A BRIGHTER FUTURE

The case for investing in subsidised theatre

 contents
I. Foreword ............................................................. 3

II. Executive summary ............................................4

III. Introduction:
Why subsidised theatre is important .............6

IV. Background:
The funding pattern ..........................................8

V. The benefits of theatre funding:

For the public................................................... 12
For theatre ....................................................... 14
For the economy.............................................. 17

VI. Conclusion:
Implications for future policy ........................ 19

Equity
Guild House
Upper St Martins Lane
London
WC2H 9EG
TEL: 020 7379 6000
FAX: 020 7379 7001
EMAIL: info@equity.org.uk
WEB: www.equity.org.uk

2
i. foreword
Theatre in this country is one of our greatest success stories.

That is why Equity has been campaigning to ensure that UK theatre gets the best deal
possible following the Comprehensive Spending Review in 2007, which will determine the
Governments spending priorities from 2008 to 2011.

As an organisation representing 37,000 performers and creators in the entertainment

industry, Equity has a unique role in providing evidence and information about the theatre
industry and communicating the views of the people who make theatre happen.

The first stage of our campaign involved thousands of people including Equity members,
members of the public, theatregoers and fellow trade unionists contacting local MPs and
asking them to raise the issue with the Treasury.

The response to this initial phase was overwhelming, with incredible support from
parliamentarians and the public. It is hugely encouraging to know that theatre is so valued
by so many people, all of whom have given their backing to Equity and to the UK theatre
industry.

Equity is now working with politicians, officials, funding bodies and the theatre industry to
build on this broad-based support. This report is part of that process and provides clear
evidence that small changes in funding can make a big difference to theatre.

We are grateful to the Society of London Theatre (SOLT), the Theatrical Management
Association (TMA) and the national Arts Councils for their assistance in providing us with
additional data on the theatre industry. We would also like to thank Matt Payton at Equity
who compiled this report.

If the Government builds on the achievements outlined in this document, theatre in the UK
can continue to thrive and benefit people from all walks of life providing a brighter
future for theatre and for communities across the UK.

Christine Payne Harry Landis

General Secretary, Equity President, Equity 3
 ii. executive summary
This report outlines why Government funding for theatre is such a great investment. It
provides evidence of the huge improvements that have been possible over the past ten
years, due to long-term planning and growth in the sector. It tracks the improvements
for the public, for theatre and for the economy, as well as some of the broader social
benefits.
Divided into four sections, this report sets out consolidated information on UK theatre for
the first time and provides results of research gathered from the grassroots of this hugely
successful creative industry.

Introduction:
Why subsidised theatre is important
F Theatre is a hugely powerful medium. It can move, surprise and engage
people in a unique shared experience. It can tell us stories about our
changing lives and contribute to our feeling of wellbeing.

F Subsidised theatre nurtures the award-winning actors, writers, directors

and technicians who contribute so much to our international standing in
commercial theatre, television and film. Yet the public subsidy that supports
theatre is only around 120m, or about 0.02% of Government spending.

F Subsidy for theatre provides benefits for audiences, communities, theatre

workers and the economy. As a result subsidy has strong public support.

F Theatre is a low pay, labour intensive industry with limited opportunities

for generating revenue from cost savings in other areas. Performers in
subsidised theatres still only earn an average of 383 a week, on the weeks
that they work.

Background:
The funding pattern
F During the 1980s and 1990s theatre endured low subsidies and increasing
costs, reducing activity and access for audiences. The industry has since been
revitalised by the historically unprecedented increases in the past ten years.

F The biggest increases came between 2000 and 2004, with unprecedented
improvements in UK theatre funding. However, this high growth rate has since
slowed, with a real terms reduction in overall theatre funding since 2004.

4
F If UK theatre is to maintain its recovery, this slowdown must not continue.
Spending must not be diverted to make small contributions to other areas,
like the 2012 Olympics. The Olympics are an exciting opportunity, but there
is no logic in the arts paying a disproportionately higher price.

The benefits of theatre funding

F Research shows that funding for subsidised theatre has real and measurable
benefits in a whole range of areas. These can be broadly defined as
benefits for the public, the theatre sector and the economy.

F The public benefits from theatre funding, directly through the range and
quality of work, and indirectly through the spill-over effect with local
communities. This document provides evidence and examples of more
varied and original work; the impact of educational and outreach work in
communities; and greater accessibility for a diverse range of new audiences.

F The theatre sector benefits from funding, as it produces more work of

better quality. Evidence from Equity suggests a strong link between the
rise in funding since 2001 and a rise in theatre activity as measured by
actor weeks and investment in performers. This also feeds through to the
commercial sector, making UK theatre a world leader. However, the recent
slowdown in spending was followed by a slowdown in activity.

F The economy also benefits directly and indirectly from levels of spending
associated with theatre. This creates an overall economic impact of UK
theatre is 2.6bn annually, from a subsidy of around 120m. There has
also been an increase in the levels of taxation paid back to the Exchequer,
principally through VAT.

Conclusion:
Implications for future policy
F Theatre in the UK has been thriving in the past few years, which goes to show
that relatively small amounts can make a big difference to UK theatre. The
strong link between increased funding and greater activity in the sector is
good news, as it demonstrates that subsidy works.

F However, there is already evidence that the activity in subsidised theatre is

tailing-off. This slowdown in activity shows that the theatre industry is fragile
and sensitive to fluctuations in the level of financial support. Theatre requires
an ongoing commitment and the Government must tread carefully and not
assume that the issue of theatre funding is now sorted.

F At the beginning of this decade the Government made brave decisions,

which transformed the theatre sector. The next challenge is to demonstrate a
final rejection of stop-start funding.

F A settlement below inflation could squander the good work done so far, yet
the costs are tiny. If theatre funding rose only by the annual rate of inflation
in the next three years, it would cost an extra 3.5m a year across the UK.

5
 iii. introduction:
why subsidised
theatre is important
F Theatre in this country is the envy of the world. It is based on a strong tradition of
public subsidy, which helps to enrich the cultural health of the nation and provide
access to new ideas and entertainment for the whole community.

F Subsidy is not only necessary but also has public support. 79% of people believe
that the arts should receive public funding. Moreover, 25 million tickets are sold
for theatre, opera and ballet each year second only to film as the nations most
popular arts activity.i

F This Government has recognised that the case for public funding of theatre in the
UK is overwhelmingii and it has backed up this approach by providing historically
high levels of financial support, which have reversed years of decline.

F The investment by this Government has meant that theatres have improved the
range and quality of their work, with larger casts and longer rehearsal times. They
have also been able to reach out to new audiences via educational and community
work, take risks that feed through to the commercial success of the West End and
contribute to a hugely positive economic impact.

F However, theatre is still a low pay industry. The average weekly wage in the
largest subsidised repertory theatres is 383 a week (during the weeks when a
performer is lucky enough to be working). Recent research also found that the
average annual pay of Equity members active in the industry was only 10,500
from their work in entertainment .iii

F These low wages along with the limited scope for productivity improvements or
cost savings through the application of new technology mean that the relatively
small amounts of public money provided to the national Arts Councils from central
Government are vital to the long-term future of theatre.

6
F Without appropriate financial support local, regional and national theatres in
this country would be forced to produce fewer and smaller productions; perform
with less rehearsal time; raise prices to meet costs; reduce the diversity of their
work and cut back on the production of works aimed at minority audiences; limit
the extent of educational and outreach work in local communities; and even
compromise on artistic standards.

F This document provides evidence of the sensitivity of the subsidised theatre sector
to changes in Government support. This sensitivity is good news when the levels
of funding are increasing positive results are quickly fed through to audiences,
theatre workers and the economy. Yet freezes in the overall funding levels
damage the prospects for the industry, leading to reductions in activity and a
potential crisis in the sector.

7
 iv. background:
the funding pattern
Funding Structure
F Theatre in this country is the envy of the world. It is based on a strong tradition of
public subsidy, which helps to enrich the cultural health of the nation and provide
access to new ideas and entertainment for the whole community.

F Theatre in the UK is supported principally by the Arts Councils in England,

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These bodies are provided with a grant-
in-aid from their sponsoring Government departments or devolved administrations.
This allocation is drawn from the overall level of public funding determined by the
Treasury.

F Arts Council funding is a vital revenue stream, which forms the most crucial element
of financing for subsidised theatres of all shapes and sizes ranging from national
companies like the RSC, to small-scale theatre-in-education programmes and fringe
performances.

F Typically, the revenue of subsidised theatres is overwhelmingly made up of this

Arts Council funding and is supplemented by box office payments from ticket sales;
local authority support; and private sponsorship.

Funding Pattern

F For a long period during the 1980s and 1990s subsidised theatre faced
increasing costs, yet subsidy levels failed to keep pace. By the end of the century,
theatres required a significant injection of funding simply in order to stabilise their
finances and ensure their continued viability.

F The difficulties facing theatre up to this point were illustrated in 2000, by the
Boyden Report on the roles and functions of producing theatres, as well as the Arts
Council Englands Theatre Review (which informed the detailed National Policy for
Theatre). This research demonstrated a long period of under-funding, resulting
in poor morale; falling productivity; declining standards; and a worrying fall
in audiences. There were also lower numbers of technical and production staff
employed in theatres than ever before.

8
F ofThefunding.
key barrier to improvement identified by the Theatre Review process was lack
The Government accepted this and was able to deliver an increase
in funding in 2000, followed by an additional 25 million annually to regional
theatres in England during the 2002 Spending Review period. These increases
form part of a positive pattern of total investment in UK theatre over the past ten
years. As a result of these increases many theatres entered a period of stability
that allowed them to deliver more benefits to the public.

F Councils
A summary of the financial support provided by the Government-funded Arts
over the past ten years is illustrated in Chart A below and Table One on
page 10 with detailed figures since 2001/2. This data is illustrative, as different
reporting methods mean that the figures are not all directly comparable. It
demonstrates a clear upward trend in theatre funding, up 70% in total since 2001.
However, this increase was mainly due to the improvements between the financial
years 2001/2 and 2003/4, which saw a total rise of 45% overall (driven largely
by the size of increases in England).

A. REGULAR FUNDING FOR UK THEATRE 2001-2007

N. Ireland
150

Wales

120
Scotland
(MILLIONS)

90 England

60

30

0
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07
YEAR SOURCE: ARTS COUNCILS

F Since 2004/5 the rate of growth has slowed down significantly. This is partly
a reflection of the standstill in total arts funding through the grant-in-aid to Arts
Councils in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland after 2004.

F Asto 2006/7
a result, the total growth in theatre funding between the financial years 2004/5
was 8.4% less than the expected rate of inflation during the period
(predicted at around 9.2% between April 2004 and April 2007). Moreover,
due to the freeze in the overall grant-in-aid payments, much of this increase was
achieved through internal Arts Council efficiencies and redistribution of existing
funds, rather than a further improvement in the subsidy from Government.

9
 1. ARTS COUNCIL FUNDING FOR UK THEATRE (M)*

ENGLAND SCOTLAND WALES N. IRELAND TOTAL

1996/97 47.90 4.26 3.12 1.60 56.88

2001/02 58.61 6.07 3.62 2.04 70.34

2002/03 71.76 7.57 4.56 2.14 85.94

2003/04 85.50 8.55 5.60 2.30 101.95

2004/05 90.69 10.95 6.68 2.16 110.47

2005/06 94.94 12.22 7.12 2.20 116.47

2006/07 98.00 12.71 6.84 2.14 119.70

* Figures reflect funding of theatre work, including revenue,
project funding and touring. Excludes capital expenditure and
Lottery. Due to changes in data collection and reporting not all
figures are directly comparable.

SOURCE: ARTS COUNCILS

F Nevertheless, the impact of the welcome improvements since 1997 should not be
underestimated. The large increases in theatre funding for England meant that
the overall subsidy for UK theatre saw a welcome boost, providing benefits for the
public, the theatre sector and the economy.

F Equity recognises that the increases in funding in England since 2000 are not
possible in every Spending Review. However, it is important to note that all
parts of the UK have not benefited at the same time, or to the same degree. In
particular, Scotland did not see significant rises in theatre subsidy until much later
than England, with such increases mainly related to funding for National Theatre of
Scotland, which has received over a quarter of total funding (27%) since 2004. In
addition, both Wales and Northern Ireland have seen much more modest increases,
followed by a slight decline.

F Moreover, the initial injection of new funds was essentially a catch-up measure
necessary to begin repairing the damage of years of neglect. Where there have
been improvements in funding, this has brought theatre back to the level it would
have been if it had kept up with the increases in costs.

F Theatre is a labour intensive industry, which sees costs more closely aligned to
average earnings than inflation. Therefore, the real cost increases in theatre since

10
 1996/97 are more likely to be nearer the 52% increase in average earnings than
the 30% increase in RPI.

F Finally, it is important to note that private investment makes up an important

element of the funding pattern in UK theatre. This has grown from 16.5 million
in 1996/7 to 28.2 million in 2006/7.iv The fact that private enterprise has
sought to be associated with theatre during this period of growth is also a vote of
confidence in the public importance of the sector.

FUTURE FUNDING

F Despite the welcome and sizable increases in funding for subsidised theatre,
it would be wrong to assume that the issue of theatre funding is sorted.
Maintaining a world class theatre sector in the UK requires an ongoing commitment.
Theatre operates in a fragile environment and is very sensitive to fluctuations in
financial support. There is already evidence that the slowdown in spending in
the past three years and the anticipation of real terms cuts following the next
spending review has led to a direct and measurable reduction in activity (see
section 3, below).

F This slowdown cannot continue if UK theatre is to maintain its recovery. As a result

of this recent trend and the sensitivity and the impact of changes in funding levels,
the theatre industry is extremely concerned about the escalating costs of the
London Olympics in 2012.

F The Olympics offer an exciting opportunity for the UK to showcase a range

of cultural activities to the world. Yet it is illogical to expect the arts to pay a
disproportionately higher price towards the cost of staging the Olympics than any
other area of public spending, purely because the arts happen to be funded from
the same government department as sport within DCMS

F We already know that 410 million of Lottery funding is to be diverted to the

Olympics from other areas between 2009 and 2012. Moreover, non-Olympic
distributors such as the Arts Councils expect to lose an average of 5% of income
to Olympic Lottery games. No figures have been published regarding the impact
on individual Government departments, but the escalating cost of staging the
Olympics also seems likely to impact disproportionately on DCMS and the funding
of the arts.

11
 v. the benefits of
theatre funding
The good news about theatre funding is that subsidy does work and the money that has
gone into theatre has been well spent. This can be illustrated in the benefits reaped for
the public, for the industry and for the economy.

Benefits for the public

More original and varied work

F Better funding leads to more risk-taking by theatres, which provides more

opportunities for new talent and renewal of the art form, due to a reduced
reliance on revivals or safe productions.

F The improved funding for theatre in England between 2001/2 and 2003/4 saw
a 23% increase in new works commissioned. Grants to companies specialising in
new writing increased (e.g. Soho Theatre, Live Theatre, Royal Court) and many
regional theatres were able to strengthen their literary departments (e.g. Sheffield
Crucible).

F Outstanding new plays are another measure of the impact of funding that has
gone into theatre. In the past year alone, many of these new plays including
Rock n Roll, Frost/Nixon, Whipping It Up, The Seafarer and Blackbird were
developed and produced in the subsidised sector before going on to be
commercial successes in the West End.

F Inanaddition, a great deal of new work is being produced in regional theatre, with
85% increase in new plays produced in the key regional producing theatres in
England.

Educational and outreach work

F Improved investment has enabled more theatres to do work with schools, colleges
and in local communities. Theatre can empower children and young people,
providing them with life skills, confidence and creativity, as well as opportunities to
enjoy themselves and achieve recognition they may not otherwise receive.

F Evidence suggests a direct link between the intention and ability of theatres to
do more of this valuable work and the availability of funding to deliver it. The

12
 encouraging financial settlements in England saw an increase in educational
programmes, with 95% of theatres delivering education sessions in 2003/4. One
of the best examples is the National Theatre, which was able to launch a major
expansion of its education programme, delivering 4,615 sessions (up 178%) and
record attendances of 135,000 (up 196%).

F Detailed research into the social impact of UK theatre in 2006 found that this type
of work not only benefits theatres and audiences, but also provides an incredibly
positive spill-over effect for communities. There are countless examples of
projects working with communities in this way, as well as in-depth case studies in
Sheffield, Birmingham, Northern Ireland and Wales .

F Assessment of this work has found that outcomes included personal impacts
(greater self-confidence, enhanced communication); group impacts (working
towards shared objectives, learning life skills like debating, creating and analysing
themes); civic impacts (understanding and respect for different cultures, closer
relationship between the arts and education); and hard impacts (better educational
performance, improved health and well-being).v

Diversity and new audiences

F Improvements in funding have enabled theatres to produce work that is accessible

and affordable, which has resulted in greater access for new audiences. The
theatre sector has also been taking increasingly positive steps to address issues of
diversity.

F There have been a range of initiatives supported by the national Arts Councils,
including the Black Regional Initiative in Theatre (BRIT), aimed at opening up
employment opportunities in theatre for black and minority ethnic young people
through participation.

F Subsidised theatres like the Theatre Royal Stratford East are shining examples of
how theatre can produce and develop new work that reflects the interests and
concerns of local communities, particularly black and Asian people. Extensive
education, outreach and youth theatre programmes with local people are only
possible because of the support for core costs provided by the Arts Council.

F There are also a number of examples of successful collaborations with schools

and colleges. For example, the Coliseum Theatre in Oldham has been cited
for responding to the challenges of community cohesion by working on local
theatre productions with younger people mainly from Pakistani and Bangladeshi
communities.

F The proportion of black and minority ethnic people employed in the seven biggest
regional theatres in England also increased 23% between 2000/1 and 2005/6.

13
 Benefits for theatre
More activity

F The impact of improved subsidy to theatre can be assessed by greater activity on

stage and by measuring the employment of performers. Longer rehearsal times,
bigger productions and more work being produced are all signs of a healthy and
thriving theatre industry.

F Information collated by Equity measures this by comparing the total number of

weeks for which actors are engaged in subsidised theatres across the UK. If these
actor weeks are added up it is clear that there was a growth in activity after
2001, as the impact of improved subsidy fed through.

F Overall the improvements in subsidy to the theatre industry led to actor weeks
increasing significantly rising by 12.8% between 2001/2 and 2004/5. This
recovery in employment of actors and performers is illustrated in the chart below.

F However, the sensitivity of the sector to changes in the level of subsidy is also clear
from these figures. The national slowdown in funding for theatre announced in
2004 has already had an impact on the total level of employment. Actor weeks in
these theatres have levelled off and even shown a small decline of 2.5% between
2004/5 and 2005/6.

B. TOTAL ACTOR WEEKS 2001-2006

32,000
30.553
30,028
29,801
30,000

28,048
ACTOR WEEKS PER ANNUM

28,000
27,096

26,000

24,000

22,000

20,000
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

YEAR
SOURCE: EQUITY

14
Better Pay

F InbytheEquity
1990s pay in the theatre industry had reached such a low level that research
found that one-half of actors were actively turning down work in regional
producing theatres. This finding was later confirmed by further research conducted
by Arts Council England.

F Toto actors
a large extent this trend has been reversed. The total sum spent on salaries paid
working in UK subsidised theatre increased significantly as a direct result
of the improvements in funding for theatre agreed by the Government in 2000 and
in 2002.

F The total expenditure on salaries rose due to a combination of factors including

a growth in the number of those being employed (as measured by actor weeks)
and some modest increases in the extremely low salaries paid to those performers
working in theatre.

F Indeed, the chart below illustrates that between 2001/2 and 2004/5 the total
salaries paid to performers grew by over 3.5 million (up by more than 40%),
making subsidised theatre a more attractive option for established performers and
new talent than it had been for years.

C. TOTAL ACTOR WAGES 2001-2006

14

11.88
12 11.65

10.71

10
9.13

8.27
8
(MILLIONS)

0
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06
YEAR
SOURCE: EQUITY

15
 F However, as noted earlier, theatre is still a low pay industry even after these
improvements. Average pay in the largest subsidised theatres remains only
383. Many Equity members work on the minimum rate of 327 a week for
eight performances. Moreover, many will spend long periods working outside the
entertainment industry or not working at all.

F InCommittee
its 2005 report into the theatre sector the Culture, Media and Sport Select
still described it as a scandal that so many theatre professionals
continued to subsidise the industry by earning such low wages. Furthermore, there
is some evidence (in the Chart C above) that the recovery of earnings in the sector
has slowed following the nationwide slowdown in funding announced in 2004.

F The sensitivity of the sector to fluctuations in its subsidy and financial support can
again be seen with the subsequent slowdown in total salaries in 2005/6 down
2% on the previous year.

F This is a direct result of the uncertainty following the UK-wide slowdown in arts
funding and the real terms reductions felt by the theatre sector overall. It may
also reflect the expectation of further real terms cuts in funding following the next
spending review.

Relationship with commercial theatre

F Funded theatre is able to experiment and produce new and exciting work,
precisely because it does not have to rely completely on ticket sales at the box
office in the same way as the commercial sector. This ability to take risks makes it
more dynamic and creative, and more able to provide opportunities for new talent
and ideas.

F This support makes UK theatre the best and most varied in the world. It enables
actors and directors to produce challenging work and to try fresh approaches in
reaching out to new and diverse audiences.

F The health of the subsidised sector also feeds through to the great British
success story of commercial theatre. For example, the risks taken by the Royal
Shakespeare Company in staging a production of Victor Hugos book about French
uprisings in the 1840s, have led to significant rewards for the UK creative and
cultural economy. For over 20 years, the resulting production of Les Misrables has
been a hugely popular and critical success for commercial theatre, both in the UK
and around the world.

F Subsidised theatre also provides commercial theatre with trained talent and a
tried and tested product. In return, commercial theatre pays essential royalties,
which help to sustain the subsidised sector.

F One of the UKs most successful commercial producers, Sir Cameron Mackintosh,
has stated specifically that at any given time, most of the plays and several

16
 musicals in the commercial West End will have emerged from subsidised theatre.
The international blockbuster musicals that attract millions of people (and therefore
earn millions in tax revenue) have nearly all been created by directors and
designers whose main professional experience has been in the subsidised theatre. vi

Better attendances

F Audiences have responded well to the increases in funding and activity. Most
subsidised theatres reported an increase in their attendances since 2001/2, and in
some cases there have been very substantial increases in audiences.

F Amorerecentpeople
survey of Englands biggest regional producing theatres found that 40%
were visiting theatre than five years ago.vii

F The improvements in subsidised theatre and the creative relationship with a

booming commercial sector has also helped fuel record years for the West End
with attendances reaching 12.4m and revenues over 400m in 2006.

Benefits for the economy

Economic impact

F Ineconomic
May 2004 Arts Council England published the most comprehensive study of the
viii
effect of theatre , which shows that the overall economic impact of UK
theatre is 2.6bn annually (including an impact of 1.5bn in the West End and
1.1bn beyond the West End). This is an incredible rate of return for a subsidy of
120m a year, and makes the funding of subsidised theatre some of the hardest
working public money in the economy.

F The wider tourism and leisure industries benefit directly, with every audience
member spending an average of 7.77 on food, transport and childcare when
they visit a UK theatre outside of the West End. Whereas West End audience
members often travel to stay in London, spending an average of 53.77 on food,
transport and childcare (excluding accommodation) during their visit. All this is
over and above the expenditure on theatre tickets.

F Each theatre makes both direct and indirect contributions to the local economy.
Directly through local spending on purchasing supplies and wages paid to
staff that live locally, and indirectly through a further induced effect.ix That
expenditure constantly circulates around the local economy, helping to preserve
jobs, and boost economic growth.

F Furthermore, past surveys have shown that 29% of overseas visitors are drawn
x
to visit Britain by the chance to see performing arts. Performances by the Royal
Shakespeare Company at Stratford-upon-Avon, for example, act as magnets of
excellence for visitors to this country.

17
 F This contribution towards inward earnings is complemented by Britains cultural
exports, with National Theatre productions (such as The History Boys) being
acclaimed on Broadway and taking high quality, high profile work all around the
world.

F These tangible economic benefits are supplemented by the role that theatres play
as centres of civic pride and regeneration, both in urban and rural communities.

Tax and VAT

F While theatre receives 120m a year in subsidy, the whole of the theatre sector
pays 100m back in VAT. In addition, the West End alone contributed 57m in
VAT in 2005.xi

18
vi. the implications for
future policy
F The evidence gathered before and after the recent improvements in theatre
funding has shown that small changes make a big difference to the quality
and scale of performances; economic activity; community and outreach work;
employment and the development of new talent; and the financial viability of the
sector.

F However, the evidence provided in this document also demonstrates the fragility of
the sector and its sensitivity to increases in funding and any subsequent slowdown in
the growth of subsidy.

F The encouraging conclusion to draw from this evidence is that subsidy works. It has
a discernable and measurable impact on activity and investment in productions in REFERENCES
i. Arts Council
subsidised theatres, which is felt well beyond the immediate changes in employment England 2005
and in total salaries. ii. Government
Response to the

F Attransformed
Culture, Media
the beginning of this decade the Government made brave decisions, which and Sport Select
Committee Report
the sector and restored the level of funding which could allow it on Theatre (HC
to thrive. The next challenge will be to demonstrate a final rejection of stop- 254-1) Session
2004-2005
start funding and consolidate the growth in the sector by signalling that inflation- iii. Skillset Performing
proofed increases in subsidy are a priority for the theatre sector in all parts of the Arts Industry Survey
2005
UK. iv. Arts & Business,
Private Investment

F Small amounts can make a big difference and the increases required are tiny. If
the total level of UK theatre funding of 120m was to increase only by the annual
Benchmarking
Survey
v. Social Impact Study
of UK Theatre
level of inflation of 2.7% over the next three years, it would cost no more than an 2006
vi. Arts Council
extra 3.5m a year across the UK by the end of the spending review. England Annual
Report 1996
vii. www.nottingham
playhouse.co.uk/
theatrereview
viii. Economic Impact
Study of UK
Theatre 2004
ix. Prof. Tony Travers,
The Wyndham
Report 1998
x. Overseas Leisure
Visitor Survey
1996
xi. Society of London
Theatre 2006

19
Equity
Guild House
Upper St Martins Lane
London
WC2H 9EG
TEL: 020 7379 6000
FAX: 020 7379 7001
EMAIL: info@equity.org.uk
WEB: www.equity.org.uk