A proposal backed by the Charity Commission to limit the Royal Albert Hall’s (RAH) trustees from being able to profit from selling their tickets to events will be considered by MPs, after it was approved in the House of Lords.
An amendment to the Royal Albert Hall bill, agreed by peers yesterday, seeks to address a long-standing governance issue at the charity, which has a council of 24 trustees, 19 of whom are “seat holders”.
Seat holders are allowed to reserve seats for the most popular and highly priced concerts, or sell them if they wish.
The council of the hall, which registered as a charity in 1967, decides which tickets are for seat holders or the general public for events at the hall.
Critics of the charity’s governance model say this has led the ownership of seats at the hall to become a “lucrative investment” for seat holders to generate “significant profit”.
Conservative peer Lord Hodgson tabled his amendment yesterday at the bill’s third reading with cross-party support.
His amendment proposes that any decisions made by trustees that may potentially generate more income for seat holders have to be approved by a subcommittee, of which a majority should be independent trustees who are non-seat holders.
It also proposes that any tickets which are sold by seat-holder trustees, or related parties, can only be sold through an existing ticket return scheme operated by the hall’s box office, which resells returned tickets at face value less a handling charge.
“You cannot say that you want to be a commercial organisation here but a charity there and think that you can get away with it, in the year of our Lord 2025,” Lord Hodgson said at the debate yesterday.
Following the amendment’s approval by peers, it will now be considered by MPs in the House of Commons.
Commission CEO: ‘RAH should address the significant concerns’
In a letter to Lord Hodgson, the Charity Commission’s chief executive David Holdsworth said: “The Charity Commission has been and remains clear that RAH’s failure to resolve the potential conflict of interest to date is of significant concern.
“The commission has been clear that RAH should address the significant concerns that have been raised about its governance.
“Therefore, I am supportive of the principle underlying the proposed amendment – to address the potential conflicts of interest insofar as they relate to the exercise of the new power in clause 4.
“The commission maintains its position that RAH should use its powers to make the necessary governance changes to resolve the potential conflict between the private interest of seat-holding trustees and RAH’s charitable objects.”
Civil Society has asked the Royal Albert Hall to comment.
Related articles
