Call for strategic approach to museum funding in England
Report reveals that almost half of Arts Council England’s funding for 2015-18 will go to London-based institutions, despite only 15% of people living in the city. By Patrick Steel
In the run up to the 2015 general election, the opposition parties are looking closely at an independent report published last month that calls for the reform of arts and culture funding in England and of Arts Council England (ACE).
One of the central findings of the Hard Facts To Swallow report is that the arts council’s planned allocations for 2015-18 remain unfairly skewed towards London, with 48.3% of ACE’s grant in aid going to organisations based in the capital in 2015-16, despite about 85% of the English population living outside London.
The report says that the overall impression given is of “an increasingly closed system that operates with insufficient transparency”.
The arts council refutes the claim pointing out that “any person with a real or perceived conflict of interest does not participate in a funding decision”, while all council members’ interests are in the public domain.
ACE added that the trend for distribution of funds across the country is in the right direction but that there is a need to be “realistic” about the speed of progress given the “difficult economic picture”.
David Anderson, the president of the Museums Association, says there is a need for a more strategic approach to funding in England. “The MA is keen to work with ACE and other strategic bodies to develop this” he added.
Access all areas
There are no plans to reform the arts council, according to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). A spokeswoman said: “It is clearly important that all areas of the country have access to arts council funding”, and added that DCMS will continue to discuss the issue with ACE.
But Helen Goodman, Labour’s shadow minister for culture, says the report shows “once again” the scale of the imbalance in arts funding between London and the regions. She adds that Labour will be “looking closely at the findings, as we head towards May 2015”.
Breaking point
The Green Party leader Natalie Bennett earlier this year called for a break-up of the arts council and “instead of this centrally dictated, and clearly failing, model, each region and each county should receive funding, proportional to population and poverty, to make its own provisions”.
The report’s authors would like to see a tripartite approach to arts lottery funding, which museums are not currently eligible for, with 40% going to the promotion of economic regeneration through culture at a local level; 40% distributed to the promotion of individual and community wellbeing in partnership with arts organisations, museums and libraries; and 20% going to programmes available to individual artists.
This should be linked to the national portfolio, the report recommends, with a focus on partnership working between National Portfolio Organisations and local government, the private sector, individual artists, civil society and higher education.
Any changes to the arts council funding mechanisms would have a big impact on museums. Some are National Portfolio Organisations, including the William Morris Gallery and Design Museum in London, and Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums (also a Major Partner Museum) in Newcastle.
ACE also administers several museum-specific funds including Major Partner Museums, the Strategic Fund and the Resilience Fund.
Separate ways
A wider issue for the next government might be the way in which DCMS funding is administered, and the thorny question of the way in which the mostly London-based national museums are separately funded.
There are inconsistencies across the system, says Keith Merrin, the director of Woodhorn Museum in Northumberland, and these will be difficult to address.
But there is an obligation to do so, as there are people who are missing out on arts and culture in some areas of England.
Excluding MPMs
2007-08: 52.6%
2015-16: 51.6%
Including MPMs
2007-08: 52.6%
2015-16: 48.3%
*% of total allocation. Source: Hard Facts to Swallow
One of the central findings of the Hard Facts To Swallow report is that the arts council’s planned allocations for 2015-18 remain unfairly skewed towards London, with 48.3% of ACE’s grant in aid going to organisations based in the capital in 2015-16, despite about 85% of the English population living outside London.
The report says that the overall impression given is of “an increasingly closed system that operates with insufficient transparency”.
The arts council refutes the claim pointing out that “any person with a real or perceived conflict of interest does not participate in a funding decision”, while all council members’ interests are in the public domain.
ACE added that the trend for distribution of funds across the country is in the right direction but that there is a need to be “realistic” about the speed of progress given the “difficult economic picture”.
David Anderson, the president of the Museums Association, says there is a need for a more strategic approach to funding in England. “The MA is keen to work with ACE and other strategic bodies to develop this” he added.
Access all areas
There are no plans to reform the arts council, according to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). A spokeswoman said: “It is clearly important that all areas of the country have access to arts council funding”, and added that DCMS will continue to discuss the issue with ACE.
But Helen Goodman, Labour’s shadow minister for culture, says the report shows “once again” the scale of the imbalance in arts funding between London and the regions. She adds that Labour will be “looking closely at the findings, as we head towards May 2015”.
Breaking point
The Green Party leader Natalie Bennett earlier this year called for a break-up of the arts council and “instead of this centrally dictated, and clearly failing, model, each region and each county should receive funding, proportional to population and poverty, to make its own provisions”.
The report’s authors would like to see a tripartite approach to arts lottery funding, which museums are not currently eligible for, with 40% going to the promotion of economic regeneration through culture at a local level; 40% distributed to the promotion of individual and community wellbeing in partnership with arts organisations, museums and libraries; and 20% going to programmes available to individual artists.
This should be linked to the national portfolio, the report recommends, with a focus on partnership working between National Portfolio Organisations and local government, the private sector, individual artists, civil society and higher education.
Any changes to the arts council funding mechanisms would have a big impact on museums. Some are National Portfolio Organisations, including the William Morris Gallery and Design Museum in London, and Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums (also a Major Partner Museum) in Newcastle.
ACE also administers several museum-specific funds including Major Partner Museums, the Strategic Fund and the Resilience Fund.
Separate ways
A wider issue for the next government might be the way in which DCMS funding is administered, and the thorny question of the way in which the mostly London-based national museums are separately funded.
There are inconsistencies across the system, says Keith Merrin, the director of Woodhorn Museum in Northumberland, and these will be difficult to address.
But there is an obligation to do so, as there are people who are missing out on arts and culture in some areas of England.
Grant in aid for RFOs in London*
Excluding MPMs
2007-08: 52.6%
2015-16: 51.6%
Including MPMs
2007-08: 52.6%
2015-16: 48.3%
*% of total allocation. Source: Hard Facts to Swallow