House of Commons - Culture, Media and Sport

Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Fifth Report

2 The theatre estate

14. Theatre is about creativity and skill and people. But it is also about spaces to house those skilled people and identifiable, sometimes iconic, buildings in which to bring that creativity together with an audience not distracted by lumpy seats, poor sightlines and hot and airless conditions (not to mention a second mortgage taken out to pay for the evening). It would appear from our evidence that few if any theatre buildings, whether in public or private hands, subsidised or not, can generate sufficient revenue to meet the demands of significant renovation and refurbishment. Some, like the Old Vic in London, struggle to stop the rain leaking on to the stage. In addition to the importance of suitable venues for performances, theatre buildings can, and should, act as hubs for related arts activities at non-performance times and, as the DCMS wrote, "can provide an identity and vitality to local areas".[29]

The West End

THE CASE FOR PUBLIC INVESTMENT

15. There is a concentration of over 40 theatres (mostly listed buildings), the majority of which are owned and managed by commercial operators, in the West End of London. The evidence is clear that these theatres, collectively, are a significant driver of economic activity in a number of ways—and not just for London—and, together, constitute a substantial amount of heritage. They are, as Mr Oliver Ford Davies, actor, said, "a kind of national treasure … comparable to the national Gallery and the Tate and even to Westminster Abbey".[30] However, these theatres are argued to be in need of extensive renovation and refurbishment if they are to remain fit for purpose into the future and if the best of that heritage is to be preserved. The economics of commercial theatre management were argued to mean that the industry could not meet the estimated bill.[31] DCMS have advised the sector that it would not be "realistic" to expect grant-in-aid direct from Government and that the National Lottery is the principal remaining avenue.[32] The issue is being considered by the DCMS.

16. The Theatres Trust, a statutory body established in 1976 specifically to protect theatre buildings, has conducted a major survey of the West End theatre estate. The Trust concluded that a major programme of renovation and adaptation was necessary. This initiative was needed to ensure that the theatres of the West End—mostly built, and re-built, on the cheap between 1880 and 1937—could meet the aspirations and ambitions of 21^st century audiences, performers and staff as well as the requirements of 21^st century legislation. The Trust estimated that a total of £250 million (at 2003 prices) would need to be spent over a period of some 15 years.[33]

17. Representatives of the commercial sector were at pains to point out that the works identified by the Trust were not "needed at the moment" and that the theatres in question were licensed, safe and "perfect". Millions of pounds had been invested by the companies concerned in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act, health and safety and other regulatory requirements.[34] Ms Rosemary Squire, Executive Director of the Ambassador Theatre Group, explained that the improvements identified in the Act Now! report related to securing the future of what were, almost exclusively, very old listed buildings for the next 50 to 100 years.[35] The changing demands and expectations of audiences (including the fact that individuals were getting bigger) and the legacies of completely different social circumstances—for instance separate entrances for the cheaper seats and inadequate facilities for women—needed to be dealt with.[36]

18. The West End's commercial operators wanted half of this sum to come from a public purse; £125 million pounds over 15 years. The Theatres Trust report argued that commercial theatre, despite its wider economic impact, operates on extremely tight profit margins and is severely constrained by planning and usage restrictions so there was "no alternative but to look to Government or other outside agencies for some kind of matching assistance."[37]

19. Both the Trust and the Society of London Theatre highlighted the case of Sir Cameron Mackintosh's recent refurbishment of the Prince of Wales Theatre to illustrate the problem. The Society reported that Sir Cameron spent some £8 million of his own money on the project, "not as an investment decision but as an act of personal philanthropy".[38] Despite the expenditure, the market value of the building was said to be unlikely to be any more now than it was before the improvements. This situation was claimed to apply right across the programme of work outlined by the Act Now! report.[39] Sir Cameron had earmarked £35 million for the up-grading of his theatrical venues; but indications from his company were that the experience of work on the Prince of Wales Theatre suggested that this sum would not cover the wider programme of work originally envisaged.[40]

20. The Society of London Theatre said that the industry was confident of its ability to contribute half of the total capital programme: "We are working on the assumption that the balance of the £125 million may be forthcoming over the same time period from a consortium of cultural, heritage and economic interests."[41] This grouping, however, was not expected to include businesses said to benefit significantly, but indirectly, from West End theatre such as hotels and restaurants.[42] Despite the large headline sum, Sir Stephen Waley-Cohen, President of the Society, pointed out that, on current estimates and plans, the public commitment amounted to £2.5 million per year from each of the three prospective public sector partners—the Heritage Lottery Fund, the London Development Agency and Arts Council England—for 15 years.[43] However, Mr Andre Ptaszynski, Chief Executive of Really Useful Theatres, conceded: "We have come up with a convenient number [£250 million] because the likely beneficial spend in the West End, if we could find it over the next 15 years, came to around that sum. … We know that is not realistic, we think it may well be, in 15 years' time, that we need to look again, at the phase two, or something, but it is the sensible number to be using as our target."[44]

21. The Society of London Theatre and the representatives of the West End theatres said relatively little about the means of ensuring accountability and oversight for any funding package and nothing positive about a quid pro quo for the public beyond the potential for people to enjoy the improvements themselves.[45] The Society envisaged establishing an independent charity for the receipt and disbursement of funds. The Society proposed that any grant would be made subject to the charity taking a lien on the theatre buildings concerned to be exercised in the event that they should ever cease to be used for theatrical purposes.[46]

22. The evidence is clear that the West End is a significant economic powerhouse not least in terms of London's tourist trade with benefits for the UK as a whole as amply set out in a number of studies.[47] In addition the commercial and subsidised theatre sectors are inter-dependent, with a plethora of more or less mutually beneficial relationships. To neglect the substantial national assets represented by the West End theatres—whoever actually owns them—would be negligent in the extreme; penny-wise but extremely pound-foolish. The DCMS wrote that it recognised the concerns highlighted in the Act Now! Report and that "Ministers set up a Working Group to investigate the issue." This group made an initial report in December 2004 and plans to report again in Spring 2005.[48] We hope that all relevant parties are represented on this group and that it has effective administrative support. The last Government working group connected with one of our inquiries took four years to come to the startling conclusion that no action was necessary.[49] We would be disappointed not to receive an outline conclusion on the West End's request as part of the response to this Report.

23. Ms Carole Souter, Director of the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), emphasised that responding to the West End's request was a shared responsibility between her organisation, the Arts Council England and the London Development Agency. She also warned that while funding for privately owned buildings was within the HLF's gift, it was currently a low priority. She told us "I am not intending to sound hesitant, but equally I do not want to suggest that as of tomorrow there will be a signed cheque because we are not at that point. There is an awful lot of work to do to be clear about the mechanics of how these would work. It would be a relatively new area for us to fund in this way, and I think we also need to talk to the theatres themselves about whether they are comfortable with the requirements which we would have for access, involvement and public benefit to demonstrate that the public gain outweighs any potential [gain] privately."[50]

SAFEGUARDS, ACCOUNTABILITY AND A RETURN FOR THE PUBLIC

24. We were dismayed that the West End did not come to the table with more detailed proposals for how the money would be handled in an appropriate, transparent and accountable manner. The independent charity sounds worthy but in effect may simply be a way of simplifying the burdens of multiple lottery applications for a range of similar projects. But if a local village hall children's playgroup has to go through the full process for a Lottery award, why should the renovation of large commercial theatres be treated any less rigorously? As Ms Charlotte Jones, Chief Executive of the Independent Theatre Council, said: "the concept of setting up a separate trust where the Lottery funding goes straight in, rather than having to comply with all the normal Lottery tick-boxing is an interesting suggestion. I would be amazed if the subsidised sector could get away with that."[51]

25. In similar vein we were unimpressed by potential benefits for the wider lottery-playing public in return for its investment of £125 million in this particular good cause. In fact we could not identify any on offer nor under discussion. We would place the lien related to change of use firmly with the lottery distributors, rather than the proposed charity, and recommend that it be seen as a fundamental safeguard should the initiative proceed. If a theatre, renovated and refurbished with the public's money to be fit for purpose for future generations, changes use then it should be axiomatic that the full amount of lottery money absorbed by that building is repaid. The conditions of this repayment must be set down in black and white so there can be no repetition of the Wembley Stadium 'handshake' debacle.[52] In addition, we believe that if such a theatre is sold within 10 years of lottery-funded renovation then the Lottery should benefit to some degree.

Access

26. However, the more serious question is what is the public going to get for its investment? We believe that access to the theatre is the most important thing, and ticket prices and booking fees—in the West End—are significant barriers to that access. Perhaps a satisfactory return for the public's investment would be a set proportion of "People's Seats", in all parts of the house, at a lower price. Alternatively, since the West End is to benefit from the Lottery perhaps it would be appropriate to run a free lottery with an agreed number of tickets put into the pot by theatres benefiting from the initiative.

27. We also took the opportunity to discuss the apparently invidious circumstances in which the price on the face of West End tickets was often not the full cost incurred at the point of sale, due to booking fees. Ms Squire, Ambassador Theatre Group, pointed out that face-value tickets were available from theatre box offices but that bookings, with relatively modest fees to cover costs, were now possible by phone and via the internet 24 hours a day.[53] Mr Ptaszynski, Really Useful Theatres, told us that, unlike many subsidised theatres which control all their own ticket sales, ticketing arrangements in the commercial sphere were the result of agreements between theatre operators, out-sourced agencies and the particular show's producer. He gave the analogy of retail goods, M&S underwear for example, that could be priced to show separately the cost of production and the cost of distribution. Mr Ptaszynski said that one reason for the separation of these costs was that producers pay royalties based on "box office" income and a common way of reducing the total amount on which such royalties were payable was to separate out "legitimate" charges for the ticketing process. He told us that "we have not yet discovered, as an industry, …the way not to wash that dirty linen in public."[54] Obviously not.

28. On this issue the Office of Fair Trading recently concluded that:

i. overall, consumers did not suffer higher prices due to a lack of competition between ticket agents; but

ii. consumer concern stemmed from inadequate information of the existence of fees, and where to buy tickets without them.[55]

29. The Office of Fair Trading recommended that theatre advertising be required: to include the face value of the ticket; to indicate that additional fees may apply and could vary depending upon the sales channel and ticket seller used; and to indicate where tickets could be purchased at face value. We agree. A complaisant theatre-going public has for too long accepted this blatant rip-off and it is time it was brought to an end.

Working conditions

30. Representatives of Equity, BECTU and the Musicians Union argued that, if public money was to be invested in West End theatres, then remedying the poor backstage working environment should be included as a condition of the funding. Mr McGarry, General Secretary of Equity, told us "the backstage conditions are, frankly, quite appalling; there are not many other professional workers who would accept the conditions that even leading members of the profession have to experience behind the scenes, and if there is going to be investment in the refurbishing of theatres then that should be a priority".[56]

Relationship with the subsidised sector

31. A further dimension to a return for the public from its potential investment in the West End is the relationship between the commercial and subsidised sector. As we have mentioned, there are mutually beneficial relationships between subsidised and commercial theatre although the balance of benefit varies markedly. We recommend that the DCMS and the lottery distributors should give consideration to how the balance of benefits in that relationship might be shifted in favour of subsidised theatre as part of a deal with commercial operators over capital investment in infrastructure; extracting more 'bang' for public 'bucks' from commercial transfers of productions that originate in the subsidised theatre sector (with all the risks shouldered therein).

Other issues

32. Sir Christopher Frayling, Chairman of Arts Council England, told us that, while the Arts Council had a long history of relationships between the public and private sectors, there were practical issues—which he suggested included access, what sort of stage there was to be and what went on stage—that must be settled before any kind of commitment, let alone to £125 million, was made.[57] In contrast Sir Stephen Waley-Cohen, Society of London Theatres, said that "to attach a condition of the kind of product that should be presented would be extremely difficult … any suggestion of controlling what is presented would be a great pity."[58] In addition, despite Sir Christopher's remarks, Mr Richard Pulford, Chief Executive of the Society, told us that the Arts Council had "not so far raised that issue" and that "there would be very real difficulties if they did."[59]

33. West End commercial theatre has made a case for public investment in its infrastructure but it has failed to back this up so far with a convincing commitment to accountability during the process nor a return for the wider public. This is not a good start. In addition, we believe that the 'West End' initiative needs to embrace the Old Vic (if another solution is not found for its maintenance issues) as this theatre fits the profile set out in the Act Now! report: namely that it is theatrically significant, it is not subsidised, it is in urgent need and it is a national treasure.

34. We conclude that West End commercial theatre's most compelling arguments rest on grounds of heritage and economic impact. Therefore we believe that the Heritage Lottery Fund, the GLA and London Development Agency should be the major partners in responding to the West End's call. The Arts Council England should take a back seat, contributing to the structure of the funding package but reserving the bulk of its pressured capital resources for non-commercial theatre which itself has very pressing needs as we discuss in the following section.

35. We note the Arts Minister's valedictory remarks on this topic: "This is probably a bit demob happy, but I personally would be disappointed if the efforts we had put in to the West End Theatre forum came to naught, but I just do not know - the Lottery distributors have a lot of pressures on their resource."[60]

The subsidised sector

36. The Theatres Trust, while author of the report on the West End, was equally concerned about the theatre estate as a whole across the country. The Trust told us that over 85% of the theatres standing in 1914 had been lost by the 1970s and very few theatre buildings had not closed for a period for one reason or another. Many existing theatres had been saved by a period in a alternative use, such as bingo or cinema, in areas where capital values did not rise appreciably. However, the Trust said, once consent has been given for a change of use the land value increased so dramatically that return to use as a theatre was out of the question. The Trust argued that where a theatre site was lost, and land value increased, there was a case for a proportionate payment to help create or improve other theatre buildings in the vicinity.[61]

37. Some local authorities had planning policies which sought to protect theatres and even require theatres (and other cultural facilities) to be replaced in some circumstances. The relatively new Garrick Theatre in Lichfield, which we visited, is a rare example of a local authority making a significant commitment, in terms of capital and on-going revenue funding, to a new theatre created on the site of a civic hall.[62] As in our recent conclusions on the public library estate,[63] we were interested in the use of "Section 106" agreements as a way of securing concrete benefits for the public from the planning process. Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 allows a local planning authority to enter into a legally-binding agreement, known as a "planning obligation", with a developer. Such agreements place either restrictions or obligations on developers for the benefit of the local community. We believe that new public amenities, such as libraries and theatres, are legitimate planning gains to which local authorities should aspire via Section 106 agreements. However, there was little evidence of this route having been used to develop new theatre buildings with the exception of Sir Peter Hall's new Rose of Kingston Theatre. We recommend that the DCMS, in cooperation with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, make a report to Parliament on the use made of this legislative provision to secure arts and other cultural amenities to improve people's quality of life.

38. Listing undoubtedly has saved many theatre buildings but it was, as the Theatres Trust pointed out, and the RSC has discovered, a double-edged sword. Once listed it is far harder to effect physical alterations to a theatre building to reflect changing patterns of use, new artistic sensibilities or audience expectations.[64] As the re-development saga of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre shows, obstacles to ambitious plans can have a very marked impact (as we discuss below).

39. Inevitably, the Theatres Trust, alongside other witnesses, identified a need for increased capital investment. In the early 1960s the Arts Council called for key theatres (including some in the West End) to be taken into public ownership for their protection of the overall network and for a programme of related public investment. Many former commercial theatres were acquired by local authorities, sometimes with help from the Arts Council, and then either directly run or let out to independent charitable trusts. Capital funding from the Arts Council was augmented with money from local authorities, public appeals and, later, from development agencies and Europe.[65] In 1992 a Theatres Trust study showed that, despite considerable investment since the 1960s, more than 40% of theatre buildings were felt to be in only fair to poor condition with insufficient attention being paid to their upkeep.[66]

40. A huge amount has been achieved by the National Lottery over the 10 years of its operation. However, over the last 5 years, the Arts Council has reduced the proportion of its lottery budget allocated to theatre building schemes. While some major projects remain in the pipeline, such as the RST, the number and size of new commitments to maintain or enhance theatre infrastructure has slowed to a trickle. The most recent allocations by the Arts Council a year ago included only three awards for existing theatre buildings. Overall, thirty-three awards were made while 132 applications were rejected. The total demand for grants had amounted to £255 million; four times the amount eventually allocated. This amounted to an average allocation to capital projects of just over £20 million per year. Apart from five schemes (which included one theatre) which received a maximum award of £5 million, the average allocation for the others was only £1.28 million.[67]

41. On the plus side, the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) has felt able to support the heritage-related aspects of a number of theatre development schemes. Buildings like the Hackney Empire and London Coliseum would not have been refurbished otherwise. The Grade 1 listed Theatre Royals at Richmond, Yorkshire and Bury St Edmunds were among those that failed to obtain capital funding from the Arts Council. Many others, including the London Old Vic and Wilton's Music Hall, also seem to need to pursue the heritage route to stand any prospect of success. These are all important listed buildings, and there is a legitimate heritage dimension to the work that needs to be done. However, essential alterations backstage or the creation of new facilities may fall outside the purposes of the HLF.[68] The Theatres Trust pointed out that the HLF is clearly making significantly higher investments in improving museum and gallery buildings than Arts Council England is committing to arts buildings.[69]

42. The Arts Council wrote that: "What is critical for the future health of theatre in England, is that infrastructure is not permitted to return to its previously run-down condition. New and re-furbished theatre buildings need continued investment to maintain their current condition and to keep pace with the changing demands of audiences, artists and regulators. Whether this demand will be met by the National Lottery is dependent on what happens to distribution decisions in 2009."[70] The Arts Minister, Estelle Morris, told us that "I do appreciate the difficulty that this is putting them in. … We are just trying, within Government, to agree the timetable for making those announcements, but it has not actually been agreed yet. I do acknowledge the problems that that gives them and I think we owe it to them to do it as soon as possible."[71]

43. We recommend that the Government announces the scale, shape and share of the distribution of National Lottery funds for good causes as soon as possible and certainly by the time a response to this Report is due. We recommend that the arts remain one of the good causes—believing there to be strong public support for this—and that the Arts Council remains a distributor of a significant size.

44. A Theatres Trust survey of 200 theatre buildings across the UK revealed that 76% stated a wish to make a lottery bid during the next 5 years with only 34% believing their buildings to be in good condition. Some 72% receive regular complaints about heating, ventilation and air conditioning, 42% receive complaints about seating, and 37% on toilet provision. Apart from improvements to public facilities, there was demand for resources to meet the technical demands of modern production methods and to keep up with the changing requirements of health and safety regulations.[72] Our evidence also contained many calls for the funding of theatre maintenance.[73]

45. On a very rough basis the Trust calculated that around £1,000 million still needs to be spent to bring the UK's stock of theatre buildings, of all types (including those in London's West End), to an appropriate standard. The Trust estimates that at the current rate of lottery expenditure, with matching funds from other sources, it could well take 100 years to remedy this backlog (without accounting for further deterioration in building condition and inflation over that period).[74]

46. The Arts Council pointed to the improvements it had funded in theatre buildings but said "we are encouraging the theatres we fund to establish reserves for the maintenance of theatre buildings as a more cost effective approach to retaining a healthy infrastructure."[75] However, the evidence we received from virtually all subsidised theatres was that the generation of such reserves was impossible; indeed there was an almost palpable sense of fear amongst theatre representatives when referring to the possibility of something "going wrong" with their facilities.

47. The RSC said that "all theatre buildings need regular upkeep and maintenance. Stretched revenue budgets are rarely sufficient to cover maintenance and dedicated capital budgets should be introduced to cover the on-going maintenance of our theatres."[76] We would agree if this meant extra resources but the Arts Council is under the increased pressure of a stand-still overall settlement. We doubt whether the inflexibility of split operational, and capital, funding streams would help theatres plan their budgets. Similarly, we doubt whether the enforced discipline of a top-sliced capital fund would be greeted with much enthusiasm.

48. In addition to the Arts Council's clients there are more than 100 theatre venues owned or controlled by amateur companies. The Little Theatres Guild told us that many are listed buildings and all need regular maintenance.[77] New legislation affects these buildings and much work has been undertaken in recent years to ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act and now the new Licensing regime and additional health and safety requirements add to the burden. The Guild wrote that the voluntary sector has been as ready to meet all of these requirements but the virtual cessation of all Lottery capital grants of any significance has borne heavily on the progress that can be made.[78]

49. The Theatres Trust wrote trenchantly that: "Nor should one forget that theatres in the UK include the important amateur sector." The Trust pointed out the Government's position that lottery money was the people's money and commented that therefore it seemed "strange that [lottery money] should be denied to those theatre buildings that are used and enjoyed by the majority of the public. The need for capital investment, improvements and for proper working conditions is no less simply because a theatre building happens to be commercially or municipally owned, or providing popular entertainment."[79] We note the evidence of Councillor Colin Ablitt, Lichfield District Council, suggesting that the Arts Council operates "an unwritten preference against funding local authority-owned venues."[80]

50. The evidence presented to us suggests that now is the time for the Arts Council to re-focus its lottery capital programme towards the provision of assistance to publicly-funded, as well as not-for-profit, theatres for the maintenance of their buildings; consolidation is needed not further expansion.

The Royal Shakespeare Company

51. The RSC is amongst the foremost arts institutions in the country; if not the world. We examined proposals for the re-development of its main theatre at Stratford in 2002—plans that had attracted a £50 million "in principle" lottery award—and we were keen to review progress as part of this Report.[81] Following changes in leadership, the re-development has also gone through more incarnations as indicated by the new RSC Chairman, Sir Christopher Bland.[82] The final proposal looks achievable and avoids many of the obvious pitfalls of the original plan. The key elements are as follows:

a) a thrust stage, one room, 1,000 seat auditorium within the existing 1932 Royal Shakespeare Theatre retaining the important art deco elements of the building;

b) the distance from the furthest seat reduced from the current 27 metres to between 14 and 16 metres;

c) expansion of front of house facilities with improved provision for disabled access, bars, restaurants, toilets and exhibition space

d) expansion of backstage facilities with improved dressing rooms and, crucially, greater separation between the main house and Swan theatres; and

e) the preservation and restoration of the key heritage elements of the 1932 building (including the art deco façade, foyers and 'fountain staircase' and the Victorian gothic exterior of the former 1879 Memorial Theatre and key features at the front of the building identified by English Heritage).[83]

52. The project requires a temporary theatre built adjacent to The Other Place during the works. The project is scheduled to start in Summer 2005 so that the temporary theatre will be available by April 2006. The main work on the Royal Shakespeare Theatre is planned for 2007 with completion in 2009. The RSC has now applied to Arts Council England for its £50 million earmarked funding and to its RDA, Advantage West Midlands, for financial support of £20 million. The rest of the project's £100 million 'envelope' is to be raised by the Company.[84]

53. Dame Judi Dench, actor, reiterated the essential problem with the existing theatre, characterising the view of the stage on a recent visit (and presumably not from the worst seat in the house) as like "looking down the wrong end of a telescope".[85] Mr Michael Boyd, the RSC's new Artistic Director, conceded that the new plan was uncompromising to an extent in that the former attempt—which tried to have both a proscenium arch and a thrust stage—fell between the two stools. The RSC said that the plan was, in effect, a modern take on the kind of courtyard theatre that would have been familiar to Shakespeare.[86]

54. We visited Stratford and saw the plans and model for a new interior for the Royal Shakespeare Theatre. The new theatre fits within the shell of the existing Elizabeth Scott building but does not match the ambition and vision of the original proposals.[87] It is ten years since re-development of the RST was first conceived. It is high time the RSC took action before its lottery award is completely eroded by inflation. We trust that the Arts Council England will take all necessary steps to assay the robustness of the RSC's latest plan before handing over any funds. We shall follow progress with interest.

29 Ev 204 Back

30 Q 456 Back

31 Act Now! Modernising London's West End Theatres, The Theatres Trust, 2003 (hereafter the "Act Now! report"). Back

32 Q 152 Back

33 Act Now! report Back

34 QQ 290 (Ms Squire) , 299 (Ms Squire) and 305 (Ms Callender) Back

35 Q 299 Back

36 Q 299 Back

37 Act Now! report Back

38 Ev 47 Back

39 Q 300 (Mr Ptaszynski) Back

40 Q 304 Back