On 26th February the House of Lords debated the report of the Theatres
Trust on the state of West End theatres. It was a debate in which there
was a remarkable degree of unanimity thoughout the government, opposition
and cross benches. On behalf of the government Lord McIntosh of Haringey
wound up the debate, expressing its concern at the problems.
"We are prepared to act as an honest broker," he said."
The Secretary of State has agreed to chair a forum of key stakeholders
from across Whitehall, local government, the Mayor's office and other
agencies and NDPBs. It certainly will include the Society of London
Theatre and everybody involved. We are still working on the detailed
arrangements, and invitations will go out in the next few weeks.
"The aim of the forum will be to establish a common approach to
the issues facing the West End theatre, which are highlighted by the
report. We need to agree a consensus on whether there is a viable way
forward and, if so, how it can be achieved and by whom. It will be difficult
to get a common view from that—there was not exactly a common view
today—but we hope that everyone will be committed to finding a
successful outcome."
What follows are a few of the points raised in the debate. All quotations
are from Hansard, the official record of the House.
Lord Harrison rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they
will respond to the recent report by the Theatres Trust entitled Act
Now: Modernising London's West End Theatres.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some three years ago I opened a debate
in your Lordships' House concerning the plight of regional theatre.
Today I have the privilege of concentrating on London's commercial
theatres whose problems and opportunities have been so ably set out
in the Theatres Trust's outstanding report.
My reading of the report provokes a real concern about the wellbeing
of theatreland, whether we are talking of the support for live drama,
of its impact on London's tourist economy or of the conservation of
its built environment as represented by its wonderful century-old
theatres.
.....
The world comes to London and its theatres as tourists and visitors,
spending money which keeps our economy buoyant. The Wyndham Report
of 1998, quoted in Act Now, details the hitherto under-reported £1
billion spent by tourists in the West End, some £200 million
of which is passed on to the Exchequer. Theatre is a British export
and it is not too fanciful to declare that a buoyant theatre betokens
a buoyant economy.
But my principal reason for supporting the Theatres Trust's report
is its aspiration to modernise the stunning examples of Britain's
outstanding architectural heritage. Most of the 40 or so working theatres
are listed; they are authentic, august and available for work—all
criteria dear to our Government's heart. But they are in dire need
of remodelling.
.....
Act Now vividly describes how these theatres were designed
and built for audiences and back-stage staff of some 100 years ago.
But modern needs and sensibilities have changed. People have grown
larger, requiring bigger seats, more comfortably upholstered and with
better sightlines. My wife at a recent performance was unable to see
easily over the dress circle balcony without sitting forward. Toilets,
foyers and bars are in desperate need of being imaginatively upgraded,
and back-stage conditions need to conform to modern health and safety
practices.
Theatres must adapt to match the demands of the recent Disability
Discrimination Act. Wise investment here will draw in theatre lovers
who are currently reluctant to brave a solely able-bodied environment.
.....
I hope the Minister can encourage closer scrutiny of the disbursement
of national lottery funds dispensed by the Arts Council of England.
Although the current regulations do not prohibit application from
the commercial theatre sector, hitherto their intimations have been
lukewarm. But I believe a compelling case can be made for a one-off
programme of refurbishment, funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund.
.....
There is the question of whether the Government will make a direct
grant for the £250 million programme. While this is unlikely
to find favour with the Treasury, it should be recalled that VAT on
West End ticket sales alone each year nets some £48 million,
three times the amount needed to start that vital programme of adaptation
and refurbishment to ensure that London and Britain, with respect
to their theatres, keep top billing. But the clear message is this:
if we treasure our past and care for our future, then for our theatres'
sake we must indeed "Act Now".
Lord Lloyd Webber
I wish to give a couple of statistics. I apologise for having given
one in this House before. I remind your Lordships that the entire
profit of all four Shaftesbury Avenue playhouses from 1945 to the
present day is less than the public subsidy given to the Royal Court
Theatre. I refer to a matter that I have not mentioned in this House
and which I checked today. The company in which I have a 50 per cent
interest owns seven musical houses devoted mainly to musicals and
six playhouses. Ninety-four per cent of the turnover that we receive
comes from the music houses and only 6 per cent from the playhouses.
.....
As a musical theatre animal, I am much more concerned about the playhouses.
We in the musical theatre are big boys in one sense. Much of the work
that is performed is, I am afraid, getting closer to revivals and
shows that may be compilations, and are not what I would necessarily
want to see, but we are still there and we are still viable. But we
are subsidising the playhouses, certainly in my case, and that leads
me to a lot of concerns.
.....
One of the greatest difficulties that we face with some theatres
is the appalling sightlines. They were built as buildings in which
people were more to be seen in the audience than to be seen on stage.
I am going to say something that I never thought that I would ever
say, in this place of all places: I believe that there is a case for
the demolition and replacement of some of the playhouses.
The Government have a real problem with helping the commercial sector,
although I have the belief that they will help in as many ways as
they can. However, in the case of theatres such as the Lyric, which
is a wonderful music house although now it is impossible to make it
work, and the Apollo, which has a wonderful interior but one can see
practically nothing from most of its seats, would it not be better
if we did not stay on the heritage side? With the banks in the City
of London, English Heritage decided that it would keep the best of
them but would allow new development to happen. In the case of the
theatres, would it not be better for a partnership to happen with
a private developer that would allow a proper 1,000 or 1,300-seater
theatre at the entrance to Shaftesbury Avenue? That would then make
the whole climate different for people coming from the direction of
Piccadilly, and would give us the right sort of house.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
The good health of theatre principally depends on its ability to create
productions of a high enough standard to attract audiences. This can
be done in many ways, as the diversity of London theatre that we have
already heard discussed reveals. However, to some extent it depends
on an issue on which I want to concentrate: the symbiotic relationship
between a highly productive subsidised sector, which creates a large
volume of work that it must turn over quickly, and a commercial sector
of theatres that need successful work to fill them, as the noble Lord,
Lord Lloyd-Webber, has already pointed out.
When successful work is put in to a commercial theatre in the West
End, once it is established it can be left to run until it comes to
a natural end. On the whole, this cannot be allowed to happen in the
subsidised theatre.
(Subsidised) productions are in the West End for two reasons. First,
to give more people an opportunity to see them—that is very important—and,
secondly, to make money for the theatres where they originated. In
doing so, they supplement the funds that are provided by government
through the Arts Council or other funders. This is a vital part of
the theatre ecology in this country and it ensures that better value
is achieved from public funds that are put into the funded sector.
The productions themselves, originating, as they often do, in theatres
with modern technology and flexible spaces, are sometimes subjected
to compromising modifications in order to accommodate the limitations
of 19th century buildings where the relationship between performer
and audience is dominated by the proscenium arch. Let us not forget
the often woefully inadequate facilities provided for those doing
the hard work: the performers. They suffer from the lack of proper
provision for their needs in many of the theatres currently operating
in the West End.
Surely we can afford to look more creatively at how public money
might be allocated to accelerate the improvement of our London theatre
stock. The Coliseum has already been mentioned. It is worth noting
that it was in private hands until 1992. If it had remained in private
hands and had not been bought by the government in 1992 for the English
National Opera, the very beautiful restoration job that has been done
on it would probably not have been achieved. It has cost a great deal
of money, not all of which has come from public sources, although
a lot has.
Lord Feldman
For many years now, British film production companies have received
substantial tax benefits to enable more films to be made here. I do
not argue with that, but I do believe that some similar benefits should
be made available to renovate our West End theatres. We know that
more overseas tourists are likely to visit theatres than are likely
to make trips to the UK especially to see UK films.
.....
And what about the lottery? I do not believe that London theatres
have had enough support from that source either. In addition to making
grant aid available to theatres in London, could not the Government
also bring about some form of short-term tax benefit, in the same
way that they have done for films, to encourage more theatre investment?
.....
If the Government find a way of giving appropriate help, I would
also suggest that they set up ... an Arts Passport for the young,
which would give them the right to buy any unsold theatre tickets,
say, 15 or 20 minutes before curtain up, at a nominal price. That
would help us to "catch them young".
Baroness Buscombe
A predominant number of theatres in the West End are commercially
owned and run. The economics of theatre ownership is more complicated
than one might initially assume. I again refer to the Garrick theatre
as an example. The theatre is leased to a management company by the
freeholder on a long lease, which in turn contracts directly with
a producer of a particular production. The producer pays the costs
involved and sets the price of the tickets which, to some degree,
is limited by the facilities offered by each individual theatre. Statistics
show that only one in 10 productions in the West End returns a profit
with 70 per cent failing to recoup the initial investment cost. If
a profit on a production is returned, the majority of it will go not
to the theatre owner but to the producer.
Herein lies the problem. It is not commercially viable for any theatre
owner to invest a large amount of capital to undertake extensive restoration
of a theatre when there is no prospect of return in the short or even
medium term. Although some private individuals have personally invested
heavily in their theatres, this cannot be taken for granted. Such
investment is very welcome but cannot be seen as the solution to the
problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said, these are very generous
individuals but we cannot take them for granted.
Many private theatre owners do not have large amounts of unencumbered
capital available and would have to incur considerable debt to fund
refurbishment on the scale required. Additionally, whilst restorative
works take place, the theatres would have to remain closed, resulting
in substantial loss of revenue.
.....
When reading this excellent report, one particular statistic concerned
me greatly. In 1914 there were more than 1,100 theatres in the UK;
by 1980 that number had declined by 85 per cent—a loss of 935
theatres throughout the country. Yet the number of people visiting
the theatre topped 12 million for the first time in 2002. That anomaly
highlights the pressing need to find a solution to the predicament
that the theatres in London in particular are encountering.
Closing the debate, Lord McIntosh of Haringey added
I must be a bit discouraging about some of the sources of finance
that have been raised tonight. We remain of the view that the Government's
role should be to support the subsidised sector rather than the fully
commercial theatre. If we want a theatre that takes artistic risks,
sustains the best of tradition, develops new talent, promotes both
excellence and access, and feeds the commercial theatre—as the
noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, said—the symbiotic
relationship that the subsidised theatre maintains with the commercial
theatre is so important. That was even pointed out in the Wyndham
report in 1998. Look at the list of Olivier nominations in recent
years to see the recent transfers to the West End: "Vincent in
Brixton"; "Anything Goes"; "Oklahoma!"; "Lieutenant
of Inishmore"; and, more recently, "Jerry Springer: The
Opera", which I am summoning up courage to go to see at some
stage.
I cannot be enthusiastic about the suggestion of a levy on ticket
sales, which my noble friend Lord Harrison raised. There is a levy
on ticket sales in New York, but it is voluntary. Is it really desirable
to have more expensive tickets for the West End theatre? Issues of
VAT are for the Chancellor, and there is nothing that I can add, but
the House will be aware of the huge limitations that there are on
us in making exceptions in the VAT regime.
The noble Lords, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Lord Feldman and
Lord Willoughby de Broke, all referred to lottery money. The noble
Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, rightly reminded us of the
principle of additionality that must be maintained. The principle
surely must be that we will not fund projects that would result in
a private gain that is greater than the public benefit. That creates
a difficulty with subsidising private theatre. In many ways, the same
argument applies to the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady
Hooper, about tax breaks. It is difficult to see how we could have
tax breaks that would not discriminate in favour of one private, profit-making
organisation over another.
.....
I have to admit that I am not being very encouraging about new sources
of finance. However, we have to put the fabric of the London theatres,
which is the subject of this report, into context as part of the tourist,
entertainment and hospitality industry in London. It is enormously
important. The Wyndham report stated that it is worth £1 billion
a year to the local and national economy, and I am sure that that
is right. Currently research is being undertaken to update that figure.
Theatre has been a living force in this country for over 500 years,
more if one counts the mystery plays. It has helped to shape our cultural
heritage and our national consciousness. In the new millennium, it
is enormously important that theatre has the power to create a live,
shared experience which can move, surprise and engage us in ways that
other art forms find difficult to do. I do not have any solutions,
but I hope that the forum we are holding in April, to which I referred,
will find common ground in addressing the problems which have been
raised. Certainly our debate has been of great value to the Government
and all the participants in the forum in seeking a solution which
will satisfy us all.
The House then adjourned.
