Sajid Javid's free market ethos is at odds with arts funding

New Culture Secretary thinks ticket touts are 'classic entrepreneurs'. Not a good start, says Jennifer Daniel

Column LAST UPDATED AT 10:44 ON Mon 28 Apr 2014

THERE has been much discussion about the seemingly inherent lack of culture in those who have held the office of Culture Secretary. But in the light of Sajid Javid’s attitude to ticket-touting, one might well ask if his lack of cultural understanding doesn’t surpass them all.

Amid the outcry over the continuation of the expenses scandal which led to the the departure of Maria Miller, an immediate concern arose around the priorities of her successor. In particular, Javid’s stance on ticket touting has been widely condemned.

A quick recap. In 2011 Javid opposed a bill by Labour MP Sharon Hodgson, who proposed limiting the resale value of tickets to sporting and cultural events to only ten per cent more than their original value. Javid praised ticket touts as ‘‘classic entrepreneurs’’, who fill a “gap in the market” and provide a “service”.

He stated: ''as someone who believes passionately in the virtues of the free market and who is on the side of the ordinary, common working man, I respectfully oppose the Bill… If a person wishes to devote a large part of their disposable income to see something that is disproportionately attractive to them, why should anyone else care and why should it be their business?''

The answer to this question is most obvious in the case of the subsidised arts, hence the early involvement in the debate by the Royal Opera House. Like many other key organisations, the ROH receives a grant from Arts Council England in order to make tickets affordable, and opera (and ballet) available to anyone who might wish to access it. This is no free-market model of supply and demand.

Over 40% of ROH tickets are available at less than £40. Students are also entitled to last-minute sales at £10 each. And this low-cost (and sometimes even free) ticket availability is repeated in subsidised art forms nationwide.

Javid’s attitude to the mark-up and resale of subsidised tickets is utterly immoral. Touting reduces the number of people who are able to access the arts cheaply, and could legitimately be viewed as theft from the public purse.

The ultimate concern here is the incompatibility between Javid’s professed love of “the free market” and the public-access focus of many of our top arts institutions. This focus can be traced back to the post-war set-up of the Arts Council of Great Britain by John Maynard Keynes. The (now multiple) Arts Councils are funded by the taxpayer, via Javid’s own Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

In 1945 Clement Attlee’s government and Keynes had decided that the rebuilding of Britain after the physical, economic and emotional devastation of war would include a body that enabled and regulated public spending on the arts. A Royal Charter to this effect was issued in August 1946, introducing an Arts Council which aimed to develop greater knowledge, understanding and practice of the arts, and in particular “to increase the accessibility of the arts to the people”. This access must be geographical, social and financial.

In addition to “access”, other Arts Council aims include education and innovation. At heart, this means the bringing of new work to an audience that is primed to it and able to access it. So Arts Council support should mean affordable ticketing, support for new artists and new work and quality education programmes in institutions across the UK. These are the returns of public investment which aims to benefit the whole of society.

After almost 70 years of Arts Council existence, the ideals of access and education in relation to government funding of the arts are now so established as to be ingrained in UK arts practitioners at the highest levels. These inherited principles have become central to public arts companies in the UK.

To return to opera, this is, for many, the embodiment of organised culture, a concentrated centre of art (and of funding) with the potential to foster arts and culture of all kinds, including folk and popular forms. The public opera company must include access to and engagement with a vast array of arts. It must also be open to all, including the uninitiated, the underprivileged and the very young. And crucially, to those who could not afford a ticket on the “free market”.

With the pressure mounting from various organisations, we can only hope that the culture secretary will come to understand that the subsidised arts in the UK are not a free-market economy, but rather a model of cultural, social investment.

Jennifer Daniel is Postgraduate Researcher in Opera & Education Outreach Fellow at the University of Leeds.

This article was originally published at The Conversation · 

Disqus - noscript

One crook out, one moron in!

Racists!

Supply and demand.touts are used by people who failed to get tickets ,I've used touts when I cannot be bothered queueing or phoning for hours and my lazyness costs me ,that is the free market,a ticket like any other object is worth what another person will pay for it.MPs need to worry about important things not ticket resale,when is the last time an mp paid for tickets for anything anyway.

To Les Barrie. You hit the nail on the head with your first three words.
Supply and Demand.
To the author of this rubbish.
Subsidised tickets are NEVER a sell out. Your article therefore is a complete nonsense. Tickets are only "Touted" as you so elegantly put it if there is a demand, subsidised events HAVE to be subsidised because they are not commercially viable. If they were they would not need a subsidy and then they might be "Touted". If there is a real demand
Why do you not address the real issue? The issue of criminality. As with every business if money is to be made and entry into that business is without formal process it will become a target of the criminal classes. Much like Cowboy Builders or rogue Security System sellers but I am sure if you called the chap who has done building work for me a Criminal he would take great offence. Not all builders are Criminals nor are all Ticket Resellers.
How Sharon Hodgson and Co. can possibly come up with a report denigrating the Ticket Resellers of the UK without first entering into dialogue with that Industry is arrogance in the extreme. I strongly suspect the General Public are going to, yet again, lose out here.
Graham Burns
Chairman, Association of Secondary Ticket Agents