Arts: Contribution to Education, Health and Emotional Well-being

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for introducing this debate. As an artist, my instincts to some extent are to reverse the terms of the debate; in other words, to ask what, for example, education can do for the arts and creativity. That might strike one at first as the standard way of looking at things, but for me, generally speaking, artists make and publicise their work as best they can and it is for others to draw conclusions about the wider social effects that work may have.

I am emboldened in further pursuing my instincts on this on three counts. First, I understand that although the DCMS is responding to this debate rather than the Department of Health, that department will be listening in with the other cap that the Minister wears. Secondly, there is the wider ever-present arts narrative that needs to be addressed. It is very difficult to persuade successive Governments of the case for art for its own sake—a term which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, used in her speech. That obstacle characterises the overarching narrative driving most of the debate on the arts at Westminster, whereby the effects of the arts on education, well-being and health are still the justification for them, while being a corrective to our previous debate on the economic effects and to Maria Miller’s insistence on the arts’ economic value. Thirdly, there is the rather remarkable speech made by the Scottish Culture Secretary, Fiona Hyslop, on 5 June at Edinburgh University, in which she said:

“It is our job … to create the conditions which enable artists to flourish … I don’t need or want the culture or heritage sector to make a new economic or social case to justify public support for their work. I know what these sectors can deliver because I see it in action. I visit hardworking artists and practitioners who are exploring new ways of working; and who are creating dynamic and exciting new ways of enjoying and sharing their work and the work of our ancestors”.

Artists and the arts sector would have to wait forever to hear a message like that from a Government at Westminster. There will be cynics, of course, who say that the SNP has an agenda in trying to court artists. That may be, but that does not have to invalidate its cultural policy. The key thing here is the facilitation of artists, which I believe is a good in itself, whatever the specific effects may be, because the artist’s work is the contribution to society. The Government’s primary job in relation to the arts is—or should be—to do just that and must of course include encouraging the potential for creativity from all classes of society. It also means facilitating not just contemporary artists but those artists of the past—“the ancestors”, as Fiona Hyslop calls them, a term which properly draws them closer to us—whose influence may thereby still be felt through our collections, exhibitions, buildings and public sculpture. From this, everything else should proceed. Indeed, in the short term, good art may not give a feeling of well-being at all but may be disturbing and highly critical of society, as much of our best post-war drama was. It is a healthy society which allows artists to have their say, encourages that criticism and, all importantly, offers spaces within which that can happen.

The newest space of course is the internet, but there is also what might be termed an attitudinal or mental space and, furthermore, physical or geographical space. That space is now becoming hugely underestimated and increasingly neglected locally. I am thinking about theatres, art venues, studios and rehearsal rooms as well as the streets themselves. In part, this is because of the attraction of the internet, but also because of the cuts, particularly at the local level, and the largely unthought-through council sell-offs of buildings and land alongside the now much looser planning guidelines. Overall, this is an ongoing neglect that is detrimental not just to artists but to the well-being of local communities. Publicly owned spaces have the potential to be public spaces, as well as providing significantly cheaper rents. Privatised spaces that are open to the public, such as shopping malls, will always be primarily commercial spaces where the public are only present by invitation.

Can more help be given to artists and artist groups in relation to commercial spaces and greater incentives provided for the cultural and artistic use of vacant shops, for example? The Minister should also be aware that the removal of planning permission for landlords to turn studios and workshops into flats is hugely threatening to the arts and the creative industries. That is not to say that public spaces are not also becoming increasingly problematic for artists. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the DCMS is giving particular attention to the Bill recently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to remove restrictions on leafleting, which is having such a bad effect on the local arts scene in some areas.

One English architectural ancestor springs to mind: Sir Horace Jones, who gave us Tower Bridge and Leadenhall Market, and whose Smithfield Market, a landmark that many of us have enjoyed and wandered through, may well be gutted if the City of London Corporation planning committee has its way. I hope that the DCMS is taking a critical view of a proposal that many see as vandalism, and will give active consideration to alternative ideas for the site.

I will mention one other building: St Lawrence’s Hospital in Bodmin, built by the Cornish architect Silvanus Trevail. It is a notable building in the Edwardian baroque style, which used to be owned by the NHS and whose preservation has the support of SAVE Britain’s Heritage, the Cornish Buildings Group and the Ancient Monuments Society, which says that,

“a really interesting building by one of the county’s great architectural sons, and one surrounded by local goodwill, faces needless oblivion”.

It seems that Cornwall Council, too, supports its preservation but, at the same time, has given permission for development without an environmental assessment, public consultation or planning permission. This case again illustrates the fact that once one effectively tears up the planning guidelines and there is no concerted decision-making—which is not the same as autocratic decision-making—there is likely to be chaos and rampant development, and the arts will be the loser in all this.

However, it does not have to be a one-way street. It is good news that Taunton Deane Borough Council has purchased the lease on the Brewhouse Theatre, which means that it will reopen, although whether it can put on the kind of challenging performances it used to depends on who the council gets to run it.

In this same context of the protection of our culture, I mention also the Riesco Collection of Chinese ceramics in the Museum of Croydon, from which the council intends to sell off 24 important items. As the Minister will be aware, both the Arts Council and the Museums Association have been hugely critical of this proposal, and I hope that the DCMS is taking an interest in this as well. The collection would have been donated to the public in perpetuity and therefore should remain so. There is a history here. In 2010, Croydon Council threatened to axe all arts services and sell off 13 local libraries. Fortunately there has been enough of a public outcry for this not to happen, although the popular David Lean Cinema, which was also part of the Clocktower complex, has already been closed.

The irony is that a great many of us are often not aware of remarkable collections or treasures until they are under threat, although that does not mean that others have not already greatly enjoyed them. I would like to make a suggestion to the Government, and I hope they will forgive me if this is something that they have already considered. As a follow-up to their successful GREAT campaign, perhaps they would consider a series of posters highlighting our local collections and treasures to an international audience, with perhaps a number of locations featured on each poster. One example that springs to mind is the William Morris Gallery in Walthamstow, which won this year's Museum of the Year award. Britain has a huge wealth of treasures and collections, often in out-of-the-way places, that are not part of our national collections and are not as well known. Providing such posters would do at least two things: it would re-emphasise the importance of a local or regional Britain, and it would help, I believe, to protect those treasures.

Economy: Culture and the Arts

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for the opportunity to participate in this debate. If the Government wish to concentrate at least part of their efforts on maximising the arts’ economic benefits, policy making needs to stem from an understanding of—I say this to Maria Miller—the special nature of the arts. This is not to say that the arts are better than any other area, it is to say that they have a particular character.

Cultural value is different, distinct, from the normal values of business, even if the arts themselves may be economically heterogeneous, often expressed as a spectrum, with the non-commercial at one end through to the highly commercial at the other. This heterogeneity is not a statement of an ideal, it is a statement of fact. The arts that we may think of as commercial are often not wholly commercial at all, most obviously in current West End hits like the RSC’s “Matilda”. Most theatre and most commercial film in Britain uses actors and directors who have worked in subsidised theatre around the country. As has been said many times, if subsidised theatre did not exist, we would have not only an impoverished theatre scene but a lesser pool of talent. Barbara Broccoli joked last year that “Skyfall” was the national theatre of Bond.

However, the subsidised arts are much more than a seedbed for the commercial sector. The argument from those who would wish to have all the arts funded through private money and philanthropy is that the arts can stand on their own two feet; that they can become resilient. But the crucial assumption made here is that it will be the same arts doing this. This is the part that is not true. What is apparent to arts centres since the cuts is that spaces or services are lost or become taken over by more commercial productions. It is the disappearance of the innovative at grass-roots level that will have a long-term and significant effect on our arts economy. It is not the same arts regrouping.

Reducing public investment means that we will lose that cultural value. To treat the arts mainly as a commodity or a branch of manufacturing—which I fear that this Government may intend to do—is not to get the best out of the arts in terms of their intrinsic or economic value.

The uncertainty about the future departmental representation of the arts does not help. Can the Minister throw some light on this? Rumours would not be flying around if we had a strong department with strong leadership, which I add is no fault of anyone’s but the Government. If some or all of the arts got swallowed up by BIS, it would be a disaster for the arts in Britain. It is because of that special character of the arts that they need their own strong voice in government.

In terms of the Government’s attitude towards innovation or R&D, as it is increasingly called, the trend is often towards projects which can be bolted on to existing established structures. Where they are appropriate, this works really well—among many, one can cite NT Live, with hundreds of venues across the world, as a successful project. But project money is no substitute for the day-to-day running of the majority of arts organisations. The furore that occurred with Creative Scotland last year, when 49 arts organisations had their funding entirely removed and replaced with lottery money for what were perceived as prescribed projects, and the concerted rebellion by artists which forced out Creative Scotland’s then chief executive should act as a strong warning that it is the right kind of funding—core funding—which arts organisations most desperately need.

The Government have asked the arts to justify themselves in economic terms. As Will Hutton pointed out in the Observer newspaper recently, the Treasury will be awash with reports produced over the decades in response to this repeated demand and they all say the same thing, which is that, because of the sizeable multiplier effect, the more that the Government subsidise the arts, the greater still will be the economic returns to the country.

The other important point to make here is that this works as a macro effect. The danger of treating every original artistic endeavour as a discrete business, which the Arts Council is already having to do much more than it used to, is that the arts will become micromanaged in a way that will stultify their operation and stultify innovation. There should be no more reports justifying the arts economically. The case is proved many times over. It is an unnecessary waste of money.

So the leading question has to be: why are the Government not increasing subsidies to the arts instead of continuing to cut? I will say that again: why are the Government not increasing subsidies to the arts? In my view, there is no good reason why they are not. The Government say that in these times every department needs to take its own share of the pain. That is a false morality which cloaks what is in effect a divide-and-rule strategy. The reality is that no part of society works economically in isolation from any other. The actor-director Sam West points out that the arts pay for hospital beds.

The second objection that the Minister might raise is that there is no money available to invest. That is nonsense, considering how minute in departmental terms the arts budget actually is. If the public properly understood that greater public investment in the arts would help to create significant economic growth which would improve their standard of living, they would vote for it like a shot.

Germany, for one, is doing that. For the eighth year in a row, it has increased its central funding of the arts—last November, by 8%—and it is starting from a base investment which is already much higher than ours. Germany’s Culture Minister, Bernd Neumann, says that public funding is not a grant but,

“an essential investment in the future of our society”;

in other words, an awareness of both the intrinsic value of the arts and their huge economic benefits, which, bearing in mind that Germany has a population about a third larger than ours, amounted in 2011 to €63 billion compared with our current £28 billion—about twice as much. The main lesson to learn from Germany here is that, if we are at all comparable to it in terms of potential for growth in the arts, Britain has not reached any kind of ceiling.

We have been asked in this debate to talk about economic potential, but that is not what is currently most at stake. For many artists, it is their survival, and the future on 26 June looks grim. Whatever is lost will be a loss to the cultural value which drives the arts, including its commercial wing. Nor should we forget that on top of that are the cuts to local government and the more than chilling prediction given by the LGA last year that by 2020, 90% of our local cultural services will be lost if cuts continue in the same vein. This at a time when many local councils are becoming more switched on to the importance of their arts and cultural industries, according to the recent report published by the LGA.

Many—Danny Boyle is certainly one—believe that the arts and the creative industries, backed up by an effective art and design education, are vital for the future of this country. We sorely need a Government who will rise to this challenge.