Introduction

• Thank you for inviting me to speak to the TMA Winter Conference.
• I’ll start with a confession, if I may. When I was at school one of my greatest ambitions was to act and I often dreamed of treading the boards in a great theatre, playing some of the famous dramatic roles in front of an appreciative and discerning audience.
• Well, this wasn’t quite what I’d planned! -  but even if I wasn’t destined to reach the heights of Judi Dench or Maggie Smith, it is still a real pleasure to be able to speak in such a fantastic building as this with such a strong history and tradition of truly great theatre – and it’s a local theatre for me too.
• My career has taken a very different path (people often accuse us politicians of being failed actors and actresses).  But I’m pleased to say, that after some challenging and rewarding posts in a number of Government Departments, I was over the moon when the Prime Minister asked me to become Minister for Culture.
• Without a doubt this is one of the best jobs in Government. And I hope I can use this fantastic opportunity to strongly support the arts and to make progress on at least two or three issues which will help all of us to further promote the arts in Britain.
   
  The role of the arts in national life
• The theme of this conference is the “politics of the arts”. For me, having been in the job for a few months, what strikes me most is just how much of a turning point we have reached. 
• I strongly believe that people will look back in five, ten or more years’ time and see clearly that it was at this time that we finally laid to rest that perennial unease there has been about the place of the arts in our national life.
• For too long since the Arts Council was set up in 1946, there has been a sense of ambivalence or discomfort about the role of the arts and the role of Government investment in the arts.
• Politicians found it awkward to talk about the value of the arts.  Whilst at the same time I can’t count the number of people in the Arts world who firmly believe that politicians do not care about the Arts.
• Indeed, it wasn’t until 1992 that my Department was established and even then it was called the “Department for National Heritage”, as if having a Department for Culture was somehow “un-British” – or an inappropriate area for Government action.
   
• For too long, the arts had to justify themselves according to other agendas. I know John Holden spoke about this earlier. The arts improve educational attainment. The arts bring in foreign tourists. They improve public health or support economic regeneration or improve social policy outcomes.
• Well, yes – the arts do all of those things, but I think it is only now that we are reaching a real understanding in our politics of why we support the arts.
• The Government supports the arts because of what they are in themselves and what they do for us individually and collectively. Whether an experience makes you laugh or cry, makes you angry or reflective, whether you are indifferent or powerfully affected by it, the arts in all their forms are hugely important in enriching our lives.  And so the arts are, and should remain, a key part of the programme of any Government that wants to transform society for the benefit of all.
   

Why we value the arts

• The very best that culture has to offer speaks to us as individuals and provides a kind of personal wealth, more than any material wealth, which lasts all our lives.
• The arts are also essential in projecting and developing our identities as communities and as a nation. They provide a cultural landscape in which we can understand ourselves, where we’ve come from and our potential. The arts are part of our “national conversation”.
• The arts are fundamental to our sense of place, whether its through the renewed interest in public art projects or the huge numbers of thriving arts festivals in towns and cities across the country. I don’t need to tell you about the effect that The Angel of the North has had, becoming an iconic symbol for the people of the North East. 
   
• More than ever, the arts reflect the diversity of our country. Our culture has always been shaped by influences from around the world. It is that openness to different experiences and the process of making connections between cultures that makes our culture uniquely British.
• And finally, the arts drive our creative economy.  I’m not just talking just about export figures here, important though they are – the arts contributed £13billion to the balance of trade in 2004.
• I mean that our creative confidence as a nation is fuelled by our cultural life. The cultural sector underpins the creative industries by supporting skills development and by providing the context in which creativity can thrive.

The record of this Government

• The arts, then, are finding their rightful place at the centre of our national life and politicians no longer feel embarrassed to talk about them. But the arts sector itself has also been transformed over the last ten years.
• Take theatre as an example. Ten years ago, many of our theatres were struggling to survive. In 1998/99, English regional producing theatres had an accumulated deficit of £4.4m: 30 out of the top 50 were in deficit, many were technically insolvent and 14 produced no new theatre at all.
• Over the last ten years, Government investment in the arts has increased by 73% in real terms. The Arts Council has been able to increase its funding to theatre by more than double.
• And the theatre sector has used that money and it has delivered:
  • Audiences increased by almost 40%.
  • 85% more new plays were produced in English theatres.
  • And there was an almost 60% increase in the number of young people involved in education programmes run by theatres.
• We’ve seen this transformation not only in theatre, but across other art forms, from our great symphony orchestras to dance and visual arts, and in the transformation of our cultural infrastructure supported by the Lottery.
• Last month we were able to announce above-inflation increases in funding for the arts. Despite a tight Spending Review, we have guaranteed a rise of 3.3% above inflation for the Arts Council over the next three years.
• Let me pay tribute to people working in the arts – many of you here today - who helped us make such a convincing case during the Comprehensive Spending Review.
• I am proud of the record of this Government in recognising and supporting the arts and I am proud of the great achievements that the arts sector has delivered with that investment.
   
  The U.S. and European funding models
• One fundamental reason why the arts have achieved so much over recent years is the model of support for the arts that we have in this country.
• In Europe the prevailing view is that culture should be funded primarily through public subsidy in order to preserve a smaller range of elite arts, often with close Government involvement, and how they connect with audiences is not necessarily a primary consideration.
• At the other end of the spectrum in the U.S., they don’t see such a strong argument for public subsidy and arts organisations have to rely much more on individual and corporate giving
• I’m not here to denigrate either of those models, and there are lessons for us in both of them. 
• But I do prefer our mixed economy model and I do believe it yields great advantages – not just in ensuring better resourced facilities and projects, but in ensuring freedom for the arts to express themselves in whatever way they choose.
• However: we are still not good enough at encouraging private giving.
• For me, private giving involves recognition that there is such a thing as society.  That the language of “rights and responsibilities” applies to the very rich as much as it does to the rest of us. Just as those people who have enjoyed the privilege of creating great wealth from working in this country have a responsibility to put something back into the country
• The establishment of academies, for example, has changed the way that people give to education. We now have a situation where people see that investing in schools in some of the country's most deprived areas is transforming education delivery. 10 years ago it never happened. I think we can aim for a similar transformation in the arts.
• And there are some very rich people in this country and some very successful businesses. While private giving is up – it increased 2.5% in real terms last year – the fact remains that there is great potential in private giving that we are not exploiting as successfully as we should.
• I’ll be honest with you and say that I do not believe tax breaks are a magic wand here. I don’t accept that the contribution to society of good and successful people depends upon a tax break.
• In fact, the long debate about tax breaks may have held us back in considering how we get smarter about encouraging a culture of private giving to the Arts.
• It may be about a stronger and more effective voice promoting private giving.  It may be about greater recognition by society of the contribution to the Arts by private givers.  It may be about transforming attitudes and the approach of those responsible for running arts organisations.

Entrepreneurial arts organisations

• The British model is different to both the European and U.S. models.
• Our model is very much a mixed economy, with funding coming from the box office, from the Arts Council, from local government, sponsorship and other commercial activity.
• Too often arts organisations have been seen as some kind of layabouts sponging subsidy off the state. And, if we’re honest, I think some arts organisations have seen themselves too much as being dependent on public subsidy.
• I think we need to change the language that we use to talk about arts organisations and arts funding.
• Stop talking about public subsidy start talking about public investment.
• Stop talking about charitable voluntary organisation.  Start talking about independent social enterprises.
• I know that arts organisations operate in one of the most competitive environments in existence: competing for audiences, competing for critical acclaim and competing to be true to their core artistic mission.
• To be successful, arts organisations need to be entrepreneurial, creative and diverse. Public funding provides the investment to support the core, enabling organisations to develop and to lever in support from commercial income, philanthropy and elsewhere.
• There is an increasing emphasis across Government on working with and through the dynamism and energy of the third sector and developing its capacity.
• I’ve seen it in other jobs I’ve had in Government, whether in education or social services for example. Entrepreneurial third sector organisations which are committed to public value but which don’t see themselves as part of a “command and control” public service monopoly.
• Arts organisations are essentially social enterprises and the rest of Government is learning lessons from that funding model.

“Arm’s-length principle” and Responding to John Tusa’s report

• At the heart of our model is the “arm’s length” principle. Politicians do not “run” the arts and nor should we.  The arts must be independent, oppositional and challenging.
• It should not be for the Government to decide what gets funded and what work is shown, any more than the Government should decide what television programmes are broadcast or what newspapers print.
• Like many people, I was shocked when I read about David Cameron's comments about not giving too many grants to one legged Lithuanian lesbians.  It’s just this sort of bigotry which demonstrates how appallingly dangerous it would be to let politicians decide which arts organisations get funding.
• This, coupled with the recommendations in yesterday's Conservative arts policy report which wants to give politicians a direct say over the running of major arts organisations, is deeply troubling.
• Breaking the arm's length principle and bringing the 'Big Five' arts companies under direct ministerial control would undo 60 years of achievement.  It would turn ministers into 'Cultural Commissars'. Outdated views like those held by David Cameron's would seriously damage artistic freedom and innovation.

Public accountability

• So I will strongly defend the arm’s length principle - it is not for the Government to run the arts.
• But it is right that the framework for arts funding should be publicly accountable.  Any discourse on the polities of the Arts needs to address the politics of distribution.  There are challenging questions which need to be addressed. Questions such as:
  • how do we define the arts?
  • how should we properly fund originality and innovation?
  • who decides what is artistic excellence?  Who should speak for the arts?
  • what role do audiences play in all this?  Do numbers count?
  • Is the role of the state only to fund those activities and organisations that can’t find money from other sources?
  • How do we ensure we nurture excellence across all the regions of the country and across all forms of art?

• These are legitimate questions which shouldn’t be decided by a select few meeting in private, but which should rightly be part of wider public debate.
• That’s why I very much welcome the work that the Arts Council has done on its public value enquiry “The Arts Debate”.
• The report of its findings was published earlier this week and, as you would expect, it identifies points of consensus and points of difference. There is a wealth of information which the Arts Council now need to take account of as they prepare their corporate plans for the coming period.
• As many of you will know, we have also asked Brian MacMaster to undertake a review of excellence in the arts, which will touch on many of these questions.
• The review will be running an online consultation throughout this month and I hope many of you will take part in it – you can access it via the DCMS website.

Vision for the role of the Arts Council

• The Arts Council, of course, is fundamental to the successful model for the investment in culture that I’ve been describing and we all have an interest in ensuring it is an effective and responsive organisation.
• It has some great achievements to its credit, not least the role it has played in transforming our arts infrastructure over the last ten years.
• But let me briefly set out now what I see as the five key roles for the Arts Council:
  • We need, firstly, an Arts Council which is robustly independent of Government. Yes, it should be publicly accountable and responsive - but it should not be afraid to take difficult decisions, to take risks and to challenge.
  • Second, I want to see an Arts Council which is one hundred per cent focused on artistic excellence and which has the respect of the arts sector for its expertise and knowledge of the arts.
  • No-one in this country deserves second-rate arts and public money should not be spent on anything that is not or does not have the potential to be excellent.
  • Third, the Arts Council needs to play an enabling role supporting effective and well-run organisations. I don’t underestimate the challenges there are in building a successful arts company. The sometimes difficult role the Arts Council plays supporting sound organisations is crucial.
  • Fourth, the Arts Council needs to play a development role for the sector as a whole. In areas such as skills development or new technology, for example, there is a valuable role which only the Arts Council can fulfil on behalf of the sector.
  • And finally, I would like to see the Arts Council play a stronger and more confident leadership role across the arts as a whole. The only way to make a real impact on broadening arts participation, for example, is to look beyond the Arts Council’s regularly funded organisations and work in partnership with the voluntary arts and the many organisations around the country which support participation in the arts.
• I think we are already seeing the emergence of an Arts Council which is more outward-looking, not just focused on its RFOs but also engaging with other stakeholders such as local government, RDAs, major broadcasters and other cultural institutions. I would encourage it to continue to build active engagement with the arts delivery network as a whole.

Future challenges

• We need an Arts Council that fulfils these roles now more than ever before. There are challenges ahead which will affect all of us:
  • We need to maintain our position as a world centre for excellence in the arts. We can never be complacent and take that position for granted.
  • New technology is already bringing huge changes to the way in which artistic content is generated, distributed and consumed – changes which will affect arts organisations everywhere and which we will need to respond to.
  • The familiar barriers between artforms, between professionals and amateurs and between the commercial and subsidised sectors, are increasingly breaking down.
  • And we still need to do more to broaden audiences and grow diversity among those who work in the arts, reaching out to underrepresented groups and deepening and enrich people’s experience of the arts.
• As I said at the beginning, I believe that people will look back at this time and recognise just what a change there has been in establishing confidently the place of the arts in our national life.
• There are some difficult challenges. But if the terrific achievements of the last ten years are anything to go by, I am confident that we can meet those challenges and make the most of the new opportunities they will bring.