ARTS COUNCIL

HC Deb 29 July 1964 vol 699 cc1686-705

5.5 a.m.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

I am glad to have the opportunity to put on record my admiration for Miss Joan Cross and Miss Anne Wood and their courage in resigning from the London Opera Centre, followed, of course, by dismissal, because they felt that they were not able to protect the interests of the students for whom they were partially responsible. In a materialistic world, when so many people are concerned with furthering their own ambitions, sometimes—though not always—at other people's expense, it is very gratifying to find that these two women preferred to cut short their careers, to isolate themselves from the very arrogant establishment which surrounds the Arts Council, in order to draw attention to the fact that the students who were recruited to the Centre were not being fairly treated.

I will not go into the dispute, because the whole story, I am glad to say, has been very adequately covered by an admirable article in the Queen, on 15th July, by Mr. Julian Holland. I hope that those who are interested in the work of the Arts Council and the bodies associated with it which receive grants from it, and who read my words in the OFFICIAL REPORT, will get that article so that the whole story may be read. I should like to thank Mr. Holland for the trouble that he took. In this world of sensation, it is gratifying to find that a publication of the standard of the Queen should offer so much space to a writer even of the qualifications and standards of Mr. Holland to give the whole story and all the facts.

There the facts are. As there has already been an Adjournment debate on the subject, my purpose tonight is not to go into the detail of the controversy, but to add some remarks about the Arts Council and to address the representative of the Treasury, the Economic Secretary, on the extraordinary attitude of the Treasury to those who need protection. I say at once that had this concerned people covered by the trade unions, had it been—as we shall face today—a debate on the Ferranti affair, there would have been a great deal more interest on the part of the Treasury.

Certainly, it has never been the practice of this Government, or, indeed, of any other Government, to approve of inquiries into matters of this kind which are not independent. I say at once that I have the greatest confidence in and admiration for Lord Robbins. I have no adverse criticism of the fact that he was asked by the Arts Council, or the Opera Centre, or the board of governors, or whoever it was who set up the inquiry, to be chairman of the committee. But this is not an independent inquiry and once again the Treasury has shown great lack of courage in trying to get all of us—and a great many people are involved—out of some of the difficulties in which the Arts Council, from time to time lands us.

I noticed with amusement that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary made what I am sure he thought was a kindly compliment to me when this subject was raised on the Adjournment in June by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). My hon. Friend said he regretted that I was not able to be present, but that there was some consolation in the fact that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) was present.

I presume that the House had been led to believe that there was at least one hon. Member present who was particularly interested in this question, but, while I have nothing but the greatest friendship for the hon. Member for Gloucester, he has, when it comes to the arts, always been absolutely opposed to everything that I stand for. Indeed, he played an extraordinary part when the Arts Council and those associated with it decided to put the Carl Rosa out of operation. Thus, I did not take it very kindly when the Economic Secretary thought that the hon. Member for Gloucester was a good substitute for me; but that is by the way.

I have said what I want to say about this inquiry. It is not independent. All the people concerned have played some part in the controversies which have raged round the Arts Council for a long time and it indicates, once again, what has been shown before when questions about the Arts Council have been raised—the closed shop it operates, the arrogance with which it operates, the unfairness with which it very often hands out patronage. It is very unfortunate that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer and Financial and Economic Secretaries have not had the courage to hold a proper independent inquiry into the operation of the Arts Council.

My main reason for raising this subject tonight is to draw attention to the fact that on two occasions the Arts Council has briefed its spokesman inaccurately. It is a very difficult thing in this House to be able to prove allegations of this kind. It is not always easy for people to make the kind of observation that I intend to make but I feel so strongly about this matter that I want to put certain facts on the record.

Before dealing with a letter from Lord Cottesloe, who made a speech in another place as chairman of the Arts Council, and before referring to Lord Dundee, who, on another occasion, when briefed by the Arts Council on the Carl Rosa, knew so little about the subject that he did not even know that he had been wrongly briefed, I want to make one or two comments on the other personalities involved.

I was, of course, sorry to hear that the Director of the London Opera Centre until the present controversy, Professor Procter-Gregg, had had to resign because of ill-health. I have known him for a long time and I am sure that he is honourable and charming, but he was no more suitable to be in charge of the running of an opera centre than when he was wished on the Carl Rosa Trust as our producer.

No doubt my hon. Friend will say that the Government are satisfied with the Arts Council, but public money ought not to be wasted on and students ought not to be encouraged to go to an opera centre whose director is not academically suitable. While we in the Carl Rosa Trust were fighting our battle for survival, the Music Panel of the Arts Council wished Professor Procter-Gregg on us as our producer. The chairman of that panel has been in charge of it for far too long. That makes connivance and irregularities so easy—and by "irregularities" I mean in the matter of the "old boy network."

Professor Procter-Gregg was one of the people who persuaded the Arts Council to withdraw the grant from the Carl Rosa Trust, which resulted in that distinguished and very old opera company going out of practice. There was a quid pro quo, of course, and it was that Professor Procter-Gregg should be provided with what the Arts Council considered to be a suitable job. I was not surprised when in due course he arrived at the London Opera Centre.

I know nothing about his successor, Mr. James Robertson who comes from New Zealand. He may be a most admirable man to be in charge of the centre, but it is not the practice in the Civil Service to appoint people to posts without advertising those posts and ensuring that the public knows the qualifications of the successful applicant. I will tell my hon Friend—I will send him a letter if he is interested—that, although he had no right to do so, Professor Procter-Gregg wrote to Mr. Robertson suggesting that it would be a good idea if he came to this country, indicating that Mr. Robertson might follow him as director of the Carl Rosa Trust, but completely ignoring the people responsible for the control, running and administration of the Carl Rosa Trust at that time. Professor Procter-Gregg should not have done that, of course. He was a servant of the Carl Rosa Trust and paid out of subsidies which came from the Treasury.

Of course, I was extremely interested when I saw that, following Professor Procter-Gregg's resignation, Mr. Robertson was appointed as director of the London Opera Centre. Professor Procter-Gregg was able to carry out the undertaking he gave to Mr. Robertson. That is not my idea of the way people ought to be appointed where public money is concerned, where the Government are concerned, and where a Government-sponsored body—the Arts Council—is concerned.

The whole method of dictating affairs by the Arts Council is not a method which commends itself to me, nor indeed to a great many other people I may say. But there it is—that is what has happened, and I am not the least surprised that in this whole set-up of the London Opera Centre, Miss Joan Cross and Miss Anne Wood found themselves in such great difficulty. Knowing, as we all do, that they are women of great experience and great integrity, it is no surprise that they found themselves in a situation which they have not felt able to sustain.

I want to turn to the question of Lord Cottesloe. He spoke in another place, and I went to listen to the debate. I chuckled when I heard him refer to the hon. Member for Willesden, West and myself. Lord Cottesloe took great exception to the observations which the hon. Member and I had made in this Chamber, as he had every right to do, and it amused me very much.

I heard what Lord Cottesloe had to say, and now I have a word to say about Lord Cottesloe. I know that he has a much respected character, and that he does a very great deal of public work, to which we would all wish to pay tribute, but, of course, when he is up against it, being a man of great experience he knows exactly how to handle the weak Ministers at the Treasury. When Lord Cottesloe was first appointed chairman of the Arts Council the secretary-general at that time was Sir William Emrys Williams, whose appointment at that time, I am glad to say, was coming to an end. At the time Carl Rosa was coming to an end, Sir William Emrys Williams played an unfortunate and unfair part in the closing of the Carl Rosa Trust.

I would have thought that the Treasury, as guardian of the public purse, would have made it plain to the chairman of the Arts Council that senior appointments such as the secretary-general's were a matter for discussion with the Government. But Lord Cottesloe had such an admiration for Sir William Emrys Williams that on his arrival as chairman of the Arts Council he presumably found his appointment was drawing to its conclusion—he had already had an extension of his appointment—and Lord Cottesloe immediately asked him to stay on without consulting the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the time.

The Chancellor raised the matter with Lord Cottesloe, because, of course, the Chancellor knew very well that there were some people who were very anxious to have a change of secretary-general. But not at all. Lord Cottesloe said that he had asked Sir William Emrys Williams to stay on, but that if the Chancellor insisted upon the terms of the appointment—that is, if Sir William Emrys Williams' appointment was not extended—he, Lord Cottesloe, would resign. Nobody in the Treasury minds about that. The only thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious to avoid was a public row.

I sympathise with him. I do not think that it is fair to give preferential treatment to the chairman of the Arts Council and to connive at or allow the setting up of an inquiry which is not independent into the difficulties which have arisen with Miss Joan Cross and Miss Anne Wood, who had no private or personal axe to grind. Rather the reverse is the truth, because they have seriously compromised their future. Not so Lord Cottesloe. Naturally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer immediately bowed to the will of Lord Cottesloe and, therefore, he won.

I should like to say one other thing about the inquiry. Sir David Webster is also adept at getting his own way. It might be argued with fairness that one will not get anywhere in public life unless one can manoeuvre when it is found convenient to do so. My mind goes back a long time, however. That, I suppose, is one of the advantages—or, perhaps, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary may say, the disadvantages—of being in the House of Commons a long time.

Sir David Webster had a deputy-director at Covent Garden who was well known in the musical world, Sir Steuart Wilson. Sir Steuart gave me permission to use the report that he sent me in any way I liked. I am not, therefore, taking advantage by using his name or acting without having been given permission to do so. Sir Steuart produced a critical report of Sir David Webster and the administration and other matters relating to the conduct of Covent Garden, which has never really been entirely satisfactorily conducted.

However, Sir Steuart Wilson could not get his report considered by the board of governors of Covent Garden. I discussed it with the then chairman of Covent Garden, Lord Waverley. Sir Steuart Wilson's report, however, was never discussed, because, no doubt, Sir David Webster would suggest to the board of governors, as has been suggested in the case of Miss Joan Cross and Miss Anne Wood, that there was no need to do so and that it was a question of temperament or something of that kind.

I well remember, during the time I was interesting myself in Arts Council affairs, being told that Madame Rambert could not be given a grant. Everybody knows the magnificent work that the Ballet Rambert has done. The Arts Council at that time would not give her a grant because she was considered to have a violent temper. Anybody would have a violent temper in dealing with the Arts Council and dealing with the Treasury when people are in this weak position in which they find themselves in relation to the administration of the arts.

At least, Sir Steuart Wilson could not get his report considered. And so, like Miss Joan Cross and Miss Anne Wood, and being without any means of fighting the case, Sir Steuart Wilson resigned. He was fortunate, because he became director of the Birmingham School of Music and did an admirable and distinguished job there. The fact remains, however, that this business of people resigning and producing reports which they want considered occurs far too often. The whole of the Arts Council is a closed shop. I have watched the patronage, the honours, the grants, I have watched how the whole thing is manipulated. Treasury Ministers never have the guts to get down to an inquiry into the administration of the arts. I know that very well, because it always has been refused.

I have already referred to the fact that when the Carl Rosa Opera Company was discussed in another place Lord Dundee was incorrectly briefed. On that occasion, I intervened in the House of Lords, which caused some consternation, but what Lord Dundee said was incorrect, untrue and a lot of nonsense. I am glad to put it on record in the House of Commons. The next thing is that Lord Cottesloe made a speech in another place and he was incorrectly briefed.

I will bore the House tonight—I very much regret it, but I am taking my opportunity now that I have it—by reading a letter which Miss Joan Cross and Miss Anne Wood sent to Lord Cottesloe. There is nothing hole and corner about the way Miss Cross and Miss Wood operate. They operate right out in the open. They have got the courage of their convictions, and they hit when they ought to hit—but that does not have any effect either on the Chairman of the Arts Council or on the Treasury.

I should like this letter to be on the record. It was written on 19th June, after Lord Cottesloe's speech in another place: Dear Lord Cottesloe, In your recent speech in the House of Lords you referred to our resignations from the London Opera Centre in terms that lead us to believe that you have been misinformed. You said that 'the reasons given in the Press for the decisions were not communicated to the Governors and the Administrator before they sent in their resignations'. This is not correct. The fact is that all the reasons for our decision to resign have been under constant discussion for the past three years, with the former Chairman, the present Chairman, and the Director. The fact that these dissatisfactions have never apparently reached the Board comes as a complete surprise to us. Shortly after the Centre was opened in September, 1963, and at the invitation of the Chairman of the Board, a routine of weekly meetings was established between the Chairman and ourselves, at which all current matters concerning the Centre were reviewed. The problems of the building, heating, ventilation, etc., were discussed, and, in particular, the dilemma presented by the Centre's lack of a stage. We all found ourselves urging the need for the students to give public performances, but, at the same time, we personally were adamant that the lack of a raised stage (lost in the levelling of the floor to provide Covent Garden with rehearsal space), the poor acoustics and the unsuitably large size of the auditorium made performances before the public positively disadvantageous to students, whose future careers often depend on such performances. We naturally assumed that the gist of these discussions was placed before the Governors and the Administrator, particularly as many of our views appeared to be shared by the Chairman and Director. Following a private and experimental performance by the students in the auditorium, there was a meeting of the staff of the Centre on 15th December, 1963, at which the auditorium was unanimously condemned as unsuitable for student performances. As a result, a report was prepared by the Director, in collaboration with us, for the Administrator and Board. In addition, one member of the staff, a producer, unable to attend the meet- ing, sent a separate report direct to the Administrator. We naturally assumed that these important reports reached the Administrator and Board. During the years of the planning and establishment of the institution, we were never invited to consult with, or offer the benefits of our fifteen years' experience to, the Board or the Administration. This seemed strange as we were the only people who had specialised in this field of operatic training for young singers, producers and repetiteurs; we are sure, however, that there are many others who could have given valuable advice at the planning stage. We ourselves sought an interview with the Administrator in June 1963 during which we told him many of the problems. But it was made clear to us in many ways that our channel of communication was through the Director and Chairman It was finally apparent to us that even this channel was blocked. On or about March 23, 1964, Miss Cross wrote to the Chairman expressing her concern as to whether her time and energies and those of others at the Centre together with a great deal of public money, were not being misused. This letter made it clear that we were deeply worried about the policies and administration of the Centre. We understand that it was not read to the Board. Miss Cross, not unnaturally, expected that the Board and/or Administrator would wish to discuss the matter with her, but, in fact, she received no answer of any kind. As it became increasingly clear that neither the Administration nor the Board were disposed even to listen to us, we were compelled to take the final step—at considerable personal loss. Our letters of resignation were sent to the Administrator on April 6th and 7th, with the request that they should be placed before the Board of Governors. The Administrator did ask to see Miss Wood, April 20th, but only discussed with her those points, such as length of notice, etc., which arose out of the fact that she had never received a letter of appointment. Our resignations were accepted by the Administrator by April 20th, and again we were surprised that he should accept them without any personal discussion and without reference to the Board. I think that all this administration is most unbusinesslike and incompetent. Everyone, I think, knows that Sir David Webster, having obtained what he thought was a rehearsal stage for which Covent Garden had been agitating for a very long time, could not care less what happened to anyone else. The letter goes on: At the opening of the summer term on April 21st, neither the Staff nor the students were officially informed of our resignations, and it seemed clear that the matter was to be suppressed. I can well imagine that We could not accept this further discourtesy. We informed the Administrator that we intended to let the Press know that we had resigned, using the form of wording previously agreed with him. After issuing the information we refused to speak to the Press, but it soon became clear that our resignations were in danger of being mis-represented, not only by the Press, as merely a 'clash of personalities'. Since this was untrue and since we had apparently failed to make any impact on the Board and Administration, we had no alternative but to issue a Press statement covering the main points of our disagreements with the Centre's policies, and drawing attention to the facts as we know them, including what we considered to be the misuse of public money. There were many further opinions expressed in your speech on such matters as the Bridges Committee, the Prospectus, the essential facilities at the Centre etc., which also lead us to the view that you were partially or wrongly informed. We are, therefore, sending copies of this letter to those other Peers who spoke in the debate in the Upper House; and to the Members of the House of Commons who sponsored the all-party motion debated in the House on 12th June and those who put and answered questions on previous occasions. I think that that is a very clear letter. I ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary whether he has had a reply from Lord Cottesloe. If he has not, now that I have read this letter, I shall be interested to know whether he will ask Lord Cottesloe if he will reply to the letter to my hon. Friend and if, in due course, my hon. Friend will let me know the answer to the letter Lord Cottesloe has received.

I finish with one other point which, I think, is important. Of course, I know about the "clash of personalities". That is always what weak men use. I consider that this is exactly the case of Madame Rambert and the Carl Rosa Opera Company. Always in a weak situation weak men or women always talk about a clash of personalities. Miss Cross and Miss Wood have, at any rate to my satisfaction, shown that they have got the greatest courage by taking their careers in their hands and resigning; as I say, much to their detriment.

The trouble is that the next thing that happens is that in one of the Sunday newspapers at that time the new secretary-general comes out with a threat. It is to the effect that if anyone does not pull himself or herself together, if people do not pull their weight, the Centre might be closed. That would indeed be a waste of public money. If the Economic Secretary has read the article in the Queen, I am sure that he has some indication of the waste of public money that there has been already.

I object to this action on the part of the secretary-general, however distinguished he may be and whoever he is. It is for the chairman of such an organisation to announce policy, and not the secretary or director-general. One might just as well say that the particular Minister in the Treasury who has the Arts Council baton under his control should answer me, but that is not so because it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appoint the appropriate Treasury Minister to answer my criticisms.

I know exactly what happened before in the case of Sir Kenneth Clark, when he was chairman of the Arts Council. Being an extremely distinguished man with very wide interests—and at the time he was also chairman of Independent Television—he was so much away from his position as chairman of the Arts Council that the whole matter came into the hands of the official; and there was formed a panel with a chairman and a very clever and able secretary-general who controlled everything he possibly could. He pulled so many wires that in the end he obliterated the Carl Rosa Opera Company.

The Treasury still plays a part in the Arts Council and I know that it does not want to be forced into the position of taking any action. Nevertheless, we are talking about public money, and those who spend it and agree to it being spent—hon. Members in the House of Commons—have a right to demand that fairness and justice is done. I hope, therefore, that in future, policy statements will be made by the chairman of the Arts Council and not by the secretary-general.

It was unfortunate that this threat was immediately issued, for it meant that in this free world and free Parliament, it two people of great distinction and integrity dare to disagree with the powers that be, they have got to be theatened. That is not a situation I could tolerate. I am thoroughly disturbed at the Arts Council, its conduct, the fact that it is a closed shop, that patronage is often most unsuitably given, that no one has the right to disagree with it, and that, if one falls out with it, it is like falling out with the B.B.C. or something like that so that one's career may be ruined. I do not think that in a free country, with a free Parliament, we can tolerate that sort of thing in future.

I have said all that I wanted to say. I have talked for a long time, but I feel very strongly on this subject, and I am delighted to have the opportunity of backing up the action of Miss Cross and Miss Wood, because I know that they both acted from honourable motives.

5.45 a.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) not only for the conventional notice she gave of her intention to raise this question on this occasion, but also for the warning—not to say minatory—letters she sent me reinforcing her Motion on the Notice Paper.

When I replied to the Adjournment debate earlier in this Parliament, I was certainly not suggesting, in welcoming the presence of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), that he might be a substitute for the hon. Lady—that, indeed, would be an impossible achievement for anybody in this House. I was merely suggesting that in her absence it was perhaps a good thing in that debate to have as well as the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), one more hon. Gentleman who, like my hon. Friend, is interested and knowledgeable and takes a personally disinterested view of these matters.

I have a great admiration for the work that is being done by Miss Cross and Miss Wood, and a great admiration for the spirited way in which they and the hon. Lady, aided by the Queen magazine, have put their case before the public, but I will not accept that their resignation was necessary to protect the students at the London Opera Centre. Nor, for one moment, do I accept the allegations set out in the article in the Queen, which presents with great forensic skill one side only of the case.

I would not accept my hon. Friend's statement that it gives the whole of the facts. Indeed, one of the unfortunate sides to the controversy is the way in which it has been conducted publicly and semi-publicly, with counter-attack and personal counter-attack. My hon. Friend has not allowed the lateness of the hour to lessen the zeal of her attack, and I shall do my best to answer her, but, I hope, without indulging in any personal counter-attack, however tempted I might be to do so.

In some ways I am sorry that my hon. Friend has raised the matter now, because there is not very much that I can add to what has already been said, partly because not very much new has come out since this question was debated before, except, I think, that the reasons for my hon. Friend's disapproval of so many of the personalities concerned have been shown rather more clear to go back to a fundamental difference of opinion about the Carl Rosa Opera Company as well as the London Opera Centre. I think that it has been shown that the roots of the controversy go rather deeper into history than came out in our first debate.

As to the Arts Council in general, I would repeat what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Tuesday last in answer to a Question. He said: We have confidence in its conduct of its affairs … Referring to this sort of dispute in particular, my right hon. Friend said: … this is the sort of matter which we must leave to the Arts Council."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 1224.] My hon. Friend said "Not at all" in an interjection, and has repeated that at some considerably greater length this morning. She is at variance with my right hon. Friend and myself and a number of other people concerned on three main points—first, on the Arts Council in all aspects of its work, secondly, on the conduct of opera in this country in general, and, thirdly, on this controversy over the London Opera Centre in particular.

On the Opera Centre, there is no question of this inquiry, which is being made, having been set up by the Treasury or the Government or even the Arts Council. This was an internal inquiry set up by the governors of the Opera Centre to deal with matters which had arisen. There is, therefore, no question of its being an independent inquiry in that sense of the word, although I hope that my hon. Friend is not casting any doubts on the probity or integrity of all those who make up the committee of inquiry.

As I have said, this was not a question of an imposed inquiry but one concerning internal administration. There is no question of the inquiry not being genuine. The mere fact that it is being conducted under the auspices of the governors and by those concerned is an indication of that, because their purpose is to make the Opera Centre work in the future, it is necessary that they should examine all the charges made and the disagreements which have arisen to make sure that in the future the organisation functions efficiently. They have, therefore, no interest in doing other than examining it to discover faults.

If I may give my hon. Friend an analogy, the pilot who does a cockpit check before taking off, or the driver who examines his car before going a long journey, is not disinterested or independent in the sense in which my hon. Friend uses that word, but he is greatly concerned to see that the apparatus works, and so is this committee of inquiry.

Dame Irene Ward

I quite agree about the analogy, but if there is a crash there is an independent inquiry into the crash.

Mr. Macmillan

I would not accept that there has been a crash. The London Opera Centre is continuing to operate, and much as one must regret the resignations of Miss Cross and Miss Wood I would say that not even ladies of their eminence are entirely and absolutely indispensable.

Perhaps the committee of inquiry is all the more concerned because the London Opera Centre was created at the demand of the opera companies to supply their needs. Indeed, they depend on it. Perhaps for the committee of inquiry and for the governors of the London Opera Centre a word more relevant that "independent" is "autonomous", and certainly the governors are autonomous. This is a school supplying opera and in that case must be as interdependent with the opera companies as a grammar school with the university to which its pupils are going. In fact more so, because in the case of the Opera Centre, although its sole purpose is to provide teaching facilities, these are primarily to produce performers for the opera com- panies rather than to give academic instruction.

This is made clear in the prospectus, from which I should like to quote to make this point, on which my hon. Friend touched, absolutely clear. It says that the Centre intends to provide training for young opera singers, producers, directors and musical coaches … Then follows a reference to the constitution of the Centre as a company limited by guarantee, and so on, and it goes on: The governors of the London Opera Centre have appreciated the need for a close association with an opera house continuously engaged in the production of opera. They have, with the concurrence of the Directors of the Royal Opera House made an arrangement for a link with Covent Garden which has been implemented by three steps, first the appointment of Sir David Webster as General Administrator of the Centre, secondly, by an understanding with Covent Garden under which the physical and administrative resources of the Opera House are made available to the Centre, and, thirdly, by an agreement for the joint occupation of a special building, which on Covent Garden's side will be used for rehearsal purposes. It is, therefore, incorrect to imply, as has been implied in previous debate and in newspaper articles, that these conditions—the appointment of Sir David Webster as general administrator, the understanding with Covent Garden under which the physical and administrative resources of the Opera House are made available to the Centre, and the agreement for joint occupation—were imposed at a later stage on a school to its detriment and to the detriment of the students.

I think that it would be silly for the opera companies to sacrifice the students to their own immediate needs. All that they would be doing would be to sacrifice their future to their current needs. I would agree that there have been difficulties and problems of a practical and personal nature, but these are what the committee of inquiry has been set up to deal with. There is no doubt that from the very beginning the students were intended for the opera companies and that the link was the real point on which the Bridges Committee insisted when it set up this organisation. My hon. Friend may say that this was not so. She may say that it was purely for practical training or training which was not connected with the centres at Covent Garden, Glyndebourne and Sadlers Wells, but those, in fact, were the original terms of reference under which the Committee was set up.

My hon. Friend went into various details. She took exception to various individuals—Professor Procter-Gregg, Professor Anthony Lewis, Lord Cottesloe, Sir William Emrys Williams, and so on. So far as I could see, the chief reason she had for making these personal attacks was that these people had been concerned in some improper way with the winding up of the Carl Rosa Opera Company and that this was closely, intimately and improperly connected with the setting up of the London Opera School and the withdrawal of the grant from the National School of Opera. I reject these allegations entirely.

I hope my hon. Friend will not expect me to deal in detail with the letter that she read out. It is not a matter for me; and in reply to the two questions that she asked, I must say "No" to both, because the details which Miss Cross and Miss Wood had made public they have had an opportunity of putting before the committee of inquiry, as, indeed, has every single person who has had anything to volunteer. It would not be right, in the circumstances of the inquiry, to comment on the resignations, particularly as this is not, as has been said before, a matter for Treasury Ministers, but for the Arts Council. I shall come later on to the more general aspects of my hon. Friend's remarks on this subject.

Since the committee is going into the past, and since all concerned have had or will have the opportunity to put their point of view fully and frankly, all I would like to add in this specialised matter of the London Opera Centre is that I hope that the committee will be given a chance to inquire and to report, and that we may then see what happens.

Part of the trouble is that my hon. Friend does not really like the way opera is run in this country, and especially she does not like Covent Garden. She feels that there has been, so to speak, a take-over of other concerns and that the big, the great and the established have swallowed up the small. But this charge begs the whole question, because what she is really saying is that she does not like the implications of trying to estab- lish in London a national opera company reaching an international standard.

Dame Irene Ward

No, I never—

Mr. Macmillan

My hon. Friend made a large number of attacks on a large number of people, and I really must get on.

Dame Irene Ward

I never said any such thing. I have done a great deal more for the arts than my hon. Friend has. I am not going to have these allegations. Stop making them.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston)

Order.

Mr Macmillan

I was not making a personal attack on my hon. Friend.

Dame Irene Ward

Yes, you were.

Mr Macmillan

I was merely saying that the implications of many of the things which my hon. Friend dislikes stem from the attempt successfully to establish in London a metropolitan opera company of international standard. I am not for a moment saying that my hon. Friend does not want to do this, but I am pointing out that some of the things to which she takes exception are, in my view, part of the result of doing it.

In a Question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, my hon. Friend referred to the development of taste and to changes in all the arts in the modern world. This, to my mind at least, implies that we must accept the advantages of centralisation and concentration. We may sometimes feel that it leads to an autocratic running from the centre, but everyone who wants to try to establish a really fine opera company competing with international companies in this extremely tough professional world must accept that it requires a strong man with strong views. One must accept also that, in this country, the demand for opera is not wide or elastic, but there is room only for the best, and a comparatively limited demand for anything except the most popular part of the repertoire.

I do not want to go into the past history of the Carl Rosa Company. What has happened has stemmed from the need, which I have been describing, for a strong central opera company of the highest standard. We cannot compete if we disperse our effort, reverting, perhaps, to the smaller efforts more widely spread in the Provinces which, in the past, most people felt were not as successful as all that.

The administration of opera and the arts can, in a sense, never be satisfactory because so much is a matter of taste, and it is not, despite what has been said tonight, for the Government or even for Parliament to try to control the artistic policies of Covent Garden or any other institution. It is not necessarily true that practices which are suitable for administrative methods in the Civil Service are equally suitable for the Arts Council. It was established because it was felt that Parliamentary governmental control and Civil Service methods in matters of the arts was not possible.

My hon. Friend doubtless feels that the money is being spent by Covent Garden in the wrong way. If it is a question of waste and malpractice, or of throwing away public money, it is a matter for the Treasury. But if it is a matter of a dispute as to whether it is the right way to spend it, according to personal artistic views, it is a matter not for the Treasury, but for the Arts Council, because these clashes are inevitable, and perhaps more so in national institutions than in others, where there is always a conflict between the avant garde and the conventional, between the experimental and the established. Whatever my hon. Friend says, in the world of the arts and opera I do not think that a clash of personalities is always the weak excuse that she thinks it is. Sometimes, certainly within my experience, it is very real indeed.

I hope that the House will accept that it is not possible for the Government to deal directly with problems of this sort, or to try to resolve this sort of difficulty. Indeed, I hope that the argument this morning has indicated that we would be wrong to try, because all that my hon. Friend has produced are problems and disputes on artistic matters involving judgment and matters of taste. It is for just those reasons that they are not suitable for direct Government intervention.

I hope that even my hon. Friend will agree that in the arts it is the Arts Council which should handle disputes and difficulties that may arise. If it is a question of waste of public money, it is for the Treasury and for the Government, but if it is really a controversy over whether it has been well spent from an artistic point of view, this is not a matter which is directly for Treasury Ministers or for the Government. This is why my right hon. Friend said the other day, and I repeat now, that we do not see any need to revise the system as such.

I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with that, in principle, and perhaps I might put her right on a matter of fact. The panels to which she referred are specialist, purely advisory panels, and any decision is a matter for the Arts Council as a whole. The panels have no executive capacity of their own. I was not sure whether my hon. Friend appreciated that.

Dame Irene Ward

My hon. Friend is extremely naive. Is not he aware that the panels do all the advising and all the controlling, and that Professor Anthony Lewis has controlled a great deal? Will my hon. Friend tell me how often the Arts Council meets, and what detail it goes into with regard to the advice given to it by the panels? I do not think that my hon. Friend knows enough about this.

Mr. Macmillan

My hon. Friend is anticipating me on this. I am still on the principle of the system. I do not expect my hon. Friend to agree that there is no need to review the working of the system, but I hoped to get her to agree that the system "en principe" was the right one. We do not regard it as necessary to review the working of the Arts Council, or to set up an inquiry for that purpose.

My hon. Friend said that there were very few people concerned. Her charge—if I am not putting words into her mouth—was that in the matter of the arts the Arts Council was a stage arrangement that went round and round, and I think that the article in the Queen referred to it as cross-pollinisation, or some such phrase.

It is true that there are a limited number of people who are enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and willing to give their time to this. Anyone who has had to deal with voluntary and semi-voluntary organisations of this nature will appreciate the extreme difficulty of getting people to devote the time and the knowledge that it requires. Even in this House, there is a tendency for those who are willing to work and give time to the problems of those living on small fixed incomes, or of personal or contractual savings, to be few in number, but the fact that there are so few enthusiasts in any one subject does not necessarily invalidate their work or make it ineffective.

To sum up, during the course of this morning a great deal has been said and put on the record, some of which is still a matter for an inquiry. I should like to reassert and again get on the record the fact that this inquiry, although not independent in the sense that my hon. Friend would like it to be, is certainly autonomous and is conducted by men of position and integrity who cannot be suspected of wishing to cover up improper practices and whose concern it is to resolve the problems of the London Opera Centre and to see that institution work successfully.

From the difficulties of the London Opera Centre, my hon. Friend has deduced and built up a whole structure of what can only be called sinister relationships and activities. These allegations I must go on record as rejecting. From the sinister aspect of the work of the Arts Council in the matter of the Carl Rosa Opera Company and of the London Opera School, my hon. Friend has deduced that the Arts Council is not fit, either in organisation or in personnel, to carry out the work that is entrusted to it.

My hon. Friend has asked the Treasury and Treasury Ministers to institute a totally independent inquiry into these matters. Again, I must go on record as rejecting the accusation which my hon. Friend has made against individuals and say once more that we have faith in the Arts Council. We believe that the artistic problems, disputes and difficulties should be left in the Council's hands. We retain overriding financial control by reason of the fact that the Treasury has responsibility to ensure that public money is spent properly, but we do not regard this as giving us the right to intervene in matters of taste and artistic questions.

I cannot go any further this morning and I hope that the House would not wish me or my hon. Friend to pursue these accusations any further.