| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move to the next topic.
Dance and Drama Students12.30 pm
Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester): There are some things that this country is quite simply best at--and I am not just referring to football. Theatre is one of those things. Britain can be justifiably proud of its theatrical heritage. We have enormous artistic talent, but the worldwide reputation of British dance and drama has been built on the hard work, dedication and training that are required for success in those demanding professions. Some 93 per cent. of our dancers and 86 per cent. of our actors and actresses were trained professionally, and most of our finest performers began their careers at the small number of independent dance and drama schools that still promote professional standards and excellence in the performing arts.
Together, those independent schools provide a system of training which, as Sir Anthony Hopkins said--a man, incidentally, whose personal contribution to the training of our young people is generous in the extreme--
Thanks to the national lottery, we are investing in the physical infrastructure of the arts on a massive scale, but we are ignoring human capital in a cavalier way. We also risk destroying the long-term training infrastructure of fine schools that may be forced to close or make invidious choices--schools such as the Birmingham school of speech and drama, the central school of ballet and the Doreen Bird college of performing arts, of which we have every right to be proud.
Young talent must be trained in dance and drama schools, not just at higher education institutions and universities. After years of warning, we are now at the very edge of the precipice. Very soon--apart from the lucky few who live in the right place, or whose parents are prepared to make enormous sacrifices to ensure that they are trained: some constituents of mine have sold their home to fund their daughter's dance training--only the rich and the foreigner will be able to be trained at British schools of performing arts.
Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber said 18 months ago--his office tells me that he stands by these remarks--
Vocational dance and drama training in the United Kingdom takes place at independent institutions that receive no funds from central Government. As a result, they must charge full economic fees for the courses they offer--typically, some £7,500 a year for dance, with maintenance costs on top of that.
With no central funding, and now no eligibility for mandatory awards, students must rely on discretionary awards from their local education authorities; but increasing numbers of LEAs are saying that they cannot afford to fund students. Some feel that they can use such large sums better by sharing them among more students, while others have a philosophical dislike of private education, which is how they wrongly view the independent stage schools. Others--such as Hereford and Worcester county council in my constituency--have given up discretionary grants altogether. The total cost of dance and drama training in those institutions is a little over £20 million a year, and only a small proportion of that is now being met by the LEAs.
There have been two recent surveys, one of which received rather more publicity than the other. I had conducted my own survey before I realised that the Gulbenkian Foundation, along with a number of other charities and trusts, had commissioned one. I am glad to say that the two surveys produced broadly the same outcome. The Gulbenkian Foundation survey, published on 4 June, said:
Mr. Luff:
My hon. Friend points the finger in the right direction. I intend to return to that subject later.
The Gulbenkian Foundation continued:
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Hastings and Rye):
I apologise for arriving a few seconds late. My hon. Friend has made some very good points, with which I entirely agree. Can he confirm the experience of students in my constituency, that even the charities that have been able to help out in the past are now running out of money?
Mr. Luff:
My hon. Friend is right. I am glad to say that organisations such as the Foundation for Sport and the Arts are making awards, but they cannot be expected to make good the total shortfall.
Vocational performing arts training is pretty well the only first qualification for which Government funds are now not available. Music and visual arts students receive mandatory awards, as do academic dance and drama students who go on to teach, and students of Anglo-Saxon and sociology. For my party, which believes in equality of opportunity, the issue cries out to be addressed. The human results are very worrying.
There is, for instance, the misery of those who cannot fulfil their talents. I find interviews on the subject in my constituency heartbreaking. It is almost impossible to look at the girls involved--the students in my constituency tend to be girls, because it contains a fine dance school, the Harlequin stage school in Worcester, run by the principal, Paula Dymock. That school has an extraordinary ability to bring on the inherent talents of girls, but we know that, because they live in Hereford and Worcester, they will not be able to go on to the colleges that they wish to attend in order to develop their talents. I cannot accept that such talents should be discarded.
There is another problem. Some LEAs make partial funding available to students, but that too is a kind of trap, although it is better than nothing. Students try to make up the financial shortfall by working part time while they are on their courses, which means that they cannot deal with the physical requirements of those demanding courses, especially dance courses. There is abundant evidence of increased injuries to dance students through lapses in concentration and simple physical and psychological pressure. As a result, students withdraw from courses injured and in debt.
Whom do I blame? I firmly blame the Labour and Liberal parties which, sadly, are in power at LEA level. They are turning their backs on the problem. They, not the Government, are to blame. The local authority for the Minister's constituency finds the money to spend--not surprising, because its budget increases in real terms each and every year. However, it will not find even modest sums for the most talented dance and drama students who want to go to college.
Labour postures, but has nothing to offer. Labour floated an inadequate solution in 1994, but it seems to have sunk without trace. That party's document, "Lifelong Learning", which was published last month, alludes to the problem tangentially. Its introduction states:
We must first make sure that schools and courses are up to the mark, then provide direct public funding as for any other career or qualification. There must be accreditation, to make sure that schools deserve the public money that I want them to receive. Drama schools were the first to be accredited, followed by the Council for Dance Education and Training--whose procedures are exceptionally stringent and effective.
The drama sector admits that dance education is in the lead in that respect. The National Council for Drama Education plans to catch up, using new accreditation
procedures. The CDET accredits courses, not institutions, and aims at raising standards throughout the country. Its system was devised after extensive consultation with Ofsted and experts. Visits are made by trained inspectors, including former members of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools.
That serious exercise began a year ago, and seems likely to result in a significant reduction in the number of accredited dance courses, which will in turn lower the number of students eligible for discretionary awards by two thirds. Dance schools have gone through a tough process, and deserve credit for their approach. My hon. Friend the Minister can be confident that the courses remaining will deserve the taxpayers' money. The accreditation procedures in place or being developed will have to be approved by the Department with a rubber stamp, but we do not need the new bureaucracy proposed by Labour.
Public funding would end the system whereby LEAs make discretionary awards. They do not want that discretion, but are anxious to surrender it. Some voices in the Government say that we must not deny any discretion to LEAs or local authorities. In fact, that discretion creates more problems than it is worth.
It is easier for the Government to solve the problem in drama training, because students are typically post-A-level, and it is effectively a higher education sector. Drama students could go straight for mandatory grants, with the schools funded centrally. Dance education is more complicated, because its pupils normally begin intensive vocational courses at a much earlier age, to develop muscle memory and so on, before taking their A-levels.
The Government could adopt a range of possible solutions--I am not concerned which, provided that the outcome will be mandatory awards for dance students. The Government could expand the music and ballet scheme, make direct grants, develop a permanent role for the Arts Council or--my personal preference--establish an independent funding council for dance education. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was Prime Minister, he made music students eligible for mandatory awards. I hope that the present Government will do the same for other students.
The Government are already doing a lot that is right. I welcome the expansion of the music and ballet scheme. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced an extension of the specialist schools programme to sport and the arts, including the performing arts. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has said that lottery money can be used to develop young talent. However, the fundamental injustice remains. I want the Government to develop a sticking plaster solution--a short-term remedy--while they work out the longer-term answer.
I do not believe that the Arts Council represents the long-term solution. Given the huge contribution to our lives that the performing arts make, they should be treated like any other academic or vocational qualification and be funded by the same sort of institutions--although, in the short term, the Arts Council must be involved.
On 1 April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage issued new guidance on lottery funds that instructs the Arts Council to take into account
the desirability of developing talents, skills and creative abilities--particularly among young people--while having regard, rightly, to the importance of not entering into long-term commitments or creating long-term expectations that might limit the money available for distribution in future. The mechanism exists for a stop-gap solution while my hon. Friend the Minister and his officials develop a longer-term answer.
"is the envy of other countries; we produce actors who are respected and revered around the world and who can be fine ambassadors for the nation."
Those fine actors and dancers enhance our cultural lives, but they also play a major part in attracting visitors to our country. London's theatre life is a magnet for tourists from overseas, and from elsewhere in the country. It is a huge factor in the economy of London and the nation. Around Britain, regional companies rely on, and themselves develop, the pool of well-trained actors and dancers produced by our specialist stage schools. From Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber's latest musical to the revivals of classic dramas, and from the Royal Ballet to the latest contemporary dance, one strand runs: dependence on British performing talent.
"This country is famous for its talent in this field. The present policy could lead to a serious gap in training and ability, which, if allowed to continue, will be filled by others."
He means, of course, foreigners in his own musicals.
"The situation is at least as bad as had been feared. Twenty-eight per cent. of all LEAs have a declared policy of giving no support to students of dance and drama."
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham):
Is not a particularly tragic example that of Kent county council, which scrapped discretionary grants when Labour and the Liberal Democrats took control? A young girl living close to my constituency--a very talented dancer--was turned down for such a grant. What is particularly wicked is that, if and when parents appeal, the appeal is conceded, but the parents do not know that in advance. Parents who do not appeal have therefore lost the opportunity. Moreover, the Lib-Lab county council will not tell Members of Parliament about constituents whose applications have been refused, and whom we could inform of the possibilities of success at appeal.
"Between 1994-5 and 1995-6, the two years covered by this study, the number of students receiving such awards fell by 12 per cent. Of those LEAs which did make awards in this field, less than half met the full cost of college fees and of maintenance at the standard (i.e. mandatory award) level. There is evidence that potential students are being discouraged from applying for support both because they perceive that they have little chance of success, and because of their concern that if they are successful they themselves will have to bear the cost of a substantial part of their fees."
Some believe that we can turn the clock back and encourage local education authorities such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) to start making awards again, and increase the number of awards. I think that those hopes are ill founded.
"whole categories of students have no mandatory entitlements".
I searched in vain for any explanation of how that would be overcome. Even the inadequate solution that Labour was canvassing of a small number of accredited schools, not courses--many of which are already in the higher education sector--seems to have been dropped. No doubt Labour's shadow Arts Minister is afraid of the shadow Chancellor. So much for new Labour's commitment to the arts.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |