A Preface:
The TMA is membership organisation providing a support network for the larger scale professional performing arts organisations in the UK. Our membership includes over 300 producing and presenting theatres and companies, of which 24 are venues or producing companies in Wales.
Our response to the consultation paper is in two parts, with comments on:
* the process of consultation
* the content of the strategy
B Process:
A consultation time scale of 21 Jan - March 1 is quite unrealistic for serious, reasoned comment and analysis upon changes with major financial implications for individual organisations, especially when these organisations are managed by voluntary boards whose members are not immediately available for meetings. This time scale does not allow reasonable analysis of the implications for individual organisations or for the development of the art form nationally. Such rushed processes cannot aid good decision making.
A curtailed consultation period followed by an already explicit programme/ timetable of future development suggests, however wrongly, either that certain decisions are prejudged or that there is a predilection towards certain outcomes. For example the statement in 5.6 that ACW intends to negotiate with existing local authority partners in advance of deciding on the YPT franchises could be seen as suggesting that applications from those authority areas would have a better chance of success. By abutting the future programme so closely to the phasing out of present funding it would appear that some companies will not know their future funding for the next financial year almost until that year commences. The implications of that for continued good management of funded companies should be clear.
We also question the practicality of the short consultation period and tight time scale for implementation in relation to the longer timetable of local authority budgetary processes, with fears that this will adversely affect partnership funding, as well as risking goodwill and working relationships with those authorities by not working alongside their timetable. We are also concerned that the proposed timetable for implementation does not recognise the contractual commitments of companies whose future may be curtailed by the proposals.
We question whether what has been described by ACW's Chief Executive as a radical and far reaching policy - and one which therefore will clearly change the performing arts landscape of Wales - should be apparently rushed through now prior to the imminent establishment of the Welsh Assembly. Would it not be better to hold proposals for such major changes until the assembly is in place?
We have also found it extremely difficult to discern the line of thinking and argument behind the proposals for franchise funding of YPT companies in section 5. While we set out below what we understand to be the process, given the difficulty we have had we question how open this makes this part of the consultation process and how realistic it is to expect board members of the organisations affected to be able to understand, and therefore comment upon, the very significant changes proposed.
C Content
We are very concerned at the statement that professional theatre receives the highest amount of ACW's funding and the new strategy will be funded from within current levels of support to drama. [Para 1.2] This short statement implies a major policy decision in respect of funding allocation between sectors and does not appear to be supported by any arguments within the paper as to why such a change should be made. What are the arguments for making such a change? The implicit assumption would appear to be to cut professional theatre simply because it currently receives the largest share of funding - arguably precisely the opposite case should apply.
This highlights a theme which worries us throughout the paper. It would appear that the policies proposed are driven on economic grounds. [e.g. the prime concerns in para 2.1 are all financial.] We do not see arguments about the quality and delivery of provision as driving the financial outcomes proposed.
This concern is heightened by some apparently loose expressions about theatre [para 1.1 a spectrum from traditional 'well made plays' created for proscenium arch theatres']. In particular the statement in para 4.3.9. about a move away from older style repertory theatres to solutions that are more appropriate for needs today suggests a lack of understanding about the place of repertory producing theatre within the whole network of UK theatre provision. There is a process of change and review taking place in many repertory theatres about the role they serve. Consequently some are taking in touring productions while others are splitting their focus between presenting and producing. But those who appear to be in the midst of a successful process of change, such as Harrogate, have invested considerable time and energy in identifying the best and most appropriate way to serve the community within which they are situated. In other cases such as Birmingham Rep there has been a very significant increase in the scale of their producing activity. To suggest that repertory theatres are inappropriate simply because they are older style is:
to appear to make assumptions about 'old' not still being relevant or good per se, which is clearly not the case and sets up concerns for us about the lack of rigour of thinking and analysis behind these proposals,
not to recognise that repertory theatre is one way amongst several of delivering drama to audiences, and that it may be the most relevant in some situations. But the solution needs to be appropriate for each venue and the community it serves, and to be debated and reviewed locally.
What strikes us as particularly curious about the phrase is that in our view none of the existing repertory theatres in Wales would seem to fall into any category of what we understand may be meant by older style in any case. Each has a very distinctive and different focus or style of operation.
The general statement in para 4.3.9 implies the imposition of an inappropriate national policy, and perhaps one based on an incomplete understanding of the current range of theatre provision in the UK and the developments which are taking place.
Returning to the opening statement that the new strategy [for professional theatre] will be funded from within current levels of support to drama our contention would be that were the 2.8% increase received for the Welsh Office to be applied equally to professional drama then some of the economically driven changes which are proposed would not need to be implemented. We strongly maintain that overall funding for professional theatre in Wales should be increased in line with the increase in funding received by ACW and that without this the commitments to the arts expressed in ACW's Corporate Plan and Objectives are not being met.
While the report refers in para 1.3 to Most responses to consultation on professional theatre argued for change, our understanding is that these responses were expressed in relation to an earlier briefing paper and we question whether they should be used to support the extensive changes now proposed. We also question whether in the previous consultation, the concept of franchises was ever proposed by the respondents as one of area of change. It would be clearer to set out the franchise proposals as that of ACW itself.
4.2 Welsh National Performing Arts Companies
We question the apparent imbalance between the English language funded company based at Clwyd Theatr Cymru for which funding is proposed of 1 million, and that of the Welsh language company based between Theatr Gwynedd and Theatr Bara Caws for which no additional funding is proposed. While we recognise this lack of parity is explicit in Para 4.2.6 we believe there should be much greater parity between the two national companies.
4.3 Building Based Companies
4.3.2 The Torch is expected to extend touring to the mid-scale but is not to receive any extra funding to enable them to deliver this successfully, which we question.
4.3.3-7 We do not understand why the role of the Sherman is seen as problematic or why ACW does not want what is currently provided by the theatre? What are the arguments for the theatre not continuing its present role, given that the work of the Millennium Centre is more familiar than is implied within para 4.3? We do not believe there is a need to wait for the opening of the Millennium Centre in order to agree a sound future for the Sherman.
6.1.6 When this paragraph offers the possibility of one option for the as a 'safe house' for new writing, it raises the question of how far ACW recognises the present work of the theatre. Having produced over 90 new plays in the last 10 years, this is what the theatre already does and the Sherman has a long and proven track record of supporting and promoting new writing. We would therefore question how this role could realistically be developed, especially with no extra funding and no apparent recognition of the additional development costs which form an integral part of supporting new writing.
5 Theatre for Young People
Our first concern is that this section refers only to Theatre for Young People (TYP) and not to TIE, which is part of the existing provision. This, taken with the text suggests a major change in provision for schools in that what is being proposed is to reduce the availability of provision of TIE in schools and replace it with four franchises for TYP. However this change is neither explicit nor is there any explanatory line of argument suggesting the reasons for such a change and its artistic and educational benefits. Without any such benefits being apparent we oppose this abolition of the methodology and practice of current TIE provision, and the service this provides to the future audiences for Welsh drama, which seems especially significant given that education is one of the Government's major policy aims.
We find the proposals for the change to franchise organisations difficult to comprehend clearly. To us the paper is complex and confusing. Initially it appears that ACW's financial commitment to the new structure to be no less than its support to TYP/TIE element in the current eight company model [i.e. total funding of approx. 888,456] is contradicted by the lesser 720,000 total for the proposed four new franchises, showing an apparent shortfall on current spending of 168,000. However one interpretation could be that there has been an arbitrary view taken as to the proportion of funding at present given to those TYP/TIE companies whose conditions of grant state that their funding is for the twofold purposes of support towards the cost of production and a contribution towards the cost of touring productions in Wales. It would appear the view has been taken that 80% of current funding supports the production of TIE/TYP and that the remaining 20% is for wider work for the community through support towards the cost of touring productions, since if this latter sum is removed from current funding it provides the reduced total sum being made available for franchise funding of TYP work. If our interpretation is correct then this would appear to hide a policy decision no longer to support community theatre touring. It would also appear to contradict the aims of ACW's Corporate Plan. We would object to the reduction of funding for what we see as an essential component of theatre provision in Wales, as well as to the lack of clarity of the document in setting out this change of policy.
We question whether reducing the eight currently funded companies to be replaced by four franchised organisations can achieve the explicit aims to reach large numbers of people in Wales. This is especially pertinent given the geography of Wales which makes extensive travel from a single geographical base very difficult. To reach some schools in the country for a one-day visit from only four bases may be effectively impossible? Further, if it is proposed that four companies service the same geographical area as that now served by eight, their travel, marketing and some other budgets will need to be substantially higher than those of the present companies.
We are concerned that if this consultation paper is cross referenced to the Corporate Plan, the provisional targets set there in Para 6.2.4. are for reaching 57,000 young people by 2001/2002. Yet from what we know from just one of our own members amongst the eight existing TIE companies, they reached almost 26,000 young people through a combination of performances, workshops and TIE, which would imply that the proposed franchises will be deliver a numerical reduction in service to young people in Wales.
We are conscious that there is high regard in the UK, and abroad, for the work of the present eight company model, which does deliver to so many schools. ACW's Briefing Consultation Paper response referred to this model as ACW's greatest success,... a unique network ... greatly admired by colleagues in many countries. Given these companies' reputation and standing we believe any case for change, and certainly change which will reduce their number by half, has to be argued very strongly on the grounds of quality of provision, not of financial expediency and resources as made in section 5. Aside from general comments [This network ... is now severely under-resourced; and is attempting to support far more than elsewhere - the latter surely being a case for congratulation not condemnation] we do not see any arguments which demonstrate that present resources do not allow these companies to deliver effectively.
We are also conscious of the apparent conflict between ACW's proposals to half the number of these companies and the clear priorities from a UK Government which include the key role of education and the issue of social exclusion - both at the core of the work of these companies. We remain to be convinced if four companies can deliver on these objectives as well as those companies in the present network.
D Conclusion
We have commented above on some aspects of the proposed changes which worry us. We are extremely concerned
at the speed of both the consultation process and of the subsequent implementation of the changes put forward within it,
with the apparent lack of artistic justification for some of the changes proposed.
On the basis of the case made in the Consultation Paper and our knowledge of the existing work of our member organisations, and others, we do not believe that many of the changes proposed will either benefit drama in Wales or provide an improved service for the communities served by the existing supported theatres and companies. We hope that ACW will respond to our own concerns in this paper and those expressed by theatre companies in Wales by amending some of the radical changes proposed.
|
