A New Broom at the DCMS
Admittedly it isn't very long since Tessa Jowell was appointed Secretary of State at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), but I can't help wondering if there is some significance in the fact that we haven't heard anything from (or, indeed, about) her since. The new chiefs of other departments have already begun to make an impact: David Blunkett is already emerging as a determined Home Secretary and Estelle Morris is already making ominous (to teachers in secondary schools) noises, and most of the other new appointees are beginning to impact on their departmental areas, but not the new Culture Secretary.
Why?
Why, in fact, was Chris Smith removed? Could it be that he was too strong an advocate for his department? Is it possible that the Treasury might want someone less committed, a politician with her eye more on her career than on her departmental responsibilities?
Or is it that the Secretary of State is simply biding her time, waiting for a suitable moment to further the cause of the Arts?
Time will no doubt reveal all, but until that time comes there will be unease in the Arts world. We must just hope that, in a year or two, we will not be looking back at the extra £25m given to theatre as a golden age.
ACE
There has been little said recently about the Arts Council of England's take-over bid for the regional arts boards. The date by which they were supposed to hand over their assets came and went before the election but, on the surface at least, Great Peter Street seems to have ignored it as totally as the majority of the RABs.
This could be evidence of a very wise move on ACE's part. At the first announcement of the plan there was predictable outrage, both from the RABs themselves and from a public that saw the move as being a none too subtle attempt at centralisation. Real rumblings of discontent came from Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott who, although his role is somewhat more circumscribed since the election than before, is still a very powerful figure and a figurehead for the Old Labour, the socialist "rump" which still has a great deal of influence on the Labour Party in the country.
However, once the initial outrage had dissipated somewhat, people began to listen to those who felt that, perhaps, the RABs were not the "good thing" they so assiduously portrayed themselves as being. Witness a very interesting posting from our Forum by Ian Watson, Yorkshire Playwrights Administrator and formerly director of South West Arts.
His conclusion is interesting:
So what should our stance be? May I respectfully suggest that we should be supporting a very radical slimming down of regional offices, indeed preferably closure (though we are unlikely to achieve either), and that we should be looking to re-group, over time, as a seriously oppositional regional voice (and hopefully in time a force) to reclaim our non-metropolitan identity.
As I see it, ACE's proposals for the RABs is a response to the government's insistance that it devolve more money and decision-making to the local level. By making the RABs little more than sub-offices of Great Peter Street, ACE will regain control over the monies it was forced to pass over.
Also behind it, perhaps, is the more laudable aim of developing an Arts strategy for the whole country, which will make the best use of limited resources.
On the other hand, the RABs are not just funded by the Arts Council: a significant minority of their funding - or, at least, of the funding which they give to arts organisations on a local level - comes from the local councils. Local councillors take their responsibilities seriously and, in spite of what many people believe, place a high value on accountability. I remember, for instance, when I chaired an arts committee almost thirty years ago, being told by a councillor that they were happy for me to be the chair as the sums involved were comparatively small but it would not do for an unelected, co-opted member to have responsibility for a bigger budget.
Local authorities will not give substantial sums to sub-offices of a quango. They have an influence on the RABs as they are currently constituted: if the RABs become mere satellites of ACE, that influence will go - and so will the money the councils provide.
Not that it will be lost necessarily: the local councils will continue to give money to the Arts, but it will be spent as they choose in their own areas, so instead of all the councils' contributions being aggregated and spent across the region according to the regional board's strategic planning, lots of smaller amounts will be spent in each council's area. Of course, the people who will lose out will be the rural communities, for the populous urban areas will have more money to spend and the rural less.
I have, in the past, accused ACE of arrogance. It had seemed, beginning with the change of government in 1997 and continuing through the period of increasing hostility towards the organisation from the Arts world, that ACE had learned its lesson. It reformed itself, slimmed down, and devolved funding to the regions. Now it seems bent on increasing its size again by taking over the staffs of the RABs and clawing back the devolved funding by bringing the RABs under its wing.
The arrogance is creeping back - Nanny-ism is returning to the Arts. ACE must be taught that big brother London does not know best. The dependence of the RABs on ACE must be eliminated: ACE should be the funding body for the major national companies and should co-ordinate strategic planning by providing the facility for the RABs to talk to each other and by advising the government on national policy. Regional funding from the government should go directly to the RABs and not pass through ACE's hands. The RABs should be the intra-regional strategic planning and funding organisation, working in co-operation with the local authorities.
Musing, huh?