Contribution
My Lords, I add my support to the work of my noble friend Lord Hodgson and add my name to the list of the hall’s fervent supporters. As others have said, it has been a beacon for over 150 years, and we all want to see it flourish for another 150. I believe we all agree that the hall needs a Bill. It currently relies on operating practices, memoranda and guidelines that may or may not have a legal basis. As the briefing circulated to some of my colleagues by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, states, the Bill’s primary purpose is to address these risks by putting current practice on to a clear and proper legal footing.
The amendment we are debating in the name of my noble friend—which, I note, is widely supported across the House—is not a wrecking amendment. It does not interfere with any of this, inserting, as it would, a new clause after Clause 4. I too pay tribute to my noble friend for getting an amendment that is within the scope of the Bill and proportionate. It simply addresses a potential conflict of interest—nobody is saying that terrible practices are happening, but there is a potential conflict, which troubles us—of charity trustees and members of the council who are able to gain financially from the decisions they take as to the running of the charity. It does not affect the rights of seat-holders who are not council members—who can still sell their Ed Sheeran tickets for many thousands of pounds if they are not a member of the council—and it does not prevent seat-holders being members of the council. It simply addresses the perceived conflict of interest issue that has, frankly, plagued the governance of the hall for far too long.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, in 1967 the hall chose to become a charity, yet it remains an outlier in charity governance and good practice. Such a conflict of interest would simply not be acceptable in any other charity. As we have heard, this is a matter of concern for the Charity Commission but, because of the peculiar nature of the hall, the Charity Commission has been unable to address it. It is very disappointing that members of the council do not seem to wish to address it in the Bill or at any other opportunity.
Being a charity trustee—I declare an interest as I run a charity and have sat on the board of the Scottish Charity Regulator—comes with clear expectations. It is a bit like it is for all of us, as public servants, with the Nolan principles: it is not good enough just to have integrity; you must be seen to have integrity. The Charity Commission has clear published guidance on conflicts of interest for trustees: you have to declare the conflict; consider removing it; and, if you cannot remove it, you must manage it, and you must record it. The commission considers conflicts to be serious where a majority of trustees have a conflict and/or when decisions involve significant money or risk and there is a conflict. As a charity, the governance of the Hall, with its majority of trustees or members of the council being seat-holders, is firmly in this space. This is what my noble friend’s amendment is trying to address within the scope of the Bill.
I apologise, as I will now get a bit technical. Although ownership of seats initially provided access to all events at the hall, the charity’s constitution, as amended in the 1966 Act, says that it can exclude seat-holders for up to 75 days per year for events other than a concert, recital or boxing or wrestling event, for 12 further days for any event, and for one-third of a series of six or more events which are consecutive and substantially the same. In giving evidence to the noble Baroness’s Select Committee on the Bill, the president of the council confirmed that the latest exclusion list stood at more than 100 days and 120 events, which, as he said, helped the charity to attract
“high-end artists who might not otherwise come to the Hall”.
The Council of the Royal Albert Hall decides which events will give seat-holders the right to receive tickets, which can then be resold on the open market, potentially at a significantly higher price than the face value. The trustees bring that proposal on which events to exclude to the AGM, and the proposal is voted on by members and passes with a simple 50% majority. This amendment aims to ensure that those council members who take the decisions each year, and any connected persons, must ensure that any tickets they do not use are sold through the ticket return scheme or suchlike—a scheme from which, I point out, they are still not losing out financially from, as all seat-holders are compensated for the excluded events.
However—this is really technical—I have one fear. In my noble friend’s amendment, proposed new subsection (1)(b) refers to
“the power to alter the number of events from which seat holders are excluded”.
My question is, “to alter from what”? If it is the number of events laid down in the 1966 Act, which is being altered each year in practice according to the proposal laid down by the trustees at the AGM, is there a danger that we are not in practice going to achieve our aims of ensuring that those with financial control over the charity are excluded from gaining from the decisions they make? By this wording, would the requirement for trustees to sell through the ticket returns scheme be triggered only if they varied the number of excluded events from that which is laid down in the 1966 Act? If so, is this a loophole that we can close?