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
Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Inflation is home-grown: Reeves has the right ambitions, but the wrong execution, says MAGGIE PAGANO
What planet is Rachel Reeves on? Just hours after the Chancellor assured her City audience at the Mansion House dinner that Labour is building a 'Britain that is better off', up pop inflation numbers showing that the country is markedly less well off than a year ago. As the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics show, the UK's inflation rate ticked up to 3.6 per cent in the year to June – nearly double the target rate – and up from 3.4 per cent in May. It's the steepest rise since January last year. Reeves can't have been doing much of her own food shopping recently, or had to handle household bills for her two homes. Otherwise she would have seen for herself that even the most basic of foods like butter and milk have been shooting up, as have energy costs, water bills and rents. As any regular shopper could have told her weeks ago, food prices have been creeping up again for some time. In June, they were 4.4 per cent higher, the third month in a row that prices have risen and the frothiest increase for 18 months. But the biggest driver behind the June price hikes compared to a year ago are rising housing costs – despite interest rate cuts – including rents which are up by 5.8 per cent. Energy costs were up by 6.8 per cent despite an overall fall in fuel prices while water bills shot up by a staggering 26 per cent. And the reason for inflation running hot again? This time energy and raw material costs can't be blamed solely on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Donald Trump's tariffs or even the Middle East. This time businesses are being more honest – they are passing on higher costs to their customers because of the recent increase in employers' National Insurance (NI) and other tax rises. It's a home-grown problem. An own goal, if you like. In which case, you have to ask whether the Chancellor is either delusional or blind when making other equally extraordinary claims during her speech. Labour, she said, had 'restored Britain's reputation as a beacon of stability by putting the public finances back on a stable footing'. Really? Reeves is pulling our leg. Gilt yields are high, growth is risible if not grinding to a halt, demand is down, the welfare state continues to balloon and the public finances are in dire straits. Figures out today are likely to show a further shake-out in the jobs market triggered by the NI increases, confirming recent warnings by Andrew Bailey, the Bank of England Governor, that the jobs tax is leading to greater unemployment. That is why, despite the latest figures, interest rates are likely to be trimmed in August. When will the Chancellor learn that you can't deliver growth by parroting that you want it? Human endeavour doesn't work like that. If you want entrepreneurs and companies to risk their capital, they must feel confident about a brighter future – and potential rewards – rather than booking flights to Dubai. That's why her much-mooted Big Bang-style Leeds Reforms, aimed at making the 'country more active and more confident', are such a damp squib. Her ambition is the right one, but badly executed. More worryingly, these reforms may lead to another wave of dangerous light-touch regulation – just like we saw under the last Labour administration. She's right that the London Stock Exchange needs to be made more attractive for listings and that households should be encouraged to invest in equities. UK adults own the smallest amount of their wealth in investments of any G7 country at 8 per cent. But you can't order companies to list in London if they can get better valuations across the Atlantic. And you can't order savers to put their money into equities or invest in unquoted companies, however much Sid might tell you to, and certainly not order them to invest more in UK companies, without incentives. So it's not surprising that most City figures are decidedly underwhelmed by her Leeds Reforms, while the rest of us are simply bemused. It would have been much cleverer if Reeves had looked to Sweden where households invest 50 per cent of their assets in equities and investment funds, up from a third just two decades ago. And how was this achieved? First, the government abolished stamp duty on equities, then introduced investment savings accounts which attracted a small flat tax. No capital gains or dividend tax. Big, bold and simple. That's what we should do here instead of the usual fiddling around.
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer opens door to tax raid on savers
Sir Keir Starmer has opened the door to increasing taxes for savers. Pressed about possible tax increases in the autumn Budget, the Prime Minister suggested they would only rise for people with enough savings to 'buy their way out of problems'. Rachel Reeves is scrambling to fill a black hole of as much as £40bn in the public finances, following a series of policy about-turns and a slowdown in growth. Labour pledged in its manifesto not to hit working people with higher taxes but ministers have repeatedly been unable to agree on a definition of 'working people'. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister argued that they were the 'sort of people that work hard but haven't necessarily got the savings to buy their way out of problems', raising fears that savers could be next to be hit. During Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir failed to rule out a raid on pension contributions and the self-employed. The Treasury opened the door to a fresh raid on VAT after a minister said the Government would leave 'the headline rate' untouched. Ministers have promised not to put up taxes for those with 'modest incomes', but have not said where the axe will fall. Manifesto commitments Labour pledged in its manifesto not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT and promised working people would not pay more. The party attacked the Tories for raising taxes in office but they went up by £40bn in Rachel Reeves's first budget, which broke Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise national insurance by increasing employers' contributions. Rachel Reeves promised not to raise taxes again earlier this year but U-turns on welfare cuts and winter fuel are likely to force her to break this promise. Any VAT raid would fall short of Labour's manifesto pledge not to touch the tax at all, but the Chancellor could extend it in ways that could raise tens of billions of pounds. Options include removing VAT exemptions from some goods and services, or extending the tax to smaller businesses. The headline rate of VAT currently stands at 20 per cent but there are a range of exemptions and exceptions that could be adjusted. One option would be to apply the full rate of VAT to goods and services, which currently attract the tax at either 0 or 5 per cent. This has already been done for private school fees – fulfilling a separate manifesto pledge – in an attempt to raise as much as £1.7bn per year from those educated outside the state system. In 2012, George Osborne extended the levy to items including pasties, but was forced to U-turn following a backlash. Questioned on Wednesday by Kemi Badenoch about a series of potential taxes which could be increased, the Prime Minister said he would not 'write the Budget' months in advance. 'Modest income' The Conservative leader challenged Sir Keir to define what was meant by a 'modest income'. He replied: 'I think of the working people across this country who put in every day and don't get back what they deserve. 'And that's who we're working for. That's who we're fixing the country for: the sort of people that work hard but haven't necessarily got the savings to buy their way out of problems.' The Tory leader then quoted Darren Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said earlier this week that working people are 'people who don't get a pay slip'. 'Millions of self-employed people don't get a pay slip,' she said. 'So are the self-employed next in line for a Labour tax raid?' Sir Keir sidestepped the question, saying: 'The self-employed were the very people who suffered under their watch, repeatedly suffered under their watch.' Pension contributions targeted? Ms Badenoch then claimed the Government would consider levying a tax on pension contributions. 'We know the Chancellor is launching a review into pension contributions,' she said. 'It's as clear as day why this is – it is because the Government is considering taxing them. 'Does the Prime Minister agree with me that a tax on pension contributions is a tax on working people?' Sir Keir replied: 'We made absolutely clear manifesto commitments which she asked me about last week and we're keeping to. I'm not going to write the Budget months out.' A Conservative Party spokesman said: 'Labour won't rule out hitting the self-employed with new taxes. They won't rule out a tax raid on pensions. 'And the Prime Minister says 'modest incomes' refers to anyone without savings, raising the prospect of a tax on savings in the autumn. 'Labour are treating working people with contempt. Hiking taxes is not inevitable – it is a choice brought on by the Government's economic incompetence.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Grant Shapps pushed for MoD Afghan superinjunction to remain in place
Former defence secretary Grant Shapps insisted that the Ministry of Defence press for the continuation of an extraordinary superinjunction to prevent reporting of an embarrassing leak of personal data belonging to 18,700 Afghans. Two sources present in the MoD at the time say that Shapps wanted to mount an aggressive legal defence in the hope that the data breach affecting would-be Afghan refugees to the UK would remain secret for as long as possible. One said that Shapps believed he had been successful in fighting legal actions when he ran other government departments by being combative, though others thought the superinjunction was excessive and unlikely to endure. Shapps was approached for comment directly and through a former aide. The former minister has not so far commented on the affair, though he was the defence secretary during a period when the data breach was covered up – and a secret relocation scheme for about 15,000 Afghans affected was drawn up at a cost of £2bn. The legal battle, between the MoD and various media groups, ran on so long that the data breach and its consequences did not become public before the general election on 4 July 2024. Though a high court judge wanted to end the superinjunction in May 2024, the MoD successfully appealed to the court of appeal three weeks after the vote. Labour said responsibility for the affair lay with the previous Conservative government. At the start of prime minister's questions, Keir Starmer said: 'Ministers who served under the party opposite have serious questions to answer about how this was ever allowed to happen.' Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, did not mention the Afghan scheme at prime minister's questions, instead focusing her questions on the economy. After the exchanges in the chamber, Labour said she had been offered a security briefing about the situation in March but refused. Badenoch's spokesperson said that as opposition leader she received 'innumerable' offers of security briefings, and had refused this one as it was not marked as urgent. In June the issue was listed as urgent, so she sought a briefing, and was informed about the scheme on Monday, he added. The Commons defence committee also said it would hold an inquiry. Its chair, Tan Dhesi, said: 'We want to get to the bottom of what has happened on behalf of parliament, which, by the way, has been sidelined for too long on this issue, on behalf of the people.' Earlier this week, the government acknowledged that 6,900 Afghans would be relocated in the previously secret Afghan Response Route scheme at a cost of £850m. But it also said the scheme would now be halted, meaning that £1.2bn more would not be spent on flying over a further 9,500 Afghans to the UK. Confirmation of the details was only possible because the high court concluded the superinjuction could no longer be justified. It followed a fresh government assessment that said there was no longer a serious danger to Afghans named on the database. The leak had originally stemmed from a defence official emailing the sensitive data to the wrong recipients early in 2022. However, news of the breach only reached the MoD in August 2023 after some of the information appeared on a Facebook group. In one of his last acts, Ben Wallace, Shapps's predecessor, 'personally' took the decision to apply for an ordinary injunction, court papers show. That request was accepted by the high court in an initial hearing. It was feared that had the Taliban become aware of the database and obtained it, those named would be at risk of reprisals and could end up on a 'kill list' because of a simple mistake made by a British defence official. However, unexpectedly, the judge, Mr Justice Knowles, also ruled that the existence of his ruling remain secret – so turning the court order into a superinjunction, meaning that it would not be circulated and so be much harder to discover. Superinjuctions are considered an extreme legal order and were in the past used by celebrities such as the footballers John Terry and Ryan Giggs to try to stop reporting about their private lives. Governments have only used them rarely. Shapps took over as defence secretary on 31 August 2023 – two days before Knowles issued his ruling. At the time the judge's decision surprised many within the MoD because it had gone further than they sought. But by the time a second judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, reviewed the gagging order in November, the MoD's position had changed. The department's lawyer said that while the MoD 'had not sought a superinjunction' in the first place that 'since one had been granted, it should now be continued'. Court judgments released on Tuesday, as the superinjuction lapsed, show that there was surprise that the unusual legal mechanism proved so effective. In his final ruling, Chamberlain described it as 'one of the many remarkable features of the litigation'.
