Conclusions and recommendations
1. 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. 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. (Paragraph
25)
2. 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. (Paragraph 29)
3. 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). (Paragraph 31)
4. 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. (Paragraph 33)
5. 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 (Paragraph 34)
6. 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." (Paragraph 35)
7. 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. (Paragraph 37)
8. 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. (Paragraph
43)
9. 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. (Paragraph 50)
10. 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. (Paragraph 54)
11. We believe that
the overall case for substantial public investment in the theatre
in this country is over-whelming and we note the evidence presented
of high levels of support for this investment amongst the public.
(Paragraph 65)
12. We believe that
the arms length principle of distributing grant-in-aid and Lottery
resources to the arts is important as well as practical. Fortunately
we see no prospect of the Government seeking to replicate the
steps taken by the National Assembly for Wales. However, this
does not absolve the Arts Council England from a duty to account
for its policies and performance; and its responsibility to put
forward a robust case when challenged constructively from whatever
quarter. (Paragraph 67)
13. We share the concern
expressed by the Independent Theatre Council, and by some of the
theatres who gave evidence to us, that the Arts Council seems
to be entrenched in its existing funding programme. We believe
that a more dynamic approach is needed rewarding new entrants,
and existing theatre groups, who have innovative ideas while being
far more critical of those recipients of funding who have failed
to develop their original potential or to fulfil their commitments
(Paragraph 75)
14. We were concerned
at evidence that government at national, regional or local level,
had not done any serious work to assess the real economic impacts
of such investments. Funding is a major problem for theatres,
and other arts bodies, and the economic regeneration argument
is a very strong one in securing increased investment in the arts
as the examples given above show. However, very little work seems
to have been accomplished to product the hard facts necessary
to reinforce this case. We note some moves towards recognition
of the unique contribution of arts investment to revitalising
urban communities as part of what DCMS calls its "culture
and regeneration agenda". We recommend that the Department
commissions a study of progress with this agenda so far and reports
to Parliament on the potential for further benefits from a far
more strategic approach to investing in the arts infrastructure
as a catalyst for urban regeneration. (Paragraph 82)
15. it is a scandal
that one of the nation's key cultural activities is in such a
state that, at least in part, it relies on professional performers
and technicians to pay such a high price by earning such low wages.
It is a tribute to the power of theatre that so many of them will
do so, but we believe that drama colleges and theatre companies
should make a concerted effort to improve financial support and
advice for actors and backstage staff alike. (Paragraph 86)
16. We believe that,
as in sport, consideration should be given to the public policy
gains that can be demonstrated as a result of participation in
drama and a strategic approach to the funding of grassroots, or
community, theatre should be developed. This should take place
as a partnership between the sector, the Arts Council England,
regional theatres, local government and schools. As a first step,
proposals for a National Drama Association—with public funding—to
bring the amateur sector together should be properly formulated
and given serious consideration. A further initiative might be
the development of local arts forums, including theatre and amateur
theatre, aimed at maximising the use of local arts expertise and
facilities for the benefit of the community. (Paragraph 91)
17. Mr Hytner said:
"We did not expect or feel we deserved a huge raise. I think
we were disappointed that a commitment was not made to keep us
up with inflation … cash standstill is effectively a cut.
And a cut seems to us to be a mistake." We agree. (Paragraph
103)
18. Given the announcement
of an overall funding cut in real terms, the Government and the
Arts Council need a far more effective communications strategy
if avoidable anxieties are not to be raised within particular
art forms. (Paragraph 105)
19. Sustainable efficiency
savings by public bodies must always be sought with vigour. However,
it seems invidious for the DCMS to press the Arts Council for
such savings on the grounds that the money saved can then to go
direct to the arts; only to reduce the Council's grant-in-aid
by roughly the same amount a couple of years later. No matter
what the allocation to specific art forms, the Arts Council's
efforts to increase efficiency have been rewarded with an equivalent
real terms cut in baseline funding. (Paragraph 110)
20. Theatre is important
to the economic life of the country and generates a significant
return for the Exchequer as well as showcasing the UK to the world.
The commercial theatre sector often rests on work that originates,
is developed, tested and proven within the subsidised sector.
(Paragraph 112)
21. The investment
made since 2002—and the resulting virtuous circle of better
productions and bigger audiences—needs to be protected and
built upon. A policy of stop-go-stop, eschewed by the Treasury
in macro-economic terms of 'boom and bust', is not a prudent approach
to the long term investment in the arts to which the Government
claims to be committed. (Paragraph 113)
22. The Government
needs to re-evaluate its allocation of resources to the arts,
taking a long term view, to ensure that real terms cuts are avoided
where no compelling arguments or evidence are presented for their
necessity. In our view no such arguments have been made. The Government
should re-consider and find the £34 million needed to keep
the Arts Council's funding in line with inflation over the period
of the 2004 spending settlement. (Paragraph 114)
| 
