Arts Funding

Arts Funding – Where Now?

Ed Vaizey (1981-85) argues that the UK needs a reset

Jennie Lee, the first ever arts minister, appointed by Harold Wilson, said that all the arts wanted from government was “money, policy and silence”. It is a pretty fair and accurate summary of how successive British governments have approached the arts since Lee came to office in 1964.

Iwas lucky enough to serve as David Cameron’s arts minister between 2010 and 2016. In fact, I held on for grim death until I had surpassed Lee’s record tenure. I also published the first White Paper on the arts since Lee herself. So it is fair to say that I operated somewhat in her shadow. Both Lee and I followed the same course, which on the whole has served the arts well in this country.

First, money. It is fair to say that the arts tend to look to their Minister to extract as much cash as possible from the Treasury. I have always said to my (numerous) successors that they will simply be judged by the size of the cheque they hand over. Given that I took office when austerity cuts were being introduced, I suppose I could be regarded as a failure.

Broadly speaking, the arts receive the bulk of their funding via the Arts Council. Originally set up after the war by John Maynard Keynes, it now supports hundreds of institutions with a budget of around £600 million. About half of this comes from the Lottery, for which John Major deserves huge credit. Lottery money (for heritage as well) transformed the climate for the arts, in particular allowing a huge range of capital projects throughout the country. Of course, being a Tory, Major’s contribution is barely acknowledged by the arts establishment.

About a third of the income budget of the Arts Council goes on just five institutions – the Big Five – the Royal Opera House, The English National Opera, the Southbank Centre, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the National Theatre. Indeed, the first arts institution to be directly funded by government was the Royal Opera House, in the 1930s. All this means that there is little spare cash to go around to fund the hundreds of other arts venues that deserve support. In addition, the government funds directly the thirteen national museums, such as the British Museum, which adds a hefty chunk to its bill.

Defining arts funding can be a tricky business. There is funding for English Heritage. Local councils contribute a great deal (though far

 Jennie Lee, Minister for the Arts 1964–1970

less than they used to thanks to the cuts in local government funding in the 2010s). The BBC is itself arguably a great contributor, with five orchestras, Radio 3 and extensive arts programming. The Department for Education funds a variety of arts projects, such as music education. Even the Ministry of Defence has a tiny line of spending supporting Regimental Museums. And there are other bodies such as the British Council that cover this beat as well.

With a bit of creative accounting, you can argue that annual arts funding in this country easily tops a billion quid. Chuck in as much of the BBC budget as possible and you get to the many billions. This can be quite useful especially when people always bang on about how much the Germans spend, which was the constant refrain when I was in post.

Nevertheless, there is not enough to go round – and always demands from interested parties for funding (music venues and brass bands spring to mind). But actually, this is a good thing. I am glad that we fund the arts

The Arts tend to look to their Minister to extract as much cash as possible from the Treasury.

enough to give them a base, but not enough to stifle their entrepreneurial instincts. Many arts organisations make up their income by being commercial (in other words giving visitors what they want) or from generous philanthropy, or both. It makes for a much livelier arts scene than that on the continent, in my view. And it also avoids the arts becoming avidly commercial, as they risk doing in the US. In effect, we have a happy medium.

It also makes the arts less “big P” political. To paraphrase the Jennie Lee dictum, the policy IS silence. For years we have employed the “arm’s-length” principle, whereby the government funds the arts, but does not dictate what arts institutions should do. This serves many useful purposes. It means that the people appointed to runs arts venues and museums actually know what they are doing, rather than being has-been politicians. It means that when the Greeks come calling for the Elgin Marbles, the Government can tell them to talk to the British Museum. And it means that people can put on shows and exhibitions without fear or favour – and the government does not get blamed when they inexplicably back some nude hippy dance ensemble covering itself in spaghetti hoops.

Sadly the arm’s-length principle is now under threat. Not from a bunch of politically-correct lefties determined to shove their views on the rest us, but from a Conservative government no less. Not even Maggie, exasperated as she was by the left-wing intelligentsia, would have dreamed of doing what our current Culture Secretary has done – namely to summon the heads of all our heritage bodies to a kind of re-education camp to tell them what parts of our history they can and cannot explore. I fear that the government in its absurd anti-woke Don Quixote style culture war has lurched on to a rather slippery slope. And slippery slopes tend to lead to great tumbles.

COVID has obviously hit the arts hard – harder than almost any sector apart from pubs and restaurants (which are arguably part of the arts in any event). Brexit has also dealt a body blow, by making touring in Europe prohibitively expensive. So we need a reset.

We need to ensure arts funding is put on a sustainable level. There is room for greater generosity – and certainly a plan to put in place long-term arts funding, so there is not the three-year scramble for funds. The arts budget is small enough to be set for the long-term and forgotten about. We also need to fund more smaller arts organisations outside London. I would fund the Big Five directly and let the Arts Council spend additional cash on new clients. Finally, I would learn from tech – and have an innovation fund and approach that puts Britain at the forefront of digital innovation in the arts.

We are very lucky in this country – world-leading museums, terrific national performing arts organisations, and broadly speaking the right approach. Just as Keynes began a new era after the War, let us do it again, after the pandemic. 