Another tragedy at the Royal Shakespeare Company

The drastically different levels of funding for the National and the RSC make no logical sense

Next week sees the official regime changes at both the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company. At the National, Sir Trevor Nunn gives way to Nicholas Hytner. At the RSC, Adrian Noble makes way for Michael Boyd. Our two biggest theatre companies have new artistic directors ready to make their mark on everything from the repertory to the state of the toilets.

The new boys don't, however, start with similar finances. This week the Arts Council announced its annual distribution of grants. Hytner can enjoy a golden hello in the shape of a hefty 16.5 per cent increase, while Boyd finds the RSC receiving only a 4 per cent uplift.

In its public statement the council said the National was being awarded its large increase "to enable it to enter a new era under its new artistic director...". But hang on. Has no one at the funding body noticed that the RSC is also starting a new era under a new artistic director? The two men even start on the same day. If the logic of giving a 16.5 per cent increase to one national institution is that it has a new boss, then why does that logic not extend to another?

This lack of logic is all too typical of the opaque arts funding process. I'm doubtful if anyone inside arts institutions or the wider world of audiences, or other taxpayers, actually understands the criteria on which these grant allocations are made. The Arts Council's chief executive, Peter Hewitt, said money was being matched to "exciting ideas and big, bold initiatives". But who defines what is exciting, excellent, big or bold? Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Culture, said this week's grants hailed "a new era of innovation, excellence and relevance". Well, when it comes to excellence the RSC has had some very good reviews over the last year; it has also had some bad ones. Likewise, the National. I would say that the hugely praised RSC season of rarely performed Jacobean plays was as bold an initiative as there has been in the past year. It brought to both Stratford and the West End plays that had never been seen in either place. The special-achievement Olivier award that was created solely to honour this season is mark enough of excellence, surely.

The drastically different levels of generosity to the National and the RSC make no logical sense. Only two explanations are possible. One is that the RSC is being punished for mistakes by previous managements. But how does that sit with the Arts Council's policy for the National of giving money for a new man and a "new era"? The other possibility is an alarming one, when one considers the millions of pounds involved, but it's one that we must consider. Could it be that the National Theatre's increase has dwarfed that of the RSC because Hytner talks a good game, while Boyd is a reticent, rather withdrawn individual?

I have had the pleasure of long conversations with both men in recent weeks. They are, indeed, different animals. Hytner is more outgoing and exuberant. But Boyd, while quietly spoken and intense, does indeed have a vision for the RSC. Both institutions are fortunate to have world-class and possibly visionary directors taking over at the helm. But one of them is now saddled with a budget that may not enable him to stage productions in the way he wishes. The Arts Council owes Mr Boyd, the RSC and the taxpayers, whose money it distributes, an explanation why "a new era under a new artistic director" is reason for a massive cash boost in London, but quite the reverse in Stratford-upon-Avon. And how, out of interest, do those who control the purse strings define boldness and excellence?

* I caught Matthew Bourne's Nutcracker on tour the other day. It was a smashing show, but it was strikingly evident that there was no orchestra. Whereas the big London performances had an orchestra, the regions are having to make do with taped music. It's a loss of earnings for musicians, of course. Yet while Martin Smith, the banker chairman of the English National Opera, has been castigated for threatening to cut musicians' jobs, the choreographer Bourne, who is an artist, has received no opprobrium for depriving musicians of the chance to perform. If I were Mr Smith, I might think that not entirely fair.

* Will the British Pavilion at this summer's Venice Biennale have to be renamed the English Pavilion? In a show of artistic unilateralism, the Scots and the Welsh have decided to break away from the British Pavilion (where the Turner prize-winning artist Chris Ofili is the British representative) and have their own exhibitions elsewhere in Venice. The Welsh contingent points out that the British Council has not honoured a Welsh artist at the Biennale for 40 years. The Scots say they want to use the Biennale to show that Scotland can punch above its weight artistically. My money is on the Welsh attracting the most art lovers. They are throwing a lavish party.

d.lister@independent.co.uk