HC Deb 01 May 1981 vol 3 cc1077-84

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

2.33 pm
Mr. David Mellor (Putney)

I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the question of the future funding of the National Youth Orchestra, and I am glad that I am able to strike a happier note than looked possible only 48 hours ago.

The House will be aware that at the last moment welcome assistance to the orchestra has been received from Capital Radio. All of us who live and work in London already have a high regard for Capital Radio and it has established an excellent reputation for sponsorship of the arts, but it has taken an exceptional step in offering the orchestra £100,000 over four years, with inflation-proofing and an additional offer of broadcasting fees to relay the concerts given by that great orchestra.

I should also mention Lloyds Bank which has been most generous for several years through sponsorship and other assistance to the NYO. It is a fine tribute to both institutions that they will be giving more than £60,000 to the orchestra this year.

It would be wrong to allow the debate to subside in a haze of optimism because there remain problems that the orchestra has to grapple with. The orchestra is run on a shoestring and no one can say that it spends more money than it should on administration. Its budget for the year 1982–83 still reveals the prospect of a deficit of £46,000 at the end of the financial year. That will mean that, even with the generosity of Capital Radio, there will be a significant deficit at the end of that year, which is only two financial years away.

There is an issue of principle at stake about the manner in which the Arts Council removed the grant from the orchestra and the question whether the orchestra should, in due time, receive a further grant from the Arts Council, given the arguments advanced by the Arts Council that were used to remove public subsidy are unjustifiable and untenable.

I should say a little about the work of the National Youth Orchestra. For many years it has proved to be an excellent training ground for young musicians—many of whom go on to distinguished careers in our orchestras, either as soloists or conductors. Every year 800 young musicians are auditioned to form an orchestra of about 180 young people. They meet for a week of intensive training over the New Year holiday each year and give a concert. They meet again at Easter for further intensive training for seven to 10 days and give a widely popular concert at the Royal Festival Hall. That is followed by a concert in Croydon or, now, in Leeds—some hon. Members will welcome the departure this year, given our concern that the arts should spread throughout the country.

The orchestra meets again in the summer to give another widely popular concert at the Proms. It was at the Proms, at a performance of Sibelius's First Symphony, that I was first introduced to the excellence of the orchestra—an experience that I have not forgotten. I am glad that by raising its plight I can in some small way today repay the debt that I feel I owe for the pleasure that the orchestra has given to countless concertgoers. It is a tribute to the excellence of the orchestra that it has been invited back this year and next to give a concert at the Edinburgh Festival, which must be one of the most prestigious international festivals in the world.

It is the wish of the orchestra to tour more, as it is rated as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of the inter national youth orchestras. However, touring has become increasingly difficult because it is difficult to obtain funds.

Because the quality of the orchestra is very much at the root of our argument I shall quote from three reviews of the orchestra's recent concerts—two at the Royal Festival Hall and the third relating to the same concert when it was given in Leeds. David Cairns, the highly experienced critic of The Sunday Times said about the closing down of the NYO: After Friday's splendid concert at the Royal Festival Hall under Christopher Seaman, the thought is more absurd than ever. To hear the cellos sing the great arching melody which opens Bruckner's Seventh Symphony or the noble, passionate lament of the development section, to experience the attack, the dedication, the sheer musicality of these ordinary but astonishing 16-year-olds and their skill and stamina in mastering so huge and taxing a score, was to marvel afresh that we can produce such an orchestra and then be prepared to throw it away. In The Times, the critic Barry Millington said: The NYO' s playing, as is well known, is of an extremely high standard: not only are there astonishingly few fluffed notes (a reflection surely, of the participants' commitment as well as of thorough preparation) but also taxing, large scale works are tackled with a maturity that it is easy to take for granted. Writing in The Guardian about the concert in Leeds, Gerald Larner said: Before the concert anyone could have been forgiven for thinking that Bruckner's Seventh Symphony was an unwise choice. It demands much stamina, both physical and intellectual, as well as the ability to sustain a line, to control the dynamic level over a wide range, to survive some of the most awkward unisons in the repertoire, to preserve clarity in an often complex texture, to remain firm in frighteningly exposed circumstances. Under the direction of Christopher Seaman, the NYO did all these things with quite remarkable conviction. Occasionally the violins were unable to hold their own in the overall balance—a not uncommon fault in British orchestras—and ensemble was not always ideally secure. But this was a real performance, not an educational exercise, structurally impressive with towering climaxes and authentically expressive in the melodic phrasing, in spite of the orchestra's inexperience in the central European tradition. Above all, the performance had a freshness that is as rare as it is essential to a true Bruckner characterisation. Those distinguished critics have paid the orchestra the tribute, which all of us who have heard it believe it well deserves, of treating it as if it were a professional orchestra, with which the National Youth Orchestra at its best can well bear comparison without being afraid.

That leads me to introduce into the debate the true villain of the peace—the Arts Council of Great Britain. Let me make it clear where I stand in regard to the Arts Council. There are, sad to say, some on the Conservative Benches who do not approve of the principles of public subsidy of the arts, and who are therefore always ready to criticise the Arts Council. I am not one of them. I passionately believe in public sponsorship of the arts, but I become angry, as do many of my like-minded colleagues, when we see public support of the arts being abused in the way in which the Arts Council has sometimes chosen to abuse its discretion.

It is almost as if the council wants criticism, as if it wants to put its jaw in the way of a swinging right hand from its enemies—whether it be subsidising an exhibition of horse manure, purporting to be art, subsidising someone walking down a provincial street with a pole on his head or, as in this case, seeking to destroy a great national institution. It is almost as if the council has a death wish, as if it does not want to be loved or indeed respected. I suspect that it is neither in many circles today.

It is important to trace what the council has done to the orchestra. It began its funding of the orchestra in 1968. with a grant of £20,000, 71 per cent. of the orchestra's then needs. It did not increase that grant for 11 consecutive years, but I suppose that with hindsight we should at least be grateful for the fact that it continued the grant.

By 1980–81 only 20 per cent. of the orchestra's funds were obtained from public money. That reflects great credit on those in the orchestra who can obtain private support and who also obtain a large proportion of the income from those prepared to pay at the box office to hear the orchestra play.

In 1980–81 the Arts Council announced an increase in funding—admittedly a modest one—to £21,000. It called a meeting with the orchestra, made what appeared to be constructive criticism of its management and suggested remedies that were carried into effect. The orchestra took this to be a vote of confidence in what it was doing, the implication being that if it continued along the lines which it was going along as guided it could look forward to the future with confidence.

Now we come to the most unpleasant part of this rather unpleasant little tale. On 16 December last year there was a meeting of representatives of the orchestra and the council. Everything in the garden appeared to be rosy. Nothing was said about the orchestra's being in jeopardy of losing its grant. But the next day a confidential letter was written to the orchestra saying that its grant was being withdrawn. The letter was made public on 19 December, leaving the orchestra with the prospect of having to find a substantial sum of money by 1 April in order to survive.

That would be rather unpleasant were it the act of a private sponsor withdrawing his own money from an organisation that he no longer wished to support. Indeed, I cannot think that many private sponsors would be so careless of their reputation as to behave in this way. But when what these people are doing is withdrawing public funds, not their own money, this becomes peremptory arrogance to a quite unacceptable degree and stands to be criticised by all of us who love the arts.

I make no apologies for saying that, even if the decision had merits, the manner in which it was carried out was unacceptable. My right hon. Friend the Minister, who has very little sanction over the Arts Council, might think that it was time that a few Admiral Byngs were shot on their quarterdecks of the Arts Council headquarters in Piccadilly in order that he can be sure that these people, who are public servants, carry out their duties with rather more humility and sensitivity to the great task that they have.

Let us look at the justification for what the Arts Council chose to do. It said that the National Youth Orchestra could well get commercial sponsorship to cover all of its activities. The Times put the counter argument very well, as is so often the case, by saying that the Arts Council had, in effect, put a pistol to its head and threatened to shoot unless industry paid up. That is not an acceptable way for a public body such as this to behave.

That argument also seems to have underlying it the suggestion that somehow it is the duty of the Arts Council only to support projects which cannot get any support from private funds, as if it will end up on some glorious day in the year 2000 subsidising only some of those theatrical groups about which we hear so much, which, by reason of their dedication to political motivations rather than artistic quality, have drawn the Arts Council into so much controversy.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree that it is for the Arts Council to support all that which is excellent in the arts regardless of whether there may be opportunities to obtain private funding as well, and that what we are seeking is a partnership between the private and the public, not throwing a worthy institution to the wolves in the hope that someone from the private sector will arrive to prevent it being gobbled up.

Then we have another argument that is almost not worthy of the breath that it takes to utter. Apparently the Arts Council says that the removal of this grant is an opportunity to give grants to other companies—as if £20,000 was really a lot of money. Of the money that the Arts council had available to dispose of, £20,000 is one-forthieth of 1 per cent.

I wonder why the Arts Council has chosen to behave in this way. After all, it has not done too badly for funds. Here I am making a bipartisan point, from which both parties can draw great credit. In the 10 years up to March 1980, when the Arts Council grant stood at £63.6 million, the Arts Council had an increase of 300 per cent. Thanks to the sterling work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), assisted by the present Minister, that funding has been kept up in line with inflation. Indeed, The Times said that the settlement must be regarded as handsome in the present circumstances. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who takes a great interest in these matters, is agreeing with that.

It has been suggested to me by someone who was briefing me for this occasion that perhaps the Arts Council wanted to remove the grants from some of these bodies in order to embarrass the Government. Certainly one or two senior people of the Arts Council have made suggestions as if to say that they are dissatisfied with the generosity of this grant. I say to them "Beware whom you criticise. Go across the Atlantic to America to see another Government in action dedicated to cutting public expenditure, and see that they propose to cut arts support by 50 per cent., and realise how lucky you are that men of the sensitivity of my right hon. Friend the Minister are in charge of the Government's duties towards the arts.".

Thirdly, I come to the last reason why the Arts Council says that it removed the grant. It said that the National Youth Orchestra—and this, to my mind, is the cruellest cut of all—was an educational body. I want to ask a question publicly of Sir Roy Shaw. How many Members of the Arts Council attended a concert of the National Youth Orchestra in the 12 months before they made their decision to withdraw the grant? I do not believe that anyone who went to any of those concerts could say that this was merely an educational body, as if one went along out of a sense of duty to hear 16-year-old kids scraping around miserably on their instruments, instead of hearing an orchestra worthy to play at the Edinburgh Festival. That is a trace of philistinism of a kind that I find unacceptable in a body charged with such duties.

I come finally to where I seek the help of my right hon. Friend. Again with a piece of arrogance that I find unacceptable, Sir Roy Shaw says in one breath to the National Youth Orchestra "Please submit an application for grant for the year 1982–83", and in the next breath he says "But we shall not change our minds." I cannot think that a Minister of the Crown could get away with that sort of conduct at the Dispatch Box. But this is the tragedy of the Arts Council. It is able to choose to ignore the standards by which the rest of us in a democracy have to be guided.

Whilst appreciating the difficulties in which my right hon. Friend finds himself, I tell him that he must take the Arts Council to task about this. I know that he has embarked upon that already by having an exchange of letters on the subject. He must not be afraid, if he has to, to change the composition of the Arts Council, because there are many of us every bit as dedicated to the promotion of the arts as anyone who has ever sat on the Arts Council and who feel that, given the provocation we have received, my right hon. Friend would be justified in doing so.

2.51 pm
Mr. John Wheeler (Paddington)

I intervene briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). I congratulate him on his interest in and work for the National Youth Orchestra and on the way that he has presented its case to the House today. His love of and genuine knowledge of music are a great credit to him, and he has served the House well by raising the subject in this debate.

I want also to thank the sponsors of the National Youth Orchestra for their continued and improved support, notably Lloyds Bank, which has improved its support, and not least Capital Radio, which surely must rank amongst the most enterprising of our private radio stations. They have done us well in their generosity towards the orchestra.

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the Arts Council. In a letter to me dated 11 March 1981, the chairman wrote: Precedence must be given to the continued support of professional activities over that of bodies whose work, however worthy, involves young people who will not necessarily enter an artistic profession. That is an incredible statement for the chairman to make in view of the record of the Arts Council and some of the awards that it makes. One cannot perceive much professional artistic merit in a heap of dung or a pile of bricks. So much for the chairman's comments on this application.

The real point is that a great orchestra, whether it is organised on the lines of the National Youth Orchestra or any other orchestra, has to be sure of its long-term financial support. It cannot undertake tours overseas or visits within the United Kingdom unless it is guaranteed future support. It is in this regard that I hope that the Arts Council will reconsider its decision.

2.53 pm
The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Paul Channon)

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) on raising this issue, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) on his intervention. There are many other hon. Members present who are equally interested in this topic. I see, for example, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), my hon. Friend the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), and others. Their attendance shows a great deal of interest and sympathy for the National Youth Orchestra of Great Britain.

I share the admiration of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for the achievements of the many talented young people who have brought the orchestra to such a peak of perfection. Over the years, it has had two eminent directors, distinguished conductors and many administrators. It is a unique body with a unique reputation. I had the pleasure of hearing one of its concerts for the first time more than 10 years ago, and I am delighted that this debate is taking place in a more cheerful atmosphere than seemed likely a few days ago.

The question raised by my hon. Friend is how the future of the orchestra is to be secured. The only problem as far as I know is that of finance. My hon. Friend referred to the part that the Arts Council has played in past years in subsidising the orchestra and to the fact that without this continuing subsidy the orchestra is threatened. As my hon. Friend said, the total cost of the orchestra last year was about £100,000, of which £40,000 came from students' fees and the income from concerts, £30,000 by way of a tremendous gift from a major sponsor, Lloyds Bank, and more than £10,000 from other contributions, donations and miscellaneous earnings.

The sum of £20,000 represented the Arts Council's grant. But I understand that this year the estimated shortfall is £40,000 or more, and that the orchestra is looking for £50,000 additional income to maintain its basic programme of courses and concerts and to be able to make limited plans for the future.

I must remind the House of the "arms-length principle" that governs relations between the Arts Council and Arts Ministers. The grant-in-aid that this House votes annually to the Arts Council is distributed by the council to over a thousand artistic bodies or clients, of whom the National Youth Orchestra has been one. I do not participate in this allocation. The Arts Council has expert and independent advisers and officers to guide it in this complex task. By well-established practice Ministers do not intervene and do not substitute their own judgment in individual cases for that of the council. That applies equally to the grant to the National Youth Orchestra as to all the other hundreds of clients. None of my predecessors has sought to change that policy. I do not think that it would be wise to change it. There has been an immense increase in artistic activities in different parts of the country and I pay my tribute to the Arts Council for the crucial role that it has played over the years. Many people abroad envy our system of funding the arts.

In spite of criticism that might rightly be made sometimes about the council's marginal activities, on the whole the country gets good value for money. Those who have expressed dismay at the Arts Council's decision, both in this House and outside, should know the background against which it has been made and the reasons that lie behind it.

I have naturally been concerned about the Arts Council's decision to withdraw its grant this year. I am not able to overturn this. I want the Government's position to be properly understood. Government support for the Arts Council has continued to grow in real terms over the past few years, whatever impression to the contrary may be given in some quarters. So it is unfortunate that the Arts Council's decision to discontinue its grant to the National Youth Orchestra, and to another 40 clients, has been attributed by some to what has been described as the inadequacy of the grant received from the Government.

The figures show that at 1980–81 prices there has been a percentage increase, admittedly of a modest nature, in real terms in each of the last five years and, I suspect, much further back than that. I understand that the Arts Council believes that its grant this year and for a few years past has not been as large as it would ideally have liked, or even as large as the arts need. It never is, it never has been and it never will be.

The present situation has arisen from the inevitability of having to reduce or drop some grants if others are to be given additional help or new clients are to be taken on. Given the extremely difficult economic circumstances the Arts Council has not been treated at all badly. It is misleading to pretend otherwise.

Some clients who have received in past years less than the Arts Council's average overall rate of increase have convinced the council that they need to be given substantially increased support this year if they are to survive. I cite the examples of some regional orchestras, full-time professional orchestras—the very orchestras, indeed, to which members of the National Youth Orchestra who wish to pursue a professional playing career will be looking for employment and experience. In these circumstances, notwithstanding that the Government's grant has been more than fair given the current economic climate, the council has given—and I quote from its information bulletin— significantly increased levels of subsidy for 1981–82 to 46 clients at the expense of withdrawing grant from 41 others.

My hon. Friend referred to the manner of removing the grant. I have had correspondence with the chairman of the council about that. I have had it published in Hansard. Assurances have been given that in future more notice will be given to those whose grants are threatened. That is the general will in all quarters of the House. The reasons for withdrawing the grants are various. The council has mentioned artistic quality, balance between London and the regions, the level of local authority support, box office performance and financial viability. That varies from case to case. In the case of the National Youth Orchestra the Arts Council says that the prime consideration was the precedence that it felt bound to give to full-time professional performers over part-time amateurs.

A secondary factor was the possibility that the partial shortfall resulting from withdrawal of grant could be made up by additional sponsorship. I appreciate what my hon. Friend said about that. I agree that it is wrong that the criterion for deciding whether to give public support for the arts should depend on whether one thinks that private support is forthcoming. The Arts Council had always made it clear that support of amateur activities was very exceptional indeed and stemmed from a time when the council had far fewer clients than it has now.

I emphasise that these decisions were taken by the Arts Council and not by the Government. The council determines its own priorities and I do not interfere. Indeed, as I think the council knows, I firmly defend its independence in these matters. I therefore certainly hoped that further support from private sources would materialise. I am delighted to learn, therfore, as was announced at yesterday's press conference, that Lloyds Bank has increased its sponsorship this year to £35,000, and that Capital Radio has also stepped in with £20,000 a year for the next four years—index-linked. With other expenses that Capital Radio will meet, and fees that it will pay for concerts, its contribution could amount to some £35,000 a year. This is most welcome news, and frees the orchestra from immediate worries. I emphasise that I hope that the public will also respond to the appeal that has been launched to build up a capital fund to secure the orchestra's long-term future—that is the crucial point—enabling it to tour abroad and develop in other ways.

I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has said. I believe that the funding of the arts in this country must involve a partnership between the State, local authorities and business sponsorship. The nature of that partnership will, of course, vary in different circumstances. But I am glad that, in spite of the present economic difficulties, there is more and more evidence in this country of enlightened business sponsorship which is of mutual benefit both to the arts organisation and to business. I shall do everything in my power to increase that. I certainly wish to congratulate these particular sponsors on embarking upon a very interesting and courageous idea. I congratulate the orchestra, not only on the work that it has done in the past, but on managing to obtain that sponsorship.

I hope that the orchestra and its sponsors will together have an extremely successful and mutually beneficial relationship. If they do, I believe that it will be of great benefit to the musical life of this country. I think that everyone agrees that over the years the National Youth Orchestra has been an immense asset to our cultural life and to our cultural future. I certainly believe that we must cherish it. I hope that it will go on from strength to strength. Its short-term future is safeguarded. I hope that as a result of its appeal, its long-term future will also be safeguarded and that the public will respond.

Finally, I congratulate my hon. Friend once again on raising this very important topic, which has highlighted a great many other interesting issues. I hope that his speeches will always be crowned with the success that he has had this afternoon, and that, whenever anything runs into trouble, he will give notice of his intention to raise an Adjournment debate and all problems will vanish as at the waving of a wand.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Three o'clock till Tuesday 5 May, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 6 April.