Harlow Playhouse (Hansard, 7 July 1998)

§ Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to have an Adjournment debate on Harlow playhouse. I want, first, to praise the work of the theatre in Harlow; secondly, to highlight the importance of a thriving community theatre to a community such as Harlow; thirdly, to point out the need for theatres such as Harlow's to receive better funding—a cry which, I am sure, will be heard from many theatres across the country; and, fourthly, to express my concern, which is shared across the eastern region, at the inequitable way in which the Eastern arts board is distributing funds to theatres in the eastern region.

Before I do that, however, it is worth providing some background and the history of the theatre in Harlow. Harlow playhouse was incorporated in the master plan that established the new town when it was founded in 1947. Although the design was in the original planning concept, the need for a local theatre was established quickly by the plethora of amateur groups that were set up in the early years of the new town.

The town had its first home-grown opera by 1953, and professional ballet arrived in 1957. In 1963, Harlow became the first town to sponsor a resident chamber music ensemble, the Alberni. Amidst the many amateur drama groups that were established, Harlow also developed a strong tradition of visiting professional companies. At that stage, it provided work for a visiting stage manager by the name of Alan Ayckbourn—something the town is still proud of.

With such activity, the pressure to build a theatre grew. People involved in theatre and drama wanted a theatre established. In 1957, the council—as then was—set up a working party to look at the need for a theatre and how it might be paid for. The working party—which did an enormous amount of good work—concluded that what was needed was a combination of amateur community productions and visiting professional theatre. To this day, that vision is being carried out, with some in-house production by the playhouse.

With that level of activity and with the pressure building, there followed in March 1967 a public inquiry into whether the council should be allowed to borrow money to build the theatre. Even in those days, concern for public expenditure constraints under a Labour Government were very much to the fore. Despite the constraints, the approval was granted and a contribution of £50,000 came from a new fund, set up under the Labour Government by the then Arts Minister, Jennie Lee. That really set the ball rolling for the theatre. I understand that Jennie Lee came to Harlow to lay the foundation stone of the new theatre and called for more touring by the Covent Garden opera company. It is worth stating, some 30 years later, that Harlow is still waiting for such a tour to take place.

The playhouse opened in 1971 for live theatre, films and exhibitions, and has developed and increased its range of activities considerably since then. For the next 23 years of its existence, Harlow playhouse worked effectively. However, in hindsight, I believe that it became overly 983 reliant on funding from one source: the district council. That funding ceased in 1993 when Harlow council was capped by the previous Conservative Government. I was a member of the authority at that time and I can register the fact that the council received the biggest percentage cap in one year—50 per cent.—of any local authority in the country. The playhouse saw its funding cut from more than £500,000 per annum to about £150,000. Regrettably, that led to the playhouse's closure for one year to regroup and restructure and seek new funding streams.

As a result of that restructuring and reshaping, the new playhouse re-opened in 1996 with a mission to re-establish itself as a community theatre with atmosphere, a busy amateur programme and lots of events for young people by new groups while continuing to host touring professional productions. It has been a success story and the playhouse regularly sells out—it has had 23 sell-outs since January this year. The pantomime, which is a huge event in the local community, played to 93 per cent. capacity houses and received rave reviews in The Stage More important, in 1997–98, 350 performances played to more than 45,000 people—the equivalent of more than half the population of Harlow. That statistic registers the vibrancy of the theatre.

It is worth highlighting the considerable efforts of three people, among many others, who helped to relaunch the theatre. Jon Harris was appointed to re-open the theatre, and his enthusiasm and integrity were a driving force in getting things off the ground. His successor, Laurence Sachs, who is the current manager, is, I hope, successfully guiding the theatre in a new direction. Councillor Jean Clark, who chairs the council committee overseeing the playhouse, has been absolutely tireless in championing its cause.

When the playhouse was relaunched, the council and the playhouse management were absolutely clear that financial support and theatre management structures had to be undertaken on a partnership basis so as to widen the streams of financial support for the theatre and not let it rely on funding from one source—the district council. Furthermore, there was a strong recognition that, in this day and age, different agencies with different backgrounds, perspectives and attitudes can bring more to the table by working collaboratively than by working alone.

While Harlow council continues to provide major financial support to the theatre, support also comes from neighbouring district councils and from parish and town councils. In addition, a very successful public-private partnership operates the playhouse restaurant and catering facilities and there are other private sponsors. In many ways, the playhouse is a model of the way theatres should be funded and managed today, but there is one glaring omission from the funding bodies that might reasonably be expected to support such a theatre: Arts Council of England funding through the Eastern arts board. As I have said before, that area is in need of fundamental reform.

The basic problem, among many others, is that theatre funding in the eastern region is based not on merit but simply on the pattern of historic funding. That is certainly the case with Arts Council funding through the Eastern arts board. The board provides considerable financial support to several theatres: the Wolsey theatre in Ipswich receives more than £322,000 per annum; the Mercury in Colchester receives £230,000 per annum; and the Palace in Watford receives £204,000 per annum. I am sure that 984 all three are very good at providing productions for their local communities. I have nothing against them and do not wish to criticise them, but, because of the weighting of funding from the Eastern arts board towards them—they take about 66 per cent. of the funding—other theatres in the region receive meagre grants or nothing whatsoever, as is the case with Harlow playhouse.

My other concern is that the three top theatres to which I have referred received exactly the same money in 1996–97 as they did in both 1994–94 and 1995–96; there is not even an attempt to iron out the problem over a period. Essentially, my key criticism is that the Eastern arts board is carrying those three substantial theatres, to the detriment of everyone else.

The problem with such an unequal funding system was identified by the new chairman of the Arts Council, Gerry Robinson, in an article in The Guardian today. He argues: The past approach of equal misery for everyone is cowardly and fails to reward success. If all we are to do is dole out the same share of the pot to the same institutions year after year (and it is close to that) we should be replaced by a computer at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I would not go that far—certainly not at this stage.

I hope that the Arts Council can learn some lessons, although the track record of the Eastern arts board is not particularly encouraging. I say that because when I raised this issue at Question Time a couple of weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Minister for Arts replied: the record of the Arts Council and regional arts boards in backing new companies and developments is less than inspiring—their priority has tended to be the defence and preservation of existing companies."—[Official Report, 1 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 2.] I think that my hon. Friend was right.

The response of the Eastern arts board, however, was not to listen to that view and not to take that criticism on board. Instead, it claimed through its public relations office that I had misrepresented the Minister and that he was not criticising the board. If my hon. Friend had said, "their record is less than inspiring but I specifically exclude the Eastern arts board from those criticisms," I could have understood the justification and the defence that the board tried to make, but he did not say that.

I would be grateful if, this evening, my hon. Friend would reaffirm his view that the record of…regional arts boards in backing new companies and developments is less than inspiring", that that general criticism applies and that it does not exclude the Eastern arts board.

There are two other criticisms that I would make of Eastern arts board funding. The first concerns the length of time the review it has at long last initiated is taking. It initiated the review in September 1997, but not until 1998 did it agree a timetable. The initial results are not likely to emerge until nearly Christmas. I welcome the fact that a review is taking place, but I feel that there is a need for a greater sense of urgency and that all the theatres in the region should be actively involved in it.

My second criticism concerns Eastern arts board members' apparent direct interest in the decisions they make. Let me be clear that I am not talking about a personal financial interest. I ask the House to reflect on the fact that five Eastern arts board members are members of arts bodies that are in receipt of substantial funding. 985 There has been concern about that nationally, certainly in the Arts Council. Gerry Robinson said that the problem with the old structure is that people were looking after their own interests. He said that it was nearly impossible for them not to be influenced by that. That is a criticism which could have been made of the national situation as well as of regional arts boards structures. As we go forward, that factor needs to be taken into account.

Theatre is essential in broadening horizons, increasing educational opportunity, giving entertainment and, in a sense, civilising society. In Harlow, we have a vibrant and successful theatre doing exactly that and in a way that deserves support, but it is being poorly served by the Eastern arts board. I hope and believe that it will take on board the criticism that I am making and restructure its finances over time to give the playhouse in Harlow the support that it and the people whom it serves deserve.

§ The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) on securing tonight's Adjournment debate and offer him my sincere apologies for missing the beginning of his remarks.

My hon. Friend has expressed his concern about Harlow playhouse with great clarity and passion and, in doing so, he raises important issues about regional theatre that are common to towns and cities throughout Britain. Those issues concern the current state of regional theatres, their funding and their audiences, and how drama is organised in the regions and on what basis. Those are important matters, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving the Government the opportunity to debate them, because they concern anybody who is interested in and a supporter of drama in Britain.

My hon. Friend understandably began by praising Harlow playhouse, which is well regarded and which contributes to the life not just of Harlow but of the surrounding area, which provides a surprisingly high 75 per cent. of its audiences. My hon. Friend will recall that I visited the playhouse during the previous Parliament and was impressed by what I saw.

Although the playhouse is primarily a receiving house, providing a venue for touring productions, it produces every year what is, as my hon. Friend said, the largest community pantomime in the country, involving scores of local amateurs. The playhouse also has an active youth programme and links with schools and colleges locally. Its production this year of Timberlake Wertenbaker's "Our Country's Good", which is a superb play and on A-level English and theatre studies syllabuses, will play not only in Harlow but throughout Essex. Therefore, it is clear that what my hon. Friend said about the playhouse truly contributing not just to the cultural life but to the educational and community life of the area is correct.

In the light of such a record, my hon. Friend is understandably frustrated that the playhouse is not supported financially by the Eastern arts board, although it receives £150,000 a year from the local council, to which it adds more than £200,000 in ticket sales and hirings, with the remainder of its £400,000 turnover coming from catering, advertising and sponsorship.

986 The question that my hon. Friend raises is whether the Eastern arts board should do more for Harlow playhouse. The board is responsible for providing good-quality drama for the 5.87 million people in its region, spread over some important towns throughout the six counties there. The board spends £1.22 million on drama out of its £4.67 million grant from the Arts Council of England—that is, it spends approximately 25 per cent. of its total grant on drama, almost all of which is spent, as my hon. Friend rightly said, on four producing houses: the Mercury theatre, Colchester; the Palace theatre, Watford; the Palace theatre, Westcliff; and the Wolsey theatre, Ipswich. That leaves excellent receiving houses in Cambridge, Bury St. Edmunds, Norwich and other towns, including Harlow, without substantial support.

However, my hon. Friend will accept that those receiving houses benefit from the £2.84 million that the Eastern arts board receives from the Arts Council of England for touring and other activities, such as festivals, and some of them, such as the Cambridge arts theatre, have benefited substantially from the £8.5 million lottery money that has gone to theatres in the region. This is not only a matter of the core grants from the Eastern arts board.

My hon. Friend will realise that the Eastern arts board, like other regional arts boards, faces difficult choices in trying to provide, with just over £1 million, good-quality theatre to all the communities in the eastern area. That produces choices about how best to respond to the theatre needs and the talents of the region. To take a fresh look at precisely those difficulties, the Eastern arts board is undertaking a detailed review of its funding, and considering its funding patterns and the needs of arts organisations such as the playhouse in its region.

My hon. Friend asked whether the six to eight months that the review has lasted is too long, although he will agree that it is important that detailed consultation with organisations such as the playhouse should be thorough. I understand that new policies arising from the review will be published later this summer, which is somewhat earlier than he expected. I welcome that, and welcome the whole process. I agree with him that, for too long, funding throughout the arts funding system has been allowed to stagnate: historic commitments are silting up available funds, and good-quality projects and new initiatives are not receiving the support that they need and deserve.

That is a matter of urgent concern to the new Arts Council of England and to its chairman, Mr. Gerry Robinson. In respect of the eastern region, I am delighted that Lou Stein, the chief executive of the Eastern arts board, and Professor Stuart Timperley, the chair of the board, have anticipated the radical review that the Arts Council of England will undertake nationally. I am glad that my hon. Friend paid tribute to Mr. Robinson's article and trenchant remarks in The Guardian Mr. Robinson is right, and the Government's confidence in appointing him is justified, because he will take a fresh look at the system. I obviously cannot anticipate the outcome of the review, but, knowing Mr. Robinson, who will work at national level, and knowing Mr. Stein and the Eastern arts board in my hon. Friend's region, I am sure that the local review will be radical, imaginative and thorough.

987 My hon. Friend raised the important and interesting question whether it is appropriate for people serving on regional arts boards to be associated with organisations or companies that receive grants. Those who appoint the boards—the Government and the Arts Council of England—face a genuine problem: should they put on those boards people who are involved with the arts and have a genuine engagement with and understanding of them, although that would run the risk that some grants may touch on their concerns, or people who are not involved in the system, which would ensure that all grants were seen to be totally objective?

I believe that having on the Arts Council of England and regional arts boards people who really know and care about the performing and visual arts, nationally or in their region, is erring in the right direction. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Secretary of State has, in creating the new Arts Council of England, deliberately put on it known and respected practising artists such as Mr. Antony Gormley, Mr. Anish Kapoor, Miss Deborah Bull and others, to ensure that it returns to what it was in the 1950s and 1960s—an organisation based on living practice and the respect of fellow practitioners. My hon. Friend will understand that that runs risks, but I think that it is the right way to consider the issue.

988 My hon. Friend has done a service to all those who care about regional theatre by raising these important issues and putting a regional spotlight on the difficult choices that the system faces now and will face in the future. To address those choices, the Government have reconstructed the Arts Council of England and, with Mr. Robinson, given it a new direction. I believe that that will play out through the regions and produce exciting and interesting results.

I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are determined that regional theatre should face a better future. As he says, regional theatre is absolutely central to the cultural life of communities such as his. It provides a core of creative energy in the middle of communities, which must be preserved and strengthened. It is to that end that the Government are directing all their energies and imagination.

I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me, and I wish Harlow playhouse well. Whatever the result of the review, I am sure that the good work that the playhouse does will continue. Let us hope that we get a better future for regional theatre.