#
I am pleased to support the revival motion before the House today. It is about 11 months since I moved Second Reading of the Bill last year. At that stage, it had already completed its passage through the House of Lords, and it was given a Second Reading without opposition. It then went into the Committee on unopposed private Bills, and the panel met in March this year under the chairmanship of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Committee approved the Bill subject to an undertaking given by the Royal Albert Hall, which I will come back to. I do not want to repeat all of the speech I made on Second Reading, but I do want to set out again why the Bill is so necessary and beneficial, and not just to the Royal Albert Hall but to the many people who enjoy performances there.
The Royal Albert Hall is one of our most important cultural institutions. There can be few people in this Chamber, or indeed the country, who have not enjoyed performances at the hall—either live or broadcast—including the last night of the Proms, the Festival of Remembrance, Cirque du Soleil and, tonight, Elvis Costello. I should declare that I served as a trustee of the Royal Albert Hall, appointed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, from 2018 to 2020. I was one of five independent trustees, and I also sat on the conflicts committee, which is an extremely important part of the management of the hall, and to which I will return. As a result, I gained a good understanding of the way in which the hall operates, and I saw how the council works to fulfil the charitable purposes of the hall.
The hall has operated successfully for 150 years, and to explain why this Bill is necessary, it is important to appreciate its history and the model on which it is based. The hall was the idea of Prince Albert. Sadly, he died before he could see it completed, but the corporation was set up in 1867 in his memory, and the hall was built and opened by Queen Victoria less than four years later. The initial funding for the building of the hall came from the commissioners of the Great Exhibition, but it was insufficient, so the remainder—the gap that needed to be filled—was met by payment in return for seats in the hall. It is perhaps a unique model of public-private partnership. The hall has around 5,500 seats, of which around 1,250—just under a quarter—are privately owned. Those seat holders are members of the corporation, and in some cases those seats have been passed down through families across generations. Others have been bought by charities, companies and individuals when they have come up for sale.
Ownership of a seat brings with it the right to attend certain performances—but not all—and the members elect from their ranks 18 out of the 23 trustees who run the hall. They also make a significant financial contribution each year through what is called the seat rate, which is currently around £2,250. That is an ongoing commitment of the seat holders to the continuation and the costs of the hall. On top of that, it has always been the case that seat holders agree to forgo their tickets for events held in the hall on just over 100 days each year. By giving up that right, the hall therefore has the tickets available either to offer to the promoter or to use for its own purposes. By doing so, it can attract higher artists, so it is of considerable financial benefit to the hall that the seat holders behave in that way.
The practice of agreeing to forgo the right of using a seat is not covered expressly by the constitution of the hall; it is voted on and agreed by the members that they should do that. However, there has been a suggestion of legal challenge from a very small number who do not like the fact that a majority of the seat holders have voted accordingly to give up the right, so there is now legal uncertainty and a risk as to whether the Hall can continue to offer as many tickets as it does to what are called exclusives, where all the tickets are available for use by the hall.
That legal uncertainty has resulted in several options for the hall, none of which is particularly palatable. It could continue to operate on the present basis, but it risks defeat in the courts, should that legal challenge be sustained. Indeed, failure to pass this Bill may encourage those seeking to challenge the current situation. The alternative is that the hall could revert to having exclusive performances only to the number permitted under the existing constitution. That probably means losing around 40 exclusive lettings in a year out of perhaps 150. The Bill is necessary to allow the existing practice to continue, to the benefit of the hall. If the Bill does not pass, the chief executive has calculated that it is likely to cost the Royal Albert Hall around £1.8 million.
#
I defer to my right hon. Friend’s superior knowledge in this area. I recognise the value of the asset. Can he reassure me on the concerns about conflicts of interests? Those people holding the seats are also trustees, so they are taking decisions for financial gain. Is he reassured that the process he is suggesting we follow will counter that issue?
#
I will make a couple of points to my hon. Friend. As I have said, I not only served as a trustee, but sat on what is called the conflicts committee. The conflicts committee has a majority of independent members—not of seat holders—and it is there to ensure that any decisions taken are done properly. While it may be the case that conflicts exist, that in itself is not a problem, so long as there are proper mechanisms in place to ensure that the current situation is not abused. Certainly no evidence has ever been suggested, as far as I am aware, of seat holders seeking to take decisions for their own benefit, rather than for the good of the hall. If they did do that, the Charity Commission would come down on them rapidly, so there is an existing control around that issue.
My hon. Friend is right that concerns have been voiced about how the hall operates. When the Bill went through the House of Lords recently, an amendment was passed relating to the resale of tickets, which is the other issue that some Members have raised. It was suggested that seat holders, if they wished to sell their seats, should be required to do so through the hall’s own ticket resale mechanism. Many do choose to do that, but the problem with that is twofold. The first is how the resale mechanism works. It pools the takings and redistributes them among all seat holders. If not all seats are sold, that could end up costing seat holders money. The second problem, which is more fundamental, is that these are property rights. It is the legal right of the seat holder to decide whether to use the seat himself or herself, to pass it to somebody else, or to sell it. It is a fundamental property right.
To meet the concerns that were expressed, and the amendment that was made in the House of Lords, the hall offered an alternative undertaking, which is that each year those trustees who are seat holders and had sold tickets during the course of the year would have the amount of money that they obtained as a result made public. Through that, there would be greater transparency, with anyone able to see that those seat holders who become trustees are not exploiting their position in that way. That undertaking was accepted by the panel of the Committee on unopposed Bills, and hence that undertaking is now being given by the hall in place of the amendment.
This Bill is about one question alone: the ability of the hall to go on with the present practice, whereby seat holders go above and beyond the number of events or days where they agree to give up their rights and put more into the pot to the benefit of the hall and the public. If the Bill does not pass, there is a real risk that the entire model on which the hall operates will be undermined.
#
I was interested in what the right hon. Gentleman said about the pooling of money following resale through the hall’s box office. Would it not be palatable for the members of the hall to have an agreed price by which those tickets are resold? Instead of the money being pooled, they could receive their portion of the contribution that they make.
#
We are talking about very few events where tickets are sold at a much greater price than their face value. There will be some. The problem with what the hon. Gentleman suggests is that, at the end of the day, we are talking about somebody’s right as a legal owner of a property to decide what to do with it.
The seat holders have been extremely generous in the level to which they agree to support the hall. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and I agree with each other on many other occasions—we sit next to each other on the Foreign Affairs Committee—but on this we are on opposing sides. She has suggested, for instance, that the hall has benefited unfairly from the Government and the taxpayer because it received a loan of around £20 million during the covid pandemic.
I was a Minister in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport during covid. The cultural recovery fund amounted to £1.5 billion. If that had not been put in place, the entire cultural landscape of this country would have collapsed. In the vast majority of cases, the funding was grants. Cultural institutions—theatres, museums, galleries and music venues—were given grants by the Government, ranging from the Royal Opera House through to the Hot Box in Chelmsford, which I occasionally attend to see up-and-coming bands. All of them were beneficiaries, but the difference was that in the case of the Royal Albert Hall, it was not a grant, but a loan, and it is repaying that loan.
The great thing about the Royal Albert Hall is that for 150 years it has provided one of our greatest cultural assets, and at almost no cost to the public purse. Apart from that covid loan, there has been no cost to the public purse at all, and it remains the case that, unlike so many others, it does not receive a grant. If this Bill does not pass, a model that has been so successful for 150 years is at risk of being undermined. If the consequence is that the hall has to withdraw from a lot of its charitable activities—reaching out to put on events for young people and for communities—and becomes solely focused on having to raise money, the communities will lose out.