THE ARTS AND THE NATIONAL HERITAGE (Hansard, 2 February 1976)

§ Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

No recent ministerial appointment was more welcome or necessary than that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to carry out a review of the financial position of the arts and the national heritage. I expect that it is no surprise to him that it is this aspect of his work that I wish to examine with him this evening. I did not pursue him on the Consolidated Fund debate at 3 a.m., although I hit the jackpot on that occasion—that was before the Christmas Recess. But I hope that, more time having elapsed for reflection and study, he will be even more forthcoming on this occasion, although time is very short.

The right hon. Gentleman has kindly written to me a most generous and helpful ministerial letter, which I hope he will publish in the Official Report or in some other public way, because there is much in it that is not generally known. He displays practical common sense and a cultivated mind when dealing with these problems. There are many people with cultivated minds who are somewhat 1129 impractical, but the right hon. Gentleman has a practical mind. He has personal experience of raising money for good causes, some of which are connected with the arts, and using his own resources and his own fortune, which he has made himself. Now, in his public capacity, he is hard at work not only on the subject of the public money that is being used but on the husbanding of private resources, and he tells me in his letter that he is totally immersed in this study, particularly the interrelationship of the problems in this complex field. He says that we should think of the arts in wide terms. How much all of us who are interested in these matters would agree with him!

Of course I cannot cover all the facets of the arts this evening, but I begin by agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman that we should seek to involve the greatest possible number of people. That is our common aim. Perhaps I may briefly mention some of the more urgent matters on which the right hon. Gentleman may wish to comment. In his letter he speaks of the possibilities and of the problems of television and radio as they affect the arts and the heritage. There are here almost limitless opportunities for creative work to reach wide audiences and there are immense possibilities for finance for the arts. The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I favour the granting of the fourth channel to Independent Television. I believe that Independent Television could provide considerable financial benefits for the arts.

I also welcome the change of attitude that the BBC has recently undergone. I believe that it is now prepared to give credit where credit is due to those who have sponsored artistic activities of one kind or another. It was slow to do so, and a great deal of pressure had to be applied—and I do not believe that the Government applied much of it. Certainly the Home Secretary told me that he was not prepared to apply pressure. Some of us can claim some part in that success.

No doubt wider recognition will make sure that more private sponsors will be prepared to put on events that can be televised—opera by the Imperial Group and National Westminster Bank, for instance. The opportunities of television 1130 are almost limitless. I know, of course, that the whole of broadcasting is now the subject of a review by Lord Annan. I rather wish that we would not pull it all up by the roots and look at it quite so often. I hope that as a result of the review we shall see a more settled future, which will also benefit the arts and the heritage.

In his letter the right hon. Gentleman referred to the cinema. I hope that he will look at the dual monopoly among exhibitors of films. That is one of the problems that have not received a wide enough airing, and the recent report on finance for the cinema very largely missed this point or did not stress it properly. It is no doubt very difficult for a creative person, even if he can find the money to make a film, to get it shown. This is not the case abroad.

Finance for public lending right is another matter that must be concerning the Government. We want to see authors reasonably rewarded, but it would be a cruel deception if they achieved that public lending right without any of the resources required to provide a reasonable income for them. Something like £5 million a year of public money would still produce a very small additional income for most writers, and there are very heavy administrative costs in the most favoured scheme. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the possibilities of extending copyright as a means to finance living writers with the royalties from dead authors? Tax reliefs for authors, too, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), might be worth considering. Surely the lessons already learnt through the Performing Right Society for those who write music and perform it can help here in getting a proper scheme going for PLR.

The right hon. Gentleman refers to cost effectiveness in the arts. He will notice that I have not actually asked for much taxpayers' money so far, and he is anxious to see that it goes as far as possible. He is a very brave man to say of the theatre that he would not accept that financial extravagance necessarily goes with high artistic quality. There is no doubt that the commercial theatre could teach us some lessons in the public sector.

Value for money is also important in the museums and galleries, especially in museum acquisitions. I hope that the 1131 right hon. Gentleman will consider more in future matching the private subscriptions with which many valuable objects have been saved for the nation. He will not be surprised if, once again, I press him on the subject of the Donatello. I believe that many people have subscribed in memory of the great work done by the late Lord Crawford, who devoted a lifetime to the arts and the heritage. Perhaps the nation's debt to him could be celebrated by making up the final £20,000 for the Donatello. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think about that.

The right hon. Gentleman talks of the "subtle influence" of the arts upon our lives and says that it is not realised by many people. Nevertheless, it is always there. If ugly surroundings do not make for ugly lives, they depress the spirit of many people. The built environment and man-made landscape have an immense effect on us all, though some of us may not notice the effect at the time.

In his letter to me, the right hon. Gentleman asks how far the majority should be taxed to benefit a minority interested in the arts. I am not asking for increased public expenditure, by and large. I am asking him to allow those private people who still have some resources to use them in the best possible and most effective way. There is a much wider audience who care for these things. That can be proved by the many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who saw the television programmes by Lord Clark on "Civilisation" and the Architectural Heritage Year "Spirit of the Age" programmes. Even the epics and serials like "War and Peace" and "The Pallisers" had their settings largely in historic buildings in this country, and a splendid architectural heritage it is.

But it is not only the grand buildings which those of us who care about these things seek to preserve and enhance. In a more local context, it is the few good streets left in otherwise uninteresting places that we would like to see kept for the future. They preserve the human scale of the townscape.

These are listed buildings of modest proportions. Nevertheless they need keeping in good repair and, because of their special quality, they require special skills and sometimes special materials. 1132 The owners of these buildings have statutory obligations placed upon them to take care of their buildings. Today, they need resources above all else.

I give the right hon. Gentleman this: it was a great mistake, from the heritage point of view, that a Conservative Government abolished Schedule A for owner-occupiers. I am not asking him to bring it back—heaven forbid—or any new tax. However, a kind of Schedule A repairs allowance based on rateable value for the generality of all listed buildings to be set against the cost of repairs would divert a good deal of money into the maintenance of the more modest buildings.

I conclude with the bigger and more complex problem of the great houses and those of more modest size but of great importance, which are fast becoming, in their own ways, cultural, educational, and artistic centres in their neighbourhoods. They are the finest living, continuing, examples of the craftsmanship of their day. New additions should go on being made to their collections. That is what one hopes for. They are, indeed, a far better setting for the arts than many new buildings which we cannot afford in any case.

The Historic Houses Association was greatly impressed with the speech by the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he spoke at its recent conference at the Festival Hall. I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy will read the articles by John Cornforth, on the interpretation of historic buildings and the heritage, in Country Life if he has not already seen them.

The historic houses have a new role. They had their old role as the political and economic centres of their neighbourhoods, but in the last threequarters of a century they have lost that meaning. Now they have come back in this new way. We want them still. They have come back to play their new part.

On the question of resources, I agree with shared expenditure grants for repairs with the Historic Buildings Councils, but owners are finding it less easy to find their share. The National Trust cannot take on any more places. Indeed, few people can provide the full endowment required. Dunster Castle has been taken on unendowed by the National Trust, but there is considerable potential by way of 1133 development land and it hopes to raise enough money by opening the Castle. However, that is a risky venture.

The National Trust has not taken on Arundel Castle, but it may participate in a small way. That scheme is not the general answer, in any event.

At Cragside the Department of the Environment may have to take on the whole cost of maintaining the house and its country park. That is another millstone round the State's neck.

The State took over the running of Heveningham, in East Anglia, at a cost of £50,000 a year. I should think it is near £100,000 now. If we multiply that by the 500 important houses about which we are talking, forgetting all the smaller ones, we could easily spend £50 million a year of the taxpayers' money unless we make it possible for private owners to continue.

There is the much publicised plight of Stonor. That is a special case, with family problems. Perhaps by stepping back from the problem the State will enable the family to sort out its difficulties. I do not believe that for the State to rush in there is the answer.

These are largely questions of resources. In passing, I should say that I am not asking for benefit in my own case. My historic house—it receives many visitors and is open between 2 o'clock and 6 o'clock on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Sundays throughout the summer—is of a modest nature. I think it comes below the level of the tax threats with which we have been dealing in the last year—wealth tax, and so on.

We are trying to get the Government to help husband the existing resources for dealing with the places that are threatened. There is no evidence that any but a very few Marxists want to hang the private owners of Britain's historic houses from the nearest lamp-post. Nor is there any real evidence that the public want State control. Despite the activities of some eccentric owners which have hit the headlines, there is no doubt that the majority of owners are thoroughly responsible people who are anxious to maintain their heritage and, indeed, to make it more widely accessible. That is the great thing. Any help given must be in exchange for reasonable public access. 1134 The Select Committee on a Wealth Tax agreed across the parties that, in exchange for increased reasonable public access, the heritage should not be attacked by that new tax and there should not be a tax on art either, unless sold and turned into wealth. Unless it becomes wealth it should not be taxed.

The situation can be improved by removing the threat of wealth tax and clearing up uncertainties about CTT, gifts inter vivos and discretionary trusts. People are breaking up estates that may become heritage properties and qualify for relief in the future. The break-up may be taking place before Easter to avoid penal taxation.

We should not encourage the dispersal of works of art from this country. Is the wealth tax to be additive? If it is to be added to CTT and CGT, it is possible that somebody with a painting worth £1 million will get only £2,000 at the end of the day. There was an example of this in The Times the other day. If that is true, nobody will wait for the wealth tax but will disperse quickly.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to give me a Chancellor of the Exchequer answer, or a Finance Bill, but he could help to restore confidence now so that we can keep these houses and their contents together for the benefit of the nation. We should make sure that the supporting resources required to keep these places together for the benefit of the nation are spared from penal taxation. It is easy to do this in the case of capital resources, land, or other assets. The Committee considering the wealth tax was told by the Inland Revenue that that could be done. It may be more difficult with income, but the joint committee of the amenities societies says that it can be done, and I know that the committee would be happy to help the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should they need any help. I hope that this proposal for the husbanding of resources, capital resources and providing more income out of that capital to support our heritage will not founder for want of good advice.

After all, the public are getting a good bargain. If we can give the heritage a settled future, all will be well, otherwise there will be a massive loss abroad of all 1135 that can be removed and a lingering death, through neglect and decay, of what remains. The right hon. Gentleman is too influential, too imaginative and too practical to allow that to happen. All those of good will are willing to help him in a task in which we cannot afford to fail.

§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Harold Lever)

I had hoped that at this late hour it would be possible to express to Mr. Speaker personally the deep sense of loss that we all feel that this is his last day in the service of the House as Speaker. We have many memories in common of our membership of the House, and this is an emotional moment for those who have watched Mr. Speaker progress through great offices of State and end with such success in the Chair. I understand Mr. Speaker's reasons for not being present, and I hope that I shall be forgiven for expressing the view that I have just put to the House.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) for raising this subject. It is all too rarely discussed in the House, and it is one of the greatest importance. I appreciate the kind and generous things that he said about what he expects will be the outcome of my work. He will understand, of course, the nature of my remit from the Prime Minister. It is to look into the financial situation of the whole of the arts in this country.

By engaging me in this task the Prime Minister has affirmed the importance that he attaches to this aspect of our life. There is now being undertaken—and I hope to conclude it in the not-too-distant future—the most thoroughgoing study ever undertaken of the finance of the arts in all their aspects in this country. I hope that the conclusions and the actions taken as as result will be a kind of gratification to people such as the hon. Member and will, over the years ahead, ensure advances in the financial arrangements made in support of the arts. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot anticipate in any detail the way in which such advances are likely to be made before 1136 concluding the study. On the other hand, I can usefully give some general indications of how my thoughts are running without prejudice to the inhibitions which are inevitably placed upon my comments.

I am keenly aware of the immense pressure that is being brought upon the finances that are devoted to the arts, in all their forms, by the impact of the inflationary situation and by the changing circumstances of society, endangering and jeopardising much that is regarded as being of great value. To take one example—I do so not to indicate any national focus in any one area—that was given by the hon. Gentleman, there are our historic buildings. He rightly says that he is concerned not only with our great houses and castles but with areas of charm and architectural merit. He has in mind certain streets and districts in the capital, as well as the many other areas of charm that we are fortunate to have in other towns. Their preservation is of the highest importance. They are particularly afflicted by the impact of inflation and the various changes that are taking place in our society.

In these times of change and economic difficulty we are faced with the problem of whether we are to lose for ever so much that is beautiful and stimulating by neglect, or whether we are to tackle the problems and resolve them. The preservation of our historic districts and charming areas must not mean their preservation as antiques. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, it is necessary to seek to preserve them, in their architectural and cultural integrity, as living places for families, not as board rooms for company directors. That presents us with a problem, as we have to see whether we can find the means, which so far we have not by any means completely found, to preserve them in their full cultural and architectural context within the structures of a changing society, without offending the social principles that now so widely prevail. I believe that given the right approach we shall find an answer to our problems.

That also applies, although in a different way, to our great historic houses, which are becoming centres of artistic activity and which themselves are objects of priceless and irreplaceable beauty. 1137 We must find the answers to the questions that I have posed, and find them fairly swiftly. This is not a matter that we can defer. We cannot say that as we are going through a difficult time we shall leave matters for a few years until things are better and until we are better able to spend or divert resources. If we do that we shall lose so much that is precious that it will be too late to effect a rescue. That will be the consequence of waiting too long before finding the means of preserving not merely our historic houses but many other items.

The owners of our historic houses are more expendable than the buildings, but if there are a number of people who would like to hang the owners I have not yet met them. I do not wish to withdraw any comfort from the hon. Gentleman, but it is not a matter within my jurisdiction whether the owners are hanged. However, it is within my jurisdiction to ensure that we find a solution to the problems of preserving the buildings and their contents if it is at all possible. I regret that the personal protection of the owners of those premises does not fall with my remit.

What I have said about houses and buildings also applies to museums and their contents. It applies to all sorts of areas of artistic achievement.

When the remit was given to me, the Prime Minister emphasised the need, not necessarily in an immediate and spectacular way, but systematically, to find a framework to encourage more and more private and business support for the arts.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bristol, West, because I know how active he has been in seeking to encourage sponsorship of the arts by business firms. It is not beyond comprehension that firms and people who are active in this way find, as do most of us, a reward in public appreciation of what they have done. I am glad that the BBC has found it possible to relax its stringent rules. I know that the hon. Gentleman has played his part in that achievement. I am sure that the decision will be welcome.

1138 The details of tax questions and the like I shall have to leave to a more favourable occasion. I think it wrong of any Government not fully to take into account, in their taxation policies, the consequences of those policies to artistic achievement and heritage. I am sure that the present Government will take that matter fully into account.

Private support for the arts is a question of finding the right mechanism to encourage more people to follow the lead of an enlightened minority who have already demonstrated what can be done in this area by private firms and individuals.

In the area of public expenditure, we must have regard to the general restrictions upon our hand in the public purse. We must also have regard to the fact that what is commonly called "high art" is a minority interest. All art—including the most advanced forms and even those that attract the smallest minority of focused interest in their more special expression—is not a minority advantage, because it enriches the life of all of us.

Any Government who claim to be representative of a modern civilised democracy must have regard to the importance of art and artistic achievement in all forms—opera, ballet, music, literature and the theatre. I was glad that the hon. Gentleman stressed the need for a successful and viable commercial theatre as well as that part of the theatre that is dependent on public subsidy, even though the latter is not to be despised. I assure the House that in the course of the study I shall be motivated by a continuing sense of the great importance to be attached to the artistic heritage and achievements of this country and our people. I shall do my utmost to find a solution to the problems in this area. Furthermore, I pledge myself to do my utmost to find a solution to the financial problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman in greater detail at a later stage.