asked Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take to mitigate the constraints placed upon owners of listed places of entertainment seeking to provide modern facilities for customers and to satisfy contemporary artistic demands.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as an owner of theatres in London and also as a composer who uses theatres.
In drawing attention to the problems facing the owners of places of entertainment, I totally admit that I do not know the answers to the questions that I am about to raise. My hope today is to draw attention to our ageing commercial theatre stock and, by doing so, to stimulate a serious discussion about the way forward for this country’s mainly Victorian and Edwardian commercial theatres. I must declare my other interest: I am passionate about architecture and I think that my love of Victorian art is quite well known. Therefore, some of the things that I am about to say sit extremely uneasily with me, especially as, when I was a boy, I was one of those who lay down in the street demonstrating against the shameful demolition of the St James’s Theatre. However, I must say these things.
First, I should like to quote from that tireless advocate of all things Victorian, Sir John Betjeman. In his First and Last Loves, he begins his chapter on the architecture of entertainment thus:
“If there is one word which safely can be applied to the constructions for entertainment it is the adjective impermanent”.
He goes on a little mischievously to compare theatres and concert halls to churches, but concludes that, while churches are built to last, places of entertainment are not. Sir John’s point is that taste, fashion and style of production change and that buildings constructed for entertainment must, by definition, be replaced or altered as entertainment itself evolves, although the controversial old rogue does add that, as fashion changes, new and more hideous structures arrive on the sites of older buildings as we continue to slide into deeper depths of barbarism. However, today, some of those barbarisms are listed.
Sir John is right that the architecture of entertainment is impermanent, but he could not have seen other developments that call into question the suitability of some of our older buildings for present-day theatrical use—or indeed any use. When the stock of theatre buildings was constructed times were very different from ours in a whole series of ways. People were physically smaller; there was less demand for bars and lavatories; it was assumed that the wealthy expected to be segregated from the hoi polloi in terms of auditorium ingress and egress; no one gave any thought to access for disabled people; and, for a significant number of patrons, being seen was far more important than being able to see what was on stage. We need only think about most 19th century opera houses. Backstage, dressing rooms for non-star names were cramped, poorly located and without showers. Technical capacities were severely limited by current standards in terms of lighting, sound and stage machinery. The modern audience, performer and artistic teams today all expect modern facilities. Decent sight lines are paramount today—nobody wants to sit behind a pillar all evening.
Ownership of a listed building imposes on the owner a kind of involuntary trusteeship of what is deemed to be part of our national heritage, but buildings that are in living contemporary use surely cannot be treated as if they are museum assets. English Heritage is reasonably flexible in its demands when listed buildings are refurbished, but the demands are there and meeting them can be very costly indeed. A substantial part of the cost of the recent refurbishment of buildings such as the Royal Festival Hall, the Coliseum and the Royal Opera House was the cost of maintaining the heritage aspects of the buildings. We are talking about many, many millions of pounds, not the odd hundred thousand. For example, to install the air conditioning that is badly needed in the Theatre Royal Drury Lane would cost in the region of £15 million. Were it not to be a grade 1 listed building, the figure would be about £1 million to £2 million. The reason is that the Theatre Royal Drury Lane has no cavities in its walls in which air conditioning can be installed. The listing requirement means that every internal wall of the building would have to be taken down, a cavity for air conditioning created, and the wall rebuilt exactly as it was originally constructed.
The difficulty for commercial theatre owners is that this expenditure yields no economic benefit in terms of the operational viability of their buildings. Not one more seat becomes available for sale as a result. Indeed, improving the audience experience while retaining the architectural qualities of the building normally means losing seats, which commercial theatres can ill afford to do.
May I introduce to the debate by way of example one London theatre I intimately know and love, if not adore, the Palace Theatre. My company bought the theatre in the mid-1980s. It was in a shocking state. Its main terracotta facade was covered with a huge neon advertising sign that dominated Cambridge Circus. All its statues had been removed. Its glorious marble front of house and its extraordinary auditorium had been covered in surplus paint from one of the old railway companies at a time when appreciation of high Victorian art was at its lowest. I remembered what Sir John Betjeman had written in the same chapter of First and Last Loves that I quoted from, in which he opined that the architecture of entertainment was by definition impermanent. He wrote:
“The noblest surviving building in my opinion more impressive within and without than Covent Garden—is the Royal English Opera House … This is on an irregularly shaped island site. Its main façade on Cambridge Circus is concave and the awkwardness of the corners of such a façade is overcome by graceful octagonal turrets … The three tiers of galleries are cantilevered out—a revolution at the time—so that no columns obstruct the view of the audience. The decoration throughout is scholarly Flemish Renaissance. Nothing is skimped and the entrance hall and staircases are rich in those contrasting marbles Collcutt”—
that great architect—
“delighted to use … The Palace is the only theatre architecture of the last sixty years in London, or for that matter the provinces, which climbs into the regions of a work of art”.
The theatre was constructed by Richard D’Oyley Carte as an opera house partly to thank his composer Sir Arthur Sullivan. It opened with Sullivan’s serious opera, “Ivanhoe”, which failed almost immediately. After a couple of short seasons, the whole project went belly-up and the Royal English Opera House became the Palace Theatre of Varieties. The Palace’s future is, I hope, completely secure as long as I am around but it is a good example of a building whose long-term situation I seriously worry about. For instance, the terracotta, which was totally restored only 20 years ago, now needs to be completely renovated again at a cost which will wipe out any profit that the theatre has made over the past few years.
The Palace has only 1,416 seats. If all those seats were great, it would be a wonderful medium-scale musical or opera house, but they are not. Three hundred and seventeen of them are in one of the most vertiginous balconies in theatreland today and very hard to see from or to sell. They are cramped and impossible to reseat due to the rake. Thirty-eight seats are in boxes which are great if you want to be looked at rather than watch the show, and 274 seats are considered to be restricted view.
Thus this wonderfully sited musical house has in practice only the number of seats of a large playhouse. Combined with the capital costs of, say, £3 million to £4 million for a production of a scale to fill the building, the running costs of such a production, let alone the cost of maintaining the building, will become extremely unviable as a theatre without public or private subsidy. The Palace is just a tip of the iceberg. Maybe it is an extreme example, but the fundamental problem of the theatre’s difficulty in keeping its head above water in today’s market is replicated on a differing scale all around the country.
Some will say, “What about the Royal Court? Is that not an example of what can be done with an old building?”. Without in any way deprecating the splendid achievements in Sloane Square, I draw attention to the fact that the public funds given to refurbish the Royal Court exceeded the total profit made by the four Shaftesbury Avenue playhouses since the Second World War.
Finally, I share with the House some remarks made by one of our leading and very important stage designers. He said:
“What the theatre needs today is the equivalent of a large warehouse attached to wonderful front of house and backstage facilities preferably in a location with great access by public transport. In that warehouse what you need are basic theatrical facilities like the ability to fly scenery but most of all you need comfortable, flexible seating so that a production can play in the round, in a proscenium shape or whatever a writer, director or artists require”.
I urge noble Lords to understand that I am not proposing the wholesale demolition of London’s West End, nor am I suggesting that the taxpayer is suddenly faced with a huge bill to refurbish our ageing commercial theatre stock. But as someone who has spent more than 40 years professionally involved with musical theatre, I felt that it was time to put my love of theatre architecture to one side and at least draw the attention of Her Majesty’s Government to some of the issues that confront theatre owners and artists as we head for the second decade of the 21st century.
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, for drawing our attention to this issue tonight, as well as for his contribution to all of our entertainment. May I just say in passing that I thought Jessie was phenomenal on Saturday night, though my other favourite Nancy was Sarah? Indeed, I have an “Oliver” strand running through my contribution this evening, so, to start: “I’m reviewing the situation”.
London is a world city. Its arts and culture are world-renowned, contributing to the quality of life in the capital. Some recent government policies and uncertain tax treatment have given the impression that London does not welcome foreign nationals and those doing business globally. The arts and culture of London counterbalance that unfortunate impression and keep people in London instead of in offshore tax havens. As Nancy would say:
“If you don’t mind having to go without things,
It’s a fine life”.
I would price the value which London’s theatres provide culturally way beyond their immediate economic benefit. However, at a minimum, London’s theatres make an economic contribution of around £1.5 billion per year.
The contribution of our theatres is threatened by the need to upgrade the building stock to 21st-century standards. As John Osborne wrote in his 1950s play “The Entertainer”:
“Don’t clap too hard. It’s a very old building".
The buildings are even older now.
London is a living city, not a museum. The needs of audiences and artists should be considered hand in hand with the preservation of buildings, which even Dickens may have considered to be of indifferent quality. They were built to stage shows, not to be considered as future heritage. Making them meet 21st-century disability-access, environmental health, fire and evacuation requirements is increasingly difficult. The radical solution, in many cases, would be to delist them and in some cases to demolish them. Owners and developers would then be free to redevelop the sites to include modern performing arts facilities. In a sporting parallel, the Wembley towers were treasured, but the quality of the new stadium far outweighs their loss.
There appear to be two options for the Government: either preserve the current buildings in aspic and subsidise uneconomic refurbishment; or accept that at least some of the buildings need a less purist approach, thus making it commercially viable to improve them. The current stand-off between theatre owners and the Government is profoundly unhelpful, particularly in the run-up to 2012. So, please, Government, can we have some more?
The prospect of the Olympics turning the limelight directly on to London offers a fresh opportunity to find solutions. If, on the other hand, the Government are unwilling to help the owners by reviewing the listing of theatres, then they need to look at the options to subsidise them to make up for their decision. Some five years ago, the Theatres Trust published a compelling report appropriately entitled Act Now. After five years of silence, perhaps it should be called “Act Then”. It called for an investment of £250 million at 2003 prices to be spent over a 15-year period to raise the quality of theatre buildings. That is roughly £20 million a year, a tiny amount of money considering the benefits they bring.
With the Olympics only four years away, there is an imperative to “act now”. Could we not find £80 million from the roundings of the Olympic budget to make an investment which would leave a very manifest and achievable legacy for the UK? There are many ways for the Minister to help. He could, perhaps,
“pick a pocket or two”,
from his government colleagues—for example, using VAT receipts from theatre ticket sales to help kick-start a refurbishment fund. Or we could leave the situation as it is. I could say:
“Oom pa pa, oom pa pa, that's how it goes … They all suppose what they want to suppose”.
Instead I call on the Minister to enter into constructive engagement with the theatre owners and then, if he does not mind me saying so, he could:
“Consider yourself
One of us”.
My Lords, nobody is better placed or equipped to introduce a debate relating to theatres than my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber. It has been made quite clear that his experience and background goes well beyond the West End. I have absolutely no difficulty in endorsing everything that he said. Indeed, I listened entranced to his comments about the various theatres which he so clearly loves—in particular, perhaps, the Palace. The difficulties for all historic buildings which are open to the public, of both conserving and, simultaneously, updating them, are nowhere more evident than in the theatres he described.
The starting point of this debate is the value and importance of the London theatres to the image of London as a world-renowned centre of culture and entertainment and a vital part of our tourist industry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, has pointed out. Looking forward, I can also see that the objective of an Olympiad of culture alongside the Olympic Games also gives the opportunity for fresh thought and action to preserve and extend the value of what we have so fortunately inherited.
Clearly, London’s monuments, museums, art galleries, opera, ballet and theatres all have to be included in the concept of an Olympiad of culture, but this debate gives us the opportunity to focus on the theatre and a specific issue: how best to modernise buildings and tie in health and safety requirements and regulation, as well as additional comfort, with the planning constraints on listed buildings. I thank my noble friend for giving us this opportunity.
Nevertheless, apart from my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber himself, a great champion, others’ voices can be heard. Kevin Spacey is doing a terrific job at the Old Vic. Also, organisations such as English Heritage are very much involved. I understand that it is currently funding work on a publication designed to provide clear and consistent advice to those engaged in making physical changes to the heritage assets we are talking about. The need to balance the special architectural and historic interests of listed theatres with expectations and standards which, as has been said, are very different today from when the majority of theatres were constructed, is evident. The effect of this consideration has been seen in major projects such as the Royal Albert Hall and the London Coliseum, but I understand that English Heritage also devotes considerable resources to more modest projects, such as the sub-division of the Whitehall Theatre and the restoration of both the Theatre Royal and the Savoy Theatre. So three cheers for English Heritage—as well as the Theatres Trust, which has a statutory role in promoting the better protection of theatres on behalf of the nation and does much valuable work.
However, the issue on which I once again press the Government is value added tax. It seems absurd that new build is exempted from VAT—or zero-rated—but the maintenance and restoration of beautiful and historic buildings is not. Can the Minister give us any hope on this? Before I am told that it is a matter for Brussels and not the Treasury, I recently visited the Teatro Olimpico in Vicenza and, somehow or other, the Italian Government seem to get around the rule, if there is one. Indeed, the Government have provided a partial exemption for historic churches, so why not for historic theatres too?
Further, can the Minister give any indication of whether the Government’s Heritage Protection Bill, which has just been published and is currently undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny, will contain any provisions to help the owners of historic theatres to overcome some of the difficulties that we have heard about, and provide modern facilities, both for theatre-goers and the actors and artists who give us so much pleasure and entertainment? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
My Lords, it is great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, especially as we are usually found together on Latin America; here we are on a domestic issue. Like other speakers, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, for his splendid introduction which really sets the scene. As other speakers have said, nobody knows more about it than him.
The foreword to the excellent Theatres Trust report, to which my noble friend Lady Valentine referred, states:
“Commercial theatre ownership and management is a financially precarious business and relies a lot on huge enthusiasm”.
How right. I speak with feeling, as a former member of a small theatrical investment syndicate. We invested in straight plays—musicals were way above our capitalisation limits. Backers are rightly known colloquially as “angels”; others may well call them “damn fools”. However, in my 30 years in that role, the net result may have been zero but it gave me, as an enthusiast, a feeling of being an theatrical impresario manqué—very manqué, in my case, but a great deal of fun.
A further past interest is that I succeeded my noble friend Lord Rix as a trustee of the Theatre of Comedy, which gradually metamorphosed into the advisory council of the Shaftesbury Theatre. It was a purely honorary role. The Shaftesbury Theatre had to close in 1973 after parts of the ceiling fell in during a performance of “Hair”. The subsequent campaign to save the theatre prevented it from becoming an office block. In light of what has been said, perhaps that was a pity, but there it is. It is on the fringe of the West End and, for many years, actors considered that it had a jinx on it. I am glad to say that the myth is now dead and the current show, “Hairspray”, is a huge success and playing to packed houses.
In the same Theatres Trust report, there is a good section on the economics of theatre ownership. In this context, the Shaftesbury has a special problem in that it is one of the few listed theatres in single ownership and not part of a group. It can hardly carry out major refurbishment and modernisation, so very necessary, when a show is running. Here again there is a problem with the Treasury, which is a becoming a familiar problem to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who will reply, who hears about this at regular intervals from all of us. The theatre has to pay tax on the annual profits, and there is no provision to accumulate them to have them ready at the end of a run. There needs to be some sort of offset arrangement to make the necessary provision. Meanwhile, it also pays large business rates to the local council. Although I have used the Shaftesbury Theatre as an example, this problem applies to any listed theatre in single ownership throughout the country and to some groups, especially the smaller ones. One obvious answer is to delist, as has been mentioned, but I hope the Minister will have something to say about the tax possibilities and what we can do.
My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, for initiating this debate. I note that according to the draft Heritage Bill that has just been published he will not be the owner of any listed buildings but of registered heritage assets. I am not sure whether he is yet aware of that, and I do not expect the Minister to respond on this occasion about what seems an unnecessary change of term.
Listed places of entertainment are also assets. They are buildings of great architectural merit and a major part of our cultural heritage. Thanks to the talents of people such as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, who fill their stages, they can continue to serve the purpose for which they were built and we, the public, can enjoy that experience. We are lucky that people such as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, have decided to invest not just in productions but also in the fabric of our theatres. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, theatre produces great economic benefits not just for London but for the whole of the country, but that theatrical success depends on a healthy commercial as well as subsidised sector. In a recent debate in another place, Glenda Jackson MP, another example of talent nurtured here and appreciated across the globe, explained from her unique perspective as an actor and a politician the benefit that theatre brings to society.
“What happens when people go to the theatre? It is quite remarkable. For no reason other than that they think, ‘Oh, I’d like to go and see that tonight’, a large group of strangers decide to go to one theatre on one night of the week. They sit there in the dark, and another group, who are strangers to them, come on into the light. When it is working well, an energy goes from the light into the dark, is reinforced and is sent back. On a really good night, a perfect circle is created. It is a unique and transforming experience”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/3/07; col. 453WH.]
We all wish to involve greater numbers and a greater variety of people in this perfect circle, but what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, is arguing is that the constraints faced by those involved in the theatre because of the buildings they occupy make that hard to achieve.
At the core of what we are debating so far as planning constraints are concerned is the need for flexibility. The issue is not the listing of these buildings but how to enable them to be transformed adequately to allow modern facilities while keeping their essential nature intact. Part of the value of some theatre-going relates to the ambiance of the old buildings and even, dare I say it, to watching the audience as well as what is on stage. Modern theatre buildings, if listed, face similar problems. The Royal National Theatre has to persuade English Heritage in order to achieve the smallest of changes. Buildings of quality of whatever age must not be frozen in time. The responsible authorities have to adapt their mindset to accept changes.
The draft heritage Bill, which I have already mentioned, recognises this and puts forward the case for the creation of heritage partnership agreements, which will involve partnerships between owners, local authorities and English Heritage. Places of entertainment clearly lend themselves to such partnerships. They will encourage consensus and get rid of repetitive, duplicate consent applications. We on these Benches welcome the idea. We are, however, concerned that where an owner is intent on flouting the listed status of a building, as in the case of the grade 2 listed Derby Hippodrome where one wall has been totally demolished without consent, probably meaning it is too expensive to repair, sanctions are too weak.
However, this debate is not just about the problems encountered in getting permission to change, but also about the problem, which all noble Lords have mentioned, that listed status adds hugely to the cost of change. A DCMS working group set up in 2003 to find a solution to the need identified by the Theatres Trust, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, mentioned, proposed that half the amount required should come from the theatre industry and the rest from Arts Council England, the Heritage Lottery Fund and the London Development Agency. To date, no public bodies have provided funding. A recent report from the Society of London Theatres noted that the working group had made only “stuttering progress” and as at January 2008 had not met in over a year.
The truth is that pressure on public bodies’ funding as a result of the 2012 Olympics and the intrusion into our lives of the credit crunch makes the likelihood of significant public investment more remote now than in 2003, but we cannot allow the situation to remain static for another five years. The recent London Assembly report Restoration Drama—a very good name—suggested that a charitable body could be used to manage investment in renovating these wonderful buildings. It also suggested a levy on tickets, something Cameron Mackintosh has introduced, but tickets are already prohibitively expensive for many. On the other hand, it crossed my mind that the cost of programmes seems to outstrip the cost of producing them, and they are a voluntary purchase. Could the profit on their sale not go towards a restoration fund?
One of the most successful recent fundraising projects was Buy a Brushstroke. The Tate needed £4.95 million to acquire Turner’s “The Blue Rigi” and the Art Fund instituted a brilliant campaign whereby members of the public were invited to buy brushstrokes for £5 each. Alongside the money raised, the campaign achieved a very important thing: a sense among the public of involvement with and ownership of a piece of their cultural heritage. Theatres should think like that. The Rex cinema in Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire is grade 2 listed art deco cinema that was originally opened in 1938. It fell into state of dereliction, and developers moved in. It was saved by a local group which raised money through local loan schemes, sponsored seats, membership and some financing through local business. It is now a thriving enterprise and a boon to the local economy and the local community which has a stake in it.
We on these Benches agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and do not believe that historic building repairs should be, as they currently are, subject to full VAT. We propose reducing VAT on conversions and repairs to historic buildings, to be paid for by introducing a new, low VAT rate for new building. Will the Minister consider extending the existing scheme covering memorials and places of worship to these listed places of entertainment?
The Government should re-establish the working group set up to secure investment in theatre buildings. They should, in collaboration with the GLA, the new mayor and the theatre owners, consider the options for West End theatres specifically. There are lots of ideas out there, and what is needed is action. The long-term future of our theatres is an integral part of this country’s cultural heritage.
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber for introducing this debate. Like my noble friend Lady Hooper and many other noble Lords, I found his contribution interesting and thought provoking. I must declare an interest as the owner of four scheduled ancient monuments and a number of listed buildings. One of them is a 17th century barn, part of which has been adapted by building a dentist’s surgery, which can easily be dismantled at a future date, within the fabric of the building which fully retains its outward appearance. That is certainly not a use that was originally intended. I mention that only to demonstrate my commitment to the preservation and continued use of listed buildings.
Listening to this debate, my first reaction is that if my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber does not know what to do with the large number of buildings no longer suitable for contemporary needs in arts and entertainment, who on earth will? Reflecting on that question, it is easy to fall into the trap of believing that one person or group of people has a monopoly of wisdom. Human beings are adaptable and inventive, and I have no doubt that constructive uses will be found for those buildings—which, having listened to my noble friend, may be uses that have nothing to do with the theatre or entertainment.
Different uses will inevitably compromise the historical and cultural integrity of the buildings in question, so exactly what should be allowed? Except in limited cases, I urge the Minister to assist in reducing the bureaucratic obstacles to the evolution of those buildings, enabling them to have useful lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, has already commented on that. That will surely be the best way to ensure their preservation. There is certainly a strong case for keeping some existing theatres, after they have been adapted for modern use, in their historic form, but with the huge cost of modernisation, which has already been referred to this evening, that will be prohibitive except for a limited number.
One returns to the need for a lighter touch and an acceptance that places of entertainment are not static. They are constantly changing and evolving, and must be allowed to do so. As we all know, this Government are no opponent of change, so I trust that the Minister will listen to what he has heard from my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber, whose affection, knowledge and passion have been so deeply impressive, and take positive steps to ensure that there is the flexibility required to make those buildings useful in the 21st century.
My Lords, I share in the congratulations for the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, on introducing this fascinating topic. I assure him that it fits in beautifully with our discussion yesterday evening about tourism in London. We have virtually the same cast this evening. We are very pleased to have his star attraction in introducing the debate and we welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, to the lists as well. Yesterday evening, the rest of us considered the attractiveness of London to visitors and references were made to the theatre. It is right that the noble Lord should seek to address our minds to the problems that theatres face. We all recognise the challenge to the West End.
The Government are committed to the arts, including the theatre. Over the past 10 years, investment in the arts has increased by 73 per cent in real terms, enabling the Arts Council to more than double its funding to theatre. That increased investment has reinvigorated the theatre sector. Recent research from seven of England’s biggest regional producing theatres shows an increase in audience numbers of almost 40 per cent between 2000 and 2005. That does not alter the fact that there are difficulties for the West End theatres, which the noble Lord identified. He was also open to potential solutions, which is to be welcomed.
Let me make the obvious point. Even with the additional funding from lottery and government sources allocated to the arts, we cannot expect those sources to provide everything. Private investment is of course important. It is important that we develop a stronger mixed economy for all aspects of the arts. The more investment goes in, the less dependence there is on public sector funding decisions, which from time to time cause great concern.
The lottery has an important part to play. In the 13 years since it began, the Heritage Lottery Fund has committed more than £205 million to projects that aim to conserve and enhance historic buildings in use or to be converted to use as performing arts venues. Of those awards, more than £79 million has been committed specifically to theatres, of which almost £62 million has gone to theatres in London. The noble Lord said in his opening speech that that is not much more than a drop in the ocean; it is a bit more than that, but it is nevertheless inadequate for the scale of the problems that he identified with our Edwardian and Victorian theatre stock.
I want to address the point raised by almost every noble Lord who spoke in the debate—the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, raised it first—the question of VAT. We have difficulties with easy acceptance of proposals with regard to VAT. I hear what the noble Baroness says about the Italian position. Perhaps I will get officials to look at that, although not too closely; I am not offering them a free trip to look at that development. However, they can certainly do some analysis of where the resources come from. We are restricted in our use of VAT. Agreements with our European partners—signed, I hasten to add, by successive Governments—do not allow us to extend the scope of existing VAT reliefs or to introduce any new ones. Even if the Government wished to do so, we could not extend the current VAT zero rate for work to listed buildings—for example, to include work to commercial places of entertainment, such as theatres.
We are pressing where we can. That is why there is an attempt to get VAT zero rated or reduced rated for churches. We have not succeeded in that in Europe, but at least that is a project that we can see has the potential for widespread agreement in Europe. The glory of London in its extensive range of theatres is not something that other countries can necessarily respond to. As will be recognised, getting issues through Europe on a consensual model is quite a challenge.
I agree entirely with a point that I think was the burden of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, but which was emphasised in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine: we should not look on listed buildings as being preserved in aspic. It is important that any proposals for how we conduct operations for listed buildings in future, which must be based on partnership between the owners and English Heritage and others who can contribute, have an imaginative approach to the actual use to which the buildings can be put. In the draft Heritage Protection Bill, which is subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and will, all being well, be in the Government’s programme for next year, we will see the framework in which we can take forward the consideration of listed buildings on a much greater level of partnership than we have done in the past.
That is not to decry the work of the past. We are all too well aware of the fact that it is easy to throw brickbats at local authorities. Westminster is almost bound to get the first range of brickbats. Yesterday evening, it was criticised about litter in the West End, which we all know is a challenge for the resources devoted to it. This evening, Westminster sits in the centre of this debate because all the West End theatres are in the Westminster area.
We are looking forward to a much more constructive debate in partnership between local authorities, English Heritage and the owners of these buildings so that we can make progress. Some of that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, suggested, may mean that one redesigns part of the building to take account of the different use. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, might be right that some people still go to the theatre to be seen rather than to see, so we cannot take away altogether certain aspects of the boxes and so on of theatres. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, is right that the modern discriminating audience wants a decent experience once in the theatre. In too many of our theatres, we rely on tourists being prepared to take some of those seats because they do not know any better. The rest of us who have been pinned in one of those galleries on a hot summer evening and have lived to survive the experience are not likely to renew it quite so enthusiastically.
It is important that we look at ways in which we can modernise the theatres. We have projects across the country. In saying that, we do not have to go too far from the West End to see the refurbishments at the Hackney Empire. Enormous work is also being done on the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in Stratford. The West End, however, presents a significant challenge. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, wants my response to be much more constructive in terms of hard cash, but I cannot offer that so easily this evening. I can offer him the points that have been made in the debate. I take on board the point made so accurately by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, that single ownership of a theatre presents particular challenges as to how one refurbishes while still keeping a revenue flow from a show that must go on.
I offer the House this. We are well aware of the crisis that faces the West End theatres. We are encouraged by the fact that various actors on the scene are moving much more constructively and we are looking at the reports from the London authorities on the way in which they want to co-operate with theatre owners. As I say, the Westminster authority will play its constructive part. We will, within the framework of our legislation, create an emphasis on partnerships that can give new stimulus and drive to this necessary work. I hope that I can indicate to the House that we cannot within this framework chase fool’s gold. I always welcome it when noble Lords seek to be constructive about resources, because otherwise it always looks from the Dispatch Box as though only the Government are cast in a defensive role. From time to time, we get proposals that are extremely helpful.
The VAT channel is, I fear, largely blocked to us and I suggest that we look to other areas for resources. The Government want to continue their record, which they began when they came into office, of being determined to see increased expenditure on the arts. That was a very important part of the programme in 1997. We have not fulfilled all our ambitions by a long way, but I think that it is recognised that participation in the arts has vastly increased over the past decade. A great deal of that is a reflection of the hunger of people out there for the experience that they can get from all aspects of the arts, including the theatre. I remember when people seemed to think that television would kill off live theatre. Quite the opposite has happened. It is clear from what television produces these days that without live theatre it does not have the actors who can present themselves in quite the way that is wanted in television production.
I am aware that everyone who has contributed to the debate this evening has been extremely constructive. That includes the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who as ever is extremely radical in his approach and indicates to us, probably following his noble friend, that we need to think constructively about some of these theatres. There may be other uses to which they need to be put. At the same time, we must preserve the glory of the West End theatre, which, if I may just reflect on last night’s debate, is appreciated not only by the nation but hugely by tourists who come to London and to the rest of the United Kingdom knowing full well that in London you get some of the greatest theatrical experiences in the world.