牛牛资源

Dr Dave O’Brien, Senior Lecturer in Cultural Policy at 牛牛资源, explores the state of arts funding in England today, and explains why the use of Lottery money to compensate for cuts in core funding is highly controversial.

Although we鈥檝e had to make cuts in grant-in-aid, we鈥檝e increased the amount of money going into the arts through the National Lottery. Take those two sums of money together, and you鈥檒l see that roughly the same amount of money has gone into the arts as went into the arts at the peak of the last Labour government. 
- Ed Vaizey, Conservative culture minister, in an interview on BBC Radio 4鈥檚 Front Row

Grant-in-aid, the annual budget that Arts Council England receives from Department of Culture Media and Sport, has decreased from 拢453m in 2009-10 to 拢350m in 2014-15, according to the Culture Select Committee. The Arts Council quantifies this as a real terms reduction of 36%.

In his radio interview on BBC 4鈥檚 Front Row last week, Ed Vaizey claimed all of these cuts have been offset by increases in National Lottery funding to the arts. In fact, the peak of the former Labour government鈥檚 arts funding in 2009-10 was 拢625m, and by 2014-15 this had fallen to 拢617m, representing an overall cut of 拢8m (not accounting for inflation, so a real terms cut of over 拢9m).

The politics of arts funding

From 2015, even more Lottery funding will be used to support the arts in England. The use of Lottery funding to compensate for cuts in core funding is highly controversial as it appears to contravene the so-called 鈥渁dditionality principle鈥�, which holds that government funding decisions shouldn鈥檛 be influenced by lottery contributions. Section 12 of the Lottery Act (2006) states:

Proceeds of the National Lottery should be used to fund projects 鈥� for which funds would be unlikely to made available by a government department [or its equivalent].

Lottery funding of the arts has also been accused of acting as a regressive form of taxation, whereby working class northerners subsidise the cultural hobbies of middle-class southerners.

When the coalition government came into power, there were 854 regularly funded arts organisations. There are now only 664, which represents a decrease of 22% over the past five years.

Regional imbalances

However, any voters placing their hope in Labour to reverse the coalition鈥檚 cuts spending are likely to be disappointed, following the party鈥檚 denial in January of Conservative claims that Labour would spend an additional 拢83m cancelling previous cuts to culture.

On top of DCMS鈥檚 cuts to funding, what Vaizey failed to mention is the increasingly negative and disproportionate impact of local government cuts to culture. Shadow Minister for Culture, Helen Goodman, pointed out last May that the most deprived of England鈥檚 local authority areas have faced an average funding cut of 18%, which has translated to a cut to arts, libraries and heritage of 22%.

So, it is important to remember, as highlighted in the recent Rebalancing Our Cultural Capital report, that arts funding is not distributed proportionately around the country. Indeed claims of regional imbalances in funding led to a recent parliamentary inquiry, which ultimately determined that London receives a share of arts funding which is 鈥渙ut of all proportion to its population鈥� and that this 鈥渃lear funding imbalance 鈥� must be urgently rectified鈥�.

ACE reports that in 2009-10, local authorities invested 拢102m in their regularly funded arts organisations and that central government funding to local authorities has been cut by 28% over the four years between 2011-15.

In the course of this parliament, some councils (like Somerset) have imposed 100% cuts on their arts budgets, which means that 13 local authorities, including Gloucestershire, Selby, Wigan, Westminster and Wandsworth, now allocate no funding whatsoever to culture and heritage.

Verdict

The veracity of Ed Vaizey鈥檚 claim hinges on his qualifier 鈥渞oughly鈥�: the figures show that more than 拢9m less is now being spent on the arts than at the peak of the last Labour government, and 拢103m less government or public money.

Recent history teaches us that Labour governments fund the arts more generously than their Conservative counterparts 鈥� under the last Labour government, grant-in-aid almost trebled from 拢179m to 拢453m. Regardless of who wins on May 7, the figures illustrate that the future of arts funding seems increasingly reliant on the spin of a national wheel of fortune.

Review

The crucial question for arts funding, as this fact check identifies, will be what happens to the budget of the Department for Communities and Local Government. It is unlikely that, even with reductions in arts funding to come from both of the major parties, organisations such as the National Theatre or British Museum will see an end to state investment.

As a result, the role of DCMS and Arts Council England will continue to support the 鈥渃rown jewels鈥� in major metropolitan areas.

It is the fate of smaller, local, organisations that should be the major concern for discussions of art policy. There is a genuine risk that art and culture that cannot be organised into a form fundable under ACE鈥檚 current systems will have no funding, as Local Authorities are forced to choose between cultural activities and their statutory responsibilities towards vulnerable communities, such as children or the elderly.

The fate of the arts outside of major cities may well be decided not by Ed Vaizey鈥檚 successor, but rather by the next minister at DCLG.