Memorandum submitted by Lord Lloyd Webber
Thank you for your note of 20 December. Please
accept my apologies for the delay in my response, but I have been
out of the country for much of the time since your note was received
promoting the movie version of The Phantom of the Opera.
Taking the bullet points in the terms of reference
for the inquiry one by one, my thoughts are as follows.
The current and likely future pattern of
public subsidy for the theatre including both revenue support
and capital expenditure.
The performance of the Arts Council England
in developing strategies and priorities and disbursing funds accordingly.
I really feel that it would be inappropriate
for me to comments on the first two points as my input can only
be anecdotal.
Support for the maintenance and development
of: theatre buildings; new writing; new performing talent.
The significance of the theatre as a genre
(a) within the cultural life of the UK; (b) in the regions specifically,
and (c) within the UK economy, directly and indirectly.
With regard to points three and four, as an
industry we have already presented a comprehensive report (Act
Now!) to the DCMS and others which gives our position on theatre
buildings and I believe that other voices in the subsidized sector
are far better placed to answer with regard to "new writing"
and "new talent".
The effectiveness of public subsidy for theatre
and the relationship between the subsidised sector and the commercial
sector—especially London's West end.
I believe that the success of the principle
of public subsidy for theatre is continually shown by the extraordinary
health of the performing arts in this country when compared with
those countries where such subsidy is less carefully and less
well provided. The subsidized and commercial theatre now exist
dynamically in a relationship of mutual support which supports
both sides and benefits both sides in addition to, pre-eminently,
the theatregoer.
January 2005
| 
