Category: Speeches

Barbara Castle – 1968 Transport Act and Railway Closures

The text of the 1968 Transport Act, as enacted, with regards to railway closures.

54 Railway closures

(1)In discharging any of his functions under subsection (8) or (10) of section 56 of the Act of 1962 or under subsection (5) of this section in relation to, or to a proposal by the Railways Board or the London Board for, the discontinuance of all railway passenger services from any station or on any line (hereafter in this section, as in that section, referred to as a closure), the Minister shall have regard to any matters which for the time being appear to him to be relevant, including any social or economic considerations, and shall not give his consent to a proposed closure—

(a)unless he is satisfied that a reasonable opportunity has been afforded for the making to the Minister of representations with respect to the closure by or on behalf of persons who are employed by the Board concerned for the purposes of, or in connection with, the services in question and who appear to the Minister to be likely to be directly affected by the closure ; or

(b)before he has considered any representations made while that opportunity remains available which he is satisfied are either made by such persons as aforesaid or made on behalf of such persons by an organisation appearing to him to represent such persons.

(2)In the case of a proposed closure of a station from which, or of a line on the whole or part of which, railway passenger services fall to be provided by the Railways Board in pursuance of an agreement under section 20(2)(b) of this Act with the Executive for an area designated under section 9(1) thereof, the Board shall not publish a notice of that closure in pursuance of subsection (7) of the said section 56 without the consent of that Executive to its publication ; and if the Board publish the notice before obtaining that consent, the notice shall be of no effect unless before the expiration of the period fixed by the notice for objecting to the closure either—

(a)the Executive have informed the Board in writing that they consent to the publication ; or

(b)the Minister, on an application made for the purpose by the Board, whether before or after the publication of the notice, and after affording the Executive what the Minister considers a reasonable opportunity to make any representations, has directed that the notice shall have effect notwithstanding that the Executive have not consented to its publication ;

but the giving by the Executive of their consent to publication of a notice in pursuance of the said subsection (7) shall not affect the right of the Executive under subsection (4) of this section to oppose the closure.

(3)Where, in the case of any proposed closure, subsection (2) of this section does not apply but the proposal is for the closure of a station, or of the whole or part of a line, which is situated within an area designated as aforesaid, the Railways Board shall send to the Executive for that area a copy of the notice of the closure published by the Board in pursuance of the said subsection (7).

(4)Where, in the case of any closure to which subsection (2) or (3) of this section applies, notice of the closure has been published by the Railways Board in pursuance of the said subsection (7) (not being a notice which under the said subsection (2) is of no effect), the Executive concerned may, within the period specified in the notice for objecting to the closure, lodge with the Minister a statement in writing that they oppose the closure and of their reasons therefor; and where the Executive lodge such a statement with the Minister they shall send a copy of that statement to the Board and, notwithstanding that no objection is lodged in accordance with subsection (8) of the said section 56, the closure shall not be proceeded with until the Minister has given his consent.

(5)In the case of any closure requiring the consent of the Minister under the said section 56 or under subsection (4) of this section—

(a)the Minister may give his consent subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, including conditions to be complied with after the closure ;

(b)the Minister may from time to time vary or revoke the conditions for the time being required to be complied with in connection with the closure, whether the closure took place before or after the coming into force of this subsection;

(c)those conditions may include conditions as to the provision of alternative services by, or by a subsidiary of, the Bus Company or the Scottish Group, or by some other person whether in pursuance of arrangements made by the Bus Company or the Scottish Group or otherwise; and

(d)whether before or after the closure, and whether the closure took place before or after the coming into force of this subsection, the Minister may from time to time give such directions to the Railways Board or, as the case may be, the London Board and to the Bus Company, and the Secretary of State may from time to time give such directions to the Scottish Group, as he thinks fit in connection with the closure;

and where any such condition or direction relates to the provision or assistance in the provision of alternative services, the Minister or, where those alternative services are to be provided by, or by a subsidiary of, or in pursuance of arrangements made by, the Scottish Group, the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly may refer to an Area Committee within the meaning of the said section 56 any matter relating to those services, and the committee shall consider and report on that matter to the Minister or, as the case may be, to the Minister and the Secretary of State.

(6)Where any condition or direction such as is referred to in subsection (5) of this section requires the provision of alternative services by, or by a subsidiary of, the Bus Company or the Scottish Group or in pursuance of arrangements made by that Company or that Group, the cost of providing those alternative services shall be borne by that Company or, as the case may be, that Group.

(7)For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6) of this section any conditions imposed under subsection (11) of the said section 56, so far as still required to be complied with immediately before the coming into force of the said subsection (5), shall have effect as if imposed under the said subsection (5).

(8)Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule 7 to the Act of 1962 (which contain spent transitional provisions with respect to matters pending at the date of the coming into force of the said section 56) shall cease to have effect.

January 24, 2023
David Webster – 1967 Comments on Dismissal of Gerry Fiennes by Barbara Castle

The comments made by David Webster, the then Conservative Transport spokesperson, on 26 September 1967.

The peremptory and humiliating sacking of Gerald Fiennes is in sharp distinction to the treatment of Lord Robens. In Lord Robens’ case he was, in my view rightly, asked to stay on after the disaster of Aberfan and after the tribunal had found the Coal Board, of which he was the head, to be seriously at fault and also to have been most unsatisfactory in their giving of evidence.

In Mr Fiennes’ case, this distinguished and faithful servant of the railways has said what many people would heartily agree with in criticising the apparent lack of interest of the railways board to attempt to attain its financial objectives. He had been summoned to HQ and sacked immediately – with hardly time even to tidy his desk.

At one moment a lifetime with the railways is suddenly severed, although acute shortage of top railways management is everywhere acknowledged. I suspect that in this case the hand that caused the sacking is that of Mrs Barbara Castle. We know that Mrs Castle has little interest in the financial objectives of the railways. We know that Mrs Castle is impatient of independent opinion, as in the case of the removal of the chairman of the British Road Safety Advisory Council and in her attempts to dominate the road research laboratory. We will demand an inquiry into this grisly affairs as soon as Parliament reassembles.

January 24, 2023
John Beavan – 1966 Comments on Barbara Castle, the White Paper and Beeching (Baron Ardwick)

The comments made by John Beavan for the Daily Mirror on 28 July 1966.

At last we are moving forward from Beeching. At last, after years of fumbling and dissension, Labour has got itself a comprehensive policy for transport – for passenger services and for freight on road, rail and even the dear old inland waterways.

I congratulate the Minister of Transport, Barbara Castle, on her need in reaching decisions, and hope she will succeed in translating much of her policy into action. Sensible, the controversial White paper she publishes today gives Lord Beeching his due. If it had not been for him, I do not believe that Mrs Castle or any other minister would have been able to sort things out. Beeching had a narrow brief – to make the shabby, flabby Victorian monster that was British Railways wealthy enough to earn its keep.

The chief remedy he advocated was deep surgery. Many cuts have been made, many remain to be made, because even the Tories could see the social consequences of some of his suggested cuts were unacceptable to too many people. The brief to Beeching had been too simple. Some of us hoped that Beeching would be put in charge of Britain’s rail and road transport with a proper brief. But he wanted to go back to ICI. In principle, Barbara Castle’s solution is the right one. We should sort out the profitable and potentially profitable lines and tell the Railways Board that it’s their job to make them pay.

What about the other sections? Some are hopeless. Mrs Castle admits there are 1,330 miles of freight track that are not needed and 400 miles of passenger line which are not needed nor seriously wanted. They should be cut out but we are left with a third class – lines that are useful and socially important but are unprofitable. These, Mrs Castle proposes, should be openly subsidised. It is a good principle – if sophisticated accountancy really can sort out the sheep from the goats. The sum needed to subsidise the necessary but unprofitable services would be a big one.

Although the Government had decided on social grounds to keep a fair-sized railway system, the cost of doing so should make them ask about each subsidised section, one highly important question:

‘Can the social needs be met more cheaply and as efficiently by some other form of transport?’

There is a lot more to the White Paper than this. I welcome particularly the policy for a combined service for road and rail in the big urban areas. If I could send a personal message to the Labour Party it would be this: In this year of 1966 more suffering is caused to British workers by public transport than by private capitalism.

January 24, 2023
Barbara Castle – 1966 Refusal to Suspend Rail Closures Until Planning Councils Met

The comments made by Barbara Castle, the then Minister for Transport, in the House of Commons on 9 February 1966.

Mr. Park asked the Minister of Transport if, following her discussions on the matter with the chairmen of the regional planning councils, she will now suspend all railway closures pending her review of Government policy on the coordination of transport services.

Mrs. Castle No. But if, following comments from a planning council on a particular proposal, I decide that closure would conflict with developing plans and policies I shall either refuse my consent or defer my decision.

January 23, 2023
Barbara Castle – 1966 Confirmation on Not Reappointing Lord Beeching

The comments made by Barbara Castle, the then Transport Minister, in the House of Commons on 2 February 1966.

Mr. Box asked the Minister of Transport whether she will approach Lord Beeching with a view to his reappointment as Chairman of British Railways.

Mrs. Castle No.

January 23, 2023
Peter Bottomley – 2023 Speech on Arts Council Funding for England

The speech made by Sir Peter Bottomley, the Father of the House and the Conservative MP for Worthing West, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)

I will call the Father of the House next; I am grateful to him for being willing to wait until the end.

Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)

That is because I am going to go back in time and it might bore other people, Mr Bone. The first chairman of the Arts Council I met was Sir Ernest Pooley, who succeeded John Maynard Keynes two years after I was born. Given that Arts Council England is for the encouragement of music and the arts, Pooley and Keynes would have been delighted at the competence with which it took our cultural institutions through the pandemic. The three rounds of emergency funding were executed in a way that nobody criticised. It was quite remarkable, and very effective.

The most recent Arts Council England report available on its website is from 2020-21. The chairman, Sir Nicholas Serota, talks about the three outcomes and the four investment principles, none of which give any indication that the council might have conceived cutting off the ENO and the Coliseum at the knees. Tributes to those who have cared for, led and participated in the ENO and the Coliseum should be put on record. I will say again that Hazel and Vernon Ellis, together with the major public funders and private individuals and trusts, deserve to be recognised. One of those funders was the National Lottery through Arts Council England. I do not know whether those taking the decision that was announced recently were aware of the Arts Council England funding for the Coliseum and its restoration, so that Sir Oswald Stoll’s Frank Matcham theatre could be restored on the anniversary of its first opening.

I think mistakes were made. I do not how much of it was to do with the Government, how much of it was to do with Arts Council England, and how much of it was to do with time pressures. The fact is that what was done clearly would not work and was not right, and it seems to me that the principle, both for Arts Council England and for the Government, is to say, “Is it necessary, is it right and will it work?” I will leave it to the Minister to explain not what has gone wrong but how he will put things right. I suggest that, afterwards, he writes to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, saying that the Worthing Borough Council bid for the connected cultural mile from the railway station to the lido, going past the museum, should be approved.

January 23, 2023
Laura Farris – 2023 Speech on Arts Council Funding for England

The speech made by Laura Farris, the Conservative MP for Newbury, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this debate. I recognise all the things that he referred to in his opening remarks—a lack of transparency, accountability and engagement with the sector—in a decision that was reached on a treasured regional theatre in my constituency, the Watermill Theatre. It was truly a bolt from the blue for it to learn that there has been a 100% cut in its funding for the next three years.

One thing that has been frustrating in the process since then is the fact that the Arts Council did not really substantiate its decision with reasons, and it was so reluctant to produce written reasons when we invited it to do so. I had to remind the council that it is a public body and susceptible to judicial review. When the decision came, it was impossible to discern why the Watermill did not meet the relevant criteria. It had met them all in every previous round of funding and was not alerted to the fact that any criteria had changed. The Arts Council was unable to explain why, if it was a regional decision based on levelling up, the other theatre in Newbury, which we also love, was successful when the Watermill was not. Eliciting the final decision was like getting blood out of a stone, and when it came it simply set out generalities, such as the assertion that the Watermill lacked ambition.

The Watermill is an 18th-century watermill that has been converted into a theatre. I cannot improve on the description written in The Mail on Sunday, which said:

“What a location! Forget the glitz of the West End: try walking up a country lane, past waddling ducks, to this lovely little theatre in a converted mill.”

Its aesthetic beauty as a venue is absolutely treasured by our community, but we also treasure the quality and diversity of its productions. It is not just a standard repertory theatre that takes shows on tour: it produces its own work and pumps it around the country. It most recent touring production of “Spike” went from the Watermill to Blackpool, Glasgow, Cardiff and Darlington. It is also an artery theatre through which West End productions come and other productions flow on to international destinations, including Broadway.

The theatre takes its commitment to diversity and improving access seriously. It is in the heart of a tiny village, so in 2022 it did a rural tour. “Camp Albion” took its productions to villages, which are often completely neglected in the consumption of the arts. Overall, the theatre reaches 20,000 people annually through its various community engagement programmes, including children with autism, deafness and many other special needs. It has a deep commitment to the Arts Council’s outcomes, which the council even acknowledged in its decision letter.

We have been confronted with a deeply disappointing decision. We have found it incredibly difficult to know what mandate the Arts Council was working to, or why. I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that this was capricious decision making, which undermines the status of the Arts Council as a guarantor of our national arts output. If the council is watching, I respectfully request that it reverse its decision because it has devastating consequences for the future of the Watermill Theatre in Newbury.

January 23, 2023
Jonathan Gullis – 2023 Speech on Arts Council Funding for England

The speech made by Jonathan Gullis, the Conservative MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this important debate. Culture is so important. I was delighted to spend time before the Christmas break at Springhead Primary School in Talke Pits, which worked closely with the Royal Shakespeare Company and the New Vic Theatre to stage a First Encounters production of Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night”. Seeing kids as young as reception sat engrossed throughout that play, having learned about it in advance, was very special indeed. Mr Anderson, the headteacher, is doing a fine job.

My mother always told me that I should learn to read the room, but perhaps I am about to go against that—although I am sure that will not shock many Members here. I want to congratulate Arts Council England on its investment in the great city of Stoke-on-Trent. This £6.8 million investment, from 2023 to 2026, has taken us from having one national portfolio organisation—the New Vic, which is actually in neighbouring Newcastle-under-Lyme—to now having eight such organisations. They include the fantastic Portland Inn Project, based in Stoke-on-Trent North, which will have a profoundly positive impact.

Because of that investment, Stoke-on-Trent City Council, under its leader Councillor Abi Brown and Councillor Lorraine Beardmore, the relevant cabinet member, has been working tirelessly to look at how we can improve that partnership working further. Arts Council England has made Stoke-on-Trent a priority place and become a key member of the Stoke-on-Trent creative city partnership, which shows how the relationship continues to evolve. Indeed, it seems to have got the message that levelling up means making sure that places such as Stoke-on-Trent can celebrate their culture, history and heritage. We note that the levelling-up White Paper contained a Government promise that Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester would receive a special focus, to make the most of our cities’ industrial heritage.

The city has responded to that with a clear vision and strategy to establish an international ceramics centre, which will tie together world-class collections, celebrate the growth of contemporary craft ceramics and expand on our fantastic advanced ceramics sector. At the heart of that vision is a plan for our main museum, the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, based in Hanley, working with Staffordshire and Keele Universities, as well as Stoke Creates, to secure a £5 million investment from the Arts Council’s cultural development fund to create new spaces through a new research centre and to redesign the layout of the fantastic ceramics that we have to display. That work will build on the city council’s £4.7 million Spitfire Gallery development, which houses the city’s Mk XVI Spitfire. Obviously, the Spitfire was designed in Butt Lane—where I am proud to live as a resident—by Reginald J. Mitchell, a great local hero, without whose efforts we would not have won the battle of Britain. The plan also builds on the £1.5 million relocation of the archive service from Hanley library.

We know that the decision is due in March. I am sure that Arts Council England is listening, and I am sure that the Minister will want to see Stoke-on-Trent get some more, because he has learned that once we get a taste of funding, we always want more. I look forward to more coming our way in Stoke-on-Trent. The clear notice from me is that a promise has been made and must now be delivered. We need major investment to continue to deliver new jobs and more high-skilled opportunities for people who want to study, understand and come to visit our great city, and to enable Stokies to be at the cultural heart of our great country.

January 23, 2023
Kevin Brennan – 2023 Speech on Arts Council Funding for England

The speech made by Kevin Brennan, the Labour MP for Cardiff West, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

I echo many of the comments that have been made. I thank the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill)—

Sir Robert Neill

Just honourable.

Kevin Brennan

I thank the noble Gentleman, or whatever he is, for securing the debate. I also thank the former arts Minister, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). She appeared many times before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and she was a very refreshing Minister to have in front of us. I thank her for the candid and supportive way in which she carried out her duties as a Minister and for the work she did during covid to keep many cultural institutions going. I also thank my hon. Friends, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who has campaigned assiduously on this issue.

I mentioned the Welsh National Opera earlier, because when this debate about Arts Council England started, it focused—understandably, perhaps—on the decisions around the English National Opera, but in some ways, what was done around the Welsh National Opera was even more invidious, or at least as invidious, because it signalled that this was not a rational, strategic decision-making process by Arts Council England. Like the hon. Member for Gosport, I would normally express support and admiration for the way that Arts Council England goes about things. However, rather than being a strategic, well-thought-through plan for the arts, it resembled more an emotional spasm of some sort, as a result of wanting to do something very quickly to meet the perceived needs of the Secretary of State at the time, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries). We are now told by the former Secretary of State, Ministers and Government Members that that was not what the Secretary of State wanted all along, which makes the whole affair all the more strange.

One thing that is perhaps good about this whole incident is that it gives us an opportunity to highlight the fact that the Welsh National Opera is an opera company for Wales and England, despite its name. It is value for money because we have a proper national opera company with an international reputation that can serve both England and Wales, including, when it goes on tour, the parts of England that are not often well served by other cultural institutions. That is an integrated system for opera across England and Wales.

Arts Council England decided to cut a third of the funding that it provides to the Welsh National Opera for its touring work in England. That includes many different parts of England, such as Liverpool; the west midlands, which is the part of Arts Council England that looks after the Welsh National Opera in terms of its administration; the west of England, in places such as Bristol; and Southampton, Oxford and elsewhere. It is right that these touring opera companies form an essential part of our regional theatres right across the country.

When Arts Council England appeared before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I was interested to know what its decision-making process was, so I asked Darren Henley whether he had consulted the Arts Council of Wales prior to the decision being taken to cut the funding to the Welsh National Opera. He waffled for a bit, and I had to interrupt him to get him to answer the question, at which point he said:

“They were aware just before the announcement was made, but we didn’t consult them in the announcement”.

I put it to him and to Members here today that it is a dereliction of duty for a decision that has profound implications—as we know, it has resulted in Liverpool being denied any opera whatsoever—to be taken in that haphazard way.

There are no SNP Members here, so I think we are all Unionists in this room. The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) was born in Newport, and he understands the importance of the Union. Arts Council England did not consult the Arts Council of Wales on a decision that has a profound implication for the future of that opera company and the whole system of opera around the country, and that undermines the whole so-called levelling-up agenda that we were told this decision making was about.

I profoundly believe that creativity is a good thing in and of itself. I profoundly believe that this country’s greatest strength, or certainly one of its greatest, is its creative industries, and that we are one of the few countries in the world that is a net exporter. Our creative industries are a huge earner for our country and culturally enrich us all. Quite frankly, as a white, heterosexual male from a working-class background, I am sick of people speaking on my behalf, and talking about wokeism and all the rest of it. The arts and culture are profoundly important to enriching our lives, and we should all stand up for them, whatever our backgrounds.

Let us hope that this was just an emotional spasm. I say to Arts Council England: please, get your act together and start thinking about these things. The arm’s length principle is important, but it does not mean being so arm’s length as to not even consult the Arts Council of Wales. That is not what the arm’s length principle is about, so Arts Council England should get its act back together, and let us return to some sense around this issue.

January 23, 2023
Damian Collins – 2023 Speech on Arts Council Funding for England

The speech made by Damian Collins, the Conservative MP for Folkestone and Hythe, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this important debate. He was right to remind us that when the Arts Council was established, its principal role was to promote art for art’s sake and to promote excellence, and through doing so to give people the opportunity to experience excellence in the whole range of arts, from figurative and decorative to performing arts, and provide people with the opportunity to develop their talents. That should be something that is accessible to the whole country, and that is why the Arts Council was created. It is also perfectly legitimate that the Arts Council, which is in receipt of a large amount of public money, should be challenged and scrutinised over how it allocates those funds and the strategies that it deploys.

Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)

My hon. Friend may be aware that two leading arts commentators have published a pamphlet calling for the Arts Council to be abolished. Their reason was that it has been taken over by “highly-politicised staff” whose left-wing “woke agenda” is generally failing to support the arts. That came on the back of a case last year in which £3 million of taxpayers’ money was provided to a company that published posters stating that “straight white men” should “pass the power”. Does my hon. Friend agree that decisions such as this will raise legitimate questions among the general public about the level of oversight of some of these Arts Council decisions?

Damian Collins

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There should be a clear strategy for allocated funds. It is right that the Arts Council is an arm’s length body and free to make decisions based on artistic merit that some people will agree with and others will not.

However, there is a clear strategy for how that benefits the whole nation, not parts of it. London receives a large amount of money because we have larger national institutions here. They demonstrate the benefit that they bring to the whole country, be that through touring exhibitions and performances or through the other cultural institutions around the country operated by the Tate, the V&A and so on.

It is important that there is a clear strategy and the Arts Council is held to account for it, because anyone who is in receipt of public money should be held to account. It is right that the funding strategy works for the national portfolio organisations on a three-year settlement, because organisations need to be able to plan for the future. While we welcome the additional year’s money that has been granted to the ENO for the coming year—it means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has said, that the 2023-24 season can go ahead—it gives no certainty beyond that and does not enable the ENO to make any further investment decisions. Even if the Arts Council had said, “We want the ENO to try to increase revenue from other sources,” that is not a compelling bid to take forward when the public money that the ENO relies on is no longer guaranteed. Who would match fund against public money that might not be there in just over a year’s time?

There needs to be a degree of certainty. There will always be more demands on the Arts Council than it can fulfil, and there will always be people it has to let down, but that is why having a clear strategy, plan and understanding with the organisations that it funds is so important. It cannot be right to take a major national institution such as the ENO that has been funded in a certain way for many years and pull the rug out from under it with very little notice; I understand that the ENO had 24 hours’ notice of the decision.

It would be perfectly legitimate for the Arts Council to say, “We must review the way opera is funded, and we want a strategy for that. We might want to look at how other revenue can support the opera, but we are going to do that during a transition period. What we are not going to do is create a cliff edge whereby the required funding is not there.” As hon. Members have said, not only has the decision had a direct impact on the ENO as an organisation, but the cuts have had a knock-on impact on arts and opera in the regions, which the Arts Council is there to support. That is the best evidence of the lack of a clear strategy. The Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), raised that in his intervention.

The Coliseum is subsidised by the ENO to the tune of about £2 million a year. If the ENO cannot support the Coliseum as a building, who else will go into it? Who will pay those costs? Will we be left in the invidious position of using public money that should go into supporting performance arts to subsidise a building that nobody can use? That, again, demonstrates the lack of clear strategy. My constituency has organisations that benefit from national portfolio funding, not least Creative Folkestone. Less than 20% of its funding comes from the Arts Council; it has a diverse form of income, and that is right, but the extra money that it gets from the Arts Council enables it to do more, to do better things and plan for the future.

At the end of this sorry saga, we need to get to a position where the ENO can plan for the future and invest in the future. If that is against a strategy to do more in the regions and more to reach diverse audiences, it needs a fair funding settlement to enable it to develop that strategy. We must recognise, too, that with major cultural institutions such as the ENO, what we see on the stage is, in some ways, the icing on the cake. There is a long tail of people who rely on that institution being there—the people who will develop their talents and may go on to work in other companies, the regional companies and tours that will be supported by that, and the people who are involved in costume design and set design—and a great variety of projects that are there to support people. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) mentioned the fantastic Breathe project that the ENO ran. All those things are lost if the ENO has no secure future. While yesterday’s announcement is welcome, there has to be a longer-term plan, otherwise we will simply be back in this position in a few months’ time.

January 23, 2023