I am delighted to have this opportunity to debate the arts. The arts are a British success story. Not only can we take pride in our rich heritage, but we can marvel at their almost astonishing vigour over recent years. They have enjoyed a remarkable expansion on nearly every front.

Since the last war, seven new opera companies and five major new dance companies have been established. Since 1967, the number of arts centres has risen almost tenfold. Over the past 15 years the number of museums in England and Wales has doubled. Over 40 million people a year now attend our museums and galleries and, in the past 30 years, over 30 new theatres have been set up in England alone. It is telling, at a time of considerable national excitement over England's fortunes in the football World Cup, that more people now attend the theatre in Britain than go to football matches.

Increasingly, the arts are a resource for the many, and not confined to the few. That is exactly how it should be. The arts cannot, and will not, grow in a vacuum. They must have an audience. As they expand, this audience—and they have shown quite clearly their capability to do so—they will also enrich and enliven everybody's existence. As Keats said:

"A thing of beauty is a joy forever".

No more impressive example of such vigour and commitment is available than the story of the arts since the abolition of the Greater London council and metropolitan councils. Hon. Members will remember the dark forebodings, the prophecies of doom and Armageddon that flowed from the lips of Opposition spokesmen. We were warned of worthy arts bodies going to the wall, and bleak forecasts were made of first-class artists finishing up in the dole queue. Despite all that, and despite some moments of very real and understandable uncertainty, this has proved to be a success story. The fact is that funding from central Government and local government has more than filled the overall gap left by abolition. This in itself is a tremendous achievement.

I am sorry to intervene so early in the Minister's speech, but he should not be quite so controversial so early in the morning. No one has said that the immediate impact on the arts following the abolition of the GLC and MCCs would be one of appalling slaughter of the innocents. We know that it will work its way through the system. The Minister intends to reduce the amount of substitute money that he put in to replace the GLC's and MCC's money. He should not congratulate himself quite so soon.

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. In a moment I shall return to the point. I shall quote exactly what the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) said last autumn.

The blossoming of the arts can be helped and facilitated by the Government, but essentially it depends upon the creativity of individuals. British creative genius has left us an artistic heritage among the richest in the world. Britain's artistic life and heritage acts as a powerful magnet for tourism from overseas which in turn means more jobs and a better standard of living for us in this country. Former United States President Jimmy Carter this week is giving welcome encouragement to American tourists by his visit to Wales to see the home of one of our finest poets, Dylan Thomas. Against the background of this efflorescence of individual talent, the Government's basic political pledge to the arts was clear: to keep up the level of Government support and to create the right climate in which the arts could develop and grow by attracting additional support from other sources. That pledge has been kept.

In fact, our spending record outstrips our manifesto commitment. Since 1979–80, central Government spending on the arts, libraries, museums and galleries has gone up by more than 10 per cent. in real terms, or 25 per cent. if this year's extra central abolition money is included. Within this context of growth, let me now turn to specific areas within the arts, each with its own admirable success story.

Since 1979–80, we have increased the Arts Council's grant from £62 million to £136 million or by some 7 per cent. in real terms—32 per cent. including abolition money. We have strongly supported the Arts Council in its "The Glory of the Garden" strategy which is delivering to the regions a fairer share of the overall arts budget.

In now turn to abolition. It is right that I should return to that success story. It is fair, I think, for me to quote the hon. Member for Paisley, South, who on 21 October 1985 referred to

"the cataclysmic collapse in arts funding".—[Official Report, 21 October 1985; Vol. 84, c. 16.]

as a result of abolition.

rose——

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me complete this passage. He will have a full chance to reply to it.

Let me now contrast that statement with what actually happened in the real world. The Government gave a total of more than £43 million of extra taxpayers' money to help safeguard the arts in the abolition areas, £17 million of which went to the museums and galleries, and £25 million of which went to the Arts Council. Partly due to the negotiating success of the Arts Council the British Film Institute and the regional arts associations, and partly due to the positive co-operation of the successor authorities, now relieved as they are of the substantial precepts formerly paid to the GLC and the other metropolitan counties, some £15 million of local authority funding was secured. Only last week, I was glad to note that the last remaining major problem area of Merseyside had achieved a settlement of its funding of the arts. That agreement means that no major problems remain. Indeed, the fact that the overall combined subsidy from central and local government will be substantially up in real terms over the previous year's figure represents a very notable achievement. I must congratulate the Arts Council, the BFI, the regional arts associations and the local authorities concerned.

Without widening the debate unacceptably, does my right hon. Friend accept that the extravagant remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) are typical of what was said by those who opposed the abolition of the GLC? We were promised race riots, the end of travellers' free passes, rates explosions, and so on. Remarks on the future of the arts were made in that extraordinarily and ridiculously extravagant context. I am pleased that they have been proved to be totally erroneous. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that now is the time to compare the remarks made at that time by Labour Members with what events have demonstrated.

The Arts Council allocated some £9 million to the South Bank board. Its chairman, Mr. Ronnie Grierson, and its staff have managed the takeover of the South Bank with great skill. Their intention is to produce a coherent strategy for the whole complex, making it an arts centre to rival any such arts centre anywhere in the world. This lively and impressive approach will, I am sure, meet an enthusiastic response from the public.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I have just given way. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to contribute to the debate, as he so often does.

The BFI is adding to the glories of the South Bank by constructing a museum of moving image. The BFI made it clear from the outset that this was an enterprise that it could manage on its own, and indeed it has. The institute has raised £5 million from private sources for it and the museum will open in the latter half of next year. I wish it every success.

The BFI is constructing also a new conservation centre for the National Film Archive. This is a splendid example of plural funding in action. The BFI has raised £3 million from private sources for it. We have not reduced the level of central Government funding to it just because these private funds have become available. I am conscious that organisations such as the BFI should not be penalised for their success in raising private funding.

In the six years from 1979–80 funding from the arts budget for the national museums and galleries increased by 15 per cent. in real terms—once again a picture of growth. It is fair to say that we have concentrated this increase on much needed capital works and maintenance and on improving the conservation and display of existing stocks and that we have, as a consequence, restricted the overall level of purchase grants. But, we now have the National Heritage Memorial Fund to ease the pressure in that respect.

Looking to the future, the picture is one of general further expansion and development. With commendable initiative, for instance, the Imperial war museum is raising £2·5 million to help supplement Government funding for a major redevelopment; and, to take another example, the "Tate in the North" project will be a significant boost for the Merseyside area.

I am anxious to help the museums and galleries meet the challenge of the late 1980's, which I think I can sum up as making themselves more outgoing and as making themselves more attractive to an increasingly discriminating public. That is why I lose no opportunity to encourage museums and galleries to make their collections more available and accessible to the widest possible audience. They must not be tempted to sit on their treasures. It is right that I should pay tribute to the fast-changing image of the world of museums and galleries from that of fusty buildings housing static displays to that of exciting centres of interest and enjoyment. The growth and vitality of independent museums are critically important here. They are on the leading edge of change. Recently, I visited the Ironbridge Gorge museum, where through the commitment and innovatory talent of its administrators and staff, a whole valley once in decay or decline has been completely revitalised. Earlier this week, I was pleased to announce the museum of the year award to another independent museum, the Beamish museum, which once again has expended effort on making its exhibits "live" and on cultivating the virtues of personal warmth and human interest that act as an irresistable draw to members of the public.

I was very pleased therefore, to be able to announce formally on Monday of this week the implementation of my plans to change the financing arrangements of the nationals to grant-in-aid. Not only will they now have the important flexibility of carrying money over from one financial year to the next and of retaining the revenue earned through their own efforts but, critically, this measure will give them a stimulus to implement innovative marketing strategies.

One of the most important responsibilities of Government is to safeguard Britain's priceless heritage. This has been a major part of our strategy since 1979. In 1980, for instance, we created the National Heritage memorial fund. Since then, it has received over £60 million of public funds. This has enabled the fund to help save for the nation stately homes such as Keddleston, Weston park, and Calke abbey.

Last year, the Government announced an important improvement in the arrangements for acceptance of works of art in lieu of tax. This allows access to the Contingency Reserve for acceptances of pre-eminent heritage items up to an average of about £10 million a year. Wider publicity for these arrangements could help to reap a fine reward for posterity.

I attach great importance to my responsibilities, which cover public libraries, although, of course, the vast bulk of expenditure on libraries is undertaken by local authorities, supported by the rate support grant. The Government have taken two major initiatives: first, we have introduced the public lending right scheme, intended to give a fair return to authors and reflect the size of their readership in public libraries; secondly, we have begun work on the very major project of building a new and modern British library at St. Pancras. On final completion this new library will provide splendid conditions, and house 180 miles of shelving for 12 million books. Services for readers will be immeasurably improved, as will conservation of the books. The tiresome shuffling of stored books between 20 buildings in Greater London will then be a thing of the past.

Crafts go from strength to strength with more and more people taking up crafts, both professionally and as a leisure interest. The Crafts Council has recently devised a strategy for the national development of the craft economy and education.

As the House knows, the United Kingdom will shortly assume the Presidency of the European Council of Ministers. On the arts side, the United Kingdom is taking the initiative in pressing for more co-operation in sponsorship, conservation and public lending right. During our Presidency, I hope to announce the Government's choice of the United Kingdom city that will become the European city of culture in 1990.

I have spoken of the basic pledge fulfilled by the Government of keeping up support for the arts. Of course, I realise that there are considerable pressures on many arts bodies in the light of the expanding demand and that Government funding falls short of meeting their full aspirations. However, my task goes far beyond setting the priorities of core support. The Government have a broader role than just producing £320 million worth of taxpayer's money for the arts. Indeed, Government expenditure on the arts has never been more than a modest proportion of the total amount of money flowing in to the arts. Essentially, my task is to create the framework and conditions under which the arts can flourish. In pursuing that strategy we have undertaken a co-ordinated pattern of measures and initiatives that I believe now open up prospects of unparalleled opportunity for the arts in this country. I hope that the various arts bodies will respond eagerly to the challenges which this new climate of opportunity presents.

Firstly, let us deal with the challenge of business sponsorship. Business sponsorship of the arts has increased dramatically in recent years and now plays an important part in the funding of the arts. From the starting point of £500,000 in 1976 business sponsorship has now risen to over £20 million per year. The Government's business sponsorship incentive scheme, introduced in 1984, must take a good deal of the credit for that impressive performance. Over £7 million has been raised in that way.

The strengthened Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts has also ably administered the incentive scheme on my behalf. I shall be announcing more awards under the scheme in two weeks. In addition, one of the largest arts sponsorship programmes ever undertaken by a first-time sponsor will be announced shortly. It will be of tremendous benefit to the arts organisations involved. Recently I announced the continuation of the scheme for 1987–88 and I hope that arts bodies and sponsors will continue to exploit the opportunities it offers to the full.

Then we have the challenge of private patronage. The arts have always enjoyed important support from private patrons ranging from the very wealthy to the very humble. In recent years we have seen a major upsurge in private giving to the arts. As the House knows, Mr John Paul Getty II has made major contributions to British arts and heritage, principally to the BFI and the National Gallery. I hope that the House will share my pleasure on learning of Mr. Getty's honorary knighthood, announced last Friday.

We have also seen a most notable contribution from the Sainsbury brothers with their generous commitment to the National Gallery extension. Nor should we forget Mrs. Sainsbury—no relation—with her donation to the Royal Opera House and Miss Woodroffe with he donation to the National Art-Collections Fund. Gifts from major patrons have ranged from £1 million to £50 million. In addition to those gifts of cash, the arts also benefit from gifts in kind. An important recent example was the gift of the trustees of the Stefan Zweig collection to the British library of a very important collection of 180 musical and literary autographed manuscripts spanning three centuries. I join the British library in regarding that as an act of outstanding generosity to the nation.

Then we have the challenge of the Budget changes. The Government are proud of their record in improving the tax incentives and tax reliefs for charitable giving, particularly through the covenanting system. No one should underestimate the Government's major proposals in the 1986 Budget designed to encourage and stimulate charitable giving. In all, they represent an immense opportunity for the arts to develop and expand their plural funding.

A new tax relief for single gifts by companies to charities will bring valuable benefits for both revenue and capital projects. From the beginning of April this year, companies will be able to obtain relief on donations to charities up to a limit of 3 per cent. of the dividend paid in any one year. By introducing relief for single gifts, we are offering companies greater flexibility to arrange their charitable giving. Those arrangements will allow a company that might hesitate about taking on a commitment over several years to undertake to give what it can when it can.

Perhaps the most radical innovation is the proposed introduction of the new payroll giving scheme next year. From April next year employees will be able to have up to £100 a year for charitable gifts deducated from their pay and relieved of taxation. Schemes will have to preserve the donor's freedom of choice and the Government intend that they should be economical to run both by the Revenue and by employers.

Of course, we must control any possible misuse of charitable reliefs for tax avoidance purposes. With that in mind the 1986 Budget introduced measures to control these abuses. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement on 4 June should allay fears that the anti-abuse provisions in the Finance Bill will adversely affect arts bodies.

These various new Budget reliefs, combined with those that already exist, now add up to a very substantial package of measures, providing a powerful stimulus to the expansion of private funding of the arts.

As I have said, the arts do not live in a vacuum: they depend critically on their relationship with their audience. Reaching the public is not only a measure of appreciation of success of the arts, it also provides a source of income, in sum much greater than that derived from the state. For that reason, marketing is something that no sector of the arts can afford to neglect. Small percentage increases in attendances can make all the difference to the finances of many arts bodies. Consumer spending is buoyant and more and more money is being spent on leisure. Arts bodies can gain by making their grants go further through managing themselves as efficiently as possible, and by marketing themselves more effectively. Marketing is not., and should not be, a dirty word in the arts world. After all, no skilled gardener would wish his roses to blush unseen.

To sustain the momentum of this sea change in attitude, I am currently studying ways in which my office could help to encourage arts bodies to market and manage themselves even better. I welcome the Arts Council's own initiatives in that regard. I believe that we are beginning to see examples of many arts bodies showing more thrust in the marketing sense.

Against the background of all the initiatives that we have undertaken there remain some differences of approach between ourselves, and the Opposition parties. Let me deal briefly with the alliance position. The Social Democratic Party has not produced a policy paper on the arts in its first five years. Perhaps that is an indication of the priority which it attaches to the field. In 1982, the Liberals produced a paper promising a wide range of uncosted measures, and the establishment of what seemed like a centralised sounding ministry of culture. Perhaps the two parties ought to get their act together, as they should on their defence policy.

There are two aspects of the Labour party policies that I should highlight. First, Labour would take the funding responsibilities away from the Arts Council, and deal direct with the regional arts associations. That inevitably implies greater centralisation, more direct Government intervention, and most important, an abandonment of the arm's length principle, upon which the independence and free expression of the arts has hitherto depended.

Secondly, the hon. Member for Paisley, South has announced Labour's intention to double expenditure on the arts. I suspect that he means to double it, not as the Government have doubled in cash terms over a period of years, but rather at a stroke as part of Labour's totally unrealistic and dangerous programme of £24 billion of extra Government expenditure. I wonder to what extent the hon. Gentleman is aware of the more realistic approach of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who said on 13 May:

"The days have gone when we could hope to achieve all our ambitions in the lifetime of a single Parliament. It is necessary for us to fix our clear priorities and to insist that all other tasks and targets take second place."

Perhaps the hon. Member for Paisley, South can reassure us as to whether his proposals have now become a little more realistic.

Sustaining the level of public funding for the arts, and encouraging a new climate of opportunity for the arts add up to a substantial record of achievement for this Government. We have fully accepted the responsibility to supply the core funding needed to preserve our heritage, sponsor excellence and to provide the seedcorn for experimental work and pump-priming. We have also enabled the arts to grow and prosper to meet the rising and legitimate public demands upon them.

The late John F. Kennedy said:

"The life of the arts, far from being an interruption, a distraction in the life of a nation, is very close to the centre of a nation's purpose, and is a test of the quality of a nation's civilisation."

By any standards, the strength of Britain's artistic life ensures that we pass that test with flying colours. But the quotation also has a deeper significance. The arts lie at the heart of our civilisation. They are not something monolithic, which can be developed by diktat from above. The strength of our arts lies in their diversity and independence. The best way of safeguarding that and providing the basis for sustainable growth is for arts bodies not to be dependent on a single source of finance, but to draw their funding from a variety of sources among which the public itself must always be a vital component. I have explained how the Government have devised a framework by which those developments can be facilitated.

All too often, we in Britain have the habit of running ourselves down, always looking on the black side, and failing to recognise genuine opportunities and successes. That national habit of self-denigration is nowhere less appropriate than in the arts today. Increasingly we are seeing more and more of our population enjoying the entertainment and enlightenment which the arts offer. Government policies have created a climate of opportunity to continue that remarkable expansion. For all our sakes, it is important that the arts bodies respond to that challenge and opportunity with an appropriate alacrity.

I thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to express my gratitude in particular to the shadow Minister for the Arts, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), who has consented to let me speak at this point, as well as to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), a fellow supporter of Plymouth Argyll who, surely, had a higher claim than did I.

The Minister said that the Social Democratic party seemed to give little priority to the arts, in that it has been in existence for some time, and its publications have not yet come to the Minister's attention. I remind him how little priority his Government give to the arts, in having this important debate on a Friday morning, at short notice, when so many people who would have wanted to be here are unable to do so. I accept that it is not the Minister's own doing. Nevertheless, while he is performing a considerably appreciated job at the Office of Arts and Libraries, it is a disservice of Government to have a debate of this importance on a Friday.

I welcome much of what the Minister has done in the way of tax relief and personal schemes, and some of what he has done for the libraries and museums is appreciated there. However, rather than using my speech to make party political capital, I am concerned with the job of Government vis-a-vis the arts: it is to create a climate in which they can flourish. What is needed is an economy that is sufficiently buoyant to permit people to go to see the living arts, music, drama, ballet in which quality must be encouraged. That can be done only by underwriting the centres of excellence. Every person who goes to the National Theatre, the Royal Opera House or the ballet, then goes back and takes his enlightenment and joy to wherever he came from, and perhaps tries to emulate it for his own community.

It is right for the Government not only to encourage more people to participate in the arts, but to make it easier for them by providing transport and ensuring that the training schools for actors and dancers and musicians continue to flourish, in underpinning the infrastructure of training that is so necessary if our supreme position in the arts is to be maintained. I understand that, pound for pound, we are lower in the league table than most other countries in Europe, but I also accept that the highly sophisticated schemes that were introduced recently are of enormous help and benefit to the theatre. There is the imaginative business support for the arts scheme and incentive schemes. I wish that more people in the House would realise how much those who participate in the live theatre appreciate the presence of the Minister, and of Members of Parliament in general at live performances because it is our endorsement of the living arts that makes those artists feel that we are on their side.

The Edinburgh festival is a marvellous example of what can be done without a proscenium arch and all the impedimenta that most theatres possess. At Edinburgh, one can go into the station waiting room and the actors will show one a marvellous production with dancing and music. There is now a scheme where one can have actors come into one's own hotel room and produce a play there. if one has a bathroom, they will present an even better play.

I very much share in what the Minister said about marketing. I hope that the next time he looks at the business sponsorship scheme, he will make it clear to businesses that, on the whole, what theatre people need most is marketing expertise which, mostly by being theatricals, they tend to lack.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall let the hon. Gentleman make his own speech.

rose——

I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman insists.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I intervene as I believe that he is leaving early. He referred to business sponsorship. Is he aware that his party's so-called manifesto for the arts in 1984 referred to business sponsorship as being of marginal importance? Will he repudiate that absured statement in veiw of the growing and tremendous importance of business sponsorship, which has increased 40-fold to £20 million a year in the past 10 years?

I am sorry that I gave way. It wastes time. Of course, business sponsorship is of marginal importance, and of course every item of marginal importance adds up to being quite important in the long run. Let us not overestimate. I am sure that not even the Minister would.

I want specifically to raise one point in respect of a constituent of mine who has a theatre. I shall concentrate for a moment on that venture, which is a summer theatre. It runs for eight weeks. The company takes over the church hall with the good will of the local community, and translates that church hall to a theatre between Friday evening, when the school has its prizegiving to the Saturday first night. The Saturday first night. The company puts in raised seating, curtains, flowers, a restaurant and so on.

The local authority—Waveney council—gives£4,000 towards the theatrical production. All local shopkeepers take advertising space. Lloyds Bank gives a small amount of money. The Happy Eater up the road takes the back page of the programme, and pays more than its due. The theatre is encouraged by the whole community. In a season, there are 30 actors, a producer, a manager, a director, a cloakroom lady, a designer, a stage manager, a props manager and a costume lady. Each gets £110 a week, which is the minimum and also the maximum. Many of the actors are playing at night, rehearsing in the daytime and, late at night, reading the part that they will start rehearsing in two weeks' time. At the end of the 1985 season, with a 94·6 per cent. attendance in a 226-seat theatre, the company lost £158, but the VAT man received £3,428.

I have gone on a bit on that subject because the constituent involved is my wife, and I know about the financial sacrifices. It seems to me that if the Government genuinely want to help the theatre, an awful lot of giving that is being done now could be achieved much more successfully if so much were not taken away through VAT which in other, and more enlightened countries is either at a much lower rate or non-existent for the living arts.

I am grateful for having been called before the hon. Member for Paisley, South. I wish the debate all the power and success that it deserves.

I, too, thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for co-operating in allowing a slight role-reversal.

I tend to come to these debates with two thoughts. First, I have such a mass of material that I do not know how to arrange it. Secondly, as I arrive at the Dispatch Box, I think that I have nothing to say. Then I hear the Minister and, by jove, there is plenty to say.

The uxorious Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) was right to complain about the Government's habit of choosing occasions for debates on the arts when it is difficult to obtain publicity. The last time that we had a major debate on the arts, they chose the day of the European elections. Today, despite the major arguments raging about the arts, the debate is on a motion for the Adjournment of the House and on a Friday. That is disgraceful. It is not good enough for the Minister to make his lying-in-state speeches about the state of the arts when the Government are not prepared to meet the challenge by allowing the House to debate and vote on the matter in prime time on a proper day when the House could express its feelings about the arts.

Why not use a Supply day?

After the boasting that we heard from the Minister this morning, the Government should be proud to put their record before the House without waiting for a Supply day.

The picture that the Minister paints of the arts bears no relation to the picture seen by everyone involved in the arts. A week ago, he and met two of the leading administrators in Britain, one theatrical and the other involved with museums. They spent most of the time discussing the problems of having to scrabble, for funds from various sources. Of course, there is a case for a multiplicity of funds. However, a few months ago, I spoke to a group of arts administrators in Birmingham who represented 70 organisations. Each of them said that instead of spending time developing an arts policy in development and in planning, he was having to spend time searching for funding. That is the picture of the arts today.

The Minister reminds me of the story from Stendhal which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) once mentioned. The husband entered a room and found his wife in flagrante delicto. As he upbraided her, she said, "How do you dare to put the evidence of your eyes before taking my word for it?" The Minister uses statistics to suggest that the arts are healthy, but those involved know they are not. One reason is that this philistine Government — philistine because as monetarists they believe that cash is the only solution—are not even good monetarists. They see the deployment of money only as expenditure and, therefore, in the Prime Minister's terms, wasteful, instead of as an investment. They forget that such expenditure can be an investment.

Although the Minister is a decent and nice guy, he does not give the impression of understanding the pressure and urgency of the matter. His language is the language of generosity—of the Government having given this and that—and he gave a list of patrons and donors. I am prepared to honour the Gettys and the Sainsburys of this world for what they have done for the arts. It is perhaps an honour to them, but it shames the Government that those patrons have had to protect and defend our national institutions, such as the National Gallery, against the Government's depradations. The Government should not boast about the fact that Getty has saved the National Gallery, which the nation should be protecting and developing. The Government claim that the concept of patronage and sponsorship of the arts, which is too often a mark of shame to them, is somehow an honour for them.

The Government's failure to understand the importance of the arts either in human, spiritual terms or in economic terms has been a catastrophe. The Minister said that he would consider the British application for the city of culture of 1990, but he has already warned local authorities that no Government resources will be available. Can one imagine Greece, France or Germany inviting applications for a city of culture but then saying that no Government support would be available? The Government are mean-minded and petty, and it is time that they altered their attitude to the arts.

The Government take some pleasure in poking fun at the Liberal party and the SDP for not having a cultural policy. The Minister has forgotten the essay written by the good doctor, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), for the National Campaign for the Arts paper. The good doctor said that the arts were important because they helped to create a climate of awareness in which ideas can be more readily received. He quoted two examples—"Cathy Come Home" and "The Boys from the Blackstuff". I was interested in all that, because I wrote exactly the same thing a year before the good doctor did. I am pleased that the SDP is picking up intelligent policy from somewhere, even if it is only from us

. The Minister also mentioned the problems of libraries. The moneys forthcoming from his Department are not for libraries in general. The bulk of the money is for the necessary expansion of the British library. They boast that they will pay for an expansion that is being forced upon the library. The truth is that the funding of public libraries has collapsed by 15 per cent. during the past five or six years because of the squeeze on local authority funding.

The Minister's main point was abolition. Again, he treated it as a success story for the Government, because other people have pulled together to save something from the wreckage that the Government's philistine and reckless decision imposed upon local authorities and the arts. The decision to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils was done out of political pique and dislike of Mr. Ken Livingstone. For no intelligent reason, the arts were wrecked and everyone had to pull together to salvage them. The Minister said that the Government have more than recompensed the arts. Does he remember that the grant was already £10 million short — at that level of Arts Council spending, it meant about 10 per cent. short — of what the Arts Council and the local authorities, with Government backing, estimated was necessary? And that was on top of another £9 million already short — £19 million in all. Instead of the £35 million that was estimated to he necessary, the Government gave £25 million and boasted that they had solved the problem. The truth is that the intelligent work of the Arts Council, the intelligent organisation, discussion and hard negotiation by the regional arts associations, and the generosity of local authorities — even though they faced cuts in Government funding—saved the Government's bacon. Yet the Government now boast that they have solved the problems that they created, and more than recompensed the arts. Next year, there will be another cut in funding. The Government will create a taper in the former metropolitan county and GLC areas.

The Arts Council, not a body given to making alarmist statements, said:

"The Council is alarmed at the prospect of a reduction in 1987–88 in its funds for organisations affected by abolition … The Government has suggested that the Council's funds for this purpose will he reduced from £25 million to £21 million in 1987–88. This would considerably impair its ability and that of the RAAS to maintain current activities, particularly if spending by local authorities is also to be further restricted.

" The Arts Council estimates that its base line grant next year, according to Government indications, will be 2·5 per cent. in cash, but costs in the arts are under more severe pressure than the retail price index.

They say the council's grant is "likely to he cut again in real terms. The Government have boasted of expanding art funding, but the reality which confronts everybody involved is that there are cuts. There are cuts despite the 4 or 5 per cent. increase because so much of that is earmarked, because of Government intervention in relation to Priestley and because they are using a wrong deflator to claim increases.

The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), no doubt in association with the Minister—that is fair enough as it is part of the procedures of the House—has asked a series of questions to elicit by how much the Government have increased arts funding. The answer always comes that, since 1979–80, funding has increased by 7 per cent. or 9 per cent. in real terms. No one else understands where those figures come from. The briefing paper from the National Campaign for the Arts says that it does not understand and that

"the Minister provided no evidence for his claim"

that they had risen by 7 per cent. in real terms,

"nor did he explain how he reached the figure."

I can give two explanations, one of which I have analysed at great length in the House before. It is the famous incident of the delayed payments in 1979–80 and 1980–81. There happened to be a computer strike. Several million of pounds were earmarked but not paid until the Government took office.

My second explanation is that the Government use the gross domestic product indicator or deflator instead of the RPI. In regard to almost every form of spending except the billions that go on defence, for example, we go by the RPI, according to which there has been a drop of 1·5 per cent. in funding since the Government took office. If we include something else that the Government wiped out and have forgotten about—the Housing the arts budget—far from there being a real terms increase of 7 per cent, there has been nearly a 5 per cent. collapse in real terms. We should remember that the Arts Council is working permanently on the margin.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

That is a brief answer to some of the nonsense that has been put forward by the Minister, but I am quite prepared to answer any further nonsense that might come from the Conservative Back Benches.

This will not be nonsense. It will be a very sensible question. I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman, who has gone on almost entirely about financing. Why does he not devote a little more of his considerable intelligence to asking whether the money that is being provided is helping to produce satisfactory artistic performances which give pleasure to those who see or hear them?

I was dealing with some of the material that the Minister presented, but of course performance is the end point of our discussions. I should much prefer to deal with real things that matter—the end product—than the funds with which they are produced. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that the squeeze on theatre and on music does not have its consequences in terms of artistic production, he is far adrift.

My brother writes plays, especially for the amateur theatre. He now writes them for "three male and two female" or "four male and one female" parts. That is the extent of the squeeze. I went to see the recent production of "Antony and Cleopatra" with Redgrave herself, but it was not a production which would have stood in terms of scale with the Beerbohm Trees of the past. All theatres are cutting, except the massive tourist—orientated blockbusters, such as "Chess".

The Government's response is private patronage and sponsorship. The most frightening thing that the Government have said—the Minister has repeated it Often—is that any future expansion or development must come from the private sector. Will the Minister confirm that he means that there will be a standstill in the real level of public spending? That is the implication of what he has said. If that happens, we shall be in immense difficulties. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)—mentioned one—the effect on the arts.

The Opposition accept the case for multiple sources of funding—from local authorities, Government, box offices and aspects of sponsorship. Hon. Members know that I oppose certain forms of sponsorship such as that of tobacco companies but, by and large, I am not against multiple funding. On the contrary. I believe that, although multiplicity is not a substitute for more formal methods of maintaining the freedom of the artist, it can help to retain a sense and, to a considerable extent, an actuality of such freedom. That is now being reduced by the Government's squeeze on public spending, their cuts in local authority spending and their cutting of the real value of central funding. That is making a mockery of any freedom.

When the Minister speaks of my policy as beginning to reject the arm's length of Government, he forgets that a squeeze on funding and a push towards sponsorship can have the same effect. No theatre that relies on sponsorship can afford to put on a play that offends its sponsor. We are witnessing an enforced scampering after sponsorship in a bid for survival, a quest for alternative sources of funding and the need to avoid risk and innovation to secure a box office response. That is turning arts administrators into fund raisers rather than planners, innovators and developers and it has begun to distort the content of the work that is produced. The new, the innovative and the challenging will be at risk.

There was a conference on sponsorship of the visual arts at the Tate Gallery last year at which one of the sponsors explained his multinational firm's attitude to sponsorship. His comments were revealing and bland. He said:

"We prefer to sponsor exhibitions with which we feel confortable."

He meant the glamorous and the safe rather than the innovative, the risky and the adventurous. There is already a distortion, if not censorship, therefore. We therefore oppose the concept advanced by the Minister and the Government that sponsorship is an alternative to proper Government funding of future developments.

The problems that face the arts are easily categorised. They are underfunded. There is far too narrow a concept of what are the arts. There is a narrowness of concept about what is high culture and what is popular. There is a lack of esteem for the arts, as is exemplified by the Government's behaviour today. It is inevitably establishment—London dominated— not London-dominated. When the Arts Council produced "The Glory of the Garden", it should have realised that we are not dealing just with geographical differences and separation from the South Bank. Brixton and Hackney are just as far away from the South Bank as Warrington and Manchester. The structure of the arts organisation is elitist. There is nothing elitist about "Fidelio"—it is a marvelous revolutionary opera but there is a great deal that is elitist in the ambience of Covent garden and in the administration of the arts.

How do we cope with that? First, the arts are underfunded. There is only one answer—there must be substantially more funding. If one looks at the state of the disrepair of our national museums and galleries, such as the National Gallery, the British museum and the Victoria and Albert museum, and if one considers that some are being forced to make admission charges to provide funding, it is clear that between £35 million and £45 million needs to be spent over the next three years to bring them into a decent state of repair. When one considers the cuts in central funding and the Arts Council over the years., it is clear that we need to double central funding, although the Minister pokes fun at that phrase. Certainly £140 million would be needed to bring some of our regional and national theatres and music organisations back into full proper use. I do not deny the need for a major injection of funds for that.

A major element of' that injection will come from the restoration of local government funding. We intend to impose a statutory obligation on local authorities to

provide for the arts, entertainment and museums, rather than through a mandatory rate, as sometimes the Labour party has suggested. An element for the arts and for museums should be added to the rate support grant for libraries as encouragement and support for local authorities. As a consequence of that, we shall ask each local authority to undertake a process of consultation with all interested bodies, including arts organisations, trade unions and community organisations, and with local neighbouring authorities, and to publish a plan for the development of the arts in their areas.

We have been dealing with the arts in too narrow a way. The answer to that is to bring all the arts under a single Ministry. We can no longer keep the main cultural fare of our people, broadcasting and films, separate from a Ministry of the arts. That is nonsense. Ministers for the arts or for culture in western Europe do not understand why broadcasting, films and popular arts are not brought under one Ministry in the United Kingdom. We must bring them under a unified Ministry.

Moreover, films, television, independent production, video, young people doing their own thing in studios, and popular music are a single entity, which we have come to refer to as the culture industries. We must broaden the concept of the arts. We can no longer separate some art for them and some for us. We must therefore include the popular arts

. We must recognise that the best way to restore esteem for the arts is to have a Minister in charge of arts and communications, including publications and the printed word, in the Cabinet as of right. The question of access and participation is not solved by central planning alone. I cannot understand why my policy that the major disbursement of funds should go to the regions has been attacked as centralist. That makes no sense to me. It is the opposite of centralising because it gives power to the regions, which know better than 105 Piccadilly, with the greatest of respect to it.

The Minister says that I am smashing the arm's length principle in relation to our national institutions by saying that they should be funded directly from the Ministry. First, the principle has already been dramatically weakened by the Priestley intervention, which I am not criticising, involving direct Government funding. Secondly, no Arts Council has the freedom to decide not to give funding to one or other of our national institutions. Imagine the Arts Council saying, "We have decided to abolish the National Theatre, so we are giving it no money." That is nonsense. Thirdly, the best freedom we can give to our national institutions, as to our theatres, is sufficient funding to give them the courage to put on the productions they choose, instead of forcing them to scramble for funds and sponsors.

I am not alone in my view, but hacked by the all-party Education, Science and Arts Committee. I discovered only in the past 48 hours that it had come to the same conclusion as me. Recommendation 17 of the Committee's report on "Public and Private Funding of the Arts" states:

"In conjunction with the Minister, the Arts Council should make special arrangements to administer a separate grant for the national companies as earmarked by the Minister,."

From my experience in other Departments, the correct way to deal with the arts is for major funding to go to strengthen regional arts development bodies, in place of the regional arts associations, for national institutions to be funded by the Minister, and for it to be a statutory right of the new Arts Council to discuss and negotiate with the Minister about that. That worked perfectly satisfactorily with other Departments such as Agriculture, in the old days, and is the best democratic process for the arts.

The Arts Council should not be appointed by the Minister, because that means that it plays footsy with him and becomes his instrument. It should be elected directly from the regions and the arts if it is to be a powerful, independent voice, speaking for the arts to the Minister. If that is called smashing the arm's length principle and centralising, I do not know what is not.

The present genuine crisis in the arts is a parallel to the crisis facing Britain as a whole. It is a deep basic crisis, not only of politics and economics, but of philosophy, ideas and values. We have adopted values unparalleled since the late 1930s. The whole settled good of the past half century of a commitment to social concern and community values has been replaced by a cash-based ideology, both sharper and cruder than pre-Victorian times. We cannot answer that assault on our values merely by campaigning on policy or examining section 22 of a Social Security Act. At present there is a clash of values.

We in the Labour party want to develop policy-making as an expression of the new and better society which we wish to achieve. However, if we are fully to involve the imagination and commitment of our people as a whole in the creation of a better society, we must also engage in the battle of ideas. Without that, no Government will be backed by a radical drive from the people for the sort of change that we need, and the elan that is necessary to keep us on course.

For that reason, we as Socialists have always cherished the artist. It is not because we demand of them the enforced commitment to a particular set of values, but because we recognise that artists provoke questioning, remove our blinkers, awaken compassion and fray at the nerve edge of our consciousness and awareness. Therefore, artists frequently set the agenda for which we as Socialists can provide the ultimate answers. That is why we have a common purpose with artists. Artists speak the truth as they see it and we seek to provide answers to the problems that their questioning has posed. Artists let us see more clearly the real nature of the present crisis because, above all, they deal with it as it touches the individual. Therefore, they emphasise the need for change even more clearly and sharply than the propagandists.

rose——

As we are the party for change, we are on the side of artists. We recognise with Shelley that the poet is the unacknowledged legislator of the world. We not only support the arts for the individual artist and creator, but for a further reason to do with the engagement of values.

We live in a grossly unequal world which is also unequal within the arts.

rose——

We need to restore to our people the rich heritage of culture which has been taken from them, whether in our congested inner cities, our inadequate suburban schemes, or in our remote rural areas. New technologies will either open up possibilities of enormous richness or one of defeated squalor. We must take control of our future in which the arts will play an increasingly significant role.

If Opposition Members do not like the use of a Friday for a debate on the arts, it is open to them to use one of their Opposition days for such a debate. However, I cannot help noticing that they have not done so.

We have not done too badly over the amount of time devoted to debating and discussing the arts. Only three months ago we had a full-scale debate on business sponsorship of the arts; and I believe that questions on the arts come up about every three weeks. I believe that what the Opposition really dislike is not Friday debates on the arts, but the Conservative Government's success story in relation to the arts, and the tremendously impressive list of achievements that my right hon. Friend the Minister set out. I shall return to that later. I wish first to discuss the levy on tapes. The Government have proposed a 20p levy on blank tapes. That is absolutely right. Musicians work hard to earn their living. They are not as well off as they should be. They derive their livelihoods partly from recordings on which they receive royalties. Recordings may be put on discs or tapes. Anyone can buy a blank tape quite cheaply, borrow a record and then tape it, thus saving himself the expense of buying the recording. In that case, the musician or musicians who performed the music will not receive any royalties. That is unjust. We can begin to put things right—as the Government propose to do —by imposing a levy on tapes, and the proceeds could go towards the royalties received by professional musicians. These days, 20p is quite a small amount. It is not much more than the price of a cup of tea or coffee in a third-class cafe. It is not exactly a back-breaking sum.

Nevertheless, the manufacturers of blank tapes have mounted a massive advertising campaign against that wise, sensible and fair Government proposal. A series of full-page advertisements have recently appeared in national newspapers. Perhaps you could remind me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is in order to quote from those newspapers?

It is.

Thank you. That full-page advertisement in The Times says that it is issued by the "Tape Manufacturers Group." I understand that those manufacturers are all to be found abroad, and that 60 per cent. of them are Japanese. The advertisement says that it is issued by that group.

"in the interest of the tape buying public."

It continues:

"Oppose the tape levy. It is a gift to the greedy…if you have to cough up more money because of lobbying by greedy record companies, there must be plenty of other fat cats waiting in the wings for their extra dollop of cream. A Tape Levy is wrong on moral and legal grounds. If it is imposed during the next session of Parliament it sets a ghastly precedent for the righting of any number of imagined wrongs."

That is sheer nonsense. It is laughable to say that a tape levy is wrong on moral grounds. As for saying that it is wrong on legal grounds, if the House, following the proper procedures, authorises a levy on tapes, it is legal. The advertising agency or public relations company who wrote that advertisement did so in ignorance of that fact. The tape manufacturers have been unwise in their choice of advertising or public relations company.

I hope that the Government will not give in, and have no truck with this advertising campaign by the tape manufacturers. I also hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts will convey our feelings to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is responsible for such issues. The Government should stick to their guns, hold firm, and proceed with the levy in the interest of live musicians. They should give further proof—if any is needed—that the Conservative party, and this Conservative Government care about the arts and want fair rewards for professional artists. If the Government hold firm, they will earn the lasting appreciation of the musical world.

The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), who is sitting in the Gangway next to the former Leader of the Opposition, but who is now returning to his seat on the Opposition Front Bench, was full of doom and gloom. Characteristically he exaggerated, using words such as catastrophic, depredations, philistine, reckless, squeezing and so on. But none of that could disguise the fact that in the United Kingdom the arts are flourishing as never before. My right hon. Friend the Minister gave a tremendously impressive list of achievements. I shall not repeat it, as it will appear in the Official Report. But the hon. Member for Paisley, South clearly did not listen to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about abolition in a tone of gloom and doom, I recall that two years ago he mentioned a crisis in the arts. Most of that talk focused on Greater London and then, to a lesser extent, on the six metropolitan counties. None of his prophesies came true.

The hon. Gentleman must remember that the worst did not happen because I sounded the alarm bells and helped to mobilise resistance. We won. The credit that the hon. Gentleman takes should be given to the Arts Council, the regional arts associations and the local authorities. The Ministry deserves no credit, as it under-funded by £19 million.

It is the Government who should take the credit, because they took the decision and had to find the money to make up the difference when many competing claims were put forward in every conceivable area of the Government. Many hon. Members in all parties asked for that to be done, and the Government were right to take that decision. Of course, there had to be a period of uncertainty, because there had to be consultation. If people are to be consulted and representations are to be made, there must be a period of uncertainty before the decisions are finally taken.

During that period the hon. Gentleman asked for things to be done even though they were probably going to be done anyway. The point is that those decisions were taken.

The arts are now buoyant. That is a tremendous national asset. It is enormously important, because if the arts flourish, they can enrich and enlarge people's lives. They also give great enjoyment.

Even if one looks only at the economic aspect of the success of the arts in the United Kingdom, it is of tremendous value to the country. The live and visual arts, taken together with our national heritage of buildings and the monarchy, with which our heritage is linked, comprise our main tourist attraction, drawing overseas visitors to the United Kingdom. Foreigners come here not for our weather but to see our old towns and cities, our historic houses, churches and cathedrals, our art calleries and museums, and the royal family and everything to do with it. They come to see our theatres, concerts, opera and ballet.

As one would expect of a great capital, London is one of the arts centres of the world. Nowhere else, with the possible exception of New York, is there such a full and splendid mix of the live and visual arts, and the heritage.

Our theatre is second to none both in quality and quantity, ranging from the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company to theatre of all sorts. Britain is superb musically, with orchestral concerts, chamber music, instrumental and solo work. We have four great orchestras based in London. A first-class season of promenade concerts will shortly commence. We have excellent opera, ballet and dance at Covent garden, the Coliseum and Sadler's Wells. On the South Bank, the Royal Festival hall, the Queen Elizabeth hall and the Purcell room are going well. The South Bank board is doing an excellent job in its future planning.

Opposition Members' gloomy forecasts of what would happen after the abolition of the GLC have been confounded. The South Bank board is managing perfectly well without the GLC. The Barbican complex in the City is a bold, imaginative venture which owes much to the vision, courage and generosity of the Corporation of the City of London.

I know that the House will forgive me if I make special reference to an institution in my constituency, the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller hall in Twickenham. It trains the finest army bands in the world. These are one of the prides of this country. They will be seen marching on the way to the Royal wedding in four weeks' time. For the past three years I have been fighting to prevent Kneller hall, being moved from Twickenham to some unsuitable site on the coast, there to be merged with the training of the bands of the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force. If that happens it will reduce musical standards.

I am, therefore, grateful to no fewer than 164 of my right hon. and hon. Friends for signing early-day motion No. 397. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence for each having found the time to see me on this matter. As a result, a full-scale review of the decision is being made and the costs are being re-examined. I believe that the original decision two years ago, taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to move the Royal Military School of Music from Twickenham, was a mistake. The result of the review is expected during the summer. I trust that the Government will take into account not only the great sense of feeling in this House, as shown by 164 of my colleagues, but the strength of feeling in another place where there was a debate on a starred question in February; and the views of 18,679 people who signed petitions to keep the Royal Military School of Music permanently at Kneller hall.

I turn to another type of music school—the great academies and colleges such as the Royal College of Music, the Royal Academy of Music and the Guildhall School of Music, all in London, and the Royal Northern School of Music in Manchester. By and large, they produce performers and teachers of very high standards. Two weeks ago I was fortunate to visit the Guildhall School of Music, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) and for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn). We toured the school and saw work of a very high standard. A violin master class was being taken by the celebrated violinist Yfrah Neaman; an examination was taking place that included a performance of Mendelssohn by a piano trio, which was technically highly difficult and which was played to a remarkable standard; and there was a rehearsal of an opera by Chabrier. All those works were being performed to a high level that made them a delight to hear.

There has recently been talk of the Royal Academy of Music being singled out to become what has been described as a centre of excellence. I should wish to hear both sides of the argument before seeing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. So far, I have heard only one side and therefore prefer to suspend judgment. However, I know that the matter is worrying the musical world. The key question is whether sufficient improvement would be generated to justify possibly cutting the ground from under the feet of other institutions with excellent standards. Therefore, I hope that the Government will exercise caution.

In London there are excellent visual arts, with some magnificent museums. I salute the courage of the Victoria and Albert museum staff, led by its director Sir Roy Strong, on two widely different matters — first, for seeking to recreate the spirit of that great Victorian building by refurbishing it, with Government support, and secondly, on their courage in seeking to attract voluntary donations from the visiting public.

Hampton court in my constituency is a Royal palace but also serves as another great museum. It suffered from a terrible fire some 11 weeks ago, and great damage was caused. I am glad that the Government, through the Secretary of State for the Environment, have decided to provide funds so that the damage can be repaired. Ninety per cent. of the palace is now open to visitors. The number of visitors has fallen off since the fire, and perhaps the fact that it is now open again is not widely enough known. I hope that there will be a resumption of large numbers of school parties and other visitors in the near future. I am worried that the part that was damaged may take as long as four years to repair and restore. I hope that the Secretary of State will think again on this matter to find a way to effect repairs more quickly.

My right hon. Friend the Minister said that our museums must not sit on their treasures. I agree. The whole point of a work of art is for it to be perceived. It is much more important for works of art to be seen and enjoyed than to be hoarded for some academic motive to do with the integrity of the collection. The academics in museums tend to put too much weight on the second purpose, when they should put nearly all the weight on works of art being seen. There really is little point in them being stored in cellars and hardly ever seen.

I hope that my right hon Friend will vigorously encourage those museums with more works of art than they are able to show, to lend them to other museums around the country so that they can be seen by more people. It would provide opportunities for people to see works of art in the provinces. That is being done to some extent already, but not to the sort of extent that I would wish.

Sponsorship has been mentioned by both the Labour and Liberal spokesmen. The Labour party appears to be against it, and the Liberals to denigrate it. I believe sponsorship to be tremendously important. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) produced a paper on the subject to the Council of Europe, and we debated the matter in February. It is surely of great value that sponsorship of the arts by businesses has multiplied 40-fold from £500,000 to £20 million during the past 10 years, with three-quarters of the increase being during the past seven years under a Conservative Government.

It is good and right that our great business corporations should act as patrons of the arts and thereby extend the opportunity to the general public to enjoy concerts, exhibitions and operas. That should be enthusiastically encourged by both sides of the House, not only by Conservative Members. The lukewarm attitude of Opposition Members to this important new dimension of support for the arts is pathetic—they should reconsider their attitude, and do so quickly.

Eager though I am to compress my remarks, I do not believe that I shall be able to do so in the 30 seconds or so before the next business. Perhaps I may advertise what is to come later by inviting those Members lucky enough to come into the Chamber now to stay for the rest of the debate. I hope that that is a proper use of this advertising moment. I appeal to all who have come in at this late hour not just to participate in questions but to hear the later debates.

I think that I have used up the time available. I would not wish to interrupt you, Mr. speaker, and I was watching carefully to ensure that I did not incommode you in any way.

It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).

(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on disciplinary action at GCHQ.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, in his statement to the House on 19 March, reported what he had told representatives of the Council of Civil Service Unions concerning the action that would be taken in respect of the few members of the staff of GCHQ who had accepted the revised conditions of service but had then gone back on their undertakings and had rejoined unions. My right hon. and learned Friend said that those staff had been asked to honour their original commitment by resigning from the unions they had rejoined and that if they failed to do so they would be subject to disciplinary procedures. I understand from the director, GCHQ, that disciplinary action has now been taken against 13 such employees of GCHQ and that letters have been sent to them informing them of the penalties that are to be imposed.

Three other members of the staff at GCHQ who have informed management that they have rejoined a national trade union will also be subject to disciplinary action in the next few weeks.

GCHQ has also warned those concerned that so long as they remain in membership of a national trade union they will be in breach of the conditions of service which apply to them in GCHQ and may be subject to further disciplinary action in accordance with the procedures and penalties prescribed in the Civil Service code. GCHQ therefore proposes to seek suitable alternative posts for them elsewhere in the home Civil Service, in which they can continue in national trade union membership if they wish. In the meantime, for so long as they remain in GCHQ, if they should become eligible for promotion their conduct will have to be taken into account, they will not be considered for an overseas posting, and they will continue to be ineligible for inclusion in the proposed restructuring.

I wish to stress to the House that we are talking here of a very small number of people. More than 99 per cent. of GCHQ staff members have accepted and comply with the revised conditions of service, morale is high, and restructuring is going ahead in consultation with the staff federation.

Is the Minister aware that the methods of informing the civil servants concerned are quite inadequate, that only five of the 13 have received the letters and that the information has been given to there indirectly, through the general secretaries of their trade unions? Is he aware that the penalties are much more severe than the Government pretend and that for the senior civil servants involved the fine imposed will be between £3,000 and £4,500? Is he further aware that they will suffer from continuing pressure to take alternative jobs in the Civil Service and from continuing threats of further disciplinary action, which will make it difficult For them to perform their duties?

Is the Minister aware that the terms of the letters sent to the five civil servants are extremely harsh? He referred to the meeting between the Foreign Secretary and the Civil Service unions on 18 March, but is he aware that the threat of continuing action amounts to reneging on the Foreign Secretary's assurance on that occasion that this would be the only piece of disciplinary action against trade union members? Is he aware that the Opposition believe that disciplinary action of this kind should not be used against civil servants on the sole ground that they are trade union members and that we find it entirely objectionable?

The Minister is aware that the whole question of trade union membership at GCHQ is before the European Court of Human Rights, which will make a judgment on the admissibility of the case later this year. Is it not wrong for the Government to pursue action of this kind while the case is still pending?

Is the Minister aware that, far from morale at GCHQ being high, as he claims, this action will damage morale still further not just at GCHQ but throughout the Civil Service, and that the reaction received by the trade unions this morning has been one of deep anger and resentment by civil servants throughout the country?

Finally, is the Minister aware that, to take action of this kind against trade union membership in the Civil Service when the whole question of human rights is very much to the fore in our consideration of South Africa, is deeply insensitive? In a democracy, trade union membership is a basic human right. By taking this action, the Government show that they have no understanding of that fact.

To answer some of the points raised by the hon. Lady, so far as I understand it all the letters to the few people involved were posted at the same time. The details of the penalties are, of course, a matter for the director and management of GCHQ. I should point out that all the employees concerned were given proper notice of the date of the boards convened to consider their behaviour and of their right, in accordance with established procedures, to attend the disciplinary board and to be accompanied, if they wished, by a friend or colleague who could have been a member of a union, but none of those charged chose to attend. It is incorrect to say that the penalties in any way constitute a reneging on what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said to the House on 19 March.

The European Commission of Human Rights still has to decide on the admissibility of the case, which could be a very lengthy process. So far as I am aware, there is no general practice in this or any other country for Governments to refrain from taking action pending court decisions.

Finally, I repeat that morale at GCHQ is high. The hon. Lady and her friends would do far better to put their weight behind encouraging the 99 per cent. of GCHQ staff who have accepted the new conditions of service and encouraging the staff federation.

Am I right in believing that one very simple way for the staff affected to have avoided this situation would have been not to go back on their word?

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

Is there any justification in the unions' claim that the Government action now anounced flies directly in the face of the assurances given by the Foreign Secretary just a few months ago? Secondly, does the Minister accept that, whatever the ultimate decision, if there is one, by the European Commission or the European Court, it is extremely tactless for the Government to seek yet again to interfere in GCHQ in this fashion, given that the courts have made it clear that the original Government action was unjustified?

Lastly, does the Minister understand that, even if only a small minority of people are involved, those people have civil rights? Are not the Government yet again flying not only in the face of the courts but in the face of the rights of minorities? Does the Minister accept that minorities, in trade unions or anywhere else, deserve to be protected and not bulldozed by Government? That is what we object to.

To take the last point first, I fully accept that all employees at GCHQ are individuals whose position must be very carefully examined, but so must the position of national security in which GCHQ is involved. I submit that the management of GCHQ and the Ministers involved have taken a great deal of time and patience to consider this case, particularly the position of those who originally said that they would leave their union and accepted the A option but then rejoined. A lot of patience has been exercised.

No undertaking was given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that no further disciplinary action would be taken following the present round. As my right hon. and learned Friend told the House on 19 March, the A option rejoiners were asked to honour their commitment — we are talking about them today— by resigning from the unions which they had rejoined. As long as they fail to do that they are in breach of their conditions of service and must remain subject to disciplinary procedure.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us who are trade unionists believe that trade unionism with no guarantee against industrial action is inappropriate in establishments which are vital to the national security? As for civil rights, to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred from the Liberal Benches, what civil rights will there be if this country is unable to defend itself against the enemies of freedom?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. This goes to the heart of why it was considered that national union membership was unacceptable at GCHQ, in the light of the long periods of disruption there. What we have now done at GCHQ brings that communications headquarters into line with other security and intelligence agencies in France, the United States and Italy where there are similar policies of no union membership in intelligence agencies.

Does the Minister realise that his announcement is petty, vindictive, spiteful and, above all, stupid? It is stupid in that it will provoke the very industrial action that the Government say they want to avoid and will destroy the morale of which the Minister boasted this morning.

Is the Minister aware that his statement is vindictive in that, despite the assurances by the Foreign Secretary, it is clear that, in addition to the fines of up to £4,000, those involved will face a continuing campaign of punishment and persecution under this Government?

Is he aware that the statement is petty and spiteful because the Minister is trying to enforce an agreement which clearly was entered into under duress? In that context, will the Minister confirm that some of the members have tried to return the £1,000 Judas money to the management, and that GCHQ management has returned the cheques and refused to accept the money?

Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that at least he precludes dismissal and loss of job from this continuing programme of persecution?

I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the money being returned, and I shall check that with GCHQ management. I totally disagree that my statement is petty, vindictive and spiteful. It is the opposite. GCHQ management has shown much patience in considering how to deal with the few who have rejoined their union. It would be entirely inappropriate for disciplinary procedures not to be taken against those who remain in breach of their conditions of service. It would also let down the more than 99 per cent. who have accepted the conditions of service.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about further penalties. It is impossible to forecast whether or when further disciplinary procedures might be thought appropriate. It would be still less appropriate to say what, if any, penalties might then he imposed.

Is it not clear that in the case of the small number of civil servants who have been disciplined, the proper disciplinary procedures were followed meticulously? Is it not also clear that those who have already been disciplined could have avoided that disciplinary action by abiding by the terms of their contracts and that all future cases of this kind could be avoided if only those who enter into an agreement with their employer abide by that agreement?

My hon. Friend is correct on all three matters. The proper procedures were followed exactly. What is more, those to whom the letters have been sent are — I stress this — to be found appropriate jobs in the home Civil Service and they can retain trade union membership. Furthermore, they could still deal with the problem and remain at GCHQ by resigning their trade union membership and accepting the conditions of service, as the vast majority of their fellow workers have already done.

Is the Minister aware that the people of this country fought for years to establish free trade unionism and that it is the mark of Fascism to try to eliminate the right to belong to a trade union?

Is the story on the front page of today's Guardian true? Is it correct that the rejoiners have been told that incremental salary increases due to them will be docked for two years and that in most cases this will mean a loss of between £1,600 and £2,000? If the Minister manages to force out those people who wish to remain in a union and they have to go elsewhere in the home Civil Service, can he give an assurance from the Dispatch Box that they will not be victimised by this most vindictive Government?

It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) does not bend some of his passion and eloquence to putting his weight behind the 99 per cent. who have accepted the conditions of service and who are doing their hardest to build up GCHQ into an even more effective national security unit than it is already. The details of the penalties are for the director and management of GCHQ. I understand that in the letters those concerned have been told that they will not he entitled to either one or two increments for up to two years. I repeat that the vast majority have accepted the new terms of service, as can the handful about whom we are talking by resigning from their union membership now.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the problem highlighted today is merely an extension of the problem that arose when disruptive action put our national security at risk? Does he agree that, with the revised arrangements, people must now feel that they no longer have divided loyalty to external organisations?

My hon. Friend is right. Morale is high, not least because of the restructuring which has simplified the employment structure at GCHQ, which is much welcomed because it recognises the unique contribution to national security made by the staff at GCHQ.

On what day was the last warning given to the individuals concerned and what contact has taken place since then? What will he the last day at work at Cheltenham for those involved?

I cannot give my hon. Friend the precise details, but I can assure him that the precise procedure for such cases laid down by the Civil Service code was followed exactly. None of those involved bothered to attend the meetings to which I referred earlier.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the control on the movement or slaughter of hill sheep and other sheep.

My Ministry and the other agricultural Departments have been carrying out an extensive programme of monitoring of all foodstuffs likely to be affected as a result of the Chernobyl accident. The latest batch of results is being published today. These present a satisfactory picture overall and there is no reason for anyone to be concerned about the safety of food in the shops.

However, the monitoring of young unfinished lambs, not yet ready for market, in certain areas of Cumbria and north Wales indicates higher levels of radio-caesium than in the rest of the country. These are the areas of high rainfall during the weekend of 2 and 3 May. While these levels will diminish before the animals are marketed. my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have decided to use the powers in the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 to make absolutely certain that when these lambs are marketed they will be below the internationally recommended action levels for radio-caesium of 1,000 bq/kg.

We have therefore made an order which we are laying before Parliament to come into effect today which will prohibit for the next 21 days the movement and slaughter of sheep within the two areas designated in south west Cumbria and parts of north Wales. This will enable us to monitor closely the sheep flock in these areas.

The areas subject to restriction will be reduced as soon as monitoring results, based on a rigorous sampling programme, confirm the expected fall in levels. Testing is also being undertaken in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where similar restrictions will he imposed if necessary.

The main season for marketing young lamb from the designated areas will not start until July. The Government recognise that these measures may cause some interference with the marketing plans of farmers in the areas concerned, but I am sure that they will appreciate that the measures taken for the protection of the consumer are in the general interest of the British sheep industry. If however it should prove to be necessary, the Government will be prepared to discuss cases of compensation for severe loss in particular circumstances to specific farmers.

I thank the Minister for making this statement. May I say to the Leader of the House that once again it appears not to have been possible to give reasonable notice to those affected of the intention to make an agriculture statement?

We recognise that the primary interest and responsibility lies in the safety and health of the consumer. We must recognise also that the areas concerned are heavily dependent on sheep. The economy and livelihood of a number of individuals, and perhaps even an entire sector of agriculture, are likely to be affected. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen, in my view entirely correctly, to make a public statement is bound to evoke some public alarm, especially in view of the complacency which has been exuded by MAFF up to the present about the affects on the food chain of the Chernobyl accident. For example, we were getting ——

Not complacency.

The hon. Gentleman, who is making sotto voce remarks—perhaps he is making his only speech of the Session—had better listen to some of the facts on agriculture before he starts interjecting.

There were press stories three weeks ago about the level of caesium and hot spots. Nevertheless, it is only now that MAFF has chosen to act. It is better that the House voices its worries than for worries to be felt and remain unanswered and, therefore, to fester.

I shall ask the Minister a number of specific questions to which I hope he will reply. First, are cattle likely to have a higher level of caesium? Can he be categorical that there has been no effect upon milk supplies? We understand that one of the ways, although a minor way, in which young, unfinished lambs contracted the infection is by grazing on grassland.

Secondly, bearing in mind that in the post-Chernobyl weeks there must have been many movements of lambs, sheep and cattle out of the areas concerned, will the Minister say whether caesium has been traced only in young lambs? Is there any danger of caesium having been contracted by sheep? There was no mention of that in a parliamentary answer that was given on 4 June. Has caesium been traced in older lambs and are they being monitored? When does the right hon. Gentleman think that the presence of caesium in older animals will become apparent. if they have contracted it?

The Minister has referred to areas in Cumbria and north Wales and has said that the order will have a duration of 21 days. A period of 28 days is allowed under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take action that will lead to parliamentary scrutiny of the order in due course.

Are the other western sheep-rearing areas being monitored and is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that at present the movement of lambs in those areas represents no danger? The right hon. Gentleman has talked about areas in north Wales and south-west Cumbria and I should like to know the overall area and the number of lambs and sheep that are affected. Is it a matter of a number of hot spots or is there general infection across the areas that he has mentioned?

The Minister has mentioned the assistance that is to be given in compensation. If necessary, I hope that action will be taken in international law to enable proper compensation to be given to those who are affected by the presence of radio-caesium in their animals, and that compensation will not be confined to domestic assistance.

What is the position on the charges that are due under the Agriculture Bill 1986? The Minister has stubbornly maintained so far that charging will take place for public health tests under the new Act. We understand that this radioactive infection of sheep and lambs may occur and continue for many years. May I have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that no charges will he made to the affected farmers or any other worried farmers in the areas concerned for the undertaking of public health checks? Will he reconsider his attempt to make such checks chargeable under the Agriculture Bill?

Finally, it is inconceivable that the effects noted in the United Kingdom should not be present in other EEC member states or countries outside the EEC. If we are to learn something and come out of this episode somewhat wiser, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is re-examining the restrictions on trade between any two countries to ensure that the ban on potentially affected animals is as tight as it can be? Will he undertake to make information on our experience of radioactivity in lambs as widely available as possible, so that all countries in a similar plight may benefit?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) for what he has said about his belief that it was correct to make a statement today. I think that he was wrong when he said that the statement might give rise to alarm. There is no reason for that to happen. As I said clearly in my statement, there is no reason for anyone to be concerned about the safety of food in the shops. We have taken the steps which I have outlined as a precaution. to ensure that young lambs coming on the market in future— July, August and September are the months when they are likely to come on the market—can be the subject of a proper check.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the effect on other animals. The monitoring that the Minister has been carrying out shows low levels of radio-caesium in food generally, including vegetables, dairy produce and meats other than lamb. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I utterly reject the hon. Gentleman's remarks about complacency on the part of the Ministry.

I believe that we have been in the forefront of all European countries in testing meat, and especially young animals. It is that testing which has come up with these results, which have caused us to take precautionary steps about future supplies. The order will last for 21 days, and I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for parliamentary scrutiny. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is present and he, too, has heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

We shall continue to monitor other areas as well as those to which I have referred. We are continuing with sampling and work is continuing through the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, which has undertaken most helpful work in allowing us to identify the areas concerned. Rather than attempting to explain in detail the exact area that the orders will cover, I shall deposit in the Library today maps of the two areas concerned so that Members are able to see for themselves.

The hon. Gentleman referred to ADAS charging. I assure him that, during the running of the order which I am laying today, no new steps will be taken to introduce any new arrangements for ADAS charging.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cautious but sensible measures he announced this morning will be widely perceived by the public as having achieved the right balance between over-reaction and under-reaction? Will the Government continue to take all measures appropriate to reassure the public?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. We shall continue to monitor the position in terms of the rigorous monitoring programme that I mentioned earlier. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right when he says that we have set the right balance between realism and prudence. We intend to do that. I think that the public will understand that there is no reason for anyone to be concerned about the safety of food in the shops.

I welcome the Minister's decision to make a statement today. I believe that the steps he announced were prudent and wise. They are a means of ensuring that caesium does not come on to the market from young unfinished lambs. There is a general assurance in the Minister's speech that the position overall is satisfactory. However, the Minister said that in Scotland and Northern Ireland specifically there is a possibility of imposing similar restrictions, if necessary. To avoid any doubt, can the Minister say that the satisfactory position covers Scotland and Northern Ireland? I believe that the rainfall was heavier in those areas.

I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, in the course of a short question, said that I was prudent and wise. It is rather unusual to hear such kind words from him. I am most obliged to him. As I have said, the overall position is satisfactory. Testing is being undertaken in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I know that my right hon. Friends will make similar restrictions if they feel that that is necessary.

Generally, I welcome the measures announced by the Minister. I raise three or four small points. First, is the caesium concentrated in specific organs in the bodies of lambs? Secondly, will kids and goats be included in the restricted orders, since they were born at about the same time as the young unfinished lambs, and, presumably, were faced with the same intake of enriched rain? Thirdly, what is the position regarding compensation to the owners of abattoirs and markets and hauliers whose livelihood will be severely affected? It is not just farmers who will be affected. Fourthly, what is the position over fallen stock? Can the Minister assure the House and the country that fallen stock meat from those bodies does not enter the animal food chain in the form of meat for dogs, cats, and so on? What happens to the meat from animals in the field which die while the order is in operation?

We have found that the radio-caesium is spread evenly throughout the muscular tissue, which is the carcase of the animal. It is not concentrated in parts of the carcase. I shall consider the question regarding kids and goats. I am not aware of any problem regarding goats. The order which we are laying today refers only to sheepmeat. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said about compensation for people other than farmers. I can only repeat that, if it should prove to be necessary, the Government will be prepared to discuss cases for compensation for severe loss in particular circumstances to specific farmers.

The hon. Gentleman referred to fallen stock. If the animal has died, as he suggested at the end of his question, that is one thing. Under the regulations there is no question of meat from animals which have died coming into the human food chain. The slaughter of animals will be permitted for welfare reasons. That is already provided for in the order, on condition that the meat does not go for human consumption or feeding stuffs.

Can the Minister guarantee that the irradiation concerned results exclusively from the Chernobyl incident? Is there any connection between the areas concerned and the nearby locations of nuclear installations in this country?

I thought that a Member such as the hon. Gentleman would not have missed the opportunity to make that point. I make it clear that we are dealing with two caesium isotopes—caesium-134 and 137. The ratio between those two isotopes which are found in lambs are characteristic of the Chernobyl fallout. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is not characteristic of anything to do with Sellafield.

Is the Minister aware that when he turns up during the middle of an arts debate mob-handed and tells us all not to panic, it will be a little difficult not to feel concerned, especially as he made this statement on a Friday when people will be out purchasing meat for the weekend? Perhaps he should have waited until Monday before he made the statement. That would have been more convenient for those hon. Members who wish to discuss the arts. An article which appears in today's Guardian states that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is understood to be postponing publication of the latest radiation readings from monitoring stations all over Britain. If that article is true, why is that so? Perhaps the Minister should give the people of this country some advice over the weekend that if they intend to eat any hill sheep they should add some iodine to the mint sauce.

The reputation which the hon. Gentleman has achieved since he became a Member of Parliament is entirely in keeping with such foolish remarks. If the hon. Gentleman would care to listen—clearly he has not been listening— [Interruption.] I know that he would have been one of the first to be critical if we had waited until Monday and had not come forward as soon as we believed it was right to take such steps.

Action is being taken as soon as it became apparent that there was a risk of meat above the action level reaching the market in the near future. We shall be able to prevent that. I am sure that all Members would agree —the hon. Member for Pontypridd said so—that it was right to come forward today. The hon. Gentleman referred to an article in the Guardian newspaper. That is why I accused him of not listening. If he had been listening, he would have heard that I said in my statement—that the latest batch of results will be published today.

It is right that the Minister should have made this statement. However, some aspects of the statement pose more questions than they answer. The Minister said that the order would prohibit, for the next 21 days, the movement and slaughter of sheep within the two areas designated. Can we take it that that includes the movement of sheep in and out of the designated areas? That is an important point of detail that he should cover. As a Scottish Member, I am bound to say that the statement will arouse considerable concern and uncertainty among sheep farmers north of the border. Can we expect a statement from the Scottish Office on this subject? We all know that, at the same time as radioactive rain was falling on Cumberland and north Wales, there was heavy rainfalls in Scotland.

What arrangements are the Government making to compensate farmers and other producers for the direct effect of these restrictions and for the disposal of carcases, where necessary? What compensation will there be for the inevitable disruption of the market which is likely to flow from the alarm that will inevitably be felt, whether the Minister likes it or not? I trust that the long-term costs of monitoring agricultural produce will be carried by the Government, not by the farmers, in the severe cases to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and in others.

Is it not emerging that the Government should have given advice to farmers to bring livestock in milk—both sheep and cattle—indoors while the radioactive rain was falling? That action was taken in Denmark, the Netherlands and other European countries. Why on earth has it taken so long for that information to get through in this country? If lambs have excessive levels of caesium, what assurances do we have that calves and, indeed, humans have not picked up larger amounts than they should have?

Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in appealing to the Secretary of State for Scotland to think again before commissioning another nuclear site at Torness in my constituency?

There will not be market restrictions on sheep brought from out of the area for sale in the area. Markets in the affected area which are no longer allowed to market sheep that emanate from within the restricted area will be able to bring in sheep for sale from outside that area.

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that testing is proceeding in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland will not hesitate to impose similar restrictions, if they feel that that is necessary in the light of emerging monitoring.

As I said earlier, the Government will be prepared to discuss compensation.

The hon. Gentleman asked about animals being brought indoors during the period when the Chernobyl cloud was moving over the United Kingdom, and I suppose that I should not have expected anything else from an eastern counties arable farmer. I point out that it would have been totally impractical on the mountains and hills of the Lake District and the Snowdonia range to house sheep indoors during that period. Those facilities did not exist.

I realise that the hon. Gentleman threw in the point about Torness at the last minute. I hope that he will refer that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment whose responsibility it is.

On a small point, Mr. Speaker.

I think not.

As I listened to the earlier debate on the arts, I was encouraged to believe that it would be a good day for this country when my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) takes over the task of the Minister for the Arts. I am sure that he will, with his natural eloquence, bring good policy into practice and, with his great determination, raise this matter to the level it deserves. I do not say that to disparage in any way the present Minister for the Arts. He must face an extremely difficult task in trying to sustain civilised standards in this Government. The right hon. Gentleman does his best.

However, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South and I criticise the level of support that the Government give and their general approach to the arts. I think that I quote the Minister correctly when I say that he claimed that the Government were keeping up support for the arts. That is not satisfactory, especially in view of our present critical social circumstances, which were described by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South. At a time of heavy unemployment, when society is under great stress in other respects, the money, resources and intelligent effort devoted to providing for the arts all over Britain should be greatly increased. That is the test that should be applied to the Government. It is applied by some of those who are trying to grapple with our problems.

For the past 10 or more years, there has been a considerable increase in the communities in Wales who support the arts. Of course, the choirs are one of the most notable signs of culture there. The great revival in those areas is due partly to the determination of the communities —all the resources have come from them to recognise that, when faced with this crisis, there must be a great expansion of the arts. That is one way to deal with the problem. Individuals and communities such as mine in Wales are seeking to do that. We do not get anything like the support from the Government that we should have.

I recall the attitude of the previous Labour Governments to the arts. Yesterday, I read an ignorant article in The Times by Mr. Bernard Levin on this subject. Of course, I do not pay for The Times—I read a copy when I come here. Until the Wapping dispute is over, I do not propose to pay any money for it, and I am even less likely to do so having read Mr. Bernard Levin's article. He wrote as though the Labour party were opposed to the development of the arts. Everyone knows what Labour Ministers for the arts have done. Jennie Lee, especially, set new standards for Ministers for the arts. She was not called "Minister for the Arts", but she did that job. She did a splendid job and played a leading role in introducing the Open university. That system was set up when there was fierce competition for resources and the Department of Education and Science and the department with responsibility for the arts were faced with the strain of choosing priorities. Jennie Lee was one of those who insisted on the choice being made by Cabinet. She took the case to Cabinet.

I am proud when I see on the walls of the cottages of mineworkers, steelworkers or others of my constituents certificates from the Open university. Those people have been able to profit from the Labour Government's decision to go ahead with the Open university, despite all the attacks by those against it and the attempts to prevent money from being supplied to it. They ensured that it went ahead on the basis of applying the highest academic standards. I think that everyone recognises that, although I point out that the Government still restrict the amount of money available. The Government should increase the resources available instead of restricting the numbers of people who can make use of a full university education, some of whom might not have been able to take advantage of such education earlier.

One of the most disagreeable features, to put it mildly, of these restrictions is that they are often imposed by people who have had a good university education. Apparently, they are prepared to restrict the opportunities offered to other people. There were elements in the Department of Education and Science who wanted to resist the Open university because they said that there were other priorities. The Open university has now become the biggest university in the land. It is catering for wider and different sections of the community than ever before. That was done at a time of financial crisis and it shows what can be achieved under a Government with the will and imagination necessary to carry such matters further.

I am glad to hear the support that the Government are giving to libraries. However, much more ought to be done. Many of the provincial libraries are having the greatest difficulty in sustaining their service to the community because of the general restraints and cuts that the Government have imposed on the rate support grant. Individual libraries, such as the Fawcett library, are in danger of closing. I know that that is not the Minister's immediate responsibility, but he should be using his influence to try to ensure that resources are provided for that library. The same applies to the museum of labour history and other such institutions. There are many areas where, if the Government had the energy and imagination required, great assistance could be given to ensure that many varied institutions, at a time of social crisis, get the support they deserve. I hope that the Government will not be complacent. I hope that it will not be too far ahead when my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) will be able to take his proper place in the next Labour Government and place the service of the arts in the proper perspective that it should hold in a civilised nation. That is what we want to see.

I wish to refer to one specific matter on which I hope that the Government will give us the backing that I believe they could. It is a matter that I have taken up with the Minister before, but I shall emphasise it again now not just in the interests of the body—the Byron society, of which I am a member—but in the interests of the nation as a whole. The duocentenary of Byron's birth will take place in 1988. It will be a big occasion throughout this country. There will be big celebrations at Cambridge university, where Byron went, much against his will. He would have preferred to go to Oxford, he made that quite clear. There will be celebrations at Newstead and throughout the rest of the country.

It is by no means certain that what we do in this country will not be surpassed by what may happen in many other countries. So great was Byron's fame, so wide his influence and so important the place he holds in the literature of our country and in world literature, that there will be similar celebrations in Greece, Italy, the United States and many other places. There are now nearly 30 Byron societies throughout the world. Recently a society was formed in China and some other parts of the world and it provides a great service to the country as a whole. I hope that the Government will approach this matter in a properly imaginative spirit.

There has been a transformation in Byron's reputation over the past 50 or 60 years. If anybody doubts what I say, they have only to look back at the controversy in 1924 when the last major Byron centenary was arranged, 100 years after his death. At that time there had been so much defamation of his character that it was almost allowed to denigrate his poety, works and achievements. We did not have a Byron society in those days, but those who had gathered to try to present the matter properly to the nation and the world, found they were facing a defensive battle and that they had to present great arguments to protect Byron from the assaults from so many quarters, even 100 years after his death. That protection succeeded and in the past 60 years his reputation has been transformed.

It would be churlish for us in this country to deny the contribution that has been made by those in other countries, especially the Americans. The American scholarship has made great contributions to try to ensure that Byronic literature should be properly represented to the world. Over the past 10 years we have had a magnificent production of Byron's letters by Professor Leslie Marchand — published, naturally, by John Murray. That has now been matched by an almost equally magnificent production of Byron's poetry by Professor McGann, published by Oxford University. Byron is coming home to his first love of Oxford at last and that is a great development.

We certainly acknowledge the worldwide interests, especially the interest of American scholarship. However, we must take account of what has been achieved and contributed in this country.

Among the people at the meeting in 1924, to which I referred, when a few people got together to say that they were determined to protect Byron's reputation from the assaults that were made upon it, was a young and beautiful woman who for almost the first time came to hear about the name of Byron. She later applied her particular aptitude to writing about Byron. I think that everyone who has studied the matter will agree that she has probably written about Byron with greater Byronic wit and imagination than anyone else. I am glad to say that she is still with us. I went to see Doris Langley Moore the other day. Her biographical works, as I have said, have matched any that have come from across the Atlantic and exceeded them in wit and understanding. I am glad to say that she is still alive and radiant and I trust that she will play a prominent part in the celebrations of 1988, just as I hope that the Government will make special efforts to ensure that the occasion is celebrated in a proper spirit.

The best that the Government could do to celebrate the occasion—it does not exclude all the other things—would be to respond to the appeals which have come afresh from the Greek Government for the restoration of the Parthenon marbles to the people and the land of Greece. I know that there have been plenty of arguments about that. I am not asking the Minister to reply now. In fact, I hope that he will not, because I daresay he will give us the old official reply he has trotted out before, and we do not want that. I know that there has been plenty of argument among people who do know the facts. I am not necessarily including the Minister in that respect.

For example, one of the most respected Presidents of the Byron society, William St. Clair, who has written probably the wittiest and most graceful book on the subject, appears to come down against the proposition of the return of the marbles. That does not make the argument conclusive, by any means. There are a whole range of arguments on the other side, especially those advanced by Byron himself. Anyone who reads what Byron wrote could see that he was discussing not only what should happen and why he protested so strongly against the spoliation of the Parthenon, which caused a sense of outrage among Greeks at the time, or about what was happening to Greek heritage— they have as much right to cherish their heritage as we have to cherish ours —but was expressing his sense of ourtrage when he saw great nations trying to trample on the rights of small ones.

Therefore, the great poetry that Byron wrote on that subject was directed not only to what was to happen to the Parthenon marbles, but to the way in which the world was going, and what was to be the reputation of our country in this age and time. One of the things that we shall celebrate in 1988 is the spirit in which Byron looked forward to the ensuing century and more, and foresaw a different role for our country from the one that we were performing at that time. He looked forward to an age when our country would be speaking in the name of freedom, not in the name of an imperial power. He looked forward to the time when we would be able to show our common heritage with all those other countries. It is partly because Byron expressed that almost more successfully and brilliantly than any other of our poets that he commands that worldwide allegiance.

Therefore, I say to the Government: let them not reply to what I am proposing today. Let them consider it carefully, because when the deed is done, the Government who take the final step of restoring the Parthenon marbles to where they belong will be acclaimed for their magnanimity. It would be a good thing for this Government if they did it. However, I am glad to know that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South takes up his position, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) takes his position as Prime Minister, we shall carry out that act of magnanimity. That at least should be some incentive to the Minister and the Cabinet, which I know he has such difficulty in converting to any wise courses on those great matters.

I hope that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will forgive me if I do not follow him too far in his Byronic interlude. As usual, the House listened to him with interest. His eloquence is seductive. As usual, I find that I have to check one or two of the omissions in remarks which, otherwise. are agreeable. The right hon. Gentleman was a little mischievous in trying to divide the loyalties of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) with regard to his educational background and his constituency interest. However, I know that my hon. Friend will look after himself.

The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the Elgin marbles. I was fascinated by the unholy alliance between himself and Melina Mercouri. Perhaps on another occasion he will tell us more of that. He also touched on the history of the Open university, but he was a little partial in not referring to the role played by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in saving it from an early death.

I declare my interest as a parliamentary adviser to the Society of West End Theatre. I should like to talk about the live theatre, particularly the commercial part of theatre. Because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not rehearse the arguments and, indeed, the whole ethos that has given us such splendid live theatre. The figures are well known. My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the scale of theatre going and its role in the tourist industry.

I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister, because the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) said, entirely Fairly, that there is a problem with the arts because it affects so many Government Departments. However, my right hon. Friend has been playing an especially valuable part in trying to co-ordinate efforts on the arts. I hope that I can encourage him to continue to do so in specific areas. I shall refer to other Departments in a moment.

The Minister's part was evident in the transitional arrangements after the abolition of the Greater London council. Again, my right hon. Friend played a signal role in obtaining tax relief for charities, the result of which we saw in the Budget. My right hon. Friend has said that he regards himself as a sponsoring Minister for theatre. I shall return to that matter.

The problems that face commercial theatre can be summed up simply. They are, that it is essentially a high-risk business. Only one in five productions is a major commercial success. Fortunately, there are those who wish to help the theatre, who are popularly referred to as angels. Although, naturally, they would like to see some return on their investment, often they are prepared to take a risk because of the personal association that their backing gives them with the theatre and because of their willingness to see cultural activity that may work on the margin. However, those people need more support, and the theatre itself requires that such people should be encouraged.

The Department of Trade and Industry has a key role to play in the future of our west end theatre and, indeed, in live theatre as a whole. For example, a problem might come up unexpectedly, such as the frequency for radio microphones. Perhaps it will be known to many hon. Members that no major musical production is put on these days without the use of a radio microphone, the frequency of which has to be related to the whole frequency spectrum, taking into account every other radio broadcast. In the recent allocations of frequencies, we have run into problems. If those problems are not resolved, in a production of grand opera or a major musical, there would be a real danger of the leading singer suddenly being interrupted by a message from Joe's Taxis. That problem is serious. I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), and his officials are showing a good deal of commendable urgency in considering the matter. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts is keeping an eye on it, too.

There is one major problem in which the Department of Trade and Industry has a particular role to play, where urgency is needed, and that is on overcharging for tickets. This country, particularly London, has a great reputation of value for money in live theatre. That reputation is suffering due to the activities of an unfortunate minority who have been exploiting the system. The figures, which have been published, are well known.

It affects shows such as "Cats", "Les Misérables", and "Starlight Express" where three times the going rate is the norm according to scalpers' prices. Just the other day, two tickets at £6·50 were sold for £80. Such exploitation is not good for theatre. It is not good. enough for our reputation as a tourist centre, and for broadening the habit of theatre going among the population. It is a manifestation of an Arthur Daley society rather than the best aspects of the Society of West End Theatre that I should like to see. What I find hard is that the society tends to bear the brunt, along with tourist authorities, for complaints.

What can he done to resolve that problem? Several things could be done. I shall not repeat the difficulties that there have been over registering agreements. There was a time, until a few years ago, when registered agreements among theatre owners would have allowed agreements on theatre ticket prices to apply. I can see the argument about opening up competition in other areas, but I am concerned about the side effects and casualties, as in this case.

The most useful way in which the problem could be tackled would be if the Government could bring forward, as a matter of urgency, the Bill on consumer goods and services, on which consultation is now taking place. That legislation is likely to include a proposed code of practice, which will contain an obligation to publish the commission element. If that were done, it would meet the recommendation of the Society of West End Theatre that at all times the full face value and the amount of commission that has been charged should be shown on the ticket.

I hope very much that my right hon. Friend the Minister will feel able to add his voice to the deliberations in the Department of Trade arid Industry. I think that he will be aware, as he represents a south coast constituency next to mine, that the tourist industry is a fragile flower., and if the reputation of overcharging becomes part of the disincentive to come to this country, the effects could extend further than live theatre.

I welcome the tax relief for charities announced in the Budget, although it will do little for the theatre because of the nature of charities. I wish to consider ways of assisting the commercial theatre, given the high element of risk that is involved in its work. Hon. Members have mentioned value added tax. The Minister will know that there is a. belief that the movement towards standardisation in the EEC may lead to change. I hope that he will add his voice to those which say that if we move in the direction of assistance for the arts, it should be in the form of exemptions rather than zero-rating. We must be consistent. Communications must not be seen as subject. to indirect taxation.

As for the tax incentives to the angels — who are sometimes called casual investors, although I prefer the term occasional investors, because it is not a casual process but a high-risk activity—we could return to the pre-1972 position by which tax relief on losses could be offset against other income or capital gains. I recall that there were problems and that people were said to be living on farms which became their country houses. It is not beyond the wit of man—I have already urged this on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to create exemptions which could be related to centres of excellence and to employment. That is certainly the case with the theatre.

More specifically, the Department of Trade ad Industry could consider the implications of legislation affecting limited partnerships. Much of the law governing them is old and relates to the Limited Parterships Act 1907. That limits the number of partners in an enterprise to 20. Section 12 of the Companies Act 1967 contains exemptions to that rule. It is clear to hon. Members that that number is not large enough for theatrical enterprises. One is talking about a band of angels, 100-strong or more. I hope that the Minister can be persuaded to use the powers available in the Act and I hope that he will help in the process of reform.

Only one theatrical production has been financed through the business expansion scheme, so it is a bit early to judge its effectiveness. However, the five-year restriction on tied investment must be seen as a deterrent to theatrical investment. If the scheme is to be reviewed, that matter could be considered.

I have stressed the problems of theatre having to deal with several Departments, and I praise my right hon. Friend the Minister for his role in trying to improve co-ordination. In the recent changes, including the abolition of the GLC, many of us have been worried about the problem of consistency. Even now, it is said that local authorities may wish to take over the activities of the Health and Safety Executive. If that is to be the case, there could be different interpretations of the rules applying to theatres throughout the country. I hope that that might be regarded as no more than a proposal which will be subject to representations, especially for activities which need an overall approach that could be effectively monitored by my right hon. Friend.

If my right hon. Friend has a chance to reply to the debate, will he undertake to examine his Department's ability to make known its views to the Department of Employment before any change is agreed?

Before my right hon. Friend took office, the Society of West End Theatre had been told by the Office of Fair Trading that it could not trace a sponsoring Department for it. At that stage, anyone interested in live theatre was worried about whether they would ever have a proper dialogue with the Government. Of course, a distinction was drawn with the publicly funded sector of the theatre, which had a link with the Arts Council. But that sector has many problems similar to those in the commercial theatre, and it does not rely solely on state funding. It must look to markets for the resolution of many of the problems that I mentioned. But there was a hiatus in the commercial theatre— the area that touches most upon the lives of the majority of our citizens and visitors. My right hon. Friend has stepped into that hiatus. He said that he was in charge of a Department that had a sponsoring role. We are grateful for that, and for his action on transitional problems. I hope that he will not take it amiss—he has broad shoulders—when I say that much remains to be done in other Departments. I count on him to use his influence to carry them forward in the right direction.

The last time that I spoke in a major debate on the arts I mentioned a wide range of subjects. Today, I shall concentrate on a narrow area that is vital to the British people.

In the early 1970s, the experiment of charging entrance fees for art galleries and museums proved to be unpopular and an economic disaster. In 1974, the then Minister for the Arts, Hugh Jenkins, abolished the fees. He was supported in debates on the charges by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who subsequently became Minister with responsibility for the arts. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford believed that legislation should be introduced to prevent the reim-position of admission charges for art galleries and museums. However, today, there are fears that the charges will be reimposed.

It has been denied that the changes in the Government's methods of funding are in preparation for charging admission fees at museums and art galleries. On 11 February this year, The Times said:

"Financial incentives have been announced to encourage national museums and art galleries to charge entry fees."

How have the proposed changes in funding art galleries and museums given rise to such fears?

The Government have latched on to a recommendation in a report from the Select Committee on Education. Science and Arts as a way of making up the shortfalls in running costs imposed by the Government's restrictions on public spending. Hence the encouragement of voluntary admission charges for art galleries and museums. The Select Committee's eighth report of 1981–82, entitled, "Public and Private Funding of the Arts", recommended:

"The 're-vote' procedure for national museums and galleries should be abolished and where they engage in successful trading they should have the right to retain their profits."

No one could disagree with that. The report also recommended that museums and galleries should be encouraged to expand all available sources of income. Again, no one could object to that.

The Government's response in Comnd. 9127 seemed to agree with

"the need to provide incentives to maximise earnings."

Ay, there's the rub. On 26 July 1985, the then Minister for the Arts, Lord Gowrie, said:

"The Government intend to change this system to provide greater incentives for the national museums and galleries both to maximise their receipts (whether by the operations of their Vote-financed trading activities such as shops, by charging for admission where appropriate, or in other ways) and to use these more effectively. This also should improve the institutions' ability to respond flexibility to the needs of their visitors, in hours of opening and other matters…These changes should markedly improve the ability of the institutions to help themselves."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 July 1985; Vol. 466, c. 1541–2.]

All that I can say to that is that Sam Smiles is never dead.

On 10 February 1986, the Government proposed that the present net grants should be grants in aid, the main aim being to provide a tangible incentive to earn revenue, the change taking effect from the 1986–87 financial year. For each institution, it is proposed that there will be a single grant in aid which covers its purchases and its running costs.

To give the institutions a stable basis for their forward planning, the Government do not intend to make any further changes in the arrangements for at least the first three years of the grant in aid system.

I have tried to outline the financial background to the proposals which have led to fears about the imposition of charges at museums and art galleries. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts sought the opinions of distinguished directors of major galleries on the new financial proposals in written and oral evidence. I am a member of that Committee and I took part in discussions with four major directors. I should like to support what Sir Roy Strong said in a letter to the Committee on 24 April:

"our primary concern about the change to grant-in-aid is that the system will be used as a means of reducing government support to the institutions. The Government has given a commitment that, for at least three years, the level of grant will be unaffected by the level of receipts. In real terms, Government support is already reducing: the planning figure (2½ per cent. increase) for the next two years will not keep pace with inflation and does not include a realistic allowance for pay increases outside our control. We fear that our increasing earnings will provide the opportunity for Government funds to be diverted elsewhere. The fact is that current and past funding has been totally inadequate and we shall need every penny of our increased earnings in order for us to achieve the level of performance, efficiency and service to the public which is our aim."

When giving evidence to the Select Committee, Sir Roy said:

"Over the last five or seven years the funding of the V & A and the other national collections has been at an increase which is a figure which Government says inflation is and then there is a pay settlement for the Civil Service which is almost always in excess of that. At the moment we have a 2·9 per cent. increase for 1986–87 but it looks as though there will be a 6 per cent. pay settlement for the Civil Service. That has happened every year for five or seven years. No extra money has been given, whereas in the old days there…'We therefore saw and still see no advantages for us in the Minister's proposal for change, and I believe a majority of the institutions affected shared our view.' Do the other members of the panel share that same view?"

We also heard from Dr. Cossons, another famous director, on 24 April. He agreed with Sir Roy Strong and said:

"We therefore find ourselves in the situation where the increase in the level of basic funding is so far below the level of pay settlements and inflation that it is leading to a state of serious reduction in real terms in the level of museum funding from the Treasury. The implication of this for museums is very serious."

I asked him to expand on that statement and he replied:

"Yes, I think Sir Roy has probably said everything I could say. The national museums are the victims of a system which is a cash limit system in which our grant is related to a predicted inflation rate, and when the salary and wage award is substantially larger than that — and we are all highly labour-intensive organisations—a large part of our budget goes on people. The amount which those people then have to spend to do the job which they are employed to do is seriously diminished so we reduce the staff numbers or both, but the net effect is one of reducing what we can do for our collections and for our public. It was precisely that pressure that propelled the trustees of the National Maritime Museum, on my recommendation, to go for a plural funding approach with admission charges in April 1984—I was Director of the National Maritime Museum until nine weeks ago. The Science Museum has no plans at present to charge admission but it is, nevertheless, faced by exactly the same problem and we have to address that issue within the next six months."

I am convinced that, in all this, there has been completely inadequate funding for our national museums and art galleries. I was appalled some years ago when, during a visit to one of our national museums, there was a thunderstorm and I saw staff running around putting down bowls and buckets to catch the rain water. On making inquiries, I discovered that Government funding for repairing that ancient building was totally inadequate. We had a silly system. The Department of the Environment gave a grant of £1 million for repairs, but the Treasury charged 15 per cent. VAT on those repairs. I suspect that we shall never plug the leaks.

I raised the matter on the Floor of the House at the time. The present Minister said recently in Committee that the Government had gone some way to improve the system by providing more money for repairs. I hope that he will he able to mention that today. The proposed method of funding our museums and galleries is, I believe, merely a back-door method of introducing admission charges to help with the running of our national institutions. If that is so—I invite the Minister to say whether it is or not—it will have a devastating effect on those in our society who cannot afford to pay admission prices—old-age pensioners, the young, the unemployed and the extremely poor.

I hope that the Minister is not about to put the clock back to the 1970s by sending out a message to our citizens that we get what we pay for—the age-old prerogative of the harlot throughout history.

In recent years much has been written and spoken of the significance of increasing leisure time. I should like to contribute to that in terms of the value of the arts during this debate.

From the outset, and despite the ritual carping of the Opposition, it should be recognised and appreciated that the Government have fulfilled the two major strands of their arts policy: to keep up the level of state support and create the conditions in which the arts can develop by attracting additional funds from other sources, and to safeguard Britain's heritage. In the light of the economic difficulties inherited from the Opposition parties that is no mean achievement in more ways than one. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) criticises the picture painted by my right hon. Friend the Minister, but the Government's picture has its provenance and the Opposition's painting is a fake.

The role of the arts in the tourist industry has already received wide analysis and by now should be self-evident. What has apparently received only narrow analysis is the role of the arts vis-a-vis the developing lifestyle of Britons. Clearly, in the short term, with the unfortunate rise in unemployment, more free time has been available to some people. But perhaps of more long-term significance is the positive choice that is being made between work and leisure, and between increased income and increased time off.

Already more people go to the theatre than attend football matches. Indeed, to put that in perspective, more than 40 million people a year attend our museums and galleries. This changing pattern of life needs to be reflected in Government policy decisions and in the actions taken by private enterprise. A good example of such forward thinking is to be seen in the London docklands, where the regeneration of that derelict area seeks a balance between the needs of work and play and those of commercial and residential use.

It is neither sufficient simply to recognise the new importance that has been attached to the arts, nor to expect that the Government should be left to provide the necessary funds. Obviously, there is a role for the Treasury Bench in national funding and fiscal incentives, but there is an even greater role for the arts to increase their income through marketing and self-development. I urge them, as my right hon. friend has done, to step up their efforts in those directions.

While such attention is being devoted to the future it is especially welcome that great value has been placed on our past, because our heritage is strongly bound to the arts. In that context, it should be recalled that at the end of last year the Government acceded to the convention for the protection of the architectural heritage of Europe under the auspices of the Council of Europe. Such a commitment for caring for the past, as further evidenced by a budget of nearly £100 million, will provide valuable opportunities for the arts of the future. Enjoyment of the heritage has become a major pastime of many families and of our foreign visitors.

The logical connections between the arts and the heritage, and between them and the growth of leisure are fully comprehensible, but the schizophrenic attitude towards charging is wholly incomprehensible. I fear I must disagree with some of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan). The public expect to pay to visit a stately home, but not a public museum. Why not? The public expect to pay to attend a theatre or concert hall, but not to pay to visit a public gallery. Again, why not? Voluntary contributions are already pointing the way, especially after the signpost erected firmly by Sir Roy Strong at the Victoria and Albert museum.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he has just mentioned me by name. He asked why we should not charge for entrance to museums. In my speech I pointed out that charges would affect the poorer sections of our community. However, the Institution of Professional Civil Servants has recently done some research on the charges made at the Victoria and Albert museum. It says:

"Thousands of people have been put off visiting one of Britain's cultural meccas…In December 1985, just 66,692 visitors came, compared with 128,005 in December 1984. The November figure was 27,049 down on the same month the previous year. This makes a nonesense of the museum's aim to raise £500,000 through charging from 1,700,000 visitors"

Charging is just nonsense.

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but he must recognise that the contributions made at the Victoria and Albert museum are voluntary. I sought to stress the value of voluntary contributions and the lead to museum and gallery charges by Sir Roy Strong and the Victoria and Albert museum.

Is it possible that the picketing outside the Victoria and Albert museum by civil servants and curatorial staff from neighbouring museums did more to put off visitors than voluntary contributions?

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. It is probably far too early to draw many conclusions about the consequences of contributing at the Victoria and Albert museum. But I believe that economic reality tells us that if—I emphasise "if"— the institution is allowed to keep the finance that it gains through charging, that should be encouraged and will produce beneficial results. Indeed, I think that the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton may agree with me on that. With the necessary safeguards for students and the elderly, and perhaps a free day as is often found on the continent, let us gain the revenue from people enjoying their leisure, and that will include a great number of tourists from overseas. Such gain would enhance our arts and heritage, as the growth in private museums and private galleries that charge has emphatically shown.

Could it not be that the British tourist industry is strong partly because people are attracted to Britain by our free museums and art galleries? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should put that factor into the equation. Moreover, those of us who live in London already pay rates and taxes, so why should we also have to pay admission charges?

One of the great attractions for overseas tourists is the arts and heritage to be found in the United Kingdom. Moreover, I believe that tourists would still want to come to Britain even if they were expected to pay, just as they pay in many other European countries which also have a great arts and heritage to offer to both tourists and their own people. The Government are extremely keen to cut the amount of taxation. Those who wish to contribute further towards the arts and the heritage should have the opportunity to do so through admission charges. Even if the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) does not agree with me, I hope that he will feel that I have answered his points.

As the arts, and with them, the heritage become associated more and more with the leisure activities of the many rather than the personal pursuit of the few, the partnership between the public and private sectors must become more and more realistic, to the benefit of us all.

This is our second full day's debate in 1986 on the arts, and I wish that we were discussing either some proposal from the Government, the Arts Council's budget or its allocation to client groups, rather than indulging in an artistic jog through the arts world. Nevertheless, the debate is welcome.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) mentioned the number of arts questions tabled. Now that we have a Minister able to answer arts questions in this House, there is some point tabling arts questions. However, 10 minutes once a month is hardly sufficient. The average number of questions per month over the past 12 months has been 10, and we are not even getting through those. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for more time for arts questions; that would be supported by both sides of the House.

The House has always had a great interest in the arts, but I detect that that has become sharper in recent years. The arts have taken a higher political profile for two main reasons. First, in part, is the current economic climate, in which even the arts world recognises that it must fight its corner in an era of attempted public expenditure cuts. Secondly, the activities of the local authorities, mainly Labour-controlled, have greatly broadened the definition of arts and therefore the extent of public expenditure on the arts. I use the phrase "expenditure on the arts" rather than "subsidy of the arts" advisedly, because we must get the terminology right. Otherwise we could lose many of the arguments about resource allocation by suggesting that investing in the arts is not a fit and proper way to use public expenditure, whether national or local—it is a soft option, a sort of dream topping, on which one should not spend public money. We hear the terms "defence expenditure" and "arts subsidy". My terminology would be that we invest in arts, education and housing, spend on defence and subsidise agriculture—although that point is rather lost as the Ministers who were in the Chamber a short time ago have now gone. It is important that the terminology is correct.

The definition of what is the arts is not simply metaphysical: it holds the key to the public purse. By broadening the definition of arts and by moving from a rather elitist, essentially 19th century understanding to one that recognises a more popular cultural base means that many more art forms have become eligible for public investment by local authorities and regional arts associations. Therefore, it is essential to keep moving the frontiers of definition within the arts.

There is little doubt that Mozart and Bach would have composed film and television scores and used electronic keyboards and synthesisers. Shakespeare would undoubtedly have written plays for television — indeed, posthumously he has—[Interruption.] Posthumously, he has been given a great deal of television coverage, although, unfortunately, he has not benefited from the repeat fees that he no doubt would have welcomed. It is an interesting point. I believe that it has been said that if we had been able to claim all the copyright fees from Shakespeare since Tudor times, there would never have been a balance of payments problem in this country.

Had Shakespeare been knocking around today, he might also have been contributing to EastEnders and Coronation Street, because he was essentially a commercial playwright who earned his bread.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if Shakespeare had been around today he, like Sam Wanamaker, would not have been allowed to establish a playhouse in Southwark because of the short-sightedness and small-mindedness of Southwark council?

That is an interesting point. I know that Sam Wanamaker has been pushing that idea around for a long time, and I have spoken to him about it in the past. I should very much like a playhouse to be established in Southwark on the site of the old theatre. I believe that it would add a great deal to London, provided that we did not start treating the arts merely as heritage. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) rather suggested that he still sees the arts as heritage, but Shakespeare was very radical in his day. Had he been around today, some Conservative Members might have said that his plays were too political and should not receive GLC subsidy. Those are all interesting points, but I agree with the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) that that theatre should be established in Southwark.

To correct any misunderstanding, I should make it clear that I do not necessarily equate the arts with heritage. Like the hon. Gentleman, I accept that there is a great role for the living arts and looking towards the future. On the subject of Shakespeare, does the hon. Gentleman accept that Shakespeare was an excellent example of private sponsorship and that succeeding Governments could have gained considerably from such sponsorship?

The GLC was not around at the time, but had we been around I am sure that we would have given Shakespeare a grant.

I am sure that the GLC, especially under my hon. Friend's chairmanship, would have given Shakespeare a grant. It would then no doubt have been attacked by Conservative Members for profligacy.

As many people subsequently realised, Shakespeare to some extent re-wrote history in favour of the Tudors, which may have had something to do with the source of his funding.

In his day and posthumously, Shakespeare was one of the richest men of all time, but the GLC would no doubt have given him a grant all the same.

If he was that rich, he would no doubt have been contributing a great deal in tax and rates./

I feel that the drift of my speech has been somewhat lost, although I am glad to have stimulated so much activity on the Tory Benches. One could go on to talk about Leonardo da Vinci using photography and video but I shall not go into any further examples for fear of raising too much interest among Conservative Members. I have used those examples to demonstrate the clear link between art forms and the state of technology, a link which is not recognised in the enabling legislation relating to the arts.

The Local Government Act 1972 defines culture very much in 19th century terms—classical orchestral music, ballet, opera and art galleries—and no one would deny that they are art forms, but 20th century art forms such as television, photography, video, record distributions, community radio and community bookshops simply do not figure in that legislation. That is important. because, although authorities such as the GLC tried hard to promote cultural diversity, we found the legislation serverely lacking and at times exceedingly frustrating when we sought to extend the range of arts organisations to be funded.

The Minister, in his opening speech, congratulated the Government on muting the impact of the abolition of the GLC. In our last debate on this, I said that within six to 12 months

"Up to 100 arts organisations in London could cease to exist". — [Official Report, 28 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 1183.]

I would not wish to change one word of that, because the impact will be felt most in the ethnic and community arts sectors. It will not be evident to Ministers and hon. Members but it will be felt deeply by the communities affected.

Last Monday I asked the Minister a question about the black arts centre at the Roundhouse. I have received a letter from Remi Kapo who is doing his best to get things going at the Roundhouse. He says:

"I feel that it is unrealistic of the Arts Minister to expect a centre like the Roundhouse, in the light of the social situation that exists in Britain today, to be able to raise £8·5 million without the direct assistance of the state".

Now that the GLC has gone, the only source in London of capital money for the arts has also gone. The Arts Council has got rid of its housing the arts budget. Capital constraints on local authorities are such that they cannot make capital contributions. Where can the black arts centre at the Roundhouse go for the money? I ask the Minister at least to meet representatives from the Roundhouse so that they can explain their position to him and so that he can consider their plight more sympathetically

When I walked into the Chamber today I had already predicted exactly who would be here because the subject attracts the same crowd. I recall years ago going to watch footbal matches. I turned up on the terrace and knew exactly who would be standing nearby and who would get the Bovril at half-time.

Some right hon. and hon. Members believe that we should not provide money for the arts. They believe that the arts should stand or fall according to their resources. The matter comes up frequently at Question Time. The arts have been supported from outside for a long time. We enjoyed a diversion earlier when we discussed Shakespeare. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the patronage of individuals enabled the arts to flourish. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the state has had that role. The state, on behalf of us all, not as an alien creation, invests in the arts. But many are still reluctant to acknowledge the state's role in cultural matters. Many think of the arts as an elusive private world rather than a complex social, economic and political structure.

The state works through non-elected quangos, which are given an assumed indentity to make them look as if they are elected bodies. They are described as councils. I think of the Arts Council the Sports Council, the British Council and the Press Council. The illusion is that they are democratic, but we know that they are not.

The state attempts to obscure its role in policy matters by adopting such spurious devices as the arm's length principle. I reject that principle. It is intendend to take the arts out of politics, but it does not. This debate is in a political forum. Under the arm's length principle Government influence is by remote control.

The appointees to all the quangos described as councils tend to reflect the same view of the world as the politicians who make the appointments. That is only human and is as true of a Labour Government as of a Conservative Government. This shows the high level of hypocrisy that exists in British politics all the time and not only now. We delude ourselves if we say that politics can be removed from certain areas of activity. It is said more and more in the House, especially by those who do not like what is going on in the various spheres of social activity, that politics should be taken out of education, the Civil Service, health and the arts, and Mr. Widdicombe more or less suggested that we should take politics out of local government. That cannot be done. We in this place should know as well as anyone that politics are central to all aspects of society's organisation, even to the quality of the air that we breathe. At one time we could say that the graveyard was the only place where politics did not intrude, but given the controversy surrounding the death benefit I am not sure about that now.

I have been assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, that the next Labour Government will set up a Ministry of culture that will cover all cultural activities. It will operate as far as possible through elected local authorities.

The Minister has made great play about the amount of money that is being spent on the arts. I do not want to detain the House for too long by going through all the different forms of analysis that can be presented to show that instead of spending large sums on the arts, the Government have removed funding.

If I could find the document among all the detritus on the Bench from which I am speaking, I would refer the Minister to a statement that has been issued by the Arts Council which shows that on the basis of the retail price index—this was argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South—the arts have lost out in real terms since the Government were elected.

I shall not cross swords with the Minister on that arid topic. I shall merely contrast the amount that we spend on defence, which is £18,000 million a year, with the budget for the arts that is operated through the Minister's Office. Only 0·6 per cent. of the Government's expenditure for 1985–86 was directed to the arts. The values of a society that can spend such vast sums on weapons of death and destruction and so little on great creativity that the arts present for the people as a whole are all wrong.

We spend money on the arts because it is one of the finest areas of public investment in both social and economic terms. It is an investment in human creativity and there is no finer investment that we can make. It is in the arts and through the arts that we see people at their best, whether they are producers or consumers. The Minister has said that there are more people enjoying the arts than enjoy football matches. and that is true. Also we tend not to get the crowd violence at the opera house that we see, unfortunately, at football matches from time to time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South, has said that the Labour party would invest heavily in the arts. That is because the arts remove the blinkers from our eyes. The artist can convey powerful messages about the nature of the society in which a people live. That is why over the years, and in different systems, the artist has found that books have been burned and work has been suppressed. That has happened because of the immensely powerful medium that the arts presents for those who want to get over a message, and that is why the next Labour Government will invest in the arts in a big way. It is one of the finest forms of investment, and through the flourishing of the arts the British people will perhaps understand more of the nature of the society in which they live.

If cultural activity is taken as a whole, it is an extensive industry. The Musicians Union produced some evidence recently to show that copyright produces about 2·5 per cent. of gross national product. The amount is greater than that produced by the motor car industry and the food manufacturing industry. That shows the size of the cultural industries we are considering.

According to the institute of employment research at Warwick university, jobs in the leisure, artistic and sports category are set to increase by 30 per cent. during the 1980s. When that is added to the £6,000 million produced by the tourist industry, it can be seen that the cultural institutions are an enormous industry. The industry needs more planning, support and encouragement than it is getting from the Government. I look forward to the day when my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South, as Secretary of State, with a full Cabinet position — the head of a Ministry of culture— will unveil to a packed House—there will be more people in it than there are today—the new, cultural industry strategy of the new Labour Government.

I am not in complete disagreement with what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said. I shall present my case to the House. My first book was published when I was 26 years of age. It was the first of 14 books which I have written. That book is about to be reissued. I never received a penny of public money to be an historian and to write my books. I am a supporter of Government assistance and support for the arts. I should like the hon. Gentleman and the House to hear in mind that some people who entered the fields of music, art and literature have had to do so alone. Perhaps we have been better off—not financially —as a result.

I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Blaenau, Gwent (Mr. Foot) is not present. I thought that it was fairly typical to try to attract Byron back to Oxford from Cambridge. I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman because he was the author of "The Pen and the Sword", which I still regard as one of the finest biographies, if not the finest, written in the past 30 years.

I welcome the opportunity to make a brief intervention, not least because it is the first occasion I have had to congratulate, publicly, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts on his appointment. He and I served happily in the Foreign Office under the leadership of Lord Carrington. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is in his present position. Perhaps I should declare an interest in public lending right in that last year over 20,000 people borrowed my books. As this week has been, so far, the best week for higher education in this Parliament, I hope that this benign generosity will continue.

As the House is aware, there are five university museums—Cambridge, Oxford, Birmingham, London and Glasgow—whose costs are still met exclusively from the budget of the University Grants Committee. There has been a consistent annual reduction in the universities' budgets, in real terms, of 2 per cent. That has had a particularly strong effect on the universities and museums which are inevitably at the bottom of the list of priorities.

If I declare a personal interest in the case of Fitzwilliam museum in Cambridge, it is not simply because it is in my constituency. My father's first cousin, the late Montague Rhodes James, who was most famous for his ghost stories, was the provost of King's and Eton, and the second director of the Fitzwilliam.

With the exception of occasional donations and assistance for acquisitions, the museums are still treated as though they are part of universities; whereas in reality they are national institutions of real quality and importance. I remember, as a schoolboy, the great benefit I received from the Ashmolean in Oxford. The museums are not just for the universities; they are for the people of the cities, visitors, tourists and scholars. To regard them simply as part of the universities is, in my view, a ridiculous anachronism. I have made that point to previous Secretaries of State and I reiterate it to the new one. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts to discuss this matter with the new Secretary of State and to look hard at this lamentable anachronism.

Obviously, we in Cambridge are delighted by the news that the Royal Observatory is coming to Cambridge. We are grateful for the student grant review. As the vice-president of the appeal fund for Ely cathedral, I am delighted by the help that we have received from John Paul Getty II and the deserved honour that he has received. As trustee of the Cambridge symphony orchestra, I have looked again at the way in which the Budget has assisted the arts and the heritage.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts in his discussions with the my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will, while thanking and praising him for the changes in the Finance Bill, emphasise that this is a good first step but should not be regarded as the end of encouragement to business, industry and individuals to invest and to promote not only their past but their children's future in all elements of the arts.

I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. and to the Minister for having to leave after my contribution but I have to attend an important artistic event in my constituency — my daughter is dancing in the local festival —and I am committed to being there to see that major achievement.

It is a good excuse.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks so.

The Minister hit the nail on the head when he commented on the lack of Social Democratic party policy on the arts. That lack is regrettable but I am pleased to say, and I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to hear, that we hope that the SDP's new policy on the arts will be produced by the end of July. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will eagerly await a copy. I am sure that it is aimed in the right direction.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that, if that document is produced by the SDP, it will not immediately be repudiated by its leader?

I shall come later to the finer details of how we arrived at that policy.

The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) rightly drew attention to the quote that he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) used. They drew the attention of the arts world and the population generally to the importance of the newer forms of the arts, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). They both used the examples of "The Boys from the Blackstuff" and "Cathy Come Home".

Did I?

The hon. Member for Paisley, South did so. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West drew attention to the lack of importance given to new forms of the arts.

Hon. Members used those programmes to stress the importance of the artistic ability of the writer and the performer to bring across to the population the many things that were wrong in society and the reasons why there had been deterioration to such an extent that the new form of television production was the only effective way of getting them across. That is an important point.

It is no secret that there has always been a certain unease in the relationship between artists and politicians. It has been increased of late by the master and servant relationship which has been such a feature of the Tory approach. That unease could be dispelled if the arts were made an issue of state. The arts are generally in need of that reassurance. I am glad to say that the alliance is pledged and committed to make the arts an essential part of its political manifesto at the next general election.

There is no civilised society that does not recognise and respect artistic endeavour. There can surely be no healthy society where the arts are not vital to society's well-being. I hope that there is no future Government, of whatever persuasion, who do not aim to encourage the arts and to promote public participation in and appreciation of the arts.

An effective cultural policy cannot be separated from the philosophy which it informs. Equally, it must embody a vision of society and an awareness of the consequences of current social change. At no time in recent history has our society faced such a rapid and overpowering change as it does now. It is a technological and social change for which our political institutions are, regrettably, insufficiently prepared. Meanwhile, two issues are being pushed from the political fringe to the main stream of the new political agenda and that push is long overdue. Those two subjects are the arts and the environment. Therefore, the importance of a cultural policy as an essential part of any political party's manifesto has never been more apparent or more important.

In the 1960s much argument was devoted to what was labelled the technological society of the future. That future is now with us. Much has also been written about the increased leisure time, a concept which many hon. Members justly feel has been done to death. Yet increased leisure time has arrived for a significant number of people in the form of dehumanising and debilitating unemployment. How can questions concerning educational objectives be answered satisfactorily? I shall try to expose the weakness in the current policy and what we should be doing in the future to answer that undoubted need.

In a post-industrial society the arts policy has a vital educational role to play, offering a range of solutions to questions about lifestyle and the use of time in the increasingly leisured age in which we find ourselves. It is not always commonly assumed that the Government have responsibility for leisure and the creation of pleasure. However, the ancient and unquestioned issues of state, such as defence, education and health, are merely self-serving if detached from the more central objective; the creation of a civilised society which combines work with leisure and labour with pleasure. The arts are inseparable from a civilised society and we must accept, once and for all, that the arts are an issue of state in their own right and should be recognised as such.

The structural reform which I believe we undoubtedly need is having to be looked at seriously and hopefully that reform will take place. Nowhere is the divorce of the arts from the old issues of state more apparent than in the structure of the state support for the arts. The machinery of government is at fault. Broadcasting comes under the Home Office, heritage comes under the Department of the Environment, the arts in education comes under the Department of Education and Science, the promotion of arts abroad comes under the Foreign Office. the subsidised arts are sponsored by the Office of Arts and Libraries and the commercial arts, until 1985, were primarily a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry.

Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, any Government structure more calculated to avoid all possibility of a coherent cultural policy? We must not continue to bind ourselves in a deep-rooted fear of a centralised Ministry of culture. We should all urge the Government and any future Government to reform the structure to create that Ministry, which is undoubtedly needed, and in whose support so many hon. Members have spoken.

I am glad to say—I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Paisley, South to this point—that I and my colleagues in the Social Democratic party have at long last got our act together as regards our arts policy and our Liberal partners have devoted much of their time to the debate. Although our deliberations have been independent, I am glad to say that on this issue we came to the same conclusion.

There are basic and practical reasons why there should be a Ministry for the Arts, combining the areas of common purpose, such as the arts and libraries, broadcasting and film. It is equally right and important that the Minister for the Arts should have Cabinet status. I hope that the alliance, if in a position of power, will propose that that responsibility should be exercised by one of the three non-departmental Cabinet Ministers, with the day-to-day responsibility resting with a Minister of State.

The cultural quangos which have been spoken about by other hon. Members are things that the alliance would like to see fundamentally changed. We also share the anxiety over the position of non-Government cultural bodies such as the Arts Council, the BBC, the British Film Institute, the Museums and Galleries Commission and the Crafts Council. The concept of freedom and choice has come to be embodied in the arms length principle that other hon. Members have mentioned. However, that important principle has increasingly come under attack from Right and Left. I suggest that the Left denies its continued usefulness as a principle, while the Right abuses it by appointing to the quangos those who share the same political preferences.

We in the alliance deplore those positions, and find them wholly unacceptable. We favour the retention of at least some quangos, but we are equally committed to radical reform of quangos by having directly elected people from regional organisations on them. Hon. Members might make the normal accusation that a balancing act is apparent in those suggestions but, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) said, what is needed is for change to be taken a step at a time. The abolition of quangos in some areas and better ways of appointing members of quangos are the first steps that we should take. Therefore, I feel that the setting up of a Ministry is of prime importance, to give the arts the involvement that they undoubtedly need.

I refer to the financing of the arts. Now that they are under pressure to offer a wider-ranging and more comprehensive service to society, it is obvious that extra resources must be found for them, yet no Government —I make no exception for the alliance—can promise that vast increases in funds will be readily available: nor can the arts simply mark up their prices and still maintain access to everyone.

There is a need for local authorities to produce a four-year arts development plan for submission to their regional arts associations, which could issue challenge funds for a range of agreed developments over that four-year planning period. The main concern would be to enable an expansion of resources by a participative approach, which would buttress the arts grant system with tax incentive structures and other legislative and fiscal measures. That w ill undoubtedly become apparent in our document, which I hope will be published by the end of July.

One effective method of encouraging private citizens to give to the arts would be to extend direct tax breaks to the private donor. That would attract greater spontaneity of generosity than is currently possible under the unwieldy four-year covenant system, and it would provide an obvious incentive to the donor to do more.

I have outlined some of the ways of financing the arts, but it must be stressed that direct Government expenditure must be forthcoming and must be seen in a more creative way than it is now. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have talked about the difficulties in which many people in the arts find themselves over VAT, and hon. Members have also rightly brought to the attention of the Minister the National Campaign for the Arts' latest handout, which refers to the sum of £140 million a year that the Exchequer gets directly from the arts. What a major step forward it would be if such resources could be directed back to the arts. What a major boost it would be at all levels if that innocuous sum could be put aside. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the points made by his colleagues on that matter.

The first phase of any increase should aim to achieve a fairer balance of expenditure between regions where investment in the arts has been low and metropolitan London where investment has been highest. The second phase should allow a general increase in per capita expenditure throughout the country. The implications of an enlightened arts policy extend far beyond the artistic community. The advance of information technology and cable and satellite will pose fresh challenges not only to a Government but to an artistic world through the 1990s and into the next century.

The increase of tourism and leisure time will necessitate the upkeep of Britain's cultural image and the expansion of its cultural resources. The political view that there are no votes in the arts is outdated and misguided. The alliance has the will to act as a catalyst to the abundance of British artistic talent and to invest in that potentially powerful industry. The failure of any political party or politician to recognise that would be a major folly.

My constituency of Portsmouth is rich in heritage and flourishing in the arts world. Nevertheless, the only theatre in the city of Portsmouth, the King's theatre, is under grave threat, once again through lack of resources and the lack of ability to produce the goods that are needed in an area with a population of nearly 250,000 people. Once again, VAT has grave implications for the organisation that runs the theatre. Valued though its attempts are to sustain the theatre, it cannot go on indefinitely trying to achieve what is best artistically in the city of Portsmouth. I do not want that theatre to close, or the theatre to suffer in my constituency. The Government should be committed to helping theatres such as the King's theatre and others in the south which are struggling. That can be done only if there is a change of heart in the Government towards the way in which they treat the arts in general and theatres in particular.

In an area so rich in heritage as Portsmouth and Hampshire, enormous bonuses could he obtained from investment in the right area, not only by creating more tourism but by creating instant jobs by opening more of our heritage to more people. It is sad that, after 50 to 60 years, people will be charged to visit HMS Victory. The same is true for museums. Charges will be a deterrent to people taking their families to visit major attractions such as HMS Victory. There is so much wealth in our heritage that the Government should be able to identify areas of special interest and place resources there. A few million pounds invested in pump-priming exercises would show a return not only of many hundreds of jobs but of countless millions of pounds brought into the country through tourism.

I hope that today's debate is not exceptional, and that we need not wait another two years for a debate on the arts. The hon. Member for Paisley, South said that the previous large-scale debate on the arts was on 14 June 1984. That is interesting, because it is the day on which I was elected to the House.

We cannot have everything can we?

The excuse that day was that many Tory Members had to be in Portsmouth, South, defending that Tory seat from my challenge. Their presence hindered their candidate's ambitions of getting here, and helped mine. It was distasteful that the Government used my by-election and the European elections to hide the arts debate then, and they are using a Friday today.

I hope that the number of hon. Members who have taken part in the debate shows the Minister that he has the sympathy of the House. All that he needs is the strength to take this issue to the Cabinet and get more resources from the Government.

I apologise for leaving the Chamber now, but on this occasion my family is more important than this place.

The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) indulged in a romantic reverie about the ideal future—the Socialist utopia—in which the arts would be fully funded by the state, or fully directed by the state. Did he take into account the reality in areas where local authorities have a responsibility to promote the arts but have reacted in a small-minded and philistine way? I cite examples in my constituency. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) kept his conscience clean by saying that he did not buy The Times, but he took advantage of the copies in the Library. Such privileges are not available to my constituents who cannot read some newspapers in the public libraries because of the censorship exercised by Southwark borough council. The council refuses to stock some newspapers, for political reasons. Is that the generous attitude to the arts which the Socialist authorities of the future will adopt? If it is, we should note it now.

I noted also the patronizing—if not denigrating and disparaging — way in which the hon. Member for Paisley, South quoted the firm which said that it wished to sponsor only those exhibitions with which it felt comfortable. Has he considered the activities with which Socialist Councils feel comfortable? In my constituency, there is a fine heritage site at Nunhead cemetery. It is a remarkable legacy from the past. Through beneficial neglect, it has become a nature reserve with wildlife exceptional in south London. An enthusiastic band of people have formed themselves into the friends of Nunhead cemetery to help to preserve and conserve it and to ensure that the facilities are made known to the area and treasured by it. But they are prohibited by the restrictive trade union attitudes of Southwark borough council from taking any part in maintaining the paths or clearing the ground.

Is that the way to harness enthusiasm for and participation in the arts? Is this how a Socialist authority will in future supervise, mastermind and direct the arts? If so, there is every reason to have "The Glory of the Garden", with a great deal of diverse funding and activities, rather than one central coherent cultural policy. That would be the dead hand which would devastate the flowering of the arts.

The Globe playhouse and Shakespeare's role in Southwark was referred to earlier, and I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is now present. We have seen the absurd hostility which Southwark council has directed towards this imaginative scheme, and I wonder whether the Opposition spokesman for the arts will use his influence to assist Southwark council towards enlightenment and to encourage it to reconsider the matter.

It is interesting to note that Shakespeare, who has been prayed in aid for the Opposition's view, worked at diverse levels. He produced great art, as we now recognise it; he produced popular entertainment, as we might now perceive it; and he was involved in a commercial activity which made great profit, to the ultimate benefit of the community at large. Edward Alleyn, the actor-manager of Shakespeare's company, made a great fortune which he used to establish schools in the southern end of the borough in Dulwich. He left other charitable bequests for the care for the young and the elderly.

I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was about to claim that Shakespeare was one of his constituents. Returning to the reconstruction of the Globe in Southwark, has the hon. Gentleman spoken to the Minister to see whether any funds are coming from that source, because Southwark borough council is extremely hard-pressed?

It is a matter of planning rather than of funding, and the hon. Gentleman may like to use some of his influence on his Socialist colleagues on Southwark council. If we could overcome their inexplicable hostility to an imaginative cultural centre, it would do a great deal to regenerate life in an otherwise deprived part of London. I know that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will forgive me for putting it in that way. I wish that Southwark council would think again. What I say will have no influence, but what the Opposition say may influence it.

From Edward Alleyn's schools and almshouses came the offshoot of a most interesting private gallery, the Dulwich picture gallery. I shall not go into its history, but a series of incidental and almost accidental events produced a magnificent collection of pictures of worldwide fame and status. The gallery is private -and responsible for its own upkeep, but it has harnessed the community to it in a most constructive way. It makes an entry charge. I have no qualms about that, because many people are prepared, and indeed happy, to pay to see this great private benefaction. It has brought into play the friends of the Dulwich gallery who give of their services, time, expertise and enthusiasm voluntary to ensure that the gallery is staffed in a way which would not be possible if salaries had to be paid for their attendance.

I am grateful to the Minister's predecessor for looking favourably on the appeal launched by the Dulwich gallery to improve its security. It received sums from institutional donors, individuals and the Government, for which the people of Dulwich are extremely grateful. The Dulwich picture gallery appeal had a mixed bunch of contributions, rather than funding from a single source. I see that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is present. In a previous incarnation he made some contribution to the Dulwich gallery as chairman of the arts committee of Greater London council. It was gratefully received, but it was not without strings, whereas that which came from Government came freely and without any pressure.

Multiple funding and support is a strength of arts provision in Britain. I hope that I shall be forgiven by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) if I trespass into his constituency, but I recently came upon a most interesting form of private enterprise provision in the arts, which, perhaps, cannot be found elsewhere.

A private gallery has been established on the island of Portland on the Chesil beach. Those who walk along that wild, romantic seafront come across a small stone building which is an art gallery. One might not think of that part of Portland as a centre of arts excellence, but this gallery plays a full part in community life there. It is multi-faceted. It recently mounted an exhibition on the work being done to improve the seaworthiness of the Chesil beach. The firm of civil engineers involved sponsored an exhibition at the gallery to show the local community what is happening. The arts are being used as a form of communication and community adherence there.

The gallery was founded by an enthusiastic individual who had been a teacher in an art school. She wants to give young artists who are unable to get sponsorship through commercial galleries or those who wish to display their work without going through the difficulties of mounting an exhibition in a big gallery the opportunity to show their work while living in the gallery. That has not been promoted by the local authority or the Arts Council: it might be described as private patronage. It is the sort of initiative to be encouraged.

I fear that, if we had a Minister of culture and a "coherent culture and arts policy", there would be no momentum for such private promotion. The opportunity would still exist, but without that blend of enthusiasm, challenge and a hint of commerce it would lack spark. I wholeheartedly applaud the approach which my right hon. Friend the Minister has taken. We should not look to just one source to finance the arts. We should seek pluralism. In that way, we will ensure the strength of the arts so that they may flourish, their independence assured.

No Opposition Member would disagree with the hon. Member for Dulwich (M r. Bowden) about a plural approach to the arts. We complain that the Government are neglecting their resposibilities as part of that plurality.

The hon. Member for Dulwich will remember that the Minister's predecessor, Lord. Gowrie, had a high profile as the Minister with responsibility for the arts. When he was Minister, the arts were on the political agenda. At least, the Minister was on television. That might not be quite the same thing, but Lord Gowrie felt that the two were synonymous. Unfortunately, the energy and activity that he brought to the arts and art policy was almost wholly destructive.

Under the new Minister, the Government have returned to the more usual quietude, near passivity, even, possibly, torpor in regard to arts policy. Perhaps most people in the arts world would say that that passivity is preferable to the damage wrought by his predecessor.

If someone cannot do good, he should at least do nothing. The Minister's languid non-style demonstrated just how that passive attitude towards the arts has developed in the Government's thinking. I listened carefully to the Minister's speech and shall take up some of his points. He laid down what he believed was an adequate framework for the arts. He used words such as challenge, tremendous, outstanding, and immense, which were all verbal attempts to inject vigour into a policy that was noticeable for its lack of it. No amount of tired adjectives can hide the complete inadequacy of the Government's policy towards the arts.

The Minister said that after 10 years, business sponsorship now amounted to £20 million out of his figure of £320 million spent on the arts. That is less than 7 per cent. It was complained that that was not even on the margin. One must agree that 7 per cent. represents a very marginal element of expenditure on the arts. The Minister also referred to private patronage and spoke about the generosity of John Paul Getty and the not entirely unconnected fact that he was made a knight. He also mentioned Mrs. Sainsbury—perhaps she can expect to be made a dame in the near future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that the Government's policies were more like those pursued in the 19th century. Typically, he was being too generous. In lauding private patronage, the Minister was bravely leading the country back to the 18th century. The Government can certainly take no credit when it comes to funding the arts. They are doing little to promote private patronage through tax incentives even though that might be consistent with their views.

Undoubtedly some very good things flow from private patronage. One need think only of the Sainsbury bequest to the University of East Anglia, which represents a most remarkable embellishment of that part of the world and is much to be welcomed. But such bequests reflect no credit on the Government and do not represent an adequate national policy for the arts. The Minister also referred to Budget changes, and to immense opportunity. Perhaps he could put some figures on that benefit. He shakes his head, because he probably knows full well that those changes will have a minimal impact on the arts. If he demurs, he should tell us what the benefit to the arts would will be in cash terms.

The Minister also exhorted people to attend performances. We would all agree with that, as it is a fine and laudable aim. But it is riot an adequate policy for expanding the range and variety of audiences or for making the arts available to everyone. His words would have more impact if he was prepared to put pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to abolish VAT on the performing arts. That, together with a more expanded economy would have an effect on audiences

The Minister made great play of marketing and claimed that Opposition Members and many of those in the arts thought that marketing was a dirty word. That is absolute nonsense. One of the best examples of marketing the arts that the world has ever known was supplied by the Labour-controlled GLC. It did more than anyone to promote, energise and excite people about the arts in Greater London. Marketing was its speciality. When the GLC existed, one could not open a newspaper without seeing well-designed, attractive and seductive advertisements telling people to visit the South bank or other projects. One seldom sees such advertisements for the South bank now, perhaps because the South bank is under-financed and cannot promote its programmes which were, of course, inherited from the GLC.

Thus the Government's policy is one of marketing, increased exhortation to attendance, tax changes, private patronage and business sponsorship. They are the old Conservative nostrums. They all have a part to play, and no one doubts that. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) made it clear that the Labour party believes in a pluralist approach. All of those aspects of policy have a role to play, but they do not add up to a national policy. Thus the Government's policy is totally inadequate. The Government do not even begin to address the wider variety of the arts or the need for experimentation, for education, and for community arts, or the needs of rural areas, public libraries and arts centres. All those things must play a role in the arts, but none of them is assisted by any of the policies outlined by the Minister.

The truth is that this Government have created a crisis in the arts that has demoralised artists and administrators throughout the country. If the Minister listens to those he meets when he travels throughout the country, he will know that that is true. If he has not heard that, he has not met the right people. Those administering or creating the arts and the audiences say that the Government's policies. are wholly inadequate. The Minister must be deaf or be: meeting only a selective range of people because one has. to tread carefully to meet people in the arts world who congratulate the Government on their policies.

Some vital and exciting things are happening in the arts because of the Arts Council, such as the building of the Victoria theatre in Stoke-on-Trent — the first purpose-built theatre in the round in this country, rather amazingly. It will be a magnificent theatre and I urge the Minister to visit it. We are grateful to the Arts Council and local authorities for making it possible. However, that does not disguise the fact that so much could and should be happening that is new, exciting and good in the arts. That is not happening because the arts are under funded and administrators are being distracted by having to rush around defending their budgets against inflation and other factors.

The Minister mentioned funding, especially that for the Arts Council. Can he confirm that in a recent letter to the Arts Council—which I understand is not confidential—he indicated that the 1987–88 grant would include an increase of only 2·5 per cent? Can he further confirm that such an increase would be below the likely rate of retail price index inflation? Does he, as a fair-minded man, accept that RPI inflation is not the same as inflation in the arts, which are very labour-intensive? The arts have particular problems, so even if the grant were protected against the normal rate of inflation, it would not be adequate to protect the Arts Council's clients in that year. I should be grateful if the Minister would answer those points when he replies.

If I am right in my fear, the Minister must admit that it is a cut in real terms, and inevitably the whole regional development thrust of the Arts Council will have to be frozen. The Minister will know from previous debates that I am not one who fully likes "The Glory of the Garden". I accept that it was probably better than nothing as a regional policy, but although its critique that too much money was being centralised on London was correct, its remedy and treatment were faulty. There is a danger that it will simply recreate in the centres of excellence the same imbalance regionally as hitherto there was nationally.

There must be a dimension to "The Glory of the Garden" for rural areas, arts centres, diversity and touring, which did not have a look in in that document. However, I accept that it is the right direction for the Arts Council, if the wrong specific development. If the Arts Council is to suffer a cut in real terms yet again, that policy will probably have to go as well.

The Minister attempted to make us believe that everything was fine with funding for metropolitan counties. That is not true. Because of the work of local authorities—and no thanks to the Minister—the damage from abolition that could have been wrought on the arts has, for this year, been prevented to some extent. I welcome last week's agreement with Merseyside city council about funding. However, the Minister must acknowledge that even that agreement will leave half a dozen clients—for example, the Philharmonic hall—with a shortfall of funds.

The Minister's idea that everything is fine on Merseyside and elsewhere is simply not true and he knows that because he is a fair-minded man. The situation may not be so bad as some of us feared, but that is thanks to the local authorities. All is far from well this year and the impact of abolition for the metropolitan areas in 1987–88 will be grim indeed. Is it true that the Arts Council funds to address the problems of abolition in 1987–88 are to be tapered from £25 million to £21 million? Is the Minister still asking local authorities to find £4 million more, and how does he intend to resolve that problem? Will he urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to release local government from its financial constraints so that it can address that and the many other problems facing it?

There is one further specific point to be dealt with in this catalogue of questions about the Arts Council. Will the Minister side with the Arts Council in its attempt to get a fair deal for visual artists and photographers who, in my view and that of experts who know far more about the subject than I do, are being put in a highly invidious position by the Government's failure to ratify and implement the Berne convention. As I am sure the Minister knows, counsel's opinion is that section 4(3) of the Copyright Act 1956 is in contravention of the Berne convention and is enormously to the prejudice of visual artists and photographers. Will the Minister join the Arts Council in putting pressure on the Department of Trade and Industry to resolve the matter and to ensure that new legislation equalises the position and brings it into line with the Berne convention? I think that that will cost the Minister nothing, but the arts world, and especially the visual arts, will be extremely grateful.

To return to my central point about the funding of the Arts Council in the metropolitan areas, the whole thrust of expansion of the arts in those areas has been lost. The money may have been saved, but the enormous drive that those authorities — as bodies as well as funding organisations — to expand the arts in those areas has been lost, together with the impulsion towards new audiences and new ways of looking at arts provision and further expansion of arts content. The metropolitan authorities and even the GLC had only begun a process that must continue for the good of the arts world. They gave a brief glimpse of the kind of arts culture that would benefit this country and reflect all aspects of life in this country, an arts culture that would reflect in our cities and rural areas the views, aspirations and ideals of minorities as well as wider communities, of those who dissent from what the Government are doing as well as those who applaud it, those who are suffering under the Government as well as those in other parts of the country who are prospering, those who are angry at what is happening in our society and wish to change it as well as those who are content. The arts policy of the metropolitan counties allowed that variety of expression and that kind of vision of the world in which we live, and that is what the arts should be doing.

The metropolitian counties were also starting to increase the audience for the arts as well as training in the arts, but there is a great deal more to do. I am sure that the Minister, like other hon. Members, will have received letters from constituents who have enormous talent, or whose children have enormous talent, but cannot go to the drama, dance and music schools that they need, and to which the country needs them to go, because they can no longer obtain discretionary awards. Some of the most frustrating and tragic constituency cases involve young people with talent, ability and great enthusiasm whom local authorities are having to inform that there is no money for discretionary awards so they cannot help them develop into dancers, visual artists or actors. The Government are saying, "If you have money, fine, you have a chance to develop. If you have no money, tough luck." That is not fair to the individuals. It is not good for the arts or for the country that such talent should be wasted. What does the Minister intend to do to address the question of discretionary awards and in-service training?

The hon. Gentleman's remarks are pertinent to me because recently I was told about a 12-year-old who is an excellent dancer with a wonderful pedigree and background but who is unable to obtain the funding to go to the only place in Britain to give her a chance of a career as a dancer. The problem affects not only teenagers and young adults, but the very young. Other countries which attach importance to culture ensure that young people with talent are supported.

I agree. Such young people will not necessarily be Nureyevs, David Hockneys or Janet Smiths, but they should be allowed to develop their love of and interest in the arts and to provide the basis of the new audience which will comprise not only middle class people with an enriched education or people with a home background that widens their appreciation, but be a wider and new audience. To some extent local authorities were helping to develop that wider audience. I hope that the Government will examine seriously the possibility of imposing a mandatory rate so that all local authorities will be able to take the arts as seriously as the metropolital authorities took them.

We must consider the importance of the rural areas. We must establish arts centres in such areas and encourage touring dance and drama groups, large and small, to perform before expanding audiences. We must target interest on the neglected sectors and potential audiences.

I am thinking of the ethnic minorities and the rich mutual exchange of arts culture and arts dialogue. The new and wider audiences will come from the young through theatre and dance in education, artists in residence and writers in schools. Arts education must be built into the core curriculum and should be part of the core teacher-training curriculum. It is important that primary school teachers in particular have an understanding and love of arts teaching.

The excellent Gulbenkian report lies on the shelves gathering dust because of lack of funds. That is a tragedy. The majority of young people experience no educational drama. In some secondary schools they have that opportunity, but the majority of secondary schools are not able to offer such education. The majority of young people experience no dance education. The visual arts are crammed in with design technology, which is an insult to the worthy elements of a curriculum.

Children leave school without confidence in their ability to think or express their feelings through creative writing. The awful truth is that many young people leave school without visiting the theatre, a museum or a gallery and without having been to a dance performance or concert. They have never even been given the taste of the possible horizons. The Minister might find that hard to believe, but it is true throughout the country.

The Minister should address the neglect of young people which will make it impossible to create the wider audience. There is no sense in what the Minister is doing. The arts are central to life and to the life of our young people. The arts are important in terms of how we see our world and how we interpret it, to the stories that we tell ourselves and to the way in which we help each other to look at the world around us. They are important to the way that we open our eyes and express ourselves. All that is important to our young people and to the health of our society. Unfortunately, the Government are doing little to expand the waiting audience that could be benefiting in so many ways. It is sad that the Government lack the necessary vision. It was certainly not apparent in the Minister's speech, well intentioned though he is. If the Government have a policy, it tends to be one—this is the view that is expressed by Conservative Back Benchers rather than by the Minister—that is based on the arts being a placebo. Conservative Members regard the arts as a source of pleasure and decoration and, possibly, even a distraction from the problems that face our society, but that is not enough for the arts. The arts must be much more than that. They must be challenging. They must extend our vision and make us question and reflect on our life, our culture and the way in which we interact. The arts must concentrate our minds and thoughts rather than distract us. That is a vision for the arts that the Government lack.

Serious though the underfunding and under-resourcing of the arts are, it is a fact that we have a Government and a Minister with responsibilities for the arts, well- intentioned though he is personally, who lack the necessary vision. That is why the arts arc in crisis. That is why artists throughout the country are despairing. Incidentally, they are waiting with impatience for the next general election so that they can vote for a Labour Government who will have the necessary vision and will provide the funds to implement it.

I could not possibly go down the same road as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), especially as it led to an absurd and unacceptable conclusion upon which the nation will repudiate him within two years of this moment, or thereabouts.

The hon. Member said that when many children leave school they are unable to express themselves through creative writing. That is an extravagant claim. If children leave school with that inability, that must be the result of bad teaching. There has never been a time when there has been a richer culture for our children. Some television programmes, for example, are bad and crude, but many of them are extremely rich. Children are able to pick up much from television as well as from reading.

rose——

The hon. Gentleman spoke for 26 minutes and I believe that I should be allowed to continue uninterrupted.

I am currently marking 500 or 600 English language examination papers at O-level or above. They include some most interesting and imaginative essays that are full of highly creative writing on all sorts of topics. They come from all parts of the country, including deprived areas, the hon. Gentleman's assertion is bunkum.

It has been tedious to listen to a catalogue of woe from the Opposition Benches, including those occupied by the Liberal and SDP parties, which has been directed only to money. It seems that Opposition Members have no concept of the content of the arts, no concept of the joy of beholding a piece of sculpture, reading a fine book or watching a fine film. There is none of that concept on the Opposition benches.

Rubbish.

As I have said, I listened to the hon. Gentleman for 26 minutes and I have a right to make my contribution.

The danger of the Opposition's approach is to undermine the role that individuals and groups of individuals can play. It is all very well to sit back and feel good because millions of pounds of other people's money are being spent on the arts, but individuals want to make their own contribution to the arts according to their means as well as to other things. The Opposition are wrong to overlook that attitude and to dismiss it.

It will be recalled that £71 million of the former GLC's money was redistributed to the London boroughs recently, including Labour-controlled boroughs. For example, £4·2 million was received by the London borough of Ealing. Not one penny of that sum has gone into the arts. That was a windfall if ever there was one for that borough, and other boroughs had similar windfalls. That is true right across London. It is dreadful that none of the money has been directed to the arts.

I know the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) well and regard him highly and I am sorry that he is not in his place. I was surprised by his assertion that the museums are charging. The hon. Gentleman sat with me on the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. We heard the Minister—he is in his place today—say to that Committee only a few weeks ago that contributions to museums were contributions only. They were made voluntarily. It was additional money for the work of the museums and would never become charges under the Government. The hon. Gentleman said that they were charges and that the Government had something to answer for. He was not even-handed when he said that.

Recently, in written and oral questions, I asked about the future of the Sadler's Wells theatre. I ask my right hon. Friend in his response to the debate, to reiterate the Government's commitment, in principle and morally, to the Arts Council and to the work of Sadler's Wells, which is greatly appreciated in London and elsewhere. On more than one occasion recently, Sadler's Wells has found itself threatened with possible closure. If that theatre feels that it has the moral support of the Government, the Arts Council—in terms of cash—the support of the public. which unquestionably it has, the support of industry, business, and so on, it can have confidence in its future. I am sure that the theatre has a rich future and that it is appreciated by hon. Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) referred indirectly to newspapers and magazines. There is no greater expression of the nation's ability to read, write, think, argue, discuss, debate and develop points than our diverse newspaper industry. That includes magazines and the rich background of book writing and pamphleteering. Newspapers and magazines on tape are available for the blind and the elderly. If the elderly can no longer see they can listen to tapes.

Newspapers have always been available in public libraries in this country for anyone wishing to read them. They are available in the Library of the House of Commons. The newspapers available and distributed in libraries have always included way out publications, from my point of view—it may not be everyone's point of view — such as the former Daily Worker and the Morning Star of today. Such newspapers are dedicated to undermining our political system.

Sadly, many Labour authorities are banning The Times, the Sun and other National Union of Journalists newspapers from libraries which, after all, are run by public funds. That deprives those who wish to read newspapers of their right to do so. The Labour party must face the fact that that is censorship of a serious and unacceptable kind. The country is disturbed about it. A council in Ealing has banned newspapers from Ealing's libraries which have been available for generations. The public, some of whom voted Labour, are up in arms about that, and rightly so.

If it is the duty of the House to support the arts—that includes one's right to read what one wishes and one's right to say what one wishes, within the law—it must follow that it is outright censorship and downright aggression by the Labour party that newspapers should be banned. The Labour party must face the hard word censorship, which it does not like.

If such action increased and if newspapers such as The Guardian and The Observer were banned, we would be reduced to a Russian position, where people are allowed only to read Pravda. That is a logical conclusion to what the Labour party is doing in many boroughs.

If Labour local authorities take it upon themselves to censor newspapers and magazines, the Government have a duty to preserve freedom of speech. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will exercise the powers which I believe he has under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to order those local authorities to ensure that The Times, The Sun and the other publications which have been banned in that Fascist manner are restored to libraries.

Freedom of speech is fundamental to the life of the nation. When it is attacked, as I have described, the House has a duty unremittingly to keep the matter before the nation. Conservative Members will continue to do that. We are not concerned with what is happening at Wapping. That is a different issue.

It is not.

It is a different issue. The central issue is a man's freedom to read and to speak. I shall not go into the rights and wrongs of Wapping, because that is another matter. It is outrageous that the Labour party allowed it to happen and condoned it in the House. I hope that Labour Members will change their minds and support freedom of speech, as they have always done.

By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to pick up the last point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I shall fight side-by-side with the hon. Gentleman in defence of the presence of publications in libraries, so long as he will join with me in condemning the monopoly whereby about three people, including Murdoch and Maxwell, dominate the press. That is infinitely worse than any censorship exerted by any local authority. We have fewer newspapers than any other major country. There are aspects of expression and ideas which are not reflected by the press. There is a monopoly by the class supported by the hon. Gentleman. I shall go along with the hon. Member for Ealing, North to defend publications if he will join me in my condemnation. I have said that publicly; let him say the same.

Will the hon. Member for Ealing, North, come with me to see the major wholesalers—Menzies and Smith—and insist that they offer at every outlet every journal published in this country? If he does, I shall go with him on a deputation to his local council in relation to the local library. I shall leave it at that, unless the hon. Gentleman says yes.

A number of valuable points have been put forward but I have to concentrate on only a few of the main themes. I should like to pick up a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), on abolition. We are concerned not just with funding but with the fact that the abolished local authorities were those that had given us a vision of the type of developments that can play a part in the arts. One of the greatest tragedies for the arts has been the fact that abolition is destroying those local authorities.

Conservative Members claim that there has been full restitution of funding. On the contrary, there are two major aspects where there is still a calamitous and potentially dangerous situation. There are not only the half a dozen companies to which reference has been made but the other groups, about which we do not hear, which would have received support from local authorities, if moneys had not been salted off to make the restitution. Local authorities, regional arts associations and the Arts Council have found the funding, on top of the Government's initial amount, for the bodies that were put at risk, but it has meant that that amount does not go to the rest of the arts. That is an important point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham North-West referred to some of the minor groups about which we have not heard. We have heard about Sadler's Wells, but we have not heard about the consequences for other organisations which have been put at risk because their money was necessary to save Sadler's Wells. That is the crucial point.

The other aspect is that the Government's funding was desperately short. It was £10 million short by the Arts Council's second calculations but it was £19 million short in the total calculations because £9 million should have come from major capital projects which the Arts Council said it could not cope with. By my calculations the funding was between 14 per cent. and 16 per cent. short. That is the truth about abolition and it is no use the Government or the Minister saying anything to the contrary.

Another aspect of the debate is the economic case for the arts. I want to stress three points which I think have been minimised by Conservative Members. It is not a case of the Government somehow generously dipping into pockets and giving out — the donation concept that Conservative Members have mentioned. The hon. Member for Ealing, North complained that we are always talking about money. He asked why we could not lift our eyes to higher things than money. I have noted that it is those people who are well-heeled who are always talking about other people raising the question of money.

I am a teacher.

The hon. Gentleman is as well-heeled here as I am. That issue was reinforced by the Bernard Levin article, which has been referred to. Bernard Levin was talking about working men, and trade unions. He said why cannot they raise their eye from the trough

"to those areas of life which cannot be measured in terms of cash, but which constitute the reason for living? When? Not, to be sure, while the Labour Party is led by men like Michael Foot, and Neil Kinnock nor while the TUC is represented by men like Norman Willis.

He dared to talk about Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock and Norman Willis in connection with the trough. We have a poet as the General Secretary of the TUC. We should be pleased about that. The truth is that the Government have made an absolute apotheosis of the trough. They say, "Get into the trough and take the pickings," and "Get on your bike and look for jobs." They say we should invest and ban exchange controls, and let investment go where it will. The Government have made a positive idol of the trough. Working men who have to struggle should not be dealt with in this way.

I want to deal with the real economic case for the arts. I will talk about the trough because people require jobs. In the arts we have a group of people who are among the worst paid and suffer longer periods of unemployment than almost any other section and who often work in the worst conditions. In fact, the arts are not receiving donations; they pay for themselves. The National Campaign for the Arts shows that value added tax returns £140 million to the Exchequer. That is more than the amount of money coming into the arts from the Arts Council. The arts in this country are self-funding and they are magnificently more than that in relation to the amount they contribute to the general economy of the country through tourism. Were it not for tourism and North sea oil, under the Government we would now be in a terminal condition in relation to our balance of payments. That is the contribution the arts make. We should not talk about spending on the arts because it is a crucial investment for the whole economy of the country.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will accept and reinforce to the Minister the point that in areas of great deprivation, such as my area in the docklands of London, instead of the money and profits going into a sector which does not benefit the local people, we could do much to promote the extension of the South Bank into the docks. There are many young people looking for training and work in the arts, and opportunities in places central to our capital city would bring tourism, revenue and artistic progress. That is what we should be promoting in the docklands, not the capital profit that is made by developers of office blocks, which will have no benefit for local communities.

What the hon. Gentleman says about the South Bank and the docklands is true of the economy as a whole.

Let us look at the scale of the arts. About 200,000 to 250,000 people are in broadcasting. About 200,000 people are in printing, the press and publication—the written word. About 70,000 are involved in the popular music industry—in recording, as artists, producers and so on. We are dealing with a major industry. Broadcasting alone is bigger than the whole computer industry, about which we hear so much. So we are dealing not with small dollops of money to a small group of people, but with the necessity for more investment to a very large section of our community.

The arts pay. The Government's method of creating jobs is to make tax cuts. We say that there should be direct investment in jobs. One area should be the arts. Through tax cuts, it costs about £47,000 a year to take someone off the dole. It takes just over £2,000 to take someone off the dole through investment in the arts. At one thirteenth of the cost, we begin to get jobs back, so the arts pay for themselves. They are self-funding and massively productive in the economy.

I should love to have gone into the Shakespeare business, but I am afraid that I cannot because I am short of time. However, I shall deal with three specific points.

The first is the Roundhouse. We should like the Minister to give us an assurance that he will come forward, if not with the £8 million that I think he should for the whole of the black community in this country, at least with the £1 million, so that a start can be made on proper production there.

Secondly, I refer to the squeeze on the universities and its effect on university museums. I have had discussions with directors of most of the university museums. I hope that shortly I shall he able to say something more publicly. But I recognise that they are public institutions as well as university institutions. The task is how to give assistance while still retaining the relationship with the university. We take the point on board.

Finally, I refer to charging. The Conservative party, which says that we should not keep talking about money, is the very party that has been squeezing our museums and galleries so that they are being forced into charging for admission. I shall refer to the irrelevance of the term "charging" in a moment. The Conservatives encourage that by saying that the museums will keep the money that they make. But it would be easier for a poor man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for him to squeeze his way between the cash desks at the V and A without the embarrassment of paying. There is a world of difference between erecting a sign at the exit, as is done at the Burrell, saying, "If you have enjoyed this museum would you like to contribute?", and having two girls at cash desks with a narrow space between, through which working people have to pass. We have seen from the figures that some people turn away. It has not helped attendences, and there is no excuse for it. We should be encouraging admissions.

If ever there was a sign of the bankruptcy of ideas and spirit in relation to the arts, it is the fact that one of our major institutions has had to depend on American benefactors to bail it out, to its shame, and that one of our national institutions has introduced charging, not even honestly and openly as direct charging, but as a voluntary contribution. That is all done under the benevolent gaze of this torpor of a Government.

With the leave of the House, I shall seek to answer some of the many points raised in the debate in a short time. Unfortunately, that means that I have to disallow myself from referring to a complimentary reference in Shakespeare — after all, this is a debate about Shakespeare — to a wonderful character called Luce. However, I shall not take up the time of the House on that score.

I listened with care to what the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) said and to the forceful speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). He feels passionately and strongly, as does the hon. Member for Paisley, South, about the arts. But when he accuses me of lacking vision, that is below his normal standard. He really means that people can have vision only if the state does everything for the arts. That applies to other walks of life. Simply because I have a genuinely different approach from the hon. Gentleman —I respect his views—it is unfair to accuse me of not having vision. Yes, I have vision, but it is of a different scale and nature to that of the hon. Gentleman.

Before I reflect upon the two speeches of the hon. Member for Paisley, South, may I respond to some of the excellent remarks made by my hon. Friends and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) mentioned the importance of diversity in the arts. That goes to the heart of one of our great differences of opinion with Opposition Members, who constantly say that they do not oppose sponsorship, the Budget changes or museum recipts measures, yet at the same time try to disparage them. The strength of the arts depends upon diversity, not only in funding but generally, and upon not assuming that central Government should interfere in every aspect.

My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made an excellent speech and raised many issues, many of which related to his constituency. I fully endorse his comments, especially about the importance of tourism and the contribution that the arts can make to tourism.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made a distinctive speech and mentioned Sadler's Wells. I repeat that I agree entirely that Sadler's Wells is a great centre of excellence. I am glad that the Arts Council has played its part in funding it for this Financial year, along with a great diversity of funding from sponsors and other sources. That has provided a solid base, and we can look to the future with confidence.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes-James), who could not be a better Member for that great university town, does great service for that city. He spoke strongly about the university museums and highlighted the Fitzwilliam museum. I note carefully what he said, and I respect the work of the great university museums. I shall take into account his important remarks on that score.

My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) mentioned the importance of marketing and sponsorship. I agree with him, but I pay tribute to his work in the Council of Europe in promoting many of the Government's policies and thoughts about the arts.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) raised many points. He especially probed again about the Roundhouse. I sought to answer his questions at Question Time the other day. but he asked me whether I would consider meeting representatives from the Roundhouse. I am prepared to do that, as long as he understands that the Arts Council will provide the money to fund the transitional period. I shall listen to their views.

The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) mentioned the policies, which have been confirmed this week, to remove some of the obstacles to museums raising extra revenue. He suggested that that is a back-door method of forcing museums to introduce charges. I must take the opportunity to refute that. The Government's policy is to leave it to the discretion of the trustees of museums— who after all know the position best and can judge whether it is right and will easily generate extra revenue, and enable them to improve their services—to introduce charges or voluntary donations. It is entirely up to the trustees and no part of my policy to try to force the issue.

The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts recommended unanimously in 1981–82 that we should remove some of the obstacles to revenue-raising. The decision in line with that should be broadly welcomed by the museums and galleries.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I have very little time and I must not give way if I am to be fair to other hon. Members.

The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) made a powerful speech and focused on the Byron Society and asked me to take an interest. He gave me notice that he could not be here for the winding-up speeches, but I assure him that I shall take a close interest in the arrangements for the 1988 celebrations of the 200th anniversary of Byron's birth.

The right hon. Gentleman then led me down an avenue towards Melina Mercouri and the Elgin marbles. The Government's stance is quite clear and oft-stated. We have replied to the Greek Government. I understand that, if it is ever returned to power, the Labour party will return the Elgin marbles. Has it thought the matter through properly? The marbles are important, but they are not unique. There are other great and marvellous collections of Syrian and Egyptian material for example. Do the Opposition realise where the precedent of returning the Elgin marbles would lead'? I wonder whether they have thought it all through.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (M r. Hancock), who also gavenotice that he could not be here for the winding-up speeches for good reasons, confirmed for me the confusion that still exists in the so-called alliance. I was not clear whether he was for the arm's length policy or against it and I became even more confused when I listened to him.

The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and others mentioned VAT. I note what they said. It is part of the wider Government policy on VAT and indirect taxation that VAT should be as broadly based as possible. Hon. Members know that the Government have introduced other tax incentives to try to help the arts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel does a great deal for the west end theatres and I was glad to meet the Society of West End Theatre. I have noted the additional arguments that he made and I shall try to respond in more detail by letter.

I hope that I have now responded to all except the hon. Member for Paisley, South. His speech bore out everything that I said at the beginning. However sincere he may be, he is in the habit of being a prophet of doom. Of course there are many problems, but he will not acknowledge that there are good things in the arts world. It is far more difficult for me to give credibility to what he says and to what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central says if they do not pay some tribute to the good things that are happening.

The hon. Member for Paisley, South must understand that the policy that he is adopting towards the Arts Council, which has been supported by successive Governments, would undermine it and the principle of the arm's length policy. If the hon. Gentleman were Minister with responsibility for the arts, he would increasingly take decisions about the disposal of funds. That would mean more centralisation.

I must also consider the difference in approach and philosophy towards the public and private sectors. The hon. Member for Paisley, South believes that arts funding should be done by the state, 'whereas I believe that there should be a partnership between the state and the private sector. With the right framework, tax measures and encouragement—not just sponsorship, the Budget and the receipts policy for museums — we shall create an environment in which the private sector can play a much more positive role in increasing funding for the arts. That is what we all want, but we differ in our philosophy and approach. The hon. Gentleman believes that the state should do everything, whereas I believe that the strength of the arts is in its diversity. It has become evident during this excellent, admirable debate in which many hon. Members have participated that our approach is different in that respect, and the Government feel strongly about it.

As we have debated the arts all morning it seemed timely to have an Adjournment debate on the film and television industry in Scotland. In many ways television and film as media bring the possibility of museums, galleries, theatre, ballet and opera into the living room for the majority of the population. Indeed, in some respects they encourage attendance at them.

When I applied for the debate I entitled it, "Expanding the film and television industry in Scotland", but somehow the "expanding" got lost on the Order Paper. I mention that because someone asked me whether there was a film and television industry in Scotland. There is commercial ITV, BBC Scotland and the independent sector, which has been a growing segment of the industry. It is essential that in future years the reply should not be, "There was an industry, but it has gone."

Scotland has had a tradition of documentary film making since the 1930s with the work of Dr. John Grierson who subsequently left for Canada but returned to Scotland in later life. The Scottish Film Council has already celebrated more than half a century of existence. I was pleased to note that Charles Oakley, a founder of that council, was this week given an honorary doctorate. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) worked with the council, although I doubt whether he was even a twinkle in his parents' eye when it was set up in 1934.

The film and television work in Scotland is both recognisable and capable of greater creative and technical achievement. It has talent which wants to work in Scotland and with that ability to look beyond Scotland. I understand that at present the talent in the independent sector is working at only half capacity.

The film work of Bill Forsyth readily comes to mind, and includes "Gregory's Girl", "Local Hero" and "Comfort and Joy". I must confess a special liking for "That Sinking Feeling" which also included scenes shot in the Maryhill area. Charles Gormley's film "Heavenly Pursuits" was Channel 4's main entry to this year's Cannes film festival.

The independent sector is growing, and there are possibilities for ITV production in Scotland, and for BBC Scotland, if it were given its head. This year the Scottish Trades Union Congress at Aberdeen had a motion from the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians introduced its general secretary Alan Sapper and seconded by the Scottish actor Phil McColl. It called for the generation of major new funding to underpin film and television development in Scotland.

I do not know whether the Minister is aware of subsequent STUC general council follow-up on the development of the industry. Ministers constantly talk about growth in the service sector. No doubt they do so in order to make up for the tremendous contraction in manufacturing capacity. At one time film production was regarded as part of the manufacturing sector, but in more recent times it has been linked with the service sector.

This branch of entertainment may not be a substantial employer although it is a significant employer as well as being a good overseas earner. If Scotland was used more often as the location for productions, it might give a significant boost to the local economies.

On 25 March 1986 the Independent Programme Producers Association in Scotland gave a presentation in the House. Robin Crichton, the chairman, and John McGrath, the vice chairman, spoke about the problems of access to broadcast television outlets in Scotland, including Channel 4 which is at present the sole domestic outlet.

I said on Second Reading of the Bill setting up Channel 4 that

"One of the strengths of ITV I was that it has been able to take account of regional distinctiveness…in various parts of the United Kingdom." — [Official Report, 18 February 1980; Vol. 979. c. 118–119.]

I was keen that Channel 4 should not be seen as some monolithic enterprise and that it should encourage existing Scottish commercial companies, such as STV, Grampian or Border, which has one leg in Scotland and the other in the north of England, to make a bigger contribution to the ITV network, including Channel 4. Although Channel 4 has opened up possibilities, because well over 10 per cent. of its audience is in Scotland, independent producers complain that they had only 12 hours, or 1·5 per cent., of Channel 4's total production time last year. They contrast their case with what goes on in Wales. There is a marked difference, although the existence of the Welsh channel makes the comparison less straightforward than it might seem.

When the chief executive of Channel 4 opened Picardy Pictures, an independent broadcast facility based in Edinburgh, at the beginning of the year, he said that some £50 million had been commissioned in the independent sector last year. He was quoted in The Scotsman of 31 January 1986 as saying that

"We would like to spend a proper proportion of that amount in Scotland."

He made the point that he commissioned solely on merit. I concur with doing that. However, we must try to remove some of the obstacles that prevent a better and fairer spread of productions throughout the United Kingdom.

The film-making industry is largely based in and around London. However, Scotland has the largest number of independent producers working outside the metropolis. Indeed, there is a need to develop post-production facilities so that there is less reliance on London. There is also a considerable video market potential. Many firms are concerned to brush up their corporate images and to promote their public relations. It would be interesting to know whether the Scottish Office, and even the Scottish Development Agency and some of the other public bodies in Scotland are still having to send much of their promotional and advertising work to London. Even lawyers' work—and I know that this will please the Minister—could be done in Scotland, and contracts could be drawn up in Scots law, although I accept that there may be a shortage of media law specialists.

I mentioned scope for ITV and BBC. Indeed, STV put up half of the finance for "Gregory's Girl". The series "Held in Trust" must surely have given Scottish tourism a boost. Grampian with its series on oil, commissioned for Channel 4 and co-produced with Norwegian television, provides another example of what can be done in Scotland. It was something of an indictment that it took Harlech television and a German co-production team to screen Robert Louis Stevenson's "Kidnapped", with a German actor in such a self-evident Scottish story.

Currently, we are awaiting the Peacock report. It would be disastrous if the BBC was in any way reliant on advertising. We heard about some of the problems of sponsorship of the arts during the previous debate, and it would be damaging if the unique reputation of public service broadcasting were to be eroded. It would also not be good for the commercial sector.

Since the lobby in March, meetings have been held with ITV and IPPA, which have resulted in the setting-up of a working party under the aegis of the SDA to examine ways in which broadcast productions might be rationalised and integrated to a greater extent. It is examining the possibility of establishing a Scottish screen commission that could act as a distributor marketing overseas Scottish facilities, technicians and locations to attract inward investment. It could also operate as a production fund to top up investment in Scottish production to enable producers to retain their distribution rights and maximise potential overseas sales.

The various sectors of the industry in Scotland would, of course, retain their independence and individuality. A Scottish screen commission would give sufficient strength and stature to maximise the opportunities offered by the new international markets that are emerging and are likely to emerge in the 1990s.

The attraction of such a commission, if it can be proved economically feasible, is that it will bring together the various sides of the industry and the financiers, so that they can move towards a better base to exploit the opportunities offered by expanding markets and technologies, as well as marketing Scotland internationally. I understand that the working party includes Alistair Hetherington as chairman, Bill Brown of STV, Justin Dukes of Channel 4, Alex M air of Grampian, and may be joined by Jim Graham of Border. The SDA will provide the business development role.

Robert Crichton, the chairman of IPPA in Scotland, has been in touch with the Secretary of State. I have a copy of a letter from the right hon. Gentleman's Private Secretary to Mr. Crichton, stating:

"Mr. Rifkind has read the paper with much interest and is sure that it will prove a useful basis for discussions with the Scottish Film Council and the Scottish Development Agency."

That typifies the right hon. Gentleman's skills of advocacy. I hope that today the Minister will assure us that there is positive Government backing for the initiative.

The role of the Scottish Film Council is very important. Recently I talked to its assistant director, John Brown, about the work of the Scottish Training Trust —something that has been praised in a number of quarters —and the Scottish Film Production Board, which is a useful form of funding. However, it deals with limited finance even though the Fund is now supported by the Scottish Arts Council and Channel 4.

The Minister may be aware that cinema attendances in Scotland are proportionately higher than for the United Kingdom as a whole. No doubt he will wish to comment on educational broadcasting, in which the council plays its role, and where there have been a number of significant improvements.

When referring to a Scottish screen commission, I do not mean Holywood spectaculars that can fall flat on their faces. Indeed, Charlotte square — the home of many finance companies and merchant banks in Edinburgh— contributes quite a lot through investment packages towards the success of both British and American films.

It would be useful to achieve greater interest arid support for low budget and thus low risk film production in Scotland. I do not know whether the Minister saw arty of the series of Australian films shown on television here, but that comparatively new film industry received a considerable boost when the former Australian Prime Minister on a visit to the United States saw that an Australian film had actually made Time magazine. Mrs. Thatcher is a liberal by comparison with that former Australian Prime Minister, but when he went back he ensured that his country's industry received a boost.

I am disappointed in a sense that the Minister with responsibility for industry and education in Scotland cannot be here as I gather that he has had informal talks on the subject, but the Minister with responsibility for local government and environment is the duty Minister today and will doubtless pass on all that has been said —I thought at first that it was because he missed my keeping him on his toes when I was Opposition spokesman on Scottish affairs and felt the need to come back for more.

I hope that in reading his Scottish Office brief today he will give political support to the concept of a Scottish screen commission which is so necessary and let the forces of autosuggestion get to work at the Scottish Office. I do not mind if the Secretary of State comes along in three months or six months with this brilliant idea and says that he is all for it because I believe that it will be very good for the industry.

The Government White Paper on film policy, Cmnd. 9319 published in July 1984, stated:

"A film industry can be a matter of great national pride. And through its ability to project the national culture…it can thus enhance a country's international standing."

Encouraging and facilitating the film and television industry in Scotland could produce considerable spin-off opportunities for the economy, opening up new opportunities in other spheres.

The Minister should be aware of some of the fresh inspiration that came into the industry in Scotland following the conference on Cinema in a small country held in Edinburgh more than a decade ago. We now need the political imagination to encourage and facilitate that which already exists and go on to achieve much more in this area of entertainment, employment, culture arid education. As I said at the beginning, the industry's output is an immense part of our culture and education and has a broad appeal which I hope the Government will encourage.

I begin by congratulating the hon, Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) on raising this important issue today. I listened carefully to his speech, especially the part in which he became an adherent of the principle of auto-suggestion, a subject about which we shall no doubt hear more from him in the future.

It is timely to debate the film and television industry in Scotland, when so many exciting developments have taken place or are in prospect. Before dealing with the specific issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, I should place on record the Government's continuing support for the development and growth of a healthy and viable commercial film sector in Scotland and the continued development of broadcasting provision geared to the needs of the community.

Perhaps one of the most striking examples of the growth in confidence and enterprise in Scotland in recent years has been the emergence of a dynamic film industry with a distinctive style and the capacity to achieve box-office success. Not so long ago mention of Scottish films would have conjured up images of "Brigadoon" or "Whisky Galore", or of tartan westerns featuring Rob Roy and Bonnie Prince Charlie. Then, as the hon. Gentleman said, Bill Forsyth came along and demonstrated that good movies can be made by Scots, about Scots, in Scotland. The triumphs of "Gregory's Girl" and "Local Hero" have been followed by a series of low budget productions which show that Scottish film-makers are a force with which to be reckoned. Among the more notable recent successes are "Living Apart Together", "Restless Natives" and "The Girl in the Picture". They are only the tip of an expanding iceberg.

The Government's view is that the prospects for the industry will ultimately depend upon the efforts of all those who work in it and on the industry's ability to produce good quality films that people want to see.

One of the primary objectives of the Films Act was to rid the industry, and cinemas in particular, of unnecessary Government burdens and to help lay the foundations for the development of an industry which is free to make decisions on the basis of its own commericial interests. So, in May 1985 the Eady levy on cinemas was abolished and the legislative basis for domestic film quota was removed, along with the requirement for cinemas to be licensed.

The abolition of the Eady levy led the Government to re-assess the valuable investment role played by the National Film Finance Corporation in encouraging newly merging British talent. That role has been taken over and enhanced by the new private sector body, British Screen Finance Ltd. to which the Government are to contribute £2 million a year for the next five years. BSF began its operations in January this year and has already committed funds to a number of projects.

The Government's financial support for the industry is not limited to their contribution to BSF. Substantial sums are made available to the British Film Institute, to the Scottish Film Council and to the National Film and Television school. In addition, the Government contributed £325,000 to British film year, the success of which was, by all accounts, most encouraging.

Following a seemingly inexorable decline, cinema admissions have shown a marked increase, accompanied by a substantial refurbishment and new development in the exhibition sector. We hope that an industry, now freed from anachronstic Government burdens will be able to build upon these foundations.

The Scottish Film industry has felt the need, since the late 1970s, for the creation of an investment fund to provide Scottish film makers with the opportunity to raise a substantial proportion of feature film production costs north of the border. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that in particular.

While the Scottish film production fund has been able to make a small contribution in this area, a much larger fund, backed by the commercial sector, would be required to meet the aspirations of would-be Scottish film producers. An initiative has recently been taken by IPPA. as the hon. Member said, which is proposing the establishment of a Scottish screen commission to fill that funding gap. The IPPA has entered into a dialogue with the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Film Council about this proposal and on the promotion of Scotland generally as a film centre.

The hon. Gentleman asked for the Government's reaction. I welcome the initiative by IPPA, which is designed to stimulate the growth and development of the Scottish film industry in general.

I hope that the discussions that have begun with the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Film Council, the broadcasting companies and other interested bodies will bear fruit. I am sure that the proposal will be supported by film-makers in Scotland, and that they will take advantage of the new opportunities which I hope will flow from the establishment of a commission or similar body that might emerge from the consultation.

Scottish education department officials have already participated in discussions involving IPPA, the SDA and the SFC and will, of course, be keeping in close touch with the progress of the proposal. I am sure that the agency and the film council will offer whatever assistance and expertise that they can in taking the proposal forward.

The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the concern expressed by Scottish members of the Independent Programme Producers Association that the amount of independently produced broadcast material utilised by the ITV companies is relatively low. In particular, the IPPA is concerned about the low level of broadcast material currently being commissioned from Scottish sources by Channel 4, and it is seeking increased access for its programmes on public television. I understand that the IPPA has received some support from Scottish Television, with both organisations stressing that sufficient work should come to Scotland to stimulate creative talent and innovation.

I believe that in Scotland, with a population of just over 5 million, we are well provided with three and a half television companies serving our needs—BBC Scotland. STV, Grampian and a hit of Border—all of which produce high quality broadcast material. In addition, the independent programme and film producers make a valuable contribution to the excellent Scottish Television spectrum. I would welcome any increase in Scottish produced broadcast material, either by the larger television companies or by the independent programme or film producers. I would not think it proper— I rather gather that from the hon. Gentleman that he would not either— to try to coerce national television companies to accept a higher proportion of Scottish produced material by setting quotas of commissioned material based either on funding contributions to organisations such as Channel 4 or on the percentage of audience in a particular area.

Indeed, the Government have no locus to arbitrate in such matters, which have properly been delegated to the responsible broadcasting authorities. In fact, a certain element of regulation already exists to ensure that a proper proportion—at least 86 per cent. of material shown on ITV and Channel 4—is of British origin. I think that it would be quite wrong to introduce further regulation to provide an artificial market for Scottish film and programme makers. I believe that, as commercial companies, IPPA's Scottish members and the Scottish television companies should be prepared to take their position in the United Kingdom market place. Their success in attracting funds from Channel 4, STV and other sources must depend on their ability to deliver the sort of product that the television companies and the public want.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point that until recently the major inhibition on independent film and television production in Scotland has been the lack of adequate facilities. The problems have been especially acute for those television and film productions which depend on the use of studios. This is an area where the Government have been able to offer direct help.

The Government's review of the regional incentive package of assistance available to industry in the United Kingdom identified clearly the role that the service sector now occupies within the United Kingdom economy. In November 1984, when we introduced changes in the incentive package, we sought to encourage service industry growth by widening the scope of the new regional development grant scheme. Consequently, the companies in Scotland in the film and television industry that are situated in the development areas can now benefit from the help of regional development grants that are aimed at encouraging job-creating investment. Moreover, the industry can also benefit from regional selective assistance, which, as before, remains open to both the manufacturing and service sectors of industry. Already the industry is becoming alive to this extra help that is available to it, and in the past 18 months my Department has offered nearly £1·5 million to the industry within Scotland. A further £150,000 has been provided recently through the SDA, which is considering a further major loan amounting to £1·7 million. The assistance is there to overcome that particular hurdle.

One of the most important ways in which the Government have supported the growth of the Scottish film industry in recent years has been through the Scottish film production fund. The resources at the disposal of the fund are modest and they arc about £150,000 in the current year. Nevertheless, the fund has consistently shown how much can be achieved by the injection of quite small sums at critical periods in the development of a production. In the fund's first four years of operation a total of 64. projects have been assisted in this way. The list of its successes is impressive, ranging from Channel 4 documentaries such as "The Work They Say is Mine"— the role of women in Shetland communities — to full-length feature films such as "Girl in the Picture" and "Restless Natives". It is interesting and encouraging to note that a high proportion of projects started by the fund involve women film-makers. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

It is not possible in a short debate of this sort to respond in detail to all the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. I hope, however, that he will recognise from what I have said that the Government attach considerable importance to the development and maintenace of a thriving film and television industry in Scotland. There are healthy signs in the continuing dialogue involving the main interest groups. I hope that all those involved will capitalise on what has already been achieved and co-operate to ensure the future of the industry. The Government will continue to play their part——