---

Entertainment: Facilities

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 National Heritage Bill, which I have already mentioned, recognises this and puts forward the case for the 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 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 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.