§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South)After the decision which you have just made, Mr. Speaker, I am optimistic but unsure about the position tomorrow if this application is also granted.
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the cut in funding for the arts for the coming year".This cut was announced yesterday without warning having been given to the House and without initial notification of it to any of the Opposition parties. It is a specific matter of Government funding to which you, Mr. Speaker, have already agreed in relation to another aspect. It is of general interest to many hundreds of thousands of people outside the House and it is of specific concern to those whose livelihood depends upon the continuation of specific companies and organisations within the arts, both in theatre and music and in the museums and galleries of Great Britain.Secondly, the importance of this matter has been stressed by many outside who do not normally object to the actions of this Government or of any other Government. Sir Peter Hall, the director of the National Theatre, has described it as a tragic day for the theatre. Sir Michael Levey, the director of the National Gallery, said:
I am appalled and gravely perturbed by the implication of the Minister's decision. … A cut of such magnitude is unprecedented in recent years.The British Museum has been taken aback by this decision. The chairman of the Arts Council, Sir William Rees-Mogg, said:Many of our clients, faced with grants increasingly below inflation, will find their very existence in jeopardy".If that is not enough, when making the statement—not, I may say, in this House—the Minister for the Arts said that the award was "rather mean". It is indeed mean. It is not only mean but serious for those who are concerned with the future of the arts in Great Britain. Because of the anxiety which has been created, because we shall soon be going into recess and because of the lack of opportunity which has been given to the House to discuss the implications, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will give sympathetic consideration to this application.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the cut in funding for the arts for the coming year".I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.
§ Later—
5.39 pm§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully understood your reasons for not accepting the Standing Order No. 10 application of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). In your capacity as someone who protects the interests of the House, particularly the interests of Back Benchers, 191 will you say something helpful about the repeated occurrence of major Government announcements on the arts taking place outside the Chamber? No Minister with responsibility in this Chamber comes to the Dispatch Box to give us the opportunity of perhaps mauling the Minister with responsibility for the arts in much the same way as we were able to maul the Secretary of State for the Environment. You gave way to the application under Standing Order No. 10 on that matter but you were not prepared to give way to the application under Standing Order No. 10 on the arts.
§ Mr. Speaker"To give way" is an unfortunate phrase to use. I exercise my discretion in the matter. I fully understand that the arts are important. We have questions on the arts and there has been some discussion of whether sufficient time is given to that. But, if the hon. Gentleman reflects, he will see that he will have opportunities, perhaps before the House rises, to raise the matter.
§ Mr. BuchanFurther to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), Mr. Speaker. May I make a point that I was unable to make under Standing Order No. 10? On this occasion a separate Department announced its public expenditure for the year. We have just had a lengthy set of exchanges when another Department announced its public expenditure for the year. Yet in the case of the arts, which is dealt with by a separate Department, a written statement is made by a Minister in another place, accompanied by a parallel statement by someone speaking on his behalf in the House. No announcement was made to the House and no warning was given. Nothing would have been known about it had I not phoned the appropriate Department because of a rumour that I heard.
Therefore, it is necessary that the arts, which are profoundly important to many millions of people in Britain, should have their rightful place in the House. I know that this is a monetarist Government but they should not seek to prove themselves to be a philistine Government as well.
I hope that you, Sir, will defend our rights and ensure that that is done. Unless pressure can be brought to bear upon the Government, either by yourself or the House, to come forward with an opportunity in January, we shall have no opportunity to discuss this important statement.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that it is generally accepted in the House that I do my best to protect the rights of the House and its Members. Where statements are made is not a matter for me.