• Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by email

Liz Hill tells the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee why she believes ACE can’t be trusted with the task of Rebalancing our Cultural Capital.

Photo of banner: Speak Truth
Photo: 
Donna Sutton (CC BY-ND 2.0)

Among the many emails I received in response to my recent blog ‘It’s England, Jim, but not as you know it’ was one that simply said:‘Speak truth to power’. So I have.

This link is to the evidence I have submitted to the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee inquiry into the work of Arts Council England. (As it remains the property of the Committee I am unable to reproduce it here.) I’m sure you’ll find it of interest.

Opinion
Published: 01-05-2014

Comments

NickE replied on

Wow! - so the Arts Council stands accused of "lack of transparency" "distorting the purposes of lottery funding" "analytical trickery" making "misleading" claims. And it apparently "denied the existence of a hidden fund". These are serious allegations - and they demand rapid and robust investigation by the select committee. Just as worrying is the claim of a "culture of silence" within the arts sector - if correct, is this apathy, complicity or fear? Congratulations on this important and commendable piece of investigative journalism. Nick Ewbank

Charles Freeman replied on

Liz you and Arts Professional deserve huge credit in drawing attention to the rebalancing debate. A key concern is that in the future it will be harder at a local level to do this type of analysis which at a local level relates investment to opportunity to participate. In 2010 ACE stopped contributing to the the Active People Survey. The survey therefore stopped tracking participation in relation to the Arts, Museums and Libraries. The taking part survey which is useful and continues does not provide statistically valid data at local authority boundary level. Without this local area data it will become increasingly hard to demonstrate how lack of investment in culture is impacting on participation in the areas facing the most significant economic and social challenges. Indeed even in London the differences in investment and participation within the areas served by each Borough are very pronounced. Frequently but not in all cases the most disadvantaged areas receive the least investment. Charles Freeman

maurice.davies@... replied on

Thanks so much for taking the time to pick apart Ace's lame attempts to excuse itself. The information in your select committee submission about Ace's partial account of touring, and of their 'secret' strategic funding is very valuable. In the museum sector we are rather in love with Ace, as they are so much better than what we had before. So, it seems a great shame that they can't be a bit more honest about the reality of their funding and engage in a open, factually based debate, rather than feebly slipping around. I do hope that the select committee is independent minded enough to see that the ROCC and PLACE date is far closer to the mark than Ace's wriggling. Please keep up the data digging.

MikeH26 replied on

Well done Liz for this taking apart of ACE's abysmal funding stance, and for the previous coverage of the RoCC report. However there are two underlying aspects that also need daylight examination - the centralisation of ACE's work which has been a major factor in the lack of transparency and accountability, and the secretive and overwhelmingly London-based nature of appointments to both staff and the overseeing structure. Unfortunately these only reflect the position of London, the power of lobbying and the mindset of politicians generally - only a thorough overhaul of regional and local powers and accountability is going to change that. Stiil, we can hope for a few crumbs of comfort.

rt@rogertomlins... replied on

Great research and analysis Liz. The RoCC 3 have done a service to the whole arts development agenda by revealing how badly wrong it has been going at ACE. The RoCC and PLACE reports are essential if disturbing reading. I have found some people, especially in NPOs who worry about speaking out, finding the figures so extreme they are literally incredible to them. And others who cannot believe their friends in ACE could know this and not act. And others who wonder how monitoring of ACE by Gov't has not revealed the disparity with other Lottery distributors. ACE is clearly stuck between a rock and a hard place. It needs to show some policy action that it understands this is just not excusable or acceptable. Keep telling the truth to power. More from me on: http://brandinyourhand.ning.com/profiles/blogs/not-an-open-letter-to-the-new-uk-culture-secretary

Anthony Sargent replied on

The debate kicked off by the RoCC report and picked up by the eagle-eyed Liz Hill has defining implications for the future of the arts in England. The importance of London and its leading arts organisations to the UK (nationally and internationally) is not in debate. London plays a vital role in England’s cultural ecology, and everyone recognises the reputational and creative importance to the whole of the UK of London’s exceptional concentration of outstanding cultural institutions. However, recognising that in-principal truth leaves open the critical question of proportionality, and it’s reassuring to see ACE’s own Chair recognising that a serious systemic imbalance has grown up (unintendedly I suspect) in the distribution of investment between London and the English regions. It’s disappointing that in some quarters this policy debate has turned into an acrimonious battle of London versus the wider nation, and disappointing to see some of ACE’s defences of the current situation expressed just at the level of actuarial sniping over statistical definitions. Come on – this is a central issue for future national arts policy and deserves better than that. We all need a capital city emblematically glistening with the highest quality and distinctiveness of artistic production, just as we all need realistically scaled investment in the national network of high level arts producers and presenters many of them with their own lustrous international reputations, enabling them to continue to create and present the high quality work expected of them nationally as well as by the regional communities they serve. This debate is a critical policy and intellectual challenge to which we all need to rise. It mustn’t become a sterile battle ground for defensive squabbling over statistics. Anthony Sargent

Christine Hamilton replied on

Many congratulations to Liz and AP for leading this debate and to all who have contributed their considerable research skills to an examination of arts funding in England. Following this from Scotland, I hesitate to intrude on private grief but I think there are some important issues which have wider resonance -- about the distribution of funds, especially Lottery, and about what we should expect from our politicians and policy makers. The problem with Lottery money is that there is a great a temptation to use as mainstream funding. When the Lottery was launched in the 1990s, research showed that every country that had introduced such a schemes had ended up using the funds to replace government funding- despite the noble words used at the launch. For good reason, therefore, the UK Lottery was set up to address capital needs and to be a source of additional support for projects that addressed demand served the public good. So far so good but if funds are project focused and time limited then the only way in which successful projects can be sustained beyond the development period is through supporting them with mainstream i.e. government grant funding. Which brings us back to your core arguments about how funding decisions are made and money is distributed geographically and demographically. I am sure from the information Creative Scotland provides, that they do not use Lottery as core support for the arts infrastructure, as appears to be happening in England, but how far they are focused on additional projects is trickier to disentangle. The other key point you make is about transparency and here we all have a responsibility to ask the difficult questions. Creative Scotland has not had a great track record in collecting and publishing data. As it embarks on a huge new funding round, now is the time to be clear about what is expected from a government agency. It is disturbing to see suggestions that some in England, especially in NPOs, are afraid of speaking out. It is our experience that even an informal and social media-driven network of artists and organisations raising issues and demands, can provoke action and change. Politicians, especially those with a role in scrutiny, are influenced by such joint action. All the very best with the campaign in England.