The DCMS’s free tickets scheme seems to have emerged as a practicable response to McMaster’s idea of a ‘free week’, now transmogrified from an (admittedly somewhat barmy) idea of open access for all people to all artforms, into a limited scheme for young people only in one specific artform. Clearly, even if the original free week idea had been adopted, it couldn’t be done quickly, and many strongly doubt whether it could achieve its aims. However, if the Paul Hamlyn Foundation can regularly get opera and ballet tickets into the hands of families – people of all ages – who had never attended before, this scheme should also be able to do that. It’s called building on good practice: something we are constantly enjoined to do. The fact that the time-scale is being driven by the Government – in conference season and with an eye to a forthcoming election – also means that normal process of consultation and consequent adaptation of plans have been brutally truncated and severely limited. A consultation period of eight days is laughable – the Government should not have imposed it and ACE should not have accepted it. The fact that ACE has chosen a range of theatres and organisations with which to consult does not compensate for the relative lack of access to the process for the rest of the arts sector. Questions such as ‘why only theatre – why not dance venues or concert halls?’, ‘what about mixed venues which carry theatre as part of their programmes?’ and ‘what about the research evidence?’ may not be heard at this crucial early stage. ACE has told AP that “next week we will be launching the website which will have information on the scheme and how to apply”. But what if a substantial number of those consulted say the system is totally pants? Or that it’s too bureaucratic? Or that they have a really brilliant idea which needs to be included in the plan to make it work better? How can these responses be accommodated in the two or three days between the end of the consultation and the and the scheme being launched? And, perhaps most pertinent of all, is this confirmation that we are in an era in which the DCMS says ‘jump’, and ACE simply asks, ‘how high’?
However, the initial intention for it to be financially self-supporting proved impossible, and subsequently public funding was made available. Funders did not have a common view of whether their priority for the construction was time, cost or quality, resulting in confusion over procurement. The Assembly Government failed to keep sufficient information on the WMC’s performance since its opening because of concerns about commercially sensitive information being released under the Freedom of Information Act is able to take the opportunity… to transform McMaster’s high level concept of a ‘free week’ into a more realistic and grounded audience engagement proposition”. Shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Shadow Arts Minister Ed Vaizey have drawn attention to the relatively small amount of cash set aside for the scheme, and questioned the motives behind its announcement: “The one million free tickets is merely aspirational… The scheme is still very much in development, and was announced prematurely to get headlines at the Labour conference”.
N