Freedom in the Arts (FITA) welcomes the publication of Arts Council England: An Independent Review by Baroness Margaret Hodge. We believe Baroness Hodge’s recommendations are brave and serious. We are hopeful the Review will lead to a much-needed major overhaul of Arts Council England. 

We were pleased to meet Baroness Hodge this week to discuss the Review’s findings and are proud to have contributed to its evidence base. 

We strongly agree with the Review’s central conclusion, that Let’s Create is overly ‘prescriptive.’  Hodge has listened carefully to the widespread ‘frustration’ in the sector, and she is right to unequivocally assert that it is not the role of the Arts Council to ‘change society,’ as it has attempted to do, through Let’s Create. Hodge is wise to recommend the Arts Council must now ‘rigorously uphold the principle’ … ‘that arts funding is protected from politicisation.’  We believe the Arts Council has failed in this fundamental duty since, at least its previous review in 2017. The Culture Secretary now has the opportunity to bring complete impartiality back to the Arts Council.  

We are particularly pleased Baroness Hodge has taken on board FITA’s concern, that the Arts Council has contributed to a more censorious cultural sector. Hodge is right to state that protecting artistic freedom ‘matters,’ astutely noting that ‘Political interference, even by those with the best of intentions, could lead to political bias, or even censorship’. We believe this sentiment applies to both politicians and arts leaders and workers. This is why we now urge the DCMS Select Committee to launch an inquiry into the current state of artistic freedom, as research shows self-censorship has become widespread in the arts. 

We also strongly welcome the Review’s recognition that Let’s Create has fostered an ‘instrumentalist’ approach, ‘sidelining’ art and excellence.  The Arts Council must now dispense with its insidious culture of box-ticking; arts funding should be based on the unique qualities, strengths and artistic contribution of each organisation and artist. Hodge makes plain the Arts Council must return artistic quality to the heart of public funding, to ensure access to excellence for all.

The Review’s call for a radical reduction in bureaucracy, longer funding cycles for organisations, and renewed trust between the Arts Council and the sector, reflects what FITA has consistently heard from artists, venues, and organisations across all artforms.

However, we are disappointed the Review does not fully address key issues that continue to stifle the arts.

First, the Review acknowledges calls for the Arts Council to increase its oversight of the organisations it funds, to provide ’protection from harassment or abuse [and] adherence to the public sector equality duty.’ However, the Review does not sufficiently confront the scale of bullying and intimidation in the sector. FITA’s own research shows that these behaviours are now widespread, often informal, and exercise a deeply chilling effect on artistic freedom. Too many artists and staff are afraid to speak openly for fear of reputational or professional retaliation. Although the Review acknowledges the Arts Council could do more ‘to raise awareness of the public sector equality duty and hold the individuals and organisations it funds to account for their conduct’, Baroness Hodge states the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority (CIISA) is and should be the body tasked ‘to tackle bullying, harassment and discrimination’ in the sector. We disagree with this proposition. We believe CIISA is too far removed from the organisations the Arts Council funds, making it difficult to exercise any real authority over them. FITA is currently assisting a number of artists who have submitted complaints to the Arts Council, after experiencing harassment that was directly facilitated by Arts Council funding, not CIISA. We believe, therefore, Arts Council’s enforcement role in delivering equality law, noted in its own funding contracts, should be strengthened, or at least monitored, and that doing so will send a strong and direct message to the sector.

Second, FITA believes the Review does not recognise, as we do, how diversity frameworks as currently implemented, have themselves contributed to hostile working environments, unrepresentative programmes and divisive budget decisions and staff hierarchies. FITA now have multiple case studies where ideological enforcement, compelled speech, or fear of accusation has directly led to bullying, exclusion, and silencing, often without due process or clear accountability. This year our research, Afraid to Speak Freely, found that 84% of arts workers responding to our survey never, rarely, or only sometimes felt free to speak publicly on social or political issues. This compares to 57% in 2020. Respondents spoke movingly about their fear of saying the wrong thing about a ‘dangerous topic,’ often ‘diversity’ related. Many reported significant pressure to conform politically, fuelling self-censorship, bullying and a chilling effect across the arts. One person told us ‘“I’ve seen behind the curtain. What I witnessed wasn’t equality - it was control, silencing, and bullying.”  FITA directors, Rosie Kay and Denise Fahmy, both saw their careers upended, by their colleagues, because they expressed perfectly legal, every-day opinions, now regarded as heretical in the arts. In Denise’s case, as a long-standing employee of the Arts Council, it was its own senior leadership that ‘opened the door’ to her harassment in 2022. Given this context, we believe the unintended consequences of repeated rounds of diversity initiatives have not been adequately examined. Again, we call on the DCMS Select Committee to review what impact diversity measures have had on artistic freedom, arts spending and indeed the attitude of the public towards the arts.

Third, we are concerned the Review has not sufficiently scrutinised the role of Investment Principles Support Organisations (IPSOs). The Review states IPSOs ‘support the development of arts organisations’ but this is not their function. IPSOs are specifically funded to enable the sector’s delivery of Let’s Create. Their programmes aim to directly embed this now defunct strategy in the arts. Leaving aside what their future role might be, with the demise of Let’s Create, the decision to establish IPSOs in 2023 ushered in a bizarre mechanism of circular funding, in which the Arts Council outsourced its policy compliance to carefully selected organisations. As Baroness Hodge notes, about organisations servicing Arts Council contracts with ‘funding experts’, IPSOs too are ‘wasteful.’  Indeed, sadly their former valuable role, as Sector Support Organisations (SSOs) fostering artistic excellence and talent development, was replaced when the Arts Council determined it needed an interpretation division to make sense of Let’s Create.  More worryingly IPSOs function as ideological enforcers, shapes the sector with little transparency. This raises fundamental questions about arts organisations’ independence, IPSO’s accountability and the Arts Council’s attitude towards the sector it serves.

Despite these reservations, FITA believes Baroness Hodge’s Review represents a genuine opportunity for change. It is radical, thoughtful and signals the need for new leadership, renewed courage, and a complete reset in England’s cultural policy.

FITA stands ready to continue working constructively with policymakers, funders, and the sector to ensure that artistic freedom, excellence, pluralism of opinion and robust debate are not only protected in the arts but actively encouraged.