National Theatre (Hansard, 13 April 1961)

§ 5. Mr. Jeger
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had further discussions with the London County Council about the national theatre; and whether he will make a statement on the present position of the £1,000,000 fund set aside in 1949 for the building of a new theatre.

§ Sir E. Boyle
Discussions on this matter have had to yield precedence to preparation of the Budget. As regards the second part of the Question, there has never been a separate fund. The 1949 Act empowered the Treasury to contribute funds not exceeding £1 million out of moneys provided by Parliament, and Parliament has not been asked to provide the moneys.

§ Mr. Jeger
Will the Minister consider setting aside that £1 million fund or handing it over to the L.C.C. so that the L.C.C. could either invest it for future building or start building a national theatre with such part of the fund as it receives from the Government?

§ Sir E. Boyle
I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government will carefully consider any proposal 460 put to them. I must tell the House that, as I said on 30th March, I do not think that the Government are likely to depart from their view that the first priority should be given to increased support for existing institutions.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Is it not the case that the leader of the L.C.C. has made what is a very reasonable offer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and has in fact undertaken that the L.C.C. will provide the additional money required if the Chancellor will provide the £1 million which Parliament has already authorised him to do? Has not the Treasury given further thought to this situation?

§ Sir E. Boyle
The Treasury certainly has, and the Government will, of course, give further thought to this Question. I do not think I can add to what I have said in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) today and what I said on 30th March.

§ Mrs. White
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of us regard this as a debt of honour, and that this House is committed to the expenditure of up to £1 million by an Act passed by this House?

§ Sir E. Boyle
I would not go quite as far as that. The Government very carefully considered the matter, taking into account, along with everything else, what was said by all parties in 1949. Nevertheless, in the circumstances of today, the Government think that their decision was the right one, and I think that it is very unlikely that they will depart from that decision.

§ Sir P. Agnew
Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that London is already reasonably well provided with theatrical buildings, and that no more are needed?

§ Sir E. Boyle
That point was taken into account, and has often been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Will the Financial Secretary bear in mind that if the national theatre were to be built, and the foundation stone has already been laid, it would take the place of the Old Vic? While there is a very strong case for giving priority to grants to the provincial repertory companies, will he 461 agree that this should not rule out a national theatre, which is badly needed in London?

§ Sir E. Boyle
The right hon. Gentleman has clearly indicated in his supplementary question that this is a matter of priorities. The Government could not hope that their decision would be acceptable in all parts of the House, but I believe that it did command the support of a good many hon. Members. All I can say is that the decision was taken after a great deal of thought, and that I believe it is unlikely that the Government will change their view.

§ 10. Dr. Stross
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the offer made by the leader of the London County Council to build the national theatre on the South Bank, he will make available for this purpose the £1 million voted by Parliament in March, 1949.

§ Sir E. Boyle
My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet met L.C.C. representatives to discuss the possibility of the L.C.C. building a national theatre on the South Bank. Until then, he has nothing to add to the statement he made in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) on 21st March.

§ Dr. Stross
Does the Financial Secretary agree that if there had to be priorities, due to financial stringency, the creation of a national theatre company probably ought to come first? Will he, in the first place, assure the House that the statement made in answer to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) does mean in effect that a national theatre company is being created? Secondly, will he assure his right hon. and learned Friend that this is now a new situation, in view of the offer made by the L.C.C., supported by both sides in the L.C.C. itself; and, in view of the fact that £1 million of free money is being offered to assist the Government, should not the Government take advantage of it now?

§ Sir E. Boyle
Of course, I realise that there has been a new element in the situation, and my right hon. and learned Friend realises it perfectly well. I think that the whole House recognises, however, that at this particular time of the 462 year there are a good many calls on the Chancellor's time and attention.

§ Mr. K. Robinson
If a public authority like the London County Council can build a national theatre on grants provided by itself, and when £1 million has been voted by this House for the specific purpose, why is it not automatic for that sum of money to be made available to the L.C.C.?

§ Sir E. Boyle
I know that the House is aware that the whole problem which the Government had to face was not merely one of capital cost. There is the annual running cost as well, and the question of what should be the priority for giving a sum of money, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, annually, amounting to between £300,000 and £450,000 a year. I really cannot add to what I have said already this afternoon in answer to supplementary questions on this matter, except to say that it is in the Chancellor's mind and that I know he will take note of the views which hon. Members have expressed. I repeat again that I should be hopelessly misleading the House if I gave any impression that the main lines of the Government's decision are likely to be altered.