HC Deb 23 January 1984 vol 52 cc630-1
27. Mr. Murphy

asked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what plans the Minister for the Arts has for further Rayner-style investigations into major arts recipients of public funds.

Mr. Waldegrave

My noble Friend has no such plans at present.

Mr. Murphy

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. However, does not he agree that, as public finance is involved in supporting the arts, inquiries to ensure value for money are essential?

Mr. Waldegrave

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Tony Banks

Did not the Rayner inquiry merely confirm what the Arts Council has been telling the Government for many years which is that the large national arts institutions are underfunded? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one company that is seriously underfunded and has a large deficit is the London Festival Ballet? Will he give us an assurance that the LFB's £200,000 deficit will be taken up and, if he cannot do that, will he set up a Rayner-style inquiry into the LFB?

Mr. Waldegrave

The London Festival Ballet is on the consultation list issued by my noble Friend. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Rayner report showed that the big companies have been underfunded. That is why my noble Friend found more funds for them.

Mr. D. E. Thomas

Does the Minister accept that these issues involve an artistic judgment, for which Rayner-type scrutinies are hardly suitable? I remind the hon. Gentleman of the disastrous inquiry that recommended not proceeding with the Theatre museum.

Mr. Waldegrave

My noble Friend has succeeded in going ahead with the Theatre museum and deserves congratulations on that. The big companies are the first to say that the scale of their operations needs up-to-date management skills and they were grateful for many of the recommendations in the Priestley report.