Provincial Repertory Theatres

HL Deb 14 July 1998 vol 592 cc172-88

7.38 p.m.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any proposals for reviving provincial repertory theatres.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I hope we are moving into calmer waters, on which we might be more able to agree on the subject of the plight of provincial repertory theatres.

As I have no right of reply in this debate, perhaps I may say how grateful I am that a number of distinguished Peers concerned with the theatre have put down their names to speak. I shall not refer to them all by name, but I should like to mention the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. Later this month he has a significant milestone in a long and varied life and we hope we shall have him long with us in this cause.

Theatre is at the heart of British cultural life. Germany is famous for music, Italy for the visual arts, but Britain is the world centre for drama. The repertory theatre system is at the core of all this and historically has been community-based and a focus for community life. Repertory theatre is essentially building-based as opposed to touring company productions, most of which start in the regional and repertory theatres.

There are many good reasons why we need repertory theatre. I suggest that, foremost, repertory theatres are the cradle for the acting profession. Many of our great actors and actresses learnt their craft in repertory. Perhaps I may name but a few: Donald Sinden, Derek Jacobi, Albert Finney, Ian Richardson and John Gielgud. That is just a number from a huge selection who could be mentioned, not least the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who is with us tonight. The noble Lord subsequently became, among other things, a trustee of the Theatre of Comedy, a position in which I succeeded him some years ago. However, many famous directors, such as Richard Eyre and Trevor Nunn, also started in repertory.

All this is momentarily in crisis due to the year-on-year reduction in funding by the local community, by the regional arts boards and by central government. There is also competition from television and other activities. That has produced pressure to generate income, which means that marketing and administration costs tend to rise and artistic effort has to be curtailed. Moreover, sponsorship is daily getting more difficult and scarce. So there is a dreadful cycle of low salaries, reduced cast sizes and minimum sets, all of which is most unfortunate.

The fact is that symphonies are not created in concert halls, but plays are created in theatres. Indeed, not just actors and directors but playwrights, musicians, dancers, craftsmen and masses of technicians are all involved in this important process. The building-based reps are factories and retail outlets, all combined together in one great effort. It is a very unusual situation. There is also a mass of local people involved. Most front-of-house personnel work on a voluntary basis. The support and friends' organisations arrange open days, garden parties, fund-raising activities and events which are attended by celebrities. Those activities used to happen at the Redgrave Theatre of which, during the decade of the 1980s, I was the honorary president and which, sadly, has gone dark since that time like many other theatres.

Perhaps I may give another example of local support. During the past week or so I have received a deluge of correspondence from the Watermill Theatre near Newbury which demonstrates massive local support for a most worthy cause. All that seems to me to be of vital importance to our national life. If all that local activity, built up so meticulously over a hundred years is to survive, it must receive national support. If theatres continue to close at the present rate—and they are going dark in a steady stream—they may never re-open. It will be a permanent loss to a vital part of our national heritage.

This is not a catastrophe waiting to happen; indeed, it is a tragedy which is unfolding week by week and month by month. I urge the Government to act now before it is too late.

7.43 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, it is very important that this debate has been initiated from the Opposition Benches. In paying tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, I do so not in any formal way but with sincere respect and appreciation of the strong realisation that he has that there exists in the theatre what I like to call a "complementary economy"—that is to say, not entirely mixed but working together and depending upon each other. It has long been my conviction that this is the way as far as concerns the theatre and it may also be the way as regards other economic areas. I am, therefore, very pleased to see my successor as chairman of the Theatres Advisory Council, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, with us this evening. That council is an example of a body which covers the whole area of the theatre, both commercial and supported. It is an organisation which I believe to be valuable and one of which I now have the honour to be president.

In the four minutes at my disposal, and having thanked the noble Viscount for introducing the debate, I should like to stress that the emphasis here is on regional theatre. I shall concentrate my remarks on the absolutely vital importance of state support for regional theatre. Regional repertory theatre depends upon local government and national government money. If it does not receive that reasonable degree of support, it cannot survive. The record shows that such support has been declining, and there is already great difficulty in that respect with one or two valuable theatres being forced to go dark, while others are in peril. Therefore, we are in a position tonight where we must urge the Government to take positive action if we are to prevent what might be something in the nature of a disaster to this most valuable centre of British entertainment provision.

These regional theatres can act as a local focus to a community, as many noble Lords will know. They serve their localities, entertain visitors and can also act as a means of expressing regional and local identities. They are often a key educational resource. They can give children their first taste of live performance through theatre-in-education programmes, now severely curtailed by financial cuts, and they can help educate young people over a wide range of issues.

The subsidised regional repertory sector supports local economies, provides direct employment and helps in trade and local industries ranging from building contractors and printers to tourism. All are involved and helped by local theatre. It is vital to recognise and acknowledge the links which have been established between the subsidised and the commercial theatre sectors. As the noble Viscount said, this sector has been the training ground for a whole host of our theatrical stars who have then proceeded on to the commercial theatre as well as to films and television. In addition to the names mentioned by the noble Viscount, I should like to add just a few more; namely, Dame Judi Dench, Anthony Sher, Nigel Hawthorne and Diana Rigg. Indeed, dozens more could come to mind.

I should like to conclude by using a short quote from Sir Cameron Mackintosh, one of this country's leading commercial theatre producers and someone who learned his craft in the subsidised repertory sector. He said: The reason that British theatre is the envy of the world—both artistically and financially—is that public money was invested in revitalising regional theatre from the 1950s onwards … most UK theatres outside the West End were built, saved or funded by public money. That has got to continue and be increased; indeed, if it does not, we shall have a disaster. However, if we take the right course the future is assured.

7.48 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, what I have to say in the very short contribution to which I am limited largely comes from the experience of Jill Freud (the wife of Sir Clement Freud, who was one of my colleagues in another place), who has run the Southwold summer repertory theatre for the past 15 years and has done the same at Aldeburgh for the past three or four years. Last night Mr. Mark Fisher made a speech there celebrating those 15 years.

Since the war Britain has built up the best regional theatre in the world, which is now seriously threatened by cuts, as previous speakers have said. This success has been possible because subsidy has allowed the producing companies to work with a high standard of actors, sets, costumes and good technical back-up and still sell tickets at a price that the public can afford.

In London the theatregoer has a large number of theatres from which to choose and he shops around for what appeals to him. With repertory, a town has one theatre with a variety of plays on a take it or leave it basis. The best reps build up a solid habit of theatre-going within the community. From the artistic director this requires a constant awareness of what his particular audience will enjoy. A new artistic director, taking up his appointment, may easily antagonise the local people by being too adventurous too soon, as happened in Salisbury with Deborah Paige and in Ipswich with Andrew Manley. Both are highly thought of, but neither took the time to bring their audiences with them. On the other hand, too many subsidised companies with a previously loyal audience have been given grants dependent upon their presenting work the Arts Council wishes to promote. One understands the principle, but audiences are easily lost and do not always come back.

The overall aim of grant giving bodies, whether local or national, should be to enable people to see the plays, shows, musicals, operas etcetera that they want to see. The prime objective should not be to promote innovative, "meaningful" or worthy theatre, although that can be part of it. In essence, it is patronising to say that to the public, "This is a play you should see; this is music we think you should learn to like". People will return to the theatre if they have had a good time there, and their tastes will develop and their judgment improve without any help from high-minded officials. No one reads Enid Blyton all their lives. Let people choose what they see but make sure that whatever is produced is of a good standard and affordable.

The financial help that all theatres need can come from several sources; commercial sponsorship backed by the Government's Pairing Scheme is a healthy compromise. When the Arts Council is involved there should be some element of subsidy given as a reward for having increased the percentage of seats sold. Funds should not be used solely to compensate a theatre for a half-empty house with a politically correct play. Part of the council's objective should be to fund work that will appeal—even sell out—and thereby ensure that everyone can afford a ticket.

The Minister should keep it in mind that a healthy theatre playing to good houses not only pays 60 per cent. of its way, but brings benefits to the whole locality—shops, restaurants, hotels and boarding houses, printers and other trades. Subsidiary jobs within the theatre provide full and part-time employment within the town. For example the Theatregoers Club of Great Britain sends six coachloads holding 53 ticket holders to the Southwold theatre each summer. They all shop and have a meal in the town. The local restaurants now advertise pre-theatre suppers and the Swan Hotel sends out the season's details on its mailing list in January.

The Government must see that it is the really successful good theatres which have a following and are supported. If they achieve that, good and meaningful theatre will follow.

7.53 p.m.

Lord Rix

My Lords, I believe I can claim to be the only Member of your Lordships' House who has performed in well over 100 plays in weekly rep for nigh on three years; lost his trousers 12,000 times in 12 plays over 27 years as an actor-manager at the Whitehall and Garrick Theatres and served as chairman of the drama panel of the Arts Council for nearly eight years before resigning at the Arts Council's own cuts in drama subsidies—subsidies which have struggled to maintain our regional theatre.

When I was nobbut a lad in Yorkshire, weekly rep was the norm in most towns and cities. A few such as Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool were rather grander with two- and three-weekly rep. But, in spite of only five days to rehearse and study, everyone concerned gained valuable experience enabling them to go on to bigger and better things, as we have already heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney.

With the advent of television those so-called commercial reps began to disappear and subsidised regional reps came into being—many operating in equally new, purpose built theatres—but now presenting plays every three or four weeks with a resident company.

Alas, although there are approximately 69 producing regional theatres, cuts in grants force the majority to produce smaller cast plays and the idea of a resident company has long gone out of the window. Indeed, the Wyndham Report, published tomorrow by the Society of London Theatre, emphasises this lack of investment and reminds us that, Regional theatre is the birthplace of most new work and the training ground for our industry. So, without repertory, how can young theatre professionals gain experience before being thrown into the all-consuming maw of television? I consulted three knowledgeable theatre gurus: Ian Brown, the professor of drama at Queen Margaret College in Edinburgh, the oldest and largest drama conservatoire in Scotland who was, at one time, the drama director at the Arts Council when I was the chairman there.

Then comes Peter James, another principal of a distinguished drama college—LAMDA, the London Academy of Music & Dramatic Art—and the former artistic director of the Lyric Theatre, Hammersmith, and finally my son Jonathan who is a writer and a lecturer on theatre. Their suggestions might stir up some interest in the outer reaches of officialdom, bringing forth fresh ideas for funding their development. Ian Brown takes advantage of the debate today on the Scottish system of four-year honours degrees by offering a final year in which a significant part requires students to gain experience by forming and performing in an acting company, presenting work, mainly on tour, but sometimes in a short resident season elsewhere in Scotland.

Peter James also favours tours to small arts centres and rooms that are not formal, purpose-built theatres—such tours to be undertaken by so-called "fringe groups", noting that, The Fringe is a post-war phenomenon that grew almost simultaneously with the Rep's decline and the range of work is admirably wide—vital to the maturing of young writers, designers and performers. Indeed, so important is Fringe theatre that LAMDA is including a course for its actors and technicians, on the business and budgetary matters of theatre, so when they leave the academy they will he capable of starting up and successfully running a small Fringe company". My son Jonathan, too, tackles the problem of highly populated urban areas, suggesting that we should learn from the time when theatre was at its most popular, when it was primarily a varied and lengthy entertainment which audiences could join at any time. A night at the theatre could include short plays, improvisations, singing, dancing, video, stand-up comedy, acrobatics, satirical sketches, local crimes and political shenanigans created afresh each evening, thus allowing young writers, actors, singers, comics and all those other practitioners a chance to try, to fail, to learn, to produce innovative work. It will create new audiences, new ways of audiences interacting with performers and will give theatre the new direction it needs.

Well, there you have it—three ideas which are all complementary and worthy, perhaps, of a modicum of the £290 million promised today for new companies, new work, new venues and new audiences, thus ensuring that the one profession in which we are world leaders will continue to recruit the artists it deserves. Let the Government heed Matthew Arnold, The theatre is irresistible; organise the theatre!", but don't let the Arts Council make a mess of it.

7.57 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I too wish to thank my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein for raising this important matter. At this point I should declare two interests. First, I am a governor of the Guildford School of Acting, near where I live, and, secondly, my son and my daughter-in-law are both in the acting profession.

I want to start by referring to the sad plight of the Greenwich Theatre which was forced to close in March after its grant was slashed by the London Arts Board, which I understand is a subsidiary—if that is the right word—of the Arts Council. The situation faced by the Greenwich Theatre is not an isolated one. Many small regional theatres are worried about their future. Of course, I understand the distinction between a theatre such as the Greenwich Theatre and the true repertory to which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred. There is a difference there that I recognise. The true repertory theatre is a rather rare phenomenon these days, sadly so in the light of the incredible experience it has provided for actors in the past and for the profession taken as a whole.

It is ironic that the Greenwich Theatre has suffered in the way that it has. Before the election, noble Lords opposite, and their right honourable colleagues in another place, wrote in their manifesto: We consistently undervalue the role of the arts and culture in helping to create a civic society—from amateur theatre to our art galleries". Those are encouraging words. I hope they will he translated into action before too long.

The Greenwich Theatre had a very wide appeal. A large take-up on concessionary tickets is generally accepted as a good indicator of the diversity of an audience's economic profile. The theatre sold many more of those kinds of tickets than theatres of a similar kind in the district. Given that background, it was all the more surprising that the London Arts Board cut the grant to the Greenwich Theatre. I can only think that that unfortunate decision was based on some other motive, possibly along the lines referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley.

The London Arts Board, presiding over a number of theatres in terms of grant, has apparently lost track of £650,000 in its current budget. Let us hope that when it finds the missing money, which was referred to recently in publicity, it will be able to reallocate it to the Greenwich Theatre. I very much hope so. I hope that the noble Lord will make inquiries into the matter. It was rather disturbing and worrying when it came to light recently. I hope that the London Arts Board will find an opportunity, under its new chairman, Trevor Phillips, to look into the matter again.

The Greenwich Theatre was the only repertory-style theatre in the south-east of England. I am told that it was the only one anywhere between London and Calais. Calais is not in Britain, and not in the compass of the London Arts Board. But the fact is that there are very few theatres of that kind in the south-east and this one should not have been allowed to sink.

Of course, the crisis facing the Greenwich is not unique. In my own town, Guildford, the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre, which is well managed and has offered many excellent productions recently, is also facing a funding crisis. It, too, has experienced a cut in funding not dissimilar to that at Greenwich.

I fully appreciate that it is not possible wholly to support theatres by grants alone. But perhaps I may make a final constructive point. One way forward would be to exempt the cost of live theatre tickets from VAT. Such a concession would do more than anything else to help the arts nationwide and increase their viability at a stroke. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to that proposal. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

8.2 p.m.

Lord Chorley

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Viscount for initiating this short debate. In view of the number of speakers—including, I hope, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who is to speak in the gap—I suspect that I shall have time to make only one main point, which can be easily stated. It is that healthy and vibrant regional repertory theatres are of considerable importance—some would say vital importance—to the work of our great national theatres, and, I suspect, also to what is usually known as West End theatre, the so-called commercial sector.

I shall not, therefore, go over the ground that has already been well covered by the noble Viscount and other speakers, who have amply demonstrated the funding problems which beset our regional theatres. "Crisis" would not be too strong a word.

My appreciation of the importance of our regional repertory theatres arises from the period from the early 1980s when I was a director of the Royal National Theatre, and subsequently a trustee of the National Theatre Foundation. One came to realise how important regional repertory theatre was in feeding the great national theatres, and the West End. Regional rep fed us with productions, with new writing and scripts, gave new writers their first chance, and provided what might be called "on-the-job training" for young actors destined to go on to higher things. A number of noble Lords have referred to that. Similar points can be made as regards young directors and producers. The noble Viscount referred to Sir Richard Eyre, who started in provincial rep and is tireless in drawing attention to its importance. It is provincial rep that is our great, and perhaps unique, nursery school for talent.

I could go on in this vein at some length. However, time is short, and I shall therefore confine myself to one other example; namely, the importance of provincial rep in bringing on, and training in the craft skills: the costume makers, the set designers and builders, the lighting people—the back-room boys who are an essential component in making a play a great experience. The effect of the budget cuts is to economise on sets in the extreme, that leads to bare stages and modern dress. Sometimes that can be effective. I well remember Sir Peter Hall's brilliant production of "Coriolanus", which for budget reasons had to be done in modern dress. As a result it was a much more immediate production. Nevertheless, relentless budget pressures mean that the craft side of our theatre is dying.

There is another side to all this; namely, the effect of budget cuts on the national theatres which feeds back to the regions. Last year, for example, the Royal National Theatre could afford to play only 60 per cent. of repertory compared with five years ago; nor can the National afford to take the same risks with new productions as it used to. It simply has to play safe as a result of budget constraints. That has affected the amount of work taken from regional rep.

Britain unquestionably has by far the best theatre in the world. It has depended crucially on the symbiotic relationship between the three sectors. It has depended also on an imaginatively devised, adequately funded, arm's length system. We are in danger of killing it by starvation. One expects a rather less philistine attitude than is so far evident from the party that devised the system when it was in power in the late 1940s.

The noble Lord the Minister is an honourable man, and a cultivated man. His right honourable friend the Secretary of State is equally honourable and cultivated—we are lucky to have him. I do not wish to seem a Mark Antony making his funeral oration, because undoubtedly the Secretary of State is no Brutus; he is indeed an honourable man. I do not say that in any sarcastic sense; nor do I think anybody could accuse the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, of being, in Shakespeare's words, a lean and—

Lord Birkett

Hungry?

Lord Chorley

A lean and hungry man, my Lords. I suspect that the devil is in the Treasury.

8.7 p.m.

Lord Birkett

My Lords, I am relieved to know that the noble Lord is not Brutus after all. Thanks to the noble Viscount, we are debating provincial repertory theatres. But my remarks apply to music and dance, and indeed to all the performing arts. We hear much about education in the arts—by which I mean not only schools, colleges and universities, but all the specialised academies of music, film, dance and drama. Indeed, I am fortunate in being chairman of the governors of a very special school for the performing arts, the BRIT School in Croydon.

We also hear much of the great national showcases—the pinnacles of achievement—the Royal National Theatre; the Royal Shakespeare Company; perhaps I may add nowadays the Globe; the Royal Ballet; the English National Ballet; the Royal Opera; the English National Opera; and all the great provincial companies, not to mention the wonderful orchestras of the land.

But between education and those pinnacles of excellence there must be a great hinterland of opportunity. If opportunity to practise their art professionally, within modest circumstances, opportunity to grow, to improve and refine their art, is not provided for our young artists, then the arts themselves will wilt and perish.

Ministers in governments of all complexions are fond of paying tribute to the enormous artistic riches and the brilliant individual talents that are to be found in this country. But, unless governments pay serious and timely heed to this great middle ground of repertory work in all the arts, a nationwide infrastructure of opportunity, there will be no more ministerial speeches of congratulation because this country will no longer be pre-eminent in the performing arts. The speeches may not be missed, but the pre-eminence most surely will. The nation will be the poorer for it.

8.10 p.m.

Lord Puttnam

My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for allowing me to speak briefly in the gap. As some may know, I was given the opportunity by the Government this week to contribute somewhat towards discovering, supporting and helping talent in this country. I felt that this debate, thanks to the noble Viscount, was an opportunity to touch on the subject.

What I see as needed in order to bring forth and sustain repertory in this country is something of a new paradigm. There is no point in pretending that things can go on exactly as they have in the past. I spend much of my time at the moment in the North East, I came back last night from Sunderland. What has evolved in the North East over the past half-dozen years is interesting. I would describe it as an instinct for partnership. Brand new forms of partnership are being created, libraries are being reconsidered, museums are being rethought as part of the community. These partnerships tend to be formed between the education sectors, further and higher education colleges, local authorities and the private sector. It is in that area that the future for regional and repertory theatre must lie.

Frankly, we are already benefiting enormously from the enthusiastic co-operation that is arising, but it is arising only patchily and in various parts of the country. I urge the Minister to look at good practice where it occurs around the country, look at where local authorities are showing an interest, look at where universities are becoming involved and interested in the opportunities for theatre in their localities and see what can become of it.

It is clear that the resources are available, the talent is available. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, rightly pointed out that we desperately need the opportunity for talent to display itself and gain the confidence to move on to bigger and, in many cases, better things. I am quite convinced that around the country the opportunity for partnership is bringing together differing groups who know that by using the theatre as an essential component of the community they can develop something of which that community will be proud. Eventually, talented people will make us as a country very proud of it.

8.12 p.m.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I too thank the noble Viscount for the chance to speak about repertory theatre. I am glad that in the gap we had an interesting and instructive intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. Perhaps I may pick up one point that he made, that it is unrealistic not to expect things to change. I am passionate about performance, whether it he in theatre, dance or film. In my younger years I worked as an agent and I have much experience of repertory from an agent's point of view. I must have travelled the length and breadth of the country, rather like a trainer of race horses, examining how his string was getting along.

To an agent, the repertory system in those days, 30 or 40 years ago, was that if a young student at a drama school was lucky enough to be taken under an agent's wing, the agent would first try to get him into a repertory company. It was all very well to come from a drama school with a good reputation, sometimes with prizes, but students learnt in repertory how to develop a range and to prove their stamina. That is very important in acting, and we have here today the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who is a living testament to stamina and good health. That is much needed in the theatre. I do not say that nowadays young people who are not able to get into the fewer repertory companies do not need the qualities of strength and stamina. I am quite sure they do. Those qualities are needed in the fringe theatre which has to an extent taken up some of the students who, 30 years ago, would have gone into repertory.

What worries me is the effect of the decline of repertory companies. If one is realistic, the decline will continue in the same way as music hall unfortunately ultimately came to an end with the disastrous effect that has had on British comedy. I hope that the disappearance of the repertory company will not have the same effect on the legitimate theatre.

I do not know what proposals the Government have, but it seems to me that the training of young talent is one of the most important aspects. As has been mentioned, the drama schools cater for the need in Wales, and LAMDA has been mentioned where the course includes theatre management and other aspects which would have been rare in the old days. Multi-talented graduates are coming out of the drama schools, but whether they will go on to become brilliant performers such as Prunella Scales I do not know. The other night in a fascinating interview on television, she gave great credit to repertory when she was complimented on her great range. She said that without repertory and playing a number of exacting parts over a year, she would not have had the range which has been one of the characteristics of her fine career.

Another point which bothers me is that when and if the repertory theatre almost disappears. I hope that where it is still relatively strong, we shall find a way of sustaining it. I hope that if the repertory theatre goes, the great repertoire of British drama which is suitable for repertory will not also disappear. I take a rather sceptical view of radio, but it was one of the great ways of giving young people the opportunity of hearing our drama and encouraging them to go to the theatre when it was available. Scores of plays were regularly broadcast by repertory companies and it would be terrifying if in our great literary culture, they were to disappear. They represent a big link in our great literary tradition which has grown into broadcasting and theatre, and for which we are nationally known.

I end on that note. There is a great need to train young people in a way that makes up not only for the disappearance of repertory companies but also the content of British theatre, which was ably and on low budgets displayed by repertory companies the length and breadth of the country. What will the Government do? Perhaps the Minister will have something to say about it. The Government have a useful role in ensuring that the great repertoire does not disappear.

8.17 p.m.

Baroness Rawlings

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Montgomery for introducing this debate with impeccable timing, on the very day of the Comprehensive Spending Review announcement.

The Treasury's allocation to the DCMS, representing an extra £290 million over the next three years, is disappointing. As Chris Smith said, Without culture, there can ultimately be no society and no sense of shared identity or worth. For a government elected primarily to try to re-establish that sense of society that we had so painfully lost, this is a very important realisation". Yet that very same government do not live up to this extraordinary realisation. It does not bode well for the DCMS clients. We urge the Minister to give the House assurances that within those constraints, the provincial repertory theatres are going to be given the utmost priority, not just vague phrases like building new audiences for the performing arts", to quote from the review.

I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on becoming the first chairman of NESTA. With its initial endowment of £200 million I am sure he will fulfil the role admirably. He was most supportive of NESTA during the lottery Bill and, as a past member of the Arts Council, responsible for distributing funds, he will surely do it well. Knowing his interest in acting, I hope he will not forget the regional theatres, especially as the Government have announced extra funding for the sciences.

I shall not detain the House except to make two points. First, as many noble Lords highlighted tonight, the theatre funding crisis is only partly a problem of revenue funding. Many theatres are in desperate need of refurbishing their buildings, but they are unlikely to benefit from the National Lottery as a consequence of the recently introduced changes.

The Conservatives set up the lottery in recognition of the long-standing neglect of the fabric of our cultural institutions, including theatres. The Theatre Trust believes that 10 years of substantial investment would have put right the disrepair of our theatrical heritage. To date only 10 per cent. of the most important theatre buildings in Britain have benefited fully from the lottery. Only three years after its inception this Government diverted lottery funds to new causes and away from the buildings. Theatre people who have worked hard to develop schemes and lottery applications will therefore be bitterly disappointed. We opposed many aspects of the National Lottery Bill and shall continue to expose its pernicious impact on existing good causes.

Secondly, we urge the Government to look properly at the Italian funding arrangements for lyric theatres—adaptable to dramatic theatres. They are neither wholescale privatisation nor mere partnership. I know it is unusual to give an Italian example. However, the Italian Government are seeking to reduce public expenditure by encouraging the private sector to fund theatres up to 40 per cent. of their budget. In order to do so, it allows individuals and businesses to deduct from their tax liability 30 per cent. of contributions of over £300,000 made to a theatre and given repeatedly for three years.

The founders are entitled to AGM votes. If their contribution amounts to 12 per cent. of the grant-in-aid, they are entitled to a place on the board. The board approves the artistic programme, as proposed by the Sovraintendente, who appoints the music and artistic directors and prepares them with the artistic programme. The balance between public and private as well as the management structure appears to shield artistic policy from undue interference on the part of the founders.

Those arrangements would seem to be an imaginative way to secure funding for cultural institutions by creating a private-public partnership—exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said. I trust that he, and it, can be a source of inspiration for the much needed overhaul of arts funding.

8.22 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, for introducing this debate on an extremely serious subject and for attracting such a remarkable range of well-informed speakers this evening. It is a tribute to their professional training that they have been able to do it so effectively within the short amount of time available for speeches.

I am only disappointed in the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I thought that, after 10,000 examples, he might have given us a tip or two about how to find one's trousers in a pool around one's shoes. Is it by loosening the braces? Is it by special arrangement connecting the braces and the trousers?

Lord Rix

My Lords, it is Velcro.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, at last we have discovered the secret! I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, accused me of not having a lean and hungry look. Perhaps it is because I am hungry that I am not lean. However, I shall do my best, whatever my girth, to satisfy noble Lords.

The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to the timing. But, to adapt Dickens, this is the best of timing and the worst of timing for this debate. It is the best of timing in the sense that this afternoon we had the Comprehensive Spending Review, and I shall say a word about that in a moment. But the Comprehensive Spending Review has so far only been announced by the Treasury and over the next two weeks or so we will have a spate of announcements by different spending departments, including the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, in relation to the detail of how they will use the money made available. That will not be over just one year, but over three years. The effect of that is that I cannot say anything precise about what the DCMS spending programme will be, even for the theatre in general and still less for the repertory theatre—indeed, not even for the Arts Council, which covers a lot more than the theatre.

Apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, let us be pleased with the result of the Comprehensive Spending Review this afternoon. As the Chancellor's Statement said, £290 million extra will be invested in museums, the arts and sport over the next three years. That will not just repair the damage of the last government's cuts, but will be a real increase of 5.5 per cent., making possible improved access to museums and galleries. The Chancellor picked that out because that has always been at the forefront of the department's objectives. Yet the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, called it disappointing. If the noble Baroness compares a real increase of 5.5 per cent. per annum over the next three years with her own government's record, she will not be quite so ready with that description.

The funding from the Treasury—I now speak wearing my DCMS and not my Treasury hat—will be used to deliver the new department's principal objectives of promotion of access for the many and not just the few and the pursuit of excellence and innovation. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was afraid of politically correct theatre—what he called "innovative, meaningful or worthy" in somewhat disparaging terms. I do not believe that innovation should be equated with worthy. Excellence and innovation are perfectly proper targets and need not be politically correct; but excellence requires continuing innovation in order to thrive, though I accept that it must be on a sound basis.

The nurturing of educational opportunities, to which my noble friend Lord Jenkins properly referred, and the fostering of the creative industries are the economic base out of which a substantial amount of artistic effort derives.

I cannot give even the broadest indications of how the extra funding will be used. But it is important to stress that there will be three-year funding agreements; in other words, the allocation to the Arts Council, whatever it may be, will be for a three-year rather than a one-year period. That will make a huge difference when, in the autumn, the Arts Council comes to state its allocations to individual institutions, individual theatres or orchestras and so forth. It will have the security of knowing what will be available for three years rather than for one.

That is the good side and the bad side of what we know about the Government's intentions. But the important thing is that the Chancellor, in his Statement this afternoon, recognised the importance of the arts and our cultural life. They have been a political afterthought and have never been referred to in a public expenditure statement as specifically as they were this afternoon.

The comprehensive spending review placed art and culture at the heart of government. They have done so not only for themselves, but also because of the contribution the arts make to all the other priorities of the Government: that is, our priority for rebuilding communities; our priority for restoring community and personal life; our priority for education; our priority for the economic benefits from the creative industries in our society—an enormously important part of our gross domestic product and a major attraction for inward investment.

That is all very positive. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, says that the devil is in the Treasury. I hope that he will recognise that the Treasury has done something to exorcise that devil in the course of today and that the Department of Culture, Media and Sport will do more in the coming weeks.

The Government recognise the importance of British regional theatre and, within that general category, the particular importance of repertory theatre. It is one of the country's great artistic strengths. The examples that have been given of actors and directors and craft skills coming from the regional theatres and repertory theatres is evidence enough of that, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said.

I do not need to tell the House that it is the Arts Council and its regional arts boards that take the decisions on individual funding. Ministers do not interfere with those decisions. I have been challenged to comment on some individual funding decisions that have already been taken. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to the Greenwich Theatre. The Greenwich theatre has had £500,000 in public money from various sources since 1996. It has ended up with a deficit of £200,000 and audience figures which have fallen from 40 per cent. in 1996 to 35 per cent. in the first half of this year. It was denied funds by the London Boroughs Grant Unit before the London Arts Board decided to withdraw its funding. Under those circumstances, it would be difficult to make a case for the £400,000 a year which would now be necessary to revive it and to pay off its debts.

The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, referred to the Watermill Theatre. That has had standstill funding. He knows that the good management of the theatre has resulted in a £50,000 accumulated surplus rather than a deficit, in considerable contrast to the Greenwich Theatre.

I do not know the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, about a deficit in the London Arts Board figures. I shall find out about that and write to him. My officials do not know about it either, so we are somewhat taken aback.

Although we are not responsible for their decisions, the Arts Council and the regional arts boards will spend over £50 million of Government grant in aid on drama in England. That is a quarter of the Government's total grant in aid to the council. It will include at least £20 million on regional theatre activity in support of more than 50 regional theatres. I have seen from the excellent briefing of the National Campaign for the Arts how many theatres are in desperate situations. We must not think of Arts Council subsidies, central government subsidies, as being the centre of their funding. They have their own box office takings which, in a healthy theatre, could be 60 per cent. of the total requirement, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said. They can generate other income through local authorities and local businesses. I appreciate the difficulties in individual theatres but the amount of contribution is not insignificant.

Similarly, the lottery has made a major contribution. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, somewhat surprised me by suggesting that we should be going back to funding buildings and not people. All of the pressure that I have encountered from the arts world has been to fund people as well as buildings. Some £150 million has gone to capital expenditure in theatres. The Arts for Everyone programme set up by the previous government amounted to less than £8 million. The balance that we propose between buildings and people is not wrong. I would be sorry to go back to the more rigid and restricted provisions of the previous Arts Council lottery expenditure rules.

Let me now say something about what the Government plan to do. That is the basis of the noble Viscount's Question. Above all, we are committed to increasing access to the arts. Public funding carries with it the right to better public access. Without going into details, we will be using some of the extra funding to build on the new audiences initiative to extend access to the arts, both geographically and in terms of new target audiences. The new audiences fund was established at the time of the Budget in March. The funds are targeted to help arts organisations extend their audiences and to bring new young people to the arts. We agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, about the importance of training young talent and encouraging young people in particular to broaden their experience of different art forms.

Among the range of projects which are not part of this debate, the Sheffield Theatre project will, over the next two years have £300,000 of new audience funding. Sheffield is very suitable for this because it has a very high proportion of 16 to 25 year-olds, including approximately 50,000 students, and three regional theatres—the Lyceum, the Crucible and Crucible Studio. It will carry out a whole range of projects on ticket pricing discount schemes and will produce a publishable study at the end of this exercise. It will experiment with pay-what-you-can nights in different configurations, one-price productions at different price levels, matinée performances for school groups, bring-a-friend schemes, variations in performance days, times and types, workshop opportunities and transport to and from the theatres. It sounds a small amount of money but if it can be made to work and encourage theatres in other parts of the country it will be very valuable.

As I said at the beginning, this is the best of timing and the worst of timing. If the question were being asked after 24th July I would be able to give considerably more detail. I hope noble Lords who have taken part in the debate will understand the Government's commitment to—indeed the Government's passion for—the theatre and regional theatre.