Arts Council England (ACE) issued a warning that “political statements” could break funding agreements after discussions with the government about artists speaking out over the Israel-Gaza war, newly released documents suggest.
A freedom of information request made by the actors’ union Equity has revealed that the conflict was discussed in a meeting between ACE and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in December.
One month later, ACE updated its reputational risk guidance to say political statements could break funding agreements – leading to a massive backlash from artists including Matt Haig, Feargal Sharkey and Nikita Gill.
On Friday, Equity accused ACE of “double standards” and questioned whether any “political interference” had taken place. In response, ACE said that “at no point did government request or require us to publish guidance on this issue”.
ACE said it had updated its guidance after organisations it funds came “looking for support in managing complex situations” and that it understood and appreciated concerns around freedom of expression.
Paul Fleming, Equity’s general secretary, said: “We have been clear to the Arts Council that their slide into politicisation is leading to censorship of artists.
“The double standards over the conflict in Gaza is just one manifestation – whether it be Dorries gutting culture for working-class Londoners by dictat, or requirements to thank the government for money from the Covid-era Cultural Recovery Fund – public funding of the arts in this country has lost its way.
“It is embarrassing for them that they have said to the union directly that the guidance had nothing to do with the conflict. Our FoI shows this to be inaccurate. We have to see a commitment to reform of the Arts Council to restore its independence, its funding – and change its senior personnel.”
In February, ACE advised the organisations it funds to be wary of “overtly political or activist” statements made in a personal capacity by people linked to them.
But within days, it was forced into revising the guidance after artists likened it to censorship. ACE said the guidance had been misinterpreted, and confirmed it would support organisations that receive “negative reactions” to work as long as it was “confident that you have a good risk management strategy in place”.
The FoI request revealed that the issue was discussed in a meeting between ACE and DCMS on 12 December 2023. The meeting, titled “ACE/DCMS Liaison Meeting” included the agenda item “Reputational risk relating to Israel/Gaza conflict”.
The minutes state that “[Initials of ACE staff member 1] confirmed consistency of approach piece will be coming from [Name of ACE staff member 2] soon.” The names of ACE staff referenced in the minutes were withheld to protect their data under law.
As a result, Equity’s race equality committee is putting forward a motion at the union’s annual conference on Saturday to call upon national arts funding bodies, and the Charity Commission, to ensure organisations and individuals are “allowed full range of political expression”.
The committee told the Guardian: “Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, ACE affirmed support for creatives who show ‘solidarity with our colleagues in Ukraine’ and later emphasised that the culture sector could ‘play an important role in putting pressure on the Putin regime to end the invasion of Ukraine’.”
This, they said, was in stark contrast to ACE’s actions after the events in Israel and Gaza, when its warning against political statements “had a chilling effect” on the arts industry.
They said the question of political interference was also concerning given the government is carrying out a full-scale review of ACE, which will determine the future of the public body.
An ACE spokesperson said:
“The update we made to the relationship framework in January followed conversations with organisations we invest in, many of which were looking for support in managing complex situations. We updated DCMS, our sponsor department in government, that we were already in the process of drafting this additional guidance in one of our regular meetings. This is standard practice, and DCMS offered no input.
“For the avoidance of doubt, our guidance does not seek to stop any artist or organisation from making the art they want to make, or speaking out in any way they wish – including in ways that challenge institutions and authorities.”
A DCMS spokesperson said: “Arts Council England is an arm’s-length body and decisions on their relationship framework are for them to take independently of the government.
“The department meets regularly with all our arm’s-length bodies, including Arts Council England, to discuss a wide range of issues, including management of risks.”
