Published Delegated Executive Decisions

Decision ref

0062 2025/26

Decision date

24/12/2025

Portfolio

Localities, Culture and Heritage

Wards

All wards

Title

Programming Policy

Summary

This is a proposal to create a Programming Policy, to create a framework for decision making when officers either choose to programme contentious art or art is presented for which officers judge there needs to be a critical review. It’s not a framework for the quality of the art, but a rationale and set of guidelines for areas that may be deemed contentious. The Policy will be accompanied by a staff instruction, and there will have a statement on the services webpages to explain the Policy.

Purpose

The purpose of the report is to adopt a new policy for the Arts Service when approaching its work as part of the AiL Project, as an Arts Council England (ACE) funded programme, but that can also be used for guidance if programming work falls outside of the AiL programme. In summary, the AiL programme seeks to offer diverse creative opportunities across and delivers a programme of arts and cultural events across the network of seven Libraries within the borough library spaces, online, and in the community. AIL is part of St Helens Library Service, which sits in the Place directorate of the Council. AiL is largely funded by Arts Council England (ACE) through its National Portfolio Organisation (NPO) programme. The team receives an annual inward investment of circa £240K from ACE. Activity is reported to Council Cabinet, with political oversight via the Cabinet Member for Localities, Culture and Heritage, and the AIL project also has a separate advisory board, which oversees governance in line with ACE’s funding requirements. ACE requires resubmission to remain in the National Portfolio Organisation on a 4-year cycle. Annual plans are then generated by the team and signed off by the Advisory Board and ACE. Budgets are delegated to staff to programme content which is in alignment with this plan. Following this sign off, a single officer sometimes makes decisions about smaller aspects of programming. The phrase ‘Programming’ incorporates all aspects of AIL activity which includes commissioning new artistic work from local people, selecting existing work to present in St Helens (theatre, music performances etc.) and running participatory arts groups. It also shows national work, supports community arts participation, and commissions local artists to work professionally, sometimes for the first time. In addition to programme delivery, AiL is also a national leader within the development of the ACE NPO arts in libraries programme. Since the Library Service is a universal offer, AiL aims for a varied programme to engage the breadth of St Helens communities. Its delivery plan also contains specific targets to engage with key local priority groups which currently includes residents from low socio-economic groups, young people and d/Deaf and Disabled people, many of whom do not ordinarily engage with arts and culture. A 2024/5 evaluation demonstrated increased engagement and highly rated content. 85% of audiences rated the quality of their experiences as either good or very good and the Net Promoter Score of 84.75 is higher comparable rating than other arts and cultural organisations. The Team engaged over 7,100 people across 230 events with 100 of these being aimed at young people or children. In line with our funder ACE, freedom of expression is essential to the Arts in Libraries programme. We also want to foster positive connections in our working community and strengthen the role that libraries play in fostering democratic principles. The parameters of this policy are set out with this intention. This policy outlines the proposed approach to artistic programming for the AiL Team and outlines clearer parameters for decision making processes, related to the artistic programme for the staff team. This clarity will also benefit Councillors, local people, partners and artists. The AiL programme is centred on the needs and experiences of communities in St Helens, and we will continue to develop shared ownership of the AIL programme with local people. Therefore, this policy does not seek to direct the programme, but to provide clear parameters that reflect the Council’s position in relation to programme content and decision making. The policy does not seek to direct the programme but may influence decisions on the content selected. This is underpinned by ACE’s terms for funding. The policy will provide transparent parameters and criteria that reflects the Council’s position in relation to the programme and articulate clarity on decision making processes. This will enable staff to manage any future scenarios with greater clarity and confidence. The policy intention can be summarised as follows - Ensure a more ethical approach to programming with our community and artists. - Ensure a clearer understanding of programme parameters across St Helens Borough Council. - Underpin simple procedures that support the team to work with more certainty and clarity and develop better understanding and support alongside other council colleagues. - Enable us to create a simple public statement for potential partners and funders to understand our approach. - Clarify governance arrangements in relation to managing risk. The policy itself is split into three sections, these being Section 1 – Context and Policy Approach. This section expands on some of the above and links our work to key Council/Borough priorities. Section 2 – Programme Content. This section goes into more detail about the way we programme, the rationale behind programming and focusses on contentious areas of programming and suitable responses. Section 3 – Management of Policy. This section looks at governance and management of the policy in practice, with the key criteria and checklists set out. In addition to this we have prepared a staff instruction document that will be inserted into the library suite of staff instructions, outline training sessions for all staff involved in the new instruction and a short public facing statement to sit on the AiL website. Finally, on adoption of the policy, there is an intention to carry out an internal review process in a year for any internal changes required and report this back by way of an internal portfolio note. As an example, we anticipate that there will be further information from ACE later this year and into next about mis and dis-information which is a section we may want to expand on in any future iteration of this policy.

Background

The reasons for the recommendations can be summarised as follows - The proposed policy has been created in consultation with the Arts in Libraries Team (AiL), the advisory board for the AiL project, the wider Library service and through this process it has been deemed the policy is deemed to be necessary going forward. - We have also consulted externally via a peer learning group made up of partners and other Local Authority Culture managers and with local artists and workshop leaders. They all see the value in this work. - The Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) has shown there are several factors within this policy that will need to be assessed for individual types of work (and for specific types of audiences), but with mitigating actions these can be managed. - The work arising within the adoption of the policy and the accompanying staff instruction is manageable and proportional. - There may be a reputational risk for the Council because of this policy in the future, but there are instances of reputational risk that have nearly occurred due to the lack of a policy, so on balance, adoption is the best route forward. In terms of background, over recent years accusations of censorship have become increasingly common in the arts sector. Hand in hand with this is the rise in people expressing publicly, via social media or other channels, that they have been offended by specific pieces of art or wider cultural activities. This has led to a culture of uncertainty around programming certain types of work. The officers who work on the AiL programme have responded to a series of challenges around censorship and social sensitivities in recent years. They have managed relationships successfully and sought out appropriate resolution in all cases. The impact of this can be difficult for staff and artists whose working practices have been challenged. In terms of specifics there have been instances going back to December 2023 where we have had cause to review aspects of programming for differing reasons. Each incidence has been dealt with on an individual basis but taken together it is clear that a policy and guidelines would have been useful in dealing with these as they occurred, rather than spending time going through each on an ad hoc process. Furthermore, as time has gone on other Local Authorities are having similar pressures when programming arts and cultural activities, and we think that these issues are likely to increase, rather than decrease over time. The specific issues we have dealt with can be described as follows; - Reside Exhibition – An artist taking part in a Borough of Culture event submitted artworks which contained political statements referencing the Gaza conflict. - Profanity in a play title - A play with profanity within the title was planned to be programmed within our young adults offer. - Children’s Performance - A performer was contracted to take part in a children’s storytelling festival, but had an open social media account, which contained adult content. - An exhibition contained references to a race report with socio -political statements and a link to a video with nudity. Each instance has involved a decision-making process varying from taking advice from the Leader and the Chief Executive, through to an internal conversation within the Team about how to deal with the issue in hand. These issues have also led to the team starting to look critically at our programming actions and there have been occasions where we have notified our funder, ACE, of the programme discussions. Following a debate with the Advisory board for the AiL project in Summer 2024 it was decided we would explore creating a policy and guidelines, to cover these eventualities and hence the eventual submission of this programming policy. We engaged a specialist consultant to help the team on this work in Winter 2024 and she guided us through initial scoping workshops to differing iterations of a draft, of which we sought Directorate/Portfolio advice in Summer this year

Conclusion

In conclusion there are some final points we would want to make, in submission of this policy: - The work to present this policy has been done thoroughly with the AiL team recognising the initial need, creating the first draft and then taking differing iterations to the different groups of stakeholders and incorporating comments as appropriate, throughout the process. Because of this, the final version is a good basis for the AiL team to continue their work; in the knowledge we have a framework to support programme decisions. - As a team with specialist knowledge of what is happening within other arts organisations across the UK, we know that issues of contention around freedom of expression and artistic taste will not be going away in the short to medium term and that they can be difficult to resolve. - We recognise that this policy is the start of this journey in terms of formalising these issues into a coherent policy and thus we welcome comments now on formal adoption.

Risk Implications

None

Measures to Redress Risk

None

Declarations Of Interest

None

Equality Impact Assessment

Download

More information

Please contact Andrew Cave on 01744 676824