D'Oyly Carte

HC Deb 01 April 1998 vol 309 cc1195-217

11 am

Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton)

I promise to set an example of brevity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, both because I believe in it—I have seldom heard a speech lasting 60 minutes that would not have been better delivered in six—and because I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak. Indeed, this debate is in some sense a collective enterprise: by pure coincidence, I understand that several hon. Members asked for the debate in almost identical terms, but mine was the name plucked out of the opera hat, for which I am extremely grateful.

This is not the weightiest issue ever to come before the House, but nor is it negligible. It speaks to our theatre, our music, our tradition, our identity, our sense of history and our sense of humour. We British—I almost said we English; as we have had so many Scottish and Welsh debates lately, let us have an English one—we English have no Mozart, no Puccini, no Wagner but, my goodness, we have Gilbert and Sullivan, who have entertained and illuminated our country and the world for more than 120 years and whose legacy is now in danger. The D'Oyly Carte Opera Company is in danger of extinction unless we act to save it. The time is short, the threat is real; this is the place and this is the time to sound the alarm bells. If this seems to be an April fool's debate, it is an April fool's debate in terms of its timing only; its substance is serious.

To set the scene, let me give a little bit of history. Gilbert and Sullivan first worked together in 1871. In 1875, Richard D'Oyly Carte, a genius of stagecraft and the foremost theatrical manager of his time, founded the opera company that bears his name as a vehicle for their often conflicting talents; he brought them together and brought them back together when they quarrelled for more than a quarter of a century. The result was the extraordinary and unsurpassed tradition of English light opera. The music and the company survived through most of this century but, in 1981, it died for a little while and was only revived in 1988 thanks to a bequest from Dame Bridget D'Oyly Carte, the last surviving member of the family. Now it is in danger again and we should understand that there is no white knight, fairy godmother or family benefactor waiting in the wings this time. The company needs £500,000 before June and, if it does not get it, the dates it has pencilled in for an autumn tour will be rubbed out and the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company will be rubbed out as well and it will disappear from our cultural history.

The issue is important. In the absence of white knights or fairy godmothers, who can save the company? The obvious candidate is the Arts Council of England which, last year, contributed a one-off payment of £250,000, which enabled the company to put on two productions—a revival of "Iolanthe" and Franz Lehar's "The Count of Luxembourg" in English, of course, because we are speaking of accessible light opera. Those productions were critically acclaimed and a huge success with the public; the company toured the country and charged prices that people could afford and the people loved it. The Arts Council is therefore the obvious candidate to be the company's saviour. However, look at the proposed funding of opera in this country for this year and next: nearly £12 million is to be given to the English National Opera and nearly £8 million to the Royal Opera—about £30 million in all; but for the D'Oyly Carte, the oldest opera company in this country and perhaps the best known, nothing at all, not a brass farthing. It is orphaned and unfunded— a thing of shreds and patches.

What then of another possible source—lottery money? The same Arts Council is the sole channel for allocating lottery grants. Those were, until recently, available only for capital projects, but of what use is a capital project to a touring company? Its strength and its essence are its mobility. The D'Oyly Carte brings art to the people, yet it is threatened with going out of business because of the fiscal stringency and, dare I say, the prejudice of the Arts Council of England. Last year, the rules were changed and funding was allocated for something called stabilisation. Fifteen companies benefited, but all were already in receipt of Arts Council grants in aid, which is to say that to those who had was given more and to those who, like the D'Oyly Carte, had nothing was given nothing.

One has to wonder—we certainly wonder—what the Arts Council has against the oldest and most distinguished of our opera companies. Perhaps the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company is too popular; perhaps it is too accessible; perhaps people like it too much. Perhaps if it wrapped up bricks in muslin or islands in plastic, it would be deemed worthy of Arts Council funding. Perhaps if it cross-dressed the cast of "The Gondoliers" or had the crew of "HMS Pinafore" clad in black leather and chains, it would be deemed worthy of Arts Council funding. However, it does not do that: it brings light opera to the people and performs the magic of the stage in loved productions that people understand. Those productions are not frozen in time—the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company changes, innovates and brings things up to date. It does not break with its audience, but carries its audience with it. For this, it seems to me, the company is being penalised.

I sense cultural elitism and snobbery being deployed by the mandarins and Pooh-Bahs of the arts establishment. Their coded accusation is apparently that the company's repertoire is "unchallenging"—what a weasel word that is. Let us apply it to one of Gilbert and Sullivan's most famous creations, "Iolanthe", which was a parody of this institution, albeit more of the other end than of this. It reaches out to us across a century and more and speaks to us with relevance in the 1990s as it did in the 1880s. Last year's production was updated with material that spoke of the wonders of life in the new Labour age—and so it should have been, because Gilbert and Sullivan created something that is permanently updatable and which speaks to us now. Remember that "Iolanthe" was about a still unreformed House of Lords and one of its leading figures was—I must put this tactfully—a Lord Chancellor who had a certain sense of who he was in the order of things. All it lacks is a wallpaper song and, although I should be happy to abandon my parliamentary duties for half a day to try to compose such a song, I suspect that there are others who could do it better.

Gilbert and Sullivan, now as then, argue for a certain freedom and independence of spirit, which is healthy not only in our cultural life, but in our political life. We would do well to heed them in these days of three-line Whips, an entrenched party system and the unspontaneous nature of Question Time, which we shall again have this afternoon. Certain lines reach across the century:

• "When in that House MPs divide,
• If they've a brain and cerebellum too,
• They have to leave that brain outside,
• And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to."

The manifesto of the independent party in just four lines—if we had an independent party, Gilbert and Sullivan would be its wandering minstrels.

I promised to be brief and I shall be brief. English light opera is a great tradition which we must not let go. The D'Oyly Carte Opera Company has embellished that tradition, revived it and, in some cases, improved it and extended its repertoire. It is the keeper of the flame and the flame must not go out in our time. We must do what we can to save the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company— it is the very model of a modern major opera company.

11.9 am

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a song to sing, O! I thought that you might break in at that point and say, Sing me your song, O", but I will not bother to sing my speech. If I did, I would demonstrate a pathetic standard of amateur performance. We need the D'Oyly Carte in order to improve the standard of Gilbert and Sullivan performances in this country. The company is the main trunk of Gilbert and Sullivan provision in our society. It is fantastically popular with enthusiastic audiences. People like Gilbert and Sullivan: it is part of our heritage. However, maintaining that heritage depends on keeping the D'Oyly Carte, which is the professional core of that heritage, going.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said—I shall call him that in this non-party political atmosphere—the future of the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company is under threat. Unless financial support is forthcoming by June—we are talking about a sum of less than £1 million—the structure will crumble and the company will cease to exist. Many hon. Members applied for this debate to plead with the Arts Council to do something to save D'Oyly Carte. It is irresponsible for the Arts Council to continue to pass the buck. The D'Oyly Carte Opera Company deserves support because it will never be fully commercial, yet it is more commercial than the alternative forms of musical endeavour that the Arts Council supports. In fact, that is its crime: because D'Oyly Carte is more commercial, the Arts Council will not support it.

In its letter to hon. Members—which contains a succession of excuses for doing nothing—the Arts Council shifts from one argument to another. First, it claims that the company is not run properly. However, when its management structures are examined and it is proved that the company is run properly, the Arts Council argues that its productions are not of a high standard.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)

Is it not ironic that the Arts Council, which accuses D'Oyly Carte of not being run properly, should sink hundreds of millions of pounds into the Royal Opera house, which is certainly not well run?

Mr. Mitchell

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for stealing my next point—although he almost certainly puts it better than I could. That is exactly the case: the Arts Council would rather pour money into a bottomless pit at the Royal Opera house than provide the minimal amount that is needed to keep D'Oyly Carte going. In defending its position, the Arts Council continually shifts the argument. It claims that D'Oyly Carte's standards are not high enough, although it received positively rave reviews—which commented specifically about the very high production standards—for its last tour.

The Arts Council's letter to hon. Members contains a series of excuses for not doing its duty. Why is the Arts Council not doing its duty by the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company? I believe that there are two basic reasons. Reading between the lines, the Arts Council seems to think that, if it supports that company's operating costs— it does not need the sort of institutional support that is given to touring companies—it will open the door and everyone else will want the same kind of support. However, the Arts Council neglects the argument that, if it does not provide that support, the D'Oyly Carte will go under.

It is insane for the Arts Council to pour money into the Royal Opera house and invest in theatres and permanent facilities all over the country but not support those organisations that tour the country and can fill those theatres. D'Oyly Carte tours very economically. It costs less to put Burns on seats with D'Oyly Carte than with grand opera, Opera North or other subsidised companies because Gilbert and Sullivan are more popular. D'Oyly Carte tours more often for longer periods and visits more places. Its costs are much lower than that of any other comparable form of musical entertainment or opera. It is right to support D'Oyly Carte in this emergency.

The Arts Council's argument becomes a vicious circle: it will not support D'Oyly Carte because it is not on the list, but the company cannot get on the list because it is a touring company that is not institutionally based, and therefore cannot be assisted with institutional funds. That brings us to the nub of the Arts Council's case. It never states its case explicitly—although it sometimes comes near to saying it—so we cannot attack and lampoon it. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to refer to the cultural snobbery on the part of elitists who view Gilbert and Sullivan as popular, middlebrow and beneath their gaze and their contempt. That is why the Arts Council will not support D'Oyly Carte.

Furthermore, the Arts Council will not support the company because it is commercial. If it were not commercial, the company would be eligible for the same Arts Council support that is poured into alternative entertainment. I came to know Gilbert and Sullivan's work at Manchester university. As a humble working-class lad, I considered it to be positively upper class. However, the Arts Council considers it to be middlebrow and down-market. It is as simple as that.

Today, we must say loudly and clearly to the Government and to the Arts Council: it is no use passing the buck; something must be done. Unless a minimal contribution is made to assist this wonderful national institution, it will go under—and the country will be the poorer if it does.

11.15 am

Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on securing this debate and on putting forcefully the case for re-examining funding for the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has a rapport with a particular Gilbert and Sullivan character. Perhaps as a former, much-travelled BBC journalist, he relates to the wandering minstrel; or perhaps—and we shall never know—in some intimate moment in a far-off country, even to Little Buttercup.

I apologise to the House for having to leave the Chamber early, but I must attend the memorial service for Woodrow Wyatt, a former distinguished Member of both Houses of Parliament whose colourful and rich personality could have drawn inspiration from a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on a good speech which made the point extremely well.

Hon. Members will no doubt speak in this debate about revenue funding and capital grants and about the distinction between grant in aid and so-called "stabilisation funds". They will not wish to be detained with the labyrinthine details of arts funding or with the stop-go economics of D'Oyly Carte's recent history. The blunt truth is that, however important those details are, the D'Oyly Carte company needs a significant injection of cash if it is to survive. If it is to get that money from public funds, it will be through the Arts Council of England.

I shall not beat about the bush. In my personal view, it would be a cause for national mourning if D'Oyly Carte were refused appropriate Arts Council funding. The company plays to packed houses around the country. Its productions have been seen by more than 1 million people since its revival in 1988, and it is the guardian of a valuable part of our theatrical heritage. Anyone who attended D'Oyly Carte's presentation in the Grand Committee Room in the Palace of Westminster before Christmas will certainly recall a singularly enjoyable and memorable event. The company has been remarkably successful in the arts world in attracting sponsorship and public support. I pay special tribute to Sir Michael Bishop, who matched a £1 million bequest to D'Oyly Carte to enable the company to be relaunched and who has supported it with his leadership and generosity ever since.

D'Oyly Carte provides an invaluable introduction to the pleasures of operatic performances for audiences and performers alike. It particularly affords an opportunity for young people to learn about light opera, and the stimulus provided may encourage them to enjoy other forms of opera as well.

D'Oyly Carte productions provide entertainment that transcends all age groups. It is a wonderful link to our cultural past—an expression of what has helped to forge us into the nation that we are today—yet, apparently, it is ineligible for an adequate grant because of the attitude of those in the Arts Council who decide these things. There can be no other fundamental explanation for the endless to-ing and fro-ing, false starts and fruitless meetings which have surrounded that funding problem over the years.

Apparently, D'Oyly Carte simply is not good enough. The Arts Council says that things have been better since it gave the company some money, but still, somehow, they are not good enough. Press reviews, on the other hand, have been overwhelmingly favourable. Nevertheless, "Could do better"—or, more likely, "We would rather that they did something else"—seems to be the message.

It has been suggested to me that light opera is not the sort of thing that the great and the good who run the Arts Council believe that they should spend money on. It does not cater to the taste of a sensitive minority. It is not expensive. It is not inaccessible. It is not experimental. It is not—well, new. In fact, D'Oyly Carte is more than 120 years old. It certainly does not need to be rebranded.

The crisis confronting D'Oyly Carte highlights an aspect of the current system of arts funding. Many people feel that, in that system, a cultural elite mysteriously decides what the public should want. Consequently, in order to remain in the charmed circle of so-called clients, theatre and opera companies, galleries and performers must negotiate a perpetually changing series of obstacles and requirements. Often the public feel that, the more obscure and irrelevant the offering, the better the chances of success.

Is it acceptable that the Arts Council should pay so little attention to popular taste? Gilbert and Sullivan is genuinely popular; indeed, a new CD of the most famous songs is currently a best seller. Today's debate is an interesting lesson for the Government in accurate terminology. I do not know how many things have been renamed "for the people"; I imagine that the Soviet Union still holds the record for that, if not by much. However, here is something that really deserves the people's name. The Secretary of State has talked about making the London opera companies more accessible to people, but here, surely, is the real people's opera—for the many, not the few.

The one refreshing departure in arts funding in recent years has been the introduction of the national lottery, yet, regrettably—this is part of the continuing problem—the proposed new opportunities fund is robbing money that would have gone into the arts, and undermines the core basis on which the national lottery was originally established.

An enormous number of people love light operatic music, and have as much right to a slice of the Arts Council of England's funding as have other minority interests that benefit from it.

There is now new leadership in the Arts Council. If money is not found by June, the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company may well cease to exist. That would be a tragedy for an enduring element of the country's cultural life. The changes currently being undertaken at the Arts Council provide a real opportunity to consider the company's plight sympathetically. After some of the Arts Council's more controversial decisions, the changes afford it the chance to reconnect with a large number of people in this country, in satisfying their true cultural interests.

I appeal to the new chairman of the Arts Council to consider carefully what has been said in the House this morning and the many representations that he has received. Let him cut through all the complexity and obfuscation of the past few years in a truly decisive way, like a real modern Major-General.

11.23 am

Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North)

I suspect that I am alone in the Chamber this morning in being entitled to wear a D'Oyly Carte necktie. It is given to those who have toured Gilbert and Sullivan opera abroad and played outside this country's shores; more than 20 years ago, the fact that I was able to do that gave me one of my introductions to performing music. I am sorry to say that those neckties are no longer given out by the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company—it can no longer afford to do so. Unfortunately, I am no longer able to wear mine because of the over-zealous support and enthusiasm of my wife for a local jumble sale some months ago. Otherwise, I would certainly have sported it in the Chamber this morning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) started by singing that he had a song to sing, O and had you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, been Elsie, you might have responded by saying, Sing me your song, O". The song that was sung was, of course, that of a lovelorn loon—the song of a forsaken love. If you look at the history of the relationship between the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company and the Arts Council of England, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that you will see, in that tale of rejected love, an example that might have been taken from the song.

I want not only to comment on the way in which the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company has provided sheer enjoyment for millions of people in this country, but to focus on the value for money that it has provided. Since 1988, the company has performed to more than 1 million people, giving 174 weeks of performances in 40 major touring theatres throughout the country. Crucially, it has earned more than £8.5 million at the box office. That has been done, not by charging exorbitant rates but, as the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said, by charging a modest entrance fee to hear and to be entertained for an evening of sheer joy.

In fact, almost 89 per cent. of the funding of the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company has come from its own efforts, not from public sector support. Slightly more than £11 million has kept the company going since 1988. Only 11 per cent. of that has come from the public sector.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden)

I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. I warmly support the views that have been expressed, and agree that it would be a tragedy if the company were allowed to close. In the period in which the company earned that money, by how much did the Arts Council subsidise other operas and artistic productions?

Mr. Gardiner

I am happy to have that cue, because I was just about to consider the way in which the finances of the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company compare with those of other institutions sponsored by the Arts Council of England.

In just one year—1998–99—there is a spend of £31 million on a total of 11 opera companies, ranging from the Royal Opera, English National Opera and Opera North down to the very small and excellent opera groups, Pimlico Opera, Opera Circus and Opera Factory. In the eight years from 1989 to 1997 public sector support for the D'Oyly Carte amounted to just £1.25 million, and most of that was not from the Arts Council of England, but from other public sector support.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes)

To help the House, can the hon. Gentleman tell us how much the Arts Council gave the D'Oyly Carte during the period that he mentioned? Was it £50,000? Was it £30,000? I think that the company received £50,000 for that entire period. Only in the past year, by way of compensation, has it received a little more. Am I right in thinking that, in nine years, the D'Oyly Carte was given £50,000?

Mr. Gardiner

Yes. That demonstrates graphically the disparity of funding for a company which, despite moving its base twice during that period, has managed against all the odds to give sheer pleasure to more than 1 million people in this country. Its performances have been of a consistently high standard—one has only to read the reviews in The Times to note that—and it has branched out into other aspects of light opera over that period. The company is giving great enjoyment and providing great value for money. The Arts Council must now take it on board and give it long-term sustainable funding.

11.31 am

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

I am delighted to take part briefly in the debate. I begin by congratulating the white knight who introduced it with an elegant speech and who spoke passionately for us all.

I take issue slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who spoke disparagingly about amateurs. I got my love for Gilbert and Sullivan at the Theatre Royal, Cleethorpes, when at the age of eight I was taken by my parents to see "The Mikado". The rhythm and tunefulness of the music, and the enthusiasm and spontaneity of the production, gave me a love for Gilbert and Sullivan that has never left me. I remember taking my own children to Wolverhampton to the touring D'Oyly Carte in the days before 1981. It was one of the formative experiences of their lives. Both my sons share the enthusiasm and delight that I take in Gilbert and Sullivan.

That is not unrepresentative of people in all walks of life all over the country. If the chairman of the Arts Council, who after all came to fame through his achievements with Granada, wants to help the people who have helped him, he should say to his colleagues on the Arts Council, "Here is a cause that is really worthy of support."

As I speak, I think of the D'Oyly Carte that was revived in 1988. I went to the two opening productions. I remember a wonderful production of "The Yeomen of the Guard". I was thrilled, as so many were, that the D'Oyly Carte was back on the road. It would be an appalling indictment of our arts subsidy if we all had to put on black ties—I certainly would—in June or July this year.

Arts Council snobs who think that poetry should not rhyme and music should not have tunes are on my list. As far as I am concerned, they would not be missed. If the Arts Council, for which I have some regard, is to deserve a reputation for helping the arts in all forms, and if heaps of scrap metal and daubs that are incomprehensible to the majority of the people of this country merit major subsidies, and tinned turds at the Serpentine are worthy of public subsidy, surely Gilbert and Sullivan, that wonderful marriage of marvellous music and superb verse, deserves Arts Council help.

I hope that the Minister, who brings a United Kingdom dimension to the debate, will speak up for that quintessentially English duo when he replies. I know that many people in Scotland deeply appreciate Gilbert and Sullivan, and I am glad that the Minister is nodding. I hope that he will realise that throughout the United Kingdom and far beyond, if the flagship that is D'Oyly Carte is sunk without trace, many, many people will be sad. It must not be sunk.

I shall not continue, as many of my hon. Friends—we are all hon. Friends in the Chamber today—want to take part in the debate. Let the united message of parliamentarians go out to the Arts Council, emphasising that D'Oyly Carte is a thing of great worth. Sir Arthur Sullivan was a composer of high renown. We do not want a sad and plaintive playing of "The Lost Chord" this summer. Let the Arts Council follow the example of our white knight in the Chamber, and come to the aid and rescue of one of the most marvellous institutions that we have.

11.35 am

Mr. Ronnie Fearn (Southport)

I have been a lover of Gilbert and Sullivan for many years. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said that amateurs were not performing it as it should be performed, but I agree with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that the D'Oyly Carte company has always been an inspiration to amateurs.

Last week I went to see "Iolanthe" by the Houghton players—the Southport Gilbert and Sullivan society— who have been going for 35 years. They gave a remarkable performance. At the end, the young gentleman who changes to the politician came forward in a white suit. I though that that was a good touch. They were certainly up to date with their choreography. That politician was supposedly half-man and half-fairy, but we cannot say that of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). However, we saw the triumph of the knight—the white suit.

I see many amateur performances and speak to the performers. They say that the D'Oyly Carte company inspires them because it tours so much. We have heard that it visited 40 towns and cities, but the true figure is 36, mainly towns. We know that the English National Opera and other major companies occasionally venture out at great expense into the sticks, especially in the north-west, so we rely on the D'Oyly Carte to bring Gilbert and Sullivan to us all.

Not many people know that the D'Oyly Carte has a music library, where music is computerised. There are 1,000 clients on its database. The advantages of computerised music are many: a clear and more modern image, greater consistency, and the elimination of copying errors accrued over time. That has huge benefits for Britain's professional and amateur musicians as performance standards inevitably rise. The company's revenue pays for the library—another item that D'Oyly Carte has given to the country.

Having acted in many amateur performances, I know that not all the seats are always filled. For D'Oyly Carte, we are talking about 80 per cent. Burns on seats and a level of sponsorship that no other company has ever achieved. The D'Oyly Carte is a first again. I read last week that the Royal Opera had totted up 77 per cent. Burns on seats, but the cost is high. Seats for the D'Oyly Carte are, at most, £23, which amateurs can afford. That is not the case with other opera companies.

Mr. Fabricant

The hon. Gentleman serves with me on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. He may recall that, during its period of touring, the Royal Opera was able to achieve an average of only about 45 per cent. Burns on seats, as the hon. Gentleman—I nearly called him my hon. Friend—so eloquently puts it.

Mr. Fearn

That is correct. The Select Committee has criticised its failure to fill the seats.

With 80 per cent. Burns on seats, the D'Oyly Carte is looking for only 20 per cent., which means about £500,000. That would take it out of trouble and lead it into a new era. The figure of £50,000 was mentioned before, but from all grant systems, the D'Oyly Carte has so far managed to raise a total of £350,000, but that is over the past four years.

Mr. Fabricant

Ten years.

Mr. Fearn

Yes, 10 years. Most of the other companies have received £31 million this year, so we can see that the figures are disproportionate.

Like many other hon. Members, I wonder whether the Arts Council needs a shake-up. We thought that there had been a shake-up last year, but there is obviously still some dead wood. Perhaps this is the time for a rethink on funding distribution.

Since 1985, the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company has been performing Gilbert and Sullivan operettas and has been the custodian of a unique British musical history. For the past 15 years, the Arts Council has resolutely refused to acknowledge the achievements of the company, which is now the largest and most prolific touring company in the United Kingdom not in receipt of any regular financial support. The D'Oyly Carte Opera Company is the national light opera company and should be saved. Nobody should say that the floodgates will be opened if the grant goes through because that will not happen. In fact, millions of people will say, "About time too."

11.42 am

Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole)

It is appropriate to be sitting in a green room given the theatrical nature of today's debate.

I want to deal with the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company and its mass audience appeal. As has been mentioned already, the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, by virtue of being a touring company, has regularly visited more than 40 theatres the length and breadth of Britain. I should like to put in a plug by saying that it has visited Bournemouth on several occasions. I am proud to say that I visited the company there and appreciated what it performed. Its audiences do not have to take lengthy car journeys to London or elsewhere and stay in expensive hotels. That is the uniqueness of what it offers as a touring company.

The composers at the heart of the repertoire are British and all the foreign operas are sung in English. That is particularly refreshing for a philistine like me. The top price is about £23 and that is less than a west end musical. It is less than the top price for the Royal Opera's "The Merry Widow" at the Shaftesbury theatre, which is about £40. No one can say that the D'Oyly Carte opera is not cheap for all those who go. I know that one can get tickets for as little as £5. That makes it far more accessible. It is affordable and appealing.

The D'Oyly Carte has always had enormous appeal as the backbone for British audiences—family groups, works outings, groups of friends and many others attend. I should like to declare an interest by confessing to the House that, before being plucked from relative obscurity and talent-spotted to become a Member of Parliament, I performed in Gilbert and Sullivan.

We must look at the issues currently surrounding the D'Oyly Carte. We must have realistic funding so that it can survive and so that we can ensure that the people's opera can reach the public on a more regular basis with a wider and improved repertoire. As has already been said, there is a cultural prejudice. It has a low-brow appeal for some people. So be it. It is provincial, but that is what is wanted by the people who go to see it.

Mr. Gardiner

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the provincial nature of Gilbert and Sullivan. When I was in Russia last year, either at the Marinsky or the Bolshoi, I saw "Iolanthe" being performed in Russian. It is not simply a provincial British operetta, but is recognised throughout the world as being of great cultural value.

Mr. Fraser

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, it is provincial not just to this country but to other countries around the world. That gives it even more enduring appeal.

Mr. Fabricant

While hon. Members are talking about Russia, I must tell them that, when I was involved with re-equipping the studios at Radio Moscow, I thought that I was going to see "Iolanthe" at the Bolshoi. I sat through "Iolanthe" in Russian. There is, of course, "Iolanthe" by Tchaikovsky and I wonder whether the two have been confused.

Mr. Fraser

I am not sure whether that intervention was for me or for the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). The length of my performance might increase as I take more interventions, so I will press on.

Mr. Steen

My hon. Friend was touching on the provincial nature of Gilbert and Sullivan, and discussion has taken place. I am sure that he was going to talk about—if he was not, I am sure that he will now—the importance of D'Oyly Carte and Gilbert and Sullivan in schools. Many young people are introduced to classical music in that way. They may find Wagner and Shostakovich a little heavy, but Gilbert and Sullivan is their introduction to light music and classical music. Does my hon. Friend agree that the D'Oyly Carte company has been the flag carrier for that message in schools?

Mr. Fraser

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It does provide an introduction for many people to music generally as well as to light opera. It is palatable and, as I said earlier, if I can accept and understand it, I am sure that many others will.

We must look at what the Arts Council is doing. My fear is that the Arts Council finds it beneath itself to support this company. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) has already said, we can compare the D'Oyly Carte company with the Royal Opera house. I am also a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which has just conducted an inquiry into the Royal Opera house, where generous funding lives alongside poor management controls on expenditure and the Arts Council could be regarded as having thrown good money after bad. As the Select Committee has already reported, that is not good enough. I should like to see more money going towards a touring opera company such as the one mentioned today, rather than into other projects which we know are inherently badly managed and where money is being wasted.

Those who enjoy light operetta have just as much right as those who prefer the more bona fide opera that is touring this country to expect their chosen form of entertainment to be subsidised. The D'Oyly Carte company has never received lottery money, yet the principle of the national lottery was to provide funds to restore our heritage and promote projects which will become a source of national pride. I argue that the work of the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company has achieved that over many years.

For the Arts Council, lottery money has been used to top up existing lottery grants to the favoured few. We must overcome that in the future. Hon. Members would surely rue the day if we, and those who love Gilbert and Sullivan and other composers, were to lose for ever some of the classical operas such as "Iolanthe", which is being plugged heavily this morning and in which a certain Lord Chancellor's lot is not a happy one. If I may, I should like to quote from it because its relevance today is particularly uncanny. I will not sing the words:

• "When you're lying awake with a dismal headache,
• And repose is taboo'd by anxiety,
• I conceive you may use any language you choose
• To Indulge in, without impropriety;
• For your brain is on fire
• The bedclothes conspire of usual slumber to plunder you;
• First your counterpane goes, and uncovers your toes
• And your sheet slips demurely from under you;
• Then the blanketing tickles—You feel like mixed plckles
• So terribly sharp is the pricking
• And you're hot, and you're cross
• And you tumble and toss
• Till there's nothing 'twixt you and the tickling."

I have to confess that it took me a moment to realise which Lord Chancellor was being referred to in that piece. The parallels of the loss of sleep that both the Lord Chancellor in "Iolanthe" and the current Lord Chancellor are having in their private quarters will not be lost on the House. There are many other salutary reminders to the House of the work of G and S and the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) eloquently used an example himself. Such classic lines and such classic opera should not be lost. We must support the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company and funds must be made available to ensure the continuation of the benefit that it brings to the whole country.

11.50 am

Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on his skill in obtaining this important debate and on his wonderful speech.

Why are we having this debate? I wonder if anyone has thought about it. It is simply because a unique British institution is on the point of being closed because the Arts Council, the custodian of the arts, is refusing to put it on its client status list, which allows regular and annual funding to artistic and opera companies. It has failed totally to respond to public demand. The important point is: why are the Government standing by and letting that happen?

Unlike any other opera company, the D'Oyly Carte takes music to the people. It is the only national touring light opera company to do that. All the other opera companies are administratively based in large buildings and have enormous overheads to meet, whereas the D'Oyly Carte is entrepreneurial, commercially managed and has survived on £50,000 from the Arts Council over nine years.

In fact, the D'Oyly Carte's problem is that it has been too commercially successful. Its innovations include recently doing a deal with a Harry Ramsden fish and chip restaurant in Nottingham, where every month Gilbert and Sullivan is performed by the D'Oyly Carte to people enjoying fish and chips. Harry Ramsden may become synonymous with Gilbert and Sullivan. Whenever people go to eat fish and chips, they will be singing a merry little tune.

D'Oyly Carte also has highly skilled management. The royalty rates of the D'Oyly Carte recordings have just been renegotiated.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford)

My hon. Friend mentions trying to succeed commercially. In my constituency, I have a fine theatre, the Yvonne Arnaud, which has tried to succeed commercially and feels that that is exactly why it has such a hard job in getting any money at all out of the Arts Council.

Mr. Steen

Clearly, the Arts Council has come in for criticism. I hope to add a little more, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.

The D'Oyly Carte is an opera company with deep roots in what it is to be British—in our heritage and culture— retaining the original Gilbert and Sullivan qualities: it has the lyric sheets, song scores and choreography. It is more accessible to the people than any other. Perhaps most significant, it has lower production costs than any other national company and, I believe, higher artistic quality, so what is wrong with the Arts Council? Why are all of us in here today? What is happening there?

I fear that much has been happening. I suspect that, if the D'Oyly Carte were a Stockhausen quartet playing in a wine bar in Ludlow or Cheltenham, the Arts Council would be throwing money at it. There is some truth in the accusation that Gilbert and Sullivan is viewed by the Arts Council as low-brow, down-market, popular and not musically correct.

Having been trained for a short time as a pianist at the Royal Academy of Music, I know what it is to be musically correct. There is no doubt about it: Gilbert and Sullivan is not musically correct and Arts Council officials just do not like it. It is true that some Arts Council officials are on their own private trips to suit their personal idiosyncrasies. There has been blatant discrimination against Gilbert and Sullivan and the D'Oyly Carte.

I make a serious charge: the D'Oyly Carte has been badly misled by the Arts Council. As joint chairmen of the D'Oyly Carte Gilbert and Sullivan parliamentary group—I am not sure whether they are hon. Friends or hon. Members, but I am happy to say it in this case—my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), we have seen what has been going on in the Arts Council for the past two years. The D'Oyly Carte has been misled by the Arts Council for so long that it has built up debts as a result. The Arts Council must repay the debts that it has allowed the D'Oyly Carte to build.

The D'Oyly Carte was led to expect that it had an excellent chance of obtaining funds under lottery stabilisation. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for National Heritage in the Conservative Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), who persuaded officials that they needed to change the lottery rules specifically to allow lottery money for touring. That was called stabilisation and it was to help pay off any debts or accumulated deficits. The lottery rules were changed.

Arts Council officials were told that that would allow them to help organisations that had built up some problems over the years. The problem, however, was that those officials were so arrogant in their selection of who should benefit from stabilisation that they totally disregarded the Government's intention and—this is perhaps significant for the Minister to understand—used the stabilisation fund, which they said would be limited to £5 million, but which they doubled unilaterally to get themselves out of a tight corner financially.

In its briefing paper to both Houses of Parliament yesterday the Arts Council said that Arts Council for England stabilisation money is intended to stabilise so that organisations do not require further revenue funding from the Arts Council for England", yet all the money from stabilisation has gone to those already on its client status list. It was totally deceptive as to what it was doing. It needs to make a statement today as to why it did that and to explain how it is that debts of £6.8 million that were faced by English National Opera were written off.

The House deserves a statement by the chairman of the Arts Council as to why his predecessor allowed stabilisation money to go to organisations that it was already funding, rather than do what it was told to do by the Government. We call for an explanation and the Minister should demand one. Perhaps he will give us an answer in his winding-up speech.

There is worse to follow. The Arts Council misled the D'Oyly Carte into believing that it was just a matter of time before it would find ways of funding it. In fact, the D'Oyly Carte was strung along. Because it was strung along, its debts have doubled. In the belief that it was a serious candidate for stabilisation, the company commissioned an independent report—by Bonnar and Keenlyside, approved consultants—on the company's future. The report cost the D'Oyly Carte £30,000, but the Arts Council immediately rubbished it, as it did not say what the council wanted to hear.

Two months later, in April 1997, the Arts Council—as if by way of compensation—provided a one-off grant of £250,000 to enable the company to undertake an autumn tour. Why should the D'Oyly Carte put on an autumn tour, and why should £250,000 of public money be granted if the company was not to continue? The chairman of the Arts Council allowed that to happen. Why?

The Arts Council, contemporaneously with granting £250,000, insisted on yet another report, this time from a Richard Crossland, who was—Arts Council approved, of course—wheeled in to investigate. D'Oyly Carte had to foot another bill, this time for £15,000.

Richard Crossland was intimately connected with English National Opera. He failed to disclose that he was contracted to Newcastle city council at the time when the city was talking to D'Oyly Carte. As hon. Members will know, he had other connections with English National Opera.

The D'Oyly Carte company had a long and successful period working in conjunction with Birmingham city council. What drove the company out was very simple: the theatre in which it was working went into liquidation. It was a private company that went to the wall. It has been said that Newcastle wanted the D'Oyly Carte up north. However, the Newcastle theatre, and the man behind it, is in a position similar to that in Birmingham. That does not mean that the theatre will go bust, but—as it is not a charity—it would still be in a vulnerable position if the D'Oyly Carte went there.

As important, no extra money will be provided by Newcastle. The amount of money offered by the property developer who would like D'Oyly Carte to come to Newcastle is no more than is currently being offered in Wolverhampton, where the company is currently based. Therefore, that promised commercial sponsorship is no more advantageous.

Mr. Mitchell

That myth—which keeps coming back, particularly from the Arts Council, as part of a circular argument—about Newcastle should be laid to rest. It is that the Arts Council will not help the company because it should have gone to Newcastle. However, that was not a realistic offer and offered nothing more than was offered in Wolverhampton. It would not have provided the type of money necessary to keep the D'Oyly Carte going. It was not a reasonable offer.

Mr. Steen

In the past 18 months—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not comment further on this—the Arts Council has been in great turmoil. It has had no general secretary and little continuity or policy. The company is currently based in Wolverhampton, where it has considerable support. The Arts Council seems to want it to have a larger base and larger administrative costs, and keeps talking about the north-east. The council does not like the fact that 89 per cent. of the D'Oyly Carte's running costs come from the box office and private sponsorship. The council resents the company's independence, and has never cared for its music.

There is either gross incompetence in the Arts Council—which the Minister will undoubtedly be concerned about—or some conspiracy. The manner in which one of our most revered institutions has been allowed to reach the point of winding up—for the sake of less than £1 million—is almost a national scandal. The D'Oyly Carte has been bedevilled by excuses about why it cannot be put on the list. It was misled about stabilisation, and then its management was attacked. Its artistic standards were attacked, and now its management is again being attacked.

In a nutshell, the Arts Council wants to kill off the D'Oyly Carte, and it has nearly succeeded. I hope that the Minister will not offer platitudes in his reply, because they will come too late. Can hon. Members imagine the Italians allowing an opera company that is intrinsically linked with Verdi to go to the wall? Would the French allow a company involved in the light operetta of Offenbach to fail?

The D'Oyly Carte will go anywhere to save the Gilbert and Sullivan tradition. It is not against moving to Belfast, Newcastle or Scotland. The company will go wherever it is told to go. Those in the Arts Council are the ones who will not allow it to go anywhere.

The Government have to realise that, as they are from the people's party, they have to save the people's opera. There must be a future for something that we all love.

12.4 pm

Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen)—whom I always think of as the hon. Member for South Hams—who has been a doughty champion of this cause over the immediate past years. I should declare an ancient interest, in that my grandfather illustrated published editions of Sullivan's songs.

This is a brief debate. I shall be even briefer than I usually am, and seek to avoid repeating hon. Friends and other colleagues. However, I know that all hon. Members will want to congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on his masterly opening speech. Without wishing any ill, or intending any read-across towards the relevant Minister in the current Administration, I remind the hon. Member for Tatton of that other continuing contemporary resonance—from Pooh-Bah's speech in "The Mikado", when he is illustrating the ironically Chinese walls in his Department—in the words that, as Paymaster General, he could so fix the accounts that, as Lord High Auditor, he could not work out what he had done.

I shall concentrate on a solution, rather than condemning those who have so far not been able to provide one. I was once the Arts Council's Secretary of State. I cannot plead innocent to the charge of having reduced its funding, although today's issue had not yet arisen when I took that decision.

I have sympathy with the Arts Council, which has fewer funds than it has sometimes had in the past. If the arm's-length principle means anything, it means that it is for those on the Arts Council to make the decisions. I will not substitute my judgment for theirs. However, I cannot help thinking that genuine public support for public funding for the arts is more likely to be forthcoming and sustained—such public support is very important to the Department, for which the Minister will reply—if some of what the Arts Council funds has a welcome echo of recognition from the public. Not for nothing do we know that Oscar Wilde himself looked forward to the first night of "Patience".

I am not without confidence of a solution. The Minister is an enthusiast for British films. He arrived in office confronted by Treasury orthodoxy, and he has personally slain that dragon on behalf of British films, and has been widely saluted for having done so. I realise—I fear that his speech today might reinforce it—that his Department regards the problems surrounding Gilbert and Sullivan as every bit as daunting as those which confronted him in the context of films. However, I hope that he will confirm that, as part of our national culture, Gilbert and Sullivan means as much to him as the British film industry. I myself have profound confidence in his ingenuity.

One footnote is worth making in territory other than that of the Arts Council of England. The Minister is preoccupied with film distribution. In Northern Ireland, where I also served, the Arts Council of Northern Ireland looks after both Opera Northern Ireland and the Grand Opera house in Belfast. It is unfortunate—if, as I fear, it is true—that, in a manner worthy of Pooh-Bah, the Grand Opera house is being denied to the D'Oyly Carte company on the ground that it would threaten the interests of Opera Northern Ireland. That is a good example of the Arts Councils, collectively and in the plural, deflecting public support, rather than encouraging it.

12.7 pm

Ms Patricia Hewitt (Leicester, West)

I apologise for not having been in the Chamber for the earlier part of the debate, particularly for the speech of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). I was detained in Committee, where we were taking important evidence. However, I look forward to reading the debate, with profit and pleasure.

I have never seen any contradiction in enjoying and believing in public support for both classical and light opera—for both so-called high culture and popular culture. I was brought up, musically at least, on both "The Mikado" and "The Messiah", and had the great good fortune as a schoolgirl to sing in productions of both. I shall not detain the House today with performances of either. That was in a different part of the British Commonwealth, Australia, where arts policy is not muddled up with class structures. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) about the real root of the difficulties facing D'Oyly Carte: the snobbery of so much of the arts establishment, and so many members and staff of the Arts Council of England.

Arts policy and the Arts Council should be about supporting excellence across a wide range of artistic forms. The Arts Council should seek to promote the widest possible accessibility to excellent music and art among people from all communities throughout the country. What do we see when we look at the D'Oyly Carte company? We see excellence in production standards and musical performance. Many right hon. and hon. Members had a chance to enjoy some of that excellence when, for the first time in the history of this Parliament, some members of D'Oyly Carte performed for us in the Grand Committee Room. The excellent quality of the company's productions is testified to by several music and opera critics. The company is popular, commercially successful and accessible, as it is in essence a touring company, but it will not survive unless it can add to that commercial success a very modest amount of public support.

I hope that I shall win the Minister's support for my final comment: snobbery towards popular art forms and popular opera should play no part in a modern arts policy for this country. I hope that the Minister and the Arts Council, under its new direction, will ensure that D'Oyly Carte, which has enjoyed such a glittering career for the past 120 years and provided enjoyment for millions of people in this country and abroad, will continue to play a glittering part in this country's artistic life.

12.11 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)

I, too, will be brief in the hope that all those who want to speak will be able to do so.

If this were a trial by jury, the charge would be: found guilty as proved. It is probably as well that the debate was introduced by our independent friend, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), because that is evidence of the all-party, non-party, cross-party nature of the case. I thank him for his characteristically colourful and effective speech. I shall not repeat points made by others.

I am the product of a Gilbert and Sullivan upbringing. For a very high price I shall reveal a photograph of me at the age of 13 dressed in a costume as Katisha. When I was at school, I went to London to see D'Oyly Carte and found it inspirational. It was the first non-children's performance that I saw in the theatre. At home, we sung the scores round the piano with family and friends. It was an easy, accessible and enjoyable activity, but it was also educative—dare I say, it was my first introduction to politics. I learnt from Gilbert and Sullivan of the scepticism that one needs in politics.

In passing, I should like to thank Wolverhampton borough council for housing D'Oyly Carte in recent years. Long may it continue to be as supportive.

We are discussing a company that is local, amateur, regional and provincial. Its work is national but also goes beyond England. My school was in Wales, and over the border it was as valid an education as it was in England. Moreover, the company has said that it will perform not just Gilbert and Sullivan but Offenbach, Strauss, Lehar, Noel Coward, Novello and Stephen Sondheim. It is about light opera, which is a whole class of cultural activity, not a limited cultural island. Nor is it limited to this country. The great thing about D'Oyly Carte is that, unlike the Church of England, people know what they will get, but they always get more. It has a guaranteed minimum and one is often excited by the updating and the extras.

I wish to send a message to the Arts Council: please listen to us, because we were elected and the Arts Council was not. The elite and innovative are valuable, but the popular is equally valuable. One cannot have a diet of nouvelle cuisine without decent meals. We must have parity of funding—the famous level playing field. This company is the best of British—the best of British politics, law, establishment and music—and it tells us about Britain. The Arts Council's credibility is at stake if it does not deliver. We may not be the main players, but we are a mighty big chorus and I hope that the Arts Council hears us loud and clear.

I know that the Minister and his colleagues want to be helpful. There are ways forward. To use words from somewhere else, they could be "bloody, bold, and resolute" and tell the Arts Council what to do. That might have to be the solution. The Government could amend the lottery rules and, if they need the House to help them, we shall do so. They could afford the facility for a loan, which would provide an immediate solution. Alternatively, they could dip with a small hand into the Contingency Fund, which is regularly raided when there is a crisis and money is needed. The money exists, and £500,000 would not be noticed by 11 Downing street.

I urge the Minister to be positive. I know that the Secretary of State will want to help us. If he wants a summit over the weekend so that people can work out a solution, we are willing to attend. This House believes that the money is available, and it must be forthcoming soon.

12.16 pm

Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge)

I am pleased to speak in this debate because we all seem to be singing from the same score. I just hope that the Minister will join in the chorus.

D'Oyly Carte has meant a lot to the culture of this country. When I was a young boy more than 30 years ago, I went to listen to D'Oyly Carte. My interest in opera has broadened since then, as has my waistline. I regard myself as an everyday young man who is fond of his dinner and doesn't get thinner on bottled beer and chops. Opera has also held some interest for me in my new career in this place, and I recall the lines: I always voted at my party's call And I never thought of thinking for myself at all. I realise that times have changed.

The Arts Council made a one-off grant, a condition of which was that D'Oyly Carte would be subjected to a consultants' report. The report was pretty denigrating. I think that the consultants simply did not understand how good D'Oyly Carte's performances were. The Sunday Times compared its production of Lehar's "The Count of Luxembourg" with the Royal Opera house's "The Merry Widow", and D'Oyly Carte's performance came out well on top.

The Arts Council has chosen to ignore something as vulgar as public opinion in this matter. The council may consist of people with great brains; I do not say a word against brains—indeed, I have great respect for them and often wish that I had some. There can be no better way to encourage people to take an interest in opera than through encouraging accessible light opera, particularly Gilbert and Sullivan. People are fed up with the Arts Council and want to know why it can find £30 million to subsidise other areas of opera, but cannot find the relatively small funds needed to support a unique and very British institution. I sincerely hope that my rapid and unintelligible patter will be heard because, to many thousands of people, this does matter.

12.18 pm

The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke)

We have had a magnificent debate. We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). The voice of Parliament has come across loud and clear from both sides of the House. This is Parliament at its best, speaking with influence.

I agreed with almost everything that the hon. Member for Tatton said, but I have to let him down gently on one point. He appeared to detach himself from the rest of us who have been elected to this House. I have news for him—he is a politician like the rest of us now; he has joined the club. Even Gilbert and Sullivan would have recognised that. In "Iolanthe", they wrote:

• "The prospect of a lot
• Of dull MPs in close proximity,
• All thinking for themselves is what
• No man can face with equanimity."

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is part of that as well.

The serious issues that the hon. Gentleman raised were echoed by hon. Members from both sides. It is right that we have had this debate. The Government are fully aware of the support that the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company commands in both Houses. Its recent tour of "The Count of Luxembourg" and "Iolanthe", which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, gave great pleasure to many throughout the country. Sir Michael Bishop has brought strong leadership to the company and has clearly been a vigorous and dedicated champion.

I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, except perhaps for his peroration. As I have had reason to reflect when visiting my local primary and secondary schools and operatic societies, appreciation of Gilbert and Sullivan is not confined to England. Indeed, it would be a tragedy if it were. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) originates from Wales and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) clearly has his roots in Scotland. We have even heard about Russia during the debate. We should not limit the influence of Gilbert and Sullivan to England. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire looks suitably penitent. I accept that.

Sir Patrick Cormack

I did not mean to give that impression. When stressing the quintessentially English nature of Gilbert and Sullivan, one does not want to minimise their universal appeal.

Mr. Clarke

In the spirit of the debate, I am pleased with that clarification.

Many important points have been raised during the debate. If I do not have time to deal with all of them, I shall write to the relevant right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) talked about the Royal Opera house. The two companies do different things. We have made it clear that we unreservedly want wider access to the Royal Opera house. Sir Richard Eyre's review, due to report in May, will examine that. The Arts Council has provided £4 million for a range of accessible touring operetta in the three years to March 1997. That funding continues.

I cannot dodge the clear messages to the Arts Council from hon. Members on both sides. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I believe that there are two essential messages for the Arts Council. First, there is strong support across the House for the work of D'Oyly Carte. Any assessment of its value as a company should be based on the quality of its work rather than on preconceptions about the nature and worth of light opera. Secondly, I must tell the Arts Council candidly that it must support—and be seen to support—a range of artistic activities covering a variety of genres.

The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) raised a number of important points about the principle of arts funding. Decisions on the funding of arts organisations, including D'Oyly Carte, are taken by the Arts Council and regional arts boards. Those decisions are taken at arm's length from Ministers—for a good reason. It would not be appropriate for me to intervene in those discussions.

The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) raised a number of pivotal issues in his excellent and probing speech that require a response from the Arts Council and from D'Oyly Carte. We want clarification on the Newcastle offer. The hon. Gentleman's arguments lead me to conclude that there is a conflict of evidence. Although I have made it clear that it would be inappropriate for me to intervene on the general issue of funding, I shall seek a response from the Arts Council on that significant point.

Like the previous Government, we accept that D'Oyly Carte is an independent company, responsible to its board and backers for its operational decisions. The Government's role is to ensure the most appropriate framework to enable all the arts to flourish. Within that framework, the Arts Council of England is responsible for administering funds and support to arts organisations based in England. It is for the council to take decisions on the balance of support between art forms and the allocation of grants without the involvement of Ministers. The hon. Member for West Suffolk said that the Government bear the responsibility. That was the only discordant note from the score that the rest of us were singing from.

We were elected on a pledge to maintain public expenditure for the next two years at the levels planned by the previous Government. The £184.6 million allocation to the Arts Council announced in December reflects that commitment. Contrary to some of the comments that I have read, the Arts Council has been aware of that figure for 18 months. It is the responsibility of the Arts Council to decide on the balance of funding within that figure.

Mr. Steen

The Arts Council's lottery fund has £250 million. It goes on providing money to build more and more theatres. Will the Minister take action to stop that?

Mr. Clarke

I am sure that the Arts Council will pay careful attention to that point. I understand that it has difficult decisions to take on allocating the available resources, but that is its responsibility.

The House would expect no less than a full spirit of glasnost and open government. No one would be happier than my hon. Friend the Minister for Arts—who is unable to be here because of ministerial responsibilities—to see D'Oyly Carte put on a sound financial basis. I am sure that all hon. Members accept that he has done a great deal to further discussions. It is clearly up to the company to pursue all the options, including, if appropriate, resuming correspondence with the Arts Council—to which we would expect an urgent response.

Mr. Steen

Two months to go.

Mr. Clarke

Indeed. My hon. Friend the Minister for Arts has also offered the possibility of a further meeting with the all-party group, and I hope that that will be taken on board.

The Government are keen to see the great British tradition of Gilbert and Sullivan flourish in every part of the land and internationally. The tradition is inextricably linked with the name of D'Oyly Carte. The Government hope that D'Oyly Carte will be able to work with its supporters to identify viable ways of continuing to delight audiences all over the world.

I should make it clear that the arts in this country are funded, and have been funded over many years, on the basis of an agreed format involving important principles. I know that the Arts Council has strong views, but it ought to feel confident enough to debate them with us in public. I understand that, as a condition of the Arts Council grant in 1997–98, D'Oyly Carte commissioned—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. I call Mr. Tom Levitt.