§ Q3. Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that adequate attention is being given to the arts and to amenities by Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Prime MinisterGovernment expenditure on the arts is now £11 million a year compared with £3½million in 1951. The Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, and the Government's use of the National Land Fund have arrested and reversed the decay and loss of our major historic houses and their contents. The Waverley procedure has largely halted the loss of great works of art from this country and yet made London the greatest art market in the world. The present exhibition at the National Gallery of eighty-nine major works of art acquired since 1953 contains striking evidence of what the Government has done in that field. We now have before Parliament a Bill to clear the way for two great new library developments under a new British Museum Trustee body. The Arts Council grant has grown since 1951 from £675,000 to £2.7 million and the National Theatre is coming to fruition. In the light of these examples, I do not think my hon. Friend need fear that the Government is giving inadequate attention to the arts.
§ Mr. CookeMay I thank my right hon. Friend for his very full and impressive reply? In view of the important new responsibilities which he has placed on the Minister of Public Building and Works and in view of the greatly increased work at the Treasury, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and other Ministries concerned with the arts, will he ensure that the Government do not lose initiative here? Will he personally lend his support to a new Government initiative in the arts and related matters?
§ The Prime MinisterThis is a wide subject. There are varying views about what more might be done and about the possibility of having better machinery. I was saying only that I think we have had very considerable success in the last few years.
§ Mr. E. L. MallalieuDoes the Prime Minister think it right that, owing to the 233 smallness of the grant made to the Royal Shakespeare Company, that company is able to continue its excellent work only by being subsidised by its artistes accepting low fees?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is a special aspect of a very large issue. I do not know the details of it. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would write to me, i should be very glad to see if there is anything I can do.
§ Sir G. NicholsonMy right hon. Friend used words which seemed to me to imply that he believed that the decay in our national architectural heritage had been arrested. Is he aware that almost daily buildings of great architectural value are being destroyed or mutilated? Will he undertake not to be complacent in this matter but to realise that, far from the decay in our national heritage having been arrested, it is still going on?
§ The Prime MinisterThere is a difference between decay through neglect, which has been largely arrested by the various methods available, and sometimes a great conflict of views on whether a building should be preserved or destroyed for some other purpose. That is another question.
§ Mr. FletcherI do not disparage what the Government have already done, but does the Prime Minister acknowledge that the present assistance given to the arts and amenities in general is both rather haphazard and inadequate? Will he in particular take notice that the British Museum requires a great deal of money for the purposes of the modernisation to which he referred? Should not that be the direct responsibility of the Treasury? Would it not be unfortunate if the fact that the British Museum requires a great deal of money results in less money being available for other museums and institutions throughout the country, as is feared?
§ The Prime MinisterAll this must be taken as a whole. I am hoping that the Bill to reorganise the management of the Museum will go through. I am sure that this is a step which is much needed.