Terms of reference
5. The Committee issued a call for evidence setting
out a number of issues as guidance for submissions in December
2004 (set out below). We received a large number of submissions
from arts organisations, campaigns, theatres and a few individuals.
There was a range of views on some of the issues but a surprising
consensus on others. The issues identified and summary of responses
was as follows.
a) The current, and likely future, pattern
of public subsidy for the theatre including both revenue support
and capital expenditure.
i. There was a consensus that the funding uplift
of 2002, following the Theatre Review debate and production of
a National Policy, had revived British theatre with special emphasis
on a regional renaissance. Equally, however, there was unanimity
that the freezing of Arts Council funding for the next spending
period threatened all that had been achieved. In addition, there
was the concern that where the Government led, other sources of
funding would follow.[5]
ii. The achievements of National Lottery capital
funding were welcomed but there was concern that an equivalent
investment needed to be sustained into work to be undertaken in
the buildings that had been created or re-created. The disparity
between capital awards for museums and galleries and those for
theatre was highlighted.[6]
b) The performance of the Arts Council England
in developing strategies and priorities and disbursing funds accordingly.
i. The Arts Council (ACE) received praise for
its reorganisation, the National Policy for Theatre and the streamlining
of funding systems.[7]
ii. However, a debate emerged. On one side were
those who saw ACE's distribution of funding as stagnant, unrelated
to arts policy outcomes and general performance and slanted towards
existing clients and 'buildings'.[8]
On the other were those who regarded the current pattern as appropriate
given the existing investment in regularly funded organisations
and the valuable critical mass of activities, including out-reach,
and in-reach, taking place at a majority of subsidised theatres.[9]
c) Support for maintenance and development
Theatre buildings
i. There was support for the establishment of
a Lottery funding stream explicitly for regular maintenance for
which no theatre seemed able to generate reserves. This appeared
now to be regarded as a higher priority than grand re-development
schemes.[10]
New writing
ii. New writing was consistently emphasised
as extremely important for the health of the art form and a number
of theatres demonstrated their support for it (with the Royal
Court as the obvious exemplar).[11]
The writers' representatives suggested that some further practical
measures were needed.[12]
Most witnesses stressed that new work, and its attendant risks,
required adequate subsidy for the sector.
iii. There was strong evidence of markedly weaker
support systems for new musical writing, and productions of new
musicals, than for drama.[13]
New performing talent
iv. Much stress was laid on the importance of
reaching out to young people to develop new audiences as well
as to inspire a new generation from whose ranks new talent would
emerge (on and behind the stage).[14]
There was criticism of the perceived divide between professional
and amateur theatre (despite the origins of many professionals
in the latter).[15]
v. The need for more effort and initiatives to
tackle the lack of diversity in the theatre workforce—as
well as in new writing and in audiences—was also raised.
There was a need to encourage the provision of appropriate opportunities
and role models, as well as candidates for those opportunities,
from amongst ethnic minorities.[16]
We note the Arts Council's target that, by 2007/08, 14% of regularly
funded organisations would be led by black and minority ethnic
artists or key to the infrastructure that supported their work.[17]
vi. Concern was expressed about the lack of coordination
of the training and development opportunities in drama and theatre
and the relatively low incidence of accreditation by the National
Council for Drama Training amongst the many related higher education
courses offered around the country.[18]
More indirectly, the scarcity of large cast productions, low pay
and poor advice were also identified as a significant barrier
to developing careers in theatre.
d) The significance of the theatre as a genre
(1) within the cultural life of the UK; (2) in the regions specifically,
and (3) within the UK economy, directly and indirectly.
i. There was virtual unanimity over the centrality
of theatre within British culture; the blooming of regional theatre
since 2002; and the enormous contribution that theatre made to
the economy at local, regional and national levels. However, it
was clear that the formalisation of such findings, and their systematic
use to forge partnerships with local and regional government,
had yet to be undertaken successfully.[19]
e) The effectiveness of public subsidy for
theatre and the relationship between the subsidised sector and
the commercial sector—especially London's West End.
i. It was clear from the emerging impacts of
the funding uplift for theatre in 2002 that public subsidy for
theatre was effective.[20]
The debate, referred to above, between funding 'people' and funding
'buildings' was, however, relevant here too.
ii. The relationship between commercial and subsidised
theatre, in terms of transfers of productions, was generally described
as one of mutual benefit in some cases[21]
but the balance of power in negotiations was felt to be with commercial
producers in most instances.[22]
A different type of mutually beneficial relationship was said
to the management of theatres, on behalf of local authorities,
by the larger commercial companies who could bring expertise and
economies of scale to bear.[23]
f) Progress with significant (re-)development
projects.
i. Submissions dealt with plans and progress
of a number of substantial re-development projects including at
the Royal Shakespeare Company's base in Stratford-upon-Avon, the
Crucible in Sheffield and the Belgrade in Coventry.
ii. Proposals for a substantial public investment,
over the next 15 years, in the commercially-operated theatres
of London's West End, and related arguments, were also set out.
Course of inquiry
6. At Westminster we took oral evidence during public
hearings from representatives of:
a) The Writers Guild of Great Britain; The Theatres
Trust; and the Central Council for Amateur Theatre (CCAT), the
National Operatic and Dramatic Association (NODA) and the Little
Theatres Guild (LTG).
b) The National Theatre; the Society of London
Theatre (SoLT) and the Theatrical Management Association (TMA);
and the Independent Theatre Council (ITC).
c) The Almeida and Donmar Warehouse theatres;
the London Old Vic and the Royal Court theatres; and the Ambassador
Theatre Group (ATG), Clear Channel Entertainment, Delfont Mackintosh
Theatres Ltd, and Really Useful Theatres.
d) Equity, BECTU and the Musicians Union; the
National Campaign for the Arts; the Arts Council England (ACE)
and the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF); and Rt Hon Estelle Morris
MP, the Minister for the Arts, Department for Culture, Media and
Sport (DCMS).
7. We also held a hearing—to which representatives
of a selection of regional and local theatres and the Royal Shakespeare
Company (RSC) were invited—at the Birmingham Repertory Theatre
and took evidence from: the Rep itself, Birmingham City Council
and the Manchester Royal Exchange; the Crucible and West Yorkshire
Playhouse; Derby Playhouse, Lichfield Garrick, Lichfield District
Council and the Belgrade, Coventry; and the RSC.[24]
8. In addition to the formal hearing at the Rep,
this visit to the West Midlands included informal meetings and
discussions at the Lichfield Garrick, at the Glasshouse College
site in Stourbridge and at the RSC in Stratford-upon-Avon.
9. The Lichfield Garrick is a rare example of a new
theatre developed on the back of the firm commitment of the district
council to invest in, and fund, a sizeable theatre as the cultural
hub of the local community. Discussion there centred around funding
issues, especially for new and evolving arts organisations and
initiatives, and the ambitions of the Garrick to itself move from
receiving to production with a particular focus on creating a
platform for local voices and providing opportunities for the
development of local expertise (behind and above the stage).
10. At the Glasshouse College in Stourbridge—the
second site of the developing Ruskin Mill Educational Trust—we
were privileged to see and discuss an enormously impressive educational
initiative, for young people with learning disabilities or other
challenges to overcome, based around a holistic set of creative
and cultural activities, including drama, founded upon the revitalisation
of traditional skills of the locale; in particular glass-making.
We also heard plans for a major arts and drama festival there
in August 2006.[25]
11. In Stratford we saw and discussed the RSC's final
blueprint for the re-development of its main house, the Royal
Shakespeare Theatre. We also had the opportunity of meeting an
RSC ensemble who were in the midst of a national and international
tour—including stops from Forres to Truro to Ebbw Vale and
on to North Carolina in the USA—with Two Gentlemen of
Verona and Julius Caesar. This tour was using a mobile
self-contained studio theatre which could be erected within any
large space, such as a leisure centre main hall, inside a day.
This initiative, as one of the cast remarked to us, was genuinely
taking the theatre to the people.
12. Previous work by this Committee in this area
includes an examination of the reform of the Arts Council and
initial proposals for re-developing the Royal Shakespeare Theatre
in Stratford-upon-Avon.[26]
We also took evidence on musical theatre—inspired by the
plight of the Bridewell Theatre in the City of London—in
2003. The proceedings of that hearing on 14 October 2003, and
relevant material accepted as formal memoranda, are published
alongside this Report.[27]
This is the first inquiry into theatre per se by this Committee
or any of its predecessors.
13. We are extremely grateful to all our witnesses,
and hosts, for their time and effort in contributing so effectively
to our inquiries.[28]
1 Q 498 Back
2
Ev 201 Back
3
More than attend Premiership football games. Ev 158 Back
4
Act Now! Modernising London's West End Theatres, The Theatres
Trust, 2003, p18 Back
5
QQ 14 and 468, Ev 46, 156, 176-7. Back
6
Ev 11-12, Arts Council England, 17 March 2005 Back
7
Ev 107, 110 and 156 Back
8
Ev 55 and Q 388 Back
9
QQ 317-319 and 398 Back
10
Ev 142 Back
11
Ev 76, 142, 169 and 179 Back
12
Ev 2-3 Back
13
Ev 93-97 and see Volume III, passim Back
14
Q 190 (Ms Jones) Back
15
Ev 19-25 Back
16
Ev 160 and 166, and Q 465 Back
17
Arts Council England, 17 March 2005 Back
18
Ev 170 Back
19
Ev 109, QQ 320 (Mr Ormston), 323-4, 352 and 401 Back
20
Ev 188-9 Back
21
Ev 82, 87-91 Back
22
Ev 56 Back
23
Q 290 Back
24
A full dramatis personae for the inquiry is set out at
the back of this Report. Back
25
In August 2004, the Stourbridge Glasshouse College hosted the
inaugural International Festival of Glass (incorporating the British
Glass Biennale). Back
26
See Third Report, 2001-02, Arts Development, HC 489. Back
27
This material is set out in Volume III Back
28
The relevant evidence gathered during this inquiry is published
in Volume II Back
