Progress promised on rebalancing England’s arts funding

Both Arts Council England (ACE) and the Government have committed to addressing the geographic imbalance in England’s arts funding, but neither has indicated that this progress will take place with the “greater urgency” proposed following the recent Select Committee inquiry into the work of Arts Council England. In its formal response to the Committee’s recommendations, the Government concurs that “there is much more to do and much further to go” in the re-distribution of arts funding. But its view is that it will take time for change to happen, and that there is a danger that any “sudden and hasty” shift in funding would weaken and threaten London's cultural offer. This is a view that is echoed in ACE’s formal response to the committee report, which says: “We will look to increase the proportion of lottery funding going to organisations outside London over the next three years and expect to see progress” but adds the rider, “we must be careful not to act in a way that damages what is already working well, including the thriving cultural life of our capital city”. Neither ACE nor the Government has endorsed the Committee recommendation that the redistribution of future Lottery income, as proposed by the authors of the report that sparked the debate on England’s funding imbalance, would help “to redress the imbalance in funding to benefit England as a whole… in a timely fashion without threatening London’s world status as a cultural centre”.

ACE sees the pace at which it can achieve change as being “in part dependent on the income levels we receive”, but the Government gives few grounds for optimism in this regard. The Committee said that it would be “disappointed if the Arts Council saw any further fall in its grant in aid”, but this appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Noting that “at the 2013 Spending Review, arts and museums were only cut by 5% – much better than many feared…” the Government comments only that “it would be inadvisable to make commitments on future spending”.

The Government has also remained silent in several other areas. Notably, it sidesteps Committee concerns about local authorities that are “in danger of acquiring the status of cultural pariahs” and fails to comment on the Committee recommendation that ACE “should take a far more robust stance than it already does with local authorities, such as Westminster, who show little inclination to support the arts”. ACE makes no comment on this either – responding only about Councils proposing budget cuts, saying: “We are not in a position to take a tougher or oppositional stance with councils who want to withdraw or reduce their funding commitments.”

Another area where the Government remains silent is education. While the Committee echoes ACE’s view that “schools cannot be considered excellent unless their pupils receive a thorough grounding in the arts”, no comment is made on this by the Government. Neither is there endorsement of the recommendation for the publication of a comprehensive arts policy. The Government responds that its policy towards the arts is “set out in the DCMS departmental business plan and funding settlement letters”. But it has agreed to “consider what further is needed to explain the strategic policy approach to arts and culture”. A specific recommendation that the Arts Council should “provide detailed information both on the absolute and relative number of applications received and rejected, and the funds requested, broken down by general genre and geographical area” is also ignored in the Government’s response, but ACE states that it is now “exploring how data collection and sharing regarding our grant funding will become more transparent over the coming funding period”.

In contrast, a warm response is given by both ACE and the Government to the Committee’s call for the national institutions in London to “perform a ‘genuinely national role’ as part of their new NPO [National Portfolio Organisation] settlements” and for the development of cinema screenings of plays and operas. The Government says: “The screenings allow people outside of London to experience an incredible range of productions without the cost of transport or accommodation in the capital, as do the ability to purchase and download recordings of productions to watch at home. There is great potential in this area and the Government is keen for arts organisations and the Arts Council to continue to embrace and develop this.” With regard to a national remit for its regularly funded organisations, ACE declares itself as becoming “a more demanding partner of the NPOs and MPMs [Major Partner Museums] we fund”. It is already pursuing the development of cinema screenings, “working with partners such as the BFI on exploring alternative content models which are aimed at working with the sector to offer greater access to live performances”.