(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

Culture department braces itself for redundancies of up to 50%

Jeremy Hunt has submitted plans to Treasury proposing deep cuts in staff and a move to smaller government building

Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt
Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt has submitted his cuts programme to the Treasury. Photograph: Teri Pengilley

Up to one in two of the staff at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are to be made redundant as part of the cuts programme submitted to the Treasury by the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt.

Hunt has also proposed moving out of the well-appointed departmental headquarters in Cockspur Street, just off Trafalgar Square, with the remaining staff finding room in a different, existing departmental building.

In a move which will send a chill through the arts world, Hunt, who has proposed cuts of between 35% and 50% of all staff, believes he will not be able to win support for the coming deep cuts in arts and media budgets unless he leads by example.

All government departments have been told by the Treasury to offer cuts of between 25% and 40% of total budgets. Some departments have failed to meet the Treasury deadline or are refusing to produce 40% cuts, saying it is not realistic to do so, and therefore a waste of time.

Ministers who settle early with the Treasury have been told they can then sit on the star chamber set up to arbitrate on departments that refuse to settle until September or October.

The DCMS, even now still referred to in some circles as the "Ministry of fun", has one of the smallest of Whitehall budgets at £2.1bn, compared to, for example, the defence budget of more than £36bn. It also has one of the smallest workforces – 590 of the 468,700 civil servants employed by central government.

Arts organisations are bracing themselves for a torrid time because Hunt wants to keep publicly-subsidised free entry to national museums, on the basis that it improves tourism and the wider creative economy. An initial trawl has also found little suggestion of waste or mismanagement in the preparation for the Olympics in 2012.

This effectively leaves arts, media and heritage. The DCMS has already asked the biggest arts organisations to provide models of how they would implement cuts of 25-30% over four years, and what the effects would be.

Arts Council England, which receives £445m to give out to 850 organisations around the country, has warned that it would have to stop funding for at least 200 organisations. Arts Council England's chief executive, Alan Davey, this month wrote to all its regularly funded organisations outlining the bleakness of the climate and asking them to at least be prepared by modelling for a 10% reduction in funding for the next financial year. But while arts leaders realise they cannot be immune to cuts, they are not prepared to go down without a fight.

Last week, aware that Hunt was seeking an early DCMS settlement, the leaders of some of the UK's biggest arts organisations – such as the Tate, National Theatre and RSC – gathered in London where they warned that 25% cuts would irreparably damage the arts.

They argue that only tiny amounts are spent on the arts in any event – just 0.07% of the public purse – and for every pound invested at least £2 comes back into UK coffers. The RSC's Vicky Heywood warned that drastic cuts would mean fewer productions, less travelling and higher ticket prices.

The government is hoping to plug funding cuts by encouraging more private philanthropy but it is a route fraught with problems, not least the danger of safer, more conservative programming. Some of the UK's most generous private donors, including Sir John Riblat and Anthony D'Offay, have also written to ministers pointing out that they give as an addition to, not a substitute for, public spending.

The potential for a cuts programme to lead to the closure of a prominent theatre company is exercising minds in Whitehall. Hunt, though, is determined that by setting an example through attacking staff and bureaucracy surplus in his own department he will be able to persuade arts groups, museums and galleries to focus on their administrative cost base rather than frontline services.

If enormous cuts are, as seems likely, announced in the October spending review, many in the arts world are lobbying for them to be phased in gradually.

The cuts that will be batted about within Whitehall will come on top of some £73m of cuts already decided by the DCMS, including the cancellation of the £25m Stonehenge visitors centre; the suspension of the £12m libraries modernisation programme; cancelling the £45m contribution for a new BFI film centre; and axing free swimming for the young and elderly.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Post a comment
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

  • Foyez5 Foyez5

    20 Jul 2010, 10:33PM

    Why not just do away with the dept huh, i mean maybe he can do the work all himself from just one office. The treasury will probably love him to no end.

  • Burntfaceman Burntfaceman

    20 Jul 2010, 10:45PM

    Brilliant, cut the expense by 50% and tell the unemployed and those on dla that if they want to keep their benefits they have to; volunteer to man libraries, museums, clean the parks of litter, clean and lick your boots, feed the hounds before and after the fox hunt and cut the wisteria of your country pile (even though you can claim it as expenses)...

    "Hurrah!! Trebles of Bolly all round Gideon...stoke the fire with another unemployed yoof Boris..."

  • jascow jascow

    20 Jul 2010, 10:48PM

    Good. We have to concentrate on more important departments than "culture, media and sport" when we have a budget deficit of £155 billion and national debt of £926 billion to contend with.

  • mcscotty mcscotty

    20 Jul 2010, 10:49PM

    The sad thing about this article is that it is bound to be met with glee by so many, who think that British culture is due such little respect that it can be well-represented from an office in a broom cupboard in the Department of Fisheries. Which other country would treat its national culture as if it was an embarrassing insignificant thing??

  • DerekBeef DerekBeef

    20 Jul 2010, 10:52PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Iputittoyou Iputittoyou

    20 Jul 2010, 10:53PM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • ClareLondon ClareLondon

    20 Jul 2010, 10:53PM

    I don't think it's possible for a human being to look more pleased with himself than that picture of Jeremy Hunt at the top. Thrilled with his power, ecstatic with all the attention he's now getting, he could not look more gloating if he practised 12 hours a day. Could he perhaps try to look just a touch more modest about himself next time he's photographed so we're not all sick?

    New Labour was failed us, let us down so badly many of us defected in disgust.

    But - I knew this would be worse. These egotistical, powerful men all currently with very swollen heads - very dangerous.

  • Sceptic101 Sceptic101

    20 Jul 2010, 10:56PM

    Abolish the department and delegate its responsibilties to the Department of Trade (or whatever they're calling it now). Investment can then be made on the basis of creating jobs, assets and generating income.

  • HedgehogYum HedgehogYum

    20 Jul 2010, 10:57PM

    blah blah middle classes, blah blah upper classes. If you noticed that in my state of anger and shock, I used in correct grammar (Guardian could you please allow us to re-edit our posts). Us lower-middle classes could be upset about the prospect of loosing culture as well... people stop being smug and taking the piss. This is truly upsetting.

  • scopey scopey

    20 Jul 2010, 11:00PM

    The middle classes won't get theatre tickets subsidised for a few years. Shame.

    @MuesliChoker
    Sorry mate - when is culture not for the working classes?

    Ever heard of The Beatles?

  • timdiggles timdiggles

    20 Jul 2010, 11:00PM

    Perhaps I was dreaming but don't we have an Olympics coming up soon? I worked for over 30 years in the arts, usually with some form of Arts Council subsidy, and a few years ago they were very very keen that the arts were a central part of the nation's Olympic festivities. Ah well... I have always found arts organisations to be very efficient - for one thing they usually pay people about a quarter they would get doing similar work elsewhere, encourage thousands to volunteer, work with people most others don't want to touch and are the reason many tourists come to Britain. I think you only have to look at the USA (and yes I have done loads and loads of work there) to see the paucity of arts without the subsidies we have here. Foundations and others put huge support in but most is for bland safe arts, in Britain I hope we can still offer the alternative edgy arts work which makes us at least lead the World in one thing.

  • CptAnguish CptAnguish

    20 Jul 2010, 11:05PM

    Obviously somebody has decided to take Stalin's comment on culture and reaching for his revolver literally. This is just another abitrary and poorly thought out decision by the Government. Once again another aspect of the public sector is being burnt on the ConDems ideological bonfire with little thought of the wider impact that this will have.

    I sincerely hope that this 50% cut does not come about for the sake of the poor staff at DCMS who now face the spectre of redundancy,

    As for the usual right wing deficit hawks who will ineviably post crowing comments on 'non jobs', 'magic money trees' and 'labour spent all the money' - have you no shame!

  • ant85 ant85

    20 Jul 2010, 11:07PM

    This isn't just about posh people going to the opera. Museums and galleries provide centres of education and participation of familes. They also give a national idenity. The point that the arts council is trying to get across is as a department they have been financially responsible so why should they have the most servere cuts due to other departments greed?

  • KurtS KurtS

    20 Jul 2010, 11:07PM

    The Condems and the toryban tendency have no idea how despised they are going to be in five years time, and, and hopefully writers and artists and others of the ilk will help spread the word

  • Numbed Numbed

    20 Jul 2010, 11:07PM

    what a little tory poster boy Mr Hunt is.

    so, the arts returns £2 for every £1 spent and yet costs only 0.07% of public spending and it gets cut by up to 50%.

    Guess the country doesn't need it's money back with 100% interest...

    please can someone tell me which other government funded sector provides this much value for money or return on its investment?

  • Salohcin Salohcin

    20 Jul 2010, 11:10PM

    Abolish the department and delegate its responsibilties to the Department of Trade (or whatever they're calling it now). Investment can then be made on the basis of creating jobs, assets and generating income

    @Sceptic101
    Have you read the article?

    for every pound invested at least £2 comes back into UK coffers

    Seems fairly unambiguous to me that investment in the arts is already generating income, jobs and assets.

  • Volvobollox Volvobollox

    20 Jul 2010, 11:11PM

    And so continues the Tory party's hate-hate affair with the 'c-word'.

    I recall a classic putdown by Tony Banks on Terry Dicks who opposed government funding for the arts:

    Listening to him is like listening to Vlad the Impaler present Blue Peter. He is undoubtedly living proof that a pig's bladder on a stick can be elected as a Member of Parliament

  • Mikeydoollee Mikeydoollee

    20 Jul 2010, 11:13PM

    What a lot of crap.

    No one saves their way out of recession.

    Brace for a double dip, and if you have a 2nd passport it might be time to start dusting it off.

    Whose fault is this Guardian? Fucking Lib Dems indeed.

    FUCK!

  • BtheI BtheI

    20 Jul 2010, 11:14PM

    Anybody cheering this is an unutterable moron who hasn't read the article.

    Last week, aware that Hunt was seeking an early DCMS settlement, the leaders of some of the UK's biggest arts organisations – such as the Tate, National Theatre and RSC – gathered in London where they warned that 25% cuts would irreparably damage the arts.

    They argue that only tiny amounts are spent on the arts in any event – just 0.07% of the public purse – and for every pound invested at least £2 comes back into UK coffers. The RSC's Vicky Heywood warned that drastic cuts would mean fewer productions, less travelling and higher ticket prices.

    Read that. Then read it again, slowly and more carefully.

    What that means is that cuts will actually hurt the public purse by reducing income more than expenditure. That's the last thing you want to do.

    And whilst the exact numbers might be debatable, a return of 200% is quite resistant to rounding down.

    This cut is unjustified, likely to do damage that will continue for decades and highly recessionary.

  • scopey scopey

    20 Jul 2010, 11:20PM

    @MuesliChoker

    Read the article. Then read what you have written. This is about British culture - enjoyed by everyone, from all classes, here and abroad - not your blinkered view of it.

  • JedBartlett JedBartlett

    20 Jul 2010, 11:20PM

    Seems to me that there is a rather easier answer here.

    'This effectively leaves arts, media and heritage.'

    Just have the National Lottery fund these things instead of the current Big Lottery Fund/Charity stream. Charities can look after themself.

  • Whiz76 Whiz76

    20 Jul 2010, 11:20PM

    @mcscotty

    you're pleased that culture and creativity is being cut? both are what britain thrives on!

    the arts map our culture and log our history. todays arts and crafts and literature is the futures heritage.

    so many short sighted cretins about ...

  • PeterS378 PeterS378

    20 Jul 2010, 11:22PM

    Read that. Then read it again, slowly and more carefully.

    What that means is that cuts will actually hurt the public purse by reducing income more than expenditure.

    Assertions aren't facts. Where's the evidence?

  • nonsociopathskin nonsociopathskin

    20 Jul 2010, 11:25PM

    Culture, humbug!

    Is there no Big Brother? Is there no Cheryl, Kylie or SuBo? Is there not the Blessed Simon Cowell, He Who Makes Much Monies from Muzak? Is there no Jedward? Its there no Ant and Dec? Is there no Murdoch? Is there no Channel Dave?

    Prolefeed means profit. Prolefeed is our friend.

    The Skin

  • Sceptic101 Sceptic101

    20 Jul 2010, 11:30PM

    @Salohcin
    I think we're in agreement. I'm suggesting that we save money by closing a rewdundant department and transferring its responsibilities to one that can do the job. I'm not denying that the arts make money (and contribute in other better ways as well).

  • Kepler Kepler

    20 Jul 2010, 11:30PM

    The Nasty Party have always distrusted culture, and can't see why they should fund a bunch of pinko playwrights.

    Fair play.

    What they don't understand is the way the cultural economy creates jobs. Nor do they understand the kudos the arts give Britain.

    Their idea of culture is looking at paintings of horses, dogs and aristocrats in between cheering home dead soldiers. Resurrecting 'Trafalgar Day' can't be far away.

    The opposition will have to pull up its socks and get opposing. Cheaply.

  • Numbed Numbed

    20 Jul 2010, 11:32PM

    @jedbartlett

    Seems to me that there is a rather easier answer here.

    'This effectively leaves arts, media and heritage.'

    Just have the National Lottery fund these things instead of the current Big Lottery Fund/Charity stream. Charities can look after themself.

    the national lottery funding for the arts will rise to 20% after the olympics. the olympics has been diverting money from the arts for several years now.

    It will never and should never fund it in totality as the lottery needs to and should fund across the charitable sectors.

    Private funding for charities equates to less than that as well. As many philanthropists have pointed out this week and last they invest in the arts alongside of government funding and cannot been seen as the complete funders for the arts, especially when the majority of output is for the benefit and used by the public as a public service.

    The public sector is being shredded and many charities are now closing or finding huge financial holes that they just can't plug through private giving.

    and why should they?

    these are public services and more than that, the money invested in culture has large financial returns, provides millions with employment and is one of the major reasons for tourism in the UK.

  • Artemis24 Artemis24

    20 Jul 2010, 11:35PM

    So many idiotic comments here that it's hard to know where to start.

    Perhaps here:

    Leeds City Council long ago realised that involvement in The Arts should be embedded in every strata of local government.

    Policing/crime: getting young people involved in art, drama, music, creative writing, sports, photography, film-making, dance and more prevents boredom and we all know who makes work for idle hands ...

    Health: sport and the arts (see list above) can dramatically improve quality of life, lessening depression, inaction ETC. One forward thinking PCT (Liverpool) refers isolated elderly people to an arts scheme where they have the chance to be creative, learn something new and socialise. Value? Undoubtedly: fewer precsriptions for antidepressants, greater mental agility, better quality of life.

    Environment - one quick example: the Art Valley scarecrow trail and bike path - beautifying local trouble spots, reclaiming them for public use and encouraging exercise. (See also public art, recycled art, world famous artists.)

    Education: all of the above - learn whilst having fun plus exhibitions, galleries, festivals, competitions ...

    Leisure - do I really need to spell it out???

    The Arts affect every aspect of out life - so think before firing off your Hurrahs! for the cuts.

    I run a small poetry organisation. We organise regular open mic events attended by between 70-90 people from across the socio-economic scale: lorry drivers, unemployed, elderly, university staff, students, prize-winning writers, the mentally ill, dockers ... We have created a community - something the Coalition are ever so keen on. After having been funded for 18 years, we lost our Arts Council grants (too small to be funded regularly) and have run on volunteers (ie me!) for the past three years. I take on other employment so that I can afford to keep the group running and I'm knackered - Big Society, anyone?

    The Arts is not just Shakespeare, Opera and Ballet. But what if it were? We have an international reputation in these areas.

    And what about the BBC (TV and Radio)? I'd defend its funding because I've seen the alternative.

    We should be increasing access to The Arts not cutting it!

  • DrJoel DrJoel

    20 Jul 2010, 11:38PM

    by setting an example through attacking staff and bureaucracy surplus in his own department he will be able to persuade arts groups, museums and galleries to focus on their administrative cost base rather than frontline services.

    The move is a clear signal that old habits will no longer suffice.

    The Treasury demands and receives cuts. The Department is not merely passing on the cuts, but taking as much of a hit as it can. It has a realistic view of its own role. The Department has yet to write a truly great symphony or play. At least they don't pretend.

    A new way of working seems inevitable, all down the line. It is a bad time for those who have prospered by milking the system. But not necessarily a bad time for creators and practitioners. The cuts will fall disproportionately on administrators. The higher their salary, the louder they will squeal. Yet they were content for years to see creators starved of opportunity.

    When the dust settles, there is likely to be a much more level playing field. Incumbency and "relationships" will no longer be the main qualification in the publicly funded arts. Most public funding will no longer be closed to application. Opportunity and achievement will be more widespread.

    The recession will pass, hopefully sooner rather than later. Then the people of England will have a funding system that is worthy of them, free of the old habits. Sometimes a crisis is an opportunity.

  • mcscotty mcscotty

    20 Jul 2010, 11:40PM

    @WHIZ

    @mcscotty

    you're pleased that culture and creativity is being cut? both are what britain thrives on!

    the arts map our culture and log our history. todays arts and crafts and literature is the futures heritage.

    so many short sighted cretins about ...

    Can you please read my comment again and tell me how on earth you reach the above conclusion about it???

    I'd agree with you on one thing though - there are a lot of short-sighted cretins about.

  • Numbed Numbed

    20 Jul 2010, 11:46PM

    @drJoel

    truly the largest dollop of tosh.

    why is it realistic to view the DCMS as 50% redundant?

    Who is milking the system?

    and how do creators and practititioners benefit when the grassroots funding is cut that would give them employment, training and career development. Not to mention established practitioners continuing to evolve their skills and larger scale projects that need investment from multiple sources in order to turn a project into a national or international success?

    there's no level playing field here, there's not even likely to be a playing field if the cuts are this severe. you can have that little hard, dirt yard to use instead - unfit for purpose.

    I've read your posts regularly and i know you have the largest bunch of sour grapes because your locality doesn't get the public funding you feel it deserves, but your attitude is divisive and unhelpful.

    in one post you ask for funding for the work in your area, in the next you say that no one deserves, because you don't have any.

    yes, there are aspects of the arts ecology that need to change, but you're not helping.

  • synchingfeeling synchingfeeling

    20 Jul 2010, 11:47PM

    Hunt, who has proposed cuts of between 35% and 50% of all staff, believes he will not be able to win support for the coming deep cuts in arts and media budgets unless he leads by example.

    I don't understand this at all. Why would the arts sector in any way welcome cuts to the DCMS office, and consider it an act of leadership? Surely it can only lead to around 50% less understanding, availability, morale and capacity for advocacy within a government department already saddled with a poor reputation for effectiveness in Whitehall. What's the example to be followed exactly? Should theatres, orchestras and art collections be evacuated from their 'well-appointed' venues and downshifted to mobile accommodation, empty industrial estates or landfill sites? This isn't 'leading by example', it's just execrable attention-seeking behaviour from a careerist minister looking for a gold star for outstanding performance from No11.

  • Salohcin Salohcin

    20 Jul 2010, 11:55PM

    @Sceptic101
    I'm not sure that closing an already successful department is a particularly effective way to saving money.
    In your vision would current DCMS quangos be attached the new expanded department you would like to create? If not, then what would happen to the statutory responsibilities that many DCMS quangos undertake? English Heritage for instance are responsible for Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings. You can't scrap those responsibilities, nor the staff to undertake them. You could scrap the quango, but would have to take staff in house again - all that rewriting of contracts, re-branding, re-location would, one imagines, be very expensive.

  • DrJoel DrJoel

    20 Jul 2010, 11:59PM

    Representing an annual 30% loss as 1 pound raising 2 pounds is an interesting sleight of hand. It is unlikely to fool the Treasury.

    Yet the creators of today do create the cultural heritage of tomorrow. The artistic and economic benefits from a single great writer or painter or composer etc. are likely to be astronomical. Even if not during their lifetime. The trouble is, nobody knows where that great talent is hiding. Could be on a council estate far from London.

    The wider the net of opportunity is cast, the more likely are we to net the really big fish. Compared to that, it seems silly to subsidise shows which attract an over representation of the well-off. And even more silly to have a bloated bureaucracy.

  • decisivemoment decisivemoment

    20 Jul 2010, 11:59PM

    There's nothing unreasonable about Britain's current national debt. The deficit is alarming if it doesn't get reduced. But the really scary figure is this -- government revenue has fallen off a cliff due to the weakness in the economy, and that's the cause of the deficit. In the end, this isn't about spending -- it's about revenue. And the government needs to realize now that they have to develop an economy in Britain that deals in more than just financial services and the odd tourist or two. In the end, if Britain doesn't export, it doesn't pay its way. The country can't go on buying consumer products from China on tick.

    Rather than waving the axe around to pursue an ideological myth, the Tories ought to be considering how they're going to grow the domestic economy, or the country will be permanently in slash and burn mode, shrinking all the while.

  • YorkshireCat YorkshireCat

    21 Jul 2010, 12:01AM

    But not necessarily a bad time for creators and practitioners. The cuts will fall disproportionately on administrators.

    I'm actually fairly sceptical about a lot of arts funding, but even I recognise that if you get shot of administrators, the work they used to do falls to creators and practitioners, leaving them less time and energy to create and practice.

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in.

|

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Latest news on guardian.co.uk

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop

Browse all jobs

jobs by Indeed