|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
Now It's Just ACEDateline: 7th April, 2002 Monday 1st April was a day of immense significance for the arts in England - on that day the Arts Council of England merged with the Regional Arts Boards - but it has passed almost unnoticed in the theatre press. "The Stage", for example, gave it one paragraph in its Snaps column on page 2 but not a single theatre news website (apart from the Arts Council's own site, of course) saw fit to mention it. Basically what has happened is that the regions have lost their autonomy and control, which has now passed to the central body in London. Much has been said about the new influence that the regional offices will have, because their executive directors (formerly the directors of the RABs) will sit on the new executive board, alongside the current Arts Council executive directors. There will be nine regional execs and four ACE execs, plus, of course, ACE's chief executive, Peter Hewitt. Thus the nine regional members will outnumber the ACE members nine to five. There will also be a new National Council on which the Chairs of the new so-called Regional Councils will sit. It will be fifteen strong and will be chaired by Gerry Robinson, the Chairman of ACE. Under the old dispensation the RABs set the priorities for their areas and had control over the distribution of funding, including Lottery monies, which had been devolved to them as part of the government's decentralisation strategy. Nominally, of course, they will still keep those powers but now, instead of being autonomous organisations, they will be branches of the central office in Great Peter Street and their freedom to act will be constrained by HQ's decisions. There are those who would argue - with some justice, it has to be said - that the RABs were a bit of a lottery in themselves: arts organisations in some areas were much better served by their RAB than others. Personally, however, I doubt that this had anything to do with the decision to merge, a decision which was not supported by the RABs themselves. Initially Andrew Dixon of Northern Arts did indicate his support of the proposals, support which was later withdrawn when it became obvious that none of the other chief executives agreed and that his own people in Newcastle, offciers and panel members, were also against the merger. So why has it gone ahead, particularly in light of the fact that it flies in the face of the government's avowed intent to decentralise? "Greater leadership for the arts" is one of the benefits referred to in the Arts Council statement of 2nd April, but that is so vague and could be applied to any changes, including greater devolution to the RABs. "Greater financial flexibility and capacity to respond to artistic ambition" is the second "benefit". My fear is that it simply means greater financial flexibility for Great Peter Street, which can now dictate to the regions in a way which was impossible before. As to the second part of the "benefit", am I alone in thinking this to be impressive but meaningless? "Less red tape and greater simplicity for artists." Both large and small organisations can be bedevilled by red tape: red tape is not a function of size but of an attitude of mind. We have all, I am sure, have had experience of the damage that can be caused by one red tape-minded individual! And, of course, the same applies to simplicity. I suppose that "a strengthened voice in making the case for the arts" could be justified in that all the regional councils will now have to speak with one voice, but that in itself is not necessarily a good thing. Big organisations, whether governmental, commercial, industrial or quango, tend to be monolithic. Policy is made at the top. Under the RAB system, the regional boards were able to make their own decisions about funding priorities and development strategies, based on their knowledge and understanding of local conditions. That was their job and what they were set up to do. The new regional councils, however, will now, presumably, have to send their decisions upwards for approval and wait Will one regional council be able to focus its money on core funding for companies or individual artists, whilst another devotes its cash to project funding? Will every regional council have to have the same priorities? If not, will local priorities have to be approved at national level? Only time will tell. My fear is that we shall be looking back a year from now and bemoaning the retrograde step we have taken this week. Articles Indices: |
|
|