Sadler's Wells Theatre: Funding (Hansard, 26 February 1986)

§ Lord Ritchie of Dundee
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, the Arts Council are discussing with the theatre ways in which the Greater London Council's contribution to its funding can be replaced. The council has already agreed to increase its funding of the three main dance companies which use Sadler's Wells, in order that they can pay full economic rents to the theatre. My right honourable friend hopes and believes that this, together with the money that the theatre has raised, and is continuing to raise from other sources, will enable the theatre to remain open.

§ Lord Ritchie of Dundee
My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that encouraging reply and express appreciation of what is being done; but may I also be churlish enough to point out that this amount does not look like being enough? Would the Minister not agree that, for a theatre of such renown as Sadler's Wells, some more permanent, steady and stable funding is required than these comparatively makeshift manoeuvres?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether this was enough. This of course is a matter between the Arts Council and the theatre; but I think I ought to point out that the sum of £267,000, which I understand the theatre says that it is seeking for the next financial year, includes £50,000 for a new studio theatre which is not yet complete, and a further £53,000 which would be needed to replace the loss of a major sponsor. The GLC's grant to the theatre for this year is £150,000. So far as concerns the long-term future, this and ways in which the theatre can raise its finances is a matter for the Arts Council.

§ Lord Alport
My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that, whatever may be the funds that are becoming available from the Arts Council and from private sources, and whatever the theatre is able to raise for itself, the Government undertake that the Sadler's Wells theatre, which is a most important element in the theatre and artistic life of London, will remain open and active during the period ahead?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I made absolutely clear on the last occasion when we discussed this matter that if anything of that kind were to befall Sadler's Wells no one would be more dismayed than the Government. If 1043 I may say so, I think that we have made a generous allocation available to the Arts Council for post-abolition funding. It is clear from my original Answer that the Arts Council are now moving in the direction of making more funding available to the theatre and I think that the negotiations therefore are hopeful.

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, even with the amount that has been given by the Arts Council, is it not true that Sadler's Wells will only be secure until 12th July of this year? Does the noble Lord also appreciate that if Sadler's Wells has to close down, the theatre will be liable to repay the residuary body which is replacing the GLC the sum of £502,000 which has already been spent on building the new studio, and that if this comes about it will bring Sadler's Wells to irretrievable ruin?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I do not think that we should talk about irretrievable ruin. The original Answer that I have given points in precisely the opposite direction. Regarding repayments to the London residuary body, I must confess that I am not in any way aware that that could be the position if the hypothetical situation which the noble Baroness puts to me were to occur. But I repeat that I think the situation is hopeful.

§ Lord McNair
My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that Islington Borough Council, which is the successor authority, has refused all help to Sadler's Wells; and, if this is so, whether the Government foresaw this as one of the consequences of abolition of the GLC?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, as I understand it, Islington Borough Council, which will have a grant of £11 million more than it has for the present financial year in order to cope with its post-abolition responsibilities, is maintaining a policy of masterly inactivity.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that Sadler's Wells will still be available for the Chinese Dance Company when they come over in the autumn in connection with the state visit to the Republic of China?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, arrangements for that visit are proceeding.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, since the noble Lord has chosen to cast an aspersion on Islington local authority, will he not agree that one of the consequences of abolishing an all-London authority is to place upon borough authorities responsibilities which they are ill-fitted to assume? Is it not the case that if Islington were to fund to the extent which has been suggested it would probably be in trouble with the auditor, because it would be said that only a very small proportion of the audience at Sadler's Wells actually comes from Islington? So the Government hit it both ways: they are critical if it fails to fund and they shoot it down in flames if it does.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, in addition to an additional £11 million which Islington Borough 1044 Council has in order to fulfil its post-abolition funding, it is of course relieved of precepts for arts matters in Greater London. Therefore Islington is benefiting in two ways financially from the abolition of the GLC. I can only repeat that so far as I can see the local authority is adopting a policy of masterly inactivity. As to whether that means it is fitted or ill-fitted to fulfil its responsibilities, I think the House had better judge.