News and Events
MPs attack arts council in select committee report
28th Mar 2011
The cross-party culture, media and sport select committee published its report on the funding of the arts and heritage little more than 48 hours before the arts council is due to announce its decisions on who it plans to fund regularly from next year.
The report claims that cuts could be �disastrous� for the arts, but says that the culture world should �share the burden� of public sector savings. However, the committee warns that ACE has left itself open to criticism that its funding decisions - due this Wednesday - are �flawed� because it has only given itself two months to assess around 1,330 applications, almost half of which will have to be rejected.
The report states: �We welcome the launch of the arts council�s National Portfolio funding programme, and comment that it has the potential to offer more strategic and finessed funding arrangements with arts bodies.
�However, we are concerned at how great an administrative task it is to assess all the applications for the National Portfolio, and to draw up funding agreements in the two months that the arts council has set itself. Given that so many arts organisations will not make it into the National Portfolio, the short time frame will inevitably leave the arts council open to criticisms that its selection process lacked rigour.�
An ACE spokesperson said: �We believe that two months was a reasonable period of time to properly assess the 1,330 applications and make informed and considered decisions. The arts council has drawn on its full resources to make this possible, utilising the wealth of experience and expertise of its staff.
�Our aim was always to give arts organisations a full year�s notice for their funding, giving them enough time to properly prepare and alter business plans where needed. The timetable for decisions was agreed to by the secretary of state.�
Speaking to The Stage, chair of the CMS committee John Whittingdale said he understood that ACE had faced �a very difficult task� and that having to turn down around 600 applications for funding was a �poisoned chalice�.
Whittingdale, a Conservative MP, also accepted that organisations which have been disappointed by ACE�s funding decisions will use the select committee�s comment in their defence. He said: �It will be up to the arts council, then, to demonstrate they have shown a proper degree of rigour.�
The CMS committee states in the report that it believes the 50% cut to the arts council�s own administration over the next four years �can be managed�. It comments that high levels of public investment in the arts over 20 years �led to the arts council�s spending on its own administration to rise to much too high a level�.
ACE also comes under fire for its decision to axe its funding to Arts & Business beyond 2012. The report says the committee believes A&B �largely represented good value for money�. It adds: �We are surprised and disappointed at the arts council�s decision to withdraw all funding from Arts & Business after 2012 and are concerned that the arts council lacks the experience and enthusiasm successfully to take on this role.�
However, the committee�s strongest criticisms were concerned with ACE�s funding of The Public art gallery in West Bromwich, which the report cites as a �gross waste of public money� because it never opened despite �32 million arts council investment.
Although the committee accepts that The Public project was not handled by the current team at ACE, the report says: �We were concerned at the inability of the chief executive [Alan Davey] to provide answers to our questions and the lack of any serious attempt to learn lessons or prevent a repetition. We consider this to be a failure of leadership at the arts council.�
An ACE spokesperson said: �The Public is old news, and is not representative of the arts council�s investments in capital projects.�
Source: The Stage
