HC Deb 21 October 1975 vol 898 cc443-54

1.28 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

I am glad to have the opportunity of raising the subject of finance for the arts. It is strange that the Minister with responsibility for the arts took no part in the debate on the film industry, for which he has ministerial responsibility. However, I am glad that he listened to the debate. I wish to raise the question of the Downing Street Press notice of 22nd September 1975, according to which the Prime Minister appointed the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mr. Harold Lever, to undertake a thorough assessment of the problems facing the arts. When I asked for this debate I put it down to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I understand that his colleague will answer for him.

According to the Press notice, the Prime Minister asked the Chancellor of the Duchy to consider, among other solutions, the possibility of raising additional funds for the arts from sources outside the Government and local government. We are entitled to know more about the matter. This is the first opportunity we have had of obtaining information from the Chancellor of the Duchy, through his colleague, about the possible solutions which are being investigated. We should be interested to know whether the Government have any new ideas up their sleeve.

I shall be asking many questions about industrial and commercial sponsorship of the arts, but there may be something else which the Government are thinking about, and we should like to assist them in that. Could it be that new tax reliefs are foreshadowed in the announcement? Perhaps there is to be relief from some of the penalties that a wealth tax would impose.

The Minister could tell us the scale of patronage of the arts by commerce and industry. I know that the Government are working on that. Unless they know the present scale of patronage of the arts by industry and commerce, how can they possibly work upon it in the future?

While I am on the subject of industrial patronage, I am sorry to tell the Minister that more than one chairman of a major public company has refused to support the arts so long as the Minister persists in his present attitude towards the wealth tax. The word "Marxist" has been used. The Minister has taken an extraordinarily controversial stand on the arts and the national heritage in his attitude towards the wealth tax. This has frightened off many people who would like to help.

The Minister has, in a sense, failed with industry. How is he succeeding with the unions? The Government claim to have a special relationship with the TUC and unions generally. The Opposition have raised with the Minister on many occasions the question of union financial support for the arts. As the direct result of our representations, the TUC set up a working party in April 1975. We pressed the Minister, he had words with the TUC and the TUC set up the working party. Its terms of reference are: to consider and make recommendations on ways in which trade unionists and their families may be enriched by, support and contribute to the arts". It is obvious that there is no thought of financial contributions from the unions: far from it. I am sorry that although the working party includes members from unions associated with the arts—some fairly indirectly—there is no artist on the working party. Perhaps that might be considered. I know that the unions are genuinely interested and want to be helpful, but the prospect of the unions providing financial support or encouraging others to do so is not very bright.

When I have spoken to union representatives they have made great play of greater industrial responsibility. The TUC suggested that firms who make money out of matters related to the arts—television tubes spring to mind—should do more to help the arts. I believe such firms already give a fair measure of support. If the TUC takes a friendly attitude about this, I am sure that firms will be encouraged and we shall get results. The TUC certainly will not get results by a frontal attack.

The TUC also makes much play of the role of municipal patronage. A TUC representative who came to see me today stressed that. I pointed out that during most of the past 30 years the Labour Party—with its special relationship with the TUC—has controlled most of the great municipalities, but the rich municipalities do not have a sparkling record in supporting the arts. Of course, some outstandingly good work has been done, but the overall level is not good and has recently declined. We understand the difficulties faced by local government, but for the TUC to claim that the municipalities are a major source of patronage is somewhat optimistic.

One of the proposals put forward by the unions would result in even greater public expenditure. They are strongly inclined to award the fourth television channel to an organisation with the aim of developing cultural, educational and minority interests. That would conflict with commercial television's need to attract advertisers. The TUC turned down the idea of a fourth channel in the hands of independent television companies.

I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thinks about this. He said on 4th March that he was considering whether to give evidence to the Annan Commission. He has had a long time to consider. I wonder what he has done. Perhaps he can tell us the answer tonight. I hope that he has overcome any prejudices he may have had against commercial television and has his feet firmly on the ground in this matter. He could, using his very considerable influence, talk about the considerable arts revenue which could be raised through ITV2. He knows what I mean, and I hope he is thinking seriously about it.

I want to refer to credits on television for those who finance arts events. Such credits could inspire a great many more people to take the plunge. If a great institution sponsors an opera or ballet or concert, the BBC should be encouraged—I could even say, required—to give credit where credit is due. Various prizes and trophies are given, for example, by Bensons & Hedges, Double Diamond. Hennessey and Gillette. All those who sponsor sports get their names on the television screen, and not just by advertisements plastered across the fairway or around the arena.

The BBC has a rather curious split personality on this. If it can allow such sport advertising, surely it could, at the end of a television broadcast of an opera from Covent Garden, say that it was sponsored by the National Westminster Bank and the Imperial Tobacco Company, for example. The same applies to Glyndebourne productions sponsored by the Midland Bank.

There is, however, a chink in the armour. BBC local radio stations have been more generous in giving credits. I was glad to be attacked in Bristol on BBC local radio when I said that it did give credits. I am delighted that it does. I should like to see that done on television as well.

The Press has been immensely helpful in giving proper credit where it is due. After all, if people are prepared to give large sums of money for sponsoring the arts, they should be given the credit, and if others sec that they do get the credit, many will follow suit, because it all helps to improve reputation and the image of a company or institution.

I turn now to the question of finance for the arts and for several projects which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. There is, for example, public lending right. What is to be the annual cost? The hon. Gentleman said recently that we must wait for the Bill in the Queen's Speech on 19th November. I hope for another nod from him on that. There is no nod. Perhaps the Bill is not to be after all and we shall have to wait another Session. There must surely be further doubt among the authors on that one.

Is the annual cost to be in the Bill at all? Was a Bill of this kind ever introduced which said how much money was to be produced to help authors? We have heard the figure of £5 million a year, which would provide meaningful help for authors hoping to participate. But with inflation rising, one wonders whether that would be enough.

Can we expect extra money to be provided on the arts budget? The Arts Council has said that it has to cope with a 38 per cent. inflation. Even allowing for a little exaggeration, the Arts Council is in grave difficulty. Are we to see another £5 million produced for the arts in public lending rights? I believe that the hon. Gentleman could be accused of practising some cruel deception on the writers if he held out great hope of anything happening in their direction for some time.

Is the Minister considering the possibility of financing the public lending right out of an extended copyright? Will the copyright run for not 50 years but 60 years, the revenue from dead authors being used to support the living? It may not be the Minister's Department, but the Home Office that is considering copyright internationally, but I am sure that the Minister is in touch with these matters. Now that we have a Cabinet Minister at the helm, perhaps we shall get somewhere fast.

I now turn to the National Theatre. We have been told on many occasions that the building is getting on nicely and that certain parts will be finished quite soon, but what about the players? Are they to be given some sense of security? Can they indulge in some forward planning? However splendid the building, it will not be of much use to the public unless it is adequately financed and fully used. There is an immense amount of enthusiasm for the project which we would not like to see cool off.

One more word about the problems of the Arts Council: are we to have the repeated cries of anguish every year and the cat-and-mouse game which we have seen taking place between the council and the Minister? Can we not have even a modest triennial indexed budget? I suppose it would have to be indexed in inflationary times. The council might be told that there was not much room for expansion, but at least it would know where it was and it would be able to plan ahead. I do not believe that the Treasury is entirely to blame. I think that a certain amount of muddle is going on in Belgrave Square. What practical steps is the Minister prepared to take on that?

The Minister would do well to turn his attention to following our lead in industrial and commercial sponsorship or patronage. I am glad to see him converted to our case. We have always favoured and encouraged the widest pos- sible financial support for the arts from all possible sources. On this side of the House we are practical people. With many sponsors it is possible to look to a more settled future.

I am delighted to know that the Minister will be in Bristol later today. I am sorry that we have had to keep him here and have not released him in very good time, but he will get there all right. The Minister is going to John Harveys to applaud its sponsorship of the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra's concerts, which I helped to launch as long ago as 15th September. Perhaps he will be standing on the same spot that I occupied on that occasion. Perhaps he is making his visit to congratulate me on giving him a lead. I am delighted that he is accepting that lead. I hope he will make it clear that the attitude displayed by such sponsorship will have every possible support and encouragement and that it will get the sort of public recognition it deserves.

I hope that the Minister will also say a word in passing to my friends at the National Westminster Bank for their sponsorship of "Cosi Fan Tutte" during the Glyndebourne tour, which was greatly enjoyed by many people from all over the West Country. When the Minister gets to the Imperial Tobacco Company Cello Festival he will be met by my wife. She will take him to a reception, where he will hear about a fine example of private enterprise collaborating with public finance.

I am glad to see someone as far Left as the Minister—I know that he will be rather proud of that description—embracing and applauding the fruits of capitalism. I think that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster must have been working on him. All success to commerce and industry in the arts! Their present contribution is significant and the future is full of possibilities. Let us give them every encouragement, and perhaps even some tax inducements. Perhaps it is more important that they should receive proper public recognition for what they are doing.

1.44 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Hugh Jenkins)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) for raising this subject so shortly after the House has reassembled after the Summer Recess. Just as bullion was said to be the sinew of war, money is certainly the sinew of the arts.

I have never had any inhibitions about the source of the money. That may be because before I became involved in the world of entertainment some 25 years ago my previous interest was in the banking world. I was editor of the Bank Officer for some time. During that time I came to know the City quite well. I have retained some fairly good connections and associations with business men. I would say that my relationships with business men in the City are remarkably good considering the sharp differences of political opinion which separate us. That difference of opinion has not in any way inhibited me from taking their money from them.

On the contrary, it seems that while we live in an acquisitive society we can do no better with the surplus profits of capitalism than to divert them into the arts. I have no inhibitions whatever about this. My relationships with those business firms which support the arts are a good deal warmer than they are with those who do not. If the latter firms wish my relationships with them to improve, they can do no better than to direct their funds in this direction, as a number of firms in Bristol are doing. I hope to pay proper tribute to them tomorrow.

It is not only a good thing in itself; it is a good thing from the point of view of the prestige of the firm. Such a practice is widespread among firms in the United States and we are beginning to catch up here. The idea is growing that business organisations have a responsibility to the society within which they exist. This responsibility should be recognised more and more. I believe that this is happening and I believe that that responsibility should be recognised by public corporations just as much as by private enterprise.

Mr. Robert Cooke

The Minister will recognise that in Bristol our university, museum and art gallery were all provided by great industrialists. No public money was involved when they were started.

Mr. Jenkins

If the Bristol example can be followed more widely, no one will be happier than I. I shall certainly encourage such moves and take every possible opportunity, where such things are done, of paying proper tribute to those involved and expressing appreciation, as I have done on several occasions in the House.

It is wrongly suggested in the Press that I am reluctant to express appreciation to business organisations. The contrary is true. I am somewhat effusive in this matter, sometimes excessively effusive. I shall try to restrain myself and try to achieve a reasonable balance

I was interested to read about the hon. Member's party setting up some study groups on the arts. I shall watch their progress with interest and any resultant policy that may emerge with greater interests still. Hope and plans are the essence of opposition. Realities are the essence of power.

One of the last occasions on which the House debated the arts was on the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) on 10th February this year. I outlined then how quickly—whatever political party was in power—the Government's grant to the Arts Council had increased since 1945. I pointed out that it had increased nearly one hundredfold in 30 years, and that this increase had been particularly significant since 1965 when my noble Friend Baroness Lee was appointed as the first Minister for the Arts. It seems necessary to mention this once again as it has easily been forgotten in the public controversies of recent months.

We are all fully conscious of the labour-intensive nature of the arts which limits the extent to which they can accommodate the kind of inflationary pressures we have experienced over the last two years, without significant damage to the quality and range of performances. Lack of money is certainly detrimental to the arts but inflation makes it much more so. The arts cannot thrive unless inflation is got under control. I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that. If he does not, he has only to talk for five minutes to the Arts Council or any of its clients to realise that this is so. Inflation, then, is enemy number one. With it is tied up the problem of resources and finance.

I therefore welcome the Prime Minister's decision to ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to undertake a thorough assessment of the financial problems facing the arts. The examination which my right hon. Friend will be carrying out will be of a wide-ranging nature. He has already embarked upon it. One of the reasons I welcome this is that our knowledge of what is being done in the business world is less than it should be. Various figures have been quoted. We can be sure of one thing and that is that it is less than the municipal help which is being given. Public support from central Government funds is much the largest. The next largest is municipal help. Business is a poor but an increasing third; the last figure I saw, £300,000, is, I believe, much too low.

We know a good deal about what large firms are doing. We do not know enough about the large number of small contributions being made all over the country by smaller firms. Not only is money being given, but a good deal of work is being done by smaller firms. This has not been evaluated, and if it were all added up we might be pleasantly surprised by the sum total.

Mr, Robert Cooke

The Minister says that his information is not as complete as he would like it to be. He has been pressed by the Opposition—and by me in particular—ever since he became Minister to take the subject seriously. Surely he has been doing some work on it. Just to pull out a figure of £300,000 is extremely misleading.

Mr. Jenkins

The most exact figure we have is £300,000, but I think it is an under-estimate.

One of our difficulties in this matter, which we have not entirely resolved—I have touched on it in discussions with the CBI—is that we do not want to be quoting firms unless we are sure they want to be quoted. It might, perhaps, be much more satisfactory were the CBI to set up an organisation or be a party to an organisation which might be responsible for co-ordinating such information. I hope that it will agree to do that. It would be very much more satisfactory if business were to quote what business is doing rather than to have the Government take the responsibility.

It is all very well for the Government to take responsibility for Government figures, whether central or local, but it is very much better to set up an organisation under the auspices of the CBI to take the responsibility for saying what business is doing. I believe that one result would be that business would do a good deal more.

I doubt whether the TUC would agree that it acted on the suggestion of the Opposition. The TUC has long been interested in the arts. It has never regarded itself as a major source of money but its good will is important. It would be very sad if a circumstance were ever to arise in which a business firm decided to put money into the arts with the shareholders agreement, and then the employees said, "We do not want that money to be given because it is coming off our wages." The good will of the trade unions, of the TUC, is important in this case.

Although the size of these business contributions in most cases is small, the effect can be seen in the same light as a prestige advertisement. In many cases a contribution towards the arts would be more effective in terms of its return to the firm than would be the ordinary sort of prestige advertisement, whether a page in The Times, or anything else.

Mr. Robert Cooke

If the unions have for so long been interested in the arts—and they are very powerful, as the Minister will concede—how is it that they have persuaded firms to spend only £300,000-plus? Perhaps it is £1,500,000 by now. I hope so. Why have the unions been so slow to persuade firms to become involved in the arts?

Mr. Jenkins

I do not think they have. Just as contributions to the arts by business firms are marginal, so, I believe, are contributions to the arts by the TUC. Neither organisation regards it as a first charge. Our task is to try to translate the good will which exists on both sides of industry into money.

Discussions cannot be hurried if worthwhile results are to be achieved, but I am very hopeful about them. I am looking forward to my visit to Bristol. I have seen the Glyndebourne "Cosi", which was very fine. I have also seen some opera at the Coliseum and at the Royal Opera House, supported by Imperial Tobacco, one of the Bristol firms. I am not one to say that this is unimportant, because in my view it is important. It may for a long time—I am sure it will—remain of tertiary, not even of secondary, importance. However, that is no reason why it should not grow and become a much more important factor.

I must now turn to the specific points which the hon. Gentleman has raised. The processes of Government will not allow me to give any indication whatever of the possible outcome of Government grants to the arts for the next year. The House will be informed in due course through the presentation of financial estimates. However, in case it has escaped the notice of the hon. Gentleman, the Arts Council has already submitted its own estimate for next year and it has mentioned recently that this is for £40 million.

Fortunately, the Government already have a significant record of achievements. When we came to office 18 months ago we had the task of maintaining and advancing the arts at a time of great economic difficulty. Within a fortnight I was able to announce the abolition of admission charges for the national collections, which was in contrast to the record of the Opposition who took three years trying to introduce them against the opposition of nearly all the trustees of our national collections, and three months trying to have them administered in the same circumstances.

Last year the Government presented two Supplementary Estimates. The Government's record in the arts is one of which we are by no means ashamed. It will not have escaped the notice of the hon. Gentleman that the National Theatre Board started to move into its new building on 1st September. After reaching agreement with the Arts Council on the necessary minimum level of support, the Board issued a statement recently to say that the first performance before a paying public would be on 16th March next year. Therefore, progress has been made. I am gradually answering the hon. Gentleman's questions and I hope that as the weeks roll by I shall be able to answer more and more of them.

It is not the Government's intention that the National Theatre will open and operate at the cost of the rest of the Arts Council's clients. My report on the arts, which I published last summer, showed that over 60 per cent. of the Arts Council's expenditure was outside London and my further report showed some of the results of that expenditure.

Other bodies, such as the crafts and the area museum councils, have also had substantial increases in their grants. I am sorry that time does not permit me to give details of those increases. I would have referred to the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries and to the needs of conservation by local collections. I was able to announce to the House on 8th July that I had reached agreement with five of the trustee-governed national collections—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes to Two o'clock.