I WAS very sad, and not a little angry, after reading Monday's Phillpott File (Evening News, March 3). Forget the party politics - the Swan Theatre simply deserves a better obituary.

The Swan Theatre does not belong only to Worcester, but is, or rather was, a priceless asset for the whole county.

That is why I received so many representatives from my constituents about the theatre, regretting its closure.

For Mr Phillpott to describe the Swan as "a cash-devouring monolith of self-indulgence masquerading as a temple of high art" is both highly offensive and a gross distortion of the truth.

It was, in fact, one of the best-run producing theatres in the country. It was praised in independent reports, its productions were well reviewed in national newspapers, its work with local schools was exemplary and its support for local creative talent was invaluable.

Oh - and its subsidy was low by comparison with any other similar theatre anywhere in the country. Its loyal and hard-working professional staff, all now redundant, deserve better from Worcestershire's daily paper.

Yes, my wife is on the board, but she is there because we both loved and valued the Swan - a well-run theatre in a city that is all too short of real culture, apart perhaps, from music.

Its closure, and its rebirth as a venue just for amateur shows with the odd touring production, is a huge loss to the whole county.

Frankly, anyone could run this new, scaled-down pale shadow of a theatre and it wouldn't take a genius (as Mr Phillpott clearly believes Chris Jaeger to be) to do so.

Mr Phillpott's statement that, if Chris Jaeger "is hindered in his work to save the Swan - or, even worse, prevented - then theatre in Worcester is finished" is the most serious error in his tirade.

Theatre in Worcester is finished now and will remain so under the laughable and inadequate plans that are now being made for the fine theatre that was the Swan.

The simple truth is that, because of the cash crisis facing the city council after its rotten deal from government, councillors decided they couldn't afford a producing theatre.

Why Mr Phillpott has to join in the subsequent ill-informed attack on an institution that served this city and this county so well, I do not know.

Can we not be proud of what the Swan was, remember it and its fine productions with gratitude, and accept that, from now on we will just have to settle for second, or rather, third best?

PETER LUFF MP,

House Of Commons,

London SW1A 0AA