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
Sky News
39 minutes ago
- Sky News
Almost 7,000 Afghans being relocated to UK in secret scheme after MoD data breach
Almost 7,000 Afghan nationals are being relocated to the UK following a massive data breach by the British military that successive governments tried to keep secret with a superinjunction. The blunder exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 individuals, endangering them and their families - with as many as 100,000 people impacted in total. The UK only informed everyone on Tuesday - three-and-a-half years after their data was compromised. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the relocation costs alone directly linked to the data breach will be around £850m. An internal government document from February this year said the cost could rise to £7bn, but an MoD spokesperson said that this was an outdated figure. However, the total cost to the taxpayer of existing schemes to assist Afghans who are deemed eligible for British support, as well as the additional cost from the breach, will come to at least £6bn. In addition, litigation against the UK arising from the mistake could add additional cost, as well as whatever the government has already spent on the superinjunction. Details about the blunder can finally be made public after a judge lifted the injunction that had been sought by the government. 2:46 Barings Law, a law firm that is representing around 1,000 of the victims, accused the government of trying to hide the truth from the public following a lengthy legal battle. Defence Secretary John Healey offered a "sincere apology" for the data breach in a statement to MPs in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon. He said he had felt "deeply concerned about the lack of transparency" around the data breach, adding: "No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner." The previous Conservative government set up a secret scheme in 2023 - which can only now be revealed - to relocate Afghan nationals impacted by the data breach but who were not eligible for an existing programme to relocate and assist individuals who had worked for the British government in Afghanistan. Some 6,900 Afghans - comprising 1,500 people named on the list as well as their dependents - are being relocated to the UK as part of this programme. This comes on top of the many thousands more who are being moved until the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). A lot of these individuals are also caught up in the data breach. The Times, which has been battling the injunction, said a total of 18,500 people have so far been relocated to the UK, including those directly impacted plus their dependents. 👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈 Some 5,400 more Afghans who have already received invitation letters will be flown to the UK in the coming weeks, bringing the total number of Afghans affected by the breach being brought to the UK to 23,900. The rest of the affected Afghans will be left behind, the newspaper reported. How did the data breach happen? The disaster is thought to have been triggered by the careless handling of an email that contained a list of the names and other details of 18,714 Afghan nationals. They had been trying to apply to a British government scheme to support those who helped or worked with UK forces in Afghanistan that were fighting the Taliban between 2001 and 2021. The collapse of the western-backed Afghan government that year saw the Taliban return to power. The new government regards anyone who worked with British or other foreign forces during the previous two decades as a traitor. A source said a small number of people named on the list are known to have subsequently been killed, though it is not clear if this was a direct result of the data breach. It is also not clear whether the Taliban has the list - only that the MoD lost control of the information. Adnan Malik, head of data protection at Barings Law, said: "This is an incredibly serious data breach, which the Ministry of Defence has repeatedly tried to hide from the British public. "It involved the loss of personal and identifying information about Afghan nationals who have helped British forces to defeat terrorism and support security and stability in the region. "A total of around 20,000 individuals have been affected, putting them and their loved ones at serious risk of violence from opponents and armed groups." The law firm is working with around 1,000 of those impacted "to pursue potential legal action". It is thought that only a minority of the names on the list - about 10 to 15% - would have been eligible for help under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). The breach occurred in February 2022, when Boris Johnson was prime minister, but was only discovered by the British military in August 2023. A superinjunction - preventing the reporting of the mistake - was imposed in September of that year. It meant the extraordinary - and costly - plan to transport thousands of Afghans to the UK took place in secret until now. Sir Keir Starmer's government inherited the scandal. What is a superinjunction? In UK law, a superinjunction prevents the publication of certain information. However, unlike a regular injunction, it also prevents the media from reporting on the existence of the injunction itself. Superinjunctions can only be granted by the high court, with applicants required to meet stringent legal tests of necessity, proportionality and the risk of serious harm. They are most commonly used in cases involving breaches of privacy, confidential business information, or where there is a risk of significant reputational damage. Why was superinjunction lifted? An internal review into the affair was launched at the start of this year by Paul Rimmer, a retired civil servant. It played down the risk to those whose data is included in the breached dataset should it fall into the hands of the Taliban. The review said it was "unlikely to substantially change an individual's existing exposure given the volume of data already available". It also concluded that "it appears unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting" and it is "therefore also unlikely that family members... will be targeted simply because the 'principal' appears... in the dataset". This is why a High Court judge ruled that the superinjunction could be lifted. Mr Malik, however, said that he believes there is still a risk to those named in the breach. He added: "Our claimants continue to live with the fear of reprisal against them and their families, when they should have been met with gratitude and discretion for their service. "We would expect substantial financial payments for each claimant in any future legal action. While this will not fully undo the harm they have been exposed to, it will enable them to move forward and rebuild their lives." Latest MoD data breach While the MoD's data breach is by far the largest involving Afghan nationals, it is not the first. Earlier this month, the MoD said Afghans impacted by a separate mistake could claim up to £4,000 in compensation four years after the incident happened. Human error resulted in the personal information of 265 Afghans who had worked alongside British troops being shared with hundreds of others who were on the same email distribution list in September 2021. In December 2023, the UK Information Commissioner fined the MoD £350,000 and said the "egregious" breach could have been life-threatening.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Ian Murray to visit Faslane to announce £250m investment in nuclear base
SCOTTISH Secretary Ian Murray is to launch a £250 million investment at the base housing Scotland's nuclear weapons. The funding for HMNB Clyde at Faslane was announced in the spending review last month and will be spent over the next three years to improve infrastructure at the site. The upgrade will ensure the base can house the next generation of nuclear submarines. UK Government ministers Murray and Maria Eagle will visit the site on Wednesday, meeting with senior military officials, the leaders of Inverclyde and Argyll and Bute councils, and local MPs. Scottish Secretary Murray described the spending as a 'defence dividend' as he continued to talk up the economic impact of investing in the sector in Scotland, including through the Clyde 2070 programme, which will see billions pumped into the industry in the coming decades. READ MORE: Explosive new poll puts Corbyn-Sultana party level with Labour 'With Faslane home to the nation's first and final line of defence – the UK's nuclear deterrent, it's only right that Clyde 2070 represents one of the most significant UK Government investments over the coming decades,' he said. 'It will ensure the Royal Navy can deliver the continuous at sea deterrent from a modern, efficient base which will result in a better environment for our hero submariners to live, work and train in. 'Crucially it will also create skilled jobs – including for small and medium-size firms – boost the economy and help tackle the critical skills gaps facing the country in sectors such as nuclear, construction, maritime and project management, by bringing together government, Scottish communities, industry, supply chains and academia to address the challenges.' Defence procurement minister Eagle said Scotland plays a 'crucial role' in the country's Trident nuclear deterrent. She added: 'We are today re-affirming that unshakeable commitment by launching this multibillion-pound investment to His Majesty's Naval Base Clyde, which is vital to our deterrence capability. 'The initial £250 million of funding over three years will support jobs, skills and growth across the west of Scotland. 'This Government will keep the UK safe for generations to come while delivering on the Plan for Change and making defence an engine for growth.' The SNP have been contacted for comment.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
This was too little, too late from the ‘iron' Chancellor
There will be a round of deregulation. Lending rules will be relaxed. And new listings will be accelerated. Rachel Reeves did everything she could in her Mansion House speech this evening to win back the City. From any other Chancellor it might have been greeted with loud applause. From this one, however, it will be dead on arrival. The relationship with finance is irretrievably broken – and is too late to win it back now. The bankers and brokers listening to Reeves this evening will like much of what she had to say. The relaxation of lending rules will be welcomed, even if it is questionable whether the British housing market needs yet more debt instead of more supply. Easing some red tape is always helpful, and something needs to be done to encourage more new listings. In reality, however, Labour's relationship with business is now broken beyond repair. When Reeves took office there was plenty of goodwill. Business was ready for a change of 14 years of a Conservative government that seemed more and more chaotic with every year that passed. She even had one or two ideas that sounded good, even if they were thin on detail. By now, however, the City feels completely betrayed. The assault on non-doms has driven wealthy clients out of the country, and many successful entrepreneurs as well, with nothing to replace them. The steep rise in employers' National Insurance has drained money out of companies, and hit profits and dividends. Her changes to inheritance tax have hammered not just farmers but every privately owned business, and many of those are still crucial to the economy. The extra employment rights might please the unions but they could be ruinous for the City. The list goes on and on. Business was told that Reeves was a pro-growth, pro-enterprise Chancellor. Instead she has led an assault on the private sector with no parallel in recent British history. It looks as if it will only get worse over the next year. We all know that there will be another huge round of tax rises in the autumn, and business may well bear the brunt of that. It could be higher business rates, a windfall tax on the banks or utilities, or even a 'temporary' surcharge on corporation tax, similar to the levy imposed in France earlier this year. Likewise, the plutocrats of the Square Mile are likely to be squeezed for extra tax revenue. We may well see a return of the 50 per cent top rate of tax. Or, even worse, a wealth tax, catastrophic for the City where £10 million is regarded as a respectable annual bonus, and not an obscene fortune to be taxed away. Sure, a few reforms are worth having. And it is good that Reeves recognises how crucial the City and financial services are to the British economy, even if many of the Left-wingers on her backbenchers won't agree with her. Finance has always been one of the key drivers of growth, as well as generating huge tax revenues. But the blunt truth is this. Reeves has lost the trust of the City. And no matter how hard she tries, it's surely gone forever.
