---

7.57 pm

Baroness Valentine: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, for drawing our attention to this issue tonight, as well as for his contribution to all of our entertainment. May I just say in passing that I thought Jessie was phenomenal on Saturday night, though my other favourite Nancy was Sarah? Indeed, I have an “Oliver” strand running through my contribution this evening, so, to start: “I’m reviewing the situation”.

London is a world city. Its arts and culture are world-renowned, contributing to the quality of life in the capital. Some recent government policies and uncertain tax treatment have given the impression that London does not welcome foreign nationals and those doing business globally. The arts and culture of London counterbalance that unfortunate impression and keep people in London instead of in offshore tax havens. As Nancy would say:

“If you don’t mind having to go without things,

It’s a fine life”.

I would price the value which London’s theatres provide culturally way beyond their immediate economic benefit. However, at a minimum, London’s theatres make an economic contribution of around £1.5 billion per year.

The contribution of our theatres is threatened by the need to upgrade the building stock to 21st-century standards. As John Osborne wrote in his 1950s play “The Entertainer”:

“Don’t clap too hard. It’s a very old building".

The buildings are even older now.

London is a living city, not a museum. The needs of audiences and artists should be considered hand in

7 May 2008 : Column 633

hand with the preservation of buildings, which even Dickens may have considered to be of indifferent quality. They were built to stage shows, not to be considered as future heritage. Making them meet 21st-century disability-access, environmental health, fire and evacuation requirements is increasingly difficult. The radical solution, in many cases, would be to delist them and in some cases to demolish them. Owners and developers would then be free to redevelop the sites to include modern performing arts facilities. In a sporting parallel, the Wembley towers were treasured, but the quality of the new stadium far outweighs their loss.

There appear to be two options for the Government: either preserve the current buildings in aspic and subsidise uneconomic refurbishment; or accept that at least some of the buildings need a less purist approach, thus making it commercially viable to improve them. The current stand-off between theatre owners and the Government is profoundly unhelpful, particularly in the run-up to 2012. So, please, Government, can we have some more?

The prospect of the Olympics turning the limelight directly on to London offers a fresh opportunity to find solutions. If, on the other hand, the Government are unwilling to help the owners by reviewing the listing of theatres, then they need to look at the options to subsidise them to make up for their decision. Some five years ago, the Theatres Trust published a compelling report appropriately entitled Act Now. After five years of silence, perhaps it should be called “Act Then”. It called for an investment of £250 million at 2003 prices to be spent over a 15-year period to raise the quality of theatre buildings. That is roughly £20 million a year, a tiny amount of money considering the benefits they bring.

With the Olympics only four years away, there is an imperative to “act now”. Could we not find £80 million from the roundings of the Olympic budget to make an investment which would leave a very manifest and achievable legacy for the UK? There are many ways for the Minister to help. He could, perhaps,

“pick a pocket or two”,

from his government colleagues—for example, using VAT receipts from theatre ticket sales to help kick-start a refurbishment fund. Or we could leave the situation as it is. I could say:

“Oom pa pa, oom pa pa, that's how it goes ... They all suppose what they want to suppose”.

Instead I call on the Minister to enter into constructive engagement with the theatre owners and then, if he does not mind me saying so, he could:

“Consider yourself

One of us”.

8.01 pm

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, nobody is better placed or equipped to introduce a debate relating to theatres than my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber. It has been made quite clear that his experience and background goes well beyond the West End. I have absolutely no

7 May 2008 : Column 634

difficulty in endorsing everything that he said. Indeed, I listened entranced to his comments about the various theatres which he so clearly loves—in particular, perhaps, the Palace. The difficulties for all historic buildings which are open to the public, of both conserving and, simultaneously, updating them, are nowhere more evident than in the theatres he described.

The starting point of this debate is the value and importance of the London theatres to the image of London as a world-renowned centre of culture and entertainment and a vital part of our tourist industry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, has pointed out. Looking forward, I can also see that the objective of an Olympiad of culture alongside the Olympic Games also gives the opportunity for fresh thought and action to preserve and extend the value of what we have so fortunately inherited.

Clearly, London’s monuments, museums, art galleries, opera, ballet and theatres all have to be included in the concept of an Olympiad of culture, but this debate gives us the opportunity to focus on the theatre and a specific issue: how best to modernise buildings and tie in health and safety requirements and regulation, as well as additional comfort, with the planning constraints on listed buildings. I thank my noble friend for giving us this opportunity.

Nevertheless, apart from my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber himself, a great champion, others’ voices can be heard. Kevin Spacey is doing a terrific job at the Old Vic. Also, organisations such as English Heritage are very much involved. I understand that it is currently funding work on a publication designed to provide clear and consistent advice to those engaged in making physical changes to the heritage assets we are talking about. The need to balance the special architectural and historic interests of listed theatres with expectations and standards which, as has been said, are very different today from when the majority of theatres were constructed, is evident. The effect of this consideration has been seen in major projects such as the Royal Albert Hall and the London Coliseum, but I understand that English Heritage also devotes considerable resources to more modest projects, such as the sub-division of the Whitehall Theatre and the restoration of both the Theatre Royal and the Savoy Theatre. So three cheers for English Heritage—as well as the Theatres Trust, which has a statutory role in promoting the better protection of theatres on behalf of the nation and does much valuable work.

However, the issue on which I once again press the Government is value added tax. It seems absurd that new build is exempted from VAT—or zero-rated—but the maintenance and restoration of beautiful and historic buildings is not. Can the Minister give us any hope on this? Before I am told that it is a matter for Brussels and not the Treasury, I recently visited the Teatro Olimpico in Vicenza and, somehow or other, the Italian Government seem to get around the rule, if there is one. Indeed, the Government have provided a partial exemption for historic churches, so why not for historic theatres too?

Further, can the Minister give any indication of whether the Government’s Heritage Protection Bill, which has just been published and is currently

7 May 2008 : Column 635

undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny, will contain any provisions to help the owners of historic theatres to overcome some of the difficulties that we have heard about, and provide modern facilities, both for theatre-goers and the actors and artists who give us so much pleasure and entertainment? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

8.06 pm

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, it is great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, especially as we are usually found together on Latin America; here we are on a domestic issue. Like other speakers, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, for his splendid introduction which really sets the scene. As other speakers have said, nobody knows more about it than him.

The foreword to the excellent Theatres Trust report, to which my noble friend Lady Valentine referred, states:

“Commercial theatre ownership and management is a financially precarious business and relies a lot on huge enthusiasm”.

How right. I speak with feeling, as a former member of a small theatrical investment syndicate. We invested in straight plays—musicals were way above our capitalisation limits. Backers are rightly known colloquially as “angels”; others may well call them “damn fools”. However, in my 30 years in that role, the net result may have been zero but it gave me, as an enthusiast, a feeling of being an theatrical impresario manqué—very manqué, in my case, but a great deal of fun.

A further past interest is that I succeeded my noble friend Lord Rix as a trustee of the Theatre of Comedy, which gradually metamorphosed into the advisory council of the Shaftesbury Theatre. It was a purely honorary role. The Shaftesbury Theatre had to close in 1973 after parts of the ceiling fell in during a performance of “Hair”. The subsequent campaign to save the theatre prevented it from becoming an office block. In light of what has been said, perhaps that was a pity, but there it is. It is on the fringe of the West End and, for many years, actors considered that it had a jinx on it. I am glad to say that the myth is now dead and the current show, “Hairspray”, is a huge success and playing to packed houses.

In the same Theatres Trust report, there is a good section on the economics of theatre ownership. In this context, the Shaftesbury has a special problem in that it is one of the few listed theatres in single ownership and not part of a group. It can hardly carry out major refurbishment and modernisation, so very necessary, when a show is running. Here again there is a problem with the Treasury, which is a becoming a familiar problem to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who will reply, who hears about this at regular intervals from all of us. The theatre has to pay tax on the annual profits, and there is no provision to accumulate them to have them ready at the end of a run. There needs to be some sort of offset arrangement to make the necessary provision. Meanwhile, it also pays large business rates to the local council. Although I have used the Shaftesbury Theatre as an example, this problem applies to any listed theatre in single ownership throughout the country and to some groups, especially the smaller ones. One

7 May 2008 : Column 636

obvious answer is to delist, as has been mentioned, but I hope the Minister will have something to say about the tax possibilities and what we can do.

8.10 pm

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, for initiating this debate. I note that according to the draft Heritage Bill that has just been published he will not be the owner of any listed buildings but of registered heritage assets. I am not sure whether he is yet aware of that, and I do not expect the Minister to respond on this occasion about what seems an unnecessary change of term.

Listed places of entertainment are also assets. They are buildings of great architectural merit and a major part of our cultural heritage. Thanks to the talents of people such as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, who fill their stages, they can continue to serve the purpose for which they were built and we, the public, can enjoy that experience. We are lucky that people such as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, have decided to invest not just in productions but also in the fabric of our theatres. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, theatre produces great economic benefits not just for London but for the whole of the country, but that theatrical success depends on a healthy commercial as well as subsidised sector. In a recent debate in another place, Glenda Jackson MP, another example of talent nurtured here and appreciated across the globe, explained from her unique perspective as an actor and a politician the benefit that theatre brings to society.

“What happens when people go to the theatre? It is quite remarkable. For no reason other than that they think, ‘Oh, I’d like to go and see that tonight’, a large group of strangers decide to go to one theatre on one night of the week. They sit there in the dark, and another group, who are strangers to them, come on into the light. When it is working well, an energy goes from the light into the dark, is reinforced and is sent back. On a really good night, a perfect circle is created. It is a unique and transforming experience”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/3/07; col. 453WH.]

We all wish to involve greater numbers and a greater variety of people in this perfect circle, but what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, is arguing is that the constraints faced by those involved in the theatre because of the buildings they occupy make that hard to achieve.

At the core of what we are debating so far as planning constraints are concerned is the need for flexibility. The issue is not the listing of these buildings but how to enable them to be transformed adequately to allow modern facilities while keeping their essential nature intact. Part of the value of some theatre-going relates to the ambiance of the old buildings and even, dare I say it, to watching the audience as well as what is on stage. Modern theatre buildings, if listed, face similar problems. The Royal National Theatre has to persuade English Heritage in order to achieve the smallest of changes. Buildings of quality of whatever age must not be frozen in time. The responsible authorities have to adapt their mindset to accept changes.

The draft heritage Bill, which I have already mentioned, recognises this and puts forward the case for the

7 May 2008 : Column 637

creation of heritage partnership agreements, which will involve partnerships between owners, local authorities and English Heritage. Places of entertainment clearly lend themselves to such partnerships. They will encourage consensus and get rid of repetitive, duplicate consent applications. We on these Benches welcome the idea. We are, however, concerned that where an owner is intent on flouting the listed status of a building, as in the case of the grade 2 listed Derby Hippodrome where one wall has been totally demolished without consent, probably meaning it is too expensive to repair, sanctions are too weak.

However, this debate is not just about the problems encountered in getting permission to change, but also about the problem, which all noble Lords have mentioned, that listed status adds hugely to the cost of change. A DCMS working group set up in 2003 to find a solution to the need identified by the Theatres Trust, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, mentioned, proposed that half the amount required should come from the theatre industry and the rest from Arts Council England, the Heritage Lottery Fund and the London Development Agency. To date, no public bodies have provided funding. A recent report from the Society of London Theatres noted that the working group had made only “stuttering progress” and as at January 2008 had not met in over a year.

The truth is that pressure on public bodies’ funding as a result of the 2012 Olympics and the intrusion into our lives of the credit crunch makes the likelihood of significant public investment more remote now than in 2003, but we cannot allow the situation to remain static for another five years. The recent London Assembly report Restoration Drama—a very good name—suggested that a charitable body could be used to manage investment in renovating these wonderful buildings. It also suggested a levy on tickets, something Cameron Mackintosh has introduced, but tickets are already prohibitively expensive for many. On the other hand, it crossed my mind that the cost of programmes seems to outstrip the cost of producing them, and they are a voluntary purchase. Could the profit on their sale not go towards a restoration fund?

One of the most successful recent fundraising projects was Buy a Brushstroke. The Tate needed £4.95 million to acquire Turner’s “The Blue Rigi” and the Art Fund instituted a brilliant campaign whereby members of the public were invited to buy brushstrokes for £5 each. Alongside the money raised, the campaign achieved a very important thing: a sense among the public of involvement with and ownership of a piece of their cultural heritage. Theatres should think like that. The Rex cinema in Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire is grade 2 listed art deco cinema that was originally opened in 1938. It fell into state of dereliction, and developers moved in. It was saved by a local group which raised money through local loan schemes, sponsored seats, membership and some financing through local business. It is now a thriving enterprise and a boon to the local economy and the local community which has a stake in it.

We on these Benches agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and do not believe that historic building

7 May 2008 : Column 638

repairs should be, as they currently are, subject to full VAT. We propose reducing VAT on conversions and repairs to historic buildings, to be paid for by introducing a new, low VAT rate for new building. Will the Minister consider extending the existing scheme covering memorials and places of worship to these listed places of entertainment?

The Government should re-establish the working group set up to secure investment in theatre buildings. They should, in collaboration with the GLA, the new mayor and the theatre owners, consider the options for West End theatres specifically. There are lots of ideas out there, and what is needed is action. The long-term future of our theatres is an integral part of this country’s cultural heritage.

8.18 pm

Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber for introducing this debate. Like my noble friend Lady Hooper and many other noble Lords, I found his contribution interesting and thought provoking. I must declare an interest as the owner of four scheduled ancient monuments and a number of listed buildings. One of them is a 17th century barn, part of which has been adapted by building a dentist’s surgery, which can easily be dismantled at a future date, within the fabric of the building which fully retains its outward appearance. That is certainly not a use that was originally intended. I mention that only to demonstrate my commitment to the preservation and continued use of listed buildings.

Listening to this debate, my first reaction is that if my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber does not know what to do with the large number of buildings no longer suitable for contemporary needs in arts and entertainment, who on earth will? Reflecting on that question, it is easy to fall into the trap of believing that one person or group of people has a monopoly of wisdom. Human beings are adaptable and inventive, and I have no doubt that constructive uses will be found for those buildings—which, having listened to my noble friend, may be uses that have nothing to do with the theatre or entertainment.

Different uses will inevitably compromise the historical and cultural integrity of the buildings in question, so exactly what should be allowed? Except in limited cases, I urge the Minister to assist in reducing the bureaucratic obstacles to the evolution of those buildings, enabling them to have useful lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, has already commented on that. That will surely be the best way to ensure their preservation. There is certainly a strong case for keeping some existing theatres, after they have been adapted for modern use, in their historic form, but with the huge cost of modernisation, which has already been referred to this evening, that will be prohibitive except for a limited number.

One returns to the need for a lighter touch and an acceptance that places of entertainment are not static. They are constantly changing and evolving, and must be allowed to do so. As we all know, this Government are no opponent of change, so I trust that the Minister will listen to what he has heard from my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber, whose affection, knowledge and

7 May 2008 : Column 639

passion have been so deeply impressive, and take positive steps to ensure that there is the flexibility required to make those buildings useful in the 21st century.

8.22 pm

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I share in the congratulations for the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, on introducing this fascinating topic. I assure him that it fits in beautifully with our discussion yesterday evening about tourism in London. We have virtually the same cast this evening. We are very pleased to have his star attraction in introducing the debate and we welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, to the lists as well. Yesterday evening, the rest of us considered the attractiveness of London to visitors and references were made to the theatre. It is right that the noble Lord should seek to address our minds to the problems that theatres face. We all recognise the challenge to the West End.

The Government are committed to the arts, including the theatre. Over the past 10 years, investment in the arts has increased by 73 per cent in real terms, enabling the Arts Council to more than double its funding to theatre. That increased investment has reinvigorated the theatre sector. Recent research from seven of England’s biggest regional producing theatres shows an increase in audience numbers of almost 40 per cent between 2000 and 2005. That does not alter the fact that there are difficulties for the West End theatres, which the noble Lord identified. He was also open to potential solutions, which is to be welcomed.

---