In the first of an occasional series, politicians from across the spectrum argue their own case for arts funding and policy. In this edition Ed Vaizey looks at the Conservative Party's approach to the arts sector.
The next few months will be critical for arts organisations throughout the country. There is already huge concern and disappointment that Lottery funds have been so badly hit by the Olympics. Now the arts face a further whammy of funding cuts when the Government announces its spending plans in the autumn.
Since the Lottery was set up, the arts in this country have boomed. I can't think of a single major cultural institution that hasn't benefited, be it Tate Modern or the recently re-opened South Bank in London, the Sage in Gateshead, or the New Art Gallery in Walsall. Everywhere you go there is a monument to Lottery largesse. What arts organisations tell me is that building on that success costs very little. By contrast, little cuts could cost a lot in terms of jobs and future programmes. That is why the Comprehensive Spending Review is so important.
How have we found ourselves in this position?
The Government likes to boast about its success in funding the arts. It would be odd if it were to put this at risk. However, it is a sad fact of life that the arts do not figure highly on most political radar screens. I hope that I can change that. I want to stay in this job until the next election and beyond, to make sure the arts get a better deal from politicians.
First of all, let me say this: not only do I believe in the principle of public funding for the arts, I think arts organisations should be far more assertive about their right to receive them. It's funny that few people question the right of the film industry to get tax breaks; no one worries about funding for grass roots sports; no one queries the amount of money put behind our Olympic athletes (the Olympics might be another matter). Yet it's easy to say the arts should get nothing. But without the arts and heritage, where would we be? You know the economic arguments as well as I do. But do you say often enough how successful and well run most of our major arts organisations are? If the arts in Britain were a public limited company, they could hold their heads up against any FTSE 100 company in terms of overall efficiency and return on investment.
Central to the funding issue is, of course, the National Lottery. The whole point of the Lottery was to supply the arts and heritage with a ring-fenced source of income. Of course, we tinkered with some of it, in the sense of the balance between capital and revenue grants. But we never tinkered with the principle of why the Lottery was set up. So we want to return, when it is possible (and of course the Olympics has changed that for the time being) to a position where the original four good causes are back in place.
Long-term solutions
At the Conservative Party we're already working on ideas for what we might do if we win the next election. Sir John Tusa is chairing our Arts Taskforce, which will report by the end of the year. It's looking at a range of issues such as funding, education, structures, private giving, technology and the role of artists and institutions. I don't want to pre-empt John's conclusions, nor commit myself to something that would be difficult to get into our manifesto or to implement in Government. However, I think it is fair to say my thinking is based on a few key ideas.
Firstly, if it is possible, I think public funding for the arts should be settled on as long-term a basis as it can be. Arts organisations spend a great deal of time planning events and shows in advance, sometimes as long as five years or more. Yet the fact is that none yet know what three-year settlement they will receive from April next year, and won't know until this autumn. That's causing a huge amount of difficulty. In the scheme of things, arts funding is not huge, and it should be possible to put it on a more secure footing for a longer period.
Secondly, I think that there is a huge opportunity to increase the amount of private giving to the arts. Nicholas Goodison published a report back in 2004, addressing the issues surrounding the difficulty in securing acquisitions for museums and galleries. Many of the changes he proposed were cost-free, and would have made the bureaucracy simpler. We will try and implement as many of those changes as possible. But he also proposed tax changes to make it easier for people to give. In a way, that constitutes public funding, as it means the Treasury misses out on income, and it could also prove expensive, so we'll have to look carefully at those proposals. We also need to look at how we can make Gift Aid much simpler. But even if we can't propose tax changes, we can show leadership.
There's no doubt in my mind that if politicians - and Government - take the arts seriously, then those with the power to give will follow. We want to maintain the mixed economy in the arts - with a strong commitment to public funding, balanced with equally strong support from the private sector. Britain is almost unique in the world in benefiting from both, and we want to maintain and increase Britain's cultural ascendancy.
Ed Vaizey MP is Shadow Arts Minister in the Conservative Partys frontbench DCMS team. e: vaizeye@parliament.uk; w: http://www.conservatives.com