|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
The CSR and the ArtsDateline: 13th July, 2002 On Monday the Chancellor of the Exchequer will unveil the government's Comprehensive Spending Review, its priorities and plans for spending over the next few years. According to reports, Gordon Brown plans to spend £450 billion next year, a rise of 8.5%, then to £480 billion next year and to £510 billion in the following year. The Prime Minister has said that there will be a large increase in spending on education: "We said schools and hospitals first," he said, "and the budget and now the spending review show that we mean it. We know that whatever progress has been made, there is a huge amount still to do if we are to deliver the first class public services the country needs, and expects us to have." Other priorities will be the health service and crime. Stories of major failings in hospitals and the reported increase in street crime of 28% make this inevitable. So where do the arts come in this? Low on the list of priorities: where else? The government will, if challenged, point to an increase in the last couple of years of £100m (which includes the £50m made available for regional theatre as a result of the Boyden Report), and will no doubt claim that as a triumph, but it will be conveniently forgotten that, since 1979, the percentage of public spending on the arts has fallen by 8.7% and that we spend, per head of population, only 40% of what the French devote to the arts. Expect no more than an inflationary rise, except at the boundaries where the arts impinge on other priority areas. One of the government's existing priority areas, which is likely to continue in the coming years, is combatting social exclusion, so there is likely to be money for using the arts as instruments of inclusivity, perhaps tacked on to education or other priority areas. We already know, for example, that the government is committed to the nation-wide extension of the Creative Partnerships scheme, even though the pilot projects have hardly got off the ground. I learned today that Northern Arts, for example, has been making "deals" with organisations within each area of its region to deliver the CP scheme. Interestingly, the money is being chanelled through the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) rather than through the DfES (Department for Education and Skills), so that it can be counted as being money for the arts rather than for education, although its prime aims are educational and part of the overall social inclusion strategy. Another quote from Tony Blair: "our ambition is to replace the old 'one size fits all' comprehensive with secondary schools that can develop the talents of each pupil." Apart from the fact that no one seems to have told him that we are supposed to refer to students, not pupils, nowadays, this is another indication of the government's increasing stress on the development of specialist schools, schools (they call them colleges in the DfES nomenclature) which, whilst offering a "broad and balanced education", concentrate on one aspect (currently technology, the visual arts, the performing arts, modern foreign languages, and sport) and can (or will be able to) select up to 10% of their intake. With at least one of each of these within each education authority, the government hopes to "develop the talents of each pupil." Each specialist "college" gets a one-off grant of £100,000, plus an additional £100 per pupil per year to develop the specialism. Thus it will be possible to claim that additional funds are being put into the arts, this time via the DfES rather than the DCMS. Social inclusion, however, does not only involve education: urban regeneration, health action zones, anti-crime initiatives, dealing with youth disorder, countering racism and drug and alcohol abuse are all part of this agenda and there is no doubt that priority will be given to arts initiatives which attempt to make some contribution in these areas. Art for art's sake is likely to have to take a backseat. Which means that the financial problems of the RSC, for instance, may well only be solved by moving money around, not by new funding. If, as expected, the RSC's deficit for the current year increases to between £1.8 and £2 million (thanks largely to a London season which costs around £20,000 a week just to rent the theatre and which looks set to bring the smallest financial returns for many years), is it going to be possible to find the money to cover that debt without robbing Peter to pay Paul, or will the company have to find the wherewithall from within its existing budget? The government may claim that, in real terms (and what a get-out clause that is!), they are increasing the spend on the arts, and yet actual subsidies to companies and theatres may well remain static, or even reduce. I'd love to be proved wrong: we'll know on Monday. Articles Indices: |
|
|