REVISED LIMIT ON CONTRIBUTIONS (Hansard, 3 March 1969)

§ Mr. Speaker
I have selected the one Amendment on the Notice Paper for consideration. May I remind the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon)—I think I need hardly remind him—that this is a very narrow Amendment.

§ Mr. H. P. G. Channon (Southend, West)
I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, at end insert: 'and it shall be a condition of the making of such revised contribution that a reasonable proportion shall be spent on regional touring'. After your rather ominous warning, Mr. Speaker, I shall do my utmost to be brief and to stay within the rules of order. The debate on the Amendment will be the only occasion on which the Bill will be discussed in the House. None of us wishes to delay Third Reading, and Second Reading and Committee stages were taken upstairs. I hope, therefore, if it is not out of order, that I shall be allowed, in a passing reference, to say that all hon. Members, as far as I know, welcome the Bill and wish the National Theatre all success in the future.
The right hon. Lady, who understands the rules of order as well as anyone, knows why the Amendment is framed in this way. It is so that it should be within the Title of the Bill. It would ensure that some part of the £3¾ million which the Government are to contribute 168 to the cost of the National Theatre will be devoted to regional touring.
In case there is any confusion outside the House—I am sure that there will be none inside the House—I want to make it clear that I recognise that all the £3¾ million which the Government are to provide, the £3¾ million which the Greater London Council will provide and the extra £100,000 already saved will be needed for the capital provision of the National Theatre and cannot be whittled down. The difficult task will be to make sure that the National Theatre is built within the sum which the Greater London Council and the Government are prepared to provide. We are all anxious that there is no Supplementary Estimate.
The reason I have tabled the Amendment, which I shall withdraw after the debate, is to ensure that the new National Theatre is truly national in character as well as in name. I hope that it is understood outside London that the Greater London Council is to put up half the cost and that it is only fair to say that Londoners are entitled to their fair share of the National Theatre.
On occasion, I find in the regions some criticism that, in the view of people there, too many Arts Council activities are concentrated in London and not enough outside. But I have no wish to go into that argument now; perhaps we can pursue it on another occasion. It is worth pointing out at this stage that half the capital cost will come from the Greater London Council and half from the Government.

§ Mr. Anthony Royle (Richmond, Surrey)
As half the cost will be provided by the Greater London Council, will my hon. Friend agree that, as well as regional touring, it is important that the National Theatre should be encouraged to visit some of the old theatres in the London area? I am thinking particularly of the Richmond Theatre, in my constituency, one of the oldest——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not tempt his hon. Friend, who is trying hard to bring himself in order at the moment.

§ Mr. Royle
It is said in the Amendment, Mr. Speaker, that a reasonable proportion should be spent on regional touring"——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend understood. The money which is provided under the Bill will go for the construction of the National Theatre. It will not go into regional touring. What the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is seeking to argue is that the National Theatre should be constructed in such a way, according to the Amendment, that it should lend itself to the provision of regional touring.

§ Mr. Channon
Perhaps I had better not comment on what my hon. Friend says, save to say that I have some sympathy with the argument which he has advanced.
When the National Theatre is built, there will be a strong public opinion that there should be a certain amount of regional touring done—I think that that is strictly in order, Mr. Speaker—to show off the national wares which the National Theatre will be able to provide. The important reason for asking for regional touring is the desperate plight of many regional theatres now in Britain. Nobody knows this better than the right hon. Lady herself, and I am sure that she is not out of sympathy with what I say, even if she does not agree with the Amendment itself.
I recommend those hon. Members who have not had occasion to study the matter recently to read the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) in the Second Reading Committee, when he spoke of the 20 or 30 well-known provincial theatres on the verge of dropping out of existence. His argument was that there was no point in building an excellent National Theatre if it were done at the price of 30 other theatres dropping out. We all agree with that, and we hope to achieve both.
Some interesting figures—it would be out of order to quote in detail—were given by the noble Lord, Lord Chandos, in another place last week during the debate on the arts. He spoke as someone closely connected with the National Theatre throughout 40 years. He described what the present National Theatre has been doing, explaining that in the past it had toured for eight to 10 weeks a year in the country outside London, and he went on to outline the state of affairs when, as he hoped, the 170 new National Theatre would tour more often for 12 weeks than for eight, which would be a quarter of the total annual playing time of the National Theatre company. He said that he thought it important for everyone in the National Theatre to realise—as I am sure they do—that they have obligations to people who live outside the Metropolis.
I am the last person to wish to interfere with the day-to-day working of the National Theatre, either the present one or the one to be constructed. It would be ridiculous for politicians to attempt to do that, as well as dangerous, but I seek in my few remarks this evening to take the opportunity, which I hope that the right hon. Lady will accept, to bring home once again the view of a considerable section of hon. Members interested in the matter that the National Theatre should, in its own interests and in the interests of the regional theatre, in future do a considerable period of regional touring, with an adequate number of weeks spent on that task.
What arrangements are made by the National Theatre and other national companies—for example, the Royal Ballet—to co-ordinate activities in this sphere? This is not only important now, but will become more important when we have the new National Theatre. I hope that full advantage will be taken of any co-ordination that is possible.
Although I shall, of course, seek leave to withdraw the Amendment later, I hope that the right hon. Lady agrees about the importance of regional touring. I make no criticism of the National Theatre's past record. I hope that, when it is constructed, the new National Theatre will also have a good record. I hope that a touring period of 12 weeks rather than eight will be the rule because this would be to the advantage of all concerned, and particularly to the regional theatre. One of the great functions of the National Theatre should be to spread some of the magnificent productions which I hope it will have in London to the regions, both near and far from London.
The Arts Council at present has a group studying this problem. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) is a member of it. This is a complicated matter and it is urgent that we have the 171 group's conclusions as quickly as possible.
Like my hon. Friends and, I am sure, hon. Members in all parts of the House, I wish the National Theatre well. The sooner opening night arrives the happier we will be, not only on behalf of those in London but, I hope, for the benefit of everyone who has been interested in this drama.

§ Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)
The Bill raises the £1 million originally, provided under the 1949 Act to £3,750,000. It is significant that the original decision was made by a Labour Government. That was in 1949. The decision to go ahead with this scheme was also made by a Labour administration across the road at County Hall.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not on Second Reading. We devised a method whereby we would not take the Second Reading of some Bills, of which this is one, on the Floor of the House. We are not even on Third Reading. We are discussing an Amendment and I trust that he will remain within the rules of order.

§ Mr. Jenkins
I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will do my best to stay in order.
However, it is questionable whether the Amendment is in order. It says that … it shall be a condition of the making of such revised contribution that a reasonable proportion shall be spent on regional touring. As you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the revised contribution is for the building.
One might reasonably ask how it can be suggested in an Amendment … that a reasonable proportion shall be spent on regional touring when the sum involved is for the purpose of building a theatre in the Metropolis and not for the purpose of regional touring. One must, therefore, wonder whether a more felicitous means of organising such a debate could have been devised.

§ Mr. Channon
I deliberately did not try to provoke controversy, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman did at the beginning of his remarks, by pointing out at the outset of my remarks that this was the only way, within the rules of order, to initiate such a debate.

§ Mr. Jenkins
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, particularly in his opening remarks, but it did not prevent me from thinking that it was nonsense, and I retain that view. It is pleasant, when discussing these matters, to show a semblance of agreement between the two sides of the House. However, I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite are bogus in their views on this subject, that they are Philistines, and I express that point of view strictly on the question of regional touring, especially as mentioned in the Amendment.
The Opposition propose that a part of the capital sum, which is for the purpose of building a National Theatre—which, as I explained, was a decision of a Labour Administration—should be spent on regional touring. The hon. Member for Southend, West said that the Arts Council inquiry was examining the possibility of regional touring taking place. One of the questions which will arise is whether there are to be places for the National Theatre to tour to outside London. If there are no theatres operating outside London, clearly the National Theatre Company cannot tour to them. Therefore, one of the questions which must necessarily arise is not only whether there is a National Theatre in London as is now provided by the Bill, but whether there will be buildings outside London for the company to go to.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If there are, they will have to be provided under some other Bill or by some other method than that proposed. We are discussing this Amendment.

§ Mr. Jenkins
I accept your Ruling, Sir, and will draw my remarks to a close. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I recognise that hon. Members opposite have not cared for the tone of my remarks. However, it was time that attention was drawn to the fact that the Bill was introduced by a Labour Government.

§ Mr. A. Royle
On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman, for the third time, to go out of order on a point which you, Sir, ruled earlier that he was not to mention?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not beat the Chair to the post in calling the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) to order.

§ Mr. Jenkins
I was about to conclude by congratulating my right hon. Friend upon being the means of making this undesirable Amendment possible and, having said that, to express the hope that she will succeed in catching your eye, Sir, and addressing the House.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee)
We are all well aware that every penny of the £3¾ is a capital once-for-all sum and that this money will go to the building of the National Theatre. As I understand, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has raised this matter because he wants to underline the importance of this being seen from the very outset to be a national and not a municipal theatre.
It is true that the Greater London Council is making an equal contribution to the capital cost. On the other hand, the Arts Council has been giving £4 for every £1 contributed by the Greater London Council since the National Theatre Company was originated. It is right that this should be so. Already a good deal of touring has been done—on an average eight to 10 weeks a year. In another place, Lord Chandos, with all his involvement in and experience of this matter, anticipated anything that we could say this evening by stressing that a great national theatre—which will have, if not two companies, at least additions to the present company—will want at the very minimum to do 12 weeks' touring.
We are all agreed on giving the assurance to communities outside London that this is their theatre every bit as much as it is a London theatre. In that spirit, although I cannot literally accept the wording of the Amendment, the hon. Gentleman is knocking at a wide open door. Our points of view having been put, I think that there is no need to prolong the exercise.

§ Mr. A. Royle
Do the right hon. Lady's remarks apply to other theatres in the London area?

§ Miss Lee
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants his constituency to be considered part of the London area. This is a matter of common sense. I was asked whether there would be coordination as between ballet, opera, and so on. The best guarantee that there will 174 be co-ordination is that the rest of the country is becoming more and more alive, when it has any kind of theatre at all, to the importance of having a share in those touring companies.

§ Mr. Channon
By leave of the House, tempted though I am to reply to some of the more disgraceful remarks of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Hugh Jenkins
Nonsense.