«February 2014 Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union Culture, Tourism and Sport © Crown copyright ...»
Innovative, risk-taking work is often created by emerging artists and smaller-scale organisations. Without opportunities to join together at a larger, pan-national scale this work would not reach wider audiences and bigger markets, limiting both its potential and its impact. Arts Council England.
There are vital networks of like institutions which provide mutually beneficial professional development, the lending and borrowing of objects between institutions, joint scholarship, exchanges, education programmes and touring exhibitions.
National Museum Directors’ Council.
2.20 For others it was about achieving a critical mass which allows the UK, with European
partners, to compete on the global stage and project ‘soft power’ abroad:
The different cultures of Europe will have increasing difficulties to be heard globally in an environment that will be dominated by players of the size of the US, China and Brazil. An increasing co-ordination of European cultural initiatives and support of collaboration within the EU is highly desirable. The Wallace Collection.
Domestic governments alone cannot provide funding at the scale of investment needed to enable cultural organisations to compete with their rivals in faster growing international economies such as China and India. Arts Council England.
2.21 The British Council, a key player in the UK’s projection of ‘soft power’, recognised the contribution EU funding programmes can make where they support UK institutions to export our culture internationally, but was clear that, ‘national and devolved governments and national cultural institutions remain the best placed level of government to support and champion the internationalisation of their national arts and cultural sectors’.
2.22 The National Museum Directors’ Council also argued that EU cultural programmes provided an ‘entry point for museums that may then go on to consider later collaborative projects once they have established a network of suitable partners. This could not be replicated by a single Member State – the pool of possible partners is larger and the funding necessarily less prescribed, creating the opportunity for innovative projects’.
2.23 Other contributors were keen to stress the value in EU funding programmes which support UK citizens to better understand and experience their own cultural heritage, as
well as reap economic benefits:
Chapter 2: Impact on the National Interest 29The greatest visible benefits of EU action in culture have been the European Heritage Open Days initiative and the European Cities of Culture, which have provided a focus for investment and lead to wide scale regeneration. Open Days have increased local interest in heritage by allowing people to explore some of the fabulous built heritage that makes up our towns and cities. The Prince’s Regeneration Trust.
Another major programme is The European Heritage Days […] They increase public participation on a massive level [...] Large countries support smaller ones with their expertise on evaluating success / volunteering etc so it is also an example of diplomacy/development. Sarah Wolferstan, University College London.
The European Capitals of Culture programme is very successful and the UK has derived significant benefit from its participation in this initiative. Both UK cities – Glasgow and Liverpool – […] have reaped significant cultural and economic benefits.
Glasgow was selected as a European City of Culture in 1990, and the Scottish Government would take the view that this initiative has left a long-standing and meaningful legacy for the city. Glasgow used the opportunity that the ECC initiative afforded to successfully demonstrate how culture can be used to address a range of economic and social objectives as well as promoting community development and participation. The UK is scheduled to host a European Capital of Culture in
2023. The Scottish Government recognises the great benefits that the Capitals of Culture programme can bring to a city and, indeed, the recent UK City of Culture programme and our support for the city of Dundee is predicated on an understanding of those benefits. Scottish Government.
2.24 Indeed, the UK Government has embraced the Capitals for Culture programme, supplementing EU funding with national support to great effect. Based on the success of Glasgow and Liverpool the UK has introduced its own national Capital of Culture programme.
Liverpool – European Capital Of Culture 2008 Liverpool’s year as European Capital of Culture generated an £800m boost to the regional economy and welcomed 3.5m first time visitors to the city.
Impacts 08 – The Liverpool Model is an initiative commissioned by Liverpool City Council to evaluate the social, cultural, economic and environmental effects of Liverpool’s year as European Capital of Culture. The final report, published in March 2010, shows the very significant benefit to Liverpool, Merseyside and the wider North West region.11 Liverpool 2008 is now perceived as an important reference point for future European Capitals of Culture and is presented as an exemplar by the European Commission in areas such as its volunteering, community involvement and research programmes.
2.25 Contributors from larger cultural organisations felt there was value in the EU’s emphasis on
Member States’ shared cultural heritage:
The EU’s focus on shared cultural heritage is very important – an audience cannot appreciate the history of the UK without understanding the history of Europe.
National Museum Directors’ Council.
University of Liverpool, Creating an Impact: Liverpool’s Experience as European Capital of Culture (2010).
30 Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Culture, Tourism and Sport The EU is the obvious framework for cultural activities and commemorations on many issues. Over the next years, the First World War commemorations, the anniversary of 1714 and of the Battle of Waterloo are obvious examples of topics that can best be celebrated, commemorated and analysed when seen in the European context. The Wallace Collection.
2.26 Others from the culture sector were keen to stress the importance of the EU’s recognition of the value of cultural diversity, and the importance of EU activities under its culture
competence for smaller cultural organisations, and for those outside the South-East:
We, as a small performing arts organisation and charity have benefitted both from an EU culture grant, and from the Youth in Action programme. Without their support, the work that was achieved in the Balkan Region and in West Dorset would not have been possible. Their programmes are far reaching and adaptable to many different areas of culture and the arts. Anonymous contributor.
The way in which the EU recognises diversity as well as shared elements of the European Union’s cultural and linguistic diversity is valuable… The role of culture in encouraging cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue – through improving citizens’ knowledge and appreciation of other European cultures – is at the very heart of European cultural policy […] From a Welsh perspective, being a bi-lingual nation, this focus is very welcome. Welsh Government.
The EU’s focus on a shared cultural heritage is beneficial as it recognises the cultural diversity of the EU. This opens culture up and helps make it more accessible and inclusive for everyone. Museums Galleries Scotland.
An understanding of its history is of great importance to retaining a Cornish identity, and in turn the maintenance of distinctive customs and culture. Our experience is that currently these wishes are better understood and appreciated in the wider Europe than is evident nearer home. Centre for European Research within Cornwall.
2.27 As set out in earlier chapters, the supporting nature of the EU competence for culture means that no action taken by the EU under this competence can prevent or require any action by the UK Government. The EU can however offer complementary programmes which UK cultural organisations can choose to participate in or not. In the area of culture these programmes largely comprise of funding. It is not perhaps surprising therefore that overall contributors from the culture sector felt the balance of competence between the UK and EU in relation to culture is correct. No contributors argued either for the removal of
EU competence in this area, nor that it should be extended:
NMDC would support the present balance of competences in respect to culture […] This has a net positive cultural and economic benefit for the UK because it allows the museums to produce better public programmes and continue to attract increasing visitor numbers. National Museum Directors’ Council.
Overall we believe the opportunities for cultural organisations and bodies are strengthened by the availability of funding and partnership programmes and expertise from Europe. Scottish Government.
The EU responsibility for culture on the supporting level is highly appropriate for [helping UK compete globally]. The Wallace Collection.
While we agree that the European Union should have a supporting competence in this area, it would be unnecessary and counterproductive for this to be extended.
Chapter 2: Impact on the National Interest 31
2.28 That is not to say that contributors were universally satisfied with the EU’s operation of its competence for culture. Four of the contributors from the culture sector raised concerns about the complex, slow and overly bureaucratic nature of the EU’s funding programmes.
In general, European schemes are too bureaucratic and funding cycles are very slow, the decision making process needs to be significantly sped up to be effective for busy companies, often with tight cash flows. British Film Institute.
The disadvantages are some of the restrictions on what funding can be used for and the bureaucracy. Hampshire County Council.
For a small organisation it is incredibly difficult and time consuming to provide the financial evidence required, a lot of it unnecessary we believe […] Many people we know have lost part of their original grants due to misunderstanding of the financial reporting and its excessive demands. Anonymous contributor.
The disadvantages of directing funding through the EU is that the requirement for monitoring and evaluation systems for EU projects can be overly complex and this can deter potential applicants, and favour larger organisations. Anonymous contributor.
2.29 The EU’s specific competence in relation to tourism dates back only to TFEU and it has yet to adopt any regulatory or legislative measures. However, tourism is a complex industry which is impacted by EU activity across a range of competences outside the scope of this report. In particular, contributors stressed the impact of EU competences in relation to transport, immigration, taxation, the Single Market and Structural Funds.
For all the recent developments and initiatives such as the Virtual Tourism Observatory (VTO), the EU’s specific tourism competence has limited impact […] Far more important have been other legislation and initiatives in other policy areas that touch on tourism, including free movement, immigration, market and transport.
VisitBritain and VisitEngland.
2.30 For example, the UK issues UK-only visas for non-EU visitors, while most other Member States issue visas under the Schengen arrangements which allow visitors to travel to other Schengen countries. This arises out of the UK’s special position under the EU Treaties in respect of the Schengen area. The European Tour Operators Association noted that this may lead the UK to be dropped from multi-country itineraries, although VisitBritain and VisitEngland also noted that the UK’s physical location as an island may impact on its ability to benefit from EU action.
2.31 Equally, some contributors noted the benefits, both to incoming and outgoing holidaymakers, of consumer protection measures such as the Package Travel Directive, or the Denied Boarding Regulation.
2.32 Issues relating to the free movement of persons, the single market for services, immigration, and transport will be dealt with in other Balance of Competences reports.12 Evidence submitted to this report relevant to those reports has been forwarded to the authoring department.
HMG, Review of The Balance of Competences Between the UK and the EU, Single Market: Services, published later in the review. HMG, Review of The Balance of Competences Between the UK and the EU, Asylum and Immigration, published in parallel with this report. HMG, Review of The Balance of Competences Between the UK and the EU, Transport, published in parallel to this report.
32 Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Culture, Tourism and Sport
2.33 A number of contributors also reflected on the potential for the new competence for tourism to drive greater coherence in the EU’s application of its wider competence to the tourism sector. These issues will be considered in Chapter 3.
2.34 As well as commenting on these broader competences, ten contributors also commented specifically on the new supporting tourism competence. Of these, eight agreed with the joint submission from Visit Britain and Visit England that the new tourism competence was
yet to have an impact:
We have not yet seen any significant impact from article 195 of the TFEU. British Hospitality Association (BHA).
While the functions of the state in providing for or supporting tourism are also subject to EU State Aid considerations, there is very little direct legislative control by the EU on tourism specifically. Scottish Government.
We aren’t aware of any evidence that the actions under the EU 2010 Communication on Tourism… have made a significant difference to the UK’s tourism economy. The actions struggle to address the priorities in a substantial way. Hampshire County Council.