Bill on Royal Albert Hall seatholders' ticket reforms backed by MPs
Roughly a quarter of the Albert Hall's seats fall into a category of being owned by long-time members. The 316 owners pay an annual seat rate, which this year was £1,880 plus VAT. It brings in about £2.3 million for the venue every year, Sir John said.
He said the current arrangements meant on about 100 designated events each year, known as 'executive lettings', the owners give up their 1,268 seats for the venue to sell.
They can also forgo their seats on other, non-specified occasions, boosting the venue and its charitable arm's coffers.
However, there has been concern that the seat owners can personally sell tickets for their seats for other lucrative events on the resale markets for thousands of pounds.
The Bill will amend the Royal Albert Hall's constitution to codify the practice of members forgoing their right to attend events.
It will protect the hall from legal challenge over the voting process from seatholders over which concerts will be selected.
Sir John, a former trustee of the venue, said: 'A seat in the hall is a property asset, and in the same way that if one's grandfather purchases a property which their descendants then eventually decide to sell, it is highly likely they will retrieve an amount of money way greater than the original investment.
'These are property assets, essentially, without which the hall could not have been built. But it was on that understanding, it was on an 999-year lease, and those who own that lease are, of course, entitled to do what they wish with it.'
Labour MP Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) cited tickets for an Ed Sheeran concert which had been sold online for nearly £6,000.
Ms Hodgson said: 'I was therefore horrified when tickets for events at the Royal Albert Hall, one of our country's most recognisable and cherished institutions, started appearing on sites such as Viagogo.'
She said a 10-seat box was advertised for sale online recently for £3 million.
The change needs to be approved in Parliament, because it will amend the Royal Albert Hall Act 1966.
The Harold Wilson-era reforms put into law rules around the repair and maintenance of the venue – as well as rights of seatholders.
The proposed legislation, which started in the House of Lords, was passed unanimously in the Commons at second reading. It will now return to be debated by peers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
42 minutes ago
- The National
Labour rushed to help Lindsey oil refinery. So why not Grangemouth?
Here, Michelle Thomson, the SNP MSP for Falkirk East – which includes Grangemouth, writes on the Labour Government's differing approaches. LIKE many, I was alarmed to hear of the potential closure of Lindsey Oil Refinery in North Lincolnshire at the end of last month. On June 30, Prax Group, the owners of the refinery, announced they were going into administration, and therefore the future of the site was at risk. The very same day, the UK Government sprang into action. Energy Minister Michael Shanks gave a statement to the House of Commons confirming the [[UK Government]] is funding the continued operation of the refinery, adding: 'The Government will ensure supplies are maintained, protect our energy security, and do everything we can to support workers.' Energy Minister Michael ShanksNow, I welcome this, and any action to save jobs is commendable. All options should be considered to keep Lindsey operating. But as the constituency MSP for Grangemouth, I cannot help but think – while the [[UK Government]] sprang into action for the Lindsey refinery the day the news broke, where was that sense of urgency and action for [[Grangemouth]]? Yes, the circumstances are different – but over a period of months, there was nothing even close to what took place for Lindsey in a day – no urgent statement, and little to no meaningful Government intervention. READ MORE: Labour admit 'not a penny' of £200m Grangemouth rescue fund spent This isn't the first time either. Many Scots were quite rightly astounded that the UK Government very quickly spent billions to save British Steel in Scunthorpe but came nowhere close for Grangemouth. It's worth repeating that Scotland generates well over 90% of the UK's crude oil in any given year – but now has no capacity to refine it. It's also worth repeating that Labour promised to save [[Grangemouth]] before the election and failed. Indeed, the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland said: "We would step in to save the jobs at the refinery." This is the second refinery to face closure on Labour's watch, with thousands of related jobs being lost elsewhere in the supply chain. It would appear that, when it comes to industry elsewhere in the UK, Westminster can immediately pull out all the stops – but when it's in Scotland, the [[UK Government]] simply isn't interested. READ MORE: 'Unacceptable': SNP hit out as Labour 'keep Tory-era veto on Scottish laws' Some may argue that these issues are for the Scottish Government to respond to. This is correct – but any response must include the power to take financial action in the form of significant borrowing powers. These are powers that the [[Scottish Government]] lacks. The truth is, Grangemouth is just as important to Scotland's industrial output as Lindsey is to England's. It's no wonder that a growing number in Scotland quite rightly feel that Scotland is an afterthought to this – or any – UK government. It begs the question: if the UK Government can immediately step in to save major industrial sites in England – on more than one occasion – then why not in Scotland? My view is, as it always has been, that the only way to ensure Scotland's massive natural wealth is utilised for the benefit of Scotland's people is with independence for Scotland.
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Joint mayor would 'discriminate' against Cornish people, says Labour MP
A Cornish Labour MP has warned he will vote against his Government's devolution plans if it means the Duchy has to merge with Devon to form a combined authority and elect a joint mayor. Perran Moon, the MP for Camborne and Redruth, has said Labour's current proposal"discriminates against the people of Cornwall" because a change in local governance would conflict with their National Minority Status. "I have had enough of talk about Cornwall joining a Mayoral Combined Authority with Devon or anywhere else to the east of the Tamar, for that matter," Mr Moon said. "The currently proposed English Devolution Bill discriminates against the people of Cornwall, as a change in our governance structure directly conflicts with our National Minority Status." Cornwall 'cannot and will not' join a mayoral combined authority, Perran Moon tells Government. As they currently stand, Labour's plans would see all-remaining areas with two tiers of local authority eventually restructured into single-tier unitary bodies. In Devon for example, a combined county authority has already been given the green light, which includes the merger of Devon County Council with Torbay Council, and Devon's district, city and borough councils. The plans would also see unitary authorities join up with those in neighbouring areas to form so-called 'super councils', run by elected mayors with control over policy areas such as transport, housing and skills budgets. The idea is that these combined authorities would represent a population size of around 1.5million or above. Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire have submitted plans for a "Wessex" authority, while it's thought North Somerset may attempt to join the already-existing West of England Combined Authority. It all sounds quite complicated, but it effectively means that elected mayors will be given greater control of their local areas and, in theory, things should get done quickly and successfully. However, in Devon and Cornwall, it's not that straightforward. Labour is realising that different parts of the country have very different idea about what successful devolution looks like. To a number of MPs in Cornwall, that doesn't mean joining with Devon. It means a bespoke 'deal' for the Duchy that comes with its own promises of local power and investment. Angela Rayner previously told ITV West Country that she's "enticing" them to embrace the mayoral model, but not forcing, though it's still not clear what that really means. This week, the Camborne and Redruth MP asked one of Ms Rayner's deputies for clarity. Cornwall is "desperate to access the highest level of devolution," Mr Moon said, before adding: "Cornwall cannot and will not join a mayoral combined authority." Jim McMahon, the minister responsible for devolution, said: "We absolutely understand and respect, and are invested in, the Cornish identity. "But we also need to make sure the devolution agenda moves on at pace and that every part of England can realise their full potential." The rhetoric from Cornish MPs on devolution has stepped up a gear, and will no doubt continue to do so. "A Cornwall-only devolution deal is the right deal for Cornwall and I will be significantly increasing the profile of this issue in national media over the summer until we get the devolution deal that respects our unique status," Mr Moon told constituents in a post on Facebook. "If changes aren't made to the English Devolution Bill or we cannot agree a Cornwall-only deal before we are asked to vote on the Bill, I WILL vote against it."
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
DWP makes major Universal Credit change with UK households given £725 boost
The Department for Work and Pensions has announced that the Universal Credit standard allowance will permanently rise above inflation, amounting to £725 by 2029/30 in cash terms for a single person aged 25 or over The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has announced a £725 cash boost for individuals on Universal Credit as part of an annual income uplift. By 2029/30, the Universal Credit standard allowance for a single person aged 25 or over will permanently increase above inflation, equating to an extra £725 in cash terms. Labour MP and Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said: "Our reforms are built on the principle of fairness, fixing a system that for too long has left people trapped in a cycle of dependence. We are giving extra support to millions of households across the country, while offering disabled people the chance to work without fear of the repercussions if things don't work out." She believes: "These reforms will change the lives of people across the country, so they have a real chance for a better future." Birmingham Live reports that the DWP said: "We are also putting disabled people at the heart of a ministerial review of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment led by Disability Minister Stephen Timms and co-produced with disabled people, along with the organisations that represent them, experts, MPs and other stakeholders – making sure it is fair and fit for the future." Detailing the consultation process, the DWP added: "We will be engaging widely over the summer to design the process for the review and consider how it can best be co-produced to ensure that expertise from a range of different perspectives is drawn upon. "These reforms are underpinned by a major investment in employment support for sick and disabled people - worth £3.8 billion over the Parliament. "Funding will be brought forward for tailored employment, health and skills support to help disabled people and those with health conditions get into work as part of our Pathways to Work guarantee. "This investment will accelerate the pace of new investments in employment support programmes, building on and learning from successes such as the Connect to Work programme, which are already rolling out to provide disabled people and people with health conditions with one-to-one support at the point when they feel ready to work."
