Theatre

Drama at high noon was played out at the Young Vic last week when Peter Hewitt, the Arts Council England’s departing chief executive, came to explain to an angry, packed house – from Ian McKellen to David Edgar – why the Council has recommended that 194 companies – including the Drill Hall, London Bubble and Watermans Arts – should either be cut or have their grant reduced this April. Hewitt’s audience was clearly unimpressed by his arguments and the meeting concluded with a unanimous vote of no confidence in ACE, a dangerous move given that there are those who would like to see the Council disappear altogether.
Feature continues

Nobody ever enjoys losing their grant. But the 500-odd people who attended the meeting had more than usual to complain about. They disputed the decisions that had been made and the qualifications of those who had made them. They complained about a process which gave only five weeks for appeals to be made and which left the Council with very little time to review its decisions before next April. They also questioned why ACE has not published all the grants that have been awarded for the next three years.

In one corner was Hewitt, the tight-lipped arts bureaucrat, and in the other everyone else, including actors like Malcolm Sinclair, Samuel West and Patrick Malahide who know how to work an audience. Hewitt strongly supported the principle (never really questioned) that the Arts Council should be prepared to cut failing companies. He insisted that neither text-based companies, nor regional reps had been picked on (about which a good deal of paranoia was expressed), and that the good news was that 22 new theatre companies are being funded for the very first time. Seventy five per cent can expect an increase of inflation, and two hundred across all the art forms a substantial increase. There were few representatives of these companies attending the meeting to show their support.

Many of the threatened companies claimed that they had had nothing but glowing reports from their officers. This was hotly disputed by Hewitt, who said that ‘it was completely wrong to suggest that decisions were sudden’. If no prior warning was given, then ACE could be accused of failing to follow its own procedures. It is on this basis that Dedalus, a small publisher, is suing the Council (although the Council has threatened to ask for costs if it does). The most startling accusation came from Josie Rourke at the Bush Theatre. Bewilderingly, it has been told that it will receive a 40 per cent cut in its funding. Rourke amazed everyone when she recounted how the company had used the Freedom of Information Act to see the data that ACE held on its behalf and discovered that those figures underestimated the number of people visiting the Bush by two thirds! Assuming that the data is wrong for the Bush, may it not be wrong for other organisations as well?

Coincidentally, last week also saw the publication of Brian McMaster’s review into excellence which will set the criteria for all funding in the future. Many at the meeting couldn’t understand how ACE could have made such radical decisions in advance of its publication. (In fact, a draft copy of the report was prepared long before Christmas.) It won’t help the playwrights’ paranoia that out of all those consulted, only three of their profession were involved and all of them run theatres as well. Along with many exciting – some expensive – recommendations, the report proposes a return to the idea of peer review (an idea that was frequently called for at the meeting). A foreword from the Culture Secretary, James Purnell, recommends that artists should be trusted to do what they do best – ‘to create the most excellent work they can’ and to help them they should be freed from outdated structures and burdensome targets (again something that was demanded at the Young Vic).

In the light of the report, of the excessive number of clients cut, and of the macho speed with which major decisions were made last autumn, it seems sensible that a proper appeal process should be instated and that all companies should continue with their grants as they currently are until at least the end of June. As everyone has been told that the increases or reductions in grants are only recommendations, no new money can have been committed as yet. New clients can hardly now be informed that they are not going to be taken on board after all. But there has to be a proper examination in order for everyone to feel that a fair and transparent process has taken place.