HC Deb 19 May 1982 vol 24 cc444-50

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

10.18 pm
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams (Kensington)

I wish to raise an issue that concerns an agent who works in my constituency and who is seeking to arrange a series of concerts next May and June by the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by the world-famous conductor Giulini. The series is planned as part of the celebrations of the 150th anniversary of the birth of Brahms.

This well-known American orchestra is corning to Europe with the intention of giving a series of cycles of the whole of Brahms' orchestral works in various centres. It appears that the orchestra will be heard giving its full cycle of Brahms concerts in Paris, Copenhagen, Florence, Milan and possibly another major European centre, but it will not be heard in London because of the Department of Employment's decision to accept the recommendation of the Visiting Orchestras Consultative Association, which has decided that the orchestra may not be permitted to give more than two concerts in central London. When it was brought to my attention, I was amazed to learn that such an organisation as VOCA existed—I had never heard of it before—and that it had the power to make recommendations that would decide virtually what Londoners, including my constituents in Kensington, might be entitled to hear in the way of first class musical performances. On hearing more about the manner in which this case had been handled, including the fact that the first application was made as long ago as May 1981 and that the final objection was not made known to the agent until February 1982, I felt that the whole operation of the system needed investigation. If the agent in question were to ask me to refer this case to the Ombudsman, from what I have seen of the way in which VOCA operates I would be willing to do so.

In the House tonight, I should like to raise some wider questions and not simply to dwell on the circumstances that have at the present time led to my right hon. and hon. Friends deciding that they are not prepared to review this question and to allow work permits for the orchestra to perform their cycle of concerts over one week. I should like the House to consider the whole business of the operation of this little-known quango, the Visiting Orchestras Consultative Association, and the policy of using the work permit system or, one might be tempted to say, abusing it, to restrict competition in the performance of music in central London.

I understand that VOCA was set up in 1952. It has a wide membership of bodies representing performers in London and outside. I understand, however, that few of those bodies are represented at its executive meetings. The meetings themselves are rare. There is no consumer representation that I can discern in the list of bodies that have been appointed to VOCA. Much of the proceedings are dominated by spokesmen for the Musicians Union and the Association of British Orchestras who take a rather restrictive view of the extent to which they want to welcome competitive performers into central London.

The constitution of VOCA has recently been changed. My hon. and learned Friend has been kind enough to supply me with its constitution as set up on 1 July 1974 and on 1 July 1981. There is a decided and obvious difference between the two texts. In the second, all reference to quotas appears to have been ruled out. The reason, I understand, is that the Office of Fair Trading has started to take an interest in the way in which this little quango works and in particular of a rule known as the two-concert rule, which appears to have been suppressed so far as reference in the constitution is concerned.

My hon. and learned Friend has admitted in a parliamentary answer that, although the quotas have been taken out of the formal constitution, the rule continues to be applied. This is the rule that has obstructed the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra from coming to London. In his letter of refusal, my hon. and learned Friend mentions that for the future he thinks that it would be sensible to consider whether there is some scope for easement of the two-concert rule. I am bound to say that I hope that he will follow that line of thought and do so sufficiently quickly to arrive at a reversal of his decision on the work permit for the Los Angeles orchestra.

I have taken a little time to consider the issues that lie behind the setting up of VOCA and its continuing existence. Obviously, we wish the London orchestras to flourish. That is why the House has approved substantial subsidies, amounting to about £25 million a year for music generally and about £3.5 million for the established orchestras.

The political question, which bears on the Government's policy, is whether they should leave it to the audiences to decide what they are prepared to pay and whom they wish to hear, or whether a gentleman in Whitehall should be allowed to show that he knows best about what audiences should hear, through the operation of the work permit system. It is an especially topical question, not just because of the Los Angeles Philharmonic but because in the past few weeks we have seen the opening of the Barbican concert hall, which has resulted in an increase of more than 20 per cent. in seats in the central London halls where first-class orchestras can perform.

At the same time as there has occurred the sharp rise in the number of seats, we see adverse influences affecting concert-going. I am sorry to say that those influences are likely to persist. One example is the decline in London Transport services in the late evening and a sharp rise in the cost of those services. People are suffering a general shortage of cash which prevents them from buying expensive tickets for evening entertainment. Before long, increasingly people will be tempted to stay at home in the evening in order to enjoy home video or satellite television, which will give them much more variety in home entertainment.

In deciding our subsidy and protection policies, we must ask whether we are trying to attract larger audiences into the concert halls, or whether we wish instead to protect London musicians by obstructing competition. The Conservative Party and the Opposition are divided on that sort of issue.

However, my hon. and learned Friend should bear in mind the Conservative Party's philosophy, as plainly stated, certainly by me and by himself and my right hon. Friend, I am sure, to the voters of central London. Do we believe sincerely in freedom of choice, personal discretion, competition and variety? If so, we should leave it mainly to the box office to decide who is to be heard and who is to be discouraged from performing in central London. Or do we believe in management by bureaucrats, quangos and little-known bodies with powers that are not much advertised, leading to a sameness in the performances on offer, and a general restriction of choice?

One might be diposed to ask why we should interfere at all with the musical life of London. Is not the use of work permits to restrict artistic freedom an insult to London audiences? I do not go as far as that. The calling of a musician is an honourable one and performers deserve to be rewarded not only with our applause but with a reasonable income and some job security, as any other professionals. The musical life of London is part of the amenity of the capital, adding to the civilisation of those who live here and attracting tens of thousands of overseas visitors.

We must consider not only the interests of the performers but the facilities for music, especially the concert halls. My hon. and learned Friend, by his restrictive policy, is in acute danger of being sucked into a downward spiral of diminishing audiences, lower margins, tamer programmes, duller and less well-rehearsed performances, little-known soloists, and a further reduction in attendances. Before long, London's splendid reputation as an international centre for music could be lost. We could be said, fairly or unfairly, to have turned ourselves into a musical backwater, which there is no point in tourists visiting because they will hear only second-rate concerts by stale local performers. That is now often said about other music centres. I do not believe that it has yet been said about London, but it could begin to discourage visitors from coming to London to join us in the enjoyment of music in the capital.

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make, and I think that the Minister will, too. However, the hon. Gentleman referred to stale music and stale performers in London. Is he aware that at any one time many London members of the British Musicians Union are themelves out of work? As regards the two-concert rule, is he also aware that that is common throughout the world, particularly in the United States where they are extremely keen to prevent musicians from this country from performing to the detriment of their own musicians?

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams

The hon. Gentleman has made a real point that I was about to deal with. There is a danger of retaliation. Indeed, it is already a threat. But Britain has an extremely favourable balance of payments if one considers the orchestras from this country that go abroad; and they receive big royalties from records that are sold abroad, largely on the splendid reputation that they have established. It is true that foreign orchestras come to this country, but if one adds up the numbers it is apparent that British orchestras have done extremely well as regards the facilities that have been offered in the United States.

In California, where the Los Angeles orchestra is among the best known and established, visits are planned for next year and during the Olympic Games, and so on. It would be disastrous for us to lose those visits because an angry spirit had grown up. That undesirable result is a real danger if my hon. Friend pursues his policy.

As to the two-concert rule, I understand from a parliamentary answer that the application on behalf of Los Angeles is the only application that has been received by the Department since 1970. I do not believe that that is because everyone knows that it is hopeless to apply. The cost of travel, accommodation, insurance and other factors work against orchestras that want to come to London and expose themeslves to competition for too long. Unless they are subsidised—that is an important proviso—foreign orchestras will not often want to give more than two concerts in central London. Visits take a long time to arrange. If my hon. Friend changed his mind about Los Angeles orchestra it might be a couple of years before another orchestra could put into its schedule such a big event as a musical cycle in central London.

I shall list the possible compromises. Some are unsatisfactory and, in fact, are ridiculous. Last year the Chicago orchestra was allowed to come here and give three concerts. The explanation was that the orchestra went abroad during the middle of the fortnight during which the three concerts were given. That made it possible for the orchestra to slip through the two-concert rule. That is bureaucratic nonsense and does not solve the problem. The Department also suggested that the orchestra could give part of its cycles of performances in central London and then go to Wembley, Croydon, or some other musical centre in Britain for the remainder. That is also ridiculous if the intention is to give a single cycle of concerts that has an artistic unity.

There is also the suggestion made by myself and others that concerts with no particular artistic unity, which are not part of a series, or a celebration, or a single cycle, should be limited to two concerts in central London; but where they constitute a single event or an artistic unity they should normally be allowed. I say "normally" because I should not want to make an absolute rule that cycles should always be given with no restriction, because there may be a subsidy or promotional element that creates an artificial situation and unfair competition. There could also be something of a stunt. One does not want that.

The halls should also be allowed to operate a "clash" list to discourage performances of the same or similar works on the same days, or close together, to the disadvantage of performers, promoters and of audiences.

It has also been suggested that, provided that the agent can arrange an exchange visit to the home town of the orchestra that he proposes to introduce to the London audience, a visit here would be permissible. That would obviate retaliation to some extent, but I doubt whether it would often be practical and it would amount to a continuation of the two-concert rule. However, in the dispute with the LAPO, it might end some of the bitterness that is beginning to develop in the United States over the Department's attitude.

I fear that if VOCA is allowed to operate in its present form it could add to London's decline as a musical centre. Our soloists and orchestras would become less well known worldwide and receipts from record royalties would fall, as would other sources of income.

I ask my hon. and learned Friend to change his mind and not to refuse work permits for the LAPO next May and June, to give VOCA a thorough overhaul and perhaps invite the Office of Fair Trading to consider how it operates. He should also consider whether it should include representatives of consumers.

I also ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider the basis of policy for the protection, subsidy or other means of support for British concert halls and British musicians.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) for raising a matter which has recently attracted publicity and has caused considerable concern to him and to others.

The issue has been brought to the attention of the public by the Department's decision not to grant work permits to allow the LAPO and the celebrated conductor Giulini to perform five concerts at the Royal Festival Hall between 31 May and 5 June 1983.

I must make one or two matters plain. First, there is no question of Giulini or the orchestra being prevented from coming here, but, in circumstances that I shall outline, we have not found it possible to allow as many as five concerts by the orchestra in central London during the one tour.

We have to start by looking at the nature and purpose of the work permit system. The Immigration Act 1971 and the immigration rules made under it provide, in effect, that those who do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom may not work here unless they have permission. Whether people come here to work on a temporary basis or with the object of permanent settlement, they will be doing work that might have been carried out by our own people. The object of the work permit system is to protect the jobs of our own people.

I admit that the system is protectionist, discriminatory, anti-competitive and an obstacle to the free movement of labour. It is aimed at protecting people's jobs and is a fetter on the freedom of people in this country to choose who they want to work for them and who they want to contract to perform for them. It is all those things, but it is in the interests of British jobs. That is the object of the system.

Certain workers do not require work permits, because it is judged that their skills are badly needed in this country and that if they come here there is no risk of damage to the job opportunities of our own people, but, with that caveat, the work permit system applies generally.

I understand the views of those who say that music transcends national boundaries, but one cannot have music without players and those who play do so as a job and our players are as entitled to the protection of the work permit scheme as are lorry drivers or bank clerks.

Of course, different factors have to be taken into account in different areas. Sometimes, it may be in the long-term interests of jobs in this country if a person is allowed to come here to work. A person may have a special expertise that will help to create more jobs in a factory, and an outstanding foreign soloist will help not only to keep a British orchestra in work but to maintain artistic standards in this country and to keep London the musical capital of the world. I am glad that my hon. Friend admitted that that was still the case. That is good for jobs, and it is still jobs that we are talking about. I am standing at this Dispatch Box defending a system that is all about jobs.

I know precious little about professional footballers, but I have to deal with work permits for footballers. I take advice. How else could I do it? So the Department, on my behalf, consults the Football League, the Football Association and the Professional Footballers' Association.

Although the decision must ultimately be that of the Department, it would be ludicrous if I did not seek advice and take that advice into consideration, alongside the representations made by the intending employer, in coming to a conclusion.

Whose advice am I expected to seek in the case of orchestras? Overseas orchestras present those operating the work permit system with a special problem. The case for admitting the outstanding soloist is obvious. There will be more work for a British orchestra if an outstanding soloist comes here and he has to be accompanied by a British orchestra, but the case for admitting foreign orchestras is much less clear. If one broke down an orchestra into its component parts and thought of the third or fourth violins, one would not grant a work permit to a third or fourth violinist to come into Britain to play with a British orchestra. So our job is obviously difficult.

In dealing with work permits for the admission of a complete orchestra, there are very special problems. In London alone we have four major symphony orchestras. They are all dependent, to a very large extent, on the London box office—on the custom of the music lovers of London. There must be a limit to the amount of money that those music lovers are willing and able to pay. If a large slice of that money goes to buy tickets for concerts by foreign orchestras, it is surely a fair assumption that there will be less money spent on concerts given by British orchestras.

My hon. Friend says that we must leave it to audiences to decide, and not to the man in Whitehall. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, that is the opposite of the intention of the work permit system, because the work permit system is not there to allow the consumer in Britain to decide that he would prefer to have his cars made here by Japanese or by Taiwanese. The object of the work permit system is to protect the jobs of people in Britain.

Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)

It is appalling for the Minister to suggest that work permits should in any way determine the appreciation of great music. The idea that in its centenary year the Berlin Philharmonic could not come to Britain is distasteful to me and I could not accept it.

Mr. Waddington

It is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has to accept if we have a work permit system. If we have such a system, then in default of Parliament deciding that there should be exempted from that system special categories of employees, such as musicians, we in the Department of Employment have to carry out this invidious task and decide whether particular people should come to Britain. There is no escaping the dilemma.

I simply cannot, under the Immigration Act 1971 and the rules made thereunder, decide off my own bat that I shall not apply the work permit system to foreign orchestras. I have to apply it and in doing so I have to adopt the same criteria as have to be applied in the case of all others who want to come and work in Britain. Obviously, in applying those criteria I have to take a different sort of advice and different matters have to be taken into account.

I have to remind my hon. Friends of the law, and the law is as I have stated it. I have to take into account the consequences on British jobs of having a free-for-all. However desirable it might for the music lover to have free entry for all foreign orchestras, I would not be performing my job correctly if I were to follow a policy which allowed such a free-for-all.

VOCA is talked about as if it were a secret society. In fact it is a representative body that was set up on the invitation of the Department of Employment in 1952 to provide advice on the specific problem of work permit applications for visiting orchestras. The executive committee, which conducts its day-to-day business, consists of representatives of the Arts Council, the British Council, the Musicians Union, the Association of British Orchestras, the Institute of Municipal Entertainment, and an agent who is also president of the British Association of Concert Agents.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams

What about the concertgoer?

Mr. Waddington

If my hon. Friend is right to talk about concertgoers, I could say equally that it should be the consumer who should be entitled to elect that Taiwanese should be allowed to manufacture shirts in this country because they are prepared to work for half the price. That is not the purpose of the work permit system.

Mr. Snape

Can the Minister confirm that it is not just orchestras to which we refer, but also groups, steel bands and individual musicians, and that if there were no such system there would be little paid employment for many British musicians?

Mr. Waddington

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. It is difficult. We try to make sure that musical standards are not adversely affected. The most generous attitude is adopted to the stars of the musical profession. It becomes much more difficult in the case of the admission of orchestras.

There is no doubt that there is a limit on the amount of money that people are prepared to spend on concerts. The more that is spent on concerts staged by foreign orchestras the more danger there is to British orchestras that depend on the same box office. If I did not rely on the advice of VOCA I should have to rely on some other body. VOCA's view obviously must not take precedence over the Secretary of State's discretion. There may be certain circumstances when a Minister must take the view that the advice given by VOCA is wrong. If my hon. Friend says that VOCA is unrepresentative, he will have to advise me what body I should set up to advise the Department of Employment. I certainly cannot take the advice of the concertgoers of London. To do so would run contrary to the whole purpose of the work permit scheme.

The decision about the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra was taken only after the fullest consideration. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well how I agonised over it. I did not make a casual decision. I talked to him about it for a long time. The decision was mine and not that of VOCA. I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not find it possible to agree with me. That, I am afraid, happens to be that. I am perfectly prepared to look carefully at the whole scene again—

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

Adjourned at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.