During the first major debate in the House of Commons on the creative industries in over five years, Harriet Harman, the Shadow Culture Secretary, has called for the Government to recognise the non-economic benefits of the arts while protecting public subsidy of the sector.
Labour’s deputy leader criticised the Government for cutting Arts Council England and side-lining creative education. She also highlighted the lack of support from local authorities for cultural activities.
The debate followed an Early Day Motion signed by 59 MPs, the majority of which were Labour – only Zac Goldsmith from the Tories put his name to it. The motion called for the Government to recognise the importance of the arts to individuals, communities and the economy, and to take forward a strategy for the arts and creative industries.
Following the line set recently by Fiona Hyslop, the Scottish Culture Secretary, Harman was keen to discuss not only the economic benefits of the arts but their intrinsic value to society. She said: “The arts are central to the lives of individuals and communities across the country, to their sense of identity and sense of place and to their ability to achieve their human potential. The arts are not just good for the economy – they are good for the soul.”
Harman also accused the Government of failing to support art education. “For the sake of the future of creativity in this country, the arts must be at the heart of the curriculum. Without it, the next generation of creatives will suffer and there will be no economic benefits down the line.”
Positive result
Responding to the accusations, Culture Secretary Maria Miller said that the National Plan for Cultural Education would be published by the Education Department next month. This document, she said, would provide assurances on the Government’s commitment to nurturing engagement with the arts for future generations.
Miller also claimed that the ring-fenced 5% cut handed to Arts Council England (ACE) for 2015/16 was “welcomed” by the sector, and that the reason for the “positive outcome” was her focus on the economic benefits of the arts. She said: “There is a powerful financial argument to be made and I used this when effectively negotiating the level of cuts with the Treasury. It is the reason the result has been so positive.”
Miller was also quizzed on the future of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), which is itself facing an 8% cut. Although she confirmed the department would exist in 2015 there were no assurances of its position beyond that point.
Asked whether she had any plans to encourage local authority support of the arts, Miller claimed she was committed to ensuring that the “money we do have goes to the organisations and areas that need it the most, particularly rural areas.” Chris Heaton-Harris, MP for Daventry, queried this assertion by asking why ACE was giving 7% of its annual budget to the Royal Opera House when multiple smaller organisations elsewhere could be funded with this money. Miller didn’t offer a concrete explanation.
Artists offered their responses to the discussion, with the #artsdebate tag trending on Twitter. Writer, artist and AIR member Gabrielle Hoad tweeted: “There are many important arguments for the economic value of the arts, but they also enrich lives in ways that can’t be measured on balance sheets.” Poppy Corbett added: “It is time for the Government to show they understand why art matters.” Ed Torsney said: “Creativity and inspiration are mutually inclusive acts. It’s not a society without either one.”
Meanwhile, the Studio 74 art collective were dismissive of the whole debate. They said: “Not one of them qualified to talk about the arts!”
Add your voice to the conversation on Twitter using the tag #artsdebate
