Arts Policy Note: References are to the discussion documents presented at the Autumn 1999 party consultation sessions. ALDES can offer no special expertise in this field of policy, but would like to make a number of general comments. Need to Define "The Arts" We feel it would be helpful if, at the outset of its eventual policy paper, the party defined what it means by "the arts". The boundaries are not always clear nor easily drawn, but some definition would be better than none. From time to time in the discussion paper there are suggestions that "the arts" are rather highbrow, and inevitably need subsidy. We would suggest "the arts" comprise those human endeavours which are "beyond the utilitarian". In the narrow terms of daily living - "not essential". Music is not essential, nor is good literature, great sculpture or exciting drama. Yet without it, human life would be impoverished. We do not support all the claims made in paras 1.1.3 and 1.1.4, but we would agree that the arts are a source of personal inspiration, enriching life, and helping to create a sense of community (issue 1). Clearly it is in subsidy areas that the policy needs to be most precise, but our prefered definition is very wide. For example it would embrace all forms of music including so called popular music, and others which are commercially successful. Indeed we feel we should always be prepared to question hard why a particular art appears incapable of commercial success. In short, to ask why the public decides the cost is not worth the experience. Lastly our definition would spill over into architecture. There are many thousands of buildings and other structures which serve a utilitarian purpose, but which are of such splendour or elegance they lift the soul. Our heritage would be a shadow of itself without Shakespeare, but also without (for example) the great cathedrals, built at unnecessary expense to glorify God. The need to pay extra to achieve great architecture, remains equally important today. A Strategy for Access The discussion paper seems particularly good (paras 2.3.1 - 2.3.3 especially) on recognising that having the best art in the world is of little value without the public having realistic opportunities for access. Access of course is a matter of price as well as geography. Moreover, there is a linkage between the two, because generally dispersal will increase costs and require higher subsidy. Touring is not ideal for performers, whilst transporting exhibitions raises problems of security. Indeed it might be better to subsidise train fares, than take a particular art to a region! (issue 13). We support the notion of regular audits, and developing strategies, but suggest we should not be too optimistic in deciding what level of dispersal is really practical. It is not entirely clear what "access to the best of the arts" really means. The public already have unhindered access to great architecture and the paintings, tapestries, sculptures, and other works they hold. The National Trust and English Heritage present all kinds of art probably in a better way that any other country, save, perhaps, Italy. We have marvellous museums around the whole country. It is true that the best quality live music, dance, and theatre is concentrated in the major cities, whilst opera is excluded to all but a few. On the other hand (while the experience is not wholly comparable) the technology of music recording nowadays achieves exceptional quality, and television and radio provide free windows to all kinds of productions. If new money was available, our view would be to use it to maintain museum charges at low thresholds, due to their educational value (issues 2-4, 27), and encourage the grass roots. Arts and Education The party is in great danger of demanding "high priority" for different subjects in different policy papers - literacy and numeracy in education; the arts in this one; science in trade and industry, citizenship in another, and so on. School education should help children to understand the multi-stranded world they are growing up in; help them learn a range of basic skills, and above all, make them curious! We must stop seeing children as "jugs to be filled". We suspect that a dismal proportion of those who studied Shakespeare at school have ever read, or even seen one of his plays since they left. Education fails unless children leave school wanting to learn more and venture further. If we can do this they will find the arts themselves. So we see no case for adding a specific arts subject to the post 14 core curriculum (issue 16). On the other hand there is no reason why an appreciation of various arts can not be weaved into the curriculum. For example taking part in drama helps to develop the skill of oral communication and the management skill of presentation. Craft, design, and technology can cover the creation of textiles and pottery. Good writing can be taught through good literature. Furthermore there is every reason to support ëout of schoolí arts activities, for example bands and orchestras. We would support absolutely the statement in 3.1.2 that every child who wishes to should be given the chance to learn to play an instrument. Indeed, forgetting for a moment the arguments for and against hypothecation, it would be a popular measure to raise revenue from one or other source of popular music to make tuition free (issue 18). Local Government Funding of the Arts We have said at the beginning that the arts are not essential. This poses a problem for councillors considering financial subsidy, when faced with immediate and urgent needs for essential services like housing, social care and the rest. The problem is compounded because local electorates frequently lag behind even councillors in appreciation of the value of the arts, and it is too easy to lapoon arts subsidy and reflect on lost home care hours or fewer books in schools. On the other hand to impose a mandatory requirement on councils (1.5% is mentioned) is to undermine the partyís general policy to devolve responsibility wherever possible - and let local electors take the consequences (issues 5, 6, 21). One solution is to provide "matching finance". A council wishing to run a festival, mount an exhibition, run a museum, erect a sculpture, support a drama student or whatever, would raise money from local businesses, local people, and their own funds, knowing this would be matched, say £1 for £1 from the lottery or other funds. The initiative would remain with local people but the decision would be much easier to make. We are a little worried however by the general drift in 2.3 which seems to assume new initiatives should mostly be expected from local councils, rather than local people. There is a very good liberal case for councils to encourage local groups generally and assist them with advice in respect of where to obtain funds and subsidised facilities rather than organise events themselves. In other words, councils should try, as far as possible, to pursue an ëenablingí role. We include an annex which develops this point more. Libraries have much greater public support, and are relatively inexpensive compared to education as a whole. We see no reason why libraries should not include best sellers: many are well written and if they bring people over the threshold, so much the better. It is imperative libraries provide access to the internet (issues 19, 20). 10 work stations would barely cost £10k, and line charges would be covered by very modest charges. We can not believe there is a school which does not recognise the need for a good school library. There is less need for an LEA run school library service than an officer who can assist schools in their choice of books. Again we are concerned that imposing statutory requirements or providing another ring fenced pot of money will remove responsibility from a devolved level - this time from governors. The adequacy of school libraries however would be a proper subject for OFSTED inspectors to consider. Public access to school libraries would incur attendance and administration costs, and out of school security issues. A library loan system might be better. (Issues 23-26) Funding We have no expertise which would enable us to suggest the appropriate level of funding, nor the optimum means of distribution. We would note only that most European art was funded by wealthy patrons and it is only in recent historical time that public funds have been used. The gap between rich and poor has grown wider and there is reluctance to increase tax rates for fear companies will re-locate elsewhere. There appears to us a strong case for expecting more private sponsorship for the arts. The opportunity for "image" advertising will be appropriate and attractive to many large companies, and, even if tax breaks are allowed, there would still be a net diversion of money to the public purse (issues 36, 37). Contents