HC Deb 10 March 1959 vol 601 cc1216-24

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)

Ten years ago yesterday, on 9th March, 1949, a Bill allocating up to £1 million of public money towards the building of a National Theatre received the Royal Assent. As those of us who were in the House at the time will remember, the Bill was passed with the enthusiastic support of members of all parties. We felt that, at long last, the stigma under which this country has suffered for so long, of not having such an institution, was about to be removed. We realised that the work could not be started for some little while; that there was a great need for housing, for generating stations, for factories, and for making good war damage. Nevertheless, I do not think that any of us then thought for a moment that ten years would pass and that nothing had been done. So far as I can see, nothing is intended to be done for a long time yet.

It is for that reason that I want, quite briefly, to ask whether the Economic Secretary can let us know the Government's intentions in this matter. This subject was referred to by the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. P. Thomas) on 23rd January last, when he moved his Motion on the needs of the arts. In the same debate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Carr) also raised the matter, if I may say so, in a most persuasive way. Unfortunately, when the Financial Secretary replied he did not refer at all to the National Theatre. I may be wrong, but I am of the opinion that he deliberately avoided answering the questions put to him.

I ask the Economic Secretary tonight why that was. This House, the public, the London County Council and the Joint Council of the National Theatre and the Old Vic are entitled to know what the intentions of the Government are. We all have a right to know, seeing that it is ten years since the Bill became an Act.

The Act of 1949 was no ordinary enabling Act giving the Treasury power to advance up to £1 million for the building of a National Theatre anywhere. It was the sequel to a bargain which has been come to by the trustees of the National Memorial Theatre Fund and the London County Council under which about an acre in Cromwell Gardens was exchanged for little more than an acre belonging to London County Council in Lambeth on a site quite near to the Festival Hall.

That transaction, if my recollection is correct, would not have taken place if the London County Council had not been assured that money would be forthcoming for the building of a theatre. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Sir Stafford Cripps, when appealed to, very readily agreed to advance the money so that at long last we might see, at no distant date, a National Theatre arising in the centre of London.

At that time, as far as my memory serves me, architects had been appointed and I believe that plans had been drawn. It was to be a very fine structure, comprising two theatres, one capable of holding 1,200 and another 500, with workshops and room for developments of various kinds. It was expected, in fact decided, that as part of the scheme repertory companies would go out to various parts of the country. Not only would Shakespeare be played, but also works of other dramatists of note, including Bernard Shaw and other well-known dramatists, as well as younger playwrights as they came along.

The Queen Mother in, I think, 1951, laid the foundation stone and there was then every expectation that at long last we were to get this theatre. When we debated the needs of the arts, on 23rd January, the Financial Secretary announced additional help from the Treasury towards opera, ballet, the buying of pictures and the like, but he said nothing about finding money for the National Theatre. Although £1 million would have been adequate ten years ago, I doubt whether twice that sum would not now have to be found to build this theatre. If much more time is allowed to elapse, I am sure that not even £2 million would cover the cost.

Some time ago, the Treasury, I understand, invited the Arts Council to report on the housing of the Arts. I believe that that Report is now in the hands of the Treasury. I ask the Economic Secretary whether he will be good enough to let us know if that is so, and when we may expect its publication. I do not know, but I have been told that the Arts Council, in that Report, has given very high priority to the building of a National Theatre. If that is so, I think we ought to know, and also ought to know why it is that the Treasury has paid no attention to that suggestion.

I would also like to ask the Economic Secretary whether he will tell us what is the attitude of the L.C.C. to this long delay? Has the L.C.C. made any representations? I saw in The Times a week or ten days ago a letter from Sir Donald Wolfit, the actor, who suggested, that under the General Powers Bill which London County Council is now promoting, the County Council proposes, I think under Clause 21, to make the site which had been dedicated to a National Theatre an open space. I have looked at the Bill, and my reading of the Clause is not quite the same as that of Sir Donald Wolfit, but I think that the public needs some reassurance on this matter. Perhaps the Economic Secretary this evening, or, if not, at some future time, could let us know just what the position is.

Mr. George Jeger (Goole) The Times

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I was, of course, aware of what my hon. Friend has been good enough to say. Nevertheless, there is some disquiet in the public mind, and I think that on this occasion, as we are dealing with this matter, it would be a good thing if the Economic Secretary could reassure us on this point.

This country is almost unique amongst civilised nations in that it has no National Theatre. This is the country that gave birth to Shakespeare, the greatest playwright the world has ever seen, and yet we are one of the few civilised nations which has not got a National Theatre. For over fifty years, efforts have been made to collect funds and to interest people in such a project. As far back as 1903, those interested began to collect the money and to try to interest people in such a venture. It was hoped, on the tercentenary of Shakespeare's death, in 1916, to have collected money and have the building finished and to open such a theatre, but war came in 1914 and the scheme fell through. As I have already said, at long last, in 1949, we thought that we would see a National Theatre materialise, but here we are, in 1959, no nearer to the culmination of our hopes.

I hope that the Economic Secretary tonight will not simply tell us that we have the Old Vic. The Old Vic is a very fine institution, but it is no substitute for a National Theatre, and I assume that in years to come—it may be ten, or even twenty years—the Old Vic will have to come down to make room for street widening. What we want is a National Theatre in the fullest sense of the word, and I hope that tonight the Economic Secretary will be able to reassure us and to tell us that at long last the Treasury does mean to allow a start to be made on this great memorial to the greatest playwright, William Shakespeare.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason (Barnsley)

I rise only to reinforce the plea so ably made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury knows, I have questioned the Chancellor on the increase of moneys to the Arts Council purposely to resurrect the live theatre, and as I see the possibility of a National Theatre helping in this regard, I should like to make some comments about it. It seems to me an exciting possibility that once we had a National Theatre it would help to keep the provincial theatres going. It would keep them alive, feed them with talent and with shows, after they had served a useful period in the City.

I am sorry to think that ten years after acquiring the land we are still waiting for the National Theatre to be erected. Many of our small repertory theatres are closing down—in Halifax, Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley. In many of the provincial towns and particularly in the heart of the Provinces, in places like York, we are losing the repertory theatre. The erection of a National Theatre may help to stave off that decline. The new medium of television has come into the fore and we see our small live theatres dying. Many people who were unknown before are coming on television to act 'before, enormous audiences. Artists have never been able to command such a massive array of people as they do now by means of television. Yet these artists are not adequately trained. The training grounds are all on the decline. The standards of television will likewise decline unless we help in this matter.

In trying to reinforce my right hon. Friend's plea, I express the hope that the Economic Secretary will try to give the House some hope, first, that the National Theatre is a possibility and, secondly, that we shall eventually see one in the City and thereby help maintain the cultural standards in the Provinces and help television as well.

10.22 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll)

I am sure that the House would not wish me to take up the short time left to me in going over the long history of the National Theatre project, particularly as the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) has sketched it in fully and adequately. The facts are particularly well known to the right hon. Gentleman because, as he pointed out to the House, it was he who introduced in the House the Bill which became the National Theatre Act, 1949.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I did not mention that.

Mr. Erroll

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned his connection with the matter. It is so well known that I felt entitled to refer to it.

The Government have been accused of some delay in carrying out the intentions of the National Theatre Act, but the delay really began with the right hon. Gentleman himself. Quite understandably, he raised great expectations when he introduced the Second Reading of the National Theatre Bill on 21st January, 1949. I am sure that at the time his intentions were of the best, but he was surely quite right, as events have subsequently proved, to add these words very near the end of his speech: I should perhaps utter a word of warning as to when this project may begin to mature. It is quite obvious to the Government that it will be some little time before the building can be started."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 442.] The National Theatre was in fact no further forward when the right hon. Gentleman went out of office towards the end of 1951.

At the very best it had been a hope, a wish, and if this was not such a non-controversial evening, I should be tempted to say that it was perhaps hardly fair to get the credit for the Bill when right hon. Gentlemen opposite must have known that they would not be able to build the theatre for some years. As he right hon. Gentleman pointed out, here were other priorities which had to rank ahead of a national theatre—power stations and other forms of construction. That must have been well-known in 1949 when the Bill, nevertheless, was promoted.

I should like to turn from the early years to the more recent history of the project. In July last year my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a distinguished deputation representative of the National Theatre Committee and the Arts Council. Two important facts came to light in the discussion which then took place. The first was that the capital cost of the National Theatre building was likely to be as much as £1¾ million. The second fact was that it would need a continuing annual subsidy which might be as much as £300,000 per annum but which would, even if not as much as that, at any rate be very considerable.

I must tell the House that following this discussion my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt obliged to write to Lord Chandos, who, incidentally, headed the deputation, saying that he could not hold out any hope that we should in the near future be able to make a beginning on the expenditure of nearly £2 million for the National Theatre. As he pointed out, it was a big sum, and a substantial annual subsidy would be required in addition. My right hon. Friend, in his letter, added that the Arts Council was making an inquiry into the housing of the arts at the request of his predecessor, and he hoped that the report which the Arts Council was preparing would indicate priorities amongst the various projects for cultural buildings, a al he said that this would give an opportunity for considering the long-term prospects of the National Theatre against the background of a number of competing claims.

I can now carry the story one stage further by telling the House, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman, that the Arts Council has decided to prepare its report on the housing of the Arts in four separate sections, namely, London, the English provinces, Scotland and Wales. Three sections, namely those dealing with London, Scotland and Wales, have now reached my right hon. Friend from the Arts Council. I understand that it is the intention of the Council to publish the report shortly, but as it is a report of the Council and not a Government report, it is for the Council to decide on the exact time when the sections are published.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

May I interrupt the Minister? I believe from what we were told on 23rd January that the part of the report dealing with Scotland is already being implemented. Why not London?

Mr. Erroll

I was dealing with publication. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as I know, there is no particular cause for delay in publication. It is a matter of checking through the scripts, and perhaps tidying up certain passages, and then there will be the usual processes of printing, so that the sections should be expected shortly and will be generally available. The section on the English provinces will follow later in the year, and there will then be an opportunity of public discussion on the four sections as a whole. I regret that I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman on his point about the supposed implementation of the Scottish section, as that is a new point to me.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will give careful consideration to the report wherever it concerns the Government. He will, of course, want to consider the sections together, which I am sure the House would agree is the right course, so that the demands of the country as a whole can be seen and judged in balance. This is a point which I hope will appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), in view of the remarks he made during his brief intervention.

In the short time left to me I do not want to anticipate my right hon. Friend's consideration of the report on the housing of the Arts or even to discuss its contents before the Arts Council has had time to publish it. However, it may help the House if I mention one or two points which are bound to be in the mind of the Chancellor in considering any recommedation about the National Theatre.

First, we want to be satisfied that there is general acceptance for the concept of building a National Theatre. There are those who argue, both in this House and elsewhere, that the money needed for it would be better spent elsewhere. Secondly, it has been suggested that drama in the provinces deserves a higher priority, especially if the National Theatre would need a large annual subvention. Of that, there is little doubt.

A great deal has been achieved by the existing British theatre since the war on modest rates of subsidy. Arts Council expenditure on drama in 1957–58 was some £75,000. We would all want to pay tribute to all those in the British theatre, and also in the Arts Council, who have made possible so much at such modest cost to the taxpayer. I have in mind not only the great achievements of our nationally-known theatres, such as Stratford and the Old Vic, but also the repertory companies up and down the country which struggle, year in year out, to maintain our theatrical tradition and to preserve and improve their standards. To return to the National Theatre, however, it seems reasonable in considering any annual subsidy which would be needed for it to bear in mind the present figure of £75,000 for drama as a whole, which I have just mentioned.

At the time of the closure of the St. James's Theatre, there were suggestions that money could be better spent preserving existing theatres than in building new ones.

Mr. G. Jeger indicated dissent.

Mr. Erroll

The hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) shakes his head, but I feel that it would be wrong to ignore the suggestions that were then made and which should be taken into account before a decision is arrived at.

Mr. Jeger

Why I was shaking my head concerning the St. James's Theatre was that everyone who knew anything about the theatre knew that it was obsolete and could not be renovated, and that it would have to be completely gutted and rebuilt.

Mr. Erroll

Whether or not the suggestions that were made were valid, the fact remains—and everybody must agree with this—that the National Theatre would tend to compete to some extent for audiences with the commercial theatre of London.

The right hon. Member for Colne Valley referred to Clause 21 of the London County Council General Powers Bill. As I understand the matter, the Clause will not in any way restrict the option which at present exists on the site but will, in fact, probably make it simpler and more effective. I have had only a few minutes in which to obtain this information. If what I have said needs modification or qualification, I will, of course, inform the House; but that is as I understand it at the moment.

Finally, I must make the point that the National Theatre is an expensive project. A large capital sum is needed. What would make it particularly difficult for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to proceed would be the need from the outset for a large annual subsidy, which would be likely to grow rapidly. I do not want to paint too black a picture. We all hope that it may be possible to find a way out of these difficulties.

My right hon. Friend will, as I have said, be considering the matter closely now that he has received the London section of the report by the Arts Council on the housing of the Arts. Moreover, he can look forward soon to receiving the Provincial section, perhaps with some indication of priorities as between one part of the United Kingdom and another. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley, who introduced this debate and who is experienced in these matters, will understand that I cannot go further tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.