arts, Libraries and Museum and Heritage sectors for the area.

Nottingham has already undertaken quite an extensive programme of change to make economies of scale and look towards merging of institutions. Nottingham Contemporary is a product of merging the funds, skills and experience of former Angel Row Gallery (operated by Nottingham City Council) and Bonnington Galleries (operated by the University of Nottingham). The New Art Exchange brought together a number of individual arts organisations in the minority ethic arts delivery to create a truly multicultural arts centre and facility. The Museum service some time ago undertook a radical restructuring, including the relocation of some collections and the closure of the City’ Costume Museum and reduced opening hours of its Wollaton Hall Industrial Museum.

966

The Library and Information Service has also been engaged in a modernisation programme of the range of services it provides and how it delivers them. Difficult decisions have been taken to close under performing community libraries and re-invest in fewer but better facilities supported by more flexible outreach services together with electronic resources and services that support a number of corporate priorities and offer improved value for money. A great deal of progress is being made in achieving a modal for genuine community engagement via the BIG Lottery funded Community Libraries project and the service already benefits from the support of a wide range of volunteers that add value to the service. Plans are well developed to provide new library facilities in two joint service centres whilst the City Council has invested in the existing Central Library building in order to re-locate it’s Customer Contact centre to develop a city centre ‘one stop shop’ for citizens. It is considered that the City Council continues to meet it’s statutory obligations but if it is to remain cost effective, relevant and inclusive then adequate attention, support and investment needs to be made available to allow Library Services to evolve and respond positively.

The City Council Museum Service has played a key regional role within the Renaissance East Midlands Partnership and monies from the Renaissance in the Regions initiative from MLA has been key in linking communities to museum collections and cultural activity and providing opportunities for some of the most disadvantaged in the region. This has been achieved within the East Midlands partnership by working closely in concert with other museums [local authority, National Trust and voluntary operated] to develop skills and expertise, by sharing relatively modest resources and by combining activity to achieve demonstrable economies. Renaissance in the Regions has yielded opportunities for our Service to engage with local communities within the City and, in partnership with other Services, to take a lead role for community engagement work throughout the East Midlands. It is very much hoped that Renaissance funding will, even if reduced by economic necessity, be continued in this vital area of matching communities to their cultural heritage.

Whilst in principal Nottingham City Council is not wedded to the fact that governing structures within Arts & Heritage don’t need to change, it is important in such changes and announcements already made concerning the future of the MLA that its sartorial voice in Library’s and Museum is not lost in any future succession structures being proposed.

In terms of funding for the Arts & Heritage, how much, who should pay? In the short term we need to be realistic as to the shift in culture required and relevant incentives that need to be put in place in order to move from our present reliance on the public purse patronage to increased private donations. Most certainly some freedoms and relaxation of rules in respect of charging opportunities for Libraries or from funding implications in respect of Heritage Lottery Funding Awards previously taken would assist in re-balancing the present state funding mix. Similarly the announcement of potential increased Lottery funds back to the Arts & Heritage is welcomed and again this offer needs to come with a better understanding of allowing funding between capital and revenue and without previous strings attached in respect of matched funding, if this type of opportunity is truly going to be embraced and positively used.

Finally, whilst we acknowledge the challenges to the UK economy, we also need to be mindful of areas where future growth in the UK economy are likely to come from and in this context it might be short-sighted to underplay the potential role that Arts and Heritage still play in stimulating Tourism, and nurturing broader commercial creative industry sectors.

September 2010 967

Written evidence submitted by the Joint Museums Committee, University of Cambridge (arts 219)

1. 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;

The eight museums of the University of Cambridge form a unique cluster within this relatively rural but economically important region and the University is the major provider of arts and heritage services within the county and in the western part of Eastern England. Moreover five of the museums are Designated and thus recognised as having collections of national importance to the country's overall heritage. The University, through HEFCE, and from its own endowments, is the major funder of this academic, economic and public resource and faces spending cuts within the Higher Education sector as well as possible cuts from DCMS with the closure of the MLA and other agencies. Within this context spending cuts threaten the University's ability to offer a public service through its museums and collections, as well as its major contributions nationally and internationally to the arts, and may lead to a major cut in services to the public if the maintenance of those services impacts upon the University's core activities of teaching and research. We are concerned that future reduced funding, if concentrated only in major conurbations, will significantly reduce the cultural entitlement of this whole region. We would urge the Select Committee to give careful thought to how the arts and heritage may be sustained outside the major conurbations and how groups like the Cambridge University Museums, working collaboratively, within and beyond the University, may play a part in this vital aspect of British society. A detailed analysis may be found in the University of Cambridge's Fitzwilliam Museum's submission to the Select Committee.

4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

We would endorse the point made in response to question 4 by the Fitzwilliam Museum that extensive short-term project funding is deeply unsatisfactory as a mechanism for sustaining the infrastructure for non-national museums. Any process which requires bidding to a selective national scheme, such as that proposed by the MLA, makes it impossible to maintain an ensured basic service for the purposes of outreach, public education and access and without a basic level of funding there is less chance of augmentation from other agencies, including funding from the private sector and philanthropy.

The eight Museums of the University of Cambridge comprise: • Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology • Museum of Classical Archaeology • Fitzwilliam Museum • Kettle's Yard • The Sedgwick Museum of Earth Sciences • Scott Polar Research Institute • Whipple Museum of the History of Science • Museum of Zoology

September 2010 968

Written evidence submitted by artsNK (arts 220)

Context – who are artsNK? artsNK is a dynamic team that delivers the arts development service for North Kesteven District and increasingly elsewhere across Lincolnshire. Having evolved as part of the council, we are now employed, along with our sports colleagues, by Leisure connection within an innovative ten year contract. artNK reflects the value and investment the council has placed on the arts and the contribution they can make to the delivery of other service objectives. We are currently undergoing an Organisational Development review, alongside the local authority cultural services review, which is designed to ensure we are best placed to meet the demands of the coming years.

• What impact will recent, and future, spending cuts from central and local Government have on the arts and heritage at a national and local level;

The recent cut has largely been digested without consequence, certainly for the smaller organisations here in rural Lincolnshire. Larger, city based organisations, where the aggregate amount is much bigger, will no doubt have found it more difficult. In the longer term, deeper cuts will have a more drastic effect. There is a long- standing imbalance between levels of investment in arts in cities and in rural areas, which leaves us balanced precariously, in danger of going over the edge. We can see already in neighbouring authorities, that funding in arts provision has been cut as a non- statutory service, inevitably loosing out when difficult decisions have to be made. Most Arts Development Officer and Cultural Officer posts have already gone, rural arts centres closed and projects cut back. The very real danger is that with further cuts and no protection offered to arts funding, cultural provision will disappear from rural areas, leaving village and town residents excluded, forced to drive hundreds of miles to access building based, centralised provision.

What can arts organisations do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

Here in Lincolnshire, as in the rest of the country, arts organisations have not been sitting with our heads in the sand or been painting protest banners, blaming others for our economic predicament. We live in the real world and recognise the need to demonstrate value for money and cost effectiveness. We believe money invested in the arts delivers, as every evaluation and survey shows, impacting positively on economic, health and social development targets. Gone are the days of art for arts sake. Arts organisations have grown to realise they have to deliver in return for their public funding.

Over the last year Lincolnshire has looked at, and started to realise, where we can get best value from local authority and government investment in the arts by working together and by sharing resources, skills and expertise. Each organisation has evolved separately to take its place in the counties arts ecology and it was easy to think that our separateness was essential to the artistic product 969

delivered. Over the last year, spearheaded through the Lincolnshire One Thrive Organisational Development review process, the county arts organisations have grown to realise this structure is outdated and is not sustainable. Like other local authority service areas, we have been looking at where savings can be made or improvements delivered through collaboration, and have started to make the necessary structural changes to reshape the counties arts ecology.

There is however a very real danger that if resources are withdrawn before we have been able to implement the changes that would make us more robust and able to survive, the whole thing would fall apart mid evolutionary change.

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

The level of public subsidy of the arts should have a direct relationship to the value of what is delivered. Projects that contribute to societies need, be it social, economic or health related, justify investment from the public purse. But this formula should also be applied to the private sector. Businesses benefit from a healthy culture and a happy community – people want to live and work in places that have a vibrant cultural life – so businesses wishing to expand should be required to invest. Individuals benefit from taking part in art projects, so should be expected to make a contribution in proportion to sky TV subscription. The arts have proven that they can shape effective programmes that overlap with the agendas and purposes of a wide range of charities, trusts and agencies. These should recognise the value artists and arts organisations make, and be encouraged to fund them accordingly.

The future of arts funding is therefore in a robust formula that shares the responsibility of funding with all those who gain value, either directly or indirectly.

Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

It is the one that has evolved, so it is the best starting point on offer. Any wholesale change risks chucking out the baby with the bath water. Arts organisations are capable of change, they can be given a task to respond to need within parameters, and they will come up with an answer. The purpose of government and perhaps local authority funding, is to get as much resource to the point of delivery as possible with minimum spillage or evaporation. ACE has proven it can do this, so unless there is a new form of watertight organisation on the shelf, it should be the trusted to carry on.

What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations?

The diversion of funds to the Olympics meant smaller projects lost out, and particularly, in our rural district, those that were grown locally, at a community level, disappeared. What happens when a field is cleared and left fallow? Wild flowers bloom, age old seeds take root, poppies and willow herb flower and enrich the landscape. 970

The Olympiad represents a fantastic harvest, but the rural landscape will be more colourful when the funding trickles back down to the grass roots.

• Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;

If the plan is to return the funds to the original “good causes” then no. If it isn’t, then yes they need to be reviewed. The arts can survive, just about, if the lottery resource is available to rejuvenate thirsty organisations “just in time.” The best strategic plan would be to make sure key organisations are sustained to get through the drought and be able to rejuvenate the sector once the Lottery funds begin to flow again.

Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

Yes because we all, individuals, public and private sector, have a vested interest in creating a balanced, happier, society. If the England team are winning, we celebrate; we feel healthier and happier and spend more. It is in the interests of all business (except perhaps funeral directors and tissue producers) to build societies that are culturally aware and active and happy. They should fund arts organisations in proportion to the value they draw from there programmes, visible and obvious as well as less tangible.

Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations. Yes.

September 2010 971

Written evidence submitted by Crewkerne & District Musuem & Heritage Centre (arts 221)

1. The impact of cuts in Grant Funding on our organisation is considerable 2. Cooperation with other organisations within a small community could be advantageous 3. Small volunteer run groups need public support 4. How funding is made available is important within the volunteer sector 5. Effect of distribution of National Lottery funding 6. Museums, Libraries and Archives Council-abolition 7. Support of local business and philanthropists 8. Government incentives

Crewkerne & District Museum & Heritage Centre is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year. The centre was set up with the encouragement and support of the South Somerset District Council and Crewkerne Town Council and funding to carry out the project supplied by Heritage Lottery some eleven years ago.

1. The project grew from a small museum, run by volunteers, which had been housed in a council building which was declared unsafe. Much hard work on the part of volunteers secured the Heritage Lottery funding which enabled them to purchase a Georgian property in the centre of town and completely refurbish it to a high standard to house the stored collection and run as a Heritage Centre. The South Somerset District Council has provided an annual grant of £4,150 to run the centre until 2 years ago when the funding was reduced. This funding is currently being cut by approximately 20% annually until 2014 when it will be withdrawn completely. The organisation, a registered charity, runs at a turnover of about £9,500 per annum and so the SSDC grant was supplying almost half of the income. The local Town Council continues to support the centre with an annual grant of £1,500. In view of rising fuel costs, insurance and maintenance costs (the charity owns the building), the only way that the centre survives is due to the considerable volunteer help provided by the community.

2. In an attempt to involve further small organisations within Crewkerne the museum is offering display space to celebrate anniversaries and events and this year has covered to date:

ƒ A local bowls club ƒ A collectors display of aprons ƒ The Charity Football Shield ƒ The Girl Guide 100th anniversary ƒ The Young Farmers

It is felt that this gives us links to a wider community. We also work closely with the Local Information Centre and local shops. We take part in promotion days by other organisations in the town and national groups such as English Heritage (free entrance for Heritage weekend and guided walks around the town), and The Big Draw ( combined with Crewkerne Art group for October Half term holiday activities).

3. The Heritage Centre has existed for 10 years in its present form and we are constantly trying to raise our profile within the community by connecting with other local groups, building links with schools, advertising activities and providing a venue for small group celebrations and meetings such as the ex rail workers reunion celebrating the 150th anniversary of Crewkerne Railway Station. We aim to cooperate with other groups such as the Local Information Centre, the Community Centre and other fund raising groups to offer support and exchange of ideas. 972

4. Time is a valuable resource within the volunteering sector and many people are willing to offer to do practical things, but not so happy to spend time filling in forms and working at grant applications. We have found that, as a non profit making organisation, it is increasingly difficult to find ways of raising funds for the general day to day running of the Centre. We go to our Friends organisation for expenditure on advertising leaflets and expensive packaging materials for example, and not just for the extra purchases of things to add to the collection or enhance the Reception area. This past year has seen us hold more fund raising events and this November we shall be calling on Volunteers for further help with Stewarding when we open the museum as an Art Gallery. Recognition of volunteer hours by government in exchange for some financial support would mean that many organisations would continue to thrive and small towns such as Crewkerne would ensure the provision of educational resources such as Museums and Heritage Centres.

5. Our centre has benefited from Heritage Lottery money in the past and may well need to apply for project funding in the future. The distribution of funds to 2012 Olympics and reduction in heritage funding will no doubt affect organisations such as ours.

6. In 2008/2009 we were invited to apply for Accreditation from Museums, Libraries and Archives. We were awarded full Accreditation and the work involved in the application fell to volunteers. We were admirably supported by our Museum Development Officer, Natalie Watson, who guided us through the maze of paperwork required. Miss Watson’s post is part funded by MLA. Since taking up post Miss Watson has raised the profile of museums both large and small in Somerset. She has worked tirelessly to make museums living, lively places under her guidance and expertise. Without such an officer in place the county would be the poorer. MLA also provides free support to museums through courses and printed material.

7. In the present economic climate it is difficult to imagine many local businesses offering financial support to Museums. Our Friends Association offers membership to all such businesses, but only has a few signed up. A local printer is very supportive, probably because the owners are interested and involved in the centre. The centre depends on the charitable gifts of the public and most supporters of the Museum will attend fund raising functions, give items for the collection and for fund raising. We have occasionally been grateful to receive larger donations to either go in the general fund or purchase particular objects of interest for the collection.

8. The incentive to keep our Museum and Heritage Centre open comes from the sense of community involvement of the volunteers. We have about 60 people volunteering; ages ranging from 50-80plus. No-one is paid and we run the centre in a “professional” manner. Everyone treats all the volunteers with due respect and values what they do, whether it be stewarding once a month or organising an event. This comes from a sense of community, of enjoyment in working together with a varied group of people from all walks of life. This happens in some small towns and comes from the roots. It cannot be artificially made but should be encouraged, and financial support from government/councils should be available to sustain such organisations to recognise the work that volunteers put into their communities.

September 2010 973

Written evidence submitted by Dr Simon Jenner (arts 222)

Poet, academic (PhD Cantab), administrator. I direct the ACE Regularly Funded Organisation Survivors’ Poetry. This charity (also Company House registered) encourages those with mental distress to empower their lives through the writing of poetry – in many cases, to magazine and collection standard. We direct workshops, an interactive website and regular events at for instance the Poetry Society, including literary festivals. I also direct Waterloo Press, another ACE- funded not for profit publishing house for poetry, which ploughs its revenue into more production, and aims to be self-sustaining. We specialise in radically good poetry (of all kinds, refusing isms), and translations. My own work as poet has resulted in a flurry of publications and reviews, and I’ve just completed a two year Royal Literary Fund Fellowship at UEL and Chichester Universities, combining with my other roles. I’ve also received RLF and other grants. I’m returning to Chichester University on a freelance basis.

Response

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;

The mantras of the arts producing 7% of GDP, and the disproportionate impact of cuts on this output, need no rehearsing here. This paradigm, definitively nailed in the Boyden Report on theatres of 2000 and finessed and amplified since to all art production, has held good for a decade. Denying its truth seems part of a dark incomprehension of what small benefits can accrue to government with such cutting, what devastation to the arts sector and fabric that employs and benefits so many. To say we cannot afford the arts or other wealth generators that require seed-funding is like saying we could not afford to set up – or now continue - the NHS. We were bankrupt when we set that up, and opening up a huge debt we’ve just paid off to the U.S Yet no-one denies – except the Conservative part of the Coalition government that fell in July 1945 – that we could afford it.

In the arts, it’s also a question of wealth generation, not simply absolute ‘loss’ which the NHS might represent for some. In the 1970s you could not ‘afford’ investment in oil wells, despite the massive profits they bring - though these were used or misused, and now BP currently blackens this metaphor. I’ve noticed that the same argument – that we cannot afford it – has not been made of nuclear power, for example, though that does not seemingly bring wealth, merely the illusion of independent power grids.

To quote Boyden in 2004 on a later review:

A vibrant theatre culture has a dynamic contemporary relevance for any engaged society by celebrating collective identity, strengthening social purpose, providing a public forum for ideas, harnessing creativity, feeding energy and talent into the creative industries, and enhancing international perceptions of that society.

ACE itself cut 40% and regionally 50% of its own staff in a fruitless attempt to head off central government cuts. I put this point in January to Alan Davey, ACE CEO, who had blithely deemed it a cauterizing move. He could not accept that a further set of cuts would then be imposed on him, doubling the internal haemorrhage within ACE, and its effectiveness in servicing the arts and arts economy. Cuts start in the regions and smaller, less visible art forms. It perhaps reflects an unconscious mind-set in administrative circles. Less visible means out of London or out of those arenas that say those in positions of responsibility are likely to come across there or in major cities. Out of sight, as it were.

Local government always reaches for the arts budget first when cuts are mooted. Devolving 974

responsibility to local government will effect radical cuts, unmediated and part of a reflex action. There is little of the European local constituency to oppose this. We’ve seen this already. This impacts on any matching funding from local government for ACE, for example.

Other bodies - let’s take the NHS schemes, who provide a fluctuating level of support for arts and health - will also simply fold. Cuts to the Maudsley NHS have resulted in closure to some of the last mental health units for older people (i.e. the Felix Post Unit), stayed only by the remarkable arts productions that emanated from them (my organisation was involved). It did not simply empower and drastically improve quality of life for patients; it also stayed the executioner’ hand, till the recession bit.

The Boyden figures you have. Central government cuts encourage local ones too. The domino effect is self-evident.

There is no doubt that quite apart from the destructive effect on the quality of life in this country, many will find themselves jobless, directly or indirectly because of these cuts. I can vouch for this effect on Regularly Funded Organisations (RFOs) and the disproportionate effect a few job-cuts mean in vulnerable sectors like mine, for instance that addresses mental health.

The enormously disabling effects of unemployment on kick-starting the economy were of course tackled by Keynes, whose shadow, once deemed obliterated by the sun of 1980s plate glass, returned in 2007 after the collapse of the banks. A wider lesson is again self-evident, whether or not we’re in denial about the sustained growth of purely capitalist systems.

What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

Many of us have long been essaying this. In my own case, for 21 months. I believe that office- sharing and the pooling of resources that entails, can lead to harmonious, cost-effective and linked action, programmes that can be co-operatively shared between those who have something in common. And of course lobbying-power is greatly enhanced – both positively, in terms of funding application; and ‘negatively’ when faced with cuts. Personnel can be shared to some extent – though this takes finessing and has to be individually addressed.

ACE itself attempted to create an umbrella capital project in 2002-03 to enable disability organisations to share a single building. Unhappily the process dragged and the money was severally divided so that each went their separate ways to weal or woe. There must be a better way to ensure people want to work together. I rather think the sharp end of a recession might do it.

One mode is for CEOs and their seconds as it were to share funding applications. This sharing of resources at the jagged end of survival is a wonderful quickener. Joint applications, already encouraged, could be even more actively sought where applicable Please note that it isn’t always the case, or that some organisations many fail through no fault of their own, to secure a funding partner. They should however feel free to indicate (where relevant) their attempts to do this on any form, even if they’ve not been successful.

What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

• Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

There always needs to be a buffer between government and arts bodies – if only for the safety of government officials. Cynically, then, ACE is indispensable to government. In effect, ACE proves an interface – thinning all the time to the width of a screen monitor – between 975

government and DCMS policy, and those they serve. They also feed a hierarchy of funding priorities, starting with the cliché of ROH and working down to the brass door knobs.

Only ACE can ensure the infrastructure of ACE regional bodies, for instance, bodies can be re- labelled but this is expensive and debilitating. ACE, whatever its perceived flaws, is a lot more cost-effective, particularly to those it serves (which must also be taken into account: it cuts both ways) than reconstituting or shrouding another body in difficult-to-access, more quasi- government machinery. That might be desirable to some in government, but the backlash would soon prove this short-sighted.

I would - naturally - argue for a restoration of arts budgets. No other area of our national life does so much for so little. This unthinking, unblinking blanket cut approach, which punishes all for sins committed by those rich enough to pay for the ROH every night, is fast dividing the country like no other. And the arts articulate and focus this rage more effectively than anywhere else.

The current year, already slashed by £23M, of £460M, is a fraction of the budget tithed for the Olympics, a venture which like other gestural politics, costs infinitely more than more sustainable and ultimately more nationally efficacious area such as the arts. I don’t particularly want to address the Olympics/Arts divide, but logic, as elsewhere, seems to have disappeared since 2005. I know there have been cuts here too, but the long-term damage is infinitely less. Trickle-down benefits might be likened to the Russian millionaire buying cigarettes in a Greenwich corner shop. I use North Greenwich tube, and delightful as it is, its brief function as a world hub has left it somewhat desolate, bar gusts of excited Wednesday visitors after Thriller. The profit lost in selling the Dome of course belongs to another government, though this in turn took its selling-family-silver approach directly from the 1980s. The whole peninsular looks set for a similar desolation after 2012. Pockets, like the Beckham Academy, will of course ensure some activity, but hardly justify the concrete landscape.

Heritage is a different matter. Conservation and heritage are cuter than live arts, and often can raise far greater enthusiasms – witness the TV Restoration series, voting on buildings to save. This was and is admirable. The existence of the National Trust and other bodies are palpably less dependent on government, and though recession might mean that private monies are less forthcoming , they’re more likely to emanate from relatively well-to-do people than a government tackling re cession. I must emphasize the differences evident to all between heritage and current arts, as we do between capital and other projects.

This is not to sound complacent, coming as it does from a contemporary arts scene practitioner. I take a keen interest in heritage. The funding structure and channels are demonstrably different. Restoration-type initiatives are sexy, productive, community-based and boast extremely attractive outcomes. There is too something of the Strongest-Link, buy-to- let/restore-to-sell consumerism feel-good factor involved, though at a subliminal level. In this case it’s for a good cause.

TV choices for Lottery initiatives going head-to head were tried out in 2006. The trouble with this kind of Big Lottery initiative is that it does become a subjective lottery, with a bread-and- circuses approach from executives to public.

• What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;

We should treat 2012 as a blip, and of course the shift away from the arts that has been a feature of the National Lottery, is unlikely to be reversed unless it’s addressed directly and persistently. Now competition is fierce this may well become a feature of bidding wars between 976

interested lobbying groups. Certainly the disgruntled will gruntle more noisily than heretofore. ACE executives have been muttering to their clients for some time about the haemorrhage. The arts must now be chief beneficiaries. Soft targets must have something soft to fall back on. A very significant amount of our GDP and capacity to attract overseas investment and tourists is directly dependant on this perceptual shift.

Other ACE initiatives have drained the reserves built up. First, the Sustain programme, and subsequently raising the reserves to fulfil their 2010-11 funding commitments, which the government seemed sanguine on their reneging on. Happily this didn’t happen.

One solution would be an incentive for those who pay significant tax to donate directly to the arts through further inducements– but the Treasury won’t have this. What surprises me is the pusillanimity of the Treasury in going for tax evaders on a large scale. If resources targeting the relatively tiny amount lost in benefit fraud were directed towards the real fraud, many billions might be recovered. These people have nowhere these days to flee to. And no party to vote for.

• Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;

These need to be made simpler, privileging the efficacy of the project over the fluency of presentation. Of course there are limits. Nevertheless the clever nuancing – I’ve made successful applications myself – is one way of ensuring that only educated people can articulate adequate replies. There are shibboleths here, people who understand jargon, catch-words and comforting language to mirror that of the executives who read them. I’m good at it so speak from experience.

• 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;

This seems the most disastrous choice of all. The anti-quango drive has reached one of its reductio ad nauseams, before being even absurd. The Film Council alone has lobbied, finessed, and otherwise brought into being or sped numerous British films, and enhanced the whole film culture. What will replace the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council is unclear. There is a mode of presenting these different streams of heritage that cannot be lumped into one kulturpolicy. Why punish the wealth generators who know how to promote such culture as comes within their remit? Doubtless a fantasy of efficient slim-line bureaus might appeal to some, and would be preferable to what in effect will be a costly transition and muddying of resources.

• Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

Business – particularly absurdly over-flushed ones, like football clubs – of course must be given tax incentive on the American model. The American model of philanthropy on a an individual basis is more flawed (see below) when it comes to the standard British or British-resident millionaire or billionaire. But businesses can certainly profit from ensuring that some of their tax goes as profit to the arts.

Gerry Robinson was Chair of ACE 1998-2004. He needs to address a new TV programme. What’s Wrong with the Arts? If it was made interactive, and Sir Gerry could be philanthropic about his erstwhile catchment area (before his aborted Rentokil days) then some new positively vulgar assault could be made on art prejudice and Robinson himself come up with intriguing solutions we might be able to use. As well as providing rich entertainment, partly as ever, at the expense of arty types. No matter. Art, like murder, must advertise.

977

A local level is where of course ACE Regional bodies could score, had they resources. It seems the most effective realization is to see that money will not come to the arts without being courted. That is, either government, DCMS/ACE personnel or arts organisations (who have been doing this for themselves, in an ad-hoc manner) need to approach at a national and local level.

ACE operatives must offer more help through consultants (which in part they have) to court, net, land, or otherwise induce philanthropists to part with sums of money. This takes time. It would be better if the government changed the culture by signalling a change in tax breaks and much else, which would push such philanthropists half-way. The next layer, ACE with NGOs like Arts and Business, must then provide a framework for approach that arts organisations can shelter under, in umbrella format. This three tier system – government policy, ACE template of a structured culture-shift (even meeting at ACE venues) and finally the art organisations themselves, could all act in triple measure.

• Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

The Canadian model of philanthropy has been mentioned after the vaunted American one rather collapsed. In truth the culture here is different. The millionaires tend to be Russian and most tend to invest in football clubs, not arts projects. Even J. K. Rowling dedicates herself to medical or social causes. That it doesn’t occur to her to think of the arts as a worthy cause – perhaps she feels she’s helped enough with Bloomsbury – is baleful evidence of the past 15 years’ failure to persuade the country at large that the arts are instinctively worth supporting. There is no solar plexus for the arts to prod, as there demonstrably is in Italy, Spain, France, Germany.

We have thus a philistine set of the very rich, and the only solution is to induce them to give to the arts with clever tax-breaks that enhance the donor’s goodwill and direct their munificence towards the arts. That is, if they pay tax at all. If so, first, they must be netted and then after the stick, the carrot. There’s no point in adumbrating a complex model. If there’s a will the Treasury will find a way to this. But some real drive must be directed – and this doesn’t take time, merely brains and a brief bill – to shift the culture of obscene footballs transfer fees to wealth generators for the rest of us. The money is there and must be reined in and harnessed to the country’s use. A great deal of it sits stacked up in flight patterns but never comes down to land. We must change this with radical incentives.

September 2010 978

Written evidence submitted by the Independent Cinema Office (arts 223)

Our work is largely concerned with cultural film and so our evidence will be confined to this area. We are the national support organisation for independent film exhibition which comprises film festivals, cinemas, arts centres, film societies and community cinemas. Our main areas of activity are film programming advice and booking; professional development training for staff; promoting artists’ moving image work in a cinema context; distribution and consultancy.

Our main objective is to support the film exhibition sector to ensure that culturally valuable film gets seen by the widest audience possible.

We are a charity with a board of trustees, we are not a membership organisation, our services can be accessed by any organisation although the majority of our work is concerned with the not for profit sector – trusts, charities, local authority venues, voluntary groups and community organisations. The venues we work with range from 4 screen artplexes such as the Broadway in Nottingham and the Showroom in Sheffield to community groups who screen films in village halls in rural locations. We work across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and we are also part of the European-wide Europa cinemas network.

There are 5.5 members of staff, we are funded by the UK Film Council, Arts Council England, Skillset, the British Film Institute and MEDIA. We generate about 40% of our funds from our own activities.

We would like to see:

• A more streamlined and flexible approach to lottery funding with one application process from one organisation encompassing exhibition, archives, education, capital projects and items and organisational development. • A national film exhibition strategy with robust priorities and clear ambitions about how best to achieve cultural aims and a strong national cinema culture. • A clear distinction made between the commercial and cultural film sectors, with responsibility for both been given to separate institutions or organisations so that economic and cultural ambitions are not conflated. • A much more informed and clear set of priorities about what constitutes a healthy cultural cinema sector which offers true diversity and choice for audiences in the 21st century. • Service provision and the distribution of public funds should be housed in separate organisations.

1. Structural changes in arts funding, particularly the abolition of the UK Film Council, should not mean that revenue funding for cultural organisations should suffer. There should be consultation with the sector about the best mechanism for delivering public funding, which includes value for money, advice and support. There should be a differentiation between funding bodies and service providers. We do not believe it is possible to house both in one organisation effectively.

979

2. We are already seeing an impact of spending cuts from central and local government on provision of venues across the UK with many having their grants cut from local authorities. The most immediate impact of funding cuts is that the most interesting work is dropped from programmes as well as ancillary activities such as education and outreach programmes to local communities. At the same time, as is characteristic in a creative sector, times of recession ensure that businesses become more entrepreneurial and conversely audiences often increase, as can be seen from domestic revenues in the commercial cinema sector. This is a further demonstration of the role that cultural cinema centres can play in developing creative economies particularly in urban areas where there is a synergy between production, distribution and exhibition.

3. One of the problems currently in this sector is there is no national exhibition strategy and funding has been spread across many different organisations including regional screen agencies, Skillset, the UKFC and Arts Council, England. This means that an organisation on the ground may have to apply to a number of different organisations for funding for the same project, whether lottery or treasury funding. Many of these funds have different criteria, different deadlines and different priorities. There is no shared strategic view of how best to support cultural cinema across the UK.

4. For example within the theatre sector, regional theatres are seen as flagship venues which require some level of subsidy in order to present innovative and challenging work which the market will not support. They often act as hubs of activity for other theatres in the region with the national institutions also offering benefits and support to smaller, less well-funded organisations. Within the cultural cinema sector, some regional venues are well supported, others are not. The changing and differing priorities of regional screen agencies have ensured that there is a piecemeal approach to supporting cultural cinema whether it be through cinemas, archives or education programmes which does not build a strong and sustainable sector.

5. Public subsidy for the arts can help to encourage and seed fund enormous entrepreneurial activity – public funding for venues in the UK on average constitutes around 1-5% of turnover although there are notable exceptions to this. Public subsidy therefore is necessary but should be seen as seed funding to provide organisations with sound financial footing in order to enable them to grow and prosper rather than as a replacement for good business practice. This sector is under funded, generally (outside the major institutions) has low salary rates and so therefore is often deficient in business skills and experience. Cultural organisations are businesses and need to be run professionally – when they are not, funding organisations need to be much more pro-active in identifying problems and intervening responsibly. There should be much better training and recruitment for board members and more professional training and support for senior managers.

980

6. There needs to be greater recognition particularly in the film sector, that there is a difference between the commercial industry and the cultural cinema sector. When responsibility for these two areas are housed in the same organisation, it often results in one being the poorer relation or certainly less well-served. Other art forms do not seem to have the same problems in differentiating between the commercial world and the cultural world – ie classical music, theatre and often, creative synergies can grow from partnerships between them.

7. National lottery funding for film does not currently allow for organisations to bid for money for capital items whether small (new cinema seats for a village hall) to large (funding a feasibility study for a new build). It also does not encompass capacity building for organisation ie seeking external business advice and consultancy or establishing a company limited by guarantee or charity. It is also contained currently in a number of different agencies – 9 regional screen agencies and 3 national agencies. We would propose that lottery funding for film is streamlined, housed in one place, made much simpler and opened up to allow funds for capital items and capacity building. This would ensure a much more strategic approach and help organisations in the long-term as well as foster partnerships between exhibitors across the UK.

8. There also needs to be a much more integrated approach to the use of public funds wherein there is a distribution and exhibition strategy for publicly funded films. This does not necessarily mean following a commercial model – the cultural cinema sector offers many examples of flexible and fruitful approaches to distribution and exhibition but there needs to be a more formal approach to adopting different models which ultimately will serve audiences wherever they live.

9. There should be much greater parity between funding for the different areas of production, distribution and exhibition – in the past, production has always received a lion’s share of funding available but arguably, funding education work, screening archive material , funding cultural cinemas, film festivals and film societies has far greater impact on a wider variety of audiences by ensuring that culturally important films can be seen and engaged with, by the wider public.

September 2010 981

Written evidence submitted by Musical Theatre Matters UK (arts 224)

A Policy That Will:

• Increase Tax Revenue • Boost the Economy and • Create Employment

Abstract

British Theatre is considered by many to be the best in the world. Yet because of the way that theatrical angels – the venture capitalists of the Theatre industry – are taxed in this country, British Theatre is being placed at a disadvantage, and is in danger of losing its power in the world, both culturally and economically. New, emerging, and established British producers are handicapped compared to their American colleagues, whose angels enjoy a more supportive tax system.

The consequence of this is a significant loss of Tax revenue, both in the short term and in the long term. Barriers to entry for British producers, and therefore for British writers, caused by the way angels are taxed, mean that many of the most profitable new shows in the West End or on tour are American imports with American backers who are able to take advantage of the more supportive American Tax rules.

Not only does HMRC lose the tax that would be received from the income of British backers of hit shows, but also those profits are not available to be re-invested in new and emerging British talent at the grassroots level. Instead, money goes out of the British economy to be invested in emerging talent in America, fostering the next American hit, which then comes into the West End to take more money out of the British system. British artists, no matter how talented, cannot have hits if their work is never produced.

Grassroots low budget, high risk theatrical productions create a disproportionately high number of jobs per pound invested. They are also the lifeblood of the theatre, creating an environment in which the next generation of the industry can be nurtured and developed. This is true of producers – the entrepreneurs of the theatre world – as much as writers and performers. It is also true of angels.

By making a small adjustment to the way angels are taxed, we can level the playing field, making backing Commercial Theatre more attractive and accessible – as it is in the USA. British producers will be able to compete with their American colleagues, and a new generation of successful British producers will emerge. Profitable shows will be backed by British angels, and tax revenues will increase. Even high risk groundbreaking shows that do not make profits will, we believe, be either revenue neutral or net contributors to revenue under this system. On every level, both in the short term and the long term, this policy will increase tax revenue.

This paper aims to show that taxing British angels in line with those in America will increase tax revenue, increase employment, boost the economy, and also ensure that the future of British Theatre is as glorious and influential around the world as its past. 982

The Proposal

Angels in the UK are taxed as though Theatre were a hobby – that is, if they make a profit from Theatre then they will be taxed on it, but if they make a loss they are not entitled to put that loss against their other income.

Angels in the USA are taxed on the basis that Theatre is a business – if they make a loss they can put that loss against income from any other source.

We propose that British angels should be taxed on the basis that Theatre is a business – one they may be passionate about, but a business nonetheless.

How Much Will This Cost? We believe it will be revenue neutral, and may even increase tax revenue.

How is it possible that creating an apparent tax relief where none currently exists will cost nothing?

We believe there are two reasons why changing the taxation of angels will increase tax revenue. (1) In the short term it will allow productions to happen that otherwise would not, and those productions will have a positive impact on tax revenue even in cases where losses occur and angels receive relief. (2) In the long term this will lead to more – and more successful – British productions at every level, which will generate increased tax revenue, not only from earnings on productions in this country, but also from successful transfers of productions around the world.

1) Removing the Barrier to Entry – the short term consequence

The current situation acts as a barrier to entry for new angels considering entering the industry. This in turn acts as a barrier to entry for new and emerging producers. The short term consequence is that many potential productions never happen.

New and emerging producers don’t have access to established angels (that is, those that have income from successful productions they have previously backed, and therefore can off set losses against other income from Theatre). They rely on new angels to back their shows, and under the current system new angels run the maximum risk, as they cannot write off any losses.

This massive disincentive discourages new angels from taking their first steps in the industry. In turn, this makes it far harder for new and emerging producers to launch their careers.

Changing the tax status of angels will encourage new angels into the industry. This in turn will allow producers to create productions that otherwise wouldn’t happen. It will allow the groundbreaking high risk productions vital for creating a vibrant industry in the future to go ahead – many of them productions that simply will not happen under the current system.

Even in the worst case scenario, where a producer raises the entire budget for their first mid- scale production from new angels, and the show is a financial failure, losing its entire capitalisation, the tax raised by the production (a production that otherwise would not have happened) would in most cases be higher than the proposed tax relief offered to the new angels on their losses.

983

Case Study: An emerging producer produces their first commercial production. It runs for three months, covering its weekly running cost but not recouping any of its capitalisation. (Roughly similar figure will apply either to a small commercial tour or to a small West End play, either of which a producer may choose as their first commercial venture. Each production is different, so it should be born in mind that real budgets will vary.)

In this hypothetical case, we will imagine that a new producer puts on an entry-level production of a small play with as low a budget as possible. It has a capitalisation of £200,000 of which half is made up of wages (including wages of those building sets, making costumes etc). The weekly running costs for this hypothetical play will be £60,000 of which £40,000 is made up of wages (including wages of production staff, theatre staff etc).

The total money taken in ticket sales (covering the weekly running costs over 12 weeks but failing to recoup any of its capitalisation) would be £720,000 (12 x £60,000). V.A.T. revenue on those ticket sales at 20% would be £144,000

The total wages bill for the production would be £580,000 (£100,000 + 12 x £40,000). Income tax on those wages at 20% would be £116,000

Therefore the tax revenue generated by this production would be at least £260,000

Even if the angels backing the show were all first time angels and all top rate tax payers, the maximum new tax rebate possible in this case under Schedule D Case II would be £80,000 (40% of £200,000).

This hypothetical production, made possible by changing the system, would therefore raise a net total of £180,000 (£260,000 minus £80,000 in tax relief to angels) – as well as creating employment and boosting the local economy,

If the new producer in the case study succeeded with this production and made a profit, tax revenues would be substantially higher, and there would be no tax rebate given to the angels at all. (If the production broke even ticket sales would be £920,000, and if it made a profit they would be still higher.)

Changing the system would also have a positive benefit for established producers trying to create innovative productions perceived as having a higher risk. The established producer may find they need to approach new angels (who may have a greater interest in backing new voices and innovative artists) for part of the capitalisation. In this case, only a small proportion of the capitalisation might come from first time angels, yet the tax revenue might be substantially greater.

2) Regaining Tax Revenue Currently Being Lost – the long term consequence

The current situation results in a great deal of tax revenue being lost in this country. The barrier to entry means that today we have fewer experienced, successful angels in the UK than we otherwise would. In the long term this has had a negative effect at every level of the industry. It creates a barrier to entry for new producers, and also for new writers.

Today’s new and innovative artists are tomorrow’s success stories. Without the same opportunities for British writers, producers, and angels, to gain experience and skill working their way up from the grassroots to the top as their American colleagues have, the West End (the financial engine of Commercial Theatre) has become dominated by imports. It is 984

impossible to calculate the tax revenue lost because of potential British hit shows that never happened. A recent Broadway success gives a tantalising glimpse of what might have been.

Case Study: The tax bonanza that never was.

What could be more British than Monty Python? What could be more British than a musical written by Eric Idle and John Du Prez, based on the British film Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

The musical Spamalot has made many millions of dollars in profits for the angels that backed it in the USA. If those angels and the production had been British, tax revenue from those profits would have come to HMRC.

But this quintessentially British musical didn’t receive its premiere in the West End, backed by British angels, as might have been expected. It premiered on Broadway, backed by Americans, because, although it was a show by British writers, it had the rare advantage of being based on source material very successful with American audiences. The power of the Monty Python name made it attractive to American producers.

When that Broadway production transferred to the West End, it was backed by Americans – common practice when a production transfers. Had it made a profit in the West End, those profits would have been exported to the USA.

In fact the West End run of Spamalot roughly broke even. If it had been backed by British angels, there would have been no tax relief given (under neither the current system nor the proposed system) as there was no loss for angels to bear. The current system saved no tax revenue.

However, had the show premiered in the West End, backed by British angels, and then transferred to Broadway, it would have generated substantial tax revenue from the profits made by the angels who backed it. All of that potential tax revenue was lost to this country because this show – created by British talent – premiered in New York.

The greater ease with which American producers raise money from angels makes it easier for them to produce shows. Generally this means that shows created by American talent are more likely to get produced. (Spamalot is a rare example of a New York premiere being given to a show created by British talent – for obvious reasons that would be impossible for other British writers to recreate.)

Greater opportunities for American writers and producers lead inevitably to more American hits, and therefore to more American shows transferring to the UK.

It may seem as though American angels backing commercial transfers to the UK is a good thing because it brings capital into the country – and if hit British productions of new British shows were transferring to the USA on a regular basis as well as American productions of new American shows transferring to the UK, it would be.

In reality, in the years since the success of Phantom of the Opera and Les Misérables back in the 1980s, the traffic has been largely one way. Few new British shows – written by British writers, produced by British producers and backed by British angels – transfer to the USA, while each year brings a Wicked, a Jersey Boys or a Legally Blonde to the West End.

These American hits provide employment for British performers and entertain British audiences with great success. They contribute to the vitality of British Commercial Theatre, and are 985

welcome. However, both culturally and economically we need to see more British hits in the West End, on tour and in production throughout the UK – and also transferring to Broadway, and touring or being produced across the USA and elsewhere.

Successful, experienced angels will plough some of their profits back into the grassroots of the industry, nurturing the next generation of artists, and creating future global hits. In America, because it is easier for angels to enter the industry, there is a virtuous circle that boosts every level of the industry. More angels means more productions, which means more opportunities for producers, for writers and performers, and for all the different artists needed to create a production. Inevitably, that means more American hit shows.

British artists, no matter how talented, cannot have hits if their work is never produced. In order for British Theatre to compete effectively we need to create a level playing field, giving British artists and producers the same opportunities that their American colleagues enjoy.

We believe that allowing angels to write off losses against tax will have the long term consequence of boosting British Theatre, both artistically and commercially, increasing its influence around the world, and also generating more tax revenue.

Conclusion

Commercial Theatre is a significant industry in this country. Even in hard economic times Theatre continues to provide employment and to boost the economy.

Every theatrical production is a start-up. Like all business start-ups, there is risk involved. Some new companies fail in their first year. Some will cover their costs and provide employment, without necessarily making vast profits. A few will be hugely successful. Theatrical productions are no different in this respect.

Angels are venture capitalists. They make Commercial Theatre possible. Like all venture capitalists, they take risks that are informed by their knowledge of a complex industry, their experience, and their sense of which start-up has that special something that will bring it to success. Without angels there would be no Commercial Theatre.

Producers are entrepreneurs. They rely on angels to back their productions. New and emerging producers rely heavily on first time angels.

There is a massive barrier to entry of new angels –therefore of new producers, and therefore of new writers, directors, choreographers and performers – into the industry, because first time angels in the UK who don’t have other theatrical income are exposed to the maximum possible risk. They are taxed as though Theatre is nothing more than a hobby.

Compare this to first time angels in the USA. If they make losses they can write them off against their other income. There is a tax system in place which makes their risk no greater than it would be in any other industry, making backing Commercial Theatre much more attractive and accessible than it is in the UK.

British artists, no matter how talented, cannot have hits if their work is never produced.

If Theatre were taxed as a business rather than as a hobby in this country, we would have a level playing field. British angels and British producers would be able to compete with their American colleagues.

986

Not only does the current situation threaten the position of British Theatre in the world, it also reduces tax revenues.

Simply by taxing angels under Schedule D Case II instead of Schedule D Case VI, tax revenues would be increased, jobs would be created, and a great British art form would be ensured a brighter future.

September 2010 987

Written evidence submitted by Creative Scotland (arts 225)

Introduction

1. Creative Scotland, the new national development body for the arts, screen and creative industries in Scotland, was launched on 1 July 2010. Creative Scotland took over the functions and resources of Scottish Screen and the Scottish Arts Council but also has a wider set of responsibilities for developing the sector.

2. Creative Scotland is committed to investing in and developing the arts, screen and creative industries in Scotland and playing a lead role in promoting the value and importance of these to everyone.

3. We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s inquiry, Creative Scotland’s remit is largely devolved to the Scottish Parliament and therefore many of the questions are not of direct relevance to our situation. However, we are a distributor of National Lottery funds and have answered the questions where relevant.

What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;

4. Creative Scotland of course welcomes any increase in National Lottery investment. We welcome the re-alignment of the National Lottery funds to its original percentage spread of Lottery Good Causes money, increasing the amount available for the arts and film. This will enable us to increase public benefit through added investment in areas such as access and participation, capital infrastructure and film production.

5. We would want to ensure that the existing proportions between arts and film investment are used as the starting point for any future proportions, with the opportunity to be flexible as necessary.

6. We would however want to ensure that there is no decrease in investment from UK wide Lottery distributors in Scotland as a result of these changes, including from the UK Film Council and its successor body/ies.

7. However, it is vitally important that this increase in Lottery revenue is not used to replace public spending cuts elsewhere (either from within CS or any partners, eg. local authorities). Lottery funding cannot replace a sustained commitment to investing in talent and nurturing creative risk. Government funding allows organisations to look ahead with ambition. It allows organisations to invest in inspirational arts and creative activity that the National Lottery or philanthropic giving may shy away from. Any cut in culture spending would have a wholly disproportionate impact in relation to its contribution to society.

Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed

8. The policy guidelines for the Scottish Arts Council are directed by Scottish Ministers however we support the Scottish Governments policy to seek a dedicated Lottery support for Glasgow 2014, separate from existing distributors’ funds, as per the Lottery support for the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics.

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

988

9. We believe the priority now is to ensure the UK government confirms its commitment to the UK film industry and guarantees that the necessary support structures and investment are available for filming in the UK continue long-term.

Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level

10. The majority of cultural organisations already operate on a financial model benefiting from some degree of business / philanthropic support and box office/earned income alongside public subsidy. Although this support is important it is dependent on the organisation having a strong core business model and a high quality creative product. Business and philanthropic support can not be seen as a potential replacement for public investment, rather it must be seen as complementary.

11. Some organisations are far better placed than others to attract business and philanthropic support and such support is normally not available for individual artists and micro businesses within the creative industries. All creative organisations work hard to maximise the sponsorship opportunities available to them, however, in these difficult financial times securing sponsorship has become increasingly challenging, in some cases previously long- term funding arrangements are being wound up and securing new sponsors is increasingly difficult.

Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

12. Any incentives to attract further private donations to the arts would be welcomed ideally the incentives would be about long term strategic partnerships.

September 2010 989

Written evidence submitted by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (arts 226)

Summary:

• The policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed to allow applications relating to the heritage of UK Overseas Territories. • The small islands of the UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs) are home to some of the UK’s most precious natural heritage: over 500 unique species found nowhere else on earth. This heritage is under severe pressure: over 87% of the UK’s threatened species are located in the UKOTs. • There are two vulnerable World Heritage Sites in the UKOTs: Gough & Inaccessible Islands (Tristan da Cunha, South Atlantic), and Henderson Island (Pitcairn, South Pacific). The Outstanding Universal Values for which these Sites have been listed are under threat from introduced species. UNESCO has urged the UK Government to rapidly secure the funding for the eradication of invasive species from these Sites. • The current funding for the natural heritage of the UKOTs is grossly inadequate. The Heritage Lottery Fund is one of the major sources of funding for projects in UK World Heritage Sites, yet projects in the World Heritage Sites in the UKOTs are deemed ineligible due to their location. The RSPB is therefore calling for a change to the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding to support the overlooked natural heritage of the Overseas Territories.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to this consultation. We have focussed on the question of whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed, and our written evidence is set out below.

1. The RSPB is the UK partner of BirdLife International, a network of over 100 grass- roots conservation organisations around the world. As part of our commitment to the conservation of our planet’s natural heritage, we have for over 10 years provided financial, technical and advisory support to emerging NGO partners and local governments in the UK Overseas Territories.

2. RSPB works on the Overseas Territories because of their outstanding importance for natural heritage, which includes more threatened breeding bird species than on the entire European continent. These remote islands are home to well over 500 species found nowhere else on earth, including over a third of the world's breeding pairs of albatross. Their unique habitats are equally significant, internationally recognised for containing the world's largest and most pristine coral atoll (the Great Chagos Bank) and, arguably, the most important seabird island on the planet (Gough Island). This remarkable richness places a very high level of responsibility on the UK to protect the natural heritage of these territories.

3. Whilst rich in natural heritage and unique species, the human populations of the Overseas Territories are small. For example, Pitcairn supports more globally threatened species than the total human population of the island. The Territories are particularly reliant on their natural heritage for their livelihoods and quality of life. The economies of many of the islands depend heavily on the revenue raised from fisheries and tourism, and mangroves, forests and coral reefs provide protection from severe weather events, which under current climate change projections are likely to increase in the future.

990

4. This natural heritage is under severe pressure. 96 UKOT species are now classified as critically endangered (compared to just 14 critically endangered species in the UK). Moreover, the last UKOT extinction occurred as recently as 2003 (the St Helena Olive). As of 2009, over 87% of the UK’s threatened species were located in the Overseas Territories.

5. The Territories’ capacity to conserve their natural heritage is strongly constrained by limited human and financial resources. Environment departments and local conservation organizations, if they exist, only have small numbers of staff that are stretched very thinly. The scale of the conservation department is often matched to the size of human and financial resources available on the Territory, not to the scale of the biodiversity, which is of great global significance. In some Territories, for example Tristan da Cunha or Pitcairn, the population is so small that no significant capacity or finance is available to deal with pressing natural heritage issues. On yet other Territories, for example South Georgia or BIOT, there is no local population. Many local conservation organisations rely to a significant extent on funding from Territory governments so are not able to respond objectively when consulted on development proposals because they may be threatened with budget cuts if they raise objections. Staff may not have the skills and/or sufficient time to engage effectively in planning processes.

6. In some Territories, tourist and/or environmental taxes are charged but all of the revenue raised returns to Central Government. Only a small proportion of the central budget goes back into an environmental fund and/or projects. Several Territories meanwhile are almost entirely dependent on direct grants from the Department for International Development. Funding for heritage conservation is minimal.

7. Overall, the current lack of capacity and finance in many Territories coupled by the lack of interest or support from the UK Government in these issues means that the deterioration of natural heritage continues largely unabated. It is essential that if this is to be avoided, sufficient resources need to be provided to Territories so that they can implement conservation actions proportionate to the scale of the challenges they face.

8. At present, the National Lottery is a crucial source of funds for many natural heritage projects in the UK. According to the website of the Heritage Lottery Fund, ‘HLF has invested more than £860 million in projects that safeguard the UK’s precious countryside, wildlife and parks, helping to protect some of our most threatened wildlife.’ Projects working to conserve the natural heritage of the UKOTs (where 87% of the UK’s threatened species are to be found) are ineligible for this funding due to their location. Since the UKOTs are also unable to access many international sources of finance due to their status as UK territory, they are left in the position where very little funding is available.

9. Some of the most urgent conservation actions in the UKOTs are required on two threatened World Heritage Sites- Gough and Inaccessible Islands (Tristan da Cunha), and Henderson Island (Pitcairn). The UK Government has been urged by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee to rapidly secure adequate funding to implement invasive species eradication schemes on these two Sites. The World Heritage Committee in August 2010 described an invasive rat eradication scheme for Henderson Island World Heritage Site as being of ‘critical importance to maintaining the Outstanding Universal Value and integrity of the property’ (Decision 34COM 7B.27). In 2009, the Committee requested the UK Government to eradicate invasive mice from Gough Island World Heritage Site ‘within five years’, i.e. by 2014 (Decision 33COM 7B.32). 991

10. DCMS is the lead Government department on World Heritage, yet neither the department nor it’s arms-length funding bodies have made any funds available for these critical restoration projects. The Henderson Island Restoration Project will cost an estimated £1.7 million, the Gough Island Restoration Project in the order of £3 million. Given the tiny human populations and limited financial resources of these Territories, it is unrealistic to expect them to be able to fund such conservation action. The UK Government is legally responsible for these UK World Heritage Sites and has a duty to contribute towards the funding of this urgent restoration work. The RSPB has already raised more than £1 million towards the cost of the Henderson Island Restoration Project, but needs further UK Government financial support if it is to proceed with the rat eradication operation next year.

11. The RSPB is therefore calling for the National Lottery funding policy guidelines to be reviewed and for applications relating to heritage in the UK Overseas Territories to be allowed. This change could enable vital conservation actions in the most far flung portions of UK territory, which would contribute to conserving some of Britain’s most threatened and most overlooked natural heritage. 992

Written evidence submitted by the Association for Industrial Archaeology (AIA) (arts 227)

This submission is being made by Professor Marilyn Palmer, President of the Association for Industrial Archaeology (AIA), on behalf of that Association. AIA is the national organisation for study, research and recording in industrial archaeology, bringing together both amateurs and professionals. The membership numbers about 700 individuals and about 50 affiliated societies, therefore representing several thousand people interested in the recording and preservation of Britain’s industrial past.

In 1998, the Tentative List of World Heritage Sites drawn up by DCMS recognised that ‘industrialisation is one of Britain’s major contributions to the world’. Selections for that List concentrated on ‘outstanding sites representative of processing and manufacture, developments in inland transport, prowess in generating and using power, and virtuosity in civil engineering, all fundamental to the development of modern society’. This was followed by the inscription of no less than six industrial World Heritage Sites between 2000 and 2009, establishing Britain’s pre-eminence in early industrialisation. This submission from AIA is made in the context of this international recognition of the importance of the industrial heritage in the UK.

Summary

• Cuts in national and local authority spending will seriously affect the activity of the many voluntary organisations who provide the labour to maintain industrial heritage sites • Such cuts will also affect the ability of organisations seeking HLF grants to provide the necessary matched funding • The HLF has played a major role in funding many small projects in the industrial, maritime and transport sectors and successfully harnessed the voluntary activity which is the bedrock of the industrial heritage sector. • HLF policy guidelines have proved sufficiently flexible to respond to the needs and priorities of the heritage sector and are not in need of major revision. • HLF should not be expected to pick up any shortfall brought about by the recent abolition of the DCMS arms-length bodies such as the MLA, Renaissance in the Regions etc. Its funding is additional to, not instead of, Government funding.

In answer to the questions raised in your request for evidence into the funding of arts and the heritage, the AIA would make the following points:

1. 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.

The conservation of the industrial heritage is a relative newcomer compared with other sectors such as churches, vernacular and polite architecture, being just over half a century old (see Marilyn Palmer, ‘Industrial Archaeology and the Archaeological Community: Fifty Years On’, Industrial Archaeology Review, Vol.XXXII: No.1, May 2010, pp 5-20). From the outset, it was very much a voluntary activity, although local authorities were quick to realise the tourist potential of the industrial heritage and have come to support many projects throughout the country, for example the Bowes Railway in County Durham, the only operational preserved standard gauge rope-hauled railway in the world. Although run by volunteers, this is owned by, and receives funding from, Gateshead and Sunderland Councils, through whose territory it runs. In the face of spending cuts, local government will be faced with the necessity of prioritising their 993

statutory responsibilities such as education, social care, housing etc. Museums and heritage sites which are local authority-funded are unlikely to be a priority and hence could have their funding reduced or cut altogether. Similarly, there has been a high demand for grants for industrial heritage projects from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). Local authority spending cuts will have a major impact on the availability of partnership funding to match grants from other bodies, including HLF. The vulnerability of the industrial heritage sector in these respects has already been pointed out by Sir Neil Cossons in a report recently commissioned by English Heritage.

2. What can arts organisations do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale?

I am unable to comment of arts organisations in this respect, but would like to stress the major importance of partnership working to industrial heritage in order to maximise the use of resources, skills and knowledge. Recently, AIA ran a day’s workshop in conjunction with English Heritage and HLF, resulting in a Strategic Vision for the Effective Stewardship of the Industrial Heritage 2008-2013 ( see http://industrial- archaeology.org/aihstrategy.htm). Additionally, AIA obtained in 2008 an English Heritage National Capacity Building Grant to run a series of day schools to train volunteers who comment on planning applications in the recognition of the significance of industrial buildings. Eleven such day schools have now been organised, the AIA contributing its voluntary labour as matched funding. Such partnerships are a very cost- effective way forward in the heritage sector: voluntary activity is available, but needs some pump-priming from central or local government in order to make it effective.

3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable?

A key role of most heritage - focused organisations is the protection of the UK's significant heritage, especially that which is at risk: English Heritage, for example, maintains the Register of Buildings at Risk. Heritage per se, though, is not always a great money-spinner: many sites, for example cultural landscapes and national parks, are not subject to entrance fees and so some public money is needed in order to conserve what the public believe is of value and significance locally, regionally and nationally. Public money, as pointed out in our response to Q.2 above, is especially important at the start-up until the operation of a heritage asset becomes sustainable when volunteers are recruited and trained to manage the asset and the public are visiting and providing income. A mixed economy is required consisting of public money from central and local government, from Lottery and other grants and from private individuals.

4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

The current funding system has worked well in the UK compared with that in many other countries. HLF has done an excellent job in supporting many small projects which would not have been able to proceed without their financial assistance. More than £770 million has been awarded to over 2,200 conservation and activity projects in the industrial, maritime and transport heritage sector, and more than 70% of these have included opportunities for people to volunteer. HLF has the advantage of a UK-wide role, while being so structured as to be able to respond to local needs and priorities. It would be advantageous if they were enabled to work more closely with English Heritage, Cadw, Historic Scotland and the heritage service in Northern Ireland, to 994

maximise the strategic use of resources to identify significance, risk and funding opportunities, while maintaining their otherwise separate roles.

5. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations

AIA is obviously pleased that HLF will have more funds to give as grants and would hope that industrial and transport heritage will continue to benefit since, as pointed out above, it is an internationally significant aspect of the cultural heritage of the UK. Industrial heritage is also a sector which is appreciated at local and regional level, something that HLF has done a great deal to support and encourage.

6. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed.

The current Policy Directions in place at HLF, and their mixture of trustees, managers, an expert panel and regional committees, have proved flexible enough for HLF to respond to the needs and priorities of the heritage sector and do not need radical review. Regarding the transport heritage in particular, much of this is in private ownership. If this is to be made more accessible to the public, then there may well need to be more flexibility around the awarding of grants to private owners as long as the public benefit is high and greater than any private gain there may be.

7. 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;

The abolition of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council has yet to be fully evaluated, as does the abolition of regional bodies such as Renaissance in the Regions etc. and I am not competent to comment on this. However, I must point out that HLF must be seen as additional to Government spending not instead of and hence it should not be expected that HLF can pick up the short-fall brought about by these changes.

• 7 & 8 The role of private businesses and philanthropists in heritage funding

Such people have long played a role in public funding, but on the whole this has not had a major impact on the industrial heritage sector. What is important here are small- scale, local and regional projects which cumulatively make up the richness of the UK’s internationally-recognised industrial heritage. The role of English Heritage, Cadw, Historic Scotland, local authorities and HLF are key players, in conjunction with the volunteers who provide much of the labour in the study and conservation of industrial heritage, and need smaller, locally-based grants rather than the major flagship projects normally funded by philanthropists. AIA has always hoped that funding would be forthcoming from businesses but, in the current economic climate, recognises that this is probably unrealistic.

September 2010

995

Written evidence submitted by MITA – Moving Image Training Alliance (arts 228)

1. What is MITA? Every week, hundreds of talented people learn the art of moving image production through a network of specialist independent training organisations.

There are more than 30 of these organisations in London’s moving image sector alone, each with a reputation for providing high quality, professional training; film production and exhibition opportunities. Together, they help more than 10,000 people across the capital to develop their moving image production skills each year. (Mapping Independent Production Training in London, 2004. Burns Owens Partnership for Film London.)

MITA – the Moving Image Training Alliance – was established in 2007 with support from Film London and London Development Agency to promote the work of this unique sector. We have a current membership of independent training providers and industry organisations.

Training programmes offer a mix of short, modular and longer courses, with a strong emphasis on practical learning, production-based training, and on-the-job training through paid work placements. The sector is not part of the formal education system, but is also distinct from the commercial training sector. The majority of organisations are charities or not-for-profit organisations, motivated by social goals with their local communities and the support for new artistic work.

2. Why the work of the sector is unique What makes this sector so important is that it combines high quality, industry- standard training with a commitment to providing opportunities for all, supporting people who would not otherwise have the chance to work in this area. This includes young people with low levels of formal education, unemployed people, and a high proportion from under-represented groups. The sector is a breeding ground for new talent, working with people in the early stages of their careers. Many graduates from with practical creative media degrees lack the business skills and industry knowledge to gain employment, and MITA organisations provide professional development support, taught by renowned industry practitioners.

Results are significant. MITA organisations have a proven record of supporting participants into sustainable industry employment in the film/TV sector; promoting disenfranchised young people into college and apprenticeships; supporting new talent in creating award-winning films.

3. Impact of recession and cut-backs on film training/arts sector MITA organisations have suffered from recent cut-backs in Government and arts funding, with several highly-regarded and long-established organisations forced into closure over the past two years. These include FT2 (the industry trainer for film apprenticeships for 25 years), Connections Communications (supporting disadvantaged local people for 18 years), TAPS (leading training organisation for new television writers for 18 years), YCTV (working with disadvantaged young people), and New Producers Alliance (supporting emergent film/Television producers) to name a few.

996

The global recession has had a significant impact on the Film/TV sector, reducing budgets available for production, with a knock on effect on MITA organisations. Over the last 18 months organisations have experienced significant reductions in income from facilities hires and course income. Combined with growing difficulties in securing grant income, this means organisations cannot deliver services to their clients (such as young unemployed people) at this time when they need it most.

Further spending cuts will decimate the independent training sector for moving image altogether unless strategies can be put in place.

4. Problem of current grant funding system The current arts funding system largely comprises one-off grants made on an annual basis. As most arts organisations do not receive any core funding, this means budgeting and forward planning is often difficult.

Some progress has been made by funding bodies asking organisation applicants to calculate funding applications on the basis of full cost recovery. However this still varies from funder to funder, and is not always the case.

Organisations operate with little (if any) core funding, and rely on a combination of grants and own-earned income through courses and facilities hire. The current system of revenue based, one-off grants is disastrous. Funding needs to be allocated on a sustainable basis – 2-3 years worth at a time.

The Arts Council grants for regularly funded organisations is essential, and enables further funds to be levered in. But for many organisations Arts Council funding scarcely represents 12% of their annual turnover. There is a very real need to look at other ways of ensuring core funding can be secured to support sustainability.

5. Problem of funding the independent training sector for moving image MITA member organisations are funded by a variety of government, regional and local sources, particularly the Arts Council, UK Film Council, Skillset; and through regeneration schemes run by London Development Agency and European schemes. They are therefore very vulnerable to cut-backs from DCMS, Office of the Third Sector and DCSF.

One important step for MITA organisations would be to consider funding independent training providers on the same basis as the Further and Higher Education sector.

6. The abolition of the UK Film Council The abolition of the UK Film Council has put into doubt future support for film and film making as a whole. The UK Film Council has made a huge impact on the industry across production, training and education initiatives, and its loss will leave the industry weaker and more fragmented.

In particular the loss of the Film Council will have a long-term effect on industry film production, with fewer films available for talented new entrants to work on and develop their skills. The loss of industry training initiatives delivered by MITA members will mean talented new entrants from poorer backgrounds will no longer have the support necessary to enter this industry, which notoriously relies on new entrants working for free on placements or on a very low paid basis for 997

the first few years. The knock-on impact for new talent and therefore future film and television production is hard to estimate.

7. Need for training in creative industries for Londoners The Creative Industries are London's 3rd largest employment sector with 525,000 people and its second biggest source of jobs, providing roughly one in every 5 new jobs. (www.london.gov.uk/mayor/creativeindustries). But there is a pressing need for well-trained, local people to take advantage of the increase in knowledge-intensive jobs in London such as in new digital technologies, and employment opportunities arising from the 2012 Olympic & Paralympic Games.

Many of London’s young, multi-cultural population has little access to training and employment opportunities in Creative Media. There is a corresponding industry need for diverse new entrants: Skillset and UK Film Council state the need for more young people, women and BAME groups who remain significantly under-represented. Women make up 39% of the film workforce, but only 15% in areas like camera. Only 5% of production workforce is from a BAME background, compared with 24% in London. 3% of people define themselves as disabled. (Skillset's 2006 Employment Census)

September 2010 998

Written evidence submitted by Richard Griffith (arts 229)

FUNDING OF THE ARTS AND HERITAGE: LISTED BUILDING ADMINISTRATION

I wonder whether the following point might be useful context for the CMS Committee’s inquiry into the Funding of Arts and Heritage.

Last Thursday Francis Maude called his plans for the reform of public bodies “an example of the government’s commitment to radically increase the transparency and accountability of all public services”. This prompts me to send the attached paper which was published in the September edition of the journal Cultural Trends, [Griffith, Richard(2010) ‘Listed building control? A critique of historic building administration’, Cultural Trends, 19: 3, 181-208].

The paper describes how there is little or no information about the main parameters of listed building control:

(i) the number of listed buildings is unknown; (ii) their taxonomy is unresearched; (iii) the performance of the control is unmonitored.

Overviews of the scope and effect of the control across the country have never been surveyed - not even to discover whether it is operating at all.

The absence of basic evidence raises a question of governance: is it proper or equitable to operate a statutory control that is neither transparent nor accountable? The paper contrasts the lack of relevant and reliable information about listed building control with the levels of evidence that are expected in other areas of public administration. The paper also demonstrates how straightforward it would be to produce appropriate evidence, giving several simple and economical examples. It even includes the raw data from an independent nationwide survey of the control’s actual performance for 2007-08.

Given the lack of evidence about the scope and effect of listed building control, I wonder whether the Select Committee might consider recommending to the Secretary of State that, in order to start making the control transparent and accountable, a systematic monitor of the control’s performance should be introduced? Whether the existing regulatory functions stay with English Heritage, go to DCMS or end up elsewhere, they are overdue for reform.

October 2010 999

Written evidence submitted by Marc Sidwell (arts 230)

Addressing the following issues from the Committee's invitation: • What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

Summary • Arts funding from government is a recent invention in Britain and was not intended to last By its own terms, this experiment with funding has failed, as it has not built the popular audience to sustain the arts at their current level without funding Britain's history, and the liberal tradition, reminds us of another possibility that can be rediscovered, offering a more sustainable alternative New technologies have in many cases achieved the goals of greater access that state subisdy has claimed as its motivation Government incentives to encourage private donations must be handled with the greatest of care -- too often they act to pick winners and dampen competitive investment in challenging and innovative art.

The arts need to be free as in speech, not as in beer

1. While the current scheme of government funding of the arts is now so established as to seem almost inevitable, it is of relatively recent date, a post-war creation that was never intended to last. As Keynes himself wrote when introducing the Arts Council to the nation, it was intended: “to offer a stimulus to such purpose that the artist and the publican each sustain and live on the other”. When therefore it is argued that government funding of the arts is necessary because the arts would not survive without the funding, that is in fact a clear argument that this stimulus programme has failed. The questionable merits of its continuation should then be judged as for any government programme which is failing to meet its targets. The encouragement of arts through central funding has not pump-primed sufficient demand to be confident that it can be safely withdrawn; rather, in the manner of many well-meaning government interventions, it has led to a culture of dependency. In this light, current cuts to arts funding, while substantial, are somewhat irrelevant. If the committee is not prepared to consider the possibility that rather than tinkering at the edges, it may need to scrap the entire machine, it is failing to face a truth that shifting supplementary justifications for arts funding over the years merely paper over. It is essential, in considering the future of arts funding, to recall both that the arts have a long and proud history in Britain without state funding and that, by its own explicitly laid-out original purpose, arts funding as currently constituted is a failure. It is not an achievement to create an audience for free art that cannot be sustained; nor can such an audience be said to value that art profoundly if they would not pay to experience it. Many artists have been opposed to government art programmes, including Duke Ellington, W.H. Auden and Edward Hopper. Classical liberals have also traditionally opposed this form of subsidy, feeling that government involvement in an area so deeply associated with the formation of human identity and human meaning should not be under central control, however benign. By contrast, involvement in the arts has always had a strong appeal to authoritarian rulers who follow Stalin in seeing artists as “the engineers of human souls” and believe that such engineers should be in state employ. Indeed, the greatest classically liberal statement on this subject is also a recognition of the creative achievements of Britain without state subsidy. Frederic Bastiat's 1850 pamphlet, That Which Is Seen and Not Seen, was published the year before the Great Exhibition and he draws on Britain as an example to the world. I quote the relevant passages below: “I am, I confess, one of those who think that choice and impulse ought to come from below and not from above, from the citizen and not from the legislator; and the opposite doctrine appears to me to tend to the destruction of liberty and human dignity. 1000

“But, by a deduction as false as it is unjust, do you know what economists are accused of? It is, that when we disapprove of government support, we are supposed to disapprove of the thing itself, whose support is discussed; and to be the enemies of every kind of activity, because we desire to see those activities, on the one hand free, and on the other seeking their own reward in themselves. “Our adversaries consider that an activity which is neither aided by supplies, nor regulated by government, is an activity destroyed. We think just the contrary. Their faith is in the legislator, not in mankind; ours is in mankind, not in the legislator. “... the grandest and noblest of exhibitions, one which has been conceived in the most liberal and universal spirit -- and I might even make use of the term humanitary, for it is no exaggeration -- is the exhibition now preparing in London; the only one in which no government is taking any part, and which is being paid for by no tax.” The historical evidence gives the lie to the idea that a thriving artistic scene would not exist without state subventions, and the liberal case for the state withdrawing from this area entirely, even taking into consideration such tattered and, in practice, near-fictitious devices as the arms-length principle, I find compelling. It is true that without state funding the arts would take a different form, but the idea that they would vanish is evidently absurd; what we can say for certain is that the state subsidy of unpopular entertainment, which is what a permanent art subsidy, rather than a short-term stimulus scheme, amounts to, need not continue. In this light it is also important to consider the contribution of new technologies to this debate. Much is often made of the need to increase access to art, but in truth the internet and wide access to inexpensive published books have together done more to achieve this than any access scheme ever could. When the treasures of the world's galleries and performance from the great theatres and opera houses can be streamed to every computer, the case for providing other more elaborate means to achieve that access become moot. Equally, technologies of dissemination are also technologies of association, lowering the barriers to collective fundraising and opening up new avenues to fund the arts not previously available. 2. In this context it is also important to address the much-vaunted idea that Britain has a triple- pillared arts funding system: government, ticket sales and philanthropy. The problem with this model is that it narrows artistic possibilities rather than opening them up -- the government's chosen experts act to pick winners, and draw philanthropic funders nominally outside the government -- and indeed paying arts enthusiasts -- to commit their resources in the same direction. But clearly it would be far healthier if the different pillars were in a position to support different aesthetic choices, to permit creators to explore more completely the space of artistic possibility and promise, rather than being locked in to back a state-determined template of what art should mean. The chilling effect the state's judgement must exert on those areas that do not meet with its approval are inescapable. For this reason it is also worthy of note that while tax deductions on the American model are attractive and far more liberal as a means for government to give support to the arts than subsidy, any introduction of them would require great care not to leave the government still determining the nature of approved art by setting the criteria on which donations were judged to be tax deductible. Britain has much to be proud of in its arts. But it has not historically made use of government subsidies to support them, for reasons both philosophical and practical. The current experiment must, on its own terms, be judged a failure. While those who have grown into dependency on the state as a result will clearly find it hard to contemplate the alternatives, art will survive and is likely to thrive and grow in variety outside state control. While legislators must always be tempted by the power of their office to believe that they can do more by intervening than by standing back, and while the arts industry is a powerful lobby that will be hard to gainsay, the arts in Britain will be most sustainable outside a system that can impose 64% cuts overnight, and in a healthier relationship with the British public when they do not tell them that they must pay for what they cannot be trusted to want.

October 2010 1001

Written evidence submitted by the Authors Licensing and Collecting Society (‘ALCS’) (arts 231)

1. Introduction to ALCS

The Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society Limited (‘ALCS’) is the UK collecting society for writers. Established in 1977 and wholly owned and governed by the writers it represents (of whom there are currently almost 80,000), ALCS is a not-for-profit, non-union organisation. Since its foundation, ALCS has paid writers over £250 million in fees and today it continues to identify and develop new sources of income for writers.

2. Summary

2.1 Writers and the economy. Government figures place the contribution of the Creative Industries to the overall economy at around 6%, identifying a sector that has continued to perform despite the economic downturn. This sector is heavily dependent on the significant contribution made by the publishing industry, which in turn relies on the talent and creativity of writers.

Independent research on writers’ earnings1 suggests that the level of rewards available in this sector already present a real threat to the sustainability of quality content creation in this core area of the Creative Industries:

• Typical income for a professional writer is one third below the national average wage • The earnings of a typical writer are deteriorating in real terms • 60% of people who saw themselves as ‘professional writers’ required a second source of income • Typical earnings of professional writers from the 25-34 age-group are just £5k p.a. • Less than 15% of authors surveyed have received payments for online uses of their works.

2.2 The ‘secondary rights’ market. ALCS exists to ensure that writers receive a fair level of return when their works are used in situations in which it would impossible or impractical to issue licences on an individual basis. An example of this is the collection of fees derived from licences granting the right to copy extracts from hundreds of thousands of books in schools, colleges and universities. This kind of secondary rights income from the legitimate use and re-use of copyrighted material can and does subsidise the creation of new and innovative creative works, thereby contributing to the sustained availability of high quality published material.

2.3 The importance of PLR. The PLR system provides another example of a pragmatic means for balancing the need for public access to copyright-protected works – in this case to books in public libraries – against the rights of authors to receive a fair return in exchange for ceding their right to license on an individual basis. This mediated balance offers demonstrable public benefits, particularly in the current economic climate. The most recent lending figures2 suggest that, readers – especially children – attach great value to the free availability of books in public libraries. Although the sums involved are relatively modest – each loan attracts a 6p

1 Authors’ earnings from copyright and non‐copyright sources: A survey of 25,000 British and German writers. Research by the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management, Bournemouth University (December 2007) 2 Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Survey 2009 1002

payment – PLR forms an important part of secondary rights income; many writers whose works are no longer in commercial circulation rely on the payments they receive from PLR as a form of pension.

In recent years the PLR fund has been cut by 10% in real terms. The announcement in the recent Government Spending Review of further cuts of 15%, allied to a cap on the administration budget at the current level, inevitably means that writers will see lower returns for the free availability of their books in the future.

3. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

3.1 ALCS was founded out of a campaign by writers to establish a Public Lending Right system in the UK. When the scheme was established as a Government agency in Stockton- on-Tees, ALCS took on the separate role of collecting fees due to UK writers from overseas PLR schemes. Since the adoption of the EC Rental and Lending Directive the number of European PLR schemes has continued to grow. Currently ALCS has agreements in place or pending with ten such schemes around Europe and we continue to support the development of new schemes through PLR International and the European Writers’ Council. To date ALCS has distributed £8m in overseas PLR fees amongst thousands of UK writers.

3.2 Over the years ALCS has maintained a close association with the UK PLR operation, sitting as an observer on the PLR Advisory Council prior to its recent abolition and working with the Registrar to devise enhancements to the scheme to recognise the evolution of library services, such as the lending of ebooks. This work came to fruition earlier this year with the implementation of powers in the Digital Economy Act (2010) to expand PLR to cover books in ‘non-print’ formats.

3.3 Against the background of calls for savings in the public sector, ALCS has been working closely with PLR to identify areas where the two organisations can share services and functions, to save cost and improve efficiencies. ALCS and PLR have developed an action plan covering a number of areas where their respective operations can be integrated to avoid duplication of effort, whilst continuing to provide a high level of service to writers. These plans foresee a four-year partnership that is designed to help offset the impact of the freeze on the PLR administration budget announced as part of the recent Spending Review.

4. 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;

4.1 As part of its review of arm’s-length bodies the Government has announced plans to dismantle the present UK PLR structure and transfer its functions to another public-funded body. For many years the PLR office in Stockton-on Tees has provided a high level of service at low cost. ALCS is concerned at the impact that this restructuring will have on the already stretched PLR operation. It seems inevitable that such a move would have cost implications which in turn may further diminish the fund available to remunerate writers. 1003

Moving the PLR operation into another public body also calls into question the plans that ALCS and the present PLR office have been working on aimed at achieving saving and efficiencies, while maintaining the current levels of service to writers that each organisation provides.

4.2 For the above reasons the plans to transfer the PLR operation to another public body seem to be at odds with the over-arching aim of the public bodies review, namely to cut costs and increase efficiency.

5. 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;

5.1 We are also alarmed at the effect the cuts to the Arts Council funding will have on the derisory 1.6% of the budget which currently goes to literature. In particular we are concerned about the effect on small independent presses in the UK which currently provide the bulk of publishing for poetry and literary translation in the region of 150 titles published by some 8 presses for a cost of only £500,000.

5.2 We understand that from 2012 even this is not assured since it is proposed that the small presses that are core funded compete annually for specific projects, which may not include even the publication of named titles thus threatening the future of publishing for poetry and literary translation since the presses will lose not only staff but essential visibility and certainty with distributors, reader-consumers, illustrators with a knock on effect on all those currently involved.

5.3 The proposed cut of 6.9% in 2011/12 for all funded organisations will further undermine the already minimal literature budget and will inevitably have serious implication for front line services. The uncertainty facing small presses thereafter, applying afresh for funding for the period 2012-15, poses a very real threat to their ability to sustain themselves. The combined effect of these cuts is to endanger the existence of the 27 small independent regularly funded organisations that are the life-blood of literature in this country.

November 2010 1004

Written evidence submitted by Liverpool City Council (arts 54a)

Liverpool City Council: Culture Liverpool 3/9/10

Executive Summary

Liverpool’s regeneration continues to be shaped and improved by our uniquely strong cultural offer. We have a rich programme of events, community activities, performances and exhibitions through the city’s exceptional venues and festivals. Liverpool City Council (LCC) works closely with the cultural sector and currently provides annual funding of £4.2 million through our Arts & Culture Investment Programme (ACIP). The City provides a major events programme that involves our cultural sector and brings exponential benefits. Furthermore LCC is engaged with the independent arts networks that represent the sector such as LARC (Liverpool Arts Regeneration) and COoL (Cultural Organisations of Liverpool) and provides non-financial support through partnership working, facilitation and joint work to enhance delivery of cultural services. This has brought tangible and significant economic and social benefits and contributed to the repositioning of the city as an international tourist destination. We propose that:

• Culture is not an 'add on' – it’s an integral part of our society, but needs support and nurture to fully realise its inherent value.

• The CASE Study has already demonstrated the economic and social significance of cultural activity (tourism, economy, employment, training, education, community cohesion, sense of place and identity, wellbeing).

In times of economic recession and reduced spending power, cultural providers can help individuals and communities cope and improve quality of life in non monetary ways. LCC is concerned for the fragility of the cultural sector and the delicate balance of funding that is reliant upon public subsidy, and how this will impact on the regeneration of the city:

1. Parts of the sector operate close to their financial and organisational margins and are vulnerable to cuts in funding.

Current scenarios and contingent plans will broadly allow changes to be managed and structured. However, further reduction in funding will impede ability to change and will lead to regression of the sector and will reduce the value and impact of their activities.

Stronger strategic guidance and support is required to give the cultural sector the opportunity to respond to the (as yet) under defined requirements of national government and to enable them to refocus their activity to meet strategic aims using available resources.

2. Culture should be embedded at the core of the remit of the emerging LEPs, who should be responsible for communicating, coordinating, engaging and developing the cultural sector to meet new agendas of the Big Society. We need to embed culture firmly to fully realise the benefits to quality of life.

3. We need ‘buy in’ at the highest levels of national and local government to the multiplying value of culture to education, health and economy, and to be able to support the cultural sector to ensure the cultural contribution to the regeneration of our city continues unabated.

4. We need more official emphasis and endorsement of the value of culture to Quality of Life and to ensure that there are socially accessible routes to these benefits. We need to ensure that resources are focussed in the areas of most need and that strategic regional support is maintained.

Cities are already well equipped to be able to make decisions regarding the requirements and allocation of cultural resource. We require less complex and burdensome administration, and greater autonomy to strategically focus our programmes of work.

1005

5. The cultural sector still has potential to deliver stronger quality of life benefits at a neighbourhood level. Value and impact can be developed using coordinated approaches to match funding for neighbourhood & grass roots projects, to encourage cross authority (or joint agency working) and to maximise the use of available assets such as historic buildings.

6. Policies need to strongly reflect that statutory and funded bodies understand and consistently espouse the value of culture to Quality of Life.

Funding policies should be reviewed (along with non cultural policies) in order to provide cultural progression routes through school, employment opportunities, social activity, and built environment. Lottery funding needs to benefit those who buy lottery tickets.

7. Provision needs to be made for support from experienced and qualified sources for both the Museum and Film sectors, to maintain and improve their successes.

8. It is not realistic to consider private sector funding as a substitute for public sector subsidy. The ‘culture of cultural support’ is not yet embedded, and requires more development, incentive and advocacy. It is unlikely to proportionally benefit the smaller end of the sector.

9. The current economic climate will not encourage patronage without further incentives. The mechanisms for developing patronage are not as well developed as those for sponsorship. There is a challenge in meeting the desired results in certain areas of work, and in particular geographical locations.

1. 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?

1.1 Current funding cuts and uncertainty over future funding are having a detrimental effect to the morale of cultural organisations and are affecting their ability to plan. Whilst the seriousness of the economic situation and the need to reduce public debt is understood, the cultural sector is generally pessimistic about the immediate future, and their ability to maintain effectiveness at reduced funding levels. There are fears that the progress made will be reversed and that rapid change will be forced upon them.

1.2 Liverpool is currently anticipating the arrival of the new Museum of Liverpool in 2011 which will be a major tourist attraction, we are concerned about the impact upon National Museums Liverpool (NML), and urge maintenance of support to this successful & effective organisation that brings education, engagement and visitors to the city. In the absence of a clear national vision, plan and progression route for funding of culture, there is difficulty in putting together contingency and emergent planning to ensure that the cultural sector remains relevant and has impact. The cultural sector needs better guidance, some certainty of the level of funding available, and more information about what outcomes are required. In Liverpool the sector has grown in recent years due to the European Capital of Culture in 2008 and is in the process of consolidating. It contributes enormously to the aims and objectives of the city. The Mersey Partnership have identified that tourism has the potential to grow by another £100 million and create a further 2000 jobs in the region. Culture is an essential component in ensuring that this potential is met.

1.3 However it is also a fragile sector that could be considered as under funded. Many of Liverpool’s small and medium organisations operate to tight financial margins, based on frugal management and judicious fundraising. They are a success in this respect but are vulnerable to funding cuts. Top slicing 15% or 25% will render some organisations ineffective, as this is where they are able to produce artistic programme and real impact. We have assessed our organisations and are confident of their abilities but also aware of their financial precariousness. However there is still work to be done towards optimisation of the sector and improvement of partnerships and efficient use of resources. There is a need for planning time and structured change to be 'incentivised' along with a clear vision and pathway to future norms and expectations for cultural delivery. Additionally, Liverpool has an array of complex heritage assets that require sustained public investment, otherwise risk losing viability.

1006

1.4 Parts of the sector operate close to their financial and organisational margins and are vulnerable to cuts in funding.

1.5 Current scenarios and contingent plans will broadly allow changes to be managed and structured. Further reduction in funding will impede ability to change and will lead to regression of the sector and will reduce the value and impact of their activities.

1.6 Stronger strategic guidance and support is required to give the cultural sector the opportunity to respond to the (as yet) under defined requirements of national government and to be able to refocus their activities to meet new strategic aims using available resources.

2. What arts organisations can do to work more closely together in order to reduce duplication of effort and to make economies of scale;

2.1 Liverpool is well networked with major organisations clustering within Liverpool Arts Regeneration Consortium (LARC) and small medium organisations in COoL (Cultural Organisations of Liverpool). The Merseyside Local Authority Arts Officers Group (MAOG) are working with Liverpool organisation ‘Arts in Regeneration’ to look at best practice in Arts & Health and Wellbeing across the City Region in order to identify efficiencies, proposal and develop best practice frameworks. These organisations are already building cooperation and coordination of resources to be more effective: (see footnote and LARC response1.) LCC is reviewing how it supports the cultural sector and is moving closer towards:

2.1 Facilitation: • A clearer strategic focus for activities and better communication. • Brokering of partnerships and projects • Better tools for commissioning. • Training for organisational development

2.2 Advocacy and Support: • Providing a structured support programme (‘Fit for the Future’) through joint working with support agencies such as LCVS, Merseyside ACME, All About Audiences and Arts Council England. • Support for enterprise such as signposting to fundraising opportunities. • Coordination of Business support. • Networking with business sector (for example through A&B, BIA, ACME, Business Link.) • Developing supportive toolkits including websites and communication forums.

2.3 Clear communications: • Marketing and Tourism advice. • Better Web presence.

2.4 Better Administration: • We will review and simplify our monitoring procedures to reduce administrative burdens. • We will consider alternative monitoring methods that enhance relevance evidence and advocacy for culture. • We will review and streamline the terms and conditions of our grant offers.

2.5 We need culture to be considered on a statutory basis by emerging Local Enterprise Partnerships, and for recognition that culture is an essential component of contributing to the involvement of our

1 LARC (From the Liverpool Way) : It’s about making the most of Liverpool’s remarkable cultural assets, and the major cultural organisations delivering to their individual and collective strengths, including outstanding international programmes and linking these to local communities and visitors to the city in a strong, collaborative partnership with the city council and others. It is about creating a movement for arts and culture not just monuments, about new ways of connecting creative producers, institutions, and creators to communities and social networks. It unlocks, opens up and makes visible the potential and talent in these communities and brings great art to Liverpool in a way that draws out and builds on our talent.

1007

communities in ‘Big Society.’ Cultural Organisations are ideally placed to change mindsets, engage new participants, build enthusiasm, engender volunteers, share &build skills; all the hallmarks for the building of social capital. They require structured resources and incentives to be able to do this, through clear vision and guidance towards outcomes that are sustainable. Embedding of cultural components in health, education and community frameworks will have the double effect of creating new markets for cultural activity, and improving quality of life without direct linkage to economic growth.

2.6 Culture should be embedded at the core of the remit of the emerging LEPs, who should be responsible for communicating, coordinating, engaging and developing the cultural sector to meet new agendas of the Big Society. We need to embed culture firmly to fully realise the benefits to quality of life.

3. What level of public subsidy for the arts and heritage is necessary and sustainable;

3.1 It is not possible to attribute an ideal amount to each organisation in percentage terms, as the nature of organisations varies widely. Allocation amounts are not the only issue but how the resources are allocated. In Liverpool LCCs grant funding scheme of £4.2 million generates match funding of over £20million, involves thousands of people in events and workshops, and brings millions of visitors. There is still potential for to build on the successes of these initiatives and build community involvement, enhanced visitor attractions and a better offer to our communities. The LCC Cultural Champions is an initiative that aims to bring the interface between the public, the cultural sector and the local authority together and early indications are of improved advocacy and engagement at a local level; (see http://liverpoolculturalchampions.wordpress.com/about/.)

3.2 Liverpool is also developing a Heritage Investment Framework that will improve the dynamics of the City Councils relationship with English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund.

3.3 However certain activities, particularly those with social development or artistic quality at their core do not always have an immediate economic return and require specific and focussed financial support to realise their long term benefits in both economic and social terms. These activities are often time limited (e.g. Creative Partnerships/Find Your Talent) and are not given time to engender real social change. Geographical areas receive support, and then lose momentum as the initiatives end and the funding moves to other problem agendas. There should be a long term strategy for the embedding of cultural infrastructure into public services, (education, health, environment), for the development of initiatives that bring long term benefits, creating new audiences for culture and involving more people. We need to change mindsets so that culture is embedded in our services, and that it’s contribution to quality of life is fully recognised.

3.4 The expectations in terms of outputs and outcomes could be simplified and standard models of evaluation should be promoted that are simple to use and explain cultural impact. Use of internet and electronic communications can help enable this and provide credible data.

3.5 We need to ensure that an understanding that quality cultural provision is essential to education, built environment, community & youth work and health improvement. Local Enterprise Partnerships will be ideally place to ensure the development of effective and positive collaborations that can have real impact.

3.6 In terms of heritage, there are real costs associated with heritage designations (defined by Government) in addition to the costs of good stewardship and this should be balanced with some degree of state funding.

3.7 We need ‘buy in’ at the highest levels of national and local government to recognise the multiplying value of culture to education, health and economy, and to be able to support the cultural sector to ensure the cultural contribution to the regeneration of our city continues unabated.

1008

4. Whether the current system, and structure, of funding distribution is the right one;

4.1 The system has a general clarity, but maintains a distance between arts/culture infrastructure, third sector (community services), and private sector. Partnerships are therefore driven by pro – active initiatives that have to be strategically aligned through sometimes complex multi agency arrangements and funding schemes. The complexity of these arrangements can lead to duplication or dilution of impact. For example, a time limited project in one neighbourhood, with no strategic arrangements for progression by participants or community. At the same time a similar project, funded by a different agency in a nearby area, begins, duplicating development costs.

4.2 Communication is an issue, and the tools or incentives for this should be developed so that assessment of Lottery funded projects includes current and proposed projects being visible to strategic partners and to neighbourhood stakeholders prior to assessment of new proposals.

4.3 Arts Council England’s Grants for the Arts is a clear process that has become well understood by the arts sector. It does require a certain amount of understanding and prior knowledge, and Local Authority Arts Officers provide essential support to the development of successful bids, providing local knowledge and strategic input and should be encouraged. ACEs efforts to involve Local Authorities in the decision making processes of GFA, (and RFO assessments) are beneficial to both partners in developing a joint approach to arts infrastructure. However a similar but wider joint approach to Lottery funded Sports/Heritage/Community projects would benefit assessment of resource allocation. Cities are already well equipped to be able to make decisions regarding the requirements and allocation of cultural resource. We require less complex and burdensome administration, and greater autonomy to strategically focus our programmes of work.

4.4 Improvement could also be made in public perceptions of the benefits of the cultural arts to health, well being of individuals, and to social outcomes generally. Common models of evaluation and tools for measurement require standardisation. Measuring audience numbers does not give a full picture as evidenced by the CASE study.

4.5 We need more official emphasis and endorsement of the value of culture to Quality of Life and to ensure that there are socially accessible routes to these benefits. We need to ensure that resources are focussed in the areas of most need and that strategic regional support is maintained.

4.6 Cities are already well equipped to be able to make decisions regarding the requirements and allocation of cultural resource. We require less complex and burdensome administration, and greater autonomy to strategically focus our programmes of work. This will provide the individual & distinctive city characteristics that will provide both local and national strength to our cultural offer.

5. What impact recent changes to the distribution of National Lottery funds will have on arts and heritage organisations;

5.1 This change is intended to bring more funding directly to arts and heritage organisations. However, reductions to Big Lottery Funding will impact on community focused or based organisations who do not have organisational infrastructure and specialist staff to develop their business. It may become more difficult for grass roots organisations who rely on support agencies to initiate projects and sustain themselves without the advice, experience and expertise of professionalised services who rely on Big Lottery funding.

5.2 This may also impact on the Equality profiles of organisations and audiences/participants, as deprived areas will suffer a lack of the right skills to access funding and management. Provision for the (non cultural) artistic support of SME cultural organisations requires further consideration. During 2010 Liverpool City Council and Liverpool Primary Care Trust have jointly funded 46 small

1009

‘Grass Roots’ organisations to delivery a wide programme of activities that promote and engage people in Health & Well Being. Many of these organisations rely on other sources of funding being available and this creates value for projects and for the local authority’s investment in them. Cultural organisations can fill the gaps in 'professionalisation' of community involvement, but need frameworks and incentives to provide these services. There are a myriad of services currently available but structured progression routes are required to enhance the impact of this and ensure reach at a neighbourhood level.

5.3 This could be rolled out by Local Enterprise Partnerships, for example, with initiatives dependent upon community partnership and uptake in geographical areas who are currently not engaged. Greater participation working and coordination between funders and delivery organisations is required to create real impact. Greater joint working across Local Authority boundaries should be encouraged and incentives given to do this.

5.4 Supporting the use of heritage assets by charitable developers (i.e. the third sector) is also a method of optimising resources, by providing a home for organisations, and keeping the historic fabric of the city in productive use,

5.5 The cultural sector still has potential to deliver stronger Quality of Life benefits at a neighbourhood level. Value and impact can be developed using coordinated approaches to match funding for neighbourhood & grass roots projects, to encourage cross authority (or joint agency working) and to maximise the use of available assets such as historic buildings.

6. Whether the policy guidelines for National Lottery funding need to be reviewed;

6.1 The policy guidelines are specific in their support for ‘public good’, ‘the arts’, ‘ the national heritage’ etc. However this is a backfill approach that seeks to redress imbalances in provision and uptake. Clear messages are not given in the policy of the benefits of the cultural provision, and of the long term desirable outcomes. Agencies dilute and create mixed and complex messages that some communities find difficulty in interpreting (for example ‘artistic quality’ is subjective based on life experience of the arts). A consequence of this is disenfranchisement and little impact on lifestyle choices. The gap between ‘pub and football’ and ‘theatre and art gallery’ needs to be populated with a bombardment of positivity around family and school education, youth work, health improvement and environmental changes that engender appreciation of better and healthier lifestyle choices through normalisation of cultural social activities. Lottery funding needs to benefit those who buy lottery tickets.

6.2 Liverpool has attempted to address this with a joint approach between the City Council and PCT in the 2010 Year of Health and Well Being. Initiatives such as this need time for the success to be assessed but initial findings are positive with cultural audiences and participants being given new perspectives through attractive and diverse activities.

6.3 There is a need to develop holistic cultural approaches that embed the value of culture to quality of life throughout people’s lives, so that cultural is not an alien object that needs explaining through expensive and fragmented ‘backfill’ projects. (see footnote 2 and LARC response).

6.4 Policies need to strongly reflect that statutory and funded bodies understand and consistently espouse the value of culture to Quality of Life.

• 2 In Harmony Changing communities through music

Inspired by Venezuela’s El Sistema2,'In Harmony' is a community development project using music to bring positive change to the lives of very young children in the most deprived areas of England, delivering benefits across the wider community. The Royal Liverpool Philharmonic successfully bid to become one of three national pilots for In Harmony England between now and March 2011, funded by the Department for Education. http://www.liverpoolphil.com/193/in-harmony/changing-communities-through-music.html.

1010

6.5 Funding policies should be reviewed (along with non cultural policies) in order to provide cultural progression routes through school, employment opportunities, social activity, and built environment. Lottery funding needs to benefit those who buy lottery tickets.

7. 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;

7.1 Whilst LCC does not receive direct funding from MLA we recognise the improvements in standards that MLA have brought to Museums, and that a strategic regional context is vital, and that this should be resourced.

7.2 Liverpool City Council does house the Liverpool Film Unit and their work has ensured that film has become an important contributor to the city (and region’s) economy. If support funding is not made available to film & digital content makers, there will be an effect on the amount of productions being made in Liverpool, both indigenous and itinerant, who are reliant upon this. Several large-scale UKFC supported productions have come to Liverpool in recent years bringing substantial economic benefits. If the funding is not realigned to encourage UK film production there will be a detrimental effect. Tax initiatives in the UK have recently encouraged production studios to relocate to the UK (for example Marvel are filming Captain America in Liverpool). These incentives and appropriate infrastructure should be resourced to ensure that major productions continue to bring economic benefits.

7.3 The messages coming out from government about the Digital & Creative Sector are really encouraging: it is a growth industry, has export potential and a beacon of hope for the UK economy etc. Support through National Lottery funding and film tax credits is essential. Currently UKFC lottery funding (RIFE) is administered in this region via Vision+Media. In addition V+M are a key strategic partner in developing Liverpool’s particular strengths in the Digital & Creative Sector with a number of key actions within the Liverpool Cultural Strategy. This agency’s future is at risk as a result of the UKFC and RDA abolishment. Their absence would create a vacuum and alternative strategies will need to be put in place to ensure that our vibrant and dynamic film industry will be sustained and our filmmakers supported at every level. Key to this would be continued access to markets, skills and finance.

7.4 Provision needs to be made for support from experienced and qualified sources for both the Museum and Film sectors, to maintain and improve their spectacular successes.

8. Whether businesses and philanthropists can play a long-term role in funding arts at a national and local level;

8.1 Business support through sponsorship, mentoring schemes, board and skills placements already contribute significantly to the cultural sector. They also receive the benefits of public awareness and support skills development through the above. Business should be encouraged to embed culture into the lives of their employees, to encourage well being, corporate social responsibility and as to consider thi s as recognition of their success. However it is difficult for small organisations to demonstrate value to sponsors, particularly for specialist projects that do not have wide public exposure. (For example a small group of artist working with a community group, is unlikely to attract significant private sector resource.)

8.2 The mechanisms for sponsorship proposals and involving business are well developed, but do require agency support (in Liverpool through Business in the Arts: North West and Arts & Business). This area of work is also extremely competitive and its development is resource heavy (upon organisations.) Support should be maintained and encouraged through funding of match schemes, and placing duties upon big organisations undertaking major programmes to consider investment in the cultural sector to encourage public benefit.

1011

8.3 It is not realistic to consider private sector funding as a substitute for public sector subsidy. The ‘culture of cultural support’ is not yet embedded, and requires more development, incentive and advocacy. It is unlikely to proportionally benefit the smaller end of the sector.

9. Whether there need to be more Government incentives to encourage private donations.

9.1 The principles of philanthropic support are not widely formalised, and organisations such as Arts & Business are at the forefront of developing this kind of initiative. Whilst this offers potential for some, it is unlikely that philanthropy will be able to replace loss of public sector resource. American models are well established culturally and cannot be readily replicated, particularly outside London, where concentrations of wealthy individuals are fewer.

9.2 Government led incentives for private donations and philanthropy should focus on support for organisations wishing to undertake advocacy, and encouraging lower end uptake and mass participation (such as similar schemes to ACE’s Own Art).

9.3 The current economic climate will not encourage patronage without further incentives. The mechanisms for developing patronage are not as well developed as those for sponsorship. There is a challenge in meeting the desired results in certain areas of work, and in particular geographical locations.