Theatre Finances (Hansard, 10 December 1996)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood)
My Lords, Ministers only received a copy of the report a week ago, so I am not yet in a position to comment on its many detailed conclusions and recommendations which are addressed to a wide range of organisations. I can, however, wholeheartedly endorse its comments on the high quality of United Kingdom theatre.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that terse reply. I think we all understand that the Government have not had a great deal of time for the outside theatre in the past week, presumably being absorbed in their own internal dramas. I am not sure whether it is one of the Whitehall farces of my noble friend Lord Rix or "Julius Caesar". Is the Minister aware that the subsidised theatre, one of our cultural jewels and one of the few areas where we still reign supreme internationally, generating huge revenue from tourists, is suffering severe problems on the revenue side? Although it receives help from the lottery for capital, its revenues have suffered severe real cuts in recent years. Indeed, dozens of theatres are faced with closure because of their deficits. Has the Minister any words of comfort for that great side of the British theatre?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the noble Lord paints a picture of the theatrical scene in this country. While it contains a grain of truth, I should not wish to describe it in the terms he has used. The important point to appreciate is that the Arts Council is now looking carefully at the state of drama in this country. In October this year it published a policy paper on drama which is to be followed next year by a plan for the next three years indicating its proposals. There are a number of problems facing the theatre. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is right to point out the particular importance of the subsidised theatre in the wider theatrical scene. The solution to the difficulties is not necessarily simply to give public money.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, we know that the noble Lord's heart is in the right place in this matter, but what is necessary is the urgent provision of resources. My noble friend is right to point out that whereas the bricks and mortar problem is now healthier than it has been for a long time, the problem of revenue funding is grave, urgent and serious. I believe there are even problems in the Secretary of State's own constituency. The extraordinary fact is that this activity, which I believes generates about £2,000 million a year, could be saved by £10 million given to the Arts Council now. The matter is urgent. Will the Minister recommend that step, or ask the Secretary of State to consider it?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, as regards the proposals in the Theatre Commission's report, as I said, we are not yet in a position to comment on any specific points. In the context of the problems that face the theatre, it is important to realise that through the lottery a pilot arts stabilisation round is currently being discussed. That may provide a solution to some of the problems that some theatres may face. In addition, as a result of the lottery arts for everyone policy, it is now possible for youth and voluntary groups to receive assistance to visit the theatre, which in turn will help the cash flow income of all theatres including the subsidised theatre. I cannot emphasise too much that this is a problem which does not lend itself to one liner replies.

§ Lord Rix
My Lords, I declare an interest as I served on the Theatre Commission. In view of the deterioration in funding for the subsidised theatre over the past 10 years, does the Minister agree that this appears to have coincided with the diminution of the arm's length principle betwixt the Government and the various funding bodies over that 10-year period?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, in talking about public money going into subsidised theatre it is important to be clear that the details of any allocations are matters for the Arts Council. The Arts Council is at arm's length from the Government. Whatever the detail of allocations over any particular period of time, one cannot link the two matters together, as the noble Lord tempts me to suggest might have happened.

§ Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, is it possible for the Government at some stage to consider the great success of the unsubsidised theatre both internationally and nationally? Can some lessons be learnt from that as to how the subsidised theatre should manage with the vast amount of money it receives?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a good point. Of course the subsidised theatre should consider the successful aspects of the commercial theatre to see what lessons it can learn. I understand that the two sides of the industry—if I may put it that way—are in discussion.

§ Lord Donoughue
My Lords, the last question did not seem to be asked with much love for the theatre. Will the Minister confirm that in recent years the Arts Council grant to the subsidised theatre has been cut in real terms by virtually 4 per cent.?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, on the basis of the figures I have, in 1987-88 the subsidised theatre received £35.8 million which represented 30.8 per cent. of the total disbursements of the Arts Council. In 1995-96 the total amount made available was £52 million which represented 27.5 per cent. The amount of money available has risen in real terms while the percentage of the Arts Council budget, which in real terms has increased over the same period, has marginally declined.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the old enmity between the subsidised and commercial theatre is over? They now work well together and support each other. Any suggestion to the contrary is extremely old hat.

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I do not go back far enough to know about great enmity between the two sides of the theatre. However, I understand that they are working together. That is entirely desirable because each benefits and can learn from the other.