John Tusa, leader of the Tory arts task force, sets out his seven-point challenge for Gordon Brown
You might think that the arts are enjoying something of a golden age. Visitors from cities around the world regard London's blockbuster art exhibitions as worth the plane fare. Tourists can visit the National Theatre and the Royal Opera House, catch up on the latest in modern dance at Sadler's Wells, experience the 25th year of international diversity at the Barbican, and look forward with anticipation to the reopening of the Royal Festival Hall.
Unfortunately, the future may not be so bright. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has been warned that the Treasury's autumn Comprehensive Spending Review will be tough and painful. The department has been told to tell its clients, notably Arts Council England, to plan for major cuts. Severe reductions in government subsidy seem a confusing and contradictory way, at the very least, to reward success, good audiences and excellence. But the forecast really darkens when the dread word "Olympics" is uttered. Not only is the project way off budget, but it is rumoured that the overspend will be taken from arts budgets.
Puzzlingly in the circumstances, political leaders are suddenly taking an interest in the arts. David Cameron may have sparked it with his announcement of an independent arts task force to produce new policy ideas, which I will lead. Tony Blair joined in with his hastily announced "major speech" on culture at the Tate this month, briefing himself on the subject beforehand with arts dignitaries at Downing Street.
However, the man lurking in the background is, of course, Gordon Brown. What would arts policy under Brown look like? Here, as elsewhere, he is keeping his counsel. But here is my advice, in the form of a seven-point plan for Gordon Brown's New World for the Arts.
1 Brown should try a variant of his famous "independence for the Bank of England" trick. He should set the Arts Council free from political interference – within agreed budgetary limits – and change its remit to enhance artistic "quality, excellence and innovation".
As things stand, even the DCMS thinks that the Arts Council couldn’t recognise excellence if it saw it, and everyone in the arts world regards it as a numbers-driven quango, incapable of defining its role at arm's length from the government.
2 One of new Labour's achievements was to commit itself to raising UK levels of spending on health to those of our European partners. Make a similar commitment – a five- to ten-year aspiration, if necessary – to increase national overall arts spending to European levels.
3 The third proposal would need legislative change. As things stand, local authorities
do not have a statutory duty to provide the arts or culture in any way, so when finances are squeezed, arts activities are the first to be cut. Local-authority investment in a wide range of arts transforms the working and living environment. It also benefits the surrounding economy. Such a change in local-authority statutory responsibilities would have to be phased in. But as a visionary pointer to a new place for the arts in the 21st century, what could be more dramatic?
4 My next proposal costs nothing. It is entirely consistent with Brown's belief in "joined-up" government and "cross-cutting policies". He must get the many bodies involved in arts provision, education or awareness to talk to each other. These are principally the Arts Council, the Higher Education Funding Council and the Regional Development Agencies. Given the common ground arts
and higher education have in spreading and developing education about the arts, and given the role the arts play in economic regeneration, this virtuous triangle of common interests should be a productive and creative one. How about a Downing Street summit?
5 Next, we need a commitment not to cut arts funding because of the Olympics. It's no less than the arts deserve. And isn't there something contradictory, even obtuse, in trumpeting the "Cultural Olympiad" if arts funds are to be diverted for the Olympics proper? You can't expect arts organisations to throw their hearts and minds into devising Olympic projects if the reality is that the financial pot is shrinking.
6 My last two suggestions appear to cost money, though no one can say how much – or how little. Each could generate real additional benefits to the arts world. The first relates to
Gift Aid, a very productive way of giving arts organisations a boost from the relief on the tax on gifts. It should be applied to include higher rates of tax, to stimulate the larger donors to give. If – better still – donors were to receive the tax benefit from gifts and donations, rather than the receiving body concerned, the UK arts sponsorship scene could be transformed.
It is said that Brown admires the "American way", and he should introduce this part of the American model of giving.
7 Finally, a tax credit should be introduced to donors of visual arts and in the increasingly important field of political and literary archives. Apart from the inherent importance of encouraging such gifts from the private to the public realm, all the evidence is that donors become attached to a museum or gallery once they have made their first gift.
I think this plan looks rather "Brown-esque": strategic, far-sighted, liberating, yet encouraging individual commitment and responsibility. But two final, low thoughts. Doing something positive about the arts represents the cheapest way of buying a great many votes. If you don't do something, David Cameron will. And you wouldn't want Tony Blair to get the credit, would you?
"Engaged with the Arts: writings from the front line" by John Tusa is published by I B Tauris (£19.50)
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
