|
The consultation time scale is unrealistic. It doesn’t allow for reasonable discussion of such radical proposals by companies (a) with their boards, since voluntary board members are not immediately available for meetings, (b) - for companies like Gwent that retain them - with Local Authority funders, who work to committee schedules, or (c) amongst themselves, when they are in the process of performing, producing programmes of work, and engaging in the current round of bidding for funds For these reasons we are able only to give a preliminary response based on one hastily convened board meeting and some soundings. Inevitably it will be disjointed and fragmentary, for which we apologise. But these shortcomings are themselves an indication of the deficiencies of this consultation process, and therefore, sadly, of its limited value in producing an outcome for Drama in Wales to which ACW’s present and prospective partners and other interested bodies have fully contributed. 1. Many of the proposals for young people’s theatre in the document contradict ACW’s aims and objectives now stated in three separate documents which are themselves to some extent contradictory. 2. The recent report ‘The Arts and Young People in Wales’ refers to ‘improving access to the arts for young people is an essential part of enabling society in Wales to respond to the challenges of the twenty first century’. The eight TIE companies provide access to and participation in the arts for thousands of young people every year and yet ACW are proposing reducing the very service that delivers the policy they are advocating. 2.1 Paragraph 6.2.4 also refers to a provisional target of reaching 57,000 young people a year by 2001/2002. In 1996/97, before the withdrawal of local authority funding, Gwent Theatre reached 25,000 young people through TIE alone. In 1997/98 the company reached 25,800 young people with a combination of TIE, Outreach Workshops, Youth Theatre and performances. On the basis of our figures alone it would appear that 57,000 represents a considerable reduction in service. We fail to see how restructuring provision of Theatre for Young People by offering four franchises anticipating ‘all Wales coverage’ can possibly provide a comparable service with existing or previous activity. 2.2 In the ACW’s Draft Corporate Plan paragraph 5.2 refers to the growing recognition of the contribution of the arts to education, community regeneration, social inclusion and health opening up opportunities for artists and arts organisations. TIE has traditionally always worked in these areas. 2.3 The Arts and Young People Action Plan seeks to increase access for young people to arts events and encourage venues and events promoters to have a policy for education/outreach work. Gwent Theatre already has a policy of providing performances, workshops and a youth theatre service for young people. Any cuts to our company will jeopardise these activities and the additional funding we receive for this provision. 3. In our response to ‘Building a Creative Society’ we raised concern at the blurring of distinction between TYP and TIE. The consultation paper does nothing to clarify ACW’s definition or attitude towards these two linked but distinctive disciplines. If ACW is proposing to cease funding TIE, but to cater for young people by funding children’s theatre and plays for large young audiences, then it should say so. All concerned would then understand what is proposed and could respond accordingly. 4. Paragraph 5.1 of the Draft Strategy states ‘ACW’s financial commitment to this new structure, and taking account of scale, will be no less than its support to the young people’s theatre/TIE element in the current eight company supported model.’ Paragraph 5.5 refers to four franchises of £180,000 each amounting to £720,000. It continues by saying ‘that these would be larger sums than the current average grant of £111,057 for the eight existing companies, a total of £888,000.’ What use is proposed for the balance of £168,000? 4.1 In 6.2.4 of the draft Corporate Plan a figure of £836,000 (including transitional costs) is given as the figure for Theatre for Young People. This figure does not correspond with the above figure of £720,000. Presumably the difference of £116,000 refers to transitional costs and if so what do they represent? 4.2 We would question the level of funding proposed for the four franchises on the basis that servicing larger areas or regions will inevitably lead to higher marketing, travel, subsistence and administrative costs. The ‘national role’ needs further explanation and the extent of regional coverage needs clearer definition. 5. Companies, boards and local authorities need to know how the franchises will work before they can comment upon them. Whilst ‘the franchises will not tightly define style, scale or nature of delivery.... and could [our emphasis - gwent] seek to define the regional coverage...’ might be presented as statements of desirable flexibility at this stage, in a consultation they are unpardonably vague. 6. We feel that there has not been full consultation with local authorities and that the very uncertainty of the proposals could well put existing funding in jeopardy. There is doubt as to whether an organisation needing to promote itself to a wider region could maintain the same level of local involvement and level of service. The establishment of two large WNPAC companies at the expense of community and TIE touring will effectively reduce access to live theatre for many people living in the rural and valley communities of Wales. 7. Project grants don’t provide a real structure for the lives of artists in Wales or the development of strategies and the establishment of four franchised companies will lead to loss of jobs and job opportunities driving people out of Wales to seek work or even changing careers. 8. The network of TIE provision across Wales has long been held up as a model of the most comprehensive theatre in education provision in the UK and is the envy of other countries. The companies have already survived LMS and Reorganisation of Local Government, albeit with a loss of funding, and now we find ourselves being decimated by an ill conceived cost cutting exercise which blatantly ignores the precarious funding partnerships that have been secured with many local authorities and other funding organisations. Given the size and population of the Republic of Ireland , their public arts provision is not necessarily the best model to follow. 9. A strategic foundation for further development of access and participation of young people in the arts already exists and the small investment required to secure this service would lead to a comprehensive provision of TIE and YPT meeting the needs of arts in education, social inclusion, community regeneration and delivering many of the aims and objectives of theatre for young people across Wales. SUMMARY 1. In our view this document does not present a strategy or vision for Drama and totally ignores the networks and relationships which have been developed with local authorities, schools and other agencies which are threatened by the proposals in this document. 2. We question whether four franchised companies can possibly maintain ‘all Wales coverage’, deliver services to the same standard and frequency and sustain the same level of local involvement. 3. We feel that there has not been full consultation or dialogue with local authorities and companies and that such radical changes should not be implemented until after the election of the National Assembly when there should be a full public debate 4. The proposals for franchises are unclear and confusing and the time scale is impractical given the timetable of local authority budgetary processes and companies’ contractual commitments. We enter into agreement with LA’s for an agreed level of service for 12 months yet ACW are asking us to budget on the basis of 9 months funding. 5. Companies should be given funding which will allow them to continue their planned programme of work until the end of the financial year 2000. 6. We were asked to submit our estimates for 1999/2000 on the basis of a 3% increase. We understand that the final settlement from the Welsh Office was 2.8%. We strongly maintain that this increase should be passed on to all Drama clients. The above comments are in direct response to issues that affect our company and TIE/YPT provision. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We would also like to make the following observations:- With reference to the proposal to discontinue revenue support for Hijinx Theatre. Hijinx is one of the few remaining companies that tours to village halls and community venues and the only company to make specific provision for special needs audiences. To relegate this company to the uncertainty of project funding is to deny them any kind of artistic planning, continuity, development or sustainability. In the absence of any clear vision for the Sherman Theatre it is difficult to make an informed response other than to say that there appears to be no mainstream provision for a producing company in the capital and maybe this is a role that should be considered for the Sherman together with new writing and the existing provision they make for Youth Theatre and young people. Gwent Theatre |
| Gwent Theatre web site: www.gwenttie.co.uk |
| e-mail: |
Monday, February 1, 1999 |
Older news
stories have been carefully archived.
2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999