ARTS COUNCIL, OPERA AND BALLET

HC Deb 27 January 1970 vol 794 cc1387-408

12.49 a.m.

Mr. Stanley Henig (Lancaster)

In starting this debate on the special report of the Arts Council on opera and ballet, the first thing one has to do is to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who will be replying to the debate. One of the theories behind this kind of debate is that hon. Members criticise or probe. In the case of the Arts Council, the first thing to recognise is that over the last five years, since my right hon. Friend became responsible, as it were, for the council, the amount of Government spending in this most important cultural area has gone up considerably. If we bear in mind some of the economic circumstances of those years, it is no mean achievement on my right hon. Friend's part to have been able to do this.

It seems to me that any society that is worth its salt should be doing, in the relative age of affluence that we have today, just this kind of thing for the arts. Having said that, however, I think that my right hon. Friend would be disappointed if I did not go on to show and ask for ways in which a little more might in due course be made available for these things.

During the last five years the Arts Council budget has more than doubled. Opera and ballet, to which I particularly wish to draw attention, have had their share upped by 80 per cent. The amount going to the smaller companies—Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells excluded—has quadrupled. These figures are rather good, because they mean that the balance is better than it was five years ago. Five years ago, far too high a percentage of Arts Council money went simply to two institutions, Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells. The spread is now very much better.

Having said that, however, we must face the fact that it is rather unsatisfactory that we have only two houses permanently giving opera and ballet—that is to say, for seven or eight months of the year—and that one of those houses gives opera all the time and the other has to divide itself between opera and ballet. If we make comparison with the obvious examples of Germany and Italy, or even with other countries of Western and Eastern Europe, I do not think that we have yet reached a position in which we can be too satisfied with the state of affairs.

When we look at the provinces, the situation is altogether different. Cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Cardiff do not have opera or ballet for more than a small number of weeks in the year. This is clearly unsatisfactory and one would like to see us perhaps copying some of the better things that are done in this respect in other countries.

I confess straight away that I was anxious to raise the subject because I am an operamane. This is the first time that I have been able to speak about my hobby and interest in the House of Commons in this way. I am sure that what led me to be an operamane more than anything else was that as a schoolboy in the City of Leicester I was able to go and listen at a cheap price to opera performances performed at that time by the Carl Rosa Company, which undertook the responsibility, usually without public support of any kind, of going round the country and helping to introduce people like me to opera.

I am sure that if I saw those performances today, I would have all sorts of artistic criticisms; the scenery often wobbled, and things like that. None the less, they were artistic experiences. During the course of a week in a town like Leicester, five or six different operas were given.

Leicester is less lucky today. At least, the younger people do not have the same privilege. Leicester has the rather dubious distinction of being one of two cities—Stoke being the other—of more than a quarter of a million people which have had no opera by a major touring company during the last three years. This is something about which I am a little worried.

When Carl Rosa had the unfortunate tragedy, as I regard it, which led to its winding-up and ultimate amalgamation into Sadler's Wells, one was assured that the amount of touring would not diminish. My impression—I may be wrong, and perhaps my right hon. Friend can correct me—is that over the years there has been a decline in the amount of touring, that Sadler's Wells today does not do the amount of touring that Carl Rosa did 10 years ago, and, what is more, that it is able to visit fewer and fewer cities. With the move to the Coliseum and consequent enlargement of scenery, Sadler's Wells gets a house far bigger than a house which can be found in the provinces, and that could, I suspect, make things worse. The other thing is that the opera side of Covent Garden seems to have dropped, all pretence of having any responsibility outside London. I think this is rather a pity.

Turning to the report which has occasioned this debate, the first thing one is bound to say is that a good job has been done in assembling the facts about opera and ballet in the United Kingdom. There are also positive proposals. Having said t lat, however, one cannot help feeling teat the report itself is perhaps a little bit innocuous, in this sense, that the composition of the body making the report very much reflects the operatic and balletic establishments in the country. In the report is hardly any criticism of anything. I know we are all on the same side: we all want more money for the arts; we all want more theatres. However, it seems to me that perhaps a little bit of criticism could be made of a number of points in the existing structure of opera and ballet in the country, and I will come to those in a few minutes.

To take up one or two points in the report, there is first of all a minor one. I note that D'Oyly Carte is not finding it as easy as once perhaps it did to make ends meet from its own budget, but does not seem to get support from public funds. I may have missed a point about this, but I wonder whether the Minister would comment on it and say whether this unique national institution would get some kind of help from public funds. I think it is quite essential.

Another minor query. The money going to Sadlers Wells has been broken down into that used to support the home company and that used to support the touring Company. From a rough compilation it appears that a performance of opera in the provinces costs about £4,000 in public subsidy. A performance of ballet in the provinces costs considerably less. However, direct comparisons can be made with the cost of performing an opera in London—about £2,000 in public subsidy; and a performance of opera, also in the provinces, by the Welsh or Scottish National Operas—again about £2,000 in public subsidy. It ought to be brought out why there is this discrepancy in the cost of supporting these different institutions.

Another thing is that since the report was published we have had a change in the organisation both of Sadlers Wells and of Covent Garden. The two opera companies at Sadlers Wells have been amalgamated and the two ballet companies at Covent Garden have been amalgamated. The one opera company will, apparently, go on tour part of the year, but divided into two. During the rest of the year it will not tour. A similar arrangement will happen with the amalgamated Royal Ballet.

A very curious statement was made by the people carrying forward this change, to the effect that this would save a lot of money, but there would not be fewer opportunities for young singers and dancers. I do not follow this. Either it does not save money, or there will be fewer of those opportunities. One cannot have it both ways. There seems to me something rather odd here.

It would seem to me that over the years there will be fewer jobs for our singers and dancers, and I am a little bit concerned about this and would welcome some reassurance from the Minister, because it is probably true that today Britain is producing more young singers and more young dancers of international standard than ever before, and I am rather worried about where they will find their outlets. I know one place where they are finding their outlets. I spent some time in Germany a couple of months ago. In each city I went to I found young British artistes making a major contribution. I was delighted to find this, but the thought went through my mind; are we stopping them from making their contribution at home, and are we not appreciating them here, so that they go to Germany to find opportunities? That is worth looking into.

A major point emerging from the report concerns the possibility of a new auditorium for opera and ballet. The report discusses the possibility of separating opera from ballet at the Royal Opera House and concludes, rather tamely, that since ballet nowhere in the world has a house purely for itself, we should not do it. I do not follow the reasoning. The Royal Ballet is, deservedly, more popular in this country than any other ballet company is in any other part of the world. It occupies that position with reason: it is one of the finest ballet companies in the world. Rather than build another and smaller auditorium in the Covent Garden area after the market has moved, using it for opera and ballet, both arts might be served better by separating the two.

I put the proposal to my right hon. Friend that Drury Lane Theatre, a wonderful theatre which is in the neighbourhood and has perfect sidelines which the Royal Opera House has not got, should be purchased and made into a permanent home for the national ballet, leaving the Royal Opera House for use for opera alone. In this way, both opera and ballet could be put on by the Covent Garden companies every night of the season. This would be a major advantage. What are the chances of it? Why was it not mentioned in the report? Will some consideration be given to this proposal at the same time as my right hon. Friend is considering the alternative idea of building a second auditorium, which might well cost about the amount that would be spent in buying the wonderful Drury Lane Theatre which already exists.

But perhaps even more important is the question of the provincial opera houses. The report is probably right to be modest here. We have, in fact, no provincial opera houses at all. As a mere Englishman who has enjoyed visiting the Edinburgh Festival, I find it appalling that after 25 years Edinburgh has not yet found a permanent home for opera. I hope that something will be done there quickly.

Much the same applies to Manchester and Cardiff, the other two centres the report moves towards. As a North-Westerner, I would like to think that Manchester's claim, with its music tradition, for having the first provincial opera house in England outside London should be paramount. I would like to see Yorkshire opera also moving towards having an opera house; but we must walk before we can run. But these two projects would be a major breakthrough for every one, and, once we had incurred the capital cost, we would increase the public for opera and ballet as well as opportunities for our artistes to involve themselves in creative activity. Gradually, the spiral would work in the right direction.

Perhaps the report, while it does mention it, does not concentrate sufficiently on the importance of the B.B.C. in this respect. Sandwiched at the back is the appendix on audiences for particular programmes. Five million people watched a performance on B.B.C. 1 of "La Traviata" during the period under review. Our biggest Opera house, Covent Garden, can seat only about 2,300 people at any performance. It would have to perform "La Traviata" every night for about six years to get the same size of audience as that commanded by the B.B.C. 1 performance.

It is important that the B.B.C. should carry on with its cultural rôle. I do not necessarily mean that it has to be done along particular lines. I deliberately mentioned that "La Traviata" was on B.B.C. 1. I do not like the idea of having one channel for all culture and no culture at all on any of the others. I hope that if anyone on the B.B.C. reads this debate he will bear in mind that we are desperately anxious for the B.B.C. to carry on with this most important rôle. I believe that out of the five million people who watched "La Traviata", some at least will have said to themselves afterwards, "Let us go to an opera house and see what it is like there". That is most important.

What about the points that are prehaps inadequately dealt with in the report, or the points that may somehow have been "fuzzed" over? I hope that the powers that be will take what I have to say in the right spirit. Reference is made to the Repertory Co-ordinating Committee between Sadler's Wells and the Royal Opera House. If the Committee does work, I would simply say that it is not seen to work. During the season 1968–69—and I am dealing here only with opera, because there is no ballet going on at Sadlers Wells, although I am concerned with the overlap in opera—at the Royal Opera House there were 131 performances of 24 operas, and at Sadlers Wells there were 230 performances of 23 operas. Five of those were in both repertoires. The five in question were "The Magic Flute", "Madam Butterfly", "Don Giovanni", "Rigoletto" and "The Meistersinger".

I am not disputing that those are important operas, that from time to time ought to be in the repertoire of every major house. Having said that, it often happens that a whole season goes by and none of these operas is in the repertoire of a house. Why during that twelvemonth period did those five operas, taking up quite a large number of performances at each house, have to be in both repertoires? This is something that ought to be looked at, given that there are many operas which people in Germany and Italy would consider basic to the repertoire which have not been seen in London for many years.

When we think about some of the rather silly things that happened shortly after Sailers Wells produced its wonderful performance of "Meistersinger" and Covent Garden seemed quite unaware that this had happened, I would have thought, without causing further embarrassment to anyone, that things could be a little improved in this respect. I do not want my right hon. Friend to comment on what I have to say now, but I think that the Covent Garden management must be, perhaps a little more careful in how it goes about certain things. Rightly an independent body, not subject to day-to-day control, it is wielding a lot of public money, and in the way in which it organises its administration and makes appointments and things like that it must be seen to be a public body. I say no more about this. I think that people know what I am getting at. It is better to say no more perhaps than warn Covent Garden that so long as it is in this position, and it is always likely to be, a lot more care is needed.

Obviously, there is a problem here. I do not know the answer to the problem of how one reconciles some kind of public accountability with an independent artistic policy. I suppose that ultimately one has to let an opera house go on producing its operas but regulating it by the amount of finance that is given.

I have a slight suspicion that some of the things done in the last year or two may not have been good investments; but we need not say anything about this at this stage. A specific point I want to make, and I cannot understand why there is no reference to it in the special report—unless I have missed it—is that for many years now there has been a complaint, by both the Royal Opera House and Sadlers Wells, about grant being given only on a year-to-year basis, with the result that there could be no proper forward planning.

I wonder whether this is a constraint on planning. Is there an assumption at Covent Garden and Sadlers Wells that perhaps the year after next there will not be any grant, or a reduction of grant and, therefore, they might not be in a position to go ahead and book the artists they need? I would think that this is rather odd. As an absolute minimum we could now give to these bodies a guarantee that their grants will not be cut over that period. I would push this point on my right hon. Friend.

Another point which receives no mention at all in the report—but by coincidence the annual report of the Royal Opera House dealing with activities during 1968–69 was published a few days ago—was what has happened in recent years to the Covent Garden Opera Company. The names used to be listed in the back of its annual report, and up to a few years ago the number of its major singers amounted to 29. It then dropped to 22, and this year none appears in the back of the report. There is a long list of singers who appeared, but most of them did not belong to the company. How many people belong to the Covent Garden Opera Company now? Is the company in a position to cast any of the great operas purely from its own talents?

I like the idea of having international artists coming to London, but sometimes an opera is staged with a cast of perhaps four or five international artists who come to London, perform together and then depart. This gives no opportunity for our younger singers to join with them in some of their performances and learn from them. This is most unsatisfactory.

To make a comparison with the ballet, there is the difference that our ballet is represented by a permanent company. This is why I suspect that in one sense the artistic standards of our ballet are higher than those of our opera. The ballet is our own, whereas with the opera we are not certain what is ours and what belongs to the international travelling circus. Many of us enjoy seeing these great singers performing in this country, but the relationship between visiting and home singers must be looked at much more closely.

I turn to the situation in the provinces. Fundamentally, despite all the efforts that have been made, the position still obtains that for three-quarters of the population of the United Kingdom opera and ballet are strange things that are able to be enjoyed only if people are able to come up to London. They may occasionally, by the grace of the authorities, be brought to a locality but by and large they do not play a significant part in the life of the smaller communities.

I blame the local authorities to a considerable extent for the situation. Local authorities are empowered to spend up to a 6d. rate on these matters, but I would not expect any local authority to spend anything like that amount, and, in fact, none does. But there are large authorities which spend literally the smallest possible fraction of a penny on opera and ballet. Some of these local authorities should consider whether they are doing the best they can in educating the younger generation since it is important that they are given an opportunity to see performances of opera and ballet.

I believe it is essential to have one or two new opera houses spaced round the country in which small opera or ballet companies could perform in the first instance. In talking of opera houses, I am thinking of suitable halls in which opera and ballet companies could perform. I am not suggesting that suddenly there should be an opera house in Manchester and for forty weeks in the year the Manchester Opera and the Manchester Ballet and only those two companies should perform there. That would be the quick route to financial disaster. Obviously, other companies would perform at the House, although its primary purpose would be opera and ballet.

Similarly, there ought to be new houses in Liverpool and Cardiff. I should like to see one or two national companies built up which would perform operas at one of these theatres but would move around into some of the areas which at the moment do not get the opportunity to hear such performances. Any extra money that is made available in the next few years for the arts, particularly for opera and ballet, almost certainly as an A.1 priority must go to the provinces. One realises the problems involved. I have spoken of the possibility of providing a second auditorium by buying Drury Lane Theatre in London. It seems to me that fundamentally these have to be second priorities.

I should like tonight to hear the Minister say where she sees the priorities and what hopes she can give of some guarantee on the financial arrangements so that all these companies know where they will stand in two or three years' time and so that they may enjoy greater freedom in their artistic policy for a longer period ahead.

1.14 a.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon (Southend, West)

The House has been fascinated by the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig), and we are very much in his debt for his remarks. It is a great pleasure to hear an hon. Member speaking so enthusiastically about a subject which he obviously knows so well. He and I share a deep enthusiasm and love for opera. Now that I have heard his speech, perhaps we shall be able to make happier pairing arrangements to enable us both to enjoy more opera. So late has our debate begun, we would have had time to enjoy a complete performance of "Götterdammerung" and still have got back to the House in time for this debate.

The hon. Gentleman applied for this debate really in two parts: the Annual Reports of the Arts Council and the Special Report on Opera and Ballet in the United Kingdom. I want to make a few general observations first, and then I will return to the hon. Gentleman's fascinating remarks about the opera and the ballet. I agree completely with him about the need to co-ordinate performances, and "The Meistersingers" is an outstanding example of the need. I hope that the right hon. Lady will feel able to comment on that.

The hon. Gentleman should be congratulated on raising this topic, since we have not had a debate on it for a considerable number of years, though there have been opportunities for general debates on the arts in another place. Certainly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that support for the arts is vitally important. It is one of the great tests of a civilised community. They are widely appreciated by an ever-increasing number of people, and I agree with all that the hon. Gentleman said about them.

Since the arts were last debated in this House, there have been three important documents. The first is the Report of the Estimates Committee on the Arts Council. The second is the White Paper on Public Expenditure. The third is not a Government document but the work of two Americans, Professors Baumol and Bowen, on the Income Gap in the Performing Arts. All of them are relevant. I have one point of disagreement with the Estimates Committee, but, like Lord Goodman in his contribution to the Arts Council's Annual Report, I am delighted that the council received such a clean bill of health. It is to be congratulated.

Since we are debating this report as well as the Special Report on Opera and Ballet, and since this is the first opportunity that I have had to do so in this House, I want to pay my tribute to Lord Goodman for his magnificent work and for the public spirit which he has displayed in his efforts on behalf of the Arts Council. I also pay tribute to the members of the council for the enormous amount of voluntary work that they do. We are grateful to the staff of the council, some of whose senior members have just retired or are soon to retire. They deserve special commendation for their work on behalf of the arts over many years.

On a personal note, I regret the departure of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) from the Arts Council. I am delighted that he is to remain a member of the music panel. He has given very distinguished service to the council, and I hope that, if he has more leisure in the future, one day he will be able to resume his valuable contribution to the arts, while continuing his services to the music panel.

I congratulate the Arts Council on its report, which is an extremely interesting and thorough document. But why does it have to be so late? Here we are at the end of January, 1970, having had the report for only a short time, when it is for the year ended 31st March, 1969. Excellent though these reports are, perhaps the right hon. Lady could ask the council to get them out a little earlier.

In general terms, there has been general agreement for a number of years that the arts deserve a higher priority in our national life. We are all pleased to note that it has been accorded a higher priority by succeeding Governments over the years, and I am sure that the process will continue in the future. I am delighted that this is so, and that there is no need to be defensive about it.

In his opening remarks of the report, Mr. Willatt, the Secretary-General, points out the enormous numbers of people who take an interest in the arts, the large numbers of people who take part in these activities and attend performances at Covent Garden, go to the Hayward Gallery, and take part in so many activities that are supported by the Arts Council.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the increasing financial support for the arts that Her Majesty's Government have made available in recent years. It is true that there has been extra financial support, but I point out one comment which is important. Page 12 of the Arts Council's report says: Nevertheless, this has meant a standstill in terms of money"— it is talking of the last few years— (although in those terms alone) for the Council and the great majority of its clients as most of the extra £½ million has been used to meet the cost of inevitable wage and salary increases. The next paragraph says: If we cannot, in the year 1970/71, help our clients to move from a standstill position, ground may really be lost. A grant pegged for three years means something worse than standstill as costs rise and because an artistic enterprise can never be a static affair; it must either go forward or go back. Although there has been extra finance available for the arts, I must point out that a large proportion of it—and the Minister was unable to give me a detailed answer recently to a Question of mine—has gone in increased costs. I know many people in different sectors of the arts who feel that they are, in real terms, no better off than they were two or three years ago.

The Arts Council must be judged on two standards: first, whether standards are going up; and, second, whether opportunities are expanding. For many years it has been a favourite statistic in many Government documents that the Arts Council receives less money from the Government than is spent on military bands. I think that that situation has now been reversed, but only just.

No one could say that there has been excessive expenditure on the arts. I think that we can all, with a clear conscience, defend the sums that have been spent on the arts not only on the grounds that I have talked about earlier, but also on their immense attraction for tourists. If we analyse what the arts have brought into this country as well as what is spent on them, I am not sure that there would be a deficit in the ledger.

There are several points that I should like to make on the report; first, the structure for distributing patronage in this country through the Arts Council. Lord Goodman in his foreword points out that he remained unrepentantly of the view that our own system, divorced from direct governmental intervention, and free, so far as any social institutions can be, from political slanting, was to be preferred in a country where it was acceptable and would work. I agree with everything that Lord Goodman says in that foreword. I am deeply opposed to the Ministry of Culture way of running the arts which he describes in many European countries. Nevertheless, I think that there is a case for looking at the present system, which has some defects.

The most important thing is that there should be a sympathetic Chancellor of the Exchequer. If there is no sympathetic Chancellor of the Exchequer it does not matter what ministerial structure we have in this sphere. But I agree with what Lord Goodman says about divorcing the system from direct governmental intervention. I should like to see ideas for divorcing it all further from direct governmental intervention which would at the same time strengthening the position of the chairman to act as a link and a buffer between the Government and the Arts Council.

I understand that some time ago there was an inquiry into the organisation of the Arts Council. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what happened to that. I have never seen any report. It would be most interesting if the Minister could tell us what happened to that inquiry into the structure and organisation of the Arts Council.

Apart from its structure, how is the money used? First, it is used to maintain standards. This is done partially by supporting great national institutions such as the ones mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I am worried about touring, not only ballet and opera, but theatre touring, too, I am frightened that touring may be looked upon as a piece of necessary drudgery, or that the situation could arise in which only the second best toured outside London. It is not fair on artists to expect them to perform in inadequate conditions, or to ridiculously small audiences.

One of the worrying features of recent years has been the fact that the National Theatre, which puts on magnificent spectacles, attracts much smaller audiences out of London than one would imagine. There was the famous occasion at Bristol when the National Theatre attracted smaller audiences than the local Bristol Repertory Company. The Bristol company is a good one, but it is remarkable that the National Theatre could not attract larger audiences. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about touring by the National Theatre, and also about the recent controversy referred to by the hon. Gentleman, concerning the Royal Ballet.

Can the right hon. Lady comment on the fears of the National Council for Civic Theatres? I understand that these fears have been expressed to the right hon. Lady and her colleagues, and it will he interesting to know whether she thinks that these fears are justified. If they are not, perhaps she will allay them.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that, apart from maintaining standards, it is crucial for the Arts Council to spread the opportunities for seeing the arts in this country. I have had the pleasure of visiting nearly all the regional arts associations. There is tremendous growth potential in these associations which provide local initiative, plus support from the Arts Council. They often have difficulty with their early administrative costs, and I wonder whether the Minister will consider making more help available to them in the early stages. These associations sometimes have difficulty in getting off the ground, and a small sum of money might make all the difference between getting off the ground and being put off for ever.

I should like to pay a special tribute to Mr. Abercrombie for the work that he has done during his term as regional adviser. He has done a magnificent job in the regions.

The hon. Gentleman referred to local authorities. This is not within the terms of the debate, but I agree that a very worrying situation has arisen because of the very small sums of money which many councils feel able to provide. These councils have grave financial difficulties; I do not blame them for their attitude, but I am certain that more can be done to encourage them to do more and to spend money to the best effect. I am sure that ways can be found to enable them to do that without losing their independence. I reject the idea that they should be made to spend money on the arts. I do not think that a mandatory system would be fair, but there are ways—and we can debate these on another occasion—in which they can be encouraged to do more.

I propose to deal now with State patronage of the arts. There are two problems which will exercise the Arts Council and the Government very much in the future. First, there is the avant-garde. How will they encourage new ideas, techniques, and experimentation? The Conservative Party held a seminar on the arts about a year ago, and one thing that came out of it was the extraordinary difficulty of defining avant-garde in the arts, what should be supported and what should not.

Connected with that in a way is the question of subsidies to individual artists, which the Arts Council goes in for on a big scale. If hon. Members look at the Arts Council's accounts, they will see the grants that are made to individuals. In all, these amount to nearly £120,000 a year. I am not surprised that people have said that it is this aspect which causes most controversy about the work of the Arts Council. It astonishes me that there is not more controversy about it. I question whether it is the right way to spend nearly £120,000 of public money in making these individual subsidies. If the Arts Council is to take on more fields of inquiry—heaven knows, it has had enough already—that might be a useful subject for the Arts Council itself to look at. There is a growing problem here, and the public are entitled to know the criteria adopted for these grants.

It is an agreeable feature that during the reign of Lord Goodman there have been so many inquiries by the Arts Council. They have blossomed as never before, though I am not sure that much action has been taken on many of them. Looking at the list of names on the obscene publications inquiry, perhaps one hardly need read the report itself.

I return to the hon. Gentleman's question: what will be the fate of the report on opera and ballet? Later, I hope that we shall have a chance to discuss, at Question Time at least, if not in debate, the report on the theatre which, we hope, will be out in the not too distant future. Tonight, will the right hon. Lady tell us what are the implications of the opera and ballet report, and whether the Government accept the broad principles of it? If they do, what is the cost of the proposals, and what timing do the Government envisage?

The financial implications are very large. On page 46 of the report, with reference only to the three regional centres recommended, we are told that the costs might well be about £15 million capital expenditure and a total of £5 million running costs. That is a large sum of money, and it does not take into account any of the other implications of the report, of which there are many which will cost money, though not on the same scale. There is a recommendation about pensions for singers and dancers. It is worth reminding the House, as one should in all debates on this subject, that although the State provides large public subsidies for the arts out of taxation, the largest providers of subsidies are the artists themselves, who are underpaid in the majority of cases. They are the true providers of public subsidy to the arts.

It is of crucial interest to all concerned for opera and ballet to know the Government's attitude to the report. For my part, I regard it as an extremely valuable document. I am only too anxious that opera and ballet should be supported in this country, should develop and grow, and should be popularly supported. However, one must recognise that there are other high priorities here. Some which spring to my mind are musical education, museums and public lending right.

Considering the future of opera, one must ask about the future of Covent Garden, which is largely in the Minister's hands. What is the state of play in regard to the Covent Garden site? The right hon. Lady herself set up a committee which has been sitting for two years now. When shall we know its conclusions?

I come now to the one point on which I disagree with the Estimates Committee's Report on the, Arts Council. There is an income gap in the performing arts, and that income gap is bound to grow. Private patronage in this country has declined. However, I do not believe, although the Estimates Committee believed, that private patronage is impossible to revive. I do not believe that anyone has yet tried it. It could give enormous advantages as an adjunct of public subsidy. People would directly help themselves and take responsibility for artistic activities. It would be an enormous improvement of our artistic life. There are many ways in which this could happen. This is not the time to outline possible schemes, but the time is coming when a proper public debate should begin about the best ways of achieving this. It would be in the best interests of private patrons and the State and of our artistic life.

I have greatly welcomed this debate. We are grateful for the work of the Arts Council throughout its 20 years and more at successful and highly meritorious activity.

1.36 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee)

This has been for me a remarkable debate. It is not often that a Government who have been in power for six years have achieved an apparently impeccable policy. I was waiting to see whether any point of substance would be made by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) which would give us new illumination or new points of departure. I am not scolding him. On the contrary, I am delighted that he should be such a complete convert to the policy and practice of my Government over the arts.

When the first White Paper was published, I made it clear that there would be no political direction. That, I hear, has been accepted. I also join the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to Lord Goodman, to the Secretary-General, to Mr. Abercrombie in his different jobs, to the very distinguished staff, and to the enormous number of people of great distinction who serve the Arts Council voluntarily. We are fortunate to have not only what I consider to be the most civilised philosophy for dealing with the arts, but also so dedicated and distinguished a staff to carry it out.

I was asked what has become of the inquiry into the organisation of the Arts Council. This was a purely domestic inquiry, not for publication. I was asked about many other publications and inquiries. An example is this latest report on opera and ballet and the question of how far it can be implemented. We must have two things. We must have our immediate policy, which will be controlled by the amount of money available, but we must also have long-term forward planning, not just for a year or two but for decades ahead.

It is outrageous that Scotland, Wales and the North have no opera house. This should have been put right not last year or five years ago, but 15 or 25 years ago. It is outrageous that only now we are beginning to mobilise sufficient public support and Government backing to have these matters seriously considered. I was delighted only a few days ago to receive a letter from the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, confirming that Edinburgh is now willing to pay even a little more than half the cost of an opera house for Edinburgh. The recommendation of the Arts Council committee is that there should be an opera house in Wales, one in Scotland and one in the North, which would probably be in Manchester. On present costs, it is estimated that the capital cost of each would be £5 million, or a total of £15 m Ilion. It is also reckoned that there would have to be an annual subsidy of at least £5 million.

We have reached the stage of having a recommendation from this distinguished committee. That no doubt means that I shall be receiving from the Arts Council every encouragement and pressure to go ahead with these schemes. I am not in a position to make any commitments, except to point out that while the hon. Member for Southend, West referred to sympathetic Chancellors, in the last few years we have had exceedingly sympathetic ones. I wish that I could say the same about their predecessors.

Mr. Channon

That is exactly the note that I hoped would not be struck in this debate. Under both Conservative and Labour Governments the grants have been increased. During our term in office the available funds were trebled. Under Labour they have also increase d considerably. I had hoped that we would keep this subject out of party politics. I now hope that this increase in funds will continue, whichever party is in power.

Miss Lee

I try always to look to the future rather than concentrate on the past. At times that becomes difficult, and I get exceedingly angry when I think of the lost opportunities, particularly when we speak in terms of building great opera houses.

That, however, is not the only problem. Part of the reason why it is difficult to promote touring is the fact that our artists will remain unwilling to tour unless there are civilised amenities in our theatres. In 1950 we had only 20 repertory theatres. We now have about 60 not nearly enough, but the increase shows the direction in which we are moving. The amenities in those repertory theatres are being improved. We have 109 projects which are being helped by funds from the Housing the Arts Fund. Only 11 of those projects are in the London area, and 33 of them are for theatre improvements.

I am always flattered when it is assumed that the present Government can do everything that needs to be done in this context in a very short time. We are trying to do our best. There was rather more touring in opera and ballet immediately after the last war, but many of the smaller companies, for financial and other reasons, went under. Considerably more touring is being done now than in the 'fifties, but because the commercial theatre for drama, ballet and opera was unable to carry on, we have had to try to define what we need in terms of companies and performances.

As far as I am aware, the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company is not receiving a public subsidy. However, I have no doubt that if it applied for subsidy its application would be carefully considered by the Arts Council. The report on the Covent Garden site is expected literally within a matter of days. I therefore cannot comment on this subject, and must ask hon. Members to wait.

When we move from the established arts—opera, ballet and the serious theatre—and come to the more experimental side, we must consider how to encourage new techniques and distinguish between what is worth while in experimental art and what is just a lot of silly nonsense. This is an extremely difficult matter to decide. Nobody has a complete answer to this problem, except that it is agreed that we must be extremely careful to allow all sorts of experimentation, even though it may not always reflect our tastes. I forget which Chinese leader said "Let many flowers bloom".

Mr. Henig

Mao.

Miss Lee

For obvious reasons the Chinese may have got cold feet. We have not got cold feet. We believe in letting many flowers bloom, but it is a difficult matter when dealing with experimental art and young artists. I hope that the increasing emphasis of my Government will be in looking after the young and experimental and in providing public buildings to develop civilised values for those in many less fashionable and less attractive parts of the country. This is the expensive side of the job, to which we are giving ever increasing priority. It is just not true—but people keep repeating the canard—that everything comes to London and the regions are neglected. A few years ago we had only three regional arts associations; now we have nine.

The hon. Member asked if more help could be given to them in their early days. I was rather surprised about that because the appointment of Mr. Abercrombie was specifically so that he should be able to go around and give them advice. The Arts Council and able officials in my Department are all on the alert to give them every help they can. Often the difficulties in the early days come not so much from lack of information but from not knowing how to reconcile many local interests. We have even established a course at the Polytechnic, where we are beginning to train people to help in giving that kind of advice.

I come to the delightful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig). We all enjoyed listening to him and hearing the enthusiasm with which he talked about this wonderful subject. I hope that I can answer his questions fully. Only two opera houses! Of course we have no ground for complacency, but our history is different from that of many continental countries. Little German States thought of an opera house as a status symbol. It was like the piano in the home in this country. For historical reasons they inherited a great deal and we inherited very little. I hope that we are going to be able to find more money for building for housing the arts, because until we can get more building, especially of opera houses, we shall not have the right kind of centres that can feed the smaller places.

I hope that hon. Members will not feel unnecessarily distressed about the fact that Covent Garden and Sadlers Wells have now amalgamated their companies. Many of the artists did not like touring and there was a tendency to consider that the touring company was rather secondary. Now there is one immense company, and the same artists will do their share of touring and have opportunities to tour with Covent Garden and Sadlers Wells. The division into two groups for ballet, one of 85 and one of 25, will mean that some of the great classics, like Swan Lake, will be able to go into the regions to places to which they have not been before and smaller groups can go into smaller places to which they have not gone before.

The Arts Council would not have sanctioned this move if it had believed that it was running counter to its policy of promoting the interests of the regions. On the contrary, it believes that the regions will be advantaged by it and that in the meantime there will be broadly the same amount of touring as at present. However, as there is only a limited number of artists of this great distinction, and with the demands in London and for touring abroad and in the provinces, we must be on our guard to ensure that the provinces do not suffer.

I hope that I have given the essential assurances which have been asked for. I, too, would like to dream about taking over Drury Lane, but we are not in possession. We hope that there will be a great expansion of opportunities for Covent Garden. When the House of Commons Select Committee investigated it, it said, rightly, that the conditions behind stage were appalling. It would be wrong of me at this moment to hold out any certainty that there could he vast improvements or increases in the amount spent for the arts. I can only say that I am delighted that on all sides there is acceptance of Government policy and of the growing importance of the arts. I shall always be delighted to be pressed to travel in the direction in which I am so anxious to go.