Are Ministers making a "sneaky" attempt to "back out" of arts funding deal?

Wednesday 09 October 2024

Ministers have been accused of being “sneaky” for attempting to “back out” of a landmark agreement to invest 1% of the total Government budget in arts, culture and heritage.

Deputy Monty Tadier has lodged a no-holds-barred proposition to maintain the current arts, culture and heritage funding formula amid fears that plans to link it to the rate of inflation will lead to massive cuts for the sector.

In his comments, the St Brelade politician also claims that the Goverment's covert method of changing the funding formula "lacks courage and transparency".

This comes after warnings from Jersey Heritage earlier this yearthat the arm's-length organisation may have to cut some of its activities in response to uncertainties over its long-term funding.

CEO Jon Carter said in July that the organisation, which looks after all of the island's key historic sites as well as Jersey Archive, already paused archaeological work at La Cotte de St Brelade were “looking at other potential changes to inform Government decisions on what a sustainable heritage service looks like”.

Deputy Tadier, who has long been an advocate for the island's arts and culture sector, explained that he is asking for very little because he is, in fact, asking for no changes to be made to funding plans that were agreed several years ago – namely, a commitment made by the Government in 2019 to invest 1% of its overall expenditure in arts, culture and heritage from 2022 onwards.

That decision was agreed after a previous proposal from Deputy Tadier received overwhelming support in the States Assembly and this year meant £11.62 million went towards those funding streams.

Economic Development Minister Kirsten Morel later hailed the move as a "validation of the role of arts and culture for the future of the Island" in an Arts Strategy.

Pictured: Jersey Heritage, which runs sites like the Jersey Museum, has warned of the impacts of cuts to its funding.

However, the Government's proposed 2025 Budget – which is due for debate next month – states that: "As budgets for arts, heritage and culture have now been increased to 1% of net revenue expenditure, in future, this level will now be maintained and increased by RPI."

With a forecast drop in inflation to under 2% – news that islanders will welcome – Deputy Tadier said the government's proposals will see the sector missing out on nearly half a million pounds in funding that it would otherwise have received under the current formula.

An overall revenue expenditure increase of 5.7% in 2025 under the proposed government Budget would mean the arts, culture and heritage also increases 5.7%.

And under the 1% formula, he calculated that the sector's funding would be £12.29 million for 2025, £12.38 million for 2026, £12.6 million for 2027 and £12.94 million for 2028.

"The Council of Ministers' proposal for CAH [Culture Arts and Heritage] therefore represents a reduction of £438,600 in funding for 2025," Deputy Tadier said in his report.

His proposition asks that "no changes should be made to the target revenue expenditure model" unless a proposal "exclusively concerning the funding of those specific matters" is considered and approved by the States Assembly.

Pictured: Deputy Tadier has long advocated for continued funding for the island's arts, culture and heritage sector (James Jeune).

However, in the report accompanying his proposition, Deputy Tadier strikes at the heart the funding issue – the "sneaky" attempt from ministers to "back out" of an agreed proposition.

He wrote: "The method by which this Council of Ministers is seeking to back out of the 1% for CAH is not just sneaky but lacks courage and transparency. Just one short paragraph appears in the 2025 Budget report on page 48 to 'inform' us that the change is going to happen.

"There is no argument made, no proposition, no accompanying report nor business case that is made to overturn the previous States decision, just a single sentence.

"The problem with this process is that when overturning a previous States decision, the burden of proof should be with the person or group moving the rescindment to make their case. When the case is made, and after debate, and a positive vote, then – and only then – should a proposition be rescinded."

He admits that some Members might think he is being "overly robust" in calling the ministerial strategy "sneaky", but he defends his use of the word saying: "It is sneaky because it relies on a member or members to first pick up on the change; then it requires a member to lodge an amendment to the Budget simply in order to retain the status quo, and to force a debate. Indeed, this is what I will be forced to do if this proposition is not passed.

"It is completely the wrong way around to require an active proposition to simply maintain the status quo, whereas it should be the Council of Ministers who wish to propose a new funding mechanism, to make the case, have a debate and secure a clear States decision for this new course of action.

"If the Council of Ministers believe their funding formula is better than the existing one, they should have the courage of their convictions and make the case for it, in a separate proposition."

The proposition is due for debate on 12 November at the earliest.