---

Entertainment: Facilities

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. Let me make the obvious point. Even with the additional funding from lottery and government sources allocated to the arts, we cannot expect those sources to provide everything. Private investment is of course important. It is important that we develop a stronger mixed economy for all aspects of the arts. The more investment goes in, the less dependence there is on public sector funding decisions, which from time to time cause great concern. The lottery has an important part to play. In the 13 years since it began, the Heritage Lottery Fund has committed more than £205 million to projects that aim to conserve and enhance historic buildings in use or to be converted to use as performing arts venues. Of those awards, more than £79 million has been committed specifically to theatres, of which almost £62 million has gone to theatres in London. The noble Lord said in his opening speech that that is not much more than a drop in the ocean; it is a bit more than that, but it is nevertheless inadequate for the scale of the problems that he identified with our Edwardian and Victorian theatre stock. I want to address the point raised by almost every noble Lord who spoke in the debate—the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, raised it first—the question of VAT. We have difficulties with easy acceptance of proposals with regard to VAT. I hear what the noble Baroness says about the Italian position. Perhaps I will get officials to look at that, although not too closely; I am not offering them a free trip to look at that development. However, they can certainly do some analysis of where the resources come from. We are restricted in our use of VAT. Agreements with our European partners—signed, I hasten to add, by successive Governments—do not allow us to extend the scope of existing VAT reliefs or to introduce any new ones. Even if the Government wished to do so, we could not extend the current VAT zero rate for work to listed buildings—for example, to include work to commercial places of entertainment, such as theatres. We are pressing where we can. That is why there is an attempt to get VAT zero rated or reduced rated for churches. We have not succeeded in that in Europe, but at least that is a project that we can see has the potential for widespread agreement in Europe. The glory of London in its extensive range of theatres is not something that other countries can necessarily respond to. As will be recognised, getting issues through Europe on a consensual model is quite a challenge. I agree entirely with a point that I think was the burden of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, but which was emphasised in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine: we should not look on listed buildings as being preserved in aspic. It is important that any proposals for how we conduct operations for listed buildings in future, which must be based on partnership between the owners and English Heritage and others who can contribute, have an imaginative approach to the actual use to which the buildings can be put. In the draft Heritage Protection Bill, which is subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and will, all being well, be in the Government’s programme for next year, we will see the framework in which we can take forward the consideration of listed buildings on a much greater level of partnership than we have done in the past. That is not to decry the work of the past. We are all too well aware of the fact that it is easy to throw brickbats at local authorities. Westminster is almost bound to get the first range of brickbats. Yesterday evening, it was criticised about litter in the West End, which we all know is a challenge for the resources devoted to it. This evening, Westminster sits in the centre of this debate because all the West End theatres are in the Westminster area. We are looking forward to a much more constructive debate in partnership between local authorities, English Heritage and the owners of these buildings so that we can make progress. Some of that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, suggested, may mean that one redesigns part of the building to take account of the different use. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, might be right that some people still go to the theatre to be seen rather than to see, so we cannot take away altogether certain aspects of the boxes and so on of theatres. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, is right that the modern discriminating audience wants a decent experience once in the theatre. In too many of our theatres, we rely on tourists being prepared to take some of those seats because they do not know any better. The rest of us who have been pinned in one of those galleries on a hot summer evening and have lived to survive the experience are not likely to renew it quite so enthusiastically. It is important that we look at ways in which we can modernise the theatres. We have projects across the country. In saying that, we do not have to go too far from the West End to see the refurbishments at the Hackney Empire. Enormous work is also being done on the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in Stratford. The West End, however, presents a significant challenge. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, wants my response to be much more constructive in terms of hard cash, but I cannot offer that so easily this evening. I can offer him the points that have been made in the debate. I take on board the point made so accurately by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, that single ownership of a theatre presents particular challenges as to how one refurbishes while still keeping a revenue flow from a show that must go on. I offer the House this. We are well aware of the crisis that faces the West End theatres. We are encouraged by the fact that various actors on the scene are moving much more constructively and we are looking at the reports from the London authorities on the way in which they want to co-operate with theatre owners. As I say, the Westminster authority will play its constructive part. We will, within the framework of our legislation, create an emphasis on partnerships that can give new stimulus and drive to this necessary work. I hope that I can indicate to the House that we cannot within this framework chase fool’s gold. I always welcome it when noble Lords seek to be constructive about resources, because otherwise it always looks from the Dispatch Box as though only the Government are cast in a defensive role. From time to time, we get proposals that are extremely helpful. The VAT channel is, I fear, largely blocked to us and I suggest that we look to other areas for resources. The Government want to continue their record, which they began when they came into office, of being determined to see increased expenditure on the arts. That was a very important part of the programme in 1997. We have not fulfilled all our ambitions by a long way, but I think that it is recognised that participation in the arts has vastly increased over the past decade. A great deal of that is a reflection of the hunger of people out there for the experience that they can get from all aspects of the arts, including the theatre. I remember when people seemed to think that television would kill off live theatre. Quite the opposite has happened. It is clear from what television produces these days that without live theatre it does not have the actors who can present themselves in quite the way that is wanted in television production. I am aware that everyone who has contributed to the debate this evening has been extremely constructive. That includes the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who as ever is extremely radical in his approach and indicates to us, probably following his noble friend, that we need to think constructively about some of these theatres. There may be other uses to which they need to be put. At the same time, we must preserve the glory of the West End theatre, which, if I may just reflect on last night’s debate, is appreciated not only by the nation but hugely by tourists who come to London and to the rest of the United Kingdom knowing full well that in London you get some of the greatest theatrical experiences in the world.