£1.5 billion might be spent on Arts buildings, but who will be left to run them?

Last week, Athena called into question the generosity of the £1.5 billion capital spending promised by the Government to heritage and cultural organisations over the next five years. She would add that, in one important respect, the investment doesn’t address a fundamental problem within the sector.

The Secretary of State, Lisa Nandy, is explicit that the £1.5 billion is intended to make up the shortfall caused by ‘over a decade of underfunding in England’s much loved community assets’ — by which she means our leading cultural institutions. In other words, the money is going to help bring them back physically to the condition they should be in had they been properly funded. Nandy then goes on to say that in return for this cash ‘we expect cultural organisations to open their doors wider, reach new and more diverse audiences, reflect the communities they serve and ensure that excellence is no longer concentrated in a small number of postcodes, but is genuinely spread across the country. Public investment must deliver public value’.

That’s all perfectly reasonable, but she does not explain where the money is to come from for these organisations to extend their reach. No less than the buildings, the staff of many cultural institutions have also been seriously neglected over a long period of time by the same process of under-funding. This point has been made by Mike Clancy, general secretary of the Prospect Union, which represents experts in the public and private sectors: ‘This sector is facing an ongoing and intractable crisis in pay and retention which has to be addressed. We need a model for day-to-day spending that allows for sustainable workforce planning, pays these highly qualified experts what they are worth and enables our institutions to employ enough of the right people to keep sites and collections open to the public and show them in the best way possible.’

In other words, Nandy seems to think the £1.5 billion is all Britain’s cultural organisations need in order to deliver ‘public value’, ignoring the fact that they will have to continue to rely on a seriously underpaid workforce underpinned by large numbers of volunteers, who are themselves dealing with a cost-of-living crisis.

In Athena’s view, this funding should be part of what the sector needs above all, but seems unlikely to get: an integrated Government strategy for sustainability of the Arts in Britain. This would involve, for example, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) engaging with the Treasury to find meaningful incentives for philanthropy by private individuals and companies, as well as collaborating with the departments for education and health to explore ways of drawing in new audiences and unlocking fresh sources of funding. Tragically, she doubts that the DCMS has the clout to achieve anything of the kind.

Whatever the case, without such initiatives, money will be spent on Arts buildings, but who will be left to run them?

This feature originally appeared in the February 4, 2026, issue of Country Life. Click here for more information on how to subscribe.