IN his letter (You Say, October 28) concerning the city council's grant to the Swan Theatre, Coun Ian Imray has unfortunately failed to acknowledge the pivotal role played by West Midlands Arts (WMA), the City's principal partner in the Swan's funding.

In doing so, he presents only part of the story. The facts are that for many years, and especially since the late 1980s, WMA has sought undertakings from both the city and county authorities together to accept their responsibilities by matching its own grant to the Swan.

This undertaking was not given, despite repeated warnings of possible consequences.

Things came to a head four years ago, when WMA announced that any further grant would be conditional on matching funding. It was then that the city, by dipping into its considerable reserves, agreed to increase its grant from £54,000 to £137,000.

I should add, as the city council's appointee to the Board of the Swan, that there was no reference at that time, either to me or the Board, indicating that the grant was for a three-year period only. So far as I am aware, there is no council minute to this effect either.

To speak, as Coun Imray does, of a "base" or "standard" grant, which the council has "generously enhanced", is grossly to oversimplify and distort the real situation, which is that by reducing their grant to what it was four years ago, the council will be shutting out the possibility of a grant approaching £200,000 from WMA (now the Regional Council for Arts in the West Midlands).

This money would not only allow the Swan Theatre to continue its activities, but, as pointed out by a number of your correspondents, would also contribute significantly to the city's overall economy.

Coun Imray refers no less than four times to the "generosity" shown by the city in increasing its grant four years ago. I think his use of the word is misplaced.

This money does not belong to the city; it is taxpayers' money, which councillors have the heavy responsibility of allocating in the best interest of Worcester citizens.

He should also be aware that in any "league table" of local authority funding to local theatres by similar-sized authorities in the UK, Worcester City Council occupies an unenviable position close to, if not actually at, the bottom.

Even at the current "enhanced" level of funding, the city's contribution compares very unfavourably with that of neighbouring authorities such as Redditch or Hereford, which only leads us to the dismal conclusion that they each value their theatre more than our city does.

PHILIP HYTCH,

Worcester.