A report of the event was written by the participants and provides a transcript of all the discussions that took place over the two days. The report is a collection of notes from the discussions. A few very minor edits have been made to the text to remove potentially offensive or defamatory content. Please refer to our comments policy and website terms and conditions for further information. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views and values of Arts Council England.

Click here to download part 1, Word format, 94 pages

Click here to download part 1, PDF, 94 pages

Click here to download part 2, Word format, 99 pages

Click here to download part 2, PDF, 99 pages

The Arts Council is considering the outcomes of the event along with all the other stages of the arts debate research and consultation. We are hoping to publish an overall report later this year and a detailed action plan in the first half of 2008. In the meantime, the debate is open to everyone, so please feel free to add your comments below.

Next steps
This research has helped us identify points of consensus as well as some conflicting desires and priorities among the different groups that the Arts Council seeks to serve. The next stage of the arts debate was a programme of deliberative research, where members of the public and arts professionals came together to debate key issues in depth and work to develop some shared principles for public funding of the arts. We will be back in touch to bring you the results of this research in autumn 2007, and will be publishing detailed findings and conclusions from all the research and consultation towards the end of the year on the arts debate research findings page.

The event is a collaboration between the Arts Council England and theatre company Improbable. It will be held at the National Youth Theatre in London and is open to everyone. Places are on a first come first served basis so to ensure your space please contact Alessandra Scapin now on 020 7973 5203 or at openspace@artscouncil.org.uk. The event is for two days and we do need you to attend both, so please only sign up if you can make it for the whole weekend.

It is an Open Space event, and Improbable will be drawing on their impressivetrack record in producing these kinds of events. It will take place over two days and will enable a large group to come together to debate how we could make public funding of the arts work better for everyone. Open Space events are gatherings of equals, where the participants set the agenda and lead the discussions themselves, within a unifying theme. The overall theme of this event is both a question and a challenge: if you were the Arts Council, how would you do it?

Not an easy question – but the arts debate is about the long-term future of public funding of the arts in England, not tomorrow’s performance or next year’s funding agreement. And while it can be difficult to look a long way ahead in times of uncertainty and change, it's also the perfect moment to come together as a sector to really debate where we’re going and why.

We hope very much you can join us. If you know somebody else who you think would be interested please feel free to download the invitation from Peter Hewitt and pass it on. For those that can’t make it, a full report of all the weekend’s conversations, provocations and conclusions will be available here on the arts debate website.

If you have any further questions about this event, pleased contact us at mailto:openspace@artscouncil.org.uk.

Thirty eight years ago in Hinckley, Leicestershire Michael T J Walker became involved in a group who purchased a disused hosiery factory and without any outside funding, and turned it into a 400 seater theatre. A charity was formed (Hinckley Concordia Association) and Hinckley Concordia Theatre was born. It became the home for all the local drama, music, pantomime groups and continues to flourish on a purely amateur basis. There are just two paid personnel - the cleaners. Concordia Theatre have never received any outside funding but have expanded the building and purchased adjoining property. Last year they catered for some 50,000 patrons.

When the Arts Council was founded in 1946 it is reported to have claimed that “it was only going to fund excellence”. With over 7 million people attending amateur shows in Britain there must be some excellence on show in amateur theatre but still the Arts Council appears reluctant to take it seriously.  This is despite the fact that it is the training ground for many actors who go on to turn professional.  It is also the bedrock for many technicians, scenic designers and stage managers.  The latest issue of this Regions Arts Council News has no mention of amateur theatre but does have articles on Internationalism and cultural diversity, cotemporary British culture and “grants helping thousands of creative and inspirational people make artistic and cultural life in this country the envy of the world”.

At present the Arts Council asks amateur theatres what their artistic policies are and if they have an outreach programme. The simple answer to artistic policy is;  “Yes! Bums on seats!”.

By giving value for money and often achieving sell out performances this is the only way that groups can survive.  Increasing overheads and the cost of licences coupled with Performing Rights charges mean that margins are being squeezed.

As for “outreach” most people involved in putting on amateur shows have full time jobs and have no time to look outside their group.

Not all amateur shows are performed in church halls and schools but there are many small and medium size theatres throughout the country that provide live entertainment for Communities.  Often these are the only entertainment available in an area and attached to them are various Youth Groups and other community activities.  They also provide centres for retired persons to continue to exercise their skills in carpentry and electrics etc and also to have a social evening whilst they help with front of house duties, selling programmes, providing coffee and bar facilities. (This is supposing you can get a volunteer to undertake all the training now required by the new licensing laws).

I contend that whilst there is a need to supply funding for the “Big” national projects and even for the way-out art creation, which are appreciated by a small minority, that a little more financial help to Amateur Theatre would enable it to continue to expand, ensuring that the bed rock of live theatre in this country is alive and kicking.

I have been asked by Arts Council England to contribute a short piece to the arts debate to stimulate some continuing debate about the questions that they have identified as being the key ones for their public value research. The issues of local versus central control of arts policies, the implementation of these policies, and recent developments in thinking about arts policies form the context for this contribution. It is not intended to provide the answers to the questions that will be raised but to encourage further consideration of the practice of arts politics and the effects of this on the arts.

What follows are simply some of the questions that arise from looking at the arts from the perspective of central and local government - needless to say there are many more questions that could be asked. It is to be hoped that this article will raise some of these and encourage further thought about what role the arts could, should and do play within British society, and what role governmental agencies can contribute to this role.

A reasonable starting point for any debate concerning centre and locality in the arts could be a consideration of why central and local governments choose to intervene in this policy sector in the first place. The evidence demonstrates that some local authorities spend large sums of money in this area (Birmingham, for example), whilst others are somewhat more parsimonious (no examples: I am sure that you can provide your own). The reasons for making such investment or subsidy or waste of tax-payer’s money – depending upon who you read or how you view it – are extremely varied but it is usually the case that there is a large degree of instrumentality involved in this area, with the arts being supported not for the purpose of ‘art’ itself but for other policy reasons altogether. These other reasons can cover the provision of increased employment opportunities, inner-city regeneration, the improvement of public health, or increasing community cohesion (amongst many others). This use of art as a mechanism for other purposes is not universal but it appears to be the case that the search for political and financial support for the arts has become increasingly captured by these concerns that are extraneous to the arts themselves. This raises two immediate questions for the arts: is this instrumentalisation appropriate for the arts? What justifications for the spending of public money can the arts provide?

The variation between local authorities in their support for the arts can, in part at least, be explained by the fact that in England the arts (and cultural policy more generally) are a discretionary function. In Northern Ireland and Scotland ‘culture’ is a statutory function of local authorities. Has this made any difference to the policies that are pursued in Northern Ireland and Scotland as compared with England? Would making the arts a statutory function in England make a real difference? The assumption that making a function statutory will somehow automatically lead to benefits for that function is debatable (if not actually wrong), but what would the consequences be in practice? In the case of Scotland it is debatable if there has been any significant change since 1994 when the arts were made a statutory function – would it be different in England?

A secondary point arising from this is whether central government could see any purpose being fulfilled by a change in status for the arts in terms of local government. Central government has traditionally been extremely loath to intervene directly in arts policy, preferring to operate through arm’s-length agencies like the Arts Councils, Regional Cultural Consortia and local authorities themselves. The preferred mechanisms for affecting these organisations have involved the use of a range of tools that are meant to provide an overall policy framework for these other organisations to operate within. Currently these include more recent introductions such as Public Service Agreements, Local Service Agreements, Audit Commission Targets, Key Lines of Enquiry and Best Value assessments alongside more established tools as legislation and the power of the purse. Are such mechanisms actually appropriate for the arts? Are there others that may be utilised? It is unrealistic to expect that central government will not have an interest in affecting the work of sub-national organisations for which they have responsibility. Indeed the legitimacy of these organisations often depends upon their relationship with central government in the first place. In this case how can the demands of the centre be most effectively expressed and met?

Given that central government has a wide range of mechanisms available to it what can local organisations actually do? The idea that the localities are simply dictated to by the centre is a major overstatement of the reality. Local organisations have room for manoeuvre available to them: how do they choose to exercise this? Central government, for example, does not tell local authorities exactly what they must spend their budgets on (except in some limited areas, of which the arts are not an example), neither does it tell Arts Council England how much to give to the Royal Shakespeare Company or to an individual composer. How, and why, then are the decisions made that affect these choices? How large, in the case of the arts, is the room for manoeuvre that sub-national organisations have?

Recent developments with implications for the arts, such as the utilisation of cultural planning strategies, have seen a varied take-up in local authorities. Such an approach necessarily involves the public in affecting what cultural facilities will be provided in an area, and, more generally, with local cultures affecting local planning decisions. The Scottish Executive, prior to the recent Scottish Parliament election at least, wished to encourage the approach amongst Scottish local authorities. Would a greater involvement in public decisions affecting not only the arts but local communities as a whole be an improvement on what is already in place? Would it require a shift away from representative democracy towards some form of either direct or plebiscitary democracy before it could work effectively?

You can read more about Clive's research interests here, and read more about the MA in European Cultural Planning at De Montfort University here.