Nice theatre, shame about the play

Lottery millions for the arts should be spent on the players and audiences, not on fancy new buildings

In the spanking new buildings that lottery money is providing for the arts, you may not always see spanking new shows. But boy will you get a good meal.

The craziness of the way that lottery money is distributed has led to glaring anomalies. First, the millions going out every month can only be spent on "capital projects", ie buildings. Meanwhile the far smaller annual revenue grants continue to mean cutbacks and crises in even the biggest companies. They'll have the new buildings, but they may not be able to afford the new productions to stage in them.

Second, the hitherto undreamt of amounts of lottery money for the arts has led to the sudden discovery that what were thought to be sound buildings are in dire need of immediate replacement. Even the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts (Rada) - though I don't recall hearing previously of a crisis there - needs pounds 22m spent on it.

The prospect of millions of pounds on tap can turn the heads of even the most renowned arts administrators, who now dream of being Marco Pierre White. The Royal Court Theatre, the national centre for new writing, in its pounds 15.8m lottery funded redevelopment, plans an underground restaurant beneath Sloane Square. Chelsea is not exactly short of restaurants; aspiring young writers are short of funding. But the former can get lottery money, the latter cannot.

Then there is my favourite piece of lottery lunacy, the English National Opera. First it wanted money to paint its striking and distinguished blue auditorium red. Now it wants to go considerably further. It is considering applying for money to move out of its home at the London Coliseum altogether. Never mind that the Government bought the theatre for the company only four years ago, never mind that it is brilliantly situated in the buzz and heart of theatreland. There is money for new buildings about, so why not move lock, stock and barrel to the less than salubrious Kings Cross area? Besides, the Coliseum hasn't got a restaurant.

I shudder to think of the extent to which architects and builders have "adjusted" their prices for arts venues to take advantage of lottery mania. No investigation into that possibility has been carried out. It might have fascinating results.

The system clearly has to change. And at last the opportunity is here to change it. The Heritage Secretary Virginia Bottomley and the Arts Council have agreed to widen the remit for lottery spending on the arts to include people, education projects and accessibility as well as buildings. An excellent consultation paper is being issued and the changes will be implemented from September.

Partly as a pre-election vote winner, and partly no doubt out of genuine concern, Mrs Bottomley has let it be known she wants to invest in young talent, in people as well as buildings. To avoid the need for new legislation she has co-opted a phrase that is consistent with investing in capital projects. People are "human capital". New artistic work is also a capital scheme because it leaves "a permanent legacy."

Mrs Bottomley's wishes some lottery money to be spent on dance and drama students, who unlike their contemporaries at art and music schools do not receive mandatory grants (while local authorities are increasingly loath to give discretionary grants). It does seem ludicrous that the lottery can provide pounds 22m to give Rada an upgraded building, but talented students from poorer families cannot take up their places there.

Nevertheless, this would be an unwise use of lottery money. It cannot be used for long-term policy commitments as ticket sales could go down, future governments could change the list of good causes, the arts could cease to be a beneficiary of lottery money altogether. The simple answer is for the Secretary of State for Education, Gillian Shephard, to bring drama and dance into line with art and music, with student fees paid by mandatory awards.

What I would like to see happen from September is a change of focus from the arts practitioners to the arts consumers. The best way of doing this is to reduce ticket prices. Many theatre and concert prices have increased so steeply that going regularly is less and less an option. Going as a family needs a second mortgage.

Other methods of increasing access must also be a priority. No arts building by the year 2000 should have any difficulties for handicapped members of the audience. And why not use lottery money for proper street lighting around arts venues, car parking and late night transport - all intrinsic parts of an aesthetic night out

Lottery money must also be put into touring. Outside London the taxpayers who fund companies like the Royal Ballet and English National Opera cannot see them in action.

A percentage of lottery money needs to be earmarked for new work. Bursaries to help young writers, artists and composers would be a more constructive way of investing lottery money in the future. More constructive, frankly, than a never-ending list of refurbished buildings. Indeed before the lottery millions came available, it is hard to recall actual consumers complaining about most of the buildings that we are now told are in dismal repair. We were all too busy talking about what went on inside them.