Sadler's Wells Theatre

HC Deb 14 March 1991 vol 187 cc1327-34

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

8 am

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)

I should begin by declaring an interest, although it is entirely non-pecuniary, as a director of Sadler's Wells theatre, which lies in my constituency. It is the future funding, survival and continued excellence of the work of that theatre that I wish to raise this morning.

As the Minister will know, Sadler's Wells was founded 300 years ago, and relaunched 60 years ago by Lilian Baylis. In the past nine years, it has presented 124 seasons by British companies and 69 seasons by foreign companies, covering 18 different nations to a total of more than 2 million people. Many of its productions have been financed and presented entirely by Sadler's Wells. Many have won awards. But for Sadler's Wells, we might never have seen, for example, the grace of the Central ballet of China, the excitement of Cumbre Flamenca, the rhythms of the Kodo drummers, the flair of Michael Clark or the innovations of the Paul Taylor dance company.

In 1988, the Lilian Baylis theatre was opened alongside the Sadler's Wells theatre to complement the work of the main theatre and to provide a valuable new venue for small-scale professional and community work.

Since 1981, a community and education project has been in place at Sadler's Wells involving and serving hundreds of local people. I invite the Minister to come with me almost any day to Sadler's Wells to see the pensioners' groups, the tenants' and residents' organisations and the groups of schoolchildren who are enabled by the community programme to see how a theatre works, to learn about dance and drama, to meet performers and often to find out at first hand about the productions taking place on the main stage.

As an exciting possibility for the medium-term future, the theatre, together with Thames Water and the London borough of Islington, has been exploring the idea of achieving an entirely new theatre immediately beside the present site. That could present a wonderful new asset for the performing arts in London. In short, Sadler's Wells has an international reputation and represents one of our capital city's finest artistic assets.

Lilian Baylis refounded Sadler's Wells as a theatre for all the people—accessible to all—and I am proud to say that that remains the theatre's policy to this day. Lest it be thought that I am perhaps a little biased in my appreciation of the work that Sadler's Wells does, I will quote the assessment made by the officers of the London boroughs grants scheme of the theatre's work and standing. Its report to the London boroughs grants committee says: Sadler's Wells theatre remains a key venue and one certainly worthy of support. The Lilian Baylis theatre and associated community and education projects underscore the company's unique position and conscious regard for a less exclusive and broader based definition of the arts. The indications are good. Yet for all that, Sadler's Wells receives only 6 per cent. of its entire annual income from public funds of any kind. By comparison, the Royal Opera house receives 42 per cent., the English National opera, which came into being largely as a result of work undertaken at Sadler's Wells, 56 per cent. and the National theatre, 56 per cent. I do not want to denigrate in any way the work of those three great institutions, but the comparison serves to show how amazingly Sadler's Wells performs on a shoestring of public funding.

The theatre has made strenuous efforts to attract commercial corporate sponsorship. It has received in particular strong support for a five-year period from Digital and it receives 20 per cent of its income from sponsorship sources. But especially in a recession, the scope for increased income of that kind is inevitably limited.

The theatre is thriving artistically. It has had one of its best ever seasons, attracting audiences to a series of excellent productions. But through no fault of its own it finds itself currently facing serious financial difficulties. Just four weeks ago, we had to make painful budget-saving decisions at our theatre board meeting.

There are a number of particular problems. Sadler's Wells royal ballet has moved to Birmingham, taking substantial rental income with it. The sad ending of the new Sadler's Wells opera caused a one-off financial loss in resolving the immediate problems of cessation. The American financier who had committed himself to the creation of the Lilian Baylis theatre pulled out with massive bills unpaid. As a result, the theatre has a historic debt which it will take several years of frantically hard work to pay off. Therefore, the public subsidy provision for the theatre becomes crucial in determining whether its community and education work can survive, whether its commitment to excellence and innovation can continue, and whether its very survival can be guaranteed.

The position over public subsidy is difficult and uncertain to say the least. First, the Minister will be aware of the division within the London boroughs grants committee and its current failure to agree a budget. He will also be aware of its standstill nature, at very best, even if a budget is agreed. He will be aware of the fact that the arts are listed as the lowest priority within the various categories in that draft budget. Although Sadler's Wells passes the committee's assessment with flying colours, the sheer uncertainty that is affecting the theatre, as with hundreds of other London arts organisations, is inevitably harmful.

Secondly, the transformation of Greater London Arts into the London arts board has created further uncertainty. It is good news that a chairman for that board has now been appointed. But there is still no chief executive and no clear mandate for future policy. It will take time to develop that, but in the meantime there is the danger that new initiatives will suffer. After several years of preparatory work, Sadler's Wells submitted an application for revenue funding to Greater London Arts, just two days before the abolition of Greater London Arts was announced. It was prohibited from entertaining any new applications, and the Sadler's Wells application, sadly, fell foul of that rule.

Thirdly, the theatre's funding from the London borough of Islington is small, as is only appropriate in view of the constrained funds of a relatively small local authority and the regional, if not national, nature of the theatre. Despite poll tax capping, Islington has held its grant for Sadler's Wells more or less steady and I strongly hope that that will continue.

Fourthly, and most important, the major source of public subsidy should be the Arts Council. In 1986, when the GLC was abolished and a funding crisis resulted, an arrangement was reached for Sadler's Wells to receive, albeit indirectly,—100,000 in funding from the Arts Council in the first year. The money was channelled through some of the touring companies appearing at Sadler's Wells, as the Arts Council claimed that Sadler's Wells was a so-called receiving theatre and as such was ineligible for direct support under Arts Council rules. I shall return to this point, which is crucial to any decision on the future funding of the theatre.

None the less, in 1986 that £100,000 was an enormously welcome and essential lifeline. In 1987, funding fell to £90,000 and in 1988 it fell further to £60,000. This year, it has been £53,700. In a recent decision, the touring board of the Arts Council reduced the forthcoming year's funding to £30,000. In other words, within five years, during which the theatre has experienced acute financial difficulty, the Arts Council's grant has been cut by more than two thirds. That is disastrous for the theatre. I urge the Minister as passionately as I can to ensure that the decline in funding is reversed.

Sadler's Wells does not fit into any neat Arts Council category; it is not a normal receiving theatre. It is a unique entity as it carries out a proactive, entrepreneurial and international role in opera, dance and ballet. It frequently selects, finances and presents its productions at its own risk, on its own initiative and with its own style and success. It links its productions with the education and community work that it has built up, and it provides a base from which companies can launch tours throughout the country.

To do that, Sadler's Wells requires public assistance with its programming and infrastructure. It requires substantially more than the £30,000 that has been allocated by the Arts Council. Surely an uprating of the 1986 figure of £100,000 to allow for inflation should be considered. There may not be a ready made pigeon hole for Sadler's Wells in the Arts Council's structure, but it must look only to the Arts Council for the bulk of its public support. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will do what he can to secure better Arts Council support for a theatre that I am sure he, like me, holds in high esteem.

To see the joy on a child's face, transfixed by the performance on stage, to share the delight of a local pensioner in learning the mysteries of theatrical technique, to savour the grace and dignity of dance at its exuberant best—those are what Sadler's Wells is all about and those are what I ask the Minister to help to secure for the future.

8.15 am

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton)

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has a longstanding and informed interest in the arts. This morning, at 8 o'clock, even after an all-night sitting he has argued his case for the Sadler's Wells theatre with passion, skill and courtesy and, in his final words, with very considerable eloquence.

Just before Christmas I visited Sadler's Wells to see the ballet Cinderella, presented by the London City ballet. As the hon. Gentleman has just described, there were many children in the audience—as there should have been at a performance of Cinderella just before Christmas. The joy to which he has just referred was very evident in their eyes, as was their pleasure in seeing the ballet extremely well danced. Joy was to be seen not only in the eyes of the children; it was in the eyes of the grown-ups, too, including those of my wife and myself. I well understand, therefore, his affection for and pride in this famous theatre—an affection and pride which are felt locally.

I first visited Sadler's Wells when I was 17. The hon. Gentleman reminded us that it has been a place of entertainment for over 300 years. More high jinks than high art went on there during the early part of the theatre's life. It has had its times of success and failure, which is typical of theatres throughout the country and the whole world.

Sadler's Wells's golden period began in 1931 when, against all the odds, Lilian Baylis arranged for the building of the present theatre—"a lyric house" as she saw it, to complement her temple of dramatic arts at the Old Vic. What a delightful phrase that is—"a lyric house." With Dame Ninette de Valois—another quite remarkable woman who is, happily, very much still with us—Baylis proceeded to lay the foundations of what today are our two royal ballet companies and the English National opera. That wonderful and unique achievement is inevitably and indelibly linked with the Wells.

It was very kind of the hon. Gentleman to invite me to attend performances with him at Sadler's Wells. As I have just mentioned, I was there to see Cinderella just before Christmas. I was also there in January when I had the great pleasure of attending the theatre's diamond jubilee celebrations—a memorable occasion indeed which underlined the formative role of Sadler's Wells in the blossoming of ballet and opera in this country, a blossoming which, surprisingly, has happened only recently.

As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, the theatre remains a vibrant force in the cultural life of the capital, presenting the work of a wide range of dance, opera and other companies from home and, with some distinction, from abroad, too. I know that, as the hon. Gentleman told us, the theatre pursues the commendable policy of attracting new audiences and that, in the Baylis tradition, does all that it can to ensure that seat prices are affordable.

I understand, too, that recently the theatre has had a particularly successful year in terms of the quality of its productions, high attendance levels and the balancing of its budget—no mean achievements. In all of that, I am at one with the hon. Gentleman. However, as I think he suspects, that is the easy part of my speech. Now I have to turn to the more difficult area. First, however, may I pick up his point about the possible new development.

I, too, recently met Stephen Remington, the director of Sadler's Wells, primarily in order to learn more about the proposed collaboration with Thames Water to build a new theatre for Sadler's Wells as part of a major redevelopment of the new Riverhead site. That is a serious proposition, and I wish the venture well. It will be a significant and welcome addition to arts facilities in the capital if it succeeds.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Remington took the opportunity to inform me of the theatre's revenue funding position. I listened with great interest, but I had to explain that this was very much a matter for the relevant funding agencies—the Arts Council, Greater London Arts, the London boroughs grants committee and the hon. Gentleman's local authority, Islington borough council. The system that we employ in this country for Government funding of the arts relies in many ways on what in recent weeks I have had to refer to with almost numbing frequency as the application of the arm's-length principle. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is not my job to make judgments on artistic policies and priorities. I might often like to do so, but by tradition—a good one—such judgments are a matter for the Arts Council and its advisers, and for the regional arts bodies. I do not fund individual arts organisations directly. I allocate grant-in-aid to the Arts Council and it is for it to decide—in the light of its funding policies and after expert assessments from its panels—the allocation of funds within and between the various art forms. The Arts Council is also responsible for the allocation of funds to the regional arts associations shortly to become the new regional arts boards, which, in turn, decide on the pattern and levels of funding to their clients.

Funding of the arts, as the hon. Gentleman, with all his experience, knows, is always a very sensitive issue. Getting the allocations right between all the bodies with a good claim on public funding is not and never has been easy. This is a task best left to the sort of disinterested but expert advisers on which the Arts Council can call. I suspect that, despite his heartfelt appeals to me today, the hon. Gentleman would agree with me on that basic principle.

It has been an underlying principle of Arts Council policy over the years that it should not fund what are referred to as receiving theatres. The hon. Gentleman used the expression himself. A receiving theatre does not have its own producing companies. It just attracts companies to its house. This decision is based on a judgment of the most effective use of the inevitably finite resources available to the Arts Council.

A proper division of responsibilities is for the Arts Council to support producing companies and for local funding bodies to support the receiving theatres in their areas. That policy has been applied with great success, enabling the growth of a marvellous range of drama, dance and opera companies that tour very extensively. The Birmingham Royal Ballet, London Contemporary Dance, Phoenix Dance, Glyndebourne Touring Opera and Opera 80 are just some of the Arts Council clients that give performances at Sadler's Wells. At the same time, there is a network of receiving theatres, from Bradford to Swindon, from Hull to Plymouth, that are maintained essentially with local support.

Sadler's Wells is regarded by the Arts Council as a receiving theatre and, on that basis, it has specifically declined to accept that it has a funding responsibility to the theatre. I know that Sadler's Wells fiercely argues that it is not simply a receiving house but that it acts in an entrepreneurial capacity in promoting the shows that are presented there. The council has considered that view with great care, but suggests that many receiving theatres act as promoters in the sense that they choose and promote the companies that perform in their theatres; and that by definition Sadler's Wells is not predominantly a producer, or even a commissioner of work

Mr. Chris Smith

This point gets to the heart of the argument about the Arts Council's approach to Sadler's Wells. Will the Minister answer two questions? First, has the Arts Council, in reaching that decision about Sadler's Wells, taken into account its role in attracting international companies into Britain, and introducing them, for the first time, to British audiences? Secondly, if that is the argument of the Arts Council, why does it provide funding directly to the South Bank Centre?

Mr Renton

The South Bank Centre is different, because it provides a complex of facilities, such as concert halls, and so receives a large grant. As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, the Arts Council has taken into account the fact that Sadler's Wells receives international touring companies. In one or two instances, applications are to be decided on a project basis, which will deal with international touring companies coming to Sadler's Wells in the year immediately ahead.

As a result of the GLC transitional funding arrangement, it was agreed that the theatre would receive financial help, but on a reducing scale for a three-year period, during which time it would negotiate with the local authorities for a replacement of their metropolitan grant. It was on that basis that Sadler's Wells received £100,000 from the Arts Council in 1986–87, reducing to £53,000 in 1988–89.

The hon. Gentleman referred, as I expected him to, to Greater London Arts. That body did not assume any responsibility for funding Sadler's Wells after the abolition of the Greater London council and does not therefore provide core or revenue funding. It does support from time to time specific projects that meet its funding guidelines. Sadler's Wells has applied for project funding and has been invited to apply further when funding guidelines for 1991–92 are published in a few weeks' time.

The new London arts board, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred, will be fully operational on 1 October 1991. Its establishment will provide a new framework for arts funding in London and Sadler's Wells will naturally be at liberty to pursue its case vigorously with the new board. I am glad that the London arts board has a chairman, Clive Priestley, whom I appointed the other day. He is experienced in arts matters in the capital and I think that he will bring a great quality of leadership to the arts board.

I accept that a good deal of uncertainty has been generated as a result of the delay in the London boroughs grant scheme being settled for the fast-approaching new financial year. I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on this matter. My right hon. Friend prescribed a maximum level of expenditure, at the figure of £30.1 million, which was recommended by the London boroughs grants committee. I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment that the committee, at its meeting earlier this week, did not agree a budget. However, I was pleased to learn that at that meeting, all-party agreement, in principle, was reached on the grant for Sadler's Wells, and for a number of other arts clients, for 1991–92. I understand that the Sadler's Wells grant is to be maintained at its current year level—£73,000. I am sure that this outcome will be welcome.

I understand that Islington borough council, which this year is funding Sadler's Wells to the extent of £24,000, proposes to maintain its funding in the year just starting, although with a reduction of 4 per cent.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed by what I have said. I should have liked to give him more encouragement. However, as I said, I do not become involved in decisions relating to the funding of individual arts organisations. I have great sympathy with any company that seeks to safeguard its financial future and expand its artistic horizons. As the hon. Gentleman will know from his long experience, resources for the arts will always be finite. Fine words butter no parsnips. I suspect that, under a Labour Government, those resources would be even more finite, and therefore more limited, than under a Conservative Government who have increased the grant to the Arts Council by 12.5 per cent in the current year and 11 per cent. in the coming year.

More generally, much of the recent uncertainty about arrangements for the funding of the arts in London has now been removed, with the firm starting date set for the new London arts board. This will create a climate of renewed confidence and an opportunity for comprehensive reappraisal of existing policies. Against that background, Sadler's Wells will wish to consider how best to take this matter forward. I am confident that, given the dedication and talent at its disposal, Sadler's Wells and its board will meet and overcome the challenges of the future with their usual resourcefulness. I wish the hon. Gentleman and the other members of the board every continued success.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eight o'clock.